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.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Response rates from 4.4k Congressional District 4 voters.
45% Yes |
55% No |
24% Yes |
51% No |
7% Yes, as long as landowners are fairly compensated and the projects will benefit the community |
3% No, and the government should never be allowed to seize private property |
6% 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 |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 4.4k Congressional District 4 voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 4.4k Congressional District 4 voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Congressional District 4 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@8JCJLWV4yrs4Y
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.
@9GN5KWP1yr1Y
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
@44W3J3T4yrs4Y
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.
@44VT3LL4yrs4Y
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.
@44TRJ884yrs4Y
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
@452J4KK4yrs4Y
Yes, only if it is for environmental protection or preservation.
@95F59842yrs2Y
Private property should not exist
@453BVPM4yrs4Y
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.
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Eminent Domain” news articles, updated frequently.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
