Malatose
24-02-2008, 22:53
Eminent Domain: Inherent Right Or Daylight Robbery?
The Issue
A furious debate over eminent domain, or compulsory purchase, the government's right to take a citizen's private property without permission, has erupted after the government evicted hundreds of people from their homes to make way for a new shopping complex and a bypass.
The Debate
"Eminent Domain? More like outright theft!" cries Stephanie Winters, whose house was bulldozed. "They took away my home! I have to move everything in my life somewhere else because of the whims of some fruitcake city planner? It's lunacy! This blatant power abuse mustn't be allowed to continue. The government should require explicit permission before taking private property!"
[Accept]
"You can't be serious," objects Anne-Marie Longfellow, a city planner. "You've got to have bypasses. Eminent domain's essential! Without it we'd actually have to pay for the property we were steali- ah- expropriating and that would mean lots of boring paperwork and be much more expensive. If we really need to build something, say a bypass to ease congestion, do you really want that to be stopped because one person says no? We need eminent domain to let Malatose make progress. In fact we could cut costs even more if we didn't have to pay compensation..."
[Accept]
"I do believe we should retain our right to eminent domain," says Sue-Ann Gutenberg, your Minister of Miscellaneous Amenities. "But to use it for private industry is just immoral and corrupting. We really ought to only use eminent domain for the purpose of building public utilities like hospitals, schools, and carparks."
[Accept]
--
If I choose option 1, will my civil rights go up?
The Issue
A furious debate over eminent domain, or compulsory purchase, the government's right to take a citizen's private property without permission, has erupted after the government evicted hundreds of people from their homes to make way for a new shopping complex and a bypass.
The Debate
"Eminent Domain? More like outright theft!" cries Stephanie Winters, whose house was bulldozed. "They took away my home! I have to move everything in my life somewhere else because of the whims of some fruitcake city planner? It's lunacy! This blatant power abuse mustn't be allowed to continue. The government should require explicit permission before taking private property!"
[Accept]
"You can't be serious," objects Anne-Marie Longfellow, a city planner. "You've got to have bypasses. Eminent domain's essential! Without it we'd actually have to pay for the property we were steali- ah- expropriating and that would mean lots of boring paperwork and be much more expensive. If we really need to build something, say a bypass to ease congestion, do you really want that to be stopped because one person says no? We need eminent domain to let Malatose make progress. In fact we could cut costs even more if we didn't have to pay compensation..."
[Accept]
"I do believe we should retain our right to eminent domain," says Sue-Ann Gutenberg, your Minister of Miscellaneous Amenities. "But to use it for private industry is just immoral and corrupting. We really ought to only use eminent domain for the purpose of building public utilities like hospitals, schools, and carparks."
[Accept]
--
If I choose option 1, will my civil rights go up?