Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Renew Deal

(81,692 posts)
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 10:05 PM Feb 2016

Do you support eminent domain? [View all]

"the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation."

https://www.google.com/#q=eminent+domain


35 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, I support eminent domain to expropriate private property for public use
19 (54%)
Yes, I support eminent domain to expropriate private property for any use
0 (0%)
No
14 (40%)
Not Sure
1 (3%)
Other
1 (3%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
45 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do you support eminent domain? [View all] Renew Deal Feb 2016 OP
No way. leftofcool Feb 2016 #1
when the Texas Rangers used it to build a stadium, I fully understood the potential for abuse. virtualobserver Feb 2016 #4
And therein lies the problem. leftofcool Feb 2016 #7
The current Rangers Ballpark was built on a parking lot tammywammy Feb 2016 #29
they seized 13 acres through eminent domain for the stadium complex virtualobserver Feb 2016 #33
No, just that I had forgotten. tammywammy Feb 2016 #34
I believe George W. Bush was involved in that sleazy deal hibbing Feb 2016 #30
ED has been abused time and again for "Public Good." Many times "Public Good" is bullshit! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #39
I do. Agschmid Feb 2016 #2
"for public use" - does that include making you sell it so they can build a Walmart store? n/t PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #3
No. Public use is a park, hospital, train tracks, road, etc. Renew Deal Feb 2016 #5
Ok so you are positing a more restricted version of eminent domain than that allowed... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #10
That right there is the case that changed my mind entirely. dorkzilla Feb 2016 #13
Public use can also be a pipeline womanofthehills Feb 2016 #40
A private NJ pizza shop EDed someone's backyard for off-street parking, seen as "Public Good" TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #41
It was never meant to be that way Warpy Feb 2016 #18
Exactly. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #27
I voted yes HassleCat Feb 2016 #6
If I recall correctly, in the SC case from Connecticut related to this, the progressive justices hughee99 Feb 2016 #12
Kelo v. City of New London (2005)... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #14
The question that raises for me HassleCat Feb 2016 #17
I think they thought of this as the government helping the little guy? hughee99 Feb 2016 #19
Yes, it can get subtle HassleCat Feb 2016 #20
NOT in any way Old Codger Feb 2016 #8
For public use and public ownership. rug Feb 2016 #9
Public use: yes. Nye Bevan Feb 2016 #11
That is a wonderful idea - the idea that the persons so dispossessed would get a share in Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #24
Yes, for public works, even though it cost my grandmother her house Retrograde Feb 2016 #15
No. metroins Feb 2016 #16
If I am fairly compensated for property I am not intensly attatched to, and for the public good - Kali Feb 2016 #21
Public only! THis does NOT include "expanding the tax base" annabanana Feb 2016 #22
In NJ, a Pizza Shop EDed a neighbor's backyard for a parking lot. Reason, move cars off the street! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #38
I do support eminent domain for public use for public purposes. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #23
I guess it makes me sort of right-wing-ish, but no, I don't support the concept. begin_within Feb 2016 #25
Yes, if they are paid equal to or more than market value and the purpose is for urban renewal. ErikJ Feb 2016 #26
It's in the constitution. Until it is amended. . .gotta support the constitution. Feeling the Bern Feb 2016 #28
In the Kelo case... HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #31
I voted to pass on the existing options because my response is merrily Feb 2016 #32
You are absolutely right. They must be fairly compensated, and go through due process as you stated still_one Feb 2016 #35
And as long as the state doesn't mess with 'fair value' by saying the property is devalued.. X_Digger Feb 2016 #36
Of course. A truly fair value and a bonus for using the power of the state to force a sale. merrily Feb 2016 #37
thank you for taking the time hopemountain Feb 2016 #42
I did address that kind of thing in my response, but I know it's merrily Feb 2016 #43
And there's no way anyone would get "fair market value" here. EllieBC Feb 2016 #45
Freeways and such... not for developers Liberal_in_LA Feb 2016 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do you support eminent do...