Donald Trump taking business to extreme measures

TRUMPING OVER REAL ESTATE — Several tenants of 100 Central Park South received short-notice eviction letters from Donald Trump requesting to move out. Those who refused experienced Trump’s manipulative plans in a more forceful manner. (New York Times)

By Will Byers

The place for business, wealth and power is located right in the heart of New York City. People who strive to pursue such a niche location tend to fall in the streets of Manhattan where every other block is an opportunity for a new entrepreneur to plant their business. What would happen if one person pushed everything too far to get his or her way?

Already in the 1980s, Trump at age 35 is the quintessence of American business power. Recently, after Trump’s real estate plan, reporters argued that such a wealthy businessman could take extreme measures in the near future by gaining power over the country. Are their observations predictable? After judging his business plan in the summer of 1981, news correspondents claim that such a potential outcome may occur.

This all started in July when billionaire businessman, Donald Trump, bought a 14-story building in New York City’s prime real estate lot facing Central Park to create luxury condos. While this seemed like a savvy opportunity, his architectural plans on 100 Central Park South ultimately left several New York residents distraught. Although that one building is currently occupied by residents, Trump could not be stopped. Ultimately, he resorted to manipulative approaches to remove current tenants from that lot.

A simple eviction notice was not enough force to suffice. Trump decided to play hard in his games. According to lawsuits filed by the tenants, renters claimed that both their heat and hot water were cut off after Trump imposed “tough building rules.” If removing such vital resources was not enough to fight back, the possibility of inviting unwanted guests into their own homes had done the trick. Just one month later, several tenants argued that Trump proposed sheltering homeless people in their building when newspaper advertisements stated that the apartment complex was a homeless shelter. This chaos lasted another whole week involving conflicts between Trump, tenants, real estate lawyers, New York state regulators and city officials.

According to the New York Times, New York City Judge Tom Steven Wilson eventually called out Trump for his unnecessary behavior. Wilson stated that “to most landlords, happiness is having tenants who pay the rent each month without prodding or litigation. However, [Trump] is apparently searching for double happiness.”

In Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, he argued that those residents on that building lot were privileged, rich “yuppies” who took advantage of its rent-control. Trump wrote, “If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the rich, it’s that they have a very low threshold for even the mildest discomfort.”

Lasting up to three months, this battle continued on until early autumn when a majority of the tenants had moved out. Overall, although a judge never ruled against Trump for the is- sue of harassing these tenants, this building still remains intact today. Trump’s organization owns 18 units and his son, Eric, will be in line to own one of the top floor flats. Only a couple of residents had actually purchased their apartments where they currently live today.

This dramatic and legal issue took Trump nowhere in terms of business progress, but it may foreshadow his impulsive behaviors to convince himself of controlling anything he wants. What excuse did Trump have for this real estate choice? Knowing this plan would disturb the lives of several everyday Manhattan residents, he continued to push through. Trump and his corporate actions can only take him too far before he corrupts the country. Such a ruthless action like this transformed the game of Monopoly into a real deal.

*This is part of The Ranchor issue of The Anchor, which is a satire edition of our student newspaper. None of this article is meant to be taken as fact.*