MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Jeb Bush, Debate Audience Destroy Donald Trump for Loving Eminent Domain

"You need eminent domain," said Trump.

Donald Trump still supports eminent domain—the government-backed confiscation of private property—but his stance earned a harsh rebuke from Jeb Bush and a round of boos from the audience at the Republican debate.

When challenged by the moderators to defend his position on the issue, Trump maintained that eminent domain is good public policy: it allows the government to build infrastructure and create jobs.

“Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country,” said Trump. “Without it, you wouldn't have roads, you wouldn't have hospitals, you wouldn't have anything. You wouldn't have schools, you wouldn't have bridges. You need eminent domain.”

He also claimed—very dubiously—that eminent domain is even good for its victims, because in some cases they are given more money than their property is worth. (Of course, compensation makes little difference to someone who doesn’t want to sell and should have every right to stay put.)

In practice, Trump has a long history of relying on government force to steal property—not for public use, but for his own private benefit. As Reason’s Damon Root wrote recently, “Trump does not just talk the talk. In his real estate career, Trump repeatedly tried to profit from eminent domain abuse, such as when he joined forces with Atlantic City officials in the hopes of kicking an elderly widow out of her home in order to make way for a limousine parking lot for the nearby Trump Plaza hotel and casino.”

Thankfully, Jeb Bush was quick to point this out.

BUSH: The difference -- the difference between eminent domain for public purpose -- as Donald said, roads and infrastructure, pipelines and all that -- that's for public purpose,” said Bush. “But what Donald Trump did was use eminent domain to try to take the property of an elderly woman on the strip in Atlantic City. That is not public purpose, that is down right wrong.”

The audience members sided with Bush, which prompted Trump to denounce them.  “That's all of [Bush’s] donors and special interests out there,” he said.

That’s just sour grapes, because eminent domain isn’t some fringe special interest issue. It’s opposed by a clear majority of the American people—ballot initiatives limiting its use have been approved in 44 states. On this issue, Trump’s opinion is undeniably out-of-step with conservatives and libertarians, and virtually everyone else—except maybe government planners.

Photo Credit: |||

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    ROADZ!

  • EndTheGOP||

    Bush said: “But what Donald Trump did was use eminent domain to try to take the property of an elderly woman on the strip in Atlantic City. That is not public purpose, that is down right wrong.”

    Jeb -- How fucking stupid can you be? When "Donald Trump used eminent domain to take the property of an elderly woman on the strip," that allowed the city, state and federal governments to take in many more tax dollars than they would have received otherwise and which can be put to "PUBLIC PURPOSE."

    No wonder you're losing so badly, you fucking idiot!

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    WTF? Get a gun and do the right thing.

  • Solipsist||

    It was satire. I think. No reason to tell people to be an hero. Unless he's serious. In which case: do it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Are you trying to be the most retarded poster here?

  • EndTheGOP||

    Gytotic -- No fear of the happening. Everyone knows you are the biggest fuckin' idiot on this site.

  • Chumby||

    So the purpose of the United States is to maximize the amount of tax dollars the government coerces?

  • EndTheGOP||

    Chumby -- No one ever said, "the purpose of the United States is to maximize the amount of tax dollars the government coerces."

    That's something you just came up with.

    I only made the logical claim that money coming into government coffers is for the good of the public purpose.

    You have to get money somehow to pay for the idiotic Libertarian idea of allowing anyone who wants to come into the country illegally and partake in our welfare system, don't you?

  • Chumby||

    There's a whole bunch of compotable material in this.

    (1) Did you miss the question mark at the end of my question?

    (2) More money in government coffers equals more Iraq invasions and more Freddie Gray incidents.

    (3) If you want to apply a (mainstream) libertarian border policy why would you then apply a non-libertarian/pro-socialist welfare policy behind it?

  • EndTheGOP||

    I don't want to apply a libertarian border policy. That is the most stupid policy I have ever heard of. It's not very good for attracting more people into the Libertarian Party either.

    I also don't want to apply ANY socialists welfare policies EVER!

    What is the definition of compotable?

  • Chumby||

    Compostable.

    If you eliminate the welfare system then that addresses one of the biggest if not the biggest criticism of illegal immigration.

  • EndTheGOP||

    Chumby -- Getting this country back on the right track isn't going to happen in one or two cycles. You'll won't eliminate welfare for a long, long time, if ever.

    But you can get a wall to separate the 2 countries. Trump will get Mexico to pay for it with a tax and he will get the illegal immigrants to to leave by placing a $250,000 fine for each count on any employer who hires an Illegal. Said employer will dismiss illegals instead of paying high fine. While illegals immigrants might not be able to read English they can sure as hell read the writing on the wall and they will self-deport. SIMPLE!

  • EndTheGOP||

    Soave said, " Jeb Bush, Debate Audience Destroy Donald Trump for Loving Eminent Domain."

    And then directly after the debate Donald Trump destroyed EVERYBODY in the New Hampshire primary.

    Why even waste your time Soave?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    That's all of [Bush’s] donors and special interests out there,”

    Not wanting your property stolen = special interests.

  • David Welker||

    Do you think Donald Trump's assertion that the debate audience was not representative of the ordinary Republican Party voters was accurate?

    I think it was accurate. In fact, it cannot be disputed.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    That's irrelevant

  • SIV||

    Trump pwned Bush on Keystone.

    He won this exchange hands down.

  • David Welker||

    Yes he did. Agree or disagree with the use of Kelo-style eminent domain, their is no doubting that the Keystone Pipeline project would require that sort of eminent domain to be constructed.

  • SIV||

    Robby's post headline is totally wrong. Jeb destroyed himself and Trump successfully defended a bad (and unpopular) position.

  • Fairbanks||

    Bush looked lost. He said that ED should be used for "public purpose," yet it is exactly that expansion of ED (versus public use) that led to Kelo. Then he argued that ED is clearly valid for Keystone for no other reason than it can't be done without it. But I doubt the average viewer understands those nuances. And I'm not sure Trump came across well in the exchange, as using ED to create a parking lot for Trump was successfully communicated.

  • Robert||

    I didn't hear the debate, but I would guess that he really didn't intend to split that hair, & that he meant "use", not "purpose" in the weasely way the latter was used by appeals judges.

  • Craig Smith||

    Bush always looks lost.

  • Toast88||

    Wrong. That would be a public project, like a road or bridge.

    That's totally different from stealing from one private entity to give to another private entity.

    I mean, I'm against eminent domain in either case, but they are completely different.

  • Cytotoxic||

    SIV not care. SIV lie and lie all day.

  • David Welker||

    Donald Trump definitely dominated on this issue.

    As he noted, the Keystone Pipeline, a project which Republicans practically worship like some forgotten god, would require eminent domain to be built. And it would be privately owned.

    So, say what you will about eminent domain when used to transfer property from the hands of one private individual to another. But worship of the Keystone Pipeline project and belief that eminent domain should never transfer property to the control of private sector entities is simply not intellectually consistent.

  • ||

    Your entire comment is horseshit, starting with the assumption that Keystone can only be built on stolen property and ending with the assertion that not agreeing with you is intellectually inconsistent.

    Question: how do you type with your tongue in Trump's asshole?

  • Homple||

    Interesting. How would right-of-way for such a project be acquired without eminent domain?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The same way that all purist libertarian positions will work. A skittle shitting unicorn will appear and just make it happen.

  • Toast88||

    What do you mean, how would they do it? I've seen above ground electrical grids stretched across multiple states without having to invoke eminent domain.

    You work with the people, offer them money for their land. If that doesn't work, you offer them money FOR THE USE of a small part of their land. If that doesn't work, you divert to the next property over. Doesn't take long to find someone willing to take a free payday just to have a few poles on their grounds.

  • Wil Avitt||

    "Doesn't take long to find someone willing to take a free payday just to have a few poles on their grounds."
    Exactly! Everyone has their price and if their price is too steep, you find someone whose price ISN'T too steep. Eminent Domain allows you to buy something against the will of the "seller." That isn't freedom, it's tyranny.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    "Doesn't take long to find someone willing to take a free payday just to have a few poles on their grounds."

    If it weren't the Sabbath, I would make a joke about someone's mother.

  • Hyperbolical||

    What's Sunday go to do with it? No day is greater than another (Rom 14). If you'd do something (or refrain from it) on Sunday, why not any other day?

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I should have avoided the joke altogether.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    OK, I see that this passage was written in a context in which some Christians thought they still had to observe the Mosaic law about diet and holy days. St. Paul wanted their scruples respected, but did not think such scruples were necessary.

