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:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
@8Q6C4Y44yrs4Y
No, unless the landowner is offered fair compensation and agrees
@IINXMP4yrs4Y
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property without the consent of the owners of the land.
@7H7TDNM4yrs4Y
No, but only in extreme cases of national emergency (like COVID)
@8D5J4RR4yrs4Y
Only if the owners are compensated at slightly above market price and for explicitly PUBLIC USAGE. Not private usage that happens to have public benefit, explicitly public usage for public gain. No companies involved.
@WanderingPagan5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if it is for public projects and as long as the landowners are fairly compensated.
@8L9P7P33yrs3Y
No, unless it's during national emergencies.
@8L9P7P34yrs4Y
No, unless it’s a national emergency.
@8S6JHGR4yrs4Y
@8WMMY793yrs3Y
Yes, but only if the government is willing to pay 10 time the property's value
@8XMFL273yrs3Y
No, unless there is an emergency.
@8Z6PZKW3yrs3Y
No, unless it is for interstate benefit
Join in on more popular conversations.
