@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 9yrs agoActive 2 days 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 x  State Senate District 13 (Illinois)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 1k State Senate District 13 voters.

51%
Yes
49%
No
25%
Yes
45%
No
8%
Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community
4%
No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property
7%
Yes, but only for public projects and never for private projects
1%
No, unless it is for an oil pipeline project
6%
Yes, but only in extreme cases of national emergency
4%
Yes, but only if landowners are compensated drastically above fair market price

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 1k State Senate District 13 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 1k State Senate District 13 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from State Senate District 13 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8JCJLWV from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

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…1yr1Y

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…4yrs4Y

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…4yrs4Y

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…4yrs4Y

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

 @452J4KKfrom Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

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

 @95F5984 from Illinois  answered…2yrs2Y

Private property should not exist

 @44ZH23Bfrom North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

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.

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.

Active 4 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

Trump's Deportation Storm: America Braces for Mass Exodus of Immigrants

For months, immigration advocates have been planning for the possibility of Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Now, their worst fears have arrived.Immigrants’ rights groups have spent the last year preparing for a second Trump term and an overhaul of the nation’s immigration system, analyzing Trump’s proposals, drafting legal briefs, coordinating messaging and organizing aid for immigrants and asylum seekers. They responded to Trump’s victory with alarm and vowed to put up a fight, setting the stage for four more years of contentious court battles with his administration.Some are already preparing to push current leadership at the Department of Homeland Security to take steps to stymie the incoming Trump team, particularly on immigrant detention and the use of AI in enforcement.“We should expect to see the devastation of immigrant communities all over the country. We should expect to see family separation,” said Kica Matos, the president of the National Immigration Law Center. “It is entirely possible that he will try to use the military to carry out deportations, so that means that Americans all over the country will see the military engaging in enforcement against civilian populations, which is horrifying.”Trump, after winning a historic victory on a platform of turbo-charged immigration enforcement, has said he will conduct mass deportations at a scale never before seen. Immigrant advocates have warned this would be expensive and inhumane, separating families and wrecking communities. The president-elect has also vowed to build huge detention camps, hire thousands more border agents, funnel military spending toward border security and invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel suspected members of drug cartels and criminal gangs without court hearings.He has also said he would end “catch-and-release” — allowing migrants to remain free, often with monitoring, while they await immigration court hearings — and restore a policy from his first term requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their cases are processed. And he has dodged questions about whether he would try to bring back family separation.

▲  4333 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4 days4D

Bernie Sanders Charges Ahead As Democrats Stall Out

Bernie Sanders launched a tour in red states like Iowa and Nebraska to rally opposition to Donald Trump’s agenda, drawing massive crowds—thousands in Omaha and overflow audiences in Iowa City.Unlike the Democratic Party’s muted response to Trump’s election, Sanders is actively challenging the administration’s plutocratic policies, focusing on billionaire influence and federal deregulation.In Iowa City, Sanders spoke to packed venues, delivering back-to-back speeches to accommodate attendees, a first in his political career, highlighting his enduring appeal.He criticized Trump’s inner circle, including billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg, who attended the inauguration, and warned of their control over federal agencies.Sanders galvanized the crowd with historical references—suffrage, slavery, independence—urging grassroots action to counter Trump’s planned $1 trillion tax cuts for the rich and cuts to programs like Medicaid.Attendees expressed frustration with Democratic leaders like Hakeem Jeffries, calling their opposition to Trump weak or nonexistent, while praising Sanders for providing direction.Sanders highlighted the slim Republican House majority (three seats), suggesting constituent pressure could sway vulnerable GOP members to block Trump’s reconciliation bill.Early signs show GOP walkbacks—like Trump’s false claim Medicaid won’t be cut—after outrage over federal grant pauses disrupted services, proving grassroots impact.The crowd, mostly liberal, cheered Sanders’ defense of reproductive rights and jeered Trump’s USAID cuts and Zelensky attacks, though some noted a shift in his base—younger Trump supporters absent.Sanders ended with Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, framing the fight as a timeless struggle against billionaire rule, inspiring attendees like Audrey to re-engage and Erin to find hope in solidarity.

▲  1917 replies