Trump: Eminent Domain Vital for Roads, Hospitals

[jimnyc]

I guess this is like a counter to the other thread, the positive aspects of eminent domain. And I agree with Trump here. While sometimes it sucks, at other times its a good thing. Will those against say it's a bad thing with the pipeline? And hospitals and such? On an individual case, as sometimes it can be a good idea. Either way - NOT something Trump will be doing in his capacity as POTUS if he got elected.

-----

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump defended government's use of eminent domain on Sunday, saying it is needed for vital public projects.

"You know, if you didn't have eminent domain, you would haven't highways, you wouldn't have the Keystone pipeline, because they need it desperately if it's going to get built," Trump said on "Meet the Press."
"You wouldn't have roads, you wouldn't have schools, hospitals," Trump said. "I mean, I don't love eminent domain, but you need eminent domain or you don't have a country."

Trump has been attacked for attempting to use eminent domain to force a woman to sell her house for a parking lot at an Atlantic City casino project in 1998. Trump said he ultimately gave up on the attempt because the woman didn't want to sell.

"I wanted to get the house to build a major building that would have employed tremendous numbers of people, but when the woman didn't want to sell, ultimately, I said forget about it," Trump said.

The New York Times reported in 1998 that the case ended when a judge ruled against the condemnations.

Trump has defended the use of eminent domain for private use on the campaign as well.

"Let's say a person has a house or a person has a backyard and they're going to build a factory that's going to employ 5,000 people, and sometimes the city will use the power," the Washington Examiner quoted Trump telling a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa. "And by the way, if you don't get that property, they're going to go to another city, and they're going to spend millions of dollars and they're going to build a factory there, they're going to employ 5,000 people — but not in your city. Eminent domain is a positive thing. It's got to be used judiciously."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/donald-trump-eminent-domain-vital-government/2016/01/24/id/710642/

[NightTrain]

Eminent Domain can be a good thing, as well as a bad thing.

About 10 years ago the State was building a 4-lane separated highway to Wasilla. The State bought out a ton of people at profitable sums for everyone, and finally it came down to 2 holdouts who refused to sell that stalled the project. One was a local moving company and the other was a gas station.

The moving company was trying to force a lottery windfall type of payment, and the gas station just didn't want to relocate.

Finally, out of frustration and a need to get going on the construction, the State shifted the highway slightly so that the shoulder of the highway was built about 8' from the edge of the moving company's building, and the gas station was bypassed entirely to the tune of many millions of dollars with a curving overpass going around the damn thing. The moving company went out of business a couple years later, but the gas station is still hanging in there.

The highway upgrade was badly needed and the project needed to be done, and it sucks for the people that didn't want to move, but the greater good needs to be considered. Instead of forcing Eminent Domain on the 2 holdouts, we spent millions doing it anyway. I think that they should have been forced to move in this case - they would have had new buildings and land with some money in the pocket to boot.


At any rate, the Eminent Domain issue isn't something that the President deals with anyway. It's a distracting issue brought up by those wishing to bash Trump.

I wonder, what's Trump's take on Girl Scout Cookies? I'm sure we'll hear about that soon, too.

[jimnyc]

At any rate, the Eminent Domain issue isn't something that the President deals with anyway. It's a distracting issue brought up by those wishing to bash Trump.

That's exactly how I saw it, and said yesterday that it was a non-story and that he wouldn't be doing this as POTUS anyway.

When someone is running away in the polls, desperation sets in and the only thing left is finding anything and everything negative about him and hope something sticks. Up until this point, nothing really has.

[Perianne]

That's exactly how I saw it, and said yesterday that it was a non-story and that he wouldn't be doing this as POTUS anyway.

When someone is running away in the polls, desperation sets in and the only thing left is finding anything and everything negative about him and hope something sticks. Up until this point, nothing really has.

Like the abominable National Review dedicating an entire issue to bringing down Trump. The elites also hate Ted Cruz. When has anyone ever seen a political party try to bring down the two front runners? Or even one? Oh, yeah, National Review did it to Newt Gingrich. There is a pattern with those lowly scum.

[jimnyc]

Like the abominable National Review dedicating an entire issue to bringing down Trump. The elites also hate Ted Cruz. When has anyone ever seen a political party try to bring down the two front runners? Or even one? Oh, yeah, National Review did it to Newt Gingrich. There is a pattern with those lowly scum.

They have no idea how to handle such a candidate as Trump. So the big wigs are getting together and trying to figure out ways to bring him down. I think that pisses a lot of folks off too, seeing them trying to do that, and only makes folks dig in deeper and get angry at them.

[Perianne]

They have no idea how to handle such a candidate as Trump. So the big wigs are getting together and trying to figure out ways to bring him down. I think that pisses a lot of folks off too, seeing them trying to do that, and only makes folks dig in deeper and get angry at them.

It annoys me. If they weren't so against him I would possibly feel different about him. Now I sorta want him to win just to smear it in their faces.

[fj1200]

I guess this is like a counter to the other thread, the positive aspects of eminent domain. And I agree with Trump here. While sometimes it sucks, at other times its a good thing. Will those against say it's a bad thing with the pipeline? And hospitals and such? On an individual case, as sometimes it can be a good idea. Either way - NOT something Trump will be doing in his capacity as POTUS if he got elected.

All things Kelo is not about.

[Kathianne]

All things Kelo is not about.

Indeed. Almost by definition when eminent domain is looked at as the 'most profitable use of land' housing that is not the best use. Actually neither is setting aside land for non-development, but that would appear contradictory, no? Well as long as the federal government is in charge to make sure it's all good and the 'losers' aren't giving any input.

[jimnyc]

All things Kelo is not about.

And? So?

Point is, it CAN be good at times - AND AND AND AND, contrary to the postings to begin with - the POTUS won't have jack shitsky to do with this anyway.

[Gunny]

I guess this is like a counter to the other thread, the positive aspects of eminent domain. And I agree with Trump here. While sometimes it sucks, at other times its a good thing. Will those against say it's a bad thing with the pipeline? And hospitals and such? On an individual case, as sometimes it can be a good idea. Either way - NOT something Trump will be doing in his capacity as POTUS if he got elected.

-----

GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump defended government's use of eminent domain on Sunday, saying it is needed for vital public projects.

"You know, if you didn't have eminent domain, you would haven't highways, you wouldn't have the Keystone pipeline, because they need it desperately if it's going to get built," Trump said on "Meet the Press."
"You wouldn't have roads, you wouldn't have schools, hospitals," Trump said. "I mean, I don't love eminent domain, but you need eminent domain or you don't have a country."

Trump has been attacked for attempting to use eminent domain to force a woman to sell her house for a parking lot at an Atlantic City casino project in 1998. Trump said he ultimately gave up on the attempt because the woman didn't want to sell.

"I wanted to get the house to build a major building that would have employed tremendous numbers of people, but when the woman didn't want to sell, ultimately, I said forget about it," Trump said.

The New York Times reported in 1998 that the case ended when a judge ruled against the condemnations.

Trump has defended the use of eminent domain for private use on the campaign as well.

"Let's say a person has a house or a person has a backyard and they're going to build a factory that's going to employ 5,000 people, and sometimes the city will use the power," the Washington Examiner quoted Trump telling a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa. "And by the way, if you don't get that property, they're going to go to another city, and they're going to spend millions of dollars and they're going to build a factory there, they're going to employ 5,000 people — but not in your city. Eminent domain is a positive thing. It's got to be used judiciously."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/donald-trump-eminent-domain-vital-government/2016/01/24/id/710642/

One can always claim legitimate reason for an excuse. Just another appeal to emotion.

You're taking something from someone that does not belong to you and the person it belongs to busted their ass for their American Dream.

[jimnyc]

One can always claim legitimate reason for an excuse. Just another appeal to emotion.

You're taking something from someone that does not belong to you and the person it belongs to busted their ass for their American Dream.