    As to whether this passage forbids Christians from observing any holy days, I observe that the vast majority of Christians - including the vast majority of Protestants - do have Christian holy days, and this has been the case from the beginning.

    So it's either start a new Protestant sect on the basis that all other Christians in history got it wrong, or acknowledge that maybe this passage applies only to the Mosaic law.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    We can see here that the early Christians had holy days - so either they were all heretics or Romans 14 doesn't have the meaning you give it.

  • Solipsist||

    You guys are missing the fact that Sunday isn't the sabbath. Christians didn't move the sabbath from from one day to another. They simply stopped observing the sabbath.

  • Chester Alan Arthur||

    I've seen above ground electrical grids stretched across multiple states without having to invoke eminent domain.

    In a straight line? With no side benefits to the property owner (e.g. cheaper electric service)? I'd have to see proof.

    If that doesn't work, you divert to the next property over.

    Diverting to the next property over may require going through a third property just to get there. What if that property owner holds out too?

    In the end, instead of having your pipeline run in a straight line, it's zigzagging all over the place, is twice as long, costs twice as much to build and maintain, and has twice the danger of spills.

    Doesn't take long to find someone willing to take a free payday just to have a few poles on their grounds.

    If it's that small of an inconvenience, then they're not harmed by getting the easement via eminent domain, which provides that free payday.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    'What if that property owner holds out too?'
    Then you can't build what you want where you want. Nothing you've mentioned makes it okay for men with guns to force you to sell your land.

  • Chester Alan Arthur||

    Simplistic, purist bullshit. If you want the advantages of living in 2016 rather than 1789, you need a small amount of ED. Doesn't justify taking property and handing it to private developers, but utility lines are a no brainer.

  • kbolino||

    If you want the advantages of living in 2016 rather than 1789

    False premise, eminent domain was at issue in 1789 for the same reasons it is at issue today, and the codification of its use and limitations in common law is far older than that.

    There's nothing about the modern era which particularly necessitates eminent domain, nor anything about any prior era which obviates it.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Sadly, most libertarians here worship at the same oil altar. See the first response to your comment, and see Robby thoroughly avoid it.

  • Fairbanks||

    Jack, I'm with you on this one. I don't understand why so many people, especially at Reason, want to use ED to assist a private project that has no public use implications. So the price of distributing oil might be a little lower? That's about as valid as using ED for a private project to make tax rates a little lower, like in New London.

  • Jackand Ace||

    I wind up arguing with so many here over this. I'm amazed how many here, including Gillespie and I guess Robby (and most commenters) are all to willing to carry the petroleum industry's water...er, oil. I must say I am encouraged by a few on this thread who are taking Robby to task.

  • Fairbanks||

    I'm not sure they're carrying the oil industry's water. It's more that a Keystone-type project is very different from other private (or government), geographically large infrastructure projects, so it's more difficult to get your head around on the ED issue. Other such projects, like railroads, highways, etc. were clearly for public use. So even though the transcontinental railroad was privately owned, using ED made sense. Keystone feels like public use to many because so many people use oil, directly or indirectly. But that doesn't make it public use. Additionally, arguably no large-scale railroad routes or highways could have been built without ED. But there are very viable alternative distributions channels for oil that would use Keystone. So in the end all Keystone accomplishes is reducing somewhat the cost of getting that oil to the endpoint. In my opinion that is not a valid reason to make an exception to the public use test for ED. Others may disagree with that, but if "some economic benefit" is the test then I don't see how that is different than the rationale for Kelo.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    "Public use" is really no different than "some economic benefit".

  • Fairbanks||

    Not really. The former goes to whether a project has economic merit. The former describes who has the opportunity to avail themselves of the project. There could be public use projects with no economic benefit. For real-life examples see Paul Krugman.

  • Fairbanks||

    The LATTER goes to whether a project has economic merit.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Fair enough.

  • Robert||

    The difference is geometric. ED should be allowed for long, thin parcels, because its justif'n is, "You're in the way." Same as for an easement for a cattle drive. It's about freedom of movement. Where property gets in the way of freedom of movement, property must yield.

  • Chumby||

    Jack

    Could you list at least three libertarians here that poat regularly that support ED?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Sure. I can tell you at least 3 who wrote article after article supporting Keystone, and thereby ED.

    Gillespie, Bailey, Stossel. Probably more. And nearly every commenter.

    You support Keystone? Maybe one more ED supporter.

  • Chumby||

    I was unclear and wanted people that post regularly; libertarianish authors that make comments to sell magazines was not the context for which I was looking.

    I certainly don't support Keystone with the need to use ED.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Fair enough. As far as commenters, you can look back at any numerous articles here on Keystone and the comments thread. I argued with many. I will put it this way, when it came to any article here on Keystone, very few commenters ever said "I can't support it because of ED." Very few. Most wanted it built.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Supporting Keystone =/= supporting ED you dishonest asshole

  • Jackand Ace||

    Tell you what, Chumby. I will quote just one I mentioned. Stossel:

    "Eminent domain can be wonderful if it's put to important public use, say, claiming land for highways, railroads or a pipeline."

  • Chumby||

    See above regarding trying to sell magazines. And I asked for three. That post.

  • Jackand Ace||

  • ||

    Either you have reading comprehension problems or you're magnificently full of shit.

    And I've never seen anyone here support ED. In fact, Reason is where I was informed of how it's abused - more than I ever see in the mainstream media.

  • Jackand Ace||

    That so?

    The quote is right above you, so here it is again. Maybe YOU have to read things twice to comprehend

    "Eminent domain can be wonderful if it's put to important public use, say, claiming land for highways, railroads or a pipeline."

    So sayeth Stossel right here at Reason. Let me spell it out for you...Stossel says ED is often wonderful. But only if it's used for things he supports. Note how he threw private companies in there...pipelines...as those who can use ED.

    Tell you what...why don't you ask those Nebraska farmers if ED was being abused with Keystone, and being abused by a foreign company here in America, eh? Get back to me.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Maybe I will have to spell it out even further.

    If you support a project that is going to use ED (eg. Keystone), you support ED.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "If you support a project that is going to use ED (eg. Keystone)"

    Assumption not proven

  • Robert||

    Me.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Um, what?

    You realize it's entirely possible to be in favor of oil development in general and Keystone in particular and NOT think people should be thrown out of their homes against their will for it, right? Like, the two positions aren't mutually exclusive.

    Exploiting our oil resources is good for jobs, good for the overall economy, and good for our global independence. No serious person can dispute this fact. The only people in favor of leaving oil in the ground are climate cultists, and they have their own agenda -- and it has nothing to do with the climate.

    Let the oil companies buy/lease whatever land they need. If someone doesn't want to sell, well, they're just going to have to figure out some way to make a deal. But plenty of private projects have been built in this country without eminent domain, and I see no reason why that trend wouldn't continue.

  • Jackand Ace||

    You're right. But here is your problem in regard to this discussion. TransCanada was attempting to use ED. It was TC who decided that ED was needed in order to bud Keystone.

  • Chumby||

    So TC was using the Keystone project as a foil for their actual plan of getting to use ED?

    Sort of like wind turbine projects where the actual goal is the taxpayer subsidies.

  • Jackand Ace||

    No foil at all. The goal was Keystone, not ED. I'm sure they would have preferred not to use ED. But they had to because of resistance from some, particularly in Nebraska.

    Get me that link on wind where the goal was never the wind farm, but really just subsidies. I'm all ears, or eyes.

  • Chumby||

    The wind farms in my area (rural northeast) are all subsidized. Heavily. Can't recall seeing any that exceed 25% design production. They also do quite a number at reducing the local eagle populations.

    And if TC can/could still build it without ED and have a reasonable return on investment they won't?

  • Jackand Ace||

    They decided they couldn't build it without ED. No one forced them, other than those farmers who weren't selling.

    We will put it this way... I guess TC never made those farmers an offer they couldn't refuse. Hence ED.

  • Chumby||

    It isn't like something expires soon and they miss out after the deadline. They will at least wait to see who gets elected.

    Like other cronyists, such as the wind farm folks, why pay with your own money when you can instead have the taxpayer fund it? With oil prices where they are it makes more sense to wait anyways.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    fuck off, joe...

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Why would eminent domain be required to build a pipeline? Has nothing ever been built before the Kelo decision?

    Fact is that the vast majority of people are willing to sell/lease their property for above market value when a developer comes knocking. The holdouts are the exception, not the rule. That's why we always hear so much about them.

    Kelo is bad because it gave developers a shortcut around the market. Let them build their pipeline and compensate the people whose land they need. And if some are holdouts, then find a way to make a deal or work around them. Yeah that might make it marginally more expensive or complex, but you're not going to tell me that a pipeline cannot be built without eminent domain. It's a fucking pipe.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Keo was not a new decision. It was a reaffirmation of a court decision for the 1930s that sanctified an already old practice of using Ed to force the sale of,private property to another private interest for a public use.

  • Fairbanks||

    In earlier decisions the court justified the use of ED on the basis of elimination of social harms, such as slums. While a distinction between those kind of cases and simple economic benefits can sometimes be gray, Kelo was the first case based simply on the desire of a government entity to increase its tax revenues and attract a wealthier population.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    IOW. Kelom didn't change anything other than the need for specious argumentation.

  • Chumby||

    ED would make it cheaper for the developer. Thus, ED becomes the preferred route. Plus, some folks may either hold out for an astronomical amount or never sell permission.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    They still have to buy/lease all that land. If a few people along the way hold out for more money or force them to make a diversion here and there I can see that adding some expense, but in the scope of the overall project I can't imagine it being significant.

    The only way I can really see something like that becoming a serious obstacle is if an environmental group buys a lot of property all along the proposed route and refuses to budge purely on ideological grounds.

  • Chumby||

    It could just be someone or people that do not want it on/under their land. That is a reality.

    There is a push whete I live to add an East-West road through the middle of the state. The R's pushin it dance around not using ED but the likely contractor expects it. And I believe the two reasons are to keep costs down and to prevent one landowner from basically killing the project.

  • Toast88||

    Yup, you got it. Long-range products get built all the time without invoking eminent domain. You might have to divert a little for those who don't want to sell, but it doesn't take long to find someone wanting a free payday simply for use of their land.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    new troll alert...

  • skunkman||

    This is exactly correct. The vast majority of eminent domain used historically has been exactly this type of thing. Opponents have used a mix of inaccurate facts and emotion to argue against ed for years. The other fact that has been twisted is that land is stolen. Trump is correct that those that have land acquired through eminent domain have never been cheated on price, in fact, it is kind of like winning the lottery.

  • Jerryskids||

    Do the matrons at the group home normally let you stay up this late or did you chew hrough the straps and sneak out of bed again?

  • Jackand Ace||

    He did? We'll see in a couple of days.

    Trump rarely gets anything right, but he certainly was correct that Keystone wasn't going to get built without ED, and yet, Robby, you fail to mention that critical part of the discussion.

    What say you, Robby? Keystone represents ED you like? I know Reason supports it, how about you? C'mon, show some courage.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Here's the deal you disengenious twat, greentards like you piss their pants about fossil fuels, nukes (with no co2 emissions). Keystone is Kabuki theater by greentards, that oil will be going to market one way or the other, if you can't see that you are dumber than I thought.

    So you want to incinerate towns where the rails go through...what about the children? This is why no one with a brain takes fuktards like you seriously

  • Jackand Ace||

    Hey Robby, here is a post from Keystone itself entitled "Why Eminent Domain is Important and Appropriate."

    Could have been written by Trump, eh?

    http://keystone-xl.com/why-emi.....propriate/

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Hey, Joe. Remember how you were a massive fan of Hugo Chavez?

    I just feel like pointing that out every time you show up in a comment section and pathetically attempt to pretend you're actually smart.

    Is this an ad hominem? Yes, but I don't like you so I feel it's been well earned.

  • Jackand Ace||

    Hey Fitz, let me know when you have a clue who I am. Your just proving you're an ignoramus. Enjoy your evening!

  • MSimon||

    Who ARE you?

  • Jackand Ace||

    Jackand Ace

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    This..pointing out an idiot is hardly ad hominem...man up and quit being a fucktard, joe, if you become less stupid, people will probably quit pointing out that you are stupid.

    Not that hard to figure out, joe.

  • kbolino||

    Could have been written by you given your own posting history on the subject. Just the icky association between a project you don't like makes it "different".

  • buybuydandavis||

    I wonder if Trump is sending people out to web sites to astroturf support. I see a lot of crazy talk above.

    Trump got stomped by Bush on this, and whatever appeal you might want to make that the crowd that booed him was a bunch of the privileged elites, I think the facts are that Republican privileged elites are generally *more* in favor of eminent domain abuse than the lowly peasant Republicans, who are much more the "you can't take a man's home" types.

