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.
Yes, and people owning more than a certain amount of property should not be compensated
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.
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.
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 Equality3 days
No, unless landowners are adequately compensated and if it goes to a good use
Yes, but only for necessary public projects only and given above market value.
For local and national emergencies
Yes only with consent
No, unless they get permission from the owners.
I don’t own property so this doesn’t apply to me.
Yes, and dont require the owners to receive compensation.
only if you have a warrant
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.
Yes, but only when it is genuinely necessary.
No, unless it is for adding to federally protected areas.
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.
No, the landowners should be talked to, to see if they would be okay with compensation and it happening.
Depends on what they plan to use the land for.
Yes, but only if the government shows a seriously important public need that outweighs the private interests of the landowner.
No, it should be voluntary
the government can never seize private property unless the person has committed a crime.
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.
Yes , If it's needed by the country and the owners are compensated.
yes, but only as long as landowners are fairly compensated, projects will benefit the community, and ONLY for public projects, NEVER private projects.
no unless it is for a national mater and for the protection of people
Yes, but only for the public good, and the land owner is compensated at twice the fair market price.
No. Unless a law is broken. Then it needs to be processed as any other crime with levels of degree.
Only if the owner allows the government to use it.
I think a lot depends on what type of property as well.
Yes, but only as long as the landowners are okay with what the government wants to do with their property.
No, unless the government and land owner agree upon a price
only if the land owner agrees and receives compensation
Yes, but be only for conservation of flora and fauna.
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
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
No, the government should have to buy land like normal citizens
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.
No, not unless it’s an extreme case or national emergency
@9VNBJNRConstitution10mos
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.
@9VJXVL2Independent10mos
As far the property was bought by the government I have no problem
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.
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.
@9V4Y8FTRepublican12mos
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
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
No, unless the nation or state is in peril. and I mean extreme peril.
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
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.
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.
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.
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property without the owner's consent
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
