Posted on 02/29/2016 9:09:58 AM PST by reaganaut1
I thought the new thing was mob ties?!?!?!
I’m so lost on the daily wheel of Trump hate.
Along with a retirement home in Boca Raton.
B-A-L-O-N-E-Y. In the case of Vera Coking, she wasn't satisfied with $3 million offer for the place she bought for $20,000.
Most people get paid more than market value.
Mrs. Coking, took her greed to the max, but waited too long and finally sold for $530,000 after putting it on the market in 2011 for $5 million. She was very lucky to get that much from Carl Icahn. He then had the place demolished.
Actually, he didn’t. Show me a link to the actual document where Trump made that offer. In fact, he got the city to condemn the property for only $251,000. That figure comes from the actual court record.
That is the damn problem with Kelo. The idea that private property can be condemned, not for public use (roads, schools), but for the private use of another that the state decides might have a public benefit, turns the whole idea of property rights on its head. Developers have the money to donate to (bribe)politicians and always promise that their project will bring in jobs, taxes etc. The individual property owner just gets crushed by this corrupt crony fascism.
I don’t do links - especially to people who are looking to deny that Trump offered this woman a fair price. GOOGLE is your friend. It is up there for all to see and has been routinely talked about here on FR.
close eyes, plug hears and hum.. good method of learning you have there.
did. And if you KNOW he didn’t, why do you ask for a source? Just google it - it’s all over the internet.
__________________________________________
IOW you can’t document your bs claim, got it.
Coking turned down a million in the 70’s there is no documentation of what Trump offered just the 250 that the city offered.
Where I live, the city decided that they needed to run a sewer and water line on the front 10’ of my property, only problem was, I had 2 trees there. They were using eminent domain and offered initially $14,000, I told them to stuff it, did some research and fought them and eventually received about $30,000 for 2 trees. Moral of the story, don’t take the first offer, in my state, if we had gone to court and the court had decided that they needed to pay more, they would have been on the hook for my attorney’s fees which would have been more than I was asking for in increased compensation. Sometimes you just have to remind them to run the numbers.
What are you blubbering about?
It’s not my fault some of you people don’t know what you’re talking about. This subject has been done to death for months and yet you still refuse to know the truth - or are new to the score. Talk about closed eyes and ears! It’s not me.
It is incredible his ignorance of our laws as well as the procedure of making our laws.
Speaking of ignorance, has anybody seen his school transcripts that contain some of those incredibly good grades he speaks of? No? Obama MKII?
Had he been able to use eminent domain I'll bet he would have paid a lot less.
old news does not matter.. move on.. who does that sound like ?
Yep, that's what is says and the State of Texas has an identical one.
However, in our families case, it took thousands and thousands of dollars, a team of good lawyers, almost 20 years and a jury trial which we "won". And it's not over yet. They may appeal again.
No private citizen should be forced to sell their property to another private citizen for any reason even if it increases tax revenue.
Sure the government can take it for what they consider "the public good" and for what they deem "fair compensation". That's what they did in Kelo for the benefit for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. Funny thing.....Pfizer never did expand onto the property and I understand have now or will be moving their headquarters overseas.
Not in Democrat-controlled government takings, they don’t. But private developers can offer more. Donald offered much, much more in his one hotly-discussed Atlantic City incident from decades ago.
Drive down virtually every street in the US, and you will see that most properties are NOT for sale. Why is that? It’s because the properties are worth more to the owners than the ‘fair market value’, which they get from en eminent domain purchase. Thus, by definition, the owners get screwed by an eminent domain takeover.
re:
““Victims of Eminent Domain Do Not “Get a Fortune”””
1983, Norton AFB, San Bernardino, CA, bought a bunch of homes that, under the newly designated lengthened ‘before runway crash area’, existed in a new danger area, with many of the homes built in the 1950’s.
I bought the 625 sq. ft. rancho house for $17,000.00 in 1980.
My house was one of the many that were bought under eminent domain proceedings bu the U.S. Air Force, for $38,000.00.
Making a 200% profit isn’t a ‘small fortune’ in the more powerful buying power of the dollar in the 1980’s, now is it???
“Most people get paid more than market value.”
Have you been through it personally? Market value is a fair price for something that someone wanted to sell. Generally people who did not want to sell have other issues and market value doesn’t always take care of those issues.
In addition, like any government process where money changes hands, there is a huge amount of corruption where if they can short homeowner A, they can toss some extra dollars to GoodPal B.
It is more than just finances. Kids are in a school, commute times to jobs are balanced to where you live. Friends are close, there may or may not be another place like the one you have now. Memories were made, and if it isn’t time to move on, it feels like it was ripped away from you.
My wife stood there and watched as a backhoe demolished her dream house from an empty house to nothing but a pile of dust... took about 30 minutes.
Houses may be a commodity... but to each person, their home is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.