    Really, you want to argue that grass roots, Red State flyover Republicans are all in love with government taking your property for the good of society, or more to the point, the good of fat cat developers like Trump?

    This exchange absolutely humps Trump, as not only is he on the wrong side of a visceral issue, not only is he personally the arch type for the fact cat developer using government power to take people's homes for his own profit, he *also* *personally* did it. He got booed, and then lashed out at a Republican audience like a crazy man, and by extension, lashed out at every eminent domain hating Republican watching.

    *And*, since this was the big smack down of the night, this will be the lead news story on the debate.

    This could very well be the Turn of the Trump Tide, and Trump supporters want to spin this as a Trump win?

    Ha! Put down the bong - you have had more than enough for one night!

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Nah, the news outlets don't give a shit about ED abuse, but I think most normal people (regardless of team) don't cotton to it in my experience. Trump will not win with this arguement and I'm good with that, he's statist fuck and probaly the second best crony capitalist other than Musk. Donald has longevity, Musk is the flavor of the time's, who's worse...I'll go with Musk.

    The Donald had NYC sucking his cock, Musk has fedgov doing the deed. Team Red are fucking idiots, the subsidies that Musks business are wracking up go to high income people. How simple would it be to point out that the average taxpayer is giving the rich a ten grand subsidy to buy a Tesla?

    The party of stupid, indeed.

  • Robert||

    It's a free pony situation. Most people want the fruits of eminent domain, but don't want to have to be subjected to it themselves.

  • MSimon||

    On this issue, Trump’s opinion is undeniably out-of-step with conservatives and libertarians, and virtually everyone else—except maybe crony capitalists.

    FTFY

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No it's not. He's entirely correct.

    Conservatives and libertarians have gone fullmretard on the issue of imminent domain.

  • Chester Alan Arthur||

    Wait. You think it's OK for ED to be used to take away someone's home to hand over to a private developer for a casino?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The only abuse of eminent domain happens when a fair value is not paid for the taking.

    It would be much better to argue for that, including regulatory takings.

  • skunkman||

    In most cases, the price is FMV x 2.

  • Presskh||

    I agree with Trump on this. ED is necessary to build many public projects, such as roads, power lines, water and gas lines, etc. Most likel, many areas of our national and state parks were acquired through ED. It may bypass the purely capitalist system, with regard to paying land owners what they might demand, but they are paid a fair price based on the worth of similar surrounding land. Many, if not most, large public projects, such as the Interstate Highway System, would have been totally unaffordable if the government (e. g., everyone else), had been required to pay any astronomical amount demanded by landowners.

  • Chester Alan Arthur||

    You're describing using ED to get a long-distance right of way, as with roads and utility lines, and pipelines. These are difficult to build over long distances without ED, and are necessary to the public good, so it's justifiable in those cases. That is very different from using ED to take a residential property that you think would be good to build a fucking casino on.

  • bluecanarybythelightswitch||

    It's amazing how obvious it is that Trump is a true big govt. progressive when you read the shit his astroturfers post.

  • skunkman||

    Yes and in "most" cases the land being acquired is a poorly maintained property that has had inadequate maintenance and up keep.

  • rudehost||

    "Without it, you wouldn't have roads, you wouldn't have hospitals, you wouldn't have anything. You wouldn't have schools, you wouldn't have bridges. You need eminent domain"

    I learn something from Trump on a regular basis. I didn't realize every hospital and every school ever built in this country was built by first snatching someone's property against their will. Still those eminent domain hospitals are so awesome it makes my head spin.

  • Chumby||

    If your head spins too much consider visiting an (ED) hospital.

  • rudehost||

    Alas there are no eminent domain hospitals where I live which means there are no hospitals. I guess I'll have to just die because I didn't heed the glorious wisdom that drips from Donald Trump like the last brown droplet off my ass after a fully digested burrito with extra jalapenos.

  • Chester Alan Arthur||

    Especially if it lasts more than four hours.

  • Robert||

    Trump's doing a bait & switch there. Some of those things require ED, others don't. Roads & bridges yes, schools & hosps. no. ED's needed for the long & thin: narrow things that need to go thru wide things.

  • Chumby||

    PBS had a program (shown on Independant Lens?) about ED in Connecticut used to relocate a school that badically didplaced a group of low income minorities when the existing site (an alternate site?) was equal. I recall the fair market value didnt allow them to buy something else in the area.

