Republicans cut their teeth on eminent domain and will continue to do so. Industrial might would not have been possible then or today without it. Democrats are the roadblocks to eminent domain.
Eminent domain is specifically penned into the constitution, according to Rafael Cruz, and by the way, in his own words.
Lot of BS being spread around here as if Donald Trump is the only candidate that favors eminent domain.
Rafael Cruz could be caught with a wet ribbed condom with bacon on it and some here would say the pig asked for the skillet.
The Rock
Of course anyone who's being honest knows that Cruz is talking about using the power of Eminent Domain for private profit, not for public use such as bridges and schools. But you keep spinning the idea that everybody just loves the idea of forcing a widow out of her home so Trump could knock it down to build a new parking lot for limos at his casino. I would love nothing more than for Trump to keep doubling down on his love for eminent domain for private gain the next few weeks, because it will just keep giving Cruz (and others) continued opportunities to keep talking about it.
fuq Trump and Cruz. Eminent domain built this nation from the acquisition of private lands by Republican Robber Barons and continues today by both parties disguised as "well meaning".
The Republicans do NOTHING wrong. They screwed you in the ass the last cycle and you must have loved it to carry that banner.
Spin that any way you want in fantasyland.
The Rock
sureshot's Link
When a property is taken via eminent domain, the TAXPAYERS are the ones who end up paying for the property."
Kyle, I believe your candidate Cruz supported the Keystone pipeline. It is safe to say that eminent domain would be used for some property along the route, if the lady's house were in the way of the pipeline, would eminent domain be acceptable? Also, under your premise, would you be ok with the government funds paying for that land to be used for a foreign company to profit? It seems your candidate supports it."
ThoughtI'd post this response to Kyle's quote from another thread here since it's directly related.
Trans-Continental pipeline carrying vital world commodity
vs.
Parking lot for Limousines at Casino
Anyone see any distinctions there? I sure do.
By the way, it's worth noting that there are plenty of people - especially landowners, who are frequently Conservatives - who don't like the use of Eminent Domain for anything, regardless of whether it's for public use or for private gain.
Well...da...d.a..d.a...d.a...d.ass.
The Rock
The thing that worries me is I live a couple miles out of town. The town is running water and sewer lines and forcing people to hook up. I will not hook up to the water. I worked in the chemical industry my whole career and know about water. My wife and I put in our well 50 years ago and I have had it checked several times. It is perfect. Our septic system has worked for over 50 years and I don't plan on changing that either.
Still not seeing the analogy between that and a Limo parking lot at a Casino.
Trump was IMO, not comparing apples to apples. He tried to use the government to push a private LO to sell to him. In Keystone's and the other pipelines it is a private company negotiating the right to access through their property.
That IS business. What the hell is wrong with you?
That is the republican conservative way. Always has been and always will be.
Most major hospitals are owned and operated by privatized corporations and have mowed down city blocks of tenants. Where is the uproar?
If the local or state legislature says that private hospital privately owned by Aria Health is being built invoking eminent domain, ...YOU ARE MOVING OUT. Period
A little old lady in Atlantic City who goes to church every day my a$$. Know what she ended up with?
A shithole of a house. She was offered 15.5 times what it was worth. Were you there when this "national" story of piracy broke? No. You were not but will spread the "news" loud and clear.
Keep spreading your cheeks in the same manner. Rafael Cruz will take care of the rest.
The Rock
Calm down:)
For me it does not matter what she would have been paid. Private property should reign supreme. She wanted to keep it, she gets to unless there is an overwhelming public benefit or necessity. The Kelo decision was wrong IMO.
No one is arguing that there are not economic benefits, just that those benefits should be subordinate to private property rights. I have a huge emotional attachment to my farm. I was offered a fair price for it, but would not sell. Trump could force me to because I would not want to waste money fighting him. That is wrong IMO.
Rocco's just being Rocco, again.
Kelo was an outrageous decision. Oddly, the property that was seized sits vacant today. The company that used the government to take the property from a private person for their benefit ran into financial problems and never followed through on their proposed project.
The above is the key point. Spot on.
joshuaf's Link
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-love-nearly-cost-widow-her-house?utm_content=buffere4f4e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Donald Trump’s Eminent Domain Love Nearly Cost a Widow Her House
By David Boaz This article appeared in The Guardian on August 19, 2015.