And now tell me - how is Trump going to do this as POTUS? Or is this a job for locals, or congress at best? This question doesn't seem to be answered. Ok, I'll answer it FOR YOU guys - HE WON'T BE. Non-story.

[Gunny]

And now tell me - how is Trump going to do this as POTUS? Or is this a job for locals, or congress at best? This question doesn't seem to be answered. Ok, I'll answer it FOR YOU guys - HE WON'T BE. Non-story.

Theft is theft. And in case you missed it, how many acres did Roosevelt confiscate for the government? How many did Grant on every RR right of way? How many states did the US enslave by force of arms under Lincoln?

It IS a story. Theft is theft. Being the government doesn't make it right.

[jimnyc]

Theft is theft. And in case you missed it, how many acres did Roosevelt confiscate for the government? How many did Grant on every RR right of way? How many states did the US enslave by force of arms under Lincoln?

It IS a story. Theft is theft. Being the government doesn't make it right.

Ok then!

[Abbey Marie]

The President does not have anything to do with Eminent Domain (was going to abbreviate to "ED" and thought better of it, lol). One could argue though, that his appointment of SC Justices and other federal judges, could impact that area of law. It's a bit removed, but technically correct, IMO.

Not a place I would hang my anti-Trump hat, though.

[Gunny]

The President does not have anything to do with Eminent Domain (was going to abbreviate to "ED" and thought better of it, lol). One could argue though, that his appointment of SC Justices and other federal judges, could impact that area of law. It's a bit removed, but technically correct, IMO.

Not a place I would hang my anti-Trump hat, though.

Tell that to the people who can't do this or that on government land. And where do you think our National Parks come from? And what do you suppose happened to the people that lived on the land that was decreed National Parks?

[Abbey Marie]

Tell that to the people who can't do this or that on government land. And where do you think our National Parks come from? And what do you suppose happened to the people that lived on the land that was decreed National Parks?


Tell what to the people? Your responses to me today have not been replying to what I actually wrote. What's going on?

[Gunny]

Tell what to the people? Your responses to me today have not been replying to what I actually wrote. What's going on?

Sure they do. You said eminent domain does not apply to the President. I have given 3 examples of how it DOES apply to the Federal government, and as we conduct business nowadays, bu executive decree.

[red state]

I'll have to side with Gunny on this one. It does matter and the gov./commander does and has executed the power of ED. There is a Lindsey Mill and a Lindsey cemetery on my family's old stomping ground and the Cherokee, mixed Cherokee/Scot and other's know full well the power of an overreaching gov.

Do I appreciate and love the Smoky Mountains.....sure I do but every time I go, I am as happy as I am sad because I know or know of the folks who were forced from their homes. Many of the spots could have been better preserved to have allowed the family to keep the way things were but there are churches and other establishments that is now ran by outsiders....such as Cade's Cove.

At any rate, I remember Clinton's regime when a golf course destroyed a family's home of over 25 years through ED. Is it needed....sometimes but things such as highways and railroads usually take up very little room and often times brings the family great amounts of money that would normally been stagnent from unwanted, back-woods land. They keep the land in most cases and simply have a road or tracks running through it. There is a RR near me that has now gone BACK to the original owners and the tracks have now been removed.

The evil part of ED is when private, non-gov. business moves in on the little man.

[Gunny]

I'll have to side with Gunny on this one. It does matter and the gov./commander does and has executed the power of ED. There is a Lindsey Mill and a Lindsey cemetery on my family's old stomping ground and the Cherokee, mixed Cherokee/Scot and other's know full well the power of an overreaching gov.

Do I appreciate and love the Smoky Mountains.....sure I do but every time I go, I am as happy as I am sad because I know or know of the folks who were forced from their homes. Many of the spots could have been better preserved to have allowed the family to keep the way things were but there are churches and other establishments that is now ran by outsiders....such as Cade's Cove.