  • Lorenzo Zoil||

    Eminent domain is the forcible taking of property. Most public works projects that require property acquisitions do so through negotiated settlement. ED only comes in when an owner doesn't want to sell. There is a possible defense when there is clear benefit, but even that a form of theft. What Trump is taking about is Kelo, taking from one private entity to give to another under the guise of public benefit. That was the worst of all SCOTUS decisions, and is very clearly theft. Jeb was right here, but even he doesn't have enough fear of ED, yes, one person should be able to hold up public projects.

    On a different note, create jobs through ED, are you fucking kidding? This from Captain BK himself.

  • Robert||

    Let's say it is theft. How would you want thievery redressed? By compensation, probably. Well, there you go.

    But if you have no ED at all, you have the possibility of unjust imprisonment. Someone doesn't let you cross hir property effectively bars your freedom of movement. Is not freedom of movement as good a thing for a society to have as freedom of property? Sometimes they conflict, & a compromise must be struck. ED is such a compromise.

  • rudehost||

    "But if you have no ED at all, you have the possibility of unjust imprisonment. Someone doesn't let you cross hir property effectively bars your freedom of movement."

    How precisely does eminent domain prevent people from buying all the property around me leaving me as an island? This comment makes no sense. Trump supporter?

  • Lorenzo Zoil||

    If I take your Prius without your permission that is theft. If I replace it with a Ferrari that does not change the fact that the Prius was stolen particularly if you want the Prius and not the Ferrari. Wrongful imprisonment is a non sequitur in this issue until that starts happening. That's a very progressive argument, we need laws because someone might,...

  • Ray Tapajna||

    Let's get serious. Jeff Bush was the wrong man to use the eminent domain card against Trump. Here is a story he left out of his remarks against Trump....

    "George W Bush did not make his fortune in the oil fields. He made it at a major-league ball park heavily subsidized by taxpayers who paid $135 million dollars to fund the project. In the end Bush family made close to $15 million on the deal if not more.

    The Rangers baseball team under Bush were sued by two families whose property was seized for stadium parking. A jury found they were paid about one-seventh of what the land was worth.

    The new, subsidized stadium turned out to be a great deal for Bush. He was the most visible partner, and the publicity helped launch him into the governorship in 1994. And when the team was sold last year Bush's share came to at least $14.9 million with perhaps another $1 million or $2 million still to come. See story at :

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS.....kson.bush/

  • Chumby||

    $17168 / $86 per hour = 199.6 hours

    21 "workday" days in January.

    199.6 hours / 21 days = 9.5 hours per day

  • VG Zaytsev||

    A parking lot in a city is as much a public use project as an oil pipeline.

  • Wayne Lusvardi||

    Where is the "reason" in this Reason.com story?

    In the interest of factual reporting, with no endorsement of Trump, it should be added:

    1. The Vera Coking "home" is a very old 3 story, 29 unit apartment building standing in the middle of towering casinos and hotels in Atlantic City on commercial zoned land - go see photo online.
    2. Trump offered Coking four times the fair market value back in 1998 for the property and free housing in one of his developments for life. Coking bought the property in 1961 for $20,000. Not even close to stealing it.
    3. Trump never came into ownership of the property and Coking probably never lived there because the building was a boarding house.
    4. Coking moved into a retirement facility in California and her home was purchased at an auction 2014 for half of what Trump offered her 15 years earlier.
    5. Eminent domain is to prevent hold outs and having to pay hold out prices. But Coking was unrealistically holding out to her own financial loss and Trump was way, way more generous than the government.

  • intpme||

    Wonder how much eminent domain was used when the Bush family build Ranger Statium?

  • intpme||

    or built

  • intpme||

  • Savery||

    You will download and install Leo PlayCard v1.2 APK documents Leo Playcard Android phones and also tablet computers at the end of this blog post.

  • Marshall456||

    Rootmaster is a very easy, quicker and also leading apkoftheday.co Android rooting application. Rootmaster apk can be made.

  • zdfxxfd||

    open or install you to open the application. Google Play Store APK Download Being run as well as run by Google, it is a trusted platform.

  • Eden||

    You will certainly have to see the app designer website to download it. mobdroapptv You can enjoy free video clips and TV programs online without any price.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online