Should projects involving eminent domain require citizen approval?
No, projects involving eminent domain should NOT require citizen approval.
I think that when you let people have input in cases where eminent domain is being used, you undermine the use of eminent domain.
Eminent domain should only be used when it benefits the public good. Undermining that rule would damage the public good. Like stated before, people hardly think about the public good when it is about their own stuff.
People are often emotional in these cases: they want to keep their property even though they get a just compensation. However, like a wise man once said "... logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Eminent domain usually only affects one or a few persons or family's. Why should the entire town or city have something to say about that?
I think this will cause a lot of projects unable to continue just because the person who is affected is good at winning votes.
A person who is affected but not so good in winning votes, will not get enough votes against the project.
Votin turnouts for the presidental election have been around link for a long time. Will even half of the people who will be able to, vote for an affair that does not directly affect them?
I think most people who will vote in these things are the people who are affected by it or those who sympathise with those people.
How representative will these results be?
This does not make eminent domain any more fair, on the contrary.
And it costs time and money which makes government projects even more expensive.
People who have a problem when eminent domain is going to affect them can already make their objections known. A judge will decide wether or not the eminent domain is legal and in the interest of the public.
This is a law that already exists: then let it be carried out as effective as possible.
Read the instructions to the December eminent domain debate link
Read our (short) openinglink
No, projects involving eminent domain should NOT require citizen approval.
I think that when you let people have input in cases where eminent domain is being used, you undermine the use of eminent domain.
Eminent domain should only be used when it benefits the public good. Undermining that rule would damage the public good. Like stated before, people hardly think about the public good when it is about their own stuff.
People are often emotional in these cases: they want to keep their property even though they get a just compensation. However, like a wise man once said "... logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Eminent domain usually only affects one or a few persons or family's. Why should the entire town or city have something to say about that?
I think this will cause a lot of projects unable to continue just because the person who is affected is good at winning votes.
A person who is affected but not so good in winning votes, will not get enough votes against the project.
Votin turnouts for the presidental election have been around link for a long time. Will even half of the people who will be able to, vote for an affair that does not directly affect them?
I think most people who will vote in these things are the people who are affected by it or those who sympathise with those people.
How representative will these results be?
This does not make eminent domain any more fair, on the contrary.
And it costs time and money which makes government projects even more expensive.
People who have a problem when eminent domain is going to affect them can already make their objections known. A judge will decide wether or not the eminent domain is legal and in the interest of the public.
This is a law that already exists: then let it be carried out as effective as possible.
Read the instructions to the December eminent domain debate link
Read our (short) openinglink
