+

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 17k Alabama voters.

36%
Yes
64%
No
18%
Yes
59%
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
4%
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 17k Alabama voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 17k Alabama voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Alabama 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

 @453BVPMfrom Georgia  answered…4yrs4Y

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.