At any rate, I remember Clinton's regime when a golf course destroyed a family's home of over 25 years through ED. Is it needed....sometimes but things such as highways and railroads usually take up very little room and often times brings the family great amounts of money that would normally been stagnent from unwanted, back-woods land. They keep the land in most cases and simply have a road or tracks running through it. There is a RR near me that has now gone BACK to the original owners and the tracks have now been removed.

The evil part of ED is when private, non-gov. business moves in on the little man.

Head on down to Us 72 a few miles and you'll find where my Scot family is from. New Market, AL. I've been to Cade's Cove. Grams was from Tennessee.

[fj1200]

And? So?

Point is, it CAN be good at times - AND AND AND AND, contrary to the postings to begin with - the POTUS won't have jack shitsky to do with this anyway.

Why are you making arguments where none exist? Eminent Domain for public use is one thing, for a private use is another matter.

[jimnyc]

Why are you making arguments where none exist? Eminent Domain for public use is one thing, for a private use is another matter.

There were no posts on this board about Trump and eminent domain, and him possibly using it as POTUS, or having influence over it?

[fj1200]

There were no posts on this board about Trump and eminent domain, and him possibly using it as POTUS, or having influence over it?

Yes, there was already a thread about Trump and ED and his support for the Kelo decision. There was no discussion of ED for roads, etc.

[jimnyc]

Yes, there was already a thread about Trump and ED and his support for the Kelo decision. There was no discussion of ED for roads, etc.

Nor did I say anything about roads or whatever in my response to you. I simply stated, that contrary to what some may say, the president won't be having jack shit to do with eminent domain.

[fj1200]

Nor did I say anything about roads or whatever in my response to you. I simply stated, that contrary to what some may say, the president won't be having jack shit to do with eminent domain.

A. Not what some of us said, and
B. Not necessarily true:

http://www.justice.gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain

[jimnyc]

A. Not what some of us said, and
B. Not necessarily true:

http://www.justice.gov/enrd/history-federal-use-eminent-domain

So all of those on that page were from the presidents unilaterally doing so? No congress, no SC's and such. Odd. I guess I'm wrong then.

[fj1200]

So all of those on that page were from the presidents unilaterally doing so? No congress, no SC's and such. Odd. I guess I'm wrong then.

Considering I haven't made that argument...

[jimnyc]

Considering I haven't made that argument...

So your guys ACTUAL problem with eminent domain, is that you don't like it when the GOVERNMENT does it, not that all of a sudden we have this major fear of Trump coming in and stealing property? Because unless that's the case, this is a non-story as I said from my first post in the other thread, as far as his direct involvement. Because either he gives an EO... or I suppose when he votes in the house or senate :rolleyes: or when he decides a case in the courts :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

So your guys ACTUAL problem with eminent domain, is that you don't like it when the GOVERNMENT does it, not that all of a sudden we have this major fear of Trump coming in and stealing property? Because unless that's the case, this is a non-story as I said from my first post in the other thread, as far as his direct involvement. Because either he gives an EO... or I suppose when he votes in the house or senate :rolleyes: or when he decides a case in the courts :rolleyes:

You're being obtuse, only government can do ED. You're OK with a candidate who favors an expansion of government apparently.

[jimnyc]

You're being obtuse, only government can do ED. You're OK with a candidate who favors an expansion of government apparently.

I just don't care about it enough as I know he personally won't be involved. This will happen from members of congress and courts. The most he has is his mouth.

[fj1200]

I just don't care about it enough as I know he personally won't be involved. This will happen from members of congress and courts. The most he has is his mouth.

Do you understand how the presidency works?

[jimnyc]

Do you understand how the presidency works?

Yes

[jimnyc]

President Obama wants to make tons and tons of changes to gun control. He's the damn president of the USA!! I wonder why he can't but get a little tiny change made? But Trump is gonna be SO influential over eminent domain that we all need to be shaking in our boots about it...

[fj1200]

Yes

The Presidency is more than a mouth.


