Donald Trump believes that government can and should have the power to take individual homes and private property to then turn over to big developers. In fact, he’s abused this process of eminent domain by using bureaucrats in New Jersey and Connecticut to try to take private property.
Conservatives agree that private property and private property rights are protected by the rule of law, and are essential to a healthy free enterprise system. Such rights are crucial tenets of conservative belief.
Today, questions about property rights and what defines conservatism are pivotal in the Republican presidential contest. But first, a little background:The Constitution allows government, on occasion, to take possession of private property, but only to serve a public good, such as the building of a highway or a school. Further, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stipulates that private property shall not “be taken for public use without just compensation.” But, too often, larger corporate interests lobby government to abuse this power of “eminent domain.” The Northern Pass project was an example of the potential for this kind of eminent domain abuse.
But what genuinely outraged true conservatives was the 2005 Kelo decision in which a liberal-majority Supreme Court allowed this to happen to homeowners in Connecticut. In effect, the government would act as the developer’s muscle, compelling the sale of private property.
After the property is transferred, the private developer reaps a financial bonanza while politicians brag of new jobs and tax revenues. Meanwhile, the homeowner who didn’t want to sell is left out in the cold.
Enter Donald Trump. In 1994, Trump was able to persuade New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to play the eminent domain card when elderly widow Vera Coking’s Atlantic City home stood between The Donald and a parking lot for limousines at his casino.
Coking would be forced to sell her home to the authority for 25 cents on the dollar. In turn, the authority would transfer the title over to Trump.

Trump wanted the property as cheaply as possible, and he used the heavy hand of government to do his dirty work for him. In an attempt to defend himself, Trump demeaned Mrs. Coking in an interview on ABC News: “Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees that property, and it’s not fair to Atlantic City and the people. They’re staring at this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.”
This isn’t an anti-establishment populist; this is a Big Government thug.

Ultimately, Coking won her case in court. But Trump’s attempt to enlist government power for his own gain paints an unsettling picture of where he stands on the issue of eminent domain abuse and the sanctity of private property rights in America.
In fact, in a 2005 interview, following the Kelo decision, Trump told Neil Cavuto, “But I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” affirming his full agreement with the Supreme Court’s ruling that allowed eminent domain abuse.
On the campaign trail, Trump continues to defend his position on eminent domain abuse, telling ABC News it’s a good thing and asserting to Fox’s Bret Baier last October, “I think eminent domain is wonderful.” And why not, if it benefits Trump personally?
Eminent domain abuse sounds like a wonky policy issue, but voters in New Hampshire have had first hand experience of how it can threaten average citizens. It goes to the core conservative principle of private property rights. Any candidate who claims to be a conservative and yet is cavalier about taking away your home can only be considered a political fraud.
David McIntosh is the president of Club for Growth, the nation’s leading free-enterprise advocacy group and a former U.S. congressman from Indiana.