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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, for extreme cases. This should not include Native American land. That land was already stolen and is all they have left. There are prices to be paid for history, and one of them may mean building AROUND a sacred land. In general, this is a bad idea, but I can see how there may be times that it is necessary. The guidelines should be looked at carefully and voted on by EVERYONE. Not just Congress. The question/bill should not deal with money, but with rights.
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.
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.
only if the government will use that property for GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS/OFFICES or convert the land into PUBLIC PROPERTY that everyone in a community can use. They should not be allowed to get the property and give it away to other organizations(like the Phizer incident). Also, compensation must prioritize in the victim being able to return to their normal lifestyle afterward.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.