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:
@6K5JPLNLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price and the need for the land is absolutely necessary.
@9XHVPPWLibertarian6mos6MO
No. The government should be allowed to ask to purchase land from landowners, but the landowners should be free to set their own price and exercise their right to refuse sale to the government.
@9LP26VZLibertarian 1yr1Y
No, but the government should be allowed to make an offer to people living on private property on land that the government wishes to use.
@9LGNC6KLibertarian1yr1Y
Yes, but only for land preservation, fish/widlife management, and to open up landlocked parcels of public land
@9HLC85JLibertarian 1yr1Y
No, the government cannot seize private property regardless of national emergency. As this would be against the 5th amendments "Takings Clause".
@9DCZNWFLibertarian2yrs2Y
The Constitution allows the government to do this but it needs to be amended to abolish eminent domain.
@8G592W7Libertarian5yrs5Y
No, but landowners should be allowed to entertain fair and reasonable offers
@8DGNL4DLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, but only in the case of "abandoned" large properties such as malls and warehouses, not residences.
@8NNG93QLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes as long as the owner is compensated fairly above the value of the land and if they agree, or only in extreme cases of national emergency.
@93RFP8KLibertarian3yrs3Y
Not seize, only lawfully purchase.
@93FGVJXLibertarian3yrs3Y
If imminent domain is necessary then the government should pay as much as tripple the accessed value of the property in qustion.
@938RZ74Libertarian3yrs3Y
Only if they have a good, thought-out reason
@8ZMR3LHLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, the government should never be allowed to seize private property except in cases of national security emergencies.
@8ZBFPT7Libertarian3yrs3Y
Depends on the circumstances and never without fair market value compensation
@8XXXR76Libertarian3yrs3Y
Only for eminent domain when required for public infrastructure such as roads, schools, or utilities, (not to give land to big developers for increased tax revenue); or yes when land is seized after use in certain types of criminal activities.mm
@8XQ357CLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, unless there is no other option and it is absolutely necessary
@8W5PTR2Libertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically about fair market price for the immense inconvenience of uprooting their lives and being forced to move.
@8VHZ9WQLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, unless they pay the property-owner a fair amount.
@8V6ZKVKLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes. But only the property of Progressives and Leftists.
@8V3T648Libertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as compensation is above average market value. Civil forfeiture should be illegal in all but extreme cases.
@8THQDWMLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, but only for public projects with drastic compensation
@glev143Libertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, that is part of the 5th amendment
@8SZ99VZLibertarian4yrs4Y
Only if the landowner consents.
@8SK5M9BLibertarian4yrs4Y
Only in the case of use for criminal activity
@8S369C6Libertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, with at to above market compensation and only for public projects.
@8RYZFYKLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if they have the private owner’s permission.
@8RXXK2BLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, the government can make offers but not downright take it
@8QLBLKZLibertarian4yrs4Y
No unless due process has been done first.
@8Q7H2PPLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, as long as landowners are compensated at 1.5 times the market value, the land is used for public projects only and the projects will benefit the community
@8PFKGKNLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, unless with agreement or consent from the landowners.
@8LTQZ5SLibertarian5yrs5Y
Only if the land owner agrees to this and the land is purchased by the government
@8KM79QNLibertarian5yrs5Y
The government should only be allowed to seize PRIVATE property with due cause after due process.
@8JT3DLBLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, this is a necessary power, but landowners must be given amounts considerably above fair market value and only for public projects with considerable community agreement on utility and necessity. Landowners should be given a say and the majority should be in concurrence where feasible.
@8H6CPSBLibertarian5yrs5Y
only after a guilty verdict, in a court. Government should not be allowed to take away, your financial ability to defend yourself in court, when you have not even been proven guilty.
@DiplomaticLibertarian5yrs5Y
Under eminent domain, this is fair, however they must have compensation in return. Compensation will only not be present in emergency situations where the landowners have wrongly used their lands.
@8F8B3TZLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as it is needed for safety reasons. No if the government wants that land for its own use.
@9D23RGWLibertarian2yrs2Y
Only if landowner accepts.
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but only State governments, and governments must the buy land for fair market value like any other private corporation
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but the only State governments, and governments must the buy land for fair market value like any other private corporation
@9C8NDGPLibertarian2yrs2Y
Such decisions should be decided at the county and municipal levels
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but the only State governments, and governments must the buy land for fair market value
@9B8TT23Libertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but if the property is the owners primary residence, it must provide services to find an equivalent or better property, and they must be compensated substantially more than the value of the property.
@84ZWD6LLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but the government must the buy land for fair market value
@989ZRYJLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price AND if any future income/monies are produced from that property in the future, the landowner and heirs, must be given a fair percentage. Additionally, before the government can take any property, the landowner must be given sufficient time to try and locate a buyer to sell at a higher profit margin, or the government can then meet or surpass that amount. This will end the theft of properties that has been happening here for generations. And IF the property ever is destroyed, it returns to the original landowner or heirs. If to be sold, first option must go back to the original landowner or heirs at the original price paid when the government forced the eminent domain.
@96SVQM9Libertarian3yrs3Y
Only if it is owned by a business & they should be compensated fairly, not over market value. Especially in cases of land preservation. Individual property owners should never have property seized by the government.
@9446422Libertarian3yrs3Y
The government may do so only in a case of national emergency and the property owner can set the price, even if the price they set is above market value.
@8R2CWNGLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes, with limits to public need and extraordinary compensation
@8M4VHZ3Libertarian5yrs5Y
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.
@8D5J4RRLibertarian4yrs4Y
Only if the owners are compensated at slightly above market price and for explicitly PUBLIC USAGE. Not private usage that happens to have public benefit, explicitly public usage for public gain. No companies involved.
Yes, but only if it is for public projects and as long as the landowners are fairly compensated.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
