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:
@B3LYKST7mos7MO
Yes, if the land owner gives consent of free will and is receives (at minimum) the value of the house at the time of request.
@9W9BJNT11mos11MO
Yes but only in cases of extreme national emergency and if landowners are compensated above fair market value
@9VGHXNX12mos12MO
Only in cases of emergency and if the landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price.
No, unless the government and a landowner come to a specific agreement that compensates the landowner fairly. The land should then be used for a public project, such as a park.
@Jadenstr2yrs2Y
No, the owners of the property should be able to negotiate a price if they would like to
@9DJ7CB4Republican 2yrs2Y
Yes, but only in extreme cases of emergency that requires sudden action (and with fair compensation to the landowner)
@9D759NH2yrs2Y
Yes if the landowner agrees and is compensated at 200% of the market value
@9CKHD8B2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects and only in extreme cases of national emergency
@96CPH9Q3yrs3Y
don't tread on me you are also breaking the 4th amendment
@948S84YIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, as long as the land owners consent and are given fair compensation.
@93RFP8KLibertarian3yrs3Y
Not seize, only lawfully purchase.
@93B43S43yrs3Y
Yes, when safety is the top concern like an incoming dam, or something like that, it benefits the community as public operations, and the owner is adequately compensated as well as an extension to the heirs that lose out on the value gains
@939L39H3yrs3Y
Yes, but the land owner has to agree or the government has to compensate them 200% over market price
@92FGJZ33yrs3Y
Yes, but only if they are compensated drastically above the market price, and only if they consent to the seizure
@8Y9V6MS4yrs4Y
yes, ONLY if landowners agree to it, are fairly compensated & project will directly benefit community. only for public projects, NEVER private
@8XSQ7R94yrs4Y
yes but only if the landowner agrees, is fairly compensated, and the project benefits the community
@8X7LYXY4yrs4Y
No I don't think they should be allowed to seize the land. Although I think they can just make a good offer to get the land.
@8X76MC34yrs4Y
Yes, if the seizure is necessary to the common good
@8WRWJVL4yrs4Y
I think that private poverty should be abolished completely.
Yes, but with adequate safeguards to prevent abuse
@8VQYBZC4yrs4Y
Yes if the land is owned by a foreign country or a corporation business or farm.
@8VQ54VW4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated fairly above the market price to account for inconvenience in accordance with eminent domain.
@8V8SSX2Independent4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if the landowners agree and are compensated drastically.
@8V6VQBK4yrs4Y
Yes, but only for public projects and only if the landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price.
@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
@8S2KSFV4yrs4Y
Yes, that is what the fifth amendment is.
@Nitrotype123454yrs4Y
Only if the transaction is completely voluntary.
@8MZQDZ75yrs5Y
Yes, but only for extreme national emergency, and compensation should be above fair market price based on inconvenience.
@8K4S5DW5yrs5Y
Yes, only if the owner permits it
@8JJK7J85yrs5Y
Yes, the government should be allowed to seize private property of the wealthy as long as it is for the benefit of the community and the community can vote on how it's used.
@8JBLN7P5yrs5Y
Never seize unless its national emergency. But they can use monetary incentives to get what they want.
@8D5XNFX5yrs5Y
@8D4DNLB5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if the landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price and for public works only.
@8CZNHBV5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if necessary to protect national security and the project cannot endanger the environment (i.e. fracking). In addition, the owner much be compensated well above fair market value.
@8CX37PR5yrs5Y
No, unless they're paying the person who's property they're taking.
@8CLLZZ65yrs5Y
This is explicitly permitted by The Constitution. This question should make it clear that it would be a change to The Constitution.
@8CJNH2GIndependent5yrs5Y
Yes, but the Fed must pay top dollar, determined by a third party AND only in extreme cases of national emergency
@9CTBRXZ2yrs2Y
The government should not be able to take people's homes for projects, but businesses and land is fine as long as the compensation is just not only for the value but current cost of replacement.
@9C8NDGPLibertarian2yrs2Y
Such decisions should be decided at the county and municipal levels
@gklewis833yrs3Y
Yes, but only for the following: a) in extreme cases of national emergency, or b) public projects that will benefit the community and never for private projects. The losing landowners must be compensated drastically above fair market price.
@97GJQLG3yrs3Y
The government should not be allowed to seize private property, but maybe they can enter into an agreement to lease the resource from the owner.
@8XWDCTQ4yrs4Y
In extreme circumstances & compensation the owner very comfortably about market price.
@9LHFD3Y1yr1Y
I think so, but the property owner should be allowed to take the matter to civil court and it is there where it should be decided whether or not their property should be seized. The State or Federal government (depending on who is seizing) should cover the cost of said trial, though.
@B5N7P8M 1mo1MO
yes, but only for public projects, not for private ones, and as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects benefit the community.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
