• Yes, I think they should

    I think the states and government in general should be allowed to pursue anything that brings a better idea or subject to the people,but if it doesn't there need to be checks and balances put into place. I can't stand when favors are made in the name of the corrupt.

  • Never. No way.

    If land belongs to someone else- LEAVE IT ALONE! To take land and give "just compensation" and use it for another private gain is to prosper at the expense of another. In other words un American. The government is comprised of our equals not our superiors. Why should someone have the power to take someone else's property because their job gives them the right? What makes them more powerful than the property owner? Working for a corrupt government somehow makes their need Superior?

  • A licence to steal.

    There are several instances where eminent domain is used to build parks and business development, And the city never does anything with the land after they aquire or it goes to crap. The government is never to be trusted with anything, And only exists to serve the people. Not steal from them.

  • Emminent domain isn't license to steal

    Eminent domain should not be used by the state to promote private enterprise Eminent domain is a legal maneuver that should be used much less often than it is currently used. It should only be used in situations where there is absolutely no alternatives available, and then only is situations where the public good is unambiguous.

  • No, absolutely not

    Eminent domain laws are some of the most disgusting I've ever seen. And do you know where they started? With the Native Americans. The US government saw resources on their land and decided it was their right to take it in order to better the union. You don't just take someone's land.

  • No, eminent domain should not be used to promote private enterprise.

    Eminent domain should only be used in the most extreme circumstances. Things like public utilities or roadways qualify for eminent domain, though only when all other alternatives have been exhausted. Seizing property from one citizen to give (or sell) it to another is not ethical or just, regardless of how much the surrounding community could benefit economically.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.