More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Republicans
Last answered 5 days ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Republicans.
No, as long as landowners are fairly compensated, local governments should be allowed to seize land for projects that benefit the community
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 29, 2013. 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)
3 years ago by opposingviews.com
3 years ago by thenation.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals 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.
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
Yes, local governments should be allowed to seize land for public projects when no other avenue is available. This seizure must not in any way benefit any private project. Additionally compensation for this land must be at minimum double the appraised... 3 years ago from a Republican in Albemarle, NC
The right of eminent domain is correct but the seizure should be only for public projects and never for private development. Moreover, fair compensation must be provided and the compensation must be determined by an impartial third party and not the... 3 years ago from a Republican in Greensboro, NC
This should be the exception not the rule. A judge from out of the area should make the decision not a good old boy who is someone's friend. 3 years ago from a Republican in Charlotte, NC
I have never agreed with imminent domain policies. I have seen whole families who for generations have lived in the same houses be forced to move for so called progress. 3 years ago from a Republican in Bridgeton, NC
My property is mine...not the government's. I have paid for the property and paid taxes on it and therefore it is mine to use, or not use, as I see fit. When the government steps in to condemn land for private economic development you can rest... 3 years ago from a Republican in Raleigh, NC
Each case is different and has to be looked out with input from Public and Private concerns. 3 years ago from a Republican in Clemmons, NC
No, but they should have to pay a premium to get it. Not just a general appraised amount. Also, if the government agency does not use the property within a set time period it must revert back to previous owner. 3 years ago from a Republican in Charlotte, NC