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.
40% Yes |
60% No |
21% Yes |
55% No |
6% Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community |
4% No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property |
5% Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects |
0% No, unless it is for an oil pipeline project |
5% Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency |
|
3% Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price |
See how support for each position on “Eminent Domain” has changed over time for 1.2m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Eminent Domain” has changed over time for 1.2m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@8JCJLWV3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated above fair market price. There is need for eminent domain, but it should be a extra costly to infringe on rights.
@44W3J3T3yrs3Y
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.
@44TRJ883yrs3Y
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 thi… Read more
@44VT3LL3yrs3Y
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.
@9GN5KWP6mos6MO
Yes, but only for public and never private projects, if landowners are fairly compensated, if the local environment isn’t compromised, and if any other unoccupied land isn’t available
@452J4KK3yrs3Y
Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Eminent Domain” news articles, updated frequently.
@TroubledP0pularVot33mos3MO
California state lawmakers introduced a slate of reparations bills on Wednesday, including a proposal to restore property taken by “race-based” cases of eminent domain and a potentially unconstitutional measure to provide state funding for “specific groups.”The package marks…
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Active 9mins agoLast Spring the U.S. Senate defeated The Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act by a vote of 58-38. The act, proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would lower the interest rate on existing student loans from 7% to 3.86%. The act would be financed by levying a mandatory income tax of 30%…
