Try the political quiz

612 Replies

@563K5LLGreenfrom Florida  answered…3mos

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

@55VSK99Democratfrom Texas  answered…3mos

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.

@55WV4MMDemocratfrom Connecticut  answered…3mos

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.

@55X4K4VDemocratfrom Maryland  answered…3mos

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.

@5634X95Greenfrom California  answered…3mos

Yes, but only when it is a necessity for public health or if the property is in a strategic location that will bring great benefit to the community or if the land is absolutely needed in a time of war.

@564HDYBLibertarianfrom Florida  answered…3mos

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.

@562J34CGreenfrom North Carolina  answered…3mos

In principal the government should be allowed to, but given this government's lack of principals on the metaphysical order, its reasons for seizing land most likely would be unjustified, so no.

@564CWQNRepublicanfrom Georgia  answered…3mos

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.

@562TC2TRepublicanfrom Guam  answered…3mos

The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.

@9RK2M36Democrat from New York answered…4 days

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

@9RBQLBNVeteran from Mississippi answered…2wks

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…2mos

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

@9H8DPJWWomen’s Equality from Florida answered…3mos

Only for public projects that will benefit the community where landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price.

@9H86VL4Republicanfrom Maine  answered…3mos

No, the only time the government may seize private property is in case of a crime where this property (RealEstate or otherwise) was involved in the crime or is able to cover the damages to victim(s) of said crime.

@9H6P9KPSocialist from Ohio answered…3mos

No, they should only be allowed to ask for said property, at well above fair market price, and if told no, too bad.

@9H6CVBMSocialist from Minnesota answered…3mos

Neither the government nor private landowners should have the ability to seize property. Property use rights should be negotiated with the nearest Nation.

@9H6C3H5Working Family from New York answered…3mos

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.

@9H4X266Communist from Pennsylvania answered…3mos

Yes, the government should be able to seize private property. This seizure should not be compensated as private property is immoral.

@9H2D6LVWomen’s Equality from North Carolina answered…3mos

I feel that I do not know enough about this topic to contribute an answer.

@9GXM5C8Women’s Equality from Texas answered…3mos

Yes, but they can only do so when having legal reasoning papers to show the landowners what they want to do and they have to have the landowners consent and sign the paper and a fair price to do so.

@9GVY5GTTranshumanist from Colorado answered…3mos

No, unless the property title is condemned or through regulations that take uses, leaving the title with the owner.

@9G4NJKBSocialist from New York answered…3mos

No, unless it is necessary to protect the lives and/or health of the property owner.

@9FN3M3GPeace and Freedom from Illinois answered…3mos

@9QP8MB8Independent from Texas answered…2mos

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

@9QKHXRMGreen from Minnesota answered…2mos

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

@9Q7KM79Republican from Michigan answered…2mos

@LunaticNekoPeace and Freedomfrom Northern Mariana Islands  answered…3mos

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

@9PV9WBCGreenfrom PR  answered…3mos

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…3mos

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

@9PMH7LBDemocrat from New York answered…3mos

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…3mos

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…3mos

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

@9N885W5Green from Utah answered…3mos

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

@9N7BC8TWomen’s Equality from New York answered…3mos

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…3mos

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…3mos

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…3mos

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.

@9MTNJHWDemocrat from Connecticut answered…3mos

Yes, but as long as the land is used for public project that are accesible to everyone and the landowner is fairly compensate

@9MSTDDJIndependent from Virginia answered…3mos

Yes but only with explicit permission and an agreed amount of compensation.

@Mark-AngelotSocialist from Maryland answered…3mos

@9MK6D8BPeace and Freedom from Ohio answered…3mos

No, if its Native American land other than that only in cases of national emergency

@9M6NWWNProgressive from California answered…3mos

I cannot form an opinion on this because I do not know much.

@9M4QPVTIndependent from South Carolina answered…3mos

@9LYJ6KHAmerican Solidarity from Texas answered…3mos

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.

@9LVWHXTProgressive from Virginia answered…3mos

Yes, but only in a very small number of cases and the landowner should be drastically compensated well above market value and the project must benefit the community and never be for private projects

@popemdWomen’s Equality from Tennessee answered…3mos


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...