Thread: Factchecker: Donald Trump supports eminent domain

Originally Posted by Judy

No, the case is not closed. Trump supports the issue of eminent domain for private projects WHEN THERE IS a public benefit and good purpose. He would never support what happened to the properties in the Kelo Case. He would have already called his lawyers and told them to sue the town and Pfizer for fraud.

Yes, if you consider a casino parking lot a "public benefit and good purpose" to take a persons private property. Personally, I don't consider the use of eminent domain justified in such a case, regardless of what you feel or the law says.

You're dead wrong about Trump not supporting the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Kelo decision!

Excerpt:

In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ert-verbruggen

Okay, it is well established that you support the 'taken' of private property, Trump supports it, and the U.S. Supreme Court supports it while I and many other Americans don't. Enough said, time to move on.

MW, I didn't say Trump didn't support the Kelo Decision of the US Supreme Court. I said he would never support what the town and Pfizer did with the properties after the town took them by eminent domain.

I support eminent domain. It's part of our US Constitution. It's an important part of progress. I personally don't support the Kelo Decision. I was against it then and am still against it because there's no guarantee in the decision that the taking be used for the purpose claimed under the right of eminent domain. What I'm saying is I don't believe for a second that Donald Trump would approve of the fraud that the town of New London, CT perpetuated against the community and the property owners, to have a taking for a purpose that was never delivered which means there was no plan or funding or serious intent to begin with to use the property for that purpose, otherwise there would have been a development, instead of lot growing weeds. That is fraud and a ruse for a false purpose.

You can't claim under oath in a court of law that you are taking a property to build condominiums, a health club and whatever else was planned on the basis of a public purpose of economic development to increase the tax base, win a decision, use taxpayer money to buy the homes, and then never build the development that was to generate the increased tax revenue.

At present, the town invested the money in the lawsuit, the town invested the money in acquiring the properties and moving a house, so where is the development that is to generate the economic development and increased tax revenue? It isn't there. A vacant lot is less tax revenue, not more, that is the exact opposite of the stated purpose and benefit presented to the US Supreme Court under oath, subject to perjury and that is fraud.

So what we have here is not a legal eminent domain taking, what we have here is an eminent domain fraud. And no one supports that.

No one took the Coking home under eminent domain for a casino parking lot. The courts didn't allow it, so it's a non-event. There was no eminent domain there involving Trump, he tried to buy it, he tried eminent domain, but lost on both efforts. Would the casino have been more successful with the property? Well, probably, he thought it would be. Would Ms. Coking and her family have come out better if she'd sold it directly to Trump? Yes, by $1.5 million. Did she make a good decision? Probably not. Does anyone care? No, she made her decision, she fought Trump, she fought the eminent domain, she won, but lost in the end. Her choice to make.

The issue is settled law now, as most Supreme Court Rulings are.

So, the solution is not on the federal level, it's on the state and local level, where it should be to begin with involving state and local government takings. If people are upset about state and local government takings, you don't whine to the federal government or Presidential candidates about it, you whine to state legislatures and local governments, pass laws to prevent them, and end it there, where it should be settled.

Judy Wrote:

No one took the Coking home under eminent domain for a casino parking lot. The courts didn't allow it, so it's a non-event.

Yes, but it certainly wasn't from lack of trying by Donald Trump!

Originally Posted by MW

Judy Wrote:



Yes, but it certainly wasn't from lack of trying by Donald Trump!

Oh, absolutely. You realize the Vera Coking property was a 29 room boarding house, right?