Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 10yrs agoActive 2yrs ago

Should the government be allowed to seize private property, with reasonable compensation, for public or civic use?

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.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 337k America voters.

41%
Yes
59%
No
21%
Yes
54%
No
6%
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
5%
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property
5%
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency
0%
No, unless it is for an oil pipeline project
5%
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects
4%
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 337k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 337k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8JCJLWV from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

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.

 @9GN5KWP from North Carolina  answered…3yrs3Y

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

 @44W3J3Tfrom Maryland  answered…6yrs6Y

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.

 @44VT3LLfrom Connecticut  answered…6yrs6Y

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.

 @44TRJ88from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

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

 @95F5984 from Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

Private property should not exist

 @452J4KKfrom Florida  answered…6yrs6Y

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

 @453BVPMfrom Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

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.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Eminent Domain” news articles, updated frequently.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1yr1Y

Biden bans new offshore oil drilling along most of US coastline

President Joe Biden announced a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling along most of the US coastline on Monday in a move designed to bolster his environmental and climate legacy as he prepares to leave office.The order will protect 625mn acres of ocean on the US east coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, as well as portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska, the White House said on Monday.“My decision reflects what the coastal communities, business and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs,” Biden said.The executive action will not prevent oil and gas companies obtaining leases in the central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico, areas that produce almost 15 per cent of the nation’s oil supplies. Nevertheless, the move is expected to complicate the policy agenda of incoming president Donald Trump, who has vowed to “drill, baby, drill” and boost US oil production, even though it is already at a record level.The Trump transition team said it was a disgraceful decision designed to exact “political revenge on the American people” and the incoming president said he would immediately “unban” Biden’s prohibition on new offshore drilling.“I have the right to unban it immediately . . . we can’t let that happen to our country. It’s our greatest, it’s really our greatest economic asset,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in an interview on Monday.Biden’s action will probably be challenged by the oil industry in court and face pushback from Republicans in Congress. But overturning the order could prove challenging and may require an act of Congress, according to legal experts.Biden is using his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, to protect the areas from drilling — the same mechanism which former president Barack Obama used previously to ban offshore drilling in some Arctic and Atlantic waters in 2016.In 2019, a federal judge ruled that an executive order by former president Donald Trump that lifted an Obama-era ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawful.

▲  1910 replies