Since he shot to the top of the presidential polls, Donald Trump’s serial bankruptcies and bullying nature have made big headlines. But no one seems to have brought up a bullying business practice he’s particularly fond of: eminent domain.
The billionaire mogul-turned-reality TV celebrity, who says he wants to work on behalf of “the silent majority,” has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes.
For more than 30 years Vera Coking lived in a three-story house just off the Boardwalk in Atlantic City. Donald Trump built his 22-story Trump Plaza next door. In the mid-1990s Trump wanted to build a limousine parking lot for the hotel, so he bought several nearby properties. But three owners, including the by then elderly and widowed Ms Coking, refused to sell.
As his daughter Ivanka said in introducing him at his campaign announcement, Donald Trump doesn’t take no for an answer.
Trump turned to a government agency — the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA) — to take Coking’s property. CRDA offeredher $250,000 for the property — one-fourth of what another hotel builder had offered her a decade earlier. When she turned that down, the agency went into court to claim her property under eminent domain so that Trump could pave it and put up a parking lot.
Trump has had no compunction about benefiting from the coercive power of the state to kick innocent Americans out of their homes. Peter Banin and his brother owned another building on the block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a pawn shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin said: “I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?”
Ms Coking and her neighbors spent several years in court, but eventually with the assistance of the Institute for Justice they won on July 20, 1998. A state judge rejected the agency’s demand on the narrow grounds that there was no guarantee that Trump would use the land for the specified purpose. “TRUMPED!” blared the front page of the tabloid New York Post.
It wasn’t the only time Trump tried to benefit from eminent domain. In 1994, Trump incongruously promised to turn Bridgeport, Connecticut, into “a national tourist destination” by building a $350m office and entertainment complex on the waterfront. The Hartford Courant reported: “At a press conference during which almost every statement contained the term ‘world class,’ Trump and Mayor Joseph Ganim lavished praise on one another and the development project and spoke of restoring Bridgeport to its glory days.”
But alas, five businesses owned the land. What to do? As the Courant reported: “Under the development proposal described by Trump’s lawyers, the city would become a partner with Trump Connecticut Inc and obtain the land through its powers of condemnation. Trump would in turn buy the land from the city.” The project fell apart, though.
Trump consistently defended the use of eminent domain. Interviewed by John Stossel on ABC News, he said: “Cities have the right to condemn for the good of the city. Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.” Challenged by Stossel, he said that eminent domain was necessary to build schools and roads. But of course he just wanted to build a limousine parking lot.
In 2005 the Institute for Justice took another eminent domain case to the Supreme Court. By 5-4 the Court held that the city of New London, Connecticut, could take the property of Susette Kelo and her neighbors so that Pfizer could build a research facility. That qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the Constitution’s “takings” clause. The case created an uproar.
Polls showed that more than 80% of the public opposed the decision. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor issued a scathing dissent: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms … The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”
Conservatives were especially outraged by this assault on property rights. Not Donald Trump, though. He told Neil Cavuto on Fox News: “I happen to agree with it 100%. if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and … government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and … create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”
When Donald Trump says: “I give to everybody. They do whatever I want,” this is what he’s talking about: well-connected interests getting favors from government. Vera Coking knows the feeling.
joshuaf, That is terrific, I never thought you would actually realize that the political donations Trump made in the past were directly related to buisness. Do you understand now that the reason he donated heavily to Democrats and spoke so highly of them was because of the fact most cities on the coasts where these developments are being built are Democratic enclaves? Nobody said the system is fair.
NOW will the Tumpets here finally wake up to the reality of who and what Donald Trump is, instead of being infatuated with who he pretends to be?
I didn't write that, the article author did.
Furthermore, despite saying many times that Trump is a Liberal, I don't believe I've ever said or implied that he is a doctrinaire Liberal, say, in the mold of Obama. I think that some of his political donations may have been business related. The fact that you think the idea he was trying to buy influence and favoritism and special treatment is a good excuse for giving to Democrats is pretty disturbing. Ever heard the term "Crony Capitalism"? That's what this is.
By the way, pretty sure he's given money to Pelosi and Reid and other Democrats not in his immediate area, not sure exactly how they'd help him with business concerns in NYC. He also gave some pretty big bucks to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, I believe it was. So don't act like all his donations to Democrats were purely about business, and even if they were, like I said above, that's pure cronyism and influence peddling.
