Try the political quiz

1.6k Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

 @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky  agreed…3mos

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property

The most important value a citizen has is private property.

If they want to live in a contaminated house after a chemical spill, that's their right.

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...5yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...7yrs

Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price

@44W3J3Tfrom Maryland  answered…2yrs

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 compensated.

@44VT3LLfrom Connecticut  answered…2yrs

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.

@44ZS9ZSfrom Guam  answered…2yrs

The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.

@453BVPMfrom Georgia  answered…2yrs

I believe that private property belongs to the individual who purchased it. There are very few projects that are so vitally important to the well-being of the community that the seizing of property could be warranted. A compromise can almost always be worked out. Property must NEVER be seized by the government for the purposes of a project being conducted by a private industry.

@44TRJ88from Texas  answered…2yrs

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 like China and demand someone move or destroy their home. I would say for the hassle the government should pay a market rate, not the city's suggested understanding of what your home is worth. That's not a true market rate, it's just whatever the city thinks your house is worth enough to charge you tax on. For example I think I could sell my house for x amount and the city would only pay me y amount, that's not fair. Add into that moving is a pain, it's something no one wants to do. So pay the homeowner what the house is truly worth and add 10% for moving and suffering. Then I guess that's good.

@44ZH23Bfrom North Carolina  answered…2yrs

In principal the government should be allowed to, but given this government's lack of principals on the metaphysical order, its reasons for seizing land most likely would be unjustified, so no.

@452J4KKGreenfrom Florida  answered…2yrs

@4523W84from California  answered…2yrs

Yes, but only when it is a necessity for public health or if the property is in a strategic location that will bring great benefit to the community or if the land is absolutely needed in a time of war.

@453GCX9from Florida  answered…2yrs

No, reasonable compensation suggests that the land is sold; not seized. Just purchase it. I do believe in the exception for expanding roads to a degree. If a fully paved, busy road needs expansion, seizure with compensation should be aloud, but only if voted on by the community.

@9853CK4Progressive from South Carolina answered…11hrs

Yes, but landowners should be allowed to deny the seizure of their land.

@984VSMD from Georgia answered…17hrs

@984QNJ6Independent from Pennsylvania answered…19hrs

Yes, but only if the landowner is compensated drastically above fair market price AND it is for a public project that benefits the community.

@9844ZCZ from Indiana answered…2 days

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property except in the event of a national emergency and the owners of the property are compensated substantially higher than the average market value for the property.

@983TVJS from Ohio answered…2 days

@983SQ6B from Georgia answered…2 days

If the landowners are willing to come to an agreement or contract then that is up to the parties involved. However, without any contract I don't believe it should be allowed from any level.

@983PX5G from Michigan answered…2 days

Yes and the reason why is because the people are getting compensation for their property, eminent domain, and the property is being used to support the citizens.

@983GRX4 from Tennessee answered…3 days

Yes, but only in extreme cases of National emergency and compensated drastically above fair market price

@983G95D from Minnesota answered…3 days

Yes but not if the land is classified as historical or if it is used for conservation

@982TBVY from Indiana answered…3 days

Yes, but only in the event of an emergency and the owners are substantially compensated above market average prices.

@97ZQZWY from Washington answered…5 days

Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects, and land owner should be given fair compensation.

 @David-Cooper from Kentucky answered…6 days

Yes, ONLY if extreme cases of emergency, only public projects, if landowners are given twice what the land is worth, and it benefits the community.

@97ZLYW3 from Arizona answered…6 days

Yes, but should be rare, transparent and subject to much more rigor and discipline

 @David-Cooper-KY from Kentucky answered…6 days

Yes as long as they are compensated well above fair asking price, national emergency, public projects, and it will benefit the community.

@97YYLL2Independent from Florida answered…1wk

No, only if the private property contains illegal contents/paraphernalia, and the person(s) are convicted of a felony charge.

@97YLK3Y from New Jersey answered…1wk

It depends on whether ot not the private property is bieng used in bad ways, i,e holding a nucleur bomb maybe

@97XJFMXIndependent from Florida answered…2wks

Yes, and for whatever the hell they want. This is the literal purpose of Civil government.

@97XB94LDemocratfrom Maine  answered…2wks

Yes, but only in cases of national emergency and if landowners are compensated drastically above the fair market price.

@97XB74FSocialistfrom Virgin Islands  answered…2wks

Yes, and property/wealth that is investigated and determined to be ill begotten should not be compensated

@97X37SP from North Carolina answered…2wks

Only in extreme need and with the landowner being compensated drastically.

@97WXFHG from Missouri answered…2wks

Yes, but only if in extreme cases of national emergency along with the individual who owns the private property; be fairly compensated.

@gklewis83 from Kansas answered…2wks

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.

@97W5VZD from Florida answered…2wks

@97VQ9FM from North Carolina answered…2wks

@97VRQ32 from Pennsylvania answered…2wks

@97TY775 from Kentucky answered…2wks

Yes, but only to use the land as a wildlife refuge, national forest of grassland, national monument, or similar purpose; they should never seize land for the purpose of development, or allow such a seizure to occure.

@97THV8B from Texas answered…2wks

Yes, only for public projects, never private. The property must be compensated at least 15% over market price, and there must be at least 6 months warning prior to displacement.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...