More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Income ($100K-$150K) voters
Last answered 5 years ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Income ($100K-$150K) voters.
Yes, local governments should be allowed to seize land for pulic projects but not for private projects
No, as long as landowners are fairly compensated, local governments should be allowed to seize land for projects that benefit the community
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Dec 29, 2013. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Income data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011).
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
8 years ago by opposingviews.com
8 years ago by thenation.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
More stances on this issue
Yes, private property must be bought for full price and people should not be required to sell. The government should reimburse counties for Public property and the decision to relinquish the land should go before a public hearing. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Simpson, NC
No! Basically taking of private land for public use is unconstitutional, regardless of how often it has been done or of past opinions of the supreme court. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Charlotte, NC
The right of eminent domain is correct but the seizure should be only for public projects and never for private development. Moreover, fair compensation must be provided and the compensation must be determined by an impartial third party and not the... 8 years ago from a Republican in Greensboro, NC
Yes. Government should only be allowed to seize private property for public use. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Mocksville, NC
I see no reason why this is even a thing. If handled correctly, the economy should be able to develop just fine without whatever this is. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Cary, NC
This should be the exception not the rule. A judge from out of the area should make the decision not a good old boy who is someone's friend. 8 years ago from a Republican in Charlotte, NC
Too much land is disappearing. We need to limit businesses to places where it has already been developed. i.e. old bldgs., etc. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Belmont, NC
My property is mine...not the government's. I have paid for the property and paid taxes on it and therefore it is mine to use, or not use, as I see fit. When the government steps in to condemn land for private economic development you can rest... 8 years ago from a Republican in Raleigh, NC
Laws on eminent domain should remain as they are. 8 years ago from a Democrat in Charlotte, NC
Yes, the government should be able to seize public property when national security is a t risk. IE land around possible terrorist targets. However there must be fare reimbursement as well as court approval. 8 years ago from a Libertarian in Arden, NC
No, but they should have to pay a premium to get it. Not just a general appraised amount. Also, if the government agency does not use the property within a set time period it must revert back to previous owner. 8 years ago from a Republican in Charlotte, NC