What nonsense.
Don Trump walked all over people to get what he wanted. Did he get along with the lady who didn’t want to sell her place? No. He attempted to use the powers of Eminent Domain to bulldoze her home for more parking.
Trump tries to buy everyone off. How many democrats have received contributions from Trump?
How many GOP candidates defend Planned Barrenhood?
Trump, while a successful businessman is not a nice person. He’s a bully and a blabbermouth.
No thanks.
I’ll stick with a real conservative who has proven time and time again that he can be trusTed...Cruz.
A lie: “Trump walked all over people to get what he wanted.”
"How many GOP candidates defend Planned Parenthood?" and,
"Did he get along with the lady who didn't want to sell her place? No. He attempted to use the powers of Eminent Domain to bulldoze her home for more parking."
It is easy to believe such ideas if you are letting ideological purity cloud real world circumstance. Trump said in August that he didn't support funding abortions performed by Planned Parenthood but he left open the possibility of funding other aspects of the group's work on women's health. In an Aug. 11, 2015, interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo, Trump said, "Well, the biggest problem I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It's like an abortion factory frankly. You can't have it and it shouldn't be funding and that should not be funded by the government. I feel strongly about that." In early September, however, Trump said, "I wouldn't do any funding as long as they are performing abortions."
In the case with with Atlantic City resident Vera Coking, in 1993, Trump used the courts to determine if he could take her property using eminent domain after she refused to sell her property. She would receive $250,000 if he won the case. This was a common practice for property developers to use eminent domain when the acquisition of property was denied using attractive offers to buy. The court ruled that Vera Coking's right to her property was stronger than Atlantic City's Casino Reinvestment Development Authority's (the company Trump used to bring the case) claim that the property would serve a public purpose.
Vera Coking remained in the house until 2010, when she moved to a retirement home in the San Francisco Bay Area near her daughter, Claudia Casey Coking. It was then that Claudia put the house up for sale for $5 million. Because of the economic effects of the housing crisis, the price was reduced to $1 million, but the house remained unsold until it was finally sold for $583,000 in an auction on July 31, 2014 to Carl Icahn. This was twice as much as the $250,000 Trump offered in his court case. This makes the point that such eminent domain cases do not always offer market prices for the taking. It also illustrates the effects of market forces on property value.
Trump did not walk all over Vera Coking to get what he wanted. It was common practice for government to take property to take private property for a road or post office. In the 1950s the courts began to allow takings if they serve a "public purpose." As a result, it has become routine for cities to take private property from one private party and give it to another. It became common practice for local governments to take property to make room for big-box stores, corporate headquarters, and luxury condos.
This was not the first time someone sought Vera Coking's property. In the 1970s, Penthouse magazine publisher Bob Guccione offered Coking $1 million for her property in order to build the Penthouse Boardwalk Hotel and Casino. She declined the offer. It is ironic that if she had accepted Guccione's offer, she would have made twice as much as her daughter received from Carl Icahn 44 years later. And, Guccione went ahead to build his casino around
Coking's house, drastically affecting it value. Understand that in the world of real estate, property development requires some real world solutions to problems that may look like walking over people. Sometimes property owners can bargain for the best price and win big. Vera Coking's case illustrates the ups and downs of ownership where there is risk, and success if you are lucky; or loss, if you fail to take advantage of the cards you get.