Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should eminent domain be abolished?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Dark Angel Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 05:11 PM
Original message
Should eminent domain be abolished?
Edited on Fri Mar-19-04 05:17 PM by Dark Angel
Definition from www.m-w.com

Main Entry: eminent domain
Function: noun
: a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction

Note: it does say for public use, but a lot of the time the government just takes the property, and re-sells it to a company, at a much cheaper price sometimes.


I've heard arguments both for and against it, but I'm dead set against eminent domain. I think it should definitely be abolished.

I don't think any politician, Republican or Democrat, should force someone to sell their house and property so that some company can build on it. I think that once you buy a property, as long as you pay your property taxes every year, you should be able to keep it for as long as you want, and never have to worry about the government, working with corporations, forcing you to sell it.

I know some governments say that they need to do it to entice companies to move into communities, to increase the tax base, but I'm still so much against it.

What do you think?

By the way, if we can abolish eminent domain, we can make it harder for Wal-Mart to expand, which is a plus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. The misuse of eminent domain for the benefit of the Texas Ranger's owners
while Bush was part-owner is a prime example of why it should be either done away with or extremely restricted. It's downright frightening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Angel Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It is
If someone buys a house or property, they should be able to keep it forever(as long as they pay appropriate taxes). I know houses that have been in families for generations. It's just wrong to force someone to sell it and put some shitty store on top of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Darranar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm not sure we should abolish it...
but it certainly should be limited and regulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Angel Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I knew someone who lost her home to eminent domain
She was compensated fairly and all, but she had lived in the house for 20 years, and really gotten attached to it.

The city government took the house from her, razed it, sold it to a company who later left town anyway. I think a Wal-Mart is on the site now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. Public interest has to overrule private interests
Otherwise, people can do whatever they want in terms of property and there is no remedy for society as a whole. Simple examples such as right-of-ways for roads, shoreline protection, or more subtle "uncompensated seizures" like environmental laws that restrict land use or ability to purchase land and property, all point to the need for a very clear and strong power of eminent domain. The control is in the government. Elect people who will not run away with the privilege.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Angel Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. environmental laws have been abused in the past
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-19-04 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. Property is a convention created and enforced by government.
Without government, property does not exist other than
in the sense of squatters rights: if you can defend it
you can keep it. Therefore I do no see how it can be
abolished in the fundamental sense. Of course one can
place restrictions on it, as we do.

The point is this, if the government cannot take your
property in order to defend itself, and it is then destroyed,
then you lose your property anyway, so at some point the
government has to be able to put it's needs first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC