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:
@Sco12345678Communist 11mos11MO
Yes, but only for corporate and business private property and only for public projects and never for private projects.
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.
@DrEagleTalonCommunist 2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for Native Land Back Actions, Nature Reserves, Parks and Land deemed critical to an ecosystem or the global climate crisis
@9FK9V5JProgressive2yrs2Y
Yes, but provide shelter and compensation 20% above market price
@9F56JS72yrs2Y
Property should be owned in common.
@9DF9R6C 2yrs2Y
Only under extreme conditions and the owner must be compensated.
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.
@92V2R5N3yrs3Y
All land should be public land.
@8TSWHJ44yrs4Y
Yes, but only people who have a lot of land/resources
@8SSZ8N24yrs4Y
Compensate them well above market price and for public projects in emergencies
No, unless if the owner is severely harming the property and people on/around the property
No, unless it is for public transportation use, and only at greater than market value
@8GPCBFT5yrs5Y
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and the landowners must be compensated above the market value of their property.
@8CZ5SWV5yrs5Y
Yes, but not for an oil pipeline, and do not seize low-income housing.
@975SD493yrs3Y
It depends on multiple things.
The government should be allowed to seize private property, not personal property
@8P6PWZP5yrs5Y
Regardless, we should abolish private property, but respect personal property.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
