I understand that the process through which the government can designate property for public use is called "eminent domain" and is listed in the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. The Constitution requires that "just compensation" is given in the event private property is taken for public use. In some flood prone areas, the government has used the process of eminent domain to remove people from flood prone areas to help with minimizing the risks to life and costs associated with clean up. However, I am looking for ideas about why it may or may not be a good idea to use eminent domain to move towns out of flood prone areas? Is it possible to argue both sides?
Preserving Natural Resources Through Eminent Domain and the www.elizabethburleson.com/NatResEminentDom. Retrieved from Google database.
When debating an issue YOU should always delineate between the two opposing sides researching the pros and cons of both arguments before determining the best argument. Therefore, when asking if you can argue both sides, the answer is yes. The caveat to this answer is that YOU must take a position after presenting the facts or theories of both sides. Under this paradigm, I will present an example of the approach I would take toward your question.
The flood prone areas that you mentioned in reference to the government removing people from these areas is predicated upon the taking these areas for a public use. The definition of public use has been fluid over time and whether taking over towns in flood prone zones would fall under this terminology is relative to interpretation. The government routinely takes space through eminent domain for highways and other public works with just compensation using the rationale that these are for the public good. In addition the United States Supreme Court has recently approved the use of eminent domain for taking public ventures ...
Eminent-domains are examined for governments.