More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Democrats
Last answered 5 minutes ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Democrats.
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Feb 10, 2016. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
Learn more about Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is the power of a state or a national government to take private property for public use. However, it can be legislatively delegated by the state 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, that was made possible to a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London. 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. See recent eminent domain news
More stances on this issue
Eminent domain was intended for use during times of war, putting in a dog park or a nature preserve is not a situation equivalent of a national emergency. No the government should not seize private property, as the people are very rarely fairly... 9 months ago from a Democrat in Centreville, MD
The government should be able to offer to purchase any private property they want, but the owner of that private property should not be obligated to sell. 9 months ago from a Democrat in Johnson City, NY
No, except in times of absolute crisis. 9 months ago from a Democrat in Seattle, WA
Yes but the government should pay triple the market value and the use should never be for a private project or profitable use. 9 months ago from a Democrat in Potwin, KS
Add to "as long as landowners..." the qualification that seizure be absolutely necessary and the last resort to reaching whatever the goals are. Seizing homes to build the Massachusetts Turnpike was abhorrent. 30 days notice and $1 was... 9 months ago from a Democrat in Manchester, NH
No, not until the process of approving projects fairly evaluates whether the projects truly benefit the community instead of the corporations that influence / coop the process. For example, members of the FERC board should not be allowed to work for or be... 9 months ago from a Democrat in Seattle, WA
Yes only for public education, recreation, and preservation. Not for profit making industrial ventures or for agencies slated for privitization now or in the future. 9 months ago from a Democrat in Rockville, CT
If the project is for the public good of all the citizens, and not just a few, then property taking should be allowed. However, the compensation to the homeowners should be set by an independent board not connected with the project, or know anyone... 9 months ago from a Democrat in Chicopee, MA
So let's take this and run, Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community, so I've noticed that opens a can of worms. What we are not taking into account is what fair is. It's not fair to be... 9 months ago from a Democrat in Garfield, TX