Try the political quiz

1.5k Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

 @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky  agreed…2wks

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

The most important value a citizen has is private property.

If they want to live in a contaminated house after a chemical spill, that's their right.

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price

@44W3J3Tfrom 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.

@44VT3LLfrom 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.

@453BVPMfrom Georgia  answered…2yrs

I believe that private property belongs to the individual who purchased it. There are very few projects that are so vitally important to the well-being of the community that the seizing of property could be warranted. A compromise can almost always be worked out. Property must NEVER be seized by the government for the purposes of a project being conducted by a private industry.

@44ZS9ZSfrom Guam  answered…2yrs

The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.

@44TRJ88from 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.

@44ZH23Bfrom North Carolina  answered…2yrs

In principal the government should be allowed to, but given this government's lack of principals on the metaphysical order, its reasons for seizing land most likely would be unjustified, so no.

@452J4KKGreenfrom Florida  answered…2yrs

@4523W84from California  answered…2yrs

Yes, but only when it is a necessity for public health or if the property is in a strategic location that will bring great benefit to the community or if the land is absolutely needed in a time of war.

@453GCX9from Florida  answered…2yrs

No, reasonable compensation suggests that the land is sold; not seized. Just purchase it. I do believe in the exception for expanding roads to a degree. If a fully paved, busy road needs expansion, seizure with compensation should be aloud, but only if voted on by the community.

@96228B9 from Arizona answered…47mins

Yes, but only for public projects and the landowners are drastically compensated above fair market price

@95ZJPHB from Washington answered…11hrs

Yes, but only if the landowner(s) are not members of a marginalized community.

@95ZCH2Y from Iowa answered…13hrs

If its in a case of national emergency but if the government just wants it and the owner doesnt want to cell then they should not be forced to.

@95YSPHNfrom Washington  answered…1 day

@95YRZKD from Maine answered…1 day

No, the government should not seize any private property unless a crime has been perpetuated by the owner

@95XLF44 from Texas answered…2 days

Yes, but only for capitalists, not individual working citizens or oppressed nationalities

@95XJVW4 from Texas answered…2 days

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property except if there black

@95XGP6J from Iowa answered…2 days

Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects. AND landowners should be given assistance for the burden and compensated well over market value.

@95WQXSZfrom Northern Mariana Islands  answered…3 days

@95TF49P from Texas answered…5 days

@95TFDZH from Ohio answered…5 days

Yes, but only for public works, and the property owners should receive compensation above market value

@95T982XProgressive from Wisconsin answered…5 days

Only in an EXTREME emergency, with permission from Congress and permission from owners who will be compensated well above fair market price. Scientific unbiased research needs be given to show reason for seizure by several sources. This must be highly regulated. It should not cause undue harm to the environment or anything else.

@95S7RQT from New York answered…6 days

Yes but only public projects in case of extreme emergency, and with compensation well above market price

@95S8WXYSocialist from Wisconsin answered…6 days

Yes, but only private commercial property, and only for public use.

@95RX7BPProgressive from Washington answered…6 days

yes, but only if landowners are fairly compensated and the project is public and provides a great benefit to the community.

@95RSJWX from Oregon answered…6 days

If the property is not being claimed/utilized and is otherwise a burden on the community, by petition, eminent domain shall prevail.

@95RS5RJConstitution from California answered…6 days

@95R9B3C from Oklahoma answered…6 days

No, it should have to convince the land owner how this would benefit the community.

@95P8DLX from Pennsylvania answered…1wk

Yes, however the system needs to be reformed as it is abused by law enforcement to fund departments and it should be easier to challenge in court

@95P4NRVProgressive from Virginia answered…1wk

Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects and never from Native American land

@95PK6MC from California answered…1wk

not unless their is a new place the family can stay in immediately. the government should have no right to kick you out for no reason and have you wandering around homeless for a while until you can find a place, just because they want a headstart on wasting more money

@95NV8YBIndependence from Georgia answered…1wk

Maybe, should depend on the amount being given and should depend on what the government is trying to build.

@95NS52TIndependent from Georgia answered…1wk

The government should only be allowed to seize private property for good or if the landowner agrees to sell their property to them.

@95N6WV5 from Idaho answered…1wk

if the government is taking someones private property they should have a very good reason why to and they should give whatever the land is worth to the owner. But if it not a serious matter like life and death then I think they should not be allowed to take private land.

@95N4C8R from Colorado answered…1wk

Yes, but only in extreme cases and they must be brought be fore a judge to debate their side

@95N3TPQ from Washington answered…1wk

No because that's always used as an excuse to kick minorites out of their houses and communities

@95MVL9G from North Carolina answered…1wk

The government should not be allowed to seize/build on Native American land but other private property can be seized for public projects.

@95MKLBJProgressive from Missouri answered…1wk

Yes, but only for public projects and only if the property owner is compensated drastically above fair market price.

@95KJL85 from Michigan answered…2wks


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...