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.
@558YLXV2yrs2Y
the government's ability to seize private property should be dramatically curbed. The use of eminent domain should ONLY be for very limited things that are clearly in the best interest of the nation where the failure to acquire said property would be detrimental to the safety or security of the nation. And when eminent domain is exercised, the owner of the property should be compensated fairly.
@92YHQCV2yrs2Y
Yes, but only A. in extreme cases of national emergency, B. for public projects and never for private projects, & C. if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price, and as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@8ZKNSCP2yrs2Y
No, unless it is used to dismantle organizations like the UN, WHO, NATO, etc.
@8QQ5NLZ2yrs2Y
The government should be allowed to seize private property, not personal property
Deleted2yrs2Y
Yes, unless it is a home or piece of public infrastructure.
@MSelvig2yrs2Y
Refer to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
@925J4Q82yrs2Y
@8ZB6ZXW2yrs2Y
Yes, but with restrictions
@8Z6PZKW2yrs2Y
No, unless it is for interstate benefit
@8YPV9GG2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if landowners are fairly compensated above market rate, and there is a compelling public reason for the seizure.
@8WMMY792yrs2Y
Yes, but only if the government is willing to pay 10 time the property's value
@8L9P7P32yrs2Y
No, unless it's during national emergencies.
@8XMFL272yrs2Y
No, unless there is an emergency.
@8XKPM7B2yrs2Y
If it is land then yes. If its just basic plain old house then no.
@8WRM8ZV3yrs3Y
Yes, only if the home or land owner agrees voluntarily to the selling and seizing of property.
@8WNZXJ43yrs3Y
Only if it is an emergency situation, the building/property is abandoned and not used for anything and there are no plans to yet, and if owners are given compensation for the building, so the government buys it from the owner.
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, but only with the landowner's consent and fair compensation
@8VL9DP43yrs3Y
No, unless it is for environmental protection and preservation.
@8T8CZB43yrs3Y
Yes, but only with permission from the land owner
@8L9P7P33yrs3Y
No, unless it’s a national emergency.
@8SG6GF53yrs3Y
Only after community commissions are brought into the process.
@7C2LD623yrs3Y
Yes, but only if the land hasn't been used in 3 years.
@8S6JHGR3yrs3Y
no, only with a warrant
@8S8BLMN3yrs3Y
No, unless as long as landowners are fairly compensated, the projects will benefit the community, and is not an oil pipeline.
@8S5BPGH3yrs3Y
Yes, but only for public projects, never on reservations, and only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price
@IINXMP3yrs3Y
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property without the consent of the owners of the land.
@8D5J4RR3yrs3Y
Only if the owners are compensated at slightly above market price and for explicitly PUBLIC USAGE. Not private usage that happens to have public benefit, explicitly public usage for public gain. No companies involved.
@47R4XTR3yrs3Y
Yes, but only for civic or government projects at much higher, fairer prices than has been the case and should have to publicly prove need.
@8QNN3CF3yrs3Y
Only if the owner gives consent and is compensated far above market price
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if the owner agrees to it and is compensated above market value.
@8Q6C4Y43yrs3Y
No, unless the landowner is offered fair compensation and agrees
@86LT58K3yrs3Y
Only with owners consent and fair compensation
@8P6PWZP3yrs3Y
Regardless, we should abolish private property, but respect personal property.
@6R6HBQ33yrs3Y
Yes, but only temporarily with reasonable compensation in emergencies
@4XD28G73yrs3Y
No, not unless the landowner has given their consent.
@7H7TDNM3yrs3Y
No, but only in extreme cases of national emergency (like COVID)
@8LG9WPJ3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if the owner of the land is willing to give up the property and what ever is going up doesn't harm the environment, and the homeowners are compensated substantially above market value and paid above and beyond for all relocation expenses.
@8KX67Q94yrs4Y
No, unless it is for a reasonable cause and the landowners are fairly compensated.
@5RY8R2H4yrs4Y
No, but land owners should be offered fair compensation to sell their land to the government if such a project comes up. They should not be forced from their homes by the government for any reason.
@8JGFMG74yrs4Y
Yes. If the private land owner is corrupt.
@8H9VXZQ4yrs4Y
No the city should not be able to take someones house just to build a parking garage, yes if it's for a genuine government use such as the border wall.
@75KRFBJ4yrs4Y
Yes, if landowners are fairly compensated, the project benefits the community, and it is only for public projects, not private
@8G3KWCQ4yrs4Y
Yes, but only with the owner's consent, and proper compensation, and for a project that will benefit the community as a whole.
@WanderingPagan4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if it is for public projects and as long as the landowners are fairly compensated.
