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:
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9FQVGRD2yrs2Y
Consider the rancher in Texas that lost his ability to raise cattle because the border wall built on his land seized by eminent domain now blocks the cows’ only access to water. Consider the landowner who lost a portion of their lakefront land for a desalination plant that caused years of noisy construction next to their home, destroyed neighborhood roads, devalued what was left of their property, and took away the hilltop where they had always dreamt they would retire.
@9GDV2M62yrs2Y
Eminent domain excuses the removal of people which could destroy communities or property value. Also, if land is taken from those who are impoverished and have nowhere to go, then those people will be at increased risk of homelessness.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
The most important value a citizen has is private property.
If they want to live in a contaminated house after a chemical spill, that's their right.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@9FQVGRD2yrs2Y
Eminent domain is the the worst form of socialism. For many landowners, their property is their only real asset— the one thing they can rely on later in life to sustain them. It’s value often extends far beyond monetary compensation. The land may have been in their family for generations or perhaps they have future plans for generations that follow them. In some cases, there literally is no adequate dollar amount that would compensate landowners for the loss of their land “for the good of the community.”
@9S9QK82 9mos9MO
“Eminent domain is the the worst form of socialism.”
Y'all just be saying random stuff and don't even know what socialism is, did you really just say "eminent domain is socialism" that makes no goddamn sense, where in any theory does it say that. And even if it is in the older theory that is not what the socialists of today subscribe too.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency
@ISIDEWITH7yrs7Y
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects
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.
@9GN5KWP2yrs2Y
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
@44W3J3T5yrs5Y
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.
@44VT3LL5yrs5Y
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.
@44TRJ885yrs5Y
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
@95F59843yrs3Y
Private property should not exist
Deleted2yrs2Y
Respectfully, drive inside a Iake
@JonBSimConstitution3yrs3Y
That's stupid.
Every time that has been practiced it has ended in disaster.
And no one really believes in abolishing private property, because all humans want things for themselves.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
Yea the disaster is when colonizers/capitalists invade them and ruin their system.
Secondly, yes, a lot of people want to abolish private property, because they recognize that a system founded on private ownership of the means of production is blatantly anti-democratic and detrimental to society. No need to project your own selfish values onto all of humanity.
@TruthHurts1012yrs2Y
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Private property, next to life, is our. most valuable right.
Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.
@453BVPM5yrs5Y
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.
@453GCX95yrs5Y
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.
@44ZH23B5yrs5Y
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.
@9GZDTYYIndependent1yr1Y
Generally, the government should not seize private property, instead it should be purchased at an agreed price with the individual(s) that own it. The exception would be in extreme situations, such as the owner(s) of the property not paying the relevant taxes, if the land was provided in an agreement with the government in a contract that said that the government could seize it with reasonable compensation when necessary, or if the land was being used by the owner(s) for illegal activities.
@44ZS9ZS5yrs5Y
The government is required under Constitutional law to receive permission from the states before it can own land.
@942Q8PF3yrs3Y
No, unless it’s in cases of extreme emergency
@9S2PG439mos9MO
The federal government should be For public and civic use, but only if the following conditions are met. If the previous owners or occupants of the property are well compensated, and if it is only for a project that benefits the whole the public. Ruction of schools, construction of living quarters, construction of medical facilities, construction of Civic Centers, construction of anything that promotes community And benefits the public.
@9QQYVBJ 10mos10MO
Yes, as long as owners are very well compensated, and the government actually goes forward with said project.
@9MFBRSL12mos12MO
Yes, but only for public and never private projects, if the landowners are fairly compensated, and if the local environment isn’t compromised in any way
Yes, but only for public projects, if landowners are fairly compensated, and they consent to the seizure
@8P9N85C4yrs4Y
Private property shouldn’t exist
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
All Private property must be abolished.
@985JWL22yrs2Y
Private property is inherently theft
@4523W845yrs5Y
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.
@8GWJ82JRepublican5yrs5Y
@9CL9R232yrs2Y
No, but allow in cases of extreme emergency
@8YGYD5Y3yrs3Y
No, only in cases of emergency
@8XXKY783yrs3Y
NO because it's private property for a reason
Yes, and people owning more than a certain amount of property should not be compensated
@8FHH7K25yrs5Y
@8GRC9XB5yrs5Y
@8MBS6TJ5yrs5Y
@9F7FD8NIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, but only for public projects as a last resort, if the properly owner is compensated above market value, and the project is timely e.g. construction starts within a year not 10 years from when the property is seized
@9F597PF2yrs2Y
they should only should be aloud if you owe money or died
@9F4D82W2yrs2Y
yes without compansation, private property isn't real
@9F23VQB2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if the government has considered all possible alternatives. Compensation should be well above market price.
@9DSJSC52yrs2Y
Yes, for necessary, general public use only and reasonable compensation is due the owner.
@9DF9R6C 2yrs2Y
Only under extreme conditions and the owner must be compensated.
@9DD79J2Republican2yrs2Y
Yes, but only in cases of extreme national emergency & if the owner is compensates drastically above fair market price.
@9D769PB2yrs2Y
Not unless all parties consent to the private property, the landowners are fairly compensated, the project benefits the community, and follows climate regulations.
