Eminent domain is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. It can be legislatively delegated by state governments to municipalities, government subdivisions, or even to private persons or corporations, when they are authorized to exercise the functions of public character. Opponents, including Conservatives and Libertarians in New Hampshire, oppose giving the government the power to seize property for private projects, like casinos. Proponents, including advocates of oil pipelines and national parks, argue that the construction of roads and schools would not be possible if the government could not seize land under eminent domain.
@ISIDEWITH7yrs
@ISIDEWITH7yrs
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@ISIDEWITH7yrs
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency
@ISIDEWITH5yrs
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects
@ISIDEWITH7yrs
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price
@ISIDEWITH7yrs
No, unless it is for an oil pipeline project
@44W3J3T2yrs
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.
@44VT3LL2yrs
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.
@453BVPM2yrs
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.
@44ZS9ZS2yrs
The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.
@44TRJ882yrs
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.
@44ZH23B2yrs
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.
Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.
@4523W842yrs
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.
@453GCX92yrs
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.
@96228B947mins
Yes, but only for public projects and the landowners are drastically compensated above fair market price
@95ZJPHB11hrs
Yes, but only if the landowner(s) are not members of a marginalized community.
@95ZCH2Y13hrs
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.
@95YWVTB1 day
It depends on what happen
@95YSPHN1 day
As long as it's OK with the residents
@95YRZKD1 day
No, the government should not seize any private property unless a crime has been perpetuated by the owner
@95XLF442 days
Yes, but only for capitalists, not individual working citizens or oppressed nationalities
@95XJVW42 days
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property except if there black
@95XGP6J2 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.
@95WQXSZ3 days
Yes, but only in certain situations.
@95TF49P5 days
Yes, but don't buy them, nationalize all industry.
@95TFDZH5 days
Yes, but only for public works, and the property owners should receive compensation above market value
@95T982XProgressive5 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.
@95S7RQT6 days
Yes but only public projects in case of extreme emergency, and with compensation well above market price
Yes, but only private commercial property, and only for public use.
@95RX7BPProgressive6 days
yes, but only if landowners are fairly compensated and the project is public and provides a great benefit to the community.
@95RSJWX6 days
If the property is not being claimed/utilized and is otherwise a burden on the community, by petition, eminent domain shall prevail.
@95RS5RJConstitution6 days
No, but it is a right that is given to the government
@95R9B3C6 days
No, it should have to convince the land owner how this would benefit the community.
@95P8DLX1wk
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
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects and never from Native American land
@95PK6MC1wk
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
Maybe, should depend on the amount being given and should depend on what the government is trying to build.
The government should only be allowed to seize private property for good or if the landowner agrees to sell their property to them.
@95N6WV51wk
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.
@95N4C8R1wk
Yes, but only in extreme cases and they must be brought be fore a judge to debate their side
@95N3TPQ1wk
No because that's always used as an excuse to kick minorites out of their houses and communities
@95MVL9G1wk
The government should not be allowed to seize/build on Native American land but other private property can be seized for public projects.
Yes, but only for public projects and only if the property owner is compensated drastically above fair market price.
Land ownership is evil!!!!
@95KJL852wks
No, but allow exception for cases in emergency
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...
