Column: Eminent domain can be abusive

When this campaign season began, I expected that there were going to be plenty of issues discussed. Arguments regarding the economy, criminal justice and cybersecurity were just some of what I was anticipating.

Never once did I consider eminent domain an item worthy of being discussed. Then again, I did not expect a real estate mogul to be leading the Republican presidential nomination race either.

One of the highlights of last Saturday’s Republican presidential debate was when party frontrunner and eventual New Hampshire primary winner Donald Trump defended his stance on eminent domain, saying that the government’s ability to seize property regardless of owner consent was necessary for the nation to function.

“Without it, you wouldn’t have roads, you wouldn’t have hospitals, you wouldn’t have anything,” Trump said. “You need eminent domain.”

Trump then added that people whose property is taken under eminent domain even benefit, as they are given at least fair market value for their land which is being seized.

Eminent domain as a whole is not a new issue. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that the government has a right to take property away from owners if it serves a public use, and property owners must be provided “just compensation” as a result.

The problem — and what Trump did not mention — is while eminent domain is legal, it is an abused practice. Seizure does not solely happen in the name of public facilities like roads, but also anything that could result in an increase of economic activity or revenue.

From sports stadiums to upscale condominiums, eminent domain has been cited as motivation for governments to take private property for a private project in the name of economic development. This results in rewards for the project’s stakeholders but rarely any benefits for the community.

Trump knows this all too well. In 1994, he convinced Atlantic City officials to assist in removing an elderly woman from her house so that the billionaire could build limousine parking for his nearby casino. Thankfully, New Jersey’s Superior Court stopped the act before it reached completion.

Even the payment is mismanaged. “Just compensation” does not mean what is determined fair between the developer and property owner’s eyes, but often rather what is determined fair by a government agency, which often results in incompetent and low payments.

Governments taking private property in the name of one’s private financial gain should not be an acceptable practice. Trump’s stance on eminent domain not only threatens property rights but also says economic strength can allow parties the ability take the possessions of others.

By supporting eminent domain, Trump is supporting a misused practice that puts the freedom of all below the gains of a few. Instead of letting people live as they wish, Trump would be fine seeing power used to promote the success of the influential.