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:
@9XSLPTG11mos11MO
Yes, but only in cases of national emergencies and the landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price.
@9KVCKJ62yrs2Y
No, unless the United States is currently fighting a war on it's own soil, and then the land should be returned when the war is over
@9H9FLCNRepublican2yrs2Y
Only for public projects and use, and the landowner should be compensated over the fair market price.
@96DPFJ33yrs3Y
Providing that owners are compensated at LOCAL fair market value and for the loss of any business revenue. Also, only for publicl projects that are approved and voted for by the local population. I could agree with that.
@95DBRJH3yrs3Y
This should only be an outcome for something truly important if it will effect hundred of people because they owner of the land is not letting it happen then i believe you should be able to take the land but only with reasonable compensation and a legal amount to ensure the safety of the needed addition are the owner of the land.
@94GQ8863yrs3Y
yes but with no compensation
@jjdeforest4yrs4Y
Yes, but ONLY if there is a great public need or benefit from taking the property and the owners are compensated above market value, because if they're not wanting to sell, then their property is worth more to them then the monetary value they could receive by selling.
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects are only public and not private, and will have a clear benefit to the community.
@8WQDSV84yrs4Y
Yes, Private property shouldn’t exist
@8S9XTQG4yrs4Y
Only if it is absolutely necessary.
@8RNFDRT5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as the land owners are in full support and are compensated in a way that is satisfactory to them.
@8QHJ4D3Republican5yrs5Y
Unfortunately yes, this is in the Constitution. I do not necessarily agree with it.
@9BZWBVV2yrs2Y
No, not unless the owner allows the government to.
@9BY68472yrs2Y
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects (and) Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price
@996SSFB3yrs3Y
No. Private individuals should be allowed to turn down offers from the government for their private property without recourse. The government can build around private property.
@8T7WF2M4yrs4Y
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.
@8DPD3CN5yrs5Y
The owner has to agree to it other wise no.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