@TonyForCA 2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if the landowner consents and only if the landowner is generously compensated
Yes, if they compensate the owner and the need for the land/property if for an important public project to benefit society/the greater good. There should be less private property in general, but no one's possessions should be seized from them.
@7L8WQDLIndependent3yrs3Y
No. only in extreme cases of national emergency and the landowners should be compensated
@cryingleftist3yrs3Y
Yes, unless it belongs to indigenous communities.
@8QQXRXQ4yrs4Y
no they shouldnt unless the land owners anre doing illegal things
@8CL3QHY5yrs5Y
Yes, but only for landmarks and never for energy production or private companies.
@8CJYD295yrs5Y
No, unless it is for and extreme emergency
No, unless the person gained it illegally
@8CC3KYHRepublican5yrs5Y
Yes, as long as the government goes through the legal process to do so and grants compensation that is reasonably higher than market value.
@8C8HG8N5yrs5Y
Only if the landowners agree to it and are compensated fairly.
@6K5JPLNLibertarian5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price and the need for the land is absolutely necessary.
@8XY5DWX3yrs3Y
Yes, even without compensation
@8SHQRBS4yrs4Y
yes, but only if it's for public projects that benefit the community and the landowners and compensated way about what market value would be 10 years from the current moment
@8R5KT5J4yrs4Y
Abolish private property and the state
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and should be on a temporary basis
@B59BN3Q4 days4D
Yes but only in extreme cases of national interest, and only when landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price
@B57P8KDIndependent6 days6D
Yes, as long as it is optional, and landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
@B56VPVT7 days7D
I am a mix of stances. Yes, but only if proper compensation is given (or new land or a new building for the private property owners), and the project is beneficial to the community, not a private or exclusive service.
@B4ZZBJL2wks2W
Yes, but not individually-owned properties such as homes & family farms, & non-profit organizations. For-profit businesses should not be able to refuse eminent domain (with market-value compensation)
for the public good, but individuals should have priority claim over land they've worked hard to secure for their descendants.
@B4X7B782wks2W
Yes, in compliance with the concept of Eminent Domain by justly compensating and using only for public works, and the owner may refuse
@B4WY66L2wks2W
Yes, Only in extreme cases of national emergency, only for public projects, and the land owners should be compensated at what the land owner deems fair.
@B4S4QRZ3wks3W
Yes, but condemnation must be for public use. If the "public use" is merely private development, the government may not condemn occupied residential properties so as to cause dispossession of the residence.
Yes only if it's private company land or non U.S citizen owned land. Any seizure of Civilian owned land should be considered an invasion and should give permission to that civilian to kill anyone who tries to forcefully move them.
@B4HWL3L1mo1MO
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency and it is returned as close to its original state as possible
@B4FNL7M1mo1MO
eminent domain should be used very sparingly and only for genuine public benefit, not for private development; compensation should be truly fair and just
@B4FCJW4Republican1mo1MO
No, for the sake of the constitution, the 3rd amendment, freedom, federalism, weak government, checks and balances, and privacy.
@B4D6KHP1mo1MO
No, for the sake of capitalism, freedom, federalism, privacy, weak government, checks and balances, the constitution, and the 3rd amendment.
@B4B7TKS1mo1MO
Ban Private Property and make all property Socialized and give the people the choice on how their land is used collectively.
@B495CNV1mo1MO
Yes, only if the homeowner agrees to it, they are fairly compensated, and the project is shown that it will benefit the community
The government shouldn't be allowed to seize the private property of a low-income individual/the government should only seize the private property of corporations and wealthy individuals in the process of redistributing wealth
The government should not be allowed to seize property, however with the landlords consent they can purchase the property for more than market price
@B3ZYM5D2mos2MO
No, for the sake of freedom, the constitution, the 3rd Amendment, checks and balances, weak government, and federalism, the government should not be allowed to
@B3ZT5LW2mos2MO
Yes, but only from corporations and not individuals. The government needs to start using eminent domain to seize drug patents when companies refuse to sell drugs for reasonable rates.
@B3WW7ZX2mos2MO
Yes, but only if it is used to build projects that directly and indirectly benefits the community, such as public transit or social housing, and the government must rebuild a home exactly like it somewhere of the former owner's choosing in the country. The government should never use imminent domain to benefit corporations, companies, businesses, landlords, politicians, or investors.
@B3VGV2T 2mos2MO
Yes, under the principle of eminent domain, the government can seize private property for public or civic use, provided it provides "just compensation" to the property owner, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Eminent Domain:
The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause states, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". This is the legal basis for the government's power of eminent domain, which allows it to seize private property for public use.
Public Use:
The… Read more
@B3VNH2P 2mos2MO
Only in case of a national emergency and with a drastically above fair market price payout and a reason
@B3RQ4ZM2mos2MO
Yes, as long as the landowners agree to the seizure, are reasonably compensated, and it's for public projects
@B3LYKST2mos2MO
Yes, if the land owner gives consent of free will and is receives (at minimum) the value of the house at the time of request.
@B3K339R2mos2MO
Yes, only in extreme cases and if landowners are compensated by at least double of fair market price
@B3H4K522mos2MO
Yes, if there is an extreme national emergency and if the rightful owners are compensated drastically above fair market price. After the emergency has ended, the land should be returned immediately.
@B3FWT3M2mos2MO
If it is proven that there is no better use for the land and its nit taking away from someone it may harm it could be ok.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
