Try the political quiz

1,000 Replies

@55X4K4VDemocratfrom Maryland  answered…12mos

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.

@563K5LLGreenfrom Florida  answered…12mos

Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.

@55WV4MMDemocratfrom Connecticut  answered…12mos

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.

@55VSK99Democratfrom Texas  answered…12mos

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.

@9XG4HLMSocialist from New York answered…2wks

Yes, but only able to seize private productive property to transition it into a labor managed worker owned firm

@9X9BMTDVeteran from Connecticut answered…3wks

No, unless the government and land owner agree upon a price

@9WPMBNLPeace and Freedom from Utah answered…1mo

@9WL2F9ZWomen’s Equality from Georgia answered…1mo

@9W9YZLRTranshumanist from Virginia answered…2mos

the government should not be able to seize private property without a fair compensation and also the owner of the property should have a say if they agree to it or not

@9W6KTFSAmerican from Minnesota answered…2mos

No it should never be able to seize private property of citizens, the only exception. Would be in case of a National emergency and the owner is compensated 3-5x the market value

@9XJM2RKVeteran from Illinois answered…1wk

Yes, but only as long as the landowners are okay with what the government wants to do with their property.

@9VT7C5MRepublican from Alabama answered…2mos

No, the government should have to buy land like normal citizens

@9VRT7MZSocialist from Michigan answered…3mos

Private property shouldn't be necessary, but as long as it is, private property should only be seized with consent by the owners AND reasonable compensation.

@9VNBJNRConstitution from Virginia answered…3mos

Only if it is necessary for public works projects and the owners of said property are both compensated for double the market value of the land and the owner is given a cut of the money generated by said project.

@9TZX3MQSocialist from Washington answered…5mos

Yes but only in cases of national emergency, if the owners are compensated slightly over fair market price and the project with benefit the community

@9TX9M4MGreen from Illinois answered…5mos

No, unless the nation or state is in peril. and I mean extreme peril.

@9VPY24PWomen’s Equality from California answered…3mos

No, not unless it’s an extreme case or national emergency

@9VJXVL2Independentfrom Virgin Islands  answered…4mos

As far the property was bought by the government I have no problem

@9VB9DZVDemocrat from Illinois answered…4mos

This should not be allowed in neighborhoods that have been redlined in the past or in low income areas. If the project falls through the land should be returned along with additional compensation. This should only be used during times of national emergency.

@9V8XG3NPeace and Freedom from Arkansas answered…4mos

If the owner is compensated much more than the market value and in agreement then the government can have the land, but only if the owner of the property is in agreement.

@9V4Y8FTRepublican from Washington answered…5mos

Yes, but only in very rare instances such as emergencies or projects that are absolutely guaranteed to benefit the community, and as long as the landowners are very fairly compensated

@9TRMWSWVeteran from Texas answered…6mos

yes and no. yes, if they are going to do with the property they promised but also no, as there is family history and the importance of why they are doing it should be determined if it is a priority

@9SN73NWIndependent from California answered…7mos

Yes, but only in rare extreme cases for public emergencies, never for private projects, and only if the land owner is compensated drastically above fair market value.

@9SLHKJGPeace and Freedom from Wisconsin answered…7mos

Yes - but only for public projects and never for private projects - and only after all negotiation efforts between the government and private party have been made to come to an agreement first

@9SBX2KHReform from Ohio answered…8mos

@9SBQPN4Republican from Texas answered…8mos

No. The government shall never be allowed to seize private property. It should participate in fair negotiations.

@9S6VYQZVeteran from Florida answered…8mos

No, I have seen the government abuse this. In most every situation, we need less power to government and more power to people in this country. The government is too corrupt.

@9S3DXPHLibertarian from Florida answered…8mos

Yes, with limits to public need and extraordinary compensation

@9RX2G78Democrat from Missouri answered…8mos

Yes, but only in extreme cases of emergency in which use of the land is vital to public interest, with oversight from a civilian advisory committee/board. Landowners should be compensated above market price

@9RSJZVGConstitution from South Carolina answered…9mos

@9RK2M36Democrat from New York answered…9mos

yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and only for public projects

@9RBQLBNVeteran from Mississippi answered…9mos

Yes, with some caveats. The owner must be compensated above market value. It should only be used in cases of extreme public need and never for private projects.

@9QSHPFBWomen’s Equality from Ohio answered…10mos

no, unless their going to give enough money for the homeowners to buy a new home or live in an apartment or hotel for awhile

@9QP8MB8Independent from Texas answered…11mos

Yes, but only for locally supported projects, and above fair market compensation.

@9QKHXRMGreen from Minnesota answered…11mos

Yes, but only in last resort circumstances that are proven to be for public good.

@9Q7KM79Republican from Michigan answered…11mos

@LunaticNekoPeace and Freedomfrom Northern Mariana Islands  answered…12mos

No. The government may attempt to convince or offer a deal, but they may not coerce or order a seizure.

@9PV9WBCGreenfrom PR  answered…12mos

Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community and said community has been properly consulted and agrees

@9PQDNB3Peace and Freedom from Rhode Island answered…12mos

Yes, if the landowner agrees and is compensated vastly above market value

@9PMH7LBDemocrat from New York answered…12mos

No, not without the property owner’s permission and only after they are confirmed by the government that the land isn’t going to a private project.

@9PFHFCPLibertarian from Wisconsin answered…12mos

No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property without reasonable doubt directly involving the laws and/or government (i.e. tax evasion, tax fraud, etc.).

@9NCT7VKAmerican Solidarity from New Jersey answered…12mos

I think that they should be allowed to do this with the land owner's permission.

@9N885W5Green from Utah answered…12mos

Yes, but only if the landowner agrees and are compensated drastically above fair market price

@9N7BC8TWomen’s Equality from New York answered…12mos

Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price AND there is no choice (not necessarily a national emergency) but to take the land or property after exhausting other options and it is necessary for the safety & benefit of the community.

@9N5WK24Libertarian from Texas answered…12mos

Yes, but only in extreme emergencies, or for public and never private projects. And the landowners are compensated drastically above market price. Also, the projects should absolutely benefit the community.

@9N39JHMRepublican from New Jersey answered…12mos

Only if the owner agrees. Also, they should be only for public projects and be compensated drastically above fair market price.

@9MX98N9Progressive from California answered…12mos

In 1942 Executive Order 9066 was issued and all Japanese Americans were rounded up and placed in American concentration camps. All their property was seized. This should NEVER happen again. These were American citizens that committed no crime. Just because of the heritage and the color of their skin and shape of their eyes, they were excommunicated to desert camps. This is one if America's darkest mistakes. No. The government is a service organization.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...