President Obama wants to make tons and tons of changes to gun control. He's the damn president of the USA!! I wonder why he can't but get a little tiny change made? But Trump is gonna be SO influential over eminent domain that we all need to be shaking in our boots about it...

On the one hand I'm told that BO is going to be confiscating our guns by some. And again, not an argument I've been making anyway but POTUS does have a great say in a possible expansion of government.

[jimnyc]

The Presidency is more than a mouth.



On the one hand I'm told that BO is going to be confiscating our guns by some. And again, not an argument I've been making anyway but POTUS does have a great say in a possible expansion of government.

Not when it comes to this, he's no different than Obama and himself making laws about guns. It would need congress and likely the courts.

[fj1200]

Not when it comes to this, he's no different than Obama and himself making laws about guns. It would need congress and likely the courts.

Probably. Does BO want to restrict gun ownership?

[Gunny]

President Obama wants to make tons and tons of changes to gun control. He's the damn president of the USA!! I wonder why he can't but get a little tiny change made? But Trump is gonna be SO influential over eminent domain that we all need to be shaking in our boots about it...

It doesn't matter. What matters is that ED is unscrupulous and Trump was willing to use it to get what he wanted.

[jimnyc]

Probably. Does BO want to restrict gun ownership?

I wouldn't doubt it, but the best he can get away with is some regulations, the rest would require congress, and that ain't happening.

[fj1200]

I wouldn't doubt it, but the best he can get away with is some regulations, the rest would require congress, and that ain't happening.

I guess that means we can legitimately ignore what BO might have said about gun control prior to him being POTUS because he can't do anything without Congress.

[Black Diamond]

I guess that means we can legitimately ignore what BO might have said about gun control prior to him being POTUS because he can't do anything without Congress.

Trump is far less likely , as king of the united states, to take away property than Obama would be to take away our guns

[fj1200]

Trump is far less likely , as king of the united states, to take away property than Obama would be to take away our guns

Maybe, but not the point. We can only judge people by what they say if they've not been in a position to actually do something. BO had never held executive office so we judged him by what he says about gun control for example. Trump has never held executive office so we judge him by what he says on various subjects.

[Black Diamond]

Maybe, but not the point. We can only judge people by what they say if they've not been in a position to actually do something. BO had never held executive office so we judged him by what he says about gun control for example. Trump has never held executive office so we judge him by what he says on various subjects.

Did you support Romney? I think trump is about as conservative as he was.

[fj1200]

Did you support Romney? I think trump is about as conservative as he was.

I voted for him, don't recall who my first choice was off hand. I would probably disagree with that characterization at least on the positions he ran on.

[red state]

Head on down to Us 72 a few miles and you'll find where my Scot family is from. New Market, AL. I've been to Cade's Cove. Grams was from Tennessee.

Hhhhmmmmmm....US Hwy 72. It sounds familiar. HA!!!

I have relatives in Huntsville. I live just 10 or 15 min. away from Hwy. 72 and am actually finishing up the paper work to pull the trigger on some property for a new business I'm starting. I will be getting this property at a steal for $75K when the average for that area is almost twice that. Additionally, I've spotted a HUGE 10 pointer while looking into the property the very first day. I'll hopefully bag him next year and, getting back on topic, will hopefully make a ton of money on the business.....that is (IF) the government doesn't lay claim to the property for some reason or another by then.

My brother's father-n-law (God rest his soul) didn't even get to die in the house he lived in for over 50 years and raised a family due to ED. In fact, he not only died a year after they "bought him out" but the gov. ran out of money about 20 min. down the road so the house and land that has been demolished will sit there as an eyesore for no telling how many years. Such a shame that the old man couldn't have lived out his last days in his own home!!!!

I've always expected that the gov. *(under agenda 21) will eventually take ALL privately owned land. Sassy had a GREAT thread on this before you came back regularly at DP. Like Australia and other such nations, and one day soon, only the "elite" will be able to own land.....or GUNS.

Gunny, I knew you must have at least one good trait.....and SCOT is most certainly a good one. HA!!!!