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.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No
@9FQVGRD2yrs2Y
Consider the rancher in Texas that lost his ability to raise cattle because the border wall built on his land seized by eminent domain now blocks the cows’ only access to water. Consider the landowner who lost a portion of their lakefront land for a desalination plant that caused years of noisy construction next to their home, destroyed neighborhood roads, devalued what was left of their property, and took away the hilltop where they had always dreamt they would retire.
@9GDV2M62yrs2Y
Eminent domain excuses the removal of people which could destroy communities or property value. Also, if land is taken from those who are impoverished and have nowhere to go, then those people will be at increased risk of homelessness.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@9FQVGRD2yrs2Y
Eminent domain is the the worst form of socialism. For many landowners, their property is their only real asset— the one thing they can rely on later in life to sustain them. It’s value often extends far beyond monetary compensation. The land may have been in their family for generations or perhaps they have future plans for generations that follow them. In some cases, there literally is no adequate dollar amount that would compensate landowners for the loss of their land “for the good of the community.”
@9S9QK82 1yr1Y
“Eminent domain is the the worst form of socialism.”
Y'all just be saying random stuff and don't even know what socialism is, did you really just say "eminent domain is socialism" that makes no goddamn sense, where in any theory does it say that. And even if it is in the older theory that is not what the socialists of today subscribe too.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated above fair market price. There is need for eminent domain, but it should be a extra costly to infringe on rights.
@9GN5KWP2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for public and never private projects, if landowners are fairly compensated, if the local environment isn’t compromised, and if any other unoccupied land isn’t available
@44W3J3T5yrs5Y
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.
@44VT3LL5yrs5Y
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.
@44TRJ885yrs5Y
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 thi… Read more
@95F59843yrs3Y
Private property should not exist
Deleted2yrs2Y
Respectfully, drive inside a Iake
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
That's stupid.
Every time that has been practiced it has ended in disaster.
And no one really believes in abolishing private property, because all humans want things for themselves.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
Yea the disaster is when colonizers/capitalists invade them and ruin their system.
Secondly, yes, a lot of people want to abolish private property, because they recognize that a system founded on private ownership of the means of production is blatantly anti-democratic and detrimental to society. No need to project your own selfish values onto all of humanity.
@TruthHurts1012yrs2Y
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Private property, next to life, is our. most valuable right.
Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.
@453BVPM5yrs5Y
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.
@453GCX95yrs5Y
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.
@44ZH23B5yrs5Y
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.
@9MFBRSL1yr1Y
Yes, but only for public and never private projects, if the landowners are fairly compensated, and if the local environment isn’t compromised in any way
@9GZDTYYIndependent2yrs2Y
Generally, the government should not seize private property, instead it should be purchased at an agreed price with the individual(s) that own it. The exception would be in extreme situations, such as the owner(s) of the property not paying the relevant taxes, if the land was provided in an agreement with the government in a contract that said that the government could seize it with reasonable compensation when necessary, or if the land was being used by the owner(s) for illegal activities.
@44ZS9ZS5yrs5Y
The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.
@942Q8PF3yrs3Y
No, unless it’s in cases of extreme emergency
Yes, as long as owners are very well compensated, and the government actually goes forward with said project.
@JcawolfsonGreen 2mos2MO
No, government should not seize personal property unless it’s a physical threat that presents a danger to others. With regards to corporate property, government may seize if obtained or utilized via coercive and exploitive means. In extreme cases of national emergency, government may utilize the property if landowners agree, are compensated (drastically) above fair market price, and the projects will benefit the community
@9S2PG431yr1Y
The federal government should be For public and civic use, but only if the following conditions are met. If the previous owners or occupants of the property are well compensated, and if it is only for a project that benefits the whole the public. Ruction of schools, construction of living quarters, construction of medical facilities, construction of Civic Centers, construction of anything that promotes community And benefits the public.
Yes, but only for public projects, if landowners are fairly compensated, and they consent to the seizure
@8P9N85C5yrs5Y
Private property shouldn’t exist
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
All Private property must be abolished.
@985JWL23yrs3Y
Private property is inherently theft
@4523W845yrs5Y
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.
@9CL9R232yrs2Y
No, but allow in cases of extreme emergency
@8YGYD5Y4yrs4Y
No, only in cases of emergency
@8XXKY784yrs4Y
NO because it's private property for a reason
@8GWJ82JRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, and people owning more than a certain amount of property should not be compensated
@8FHH7K25yrs5Y
@8MBS6TJ5yrs5Y
@8GRC9XB5yrs5Y
@8QQXRXQ5yrs5Y
no they shouldnt unless the land owners anre doing illegal things
@8CL3QHY5yrs5Y
Yes, but only for landmarks and never for energy production or private companies.
@8CJYD295yrs5Y
No, unless it is for and extreme emergency
No, unless the person gained it illegally
@8CC3KYHRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as the government goes through the legal process to do so and grants compensation that is reasonably higher than market value.
@8C8HG8N5yrs5Y
Only if the landowners agree to it and are compensated fairly.
@6K5JPLNLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price and the need for the land is absolutely necessary.
@8XY5DWX4yrs4Y
Yes, even without compensation
@8SHQRBS4yrs4Y
yes, but only if it's for public projects that benefit the community and the landowners and compensated way about what market value would be 10 years from the current moment
@8R5KT5J5yrs5Y
Abolish private property and the state
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and should be on a temporary basis
@B7HWTMN6 days6D
Yes, but only if landowners are consenting, compensated above market price, and the projects benefit the community.
