No. They should at least get permission, it's not their property. It defeats the purpose of calling it "private property" The "compensation" only shows that it's possible to break rules if money is involved, that's not something they should be promoting.
Yes I agree with the concept of Eminent Domain, however there should be limitations. If the private property that is being taken is being used for a good purpose and is being payed for correctly then it is justified. However, there should be limitations to how much private property the government can seize so the concept of private property does not go away.
I agree with Eminent Domain because the government uses this concept for the greater good of the people. In most cases, Eminent Domain is claimed by the government when making space for roads, or making them wider. Other cases include space for government buildings and data centers. Private property on the land/area is seized by the government so they can build the road and/or property on it. Eminent Domain also isn't a bad deal for the property owner, as they receive a handsome compensation most of the time.
No. Public seizure of private property is an injustice. Eminent domain is effectively government confiscation of an individual's property, which is nearly impossible to justify. The government should be for the people, not the other way around.
I think that eminent domain is one of the only flaws in the U.S. constitution and that it doesn't have much benefit to it, and that there is a better system. I do not agree with this concept because it's saying that eminent domain allows for the Federal government to take your land.
I think that eminent domain is okay but there needs to be limitations on what the government can take. I think that private property should only be able to be taken if it is for a good cause and there must be a suitable compensation. In addition the governments use of eminent domain should be limited to only a certain amount of property
I feel that the government meant well by doing this to prevent conflicts but on the other hand I completely disagree with the policy. There are many situations where people can take advantage of this and abuse it.
Yes, I agree with the concept of Eminent Domain because in many cases the government needs the land for particular use. Although, I do think there should be some limitations on how much private property they can seize like a quota, maximum, or for emergencies. Also, something worth mentioning is that the fifth amendment protects the people that own that private property, for the government has to "justly" compensate what they seize.
I believe that eminent domain is vital in the society we live in.Though it may be unfortunate to be kicked out of your own property, you would be compensated. Without eminent domain we would face many dilemmas when it came to growth in this country (i.e. highway systems and city expansion).
no i do not, the purpose of private property is that is belongs to you and the government should not be able to take that away.the compensation is a plus but they should not be able to take it without getting permission from the land owner.
I do not agree with the concept of eminent domain. That property is rightfully owned by an individual and the government shouldn't be allowed to take it because there is money involved. That just goes to show how corrupt society has become if there is a compensation for taking another's privately owned property.
I do agree with the concept of eminent domain in certain situations, such as expanding parks or roads for the benefit of citizens. However, eminent domain can easily be abused, especially in the case of Kelo v. New London, where the Supreme Court ruled that the land could be taken for "public use." This allowed the city of New London to use eminent domain to take private land and give it to another private owner, a developer, who, in the end, wasn't able to secure funding and left the lot empty for years.
I do not agree with the idea of eminent domain. Private property should not be unwillingly sold to the government for public use. Though it may be logical in some situations, it is unconstitutional.
No.
ReplyDeleteThey should at least get permission, it's not their property.
It defeats the purpose of calling it "private property"
The "compensation" only shows that it's possible to break rules if money is involved, that's not something they should be promoting.
Yes I agree with the concept of Eminent Domain, however there should be limitations. If the private property that is being taken is being used for a good purpose and is being payed for correctly then it is justified. However, there should be limitations to how much private property the government can seize so the concept of private property does not go away.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eminent Domain because the government uses this concept for the greater good of the people. In most cases, Eminent Domain is claimed by the government when making space for roads, or making them wider. Other cases include space for government buildings and data centers. Private property on the land/area is seized by the government so they can build the road and/or property on it. Eminent Domain also isn't a bad deal for the property owner, as they receive a handsome compensation most of the time.
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeletePublic seizure of private property is an injustice. Eminent domain is effectively government confiscation of an individual's property, which is nearly impossible to justify. The government should be for the people, not the other way around.
I think that eminent domain is one of the only flaws in the U.S. constitution and that it doesn't have much benefit to it, and that there is a better system. I do not agree with this concept because it's saying that eminent domain allows for the Federal government to take your land.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree. I believe that you have the right to property and you should be able to own property without the government forcing in away from you.
ReplyDeleteI think that eminent domain is okay but there needs to be limitations on what the government can take. I think that private property should only be able to be taken if it is for a good cause and there must be a suitable compensation. In addition the governments use of eminent domain should be limited to only a certain amount of property
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government meant well by doing this to prevent conflicts but on the other hand I completely disagree with the policy. There are many situations where people can take advantage of this and abuse it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the concept of Eminent Domain because in many cases the government needs the land for particular use. Although, I do think there should be some limitations on how much private property they can seize like a quota, maximum, or for emergencies. Also, something worth mentioning is that the fifth amendment protects the people that own that private property, for the government has to "justly" compensate what they seize.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the concept of eminent domain. When the government needs private property for public use, there is usually a good reason for it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that eminent domain is vital in the society we live in.Though it may be unfortunate to be kicked out of your own property, you would be compensated. Without eminent domain we would face many dilemmas when it came to growth in this country (i.e. highway systems and city expansion).
ReplyDeleteno i do not, the purpose of private property is that is belongs to you and the government should not be able to take that away.the compensation is a plus but they should not be able to take it without getting permission from the land owner.
ReplyDeleteNo i do not agree with the concept of eminent domain. I feel it is unfair. Citizens should be entitled to complete control over private property
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the concept of eminent domain. That property is rightfully owned by an individual and the government shouldn't be allowed to take it because there is money involved. That just goes to show how corrupt society has become if there is a compensation for taking another's privately owned property.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the concept of eminent domain in certain situations, such as expanding parks or roads for the benefit of citizens. However, eminent domain can easily be abused, especially in the case of Kelo v. New London, where the Supreme Court ruled that the land could be taken for "public use." This allowed the city of New London to use eminent domain to take private land and give it to another private owner, a developer, who, in the end, wasn't able to secure funding and left the lot empty for years.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the idea of eminent domain. Private property should not be unwillingly sold to the government for public use. Though it may be logical in some situations, it is unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete