Trump the Populist -- Seizing Land for The Wall

[Perknose]

And spending your money to do it!

Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar said the Trump administration is gearing up for a fight over taking private land needed to build the president’s border wall — and Texas is likely to be ground zero. This week, the Observer was the first to report that some landowners have already received condemnation notices they have vowed to resist. And in the proposed White House budget released Thursday, the Trump administration is asking for funding to hire 20 additional Department of Justice attorneys to pursue condemnations.

[...]

The White House budget calls for $2.6 billion to build the wall, though the cost is estimated at $21.6 billion for a wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump is a pignoramus!

 

[HomerJS]

Time to call out the Bundy's and defend these landowners rights!

 

[sdifox]

I think I know the plan now. The Trump Wall will be a world class hotel. Mexicans who wish to cross into USA just needs to stay a night. Win win! That is how Mexico is going to pay for the wall.

 

[K1052]

Trump's budget proposal is going to do good service in the Congressional bathrooms.

Mustering enough support to spend the money and overcome the Rs who don't actually want this is going to be a tall task.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Wall is just flat out stupid but seizing land is something that happens. In CT homes were taken to build a shopping centers and the like. Why? Because the mall would generate more taxes than home property. Look at the ideologies for and against on the SCOTUS

Might not want to toss stones on this one.

Oh, link.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8331097/ns/us_news/t/homes-may-be-taken-private-projects/

 

[fskimospy]

Time to call out the Bundy's and defend these landowners rights!

Anyone want to take bets on the number of 'militia' that show up to fight this? My bet is zero.

 

[fskimospy]

The Wall is just flat out stupid but seizing land is something that happens. In CT homes were taken to build a shopping centers and the like. Why? Because the mall would generate more taxes than home property. Look at the ideologies for and against on the SCOTUS

Might not want to toss stones on this one.

Oh, link.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8331097/ns/us_news/t/homes-may-be-taken-private-projects/

Meh, the dislike of Kelo v. New London was pretty bipartisan.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Meh, the dislike of Kelo v. New London was pretty bipartisan.

But the decision wasn't ideologically neutral to the powers that be and neither is this wall. I suspect a lot of people who are Republican aren't fond of having their land seized.

Not worth an argument, just saying people should choose the stones they toss a bit more carefully.

 

[fskimospy]

But the decision wasn't ideologically neutral to the powers that be and neither is this wall. I suspect a lot of people who are Republican aren't fond of having their land seized.

Not worth an argument, just saying people should choose the stones they toss a bit more carefully.

Well that's kind of my point, Kelo v. New London showed that people from both ends of the ideological spectrum aren't fond of having their land seized, although the issue at stake there is quite different than the eminent domain that would probably be used here. Kelo was all about taking private property to give to another private individual while this is about taking private lands for a public purpose, dubious though that public purpose may be.

Honestly I'm fine with eminent domain for public purposes so long as they are paid a fair market value for their land. The wall is a stupid application of it but I don't think it's an illegal one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well that's kind of my point, Kelo v. New London showed that people from both ends of the ideological spectrum aren't fond of having their land seized, although the issue at stake there is quite different than the eminent domain that would probably be used here. Kelo was all about taking private property to give to another private individual while this is about taking private lands for a public purpose, dubious though that public purpose may be.

Honestly I'm fine with eminent domain for public purposes so long as they are paid a fair market value for their land. The wall is a stupid application of it but I don't think it's an illegal one.

Fair market is a bit of a problem. I have friends whose family owned something like two square miles of forested land which had been in their family since around Revolutionary War times. MD wanted the land so it took it for "Fair market value" about 250K they said. Of course they could have fought that valuation, probably have lost and be out for legal fees. They surrendered because they have no choice.

It was fair. Just ask MD. Well there's a nice park at least.

 

[fskimospy]

Fair market is a bit of a problem. I have friends whose family owned something like two square miles of forested land which had been in their family since around Revolutionary War times. MD wanted the land so it took it for "Fair market value" about 250K they said. Of course they could have fought that valuation, probably have lost and be out for legal fees. They surrendered because they have no choice.

It was fair. Just ask MD. Well there's a nice park at least.

Well obviously I can't speak to the specifics of your friend's case but the general principle of seizing private land that the owners will not sell when it impedes a substantial public purpose is one that I support. I imagine there are problems with valuation sometimes and I agree that sucks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well obviously I can't speak to the specifics of your friend's case but the general principle of seizing private land that the owners will not sell when it impedes a substantial public purpose is one that I support. I imagine there are problems with valuation sometimes and I agree that sucks.

What would NOT define "substantial public purpose"? Genuinely curious.

 

[fskimospy]

What would NOT define "substantial public purpose"? Genuinely curious.

I'm not a fan of eminent domain for parks and such like your example, to me it should be reserved for important infrastructure for the most part roads, water treatment, power generation, etc. I mean maybe if it were some truly epic park undertaking that couldn't be realized without it, but the bar would be high.

 

[Perknose]

What would NOT define "substantial public purpose"? Genuinely curious.

Indeed. In an example above it seems the "substantial public purpose" can entail a municipality seizing land on which there are owned and inhabited homes simply to convert it to commercial RE . . . and realize more tax revenue?

Watch out for the slope, son, it's slippery.

I'm not a fan of eminent domain for parks and such like your example, to me it should be reserved for important infrastructure for the most part roads, water treatment, power generation, etc. I mean maybe if it were some truly epic park undertaking that couldn't be realized without it, but the bar would be high.

If there is but one thing I am wholeheartedly in favor of eminent domain for, it would be to preserve what open space we damn well have left.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm not a fan of eminent domain for parks and such like your example, to me it should be reserved for important infrastructure for the most part roads, water treatment, power generation, etc. I mean maybe if it were some truly epic park undertaking that couldn't be realized without it, but the bar would be high.

Yea I'm torn on enemite domain, if not for ED we would not have the Great Smoky Mountains National park or Shenandoah National park. But now its being used by foreign corporations to take american citizens lands to build pipelines and the such.

 

[woolfe9998]

The Wall is just flat out stupid but seizing land is something that happens. In CT homes were taken to build a shopping centers and the like. Why? Because the mall would generate more taxes than home property. Look at the ideologies for and against on the SCOTUS

Might not want to toss stones on this one.

Oh, link.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8331097/ns/us_news/t/homes-may-be-taken-private-projects/

You do realize that the use of eminent domain is contrary to the philosophy of American conservativism, right? They're suppose to respect private property rights against government intrusion. It's rank hypocrisy for the GOP to use eminent domain, particularly on this scale.

 

[trenchfoot]

Trump is going to have His wall. It's His wall. All of it. A monument to Himself that speaks to everything it symbolizes. His own Little Great Wall of China, only a lot better. It will stand for centuries to come, a legacy to Trump's awesome vision for our future and a standard bearer for the values His nation and His people represent.

Sure, we're going to pay for His Wall, despite the FACT that He said Mexico was going to pay for it. I'm just surprised Trump's going to take land away from our own citizens to get it done, when Trump, as the Omnipotent Leader of the Free World could make Mexico pay for it in part by having Mexico give up all of the land necessary on their side of the border to make His dreams come true. I mean, He thinks He can do anything he wants, right? And His supporters want for Him to do anything He wants, right?

So let's support our POTUS by giving Him our Blessings and have Him, by Executive Order, simply move our borders a few hundred yards south to make room for His Wall. Hey, we took Texas away from Mexico just a few years ago, so what's a few thousands of square miles more? We could even assist Mexico by giving exclusive building rights to any of their undocumented persons in the USA and any Mexican citizen willing to earn an easy buck or two have at it and we'll even supply all of the buckets, trowels, mud mixers, mules and free lunches they need to git 'er dun. We are a very compassionate and giving nation after all, right?