@B7HBXY6Peace and Freedom7 days7D
Yes, but only for the benefit if the community, and if the owners built on the property, they should be paid more for supplies and work going to waste.
@B7GYLKT1wk1W
only in extreme cases of national emergency, for public projects and never for private projects, only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@B7GWSG51wk1W
Government should never be allowed to seize personal property (home, car, etc) government should be allowed to seize property from corporatists for example, seizing a mall to build affordable housing.
I do not think it should be seized, but rather a choice left up to the citizens who own that private property.
@B7FCTXT1wk1W
No, only when the owner is of the ruling elites has committed serious crimes or is proven to be corrupted in their job, or they're regular citizens who have committed serious crimes/actions and have attracted a lot of uncommon attention.
@B7DVBC52wks2W
No, but the government should be able to provide incentives for property that they want, and an owner can voluntarily give it up.
@B7DT5WT2wks2W
no, government should never be allowed to sieze private property. unless it is an illegal ring of people like Epstein island
@B7C84J32wks2W
As long as it is fundamental, the owner is optimistic or their virtue is FINE with it/paid to a plethora of satisfaction, or an exacerbating peril act of crisis is relentlessly happening in the requiem of an atmosphere. (Though, in the constitution, the amendments emphasize that peculiar or futile and a reckless refuted series of events that involves searching ones property without a warrant or prevailing/seizing land/property without reasonable action is respite/postponed/obsolete/wrong/banned)
@B7BSNDM2wks2W
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency, and either immediate or post-crisis compensation drastically above market price at the time of seizure.
@B7BHZN22wks2W
It's too situational. It depends on the financial situation of the owner, and what the property would be used for. I would support someone's second beach home being used as a homeless shelter for example
@B79WBLC2wks2W
Yes, but only for public projects, never private projects, with compensation at or above fair market price.
@B78GH233wks3W
No, unless doing so would save or prevent the deaths of civilians proportional to the amount of land seized and only for temporary use (i.e. taking a football stadium to turn it into a field hospital); land seized should be returned to the owner after temporary use.
@B73YCBLPeace and Freedom 3wks3W
No, but only if the landowners agree and are fully compensated for and the purpose of the land will have some sort of benefit.
Yes, but only for public projects that are voted for directly by the public. Landowners should also be compensated at 125% market value, not tax appraised value.
@B6YZW9N4wks4W
The landowners should be consenting and compensated above fair market prices along with ensuring the use of the land is for public benefit with transparency on the project(s) happening on the land.
@B6WLTCN1mo1MO
I think that the government should not be allowed to do this, unless the owners of that private property agree to have their land seized.
@B6SXT3P1mo1MO
The government must provide equal and suitable accommodation (housing, land, stores, etc) for the people it is taking from (not money, but actual property)
@B6SBNQSIndependent1mo1MO
Unless the property is owned by a massive corporation, The government should never be allowed to seize publicly owned land and if they do, It should be seen as tyranny.
@B6RZWTP1mo1MO
No, and we should abolish property tax as it is theft. To purchase land or a home and then have to pay taxes on it is wrong because the owner does not actually own it.
@B6R6GMV1mo1MO
Yes, but only in cases of national emergency or road expansion and only if landowners are fairly compensated, but landowners also have the right to deny the government's request without legal ramifications.
@B3VGV2T 1mo1MO
The debate over allowing the government to seize private property with reasonable compensation, known as eminent domain, involves balancing individual property rights against the needs of the public. While this power is constitutional in the U.S. and has been used for major public works, its application remains controversial.
Arguments supporting eminent domain for public use
Supports essential public projects
Infrastructure development: Eminent domain allows the government to build essential public infrastructure, such as roads, railways, and schools, which benefit the broader community.
@B6NK5TK2mos2MO
Yes, but only for public projects and if the landowners get paid drastically above fair market price
They should be allowed to make offers drastically above market price and only for public projects. However, the owner of the property should be able to refuse.
@B6JKSGYWomen’s Equality2mos2MO
Yes, but only if landowners are fairly compensated and projects are public, never private, while benefiting the community.
@B6JG6LG2mos2MO
If the land is owned by individual, No. If it is owned by a foreign country/individual or company then yes.
@B6JB3GX2mos2MO
yes. as long as the owner of the property agrees . or if the owner of the land has the property empty and abandoned for a long period of time. but private property should be respected based on free market laws
@B6HDR532mos2MO
yes even with no compensation depending on the circumstances .the us gov forgets that they are supposed to have a monopoly on violence sometimes
@B6DLC2C2mos2MO
The government, with oversight from the workers working said private property, should repossess ALL private property and rescind it back to collective control; true economic democracy.
Yes, but only if the landowner either owns a substantial amount of land or makes more than $100,000/year
@B64YNMJ3mos3MO
If nobody has laid claim to it, and if the government doesn’t attempt to push aside anyone who has claim over it, then maybe.
@B63TK4T3mos3MO
Yes, but only for public projects of great civic benefit and never for private projects and only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price
No, respect private property rights except in the case of seizure and reselling in case of property owner wrongdoing.
@B62JXWD3mos3MO
People should have a right to shelter no matter what, besides that if there is private or public property that is bad for a community, it should be improved upon or removed.
Yes, but only for clear public projects, with fair compensation well above market to safeguard the weak.
@B5VPVXZ4mos4MO
Yes, but unfortunately under the current capitalist system private property is only seized to serve larger private interests or law enforcement gangs.
@Serinoking 4mos4MO
Yes, but only for areas where where the evidence is clear that the private company is causing a irreparable damage to the environment
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
