Try the political quiz

1,268 Replies

@B3P7ZXNCommunist from Texas answered…2wks

Yes, and people owning more than a certain amount of property should not be compensated

@55X4K4VDemocratfrom Maryland  answered…2yrs

Eminent domain was intended for use during times of war, putting in a dog park or a nature preserve is not a situation equivalent of a national emergency. No the government should not seize private property, as the people are very rarely fairly compensated.

@55VSK99Democratfrom Texas  answered…2yrs

So let's take this and run, Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community, so I've noticed that opens a can of worms. What we are not taking into account is what fair is. It's not fair to be like China and demand someone move or destroy their home. I would say for the hassle the government should pay a market rate, not the city's suggested understanding of what your home is worth. That's not a true market rate, it's just whatever the city thinks your house is worth enough to charge you tax on. For example I think I could sell my house for x amount and the city would only pay me y amount, that's not fair. Add into that moving is a pain, it's something no one wants to do. So pay the homeowner what the house is truly worth and add 10% for moving and suffering. Then I guess that's good.

@55WV4MMDemocratfrom Connecticut  answered…2yrs

yes only for public education, recreation, and preservation. Not for profit making industrial ventures or for agencies slated for privitization now or in the future.

@B3YK89RWomen’s Equality from Arizona answered…3 days

No, unless landowners are adequately compensated and if it goes to a good use

@shane-fryGreen from South Dakota answered…1wk

Yes, but only for necessary public projects only and given above market value.

@B2VR8S9Veteran from Michigan answered…2mos

@PerkiLlamaSocialist from Florida answered…2mos

@B2SC9DVSocialistfrom Maine  answered…2mos

@B2RDT46Republican from New Jersey answered…2mos

It depends on the circumstance. If the land is needed for National emergencies, public projects that will benefit not just the community but the state and country, and the landowners are compensated double fair market price.

@B2732SVRepublican from Texas answered…3mos

@B2J5BK7American Solidarity from Connecticut answered…2mos

@B2GGMRJVeteran from Utah answered…3mos

If it is land that is in the middle of nowhere not being used for anything and they are going to offer the owner a big amount of money then yes.

@B29WPYLWorking Family from Colorado answered…3mos

No, the landowners should be talked to, to see if they would be okay with compensation and it happening.

@Leo-AndersonTranshumanistfrom Louisiana  answered…3mos

@9GRWB5DDemocrat from California answered…2yrs

Yes, but only if the government shows a seriously important public need that outweighs the private interests of the landowner.

@9GNN7SLConstitution from North Carolina answered…2yrs

the government can never seize private property unless the person has committed a crime.

@CharCharIndependent from South Carolina answered…2yrs

Not unless there is huge compensation, and only in a case of emergency regarding that area, city, town, state, or the United States as a whole.

@9F8KD4XPeace and Freedom from New York answered…2yrs

Yes , If it's needed by the country and the owners are compensated.

@9F8BQ5KDemocrat from South Carolina answered…2yrs

yes, but only as long as landowners are fairly compensated, projects will benefit the community, and ONLY for public projects, NEVER private projects.

@9YRV8FXWorking Family from Texas answered…6mos

no unless it is for a national mater and for the protection of people

@9Y99532Republican from Alabama answered…6mos

Yes, but only for the public good, and the land owner is compensated at twice the fair market price.

@9Y2V5YBDemocrat from Texas answered…7mos

No. Unless a law is broken. Then it needs to be processed as any other crime with levels of degree.

@9XXRTS5Green from New Jersey answered…7mos

@9XXLNR4Democrat from Michigan answered…7mos

@9XJM2RKVeteran from Illinois answered…7mos

Yes, but only as long as the landowners are okay with what the government wants to do with their property.

@9X9BMTDVeteran from Connecticut answered…8mos

No, unless the government and land owner agree upon a price

@9WPMBNLPeace and Freedom from Utah answered…8mos

@9WL2F9ZWomen’s Equality from Georgia answered…8mos

@9W9YZLRTranshumanist from Virginia answered…9mos

the government should not be able to seize private property without a fair compensation and also the owner of the property should have a say if they agree to it or not

@9W6KTFSAmerican from Minnesota answered…9mos

No it should never be able to seize private property of citizens, the only exception. Would be in case of a National emergency and the owner is compensated 3-5x the market value

@9VT7C5MRepublican from Alabama answered…9mos

No, the government should have to buy land like normal citizens

@9VRT7MZSocialist from Michigan answered…9mos

Private property shouldn't be necessary, but as long as it is, private property should only be seized with consent by the owners AND reasonable compensation.

@9VPY24PWomen’s Equality from California answered…10mos

No, not unless it’s an extreme case or national emergency

@9VNBJNRConstitution from Virginia answered…10mos

Only if it is necessary for public works projects and the owners of said property are both compensated for double the market value of the land and the owner is given a cut of the money generated by said project.

@9VJXVL2Independentfrom Virgin Islands  answered…10mos

As far the property was bought by the government I have no problem

@9VB9DZVDemocrat from Illinois answered…11mos

This should not be allowed in neighborhoods that have been redlined in the past or in low income areas. If the project falls through the land should be returned along with additional compensation. This should only be used during times of national emergency.

@9V8XG3NPeace and Freedom from Arkansas answered…11mos

If the owner is compensated much more than the market value and in agreement then the government can have the land, but only if the owner of the property is in agreement.

@9V4Y8FTRepublican from Washington answered…12mos

Yes, but only in very rare instances such as emergencies or projects that are absolutely guaranteed to benefit the community, and as long as the landowners are very fairly compensated

@9TZX3MQSocialist from Washington answered…12mos

Yes but only in cases of national emergency, if the owners are compensated slightly over fair market price and the project with benefit the community

@9TX9M4MGreen from Illinois answered…1yr

No, unless the nation or state is in peril. and I mean extreme peril.

@9TRMWSWVeteran from Texas answered…1yr

yes and no. yes, if they are going to do with the property they promised but also no, as there is family history and the importance of why they are doing it should be determined if it is a priority

@9TG8STJWomen’s Equality from Pennsylvania answered…1yr

Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the average citizens of the community/nation and this should only be done in extreme cases of national emergency.

@9TFFD38Republican from Minnesota answered…1yr

No, unless the private landowners are willing or the land is being seized for an urgent need for the country and good of the people.

@9T79VYDSocialist from Tennessee answered…1yr

No, the state is an instrument of the capitalist class & should be treated as such; It has nothing to do with the public & should be suitably abolished alongside the rest of the capitalist system.

@Chad-SmithConstitution from Nebraska answered…1yr

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property without the owner's consent

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...