Should eminent domain be abolished?

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.

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.

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.

but it certainly should be limited and regulated.

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.

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.

nt

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.