And what about Russia you say? Well, Trump has already made a deal with Putin where we turn our backs on what Putin wants to do in Ukraine in exchange for our nation creating uncertainty and turmoil in the Middle East to raise the price of oil so that our own Oil Conglomerates and Putin can make more profit from the artificial hikes in the price on a barrel of crude. Trump will get His kickback and we get to enjoy paying higher prices at the pump, and what's wrong with that? It spurs the economy, right? Whatever personal profit that Trump makes from His Deal with Putin is just a side benefit that we all can easily ignore because we already allow Him to keep His tax returns secret and we already allow Him to keep His businesses running while He is running our nation too, right? How could any of that be considered a conflict of interest, I have no idea.

 

[Thebobo]

You do realize that the use of eminent domain is contrary to the philosophy of American conservativism, right? They're suppose to respect private property rights against government intrusion. It's rank hypocrisy for the GOP to use eminent domain, particularly on this scale.

Good point but they use it all the time for pipeline projects.

 

[woolfe9998]

Good point but they use it all the time for pipeline projects.

Yes, Trump approved the Keystone pipeline as well. More hypocrisy doesn't make it better.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/trump-eminent-domain-attacks-right
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/01/19/donald-trumps-continuing-dishonesty-eminent-domain/

 

[Thump553]

The Wall is just flat out stupid but seizing land is something that happens. In CT homes were taken to build a shopping centers and the like. Why? Because the mall would generate more taxes than home property. Look at the ideologies for and against on the SCOTUS

Might not want to toss stones on this one.

Oh, link.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8331097/ns/us_news/t/homes-may-be-taken-private-projects/

Homes were not seized to build shopping centers and the like. The landmark CT case involved a rundown residential area just off of downtown New London. Pfizer was coming in the area and wanted to center a major headquarters in that area-a move that would have created thousands of high paying professional jobs. One joker held out for years, went to the Supreme Court and lost. But by then Pfizer decided a decade waiting was long enough and pulled out. End result-still a run down slummy neighborhood, with the joker's house in the middle with a historical landmark type thing in front of it pointing out his great accomplishment.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You do realize that the use of eminent domain is contrary to the philosophy of American conservativism, right? They're suppose to respect private property rights against government intrusion. It's rank hypocrisy for the GOP to use eminent domain, particularly on this scale.

I wasn't defending anyone including Trump. I meant that if those who have an objection based on ideology that they should consider what "their side" has done. "They" are everyone in this context. If you want to point out conservatives as being hypocritical? Sure, they were against CT but for The Wall now.

There is no argument about that with me.

 

[Thebobo]

Yes, Trump approved the Keystone pipeline as well. More hypocrisy doesn't make it better.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/trump-eminent-domain-attacks-right
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/01/19/donald-trumps-continuing-dishonesty-eminent-domain/

I agree.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wasn't defending anyone including Trump. I meant that if those who have an objection based on ideology that they should consider what "their side" has done. "They" are everyone in this context. If you want to point out conservatives as being hypocritical? Sure, they were against CT but for The Wall now.

There is no argument about that with me.

Being against eminent domain isn't a part of American liberalism as a political philosophy, so it doesn't really matter if liberals have pursued policies involving the use of eminent domain. I see hypocrisy only on the conservative side here. Plenty of hypocrisy among liberals, but not on this particular issue.

 

[hal2kilo]

Homes were not seized to build shopping centers and the like. The landmark CT case involved a rundown residential area just off of downtown New London. Pfizer was coming in the area and wanted to center a major headquarters in that area-a move that would have created thousands of high paying professional jobs. One joker held out for years, went to the Supreme Court and lost. But by then Pfizer decided a decade waiting was long enough and pulled out. End result-still a run down slummy neighborhood, with the joker's house in the middle with a historical landmark type thing in front of it pointing out his great accomplishment.

Is the Hygienic Restaurant still there. That's where all the hoes use to hang out that were servicing the Fulton sub tender. I know the Futon's long gone.

 

[Thump553]

Is the Hygienic Restaurant still there. That's where all the hoes use to hang out that were servicing the Fulton sub tender. I know the Futon's long gone.

If you are familiar with New London, it's the area just west of the courthouse. Almost all hundred year old, cheaply built and not maintained houses except the Kelso house is all painted and maintained as a shrine. The only other thing in reasonable shape is Planned Parenthood across the street.

The Hygienic is downtown and is now an art gallery. About a quarter mile south of this area.