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:
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9FQVGRD1yr1Y
Consider the rancher in Texas that lost his ability to raise cattle because the border wall built on his land seized by eminent domain now blocks the cows’ only access to water. Consider the landowner who lost a portion of their lakefront land for a desalination plant that caused years of noisy construction next to their home, destroyed neighborhood roads, devalued what was left of their property, and took away the hilltop where they had always dreamt they would retire.
@9GDV2M61yr1Y
Eminent domain excuses the removal of people which could destroy communities or property value. Also, if land is taken from those who are impoverished and have nowhere to go, then those people will be at increased risk of homelessness.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
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.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@9FQVGRD1yr1Y
Eminent domain is the the worst form of socialism. For many landowners, their property is their only real asset— the one thing they can rely on later in life to sustain them. It’s value often extends far beyond monetary compensation. The land may have been in their family for generations or perhaps they have future plans for generations that follow them. In some cases, there literally is no adequate dollar amount that would compensate landowners for the loss of their land “for the good of the community.”
@9S9QK82 4mos4MO
“Eminent domain is the the worst form of socialism.”
Y'all just be saying random stuff and don't even know what socialism is, did you really just say "eminent domain is socialism" that makes no goddamn sense, where in any theory does it say that. And even if it is in the older theory that is not what the socialists of today subscribe too.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated above fair market price. There is need for eminent domain, but it should be a extra costly to infringe on rights.
@9GN5KWP1yr1Y
Yes, but only for public and never private projects, if landowners are fairly compensated, if the local environment isn’t compromised, and if any other unoccupied land isn’t available
@44W3J3T4yrs4Y
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.
@44VT3LL4yrs4Y
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.
@44TRJ884yrs4Y
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 thi… Read more
Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.
@95F59842yrs2Y
Private property should not exist
Deleted1yr1Y
@JonBSimConstitution2yrs2Y
That's stupid.
Every time that has been practiced it has ended in disaster.
And no one really believes in abolishing private property, because all humans want things for themselves.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
Yea the disaster is when colonizers/capitalists invade them and ruin their system.
Secondly, yes, a lot of people want to abolish private property, because they recognize that a system founded on private ownership of the means of production is blatantly anti-democratic and detrimental to society. No need to project your own selfish values onto all of humanity.
@TruthHurts1011yr1Y
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Private property, next to life, is our. most valuable right.
@453BVPM4yrs4Y
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.
@453GCX94yrs4Y
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.
@44ZH23B4yrs4Y
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.
@9GZDTYYIndependent1yr1Y
Generally, the government should not seize private property, instead it should be purchased at an agreed price with the individual(s) that own it. The exception would be in extreme situations, such as the owner(s) of the property not paying the relevant taxes, if the land was provided in an agreement with the government in a contract that said that the government could seize it with reasonable compensation when necessary, or if the land was being used by the owner(s) for illegal activities.
@44ZS9ZS4yrs4Y
The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.
@942Q8PF2yrs2Y
No, unless it’s in cases of extreme emergency
@9S2PG434mos4MO
The federal government should be For public and civic use, but only if the following conditions are met. If the previous owners or occupants of the property are well compensated, and if it is only for a project that benefits the whole the public. Ruction of schools, construction of living quarters, construction of medical facilities, construction of Civic Centers, construction of anything that promotes community And benefits the public.
@9QQYVBJ 5mos5MO
Yes, as long as owners are very well compensated, and the government actually goes forward with said project.
@9MFBRSL7mos7MO
Yes, but only for public and never private projects, if the landowners are fairly compensated, and if the local environment isn’t compromised in any way
Yes, but only for public projects, if landowners are fairly compensated, and they consent to the seizure
@8P9N85C4yrs4Y
Private property shouldn’t exist
@9D3RPBQ1yr1Y
All Private property must be abolished.
@985JWL22yrs2Y
Private property is inherently theft
@4523W844yrs4Y
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.
@8GWJ82JRepublican4yrs4Y
@9CL9R231yr1Y
No, but allow in cases of extreme emergency
@8YGYD5Y3yrs3Y
No, only in cases of emergency
Yes, and people owning more than a certain amount of property should not be compensated
@8FHH7K24yrs4Y
@8GRC9XB4yrs4Y
@8MBS6TJ4yrs4Y
@9F7FD8NIndependent1yr1Y
Yes, but only for public projects as a last resort, if the properly owner is compensated above market value, and the project is timely e.g. construction starts within a year not 10 years from when the property is seized
@9F597PF1yr1Y
they should only should be aloud if you owe money or died
@9F4D82W1yr1Y
yes without compansation, private property isn't real
@9F23VQB1yr1Y
Yes, but only if the government has considered all possible alternatives. Compensation should be well above market price.
@9DSJSC51yr1Y
Yes, for necessary, general public use only and reasonable compensation is due the owner.
@9DF9R6C 1yr1Y
Only under extreme conditions and the owner must be compensated.
@9DD79J2Republican1yr1Y
Yes, but only in cases of extreme national emergency & if the owner is compensates drastically above fair market price.
@9D769PB1yr1Y
Not unless all parties consent to the private property, the landowners are fairly compensated, the project benefits the community, and follows climate regulations.
@TonyForCA 1yr1Y
Yes, but only if the landowner consents and only if the landowner is generously compensated
Yes, if they compensate the owner and the need for the land/property if for an important public project to benefit society/the greater good. There should be less private property in general, but no one's possessions should be seized from them.
@7L8WQDLIndependent2yrs2Y
No. only in extreme cases of national emergency and the landowners should be compensated
@cryingleftist3yrs3Y
Yes, unless it belongs to indigenous communities.
@8QQXRXQ4yrs4Y
no they shouldnt unless the land owners anre doing illegal things
@8CL3QHY4yrs4Y
Yes, but only for landmarks and never for energy production or private companies.
@8CJYD294yrs4Y
No, unless it is for and extreme emergency
No, unless the person gained it illegally
@8CC3KYHRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as the government goes through the legal process to do so and grants compensation that is reasonably higher than market value.
@8C8HG8N4yrs4Y
Only if the landowners agree to it and are compensated fairly.
@6K5JPLNLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price and the need for the land is absolutely necessary.
@8XY5DWX3yrs3Y
Yes, even without compensation
@8SHQRBS4yrs4Y
yes, but only if it's for public projects that benefit the community and the landowners and compensated way about what market value would be 10 years from the current moment
@8R5KT5J4yrs4Y
Abolish private property and the state
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and should be on a temporary basis
@9ZY3JHV1wk1W
I agree and disagree, yes but not to certian extents. It can not harm the landowner and the landowner can say no.
@9ZQTJ8HProgressive3wks3W
Yes, but only if the property or money is used appropriately. There should be full transparency where this seized money is utilized and it should go to preventative programs, not in the pockets of officials.
@9ZMB8863wks3W
Yes but ONLY IN matters of true National security and people should be compensated with 3xs the amount of worth
@9ZFRYRD4wks4W
Yes, but the compensation for doing so should never go below market price and should be adjusted based on the amount of kids in school and how long the owners have lived their and how much money has been put into mortgage.
@9ZF56YD1mo1MO
It just depends on who owns the property, in the US we are allowed to own our own property. Now if the government is taking private property for no reason then we have the right to defend it.
@9YL33ZT1mo1MO
Yes but only if a necessity to the area and individual is compensated drastically above market price and provided new property
@9YHCX6DIndependent1mo1MO
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and/or if the landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@9YFHH9P1mo1MO
No, but only in the most extreme circumstances, the landowner needs to be given the choice and fairly compensated and it has to benefit the community
@9YD3GT51mo1MO
I would give full authority to the government to seize everything and if they refuse they get boiled alive in public and eaten as an example to those who are disobedient
@9YCRVWF1mo1MO
Yes, but for extreme cases of emergency and only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price.
@9XXX22B 1mo1MO
Yes, as long as the landowners agree to give up the land, are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
Yes, only if they are able to come to a fair agreement with the landowner on compensation and the project benefits the country.
no, the government shouldn't be allowed to take land from people. they should also have to pay three times the market price.
@Sco12345678Communist 1mo1MO
Yes, but only for corporate and business private property and only for public projects and never for private projects.
@6WRHQKB 1mo1MO
No, unless in extreme cases of national emergency, for public projects that will benefit the community, and only if compensated drastically above fair market price
@9Y23QHQ1mo1MO
Only if the person in possession of the land is well compensated for it and agrees to it or the land is not being of use to them in some way
@9XYL6PH1mo1MO
The government should be allowed to seize private property with above-market price compensation of any foreign entity, for the benefit of the public. The government should be allowed to seize the private property of an American with an above-market price if it can be legally justified as an emergency.
@9XSLPTG1mo1MO
Yes, but only in cases of national emergencies and the landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price.
@9XSJQS81mo1MO
As long as landowners are fairly compensated, and the landowner agrees to the terms, but not under force.
@9XQ8NVV1mo1MO
I agree with two different stances- Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency & No, the government should never be allowed to seize private property. I think if the property were to be returned & reimbursed for any damages or utility usage then I'd be okay with it.
@9XNLQMW1mo1MO
Yes, but only for significantly impactful public and never private projects, if landowners are fairly compensated, if the local environment isn’t compromised, and if any other unoccupied land isn’t available. Needs to go to local public vote
@9XNKP3N 1mo1MO
The only time private property or assets should be seized is by law when specific crimes have been proven by law to be committed.
@9XN7DWD1mo1MO
No, the government should ask to purchase the property for higher than market value but if the owner of the land says no, they should not be able to seize it.
@9XN5WFP1mo1MO
No, only if the property owner has a choice and ensured compensation well over the fair market price, and only in an emergency. There is a good song by Cody Johnson called “Dirt Cheap” exactly about this.
@9XLD34H1mo1MO
Yes, only if it is in an extreme case of national emergency and the landowners are compensated above of fair market price.
@9XJFGGXIndependent 1mo1MO
Eminent Domain – governmental seizing of private property, was established during times of war for use by the military. In the modern day it’s often used to build public roadways and schools.
So yes, it should be allowed during times of national emergency, and public projects. Though the property owner should be compensated well above fair market value taking into account the community increase in value due to said project.
@9XJ5BWK 1mo1MO
Only in extreme cases of national emergency, only for public projects that benefit the community and never for private projects, AND only if landowners are compensated well above fair market price.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
@ISIDEWITH12hrs12H
