Should the government be allowed to seize private property with reasonable compensation for public or civic use?

Answer 1

The power of eminent domain comes from the U.S. Constitution, federal and state law, and court decisions all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Federal, state, and local governments are allowed to use the power of eminent domain in cases of the public good where a property owner refuses to sell, or insists on an unrealistically high price for their property. There are restrictions on the use of eminent domain--the land must be for a public use. Eminent domain is uniquely designed to protect a property owner's financial investment.

Also keep in mind that a jurisdiction cannot exercise eminent domain without recompensing the property owner for its fair market value. In other words, government pays for the land it takes in the amount that any other purchaser would pay for it. Government cannot simply seize land and walk away with it. Many people, however, believe that that is the purpose for eminent domain.

Public use encompasses a host of uses: roads and highways, rights-of-way, parking garages, public utility easements, recreation, to mention a few.

Whether or not a federal, state, or local government should exercise eminent domain is a matter of personal opinion and belief system. Many people believe that the rights of a single individual take precedence over that of their society. Some mindsets of this belief goes so far as to say that an individual's rights are more important than the rights of others, singly or collectively. In this view, government is not an agent of the people; it is a nebulous evil and an enemy and it must be curtailed.

Others feel that the rights of an individual must be weighed against the rights of the collective (the public). Eminent domain is an area in which the rights of the collective are weighed against the rights of an individual and the collective is put first while ensuring the interest of the individual.

It is important to understand that our highways and roads; recreational facilities; public lands, parks, and forests; school facilities; and sewer, water, and gas lines could not be built without the use of eminent domain. Private property owners can, will, and do, hold these projects hostage. Taxpayers pay for these projects, which means that you and I pay for them.

If a single property owner were allowed to get in the way of these projects, it could have a severe impact on a project. Regardless of whether or not the project could be completed, it would be much more expensive to complete because other land would have to be purchased, and the project rerouted--relocated. This would add substantially to the cost of the project--increasing the cost that you and I pay for it.

This is another scenario that some people don't think about. Picture a city that has bought up land to build a recreational complex. The land is zoned correctly, but a home sits right in the middle of the project. Either the homeowner won't sell the property or feels that they can extort a huge price for the property because they now think it is more valuable than it is. The jurisdiction says, no, we'll just go ahead and build around you. So, the recreational complex is built around the homeowner, with parking, night lights, crowds of people, noise, and the whole ten yards. Now, the homeowner's property is completely encircled and it has little to no value. They can't sell their property to anyone even for $1. No one did this to the property owner other than the property owner. Eminent domain can help ensure that someone doesn't end up financially shooting themselves in the foot. Sometimes, people can't recognize what's in their own best interests!

Should governments be allowed the power of eminent domain?

For those who believe that the individual rights (perceived or not), trump the individual rights of a member of a collective or the good of the collective, the answer would be no.

For those who believe in the greater good, the answer is yes. For those who don't want to elevate the rights of one over the good of many individuals, the answer is yes. And for those who don't want to fund the shortsightedness, greed, and self-interest of others, the answer is yes.

Answer 2

Yes. Otherwise we would not have parks, highways, stadiums, public schools, bridges, town offices, recycling centers, utility lines, transmission lines, reservoirs, water systems, civic centers, urban renewal projects, bike paths, railway lines, fire hydrants, sidewalks, etc.