Donald Trump, the second-place candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, tried to use eminent domain in 1994 to expel an elderly widow, Vera Coking, from her home in Atlantic City. He wanted to build a limousine parking lot for one of his casinos on that spot, so he convinced a government agency to force her to sell her home for just 25 percent of what she had previously been offered for it. The agency was then to transfer ownership of the land to Trump.
Coking won her case in court, as it was a clear example of abuse of government’s eminent domain power, by which it can compel the sale of property for “public use.”
This episode, far from being some esoteric issue, creates a serious philosophical problem for the billionaire who has spent the last few months trying to redefine conservatism in his own image and likeness. On Wednesday, the Washington Examiner asked Trump about the Coking case. Trump launched into a vigorous defense of eminent domain for the benefit and convenience of private developers like himself, saying, “Without eminent domain, you won’t have roads, you won’t have highways, you won’t have anything.” When the distinction between a road and a casino was pointed out, Trump adopted the line used by the liberal five-to-four majority of Supreme Court justices in the 2005 Kelo case. He argued, essentially, that a man’s home is his castle only as long as the government cannot think of a use for his land that might increase jobs and tax revenues.
“If you’re going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that’s in trouble and you need a piece of property, I’ll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs and I want to give the people that own that property more than it’s worth,” he said, suggesting a price structure at odds with the one he tried to use in 1994.
Trump’s engagement in and defense of eminent domain abuse strikes at a principle fundamental to the U.S. Constitution and its underpinning ideals. The entire conservative worldview is premised on the notion that property rights are among the most fundamental and necessary human rights, the great guarantor that those who are not rich or powerful cannot simply have their property taken away by those who are. Eminent domain abuse undermines the bedrock principle that every person must be allowed to enjoy the fruit of his own labor and risk, and to dispose of his property freely in all but the most exceptional cases where it must be taken for public uses.
The Founding Fathers enshrined in the Bill of Rights the notion that “private property” may not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It was illuminating to listen to Trump on this matter, for he claims to be a conservative but has a history of subverting property rights. He can mock the question — he called it “stupid” before giving his answer — but while he is running for the presidency, he cannot hide from his past.
