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:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@B4FNL7M6mos6MO
eminent domain should be used very sparingly and only for genuine public benefit, not for private development; compensation should be truly fair and just
@9RTFVXY1yr1Y
Yes, but only for public property, beneficial to the community, voted on unless in cases of nation security, and provided landowners are drastically above market value.
@9R7TPK21yr1Y
I think it depends on the history of that private property, the owner, and its intended use. Ultimately, we want a net good without harming people.
No, lands that are seized and developed are usually in low-income areas, and land seizure through eminent domain disproportionately affects minorities and people in poverty.
Yes, but only for public projects where landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
Yes, but only for public projects that will both benefit the community and compensate the landowners fairly
Yes, but only from the super rich
@williamkmIndependent 2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for a demonstrable public good in the absence of alternatives, and compensation considers attachment price as well as market price.
@9DF9R6C 2yrs2Y
Only under extreme conditions and the owner must be compensated.
@cryingleftist3yrs3Y
Yes, unless it belongs to indigenous communities.
@9BXSK4J2yrs2Y
No, only in world ending national emergencies
@95P4NRVProgressive3yrs3Y
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects and never from Native American land
Yes and why bother to compensate them. Seize all means of production.
@938ZHY33yrs3Y
No, because it disproportionately impacts black neighborhoods and other minority neighborhoods.
@933BVX33yrs3Y
Yes, as long as landowners are consenting and fairly compensated.
@8TSWHJ44yrs4Y
Yes, but only people who have a lot of land/resources
@8SZYL6V4yrs4Y
no, the government should not be able to forcibly seize private property, the owner should be provided the option to sell their property for higher then market value, and their decision is respected
@8KXNDTZ5yrs5Y
Only if they have a good reason
@8CZ5SWV5yrs5Y
Yes, but not for an oil pipeline, and do not seize low-income housing.
@9CM7CFH2yrs2Y
Yes, without compensation if desired.
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but only State governments, and governments must the buy land for fair market value like any other private corporation
@9CDZYY92yrs2Y
Only is it is state or local and is one hundred percent necessary and is a matter of emergency.
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but the only State governments, and governments must the buy land for fair market value like any other private corporation
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but the only State governments, and governments must the buy land for fair market value
@84ZWD6LLibertarian3yrs3Y
Yes, but the government must the buy land for fair market value
@975SD493yrs3Y
It depends on multiple things.
The government should be allowed to seize private property, not personal property
@983SQ6B3yrs3Y
If the landowners are willing to come to an agreement or contract then that is up to the parties involved. However, without any contract I don't believe it should be allowed from any level.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
