America, it's time you wised up to Donald Trump's property redistribution racket, too.
Trump has been wooing conservative activists for months and flirting with a GOP presidential run -- first at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington and most recently at a tea party event in South Florida. He touts his business experience, "high aptitude" and "bragadocious" deal-making abilities. But he's no more a standard-bearer of conservative values, limited government and constitutional principles than the cast of "Jersey Shore."
Too many mega-developers like Trump have achieved success by using and abusing the government's ability to commandeer private property for purported "public use." Invoking the Fifth Amendment takings clause, real estate moguls, parking garage builders, mall developers and sports palace architects have colluded with elected officials to pull off legalized theft in the name of reducing "blight." Under eminent domain, the definition of "public purpose" has been stretched like Silly Putty to cover everything from roads and bridges to high-end retail stores, baseball stadiums and casinos.
While casting himself as America's new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump's manifest land development. The real estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limo parking lot -- Coking's private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking's home, explained the confiscatory scheme:
"Unlike most developers, Donald Trump doesn't have to negotiate with a private owner when he wants to buy a piece of property, because a governmental agency -- the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority or CRDA -- will get it for him at a fraction of the market value, even if the current owner refuses to sell. Here is how the process works.
"After a developer identifies the parcels of land he wants to acquire and a city planning board approves a casino project, CRDA attempts to confiscate these properties using a process called 'eminent domain,' which allows the government to condemn properties 'for public use.' Increasingly, though, CRDA and other government entities exercise the power of eminent domain to take property from one private person and give it to another. At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property and also ignore the personal loss to the individuals being evicted."
Trump has attempted to use the same tactics in Connecticut and has championed the reviled Kelo vs. City of New London Supreme Court ruling upholding expansive use of eminent domain. He told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he agreed with the ruling "100 percent" and defended the chilling power of government to kick people out of their homes and businesses based on arbitrary determinations:
"The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that's not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it's local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make (an) area that's not good into a good area, and move the person that's living there into a better place -- now, I know it might not be their choice -- but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good."
Like most statist promises of bountiful job creation, government-engineered redevelopment math rarely adds up. Trump's corporations have backed casino industry bailouts and wealth-redistributing "tax-increment financing" schemes -- the very kind of taxpayer-subsidized interventions we've seen on a grand scale under the Obama administration.
Championing liberty begins at the local level. There is nothing more fundamental than the principle that a man's home is his castle. Donald Trump's career-long willingness to trample this right tells you everything you need to know about his bogus tea party sideshow.
6 comments:
So, there may be some things I don't agree with Trump on. And there a lot of things I don't agree with Owe-bama on. In our house Trump is more desirable than Owe-bama. We would vote from Trump with no hesitation.
I should vote for the leader of our economy to be some reality-show gimmick who's had the same business go bankrupt THREE times?
No matter what the government does, no matter how outrageous its behavior, no matter what Constitutional principle is openly and without apology, trashed like a piece of flotsam, there will ALWAYS be people who say "well, they know whats best", or "its for our own good", etc. And THATS how freedom is slowly lost. Not in a flash, but in slow increments. Confiscate private property so a rich man can get richer, jail reporters because they won't tell us who told them about government bribery, put greater and greater restrictions on gun use and possession until no one is left who can actually have one, restrict freedom of religion because an atheist is offended by the sight of a cross, pass laws (like the Patriot Act, cheered by millions) that TOTALLY ignore the Constitution, and on and on and on....next thing you know, you're not leaving town without "permission"....Thats not "tin-foil hat" conspiracy, or "outer space" rhetoric, or right wing militia theory. Its FACT. And, it's the aforementioned people that are happily taking us down that road....
lmclain - I agree with a lot of your points, but why do you insist on blaming liberals for the majority of the evil in the world (this post notwithstanding?)
This part is not directly focused on you, but you are one of teh few on here who speaks with some sensibility.
My overarching point about the tea party and the ultra right being less-than-forthright about their beliefs.
If these folks really have a problem with intrusive-to-bigg-for-our-good government, then the Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security should have made their eyes bleed. But they were silent.
The only reason you can assign to their silence is becuase this "government expansion and intursion of our rights" was brought about by a Republican President and a GOP Congress. When democrats and liberals in the general population decried these actions, we were labelled "un-American terrorist apologizers."
Now, with a Democrat in the White House, your side finally starts screamning about intrusion of rights and the size of the government.
Where were you in 2002?
You want to complain about gun rights, that is fine. Your side has been very consistent in that debate, and I don't question your belifs (just the basis of them.)
I do not believe the Tea Party can claim some higher ground in this debate when they sat on their hands with their eyes shut as the government exploded in size and scope and the Constitution was summarily ignored by the guys you voted for.
Dan...I have to say....when the Patriot Act was being proposed, I ranted about it then, too. I believe that ALL politicians are serving some other interest, but certainly NOT that of "we, the people". I tend to harp on liberals more than conservatives because of their stance on "fairness" (our country was founded on "opportunity", NOT fairness). You want fair? Move to China. Don't, as most liberals propose to do, take MY hard earned money and give it to people like obamas aunt, who thinks Americans OWE her free housing, free medical care, free food, etc., and has no problem taking it for 11+ years now. Get a job. And liberals want to give away more and more, in pursuit of "fairness", with obama leading the charge . Republicans just want to make sure your kids don't get into the country club or meet their daughter (you may end up diluting the family wealth)....unless of course you are serving drinks in the country club, or get to wave to their daughter as your are trimming the hedges....
dan, which of your grand accomplishments do you share with the rest of us...opinion notwithstanding?
Post a Comment