Bob Guccione did just that. 
Posted on 02/11/2016 4:06:19 PM PST by kiryandil
Ted Cruz has slammed Republican rival Donald Trump for supporting eminent domain – but it appears the Texas senator was once in favor of it, too.
In his run for the U.S. Senate in July 2012, Cruz was asked during a debate about his stance on eminent domain when it comes to securing the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Let me ask you about a constitutional issue: liberty," the moderator asked Cruz. "What about the liberty of the hundreds, if not thousands, of private landowners in Texas whose land would be seized by the government for what even some in your own party say would be an ineffective project? What about their liberty?"
Cruz responded by saying that he had been a longtime advocate for liberty, but added one stipulation...
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Zoning is a taking. I agree. But I don’t want a cheap Deliverance house in my neighborhood, either. It lowers the value of my property.
sorry forgot sarc tag
Trump should have built all around her and just left her to meet the new tax rates and lot requirements. After all, it was his property.
If this thread has taught me one thing, it’s that Ted Cruz hates sports venues.
LOL
And shopping malls
Eminent domain has historically been used for a public use, not a private use. Roads, railroads, and pipelines are public uses. A wall to secure the border would be a public use.
Condemning a neighbor’s property so I can use it for a swimming pool and picnic area is not a public use and should not be allowed under eminent domain. Condemning private property so I can put in an auto parts store is not a public use.
You get the distinction.
Bob Guccione did just that.
Excellent point.
The question isn’t whether we get it, does Cruz get it? And the answer is, no.
Did she have to pay and meet new zoning requirements?
A parking lot owned by Trump with the revenue going to Trump is NOT a public use. In the Constitution, public use refers to projects owned and operated by the government for the benefit of the public - roads, airports, post offices, public buildings, libraries, etc. It does NOT refer to projects owned and operated by private parties for the benefit of their investors, in the pursuit of additional tax revenue.
The fact that you have such a hard time grasping this does not speak well of your understanding of the Constitution.
It was not a residential house. It was a dilapidated boarding house, so was already a business.
But I imagine that the zoning requirements changed.
Yes, and support for the border wall was part of Cruz’s Senate campaign back in 2012.
The answer is “yes”, Moe, Cruz gets it. You might not like Cruz, you may not like his positions, you may think he is not an authentic conservative but actually a left of center pretender, but I can assure you that Cruz has the niceties of eminent domain down pat, just as he does with virtually every constitutional issue.
Beats me. It’s basically a small crappy hotel without a gaming license.
Conflating eminent domain for public use (taking land to build a border wall) with eminent domain for private use (taking land to build a shopping Mall) is a serious flaw in this criticism. This is exactly the error they make when they treat opposition to illegal immigration as opposition to all immigration. Some people lie to win.
Note: I prefer Cruz to Trump, but I have systematically defended both from dishonest attacks like this one. I prefer both Cruz and Trump by a huge margin over every other viable candidate (treating Rubio, Kasich, and even poor, lost Jeb as if they all might be viable), but I would defend even Jeb and Rubio against unfair attacks.
Public purpose is not public use.
Good. Then you acknowledge Cruz supports EC as long as its a jobs program. Which means Cruz is for the same thing he’s attacking Trump for in his silly ad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.