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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion