Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And exactly what legitimate public works project (nothing involving housing for homeless transgender illegal aliens from outer space, obviously) are we contemplating, such that CA would have to consider acquiring this Trump property or that in order to have a place upon which to build the same?
A highway? A bridge? A pipeline? High-speed rail? Anything remotely resembling a bonafide public works project?
None, you say? We're not building anything at all on anything Trump currently owns? So CA would be attempting to use eminent domain to expropriate assets from Trump merely out of political spite?
Too bad. So sad. Eminent domain isn't available merely for the purpose of stealing someone's property simply because you don't like them.
Not even in California.
And that's how it would play out. Which is to say, of course, that it wouldn't.
And there's your answer.
You are correct of course, but posting it is a bit of a waste of time, since liberals are immune to fact, logic and reason.
You are correct of course, but posting it is a bit of a waste of time, since liberals are immune to fact, logic and reason.
Sadly, thanks to Kelo, it could. Particularly if Trump properties in CA were declared blighted.
Trump is a vigorous defender of Kelo and Agenda 21.
While I would not support such flagrant abuse of eminent domain, it would be a sort of karma for someone who has defended eminent domain and who has so little regard for the property rights of others.
With California seeing itself as championing "the resistance" and making threats of nullification of federal law, and with the feds threatening to arrest California officials, could California decide to take the resistance one step further and seize property in the state owned by the Trump Organization, such as the Trump National Golf Club in Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County), or the 555 California building in San Francisco? Maybe use eminent domain to seize the Trump National Golf Club and build housing for homeless transgender illegals on it? I wonder what the repercussions would be. (Trump's advocacy of Kelo v. New London and Agenda 21 would make him look like a hypocrite on this issue, but I'm curious as to how this would play out. I am definitely NOT advocating it, just considering what would happen under this scenario.)
Not much chance of that! We have a Constitution.
What is going to be amazing is seeing some of California's politicians and mayors being arrested this week by the Feds for their Sanctuary BS. Tune in.
With California seeing itself as championing "the resistance" and making threats of nullification of federal law, and with the feds threatening to arrest California officials, could California decide to take the resistance one step further and seize property in the state owned by the Trump Organization, such as the Trump National Golf Club in Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County), or the 555 California building in San Francisco? Maybe use eminent domain to seize the Trump National Golf Club and build housing for homeless transgender illegals on it? I wonder what the repercussions would be. (Trump's advocacy of Kelo v. New London and Agenda 21 would make him look like a hypocrite on this issue, but I'm curious as to how this would play out. I am definitely NOT advocating it, just considering what would happen under this scenario.)
This is of course communism in a nutshell. This would never happen and is nonsense, but for fun I'll play along. Sure California seizes Trump properties under imminent domain. Trump then has the US government seize the California Governor, Democratic Senators & Congressmen, AG, activist judges & sanctuary city Mayors properties in other states, as well as the property of any of their family members for similar "public works" projects.
Sadly, thanks to Kelo, it could. Particularly if Trump properties in CA were declared blighted.
Trump is a vigorous defender of Kelo and Agenda 21.
While I would not support such flagrant abuse of eminent domain, it would be a sort of karma for someone who has defended eminent domain and who has so little regard for the property rights of others.
The Kelo decision had nothing to do with blighted properties. Those have always been subjected to seizure.
The innovation of Kelo was the unprecedented expansion of eminent domain powers; whereas eminent domain had always been limited to the conversion of private property to public ownership, in conjunction with some clear and compelling governmental/public purpose, Kelo expanded that to include forcing private property to be sold to new private owners, with the sole purpose of furthering economic development.
Needless to say this would be inapplicable to Trump hotels property, since the property is ALREADY contributing economically and it would be extremely unlikely or even impossible to successfully argue that merely exchanging one commercial use for another is within the scope of the decision SCOTUS made in Kelo.
And that's for the simple reason that all you'd have to do to take someone's property is come up with a proposed use that would exhibit more financial or commercial activity. Truly nobody would be immune from such a scheme, where property rights can be violated unilaterally by any larger or deeper-pocketed enterprise. And that is an absurd result.
So...in a nusthell....it couldn't and wouldn't happen.
The Kelo decision had nothing to do with blighted properties. Those have always been subjected to seizure.
The innovation of Kelo was the unprecedented expansion of eminent domain powers; whereas eminent domain had always been limited to the conversion of private property to public ownership, in conjunction with some clear and compelling governmental/public purpose, Kelo expanded that to include forcing private property to be sold to new private owners, with the sole purpose of furthering economic development.
Needless to say this would be inapplicable to Trump hotels property, since the property is ALREADY contributing economically and it would be extremely unlikely or even impossible to successfully argue that merely exchanging one commercial use for another is within the scope of the decision SCOTUS made in Kelo.
And that's for the simple reason that all you'd have to do to take someone's property is come up with a proposed use that would exhibit more financial or commercial activity. Truly nobody would be immune from such a scheme, where property rights can be violated unilaterally by any larger or deeper-pocketed enterprise. And that is an absurd result.
So...in a nusthell....it couldn't and wouldn't happen.
Historically, in California, it has been extremely easy for properties to be declared blighted. It's been harder since Brown eliminated the CRAs but there are politicians calling for the CRAs to be brought back.
Some of his billionaire buddies say he isn't one of them. Hard to say without a tax return.
I've never had to state my net worth on a tax return. What country do you live in?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
