I think you are looking at this skewed. Atlantic City at the time was dying. There was no industry, no jobs, extensive urban blight and crime. No one wanted to move there and there was no tax base to fix things up. The town and surrounding areas hatched a plan to build casinos, got the State to approve because the town’s situation otherwise was a disaster.
The building of casinos spurred a lot of tourism for years. Atlantic City also became a conference destination. The tax base improved. Things took a downturn as we hit the recession and as other gambling sites were developed, splitting the traffic but it was a gamble that paid off well for years.
Trump came in after the process had been ongoing for years and made a proposal that was accepted by the town/CRDA (development society) He did nothing wrong and they had the right to encourage developers and decide to pursue the woman’s property and many other properties in concert with many other developers.
Whether she was wrong or right to refuse to sell is neither here nor there and is no one’s business. I am glad that she got her day in court and the issue was adjudicated because we are supposed to live in a Nation of laws. In this case the rights of the one were judged to be more valid than the supposed benefits to the many (tax base, town council). That’s OK and the town and Trump did nothing wrong by making a plan to revive the town’s economic development.