I agree with you. I do however agree that a business itself has rights and one of them is to pursue litigation for its benefit if it sees fit. The courts can decide and the ruling abided. I am not saying it is right for anyone to take another's property for just any reason. I do however believe in the constitution and the "rights" of all.
That is what I am told on a consistent basis on this site. Selective use of the constitution is a sham the politicians have proved all too often.
As I previously stated. Private enterprise has used eminent domain and none more so than Republicans and conservatives. That is us like it or not.
That is a fact not opinion. Where do you think this country would be today without eminent domain being imposed?
I would hope that every farm in America would be considered scared ground. That is just not the case it is reality.
The Rock
I didn't realize all of Trump's real estate investments were in NYC,I could have swore he had a few golf courses and hotelsin California and and places like that.
Just curious, have you ever talked to anyone who owns a buisness, especially in a major metropolitan area? Contrary to your simplistic view of the world, buisness is often done in back rooms,in many neighborhoods it is not uncommon for buisnesses to even pay police officers off if they don't want burglaries, not right,but fact. Have you ever heard the saying about too many coincidences not being a coincidence? Take Donald's donation to Rahm Emanuel for mayor of Chicago, $50,000.00 I believe, Trump was having issues with the city over his high rise downtown, funny how those problems go away after a political donation.l
"I agree with you. I do however agree that a business itself has rights and one of them is to pursue litigation for its benefit if it sees fit."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Just because something is legal does not make it ethical." ..........................Kyle Meintzer to the Wyoming Legislature in early 2015 while testifying against a bill that would have slashed non-resident hunting opportunities drastically.
Our side won and the bill died in committee on a 4-1 vote against.
joshuaf, You never,never, never cease to amaze me. I just typed out above how the system works with kickbacks and backroom deals and you post an ignorant response ending in this. Trump is a buisnessman, his job is to look at the big picture and get things accomplished, sometimes you have to hold your breath and pinch your nose, but it needs to get done. Get over it, Trump is no saint nor have I proclaimed him to be.
You'll love it! It's wonderful, very classy.
Donald Trump on negative ads: "You should be so lucky to get hit with eminent domain, because you make a fortune."
— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) February 13, 2016
Comparing a ROW that can be proven to have an effect of lowering the price of a commodity/energy that effects the entire nation, man woman and child.... with a flippin' casino parking lot....
That's embarrassing. All logic and reason have to be suspended to make that argument. Have to be some kind of liberal moral equivalence argument. The pipeline carries energy in much the same way a power line carries electricity or a highway carries commerce. That it is oil instead of electricity or goods.... that only matters to liberal leftists to whom oil is evil. Oil companies more so. Logically, well there is no logic, it's a purely emotional argument.
A parking lot for a casino = public benefit = ridiculous on it's face.
This gets really interesting at about the 35:40 mark... https://t.co/hY1uHll04v
— Josh Painter (@JoshPainter2154) February 13, 2016
He used Tyson's wife and mother-in-law against him. Said one thing in public while stabbing people in the back.
"his job is to look at the big picture and get things accomplished, sometimes you have to hold your breath and pinch your nose, but it needs to get done."
Pinching your nose to get the deal done is how we got here in the first place. Like voting for McCain or Romney. Now look who gets to select the balance of power in the SCOTUS.
No, No, no,....dammit. No more deal makers, no more holding our nose. I want a line drawn in the sand, and a leader to stand up and say "not one step further back." And a liberal in conservative clothing ain't the one to do it.
I totally agree ethics and the law are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Ethics are a trait specific to the person or persons in question. One person may be ethical on one account and unethical another. The outside appearance may be confusing because we attach OUR ethics in a specific matter to the ethics of others.
The Donald Trump situation is a very good example. People can come down on both sides of that issue if they are open minded and not selective to their explanation and personal beliefs of what is ethical. Yes, on the face to slander, " Trump tried to throw a old widow out in the street starving and hungry". Then again "Trump attempted to acquire a property, through eminent domain, which is his right to pursue". The ethics enters when the entire episode is revealed. " Trump attempted to acquire a dilapidated worthless property to its owner and in the process offered a financial windfall in the amount that the owner could have never dreamed."
Sometimes people must be helped to help themselves. Ethics is not the strong suit of business people as we have come to know in so many cases where corporations capitalize on the misery of others.
This particular instance is not one of them IMO. This was a win/win.
The Rock
