ANSWERS: 18
  • Not in this Free America.
  • Yes. If the govt knows things regarding the safety of a certain area and feels that people cannot make that decision for themselves than yes. They are taking precautions to help us not make a huge mistake by moving somewhere that is unsafe. Sort of like how they condemn buildings and make them uninhabitable. There needs to be some sort of safety standard dealing with living quarters.
  • No. That should be between the person and their insurance company.
  • Only if they're paying for it.
  • The government has that right?
  • I didn't know that they had that right...
  • I think the government has a duty to provide information regarding why people should not live somewhere - if they knowingly let people build houses on flood plains etc they should foot the bill when the flood comes and the insurance company screams "Act of God - we're not paying!" If we're given the facts and still choose to build there - we should be responsible for the consequences and have no one to blame but ourselves.
  • There are always going to be limitations. You can't build a house on someone's private property without their agreement, in the town park, or on a military reservation. Some areas are protected for environmental reasons. There are public safety issues, too. The gov't keeps people out of disaster areas. However the gov't should always have to show due cause when refusing to let someone build in an area. It should be assumed first that someone does have the right to build on land that they own.
  • yes, sometimes it do have it!
  • yes he has right only nowadays too n do it too.in my views that too much liberty is not good for human-wine prostitution ,gambling n money interest is ban in many counties and in my an Indian state too.5
  • Sometimes it seems as if they should when people continue to build in places that are prone to disasters.
  • It's a free America, and if they want the right to live on a Superfund site, it's their business.
  • To a certain extent. If you are a law-abiding, self-sufficient (or even claiming government economic support) citizen then no. Definitely not. However, if you are trying to claim housing from the government because you are in a poor financial situation - then you will go where they tell you. If you break the law - they are entitled to put you in prison, thus taking your freedom to live where you like. That is fine also.
  • yes. someone has to tell the people not to build on an earthquake fault, or in a dry river bed, or on a toxic lot. people would live where ever they wanted to. thats not right. why cant the home less live in the center devider. there is lots of empty space near the highways.
  • NO...:)
  • No. But it does have the right to encourage people in certain directions and discourage in others. And in no way should the government have to subsidize or insure high risk places, like hurricane prone waterfronts. +5
  • Not in 99.9% of cases in my mind.
  • To a point, yes. If they did not, we would not have any local, state, or national parks. Imagine the view of Old Faithful outside your hotel window each morning. Do you have a good view on your own land? Well, the government says you own it, and a hotel cannot be built there without compensating you. IF we can all build wherever we want, without governmental control, then that view you like is no longer there. Either a hotel or some other group or people will like it too. And, since they can build where they want, they will build there. At their own risk? What will you do against, say, the Holiday Inn chain? Beat them up? Without government control, they have the right to build. You do NOT have the right to harm someone for doing so.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy