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:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
@6WRHQKB 7mos7MO
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
@9V62R46Peace and Freedom8mos8MO
Yes, as long as the person who owns it agrees and the landowners are fairly compensated or if it is national emergency and there is no other option but if that is done where it is seized because of national emergency, if possible, compensate them for such being done.
@9JTJWZ5 1yr1Y
Yes (ideally), and also, a video has helped me change my perspective on private property. I even think small, individual-owned businesses should hold stocks. "Medium" and "large" anything should be replaced by smaller ethnic/religion-based supermarkets. Schools should be public; I don't believe in Christian or charter "schools", but do believe the classes should be taken as electives. video has helped me change my perspective on private property. I even think small, individual-owned businesses should hold stocks. "Medium" and "large" anyt… Read more
maybe depending on the compensation
Not really informed on this topic
@9G89WMKRepublican2yrs2Y
No, but only in cases that the owner of the property is allowing it and is compensated drastically above fair market prices.
@9C652BM2yrs2Y
Only for land owned by big corporations.
Yes, with a large owner compensation and permission, or by force if others are at risk.
Yes, as long as the property isn't being utilized for a person's personal needs
@8T2MXW5Independent4yrs4Y
Only in times of domestic war.
@8S9XTQG4yrs4Y
Only if it is absolutely necessary.
The government should be allowed to aggressively negotiate or offer well above market value but they should never be able to just come in and see somebody's property
Only in extreme cases of an emergency but the land owner should be compensated
I'm Neutral but I think it just depends on the situation.
@Giratina3274yrs4Y
Yes, but only ever for public projects and the owners should be compensated drastically above fair market price.
No only if it is for a reasonable use and they pay for it not just take.
Yes in extreme emergency’s and the owners must be comensated at least more than 4x the amount of the property value.
@989R4YK2yrs2Y
Yes, unless the private property serves the purpose of wildlife preservation or is under Native American control.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
