CONCORD, N.H. — Donald Trump on Wednesday defended government property seizures as a “necessary thing,” even when it means involuntarily taking property from a private owner to transfer it to another business.
Trump was speaking to reporters outside the capital statehouse moments before formally filing his candidacy for the February primary, and the Washington Examiner pressed him on his record of using eminent domain laws to expand his casino empire.
“Property rights are a big issue in New Hampshire,” the Examiner noted. “In Atlantic City you used eminent domain laws aggressively to expand your casino.”
Trump interjected by calling this a “stupid question” before launching into a defense of eminent domain.
“I am all for private property rights,” Trump said. “There’s nobody who wants property taken away less than I do, believe me. I would lose a lot of money if my property were taken away. But when you’re building a road, when you’re building a highway, when you’re building whatever it is you’re building from a municipal standpoint, you may need a corner of a piece of property.” As he said this, he pinched his fingers together to demonstrate the smallness of the property.
Trump noted that many people support the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, but said, “Without eminent domain, you can’t build the Keystone pipeline.”
He continued, “Without eminent domain, you won’t have roads, you won’t have highways, you won’t have anything.”
At that point the Examiner jumped in to note that a road isn’t a casino.
“From a development standpoint, when you have a factory that is going to leave town and the town is doing badly,” Trump responded. “Or you have a factory or a plant or something that is coming into town. Everybody wants it. But you need a corner of a piece of property someplace. And by the way, just so you understand, these people get paid and they get paid a tremendous amount of money.”
He continued, “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.”
In reality, that wasn’t the case for Trump. In one classic example, he used a local government development agency in an attempt to take a house from an elderly widow at a bargain basement price to build a limousine parking lot for one of his casinos. But he eventually lost in court.
Trump’s use of eminent domain has drawn criticism from a number of conservatives and libertarians — Michelle Malkin has long documented his use of the practice.
As part of his response to the Examiner, Trump also launched into a tirade against Club for Growth, a conservative activist group that has criticized his use of eminent domain. He called it a “third rate outfit.” He said they asked him for $1 million and attacked him after being rejected.
“Eminent domain, it’s really – people don’t understand it,” he said. “They really don’t. You can’t have roads. You can’t have highways.”
He said, “The Keystone pipeline could not be built for two feet without eminent domain. I don’t love it. I don’t like it. But it’s a necessary thing for a country to go and do what they have to do.”
The root of eminent domain can be traced back to the Fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which ends, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Though the text of the Constitution refers to “public use” and was historically taken to mean projects such as roads and highways, in the 2005 Kelo v. City of New London decision, the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the definition to include private use that would generate tax revenue. That decision was widely panned by conservatives and libertarians.
UPDATE: The Club for Growth has responded.
