Attempted Eminent Domain Seizure of a Widow's Home: Trump Tried to Take Vera Coking's Property for a Casino Parking Lot
Tier 1Resolved via Court Ruling1993-01-01 to 1998-07-20
Factual Summary
In the early 1990s, Donald Trump attempted to use the power of government eminent domain to seize the home of Vera Coking, an elderly widow in Atlantic City, New Jersey, so that he could demolish it and build a limousine parking lot for his adjacent Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino. When Coking refused to sell, Trump enlisted a state agency to condemn her property, initiating a legal battle that ended in a court ruling against the seizure.
Coking had lived in her three-story boardinghouse at 127 South Columbia Place since 1961. In 1993, Trump sought to acquire her property along with several neighboring parcels to expand his casino operations. After Coking refused his purchase offer, Trump turned to the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA), a New Jersey state agency with the power to condemn private property for casino-related development. The CRDA offered Coking $251,250 for her property, roughly one-quarter of what another hotel developer, Bob Guccione, had offered her a decade earlier. When Coking rejected the offer, the CRDA filed a condemnation action in court to seize her home through eminent domain, so that Trump could pave the lot for parking.
The Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm, represented Coking in the case. On July 20, 1998, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled in Coking's favor, invalidating the condemnation. The court found that there were insufficient assurances that the condemned properties would actually be used for the stated purpose and that the CRDA had failed to demonstrate a legitimate public use for the taking. Two months later, the CRDA officially dropped the case without appeal, stating that the Trump Organization was no longer interested in the properties.
Coking remained in her home for more than a decade after the ruling before moving to a retirement facility in California. She died in 2014. The house, after years of deterioration, was eventually demolished.
Trump has been a vocal advocate of eminent domain throughout his career. During a 2005 interview, he called eminent domain "wonderful" and argued that private development served the public interest. During his 2016 presidential campaign, he defended the practice, telling Fox News that eminent domain was necessary for roads, schools, and development and that private property owners were "given a fortune" in compensation.
Primary Sources
1. Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Coking, Superior Court of New Jersey, July 20, 1998
2. Institute for Justice case file: "Atlantic City Condemnation: Vera Coking"
3. Condemnation petition filed by CRDA against Vera Coking's property, Atlantic City, New Jersey
Corroborating Sources
1. Newsweek: "Remember When Trump Tried to Bulldoze a Widow's Home to Make a Parking Lot for Limos?," September 2015
2. Reason: "Donald Trump's Shameful Eminent Domain Abuse," October 7, 2015
3. Cato Institute: "Donald Trump, Eminent Domain, and the Widow's House," September 22, 2015
4. FactCheck.org: "Widow's Home Wasn't Bulldozed," January 22, 2016
5. Institute for Justice: "Atlantic City Eminent Domain," case summary
Counterarguments and Context
Trump argued that his development plans would have improved Atlantic City's economy and provided jobs. He characterized the use of eminent domain for private development as legitimate, noting that property owners receive fair market value for their land. The CRDA's stated purpose for the condemnation was economic development, a rationale that government agencies have used for eminent domain in other contexts. FactCheck.org noted that Trump did not personally wield eminent domain power, as the condemnation was carried out by the CRDA, a state agency. However, the condemnation was initiated at Trump's request, for Trump's exclusive benefit, and the property was to be used as a parking lot for Trump's private casino, not for any public infrastructure. The court's ruling that the taking was improper confirmed that the condemnation lacked a legitimate public purpose. The case became a national example of eminent domain abuse, and the Institute for Justice cited it as a landmark in property rights advocacy.
Author's Note
This entry is classified as Tier 1 because the case was adjudicated in a New Jersey Superior Court, which ruled against the condemnation. The court's decision is a matter of public record. While this entry is categorized under Labor, Contractor, and Employment Abuses, it more precisely involves the exploitation of government power to benefit a private business at the expense of an individual property owner. The case is included in this domain because it demonstrates Trump's willingness to use institutional mechanisms to override the interests of less powerful individuals in service of his commercial enterprises.