I think so
It all depends on the situation. It has really been abused when government takes beach house so it can build a drug company like it did in New England a few years back. They took homes that had been in families for generations to build a drug company. This went to the supreme court -Kelo vs New London,
with Stevens, Kennedy,Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer, mostly liberals saying that the city could take the people's property for "just compensation." Rarely is the compensation fair. That property that was "stolen" with the supreme court's blessing for commercial development."Today, the condemned land still lies empty, though city officials now plan to build a memorial park honoring the victims of eminent domain, on the former site of Susette Kelo's house." Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University.
There are several books on this subject, do enough research and you will learn how bad this really is.
For public utilities such as water and electricity, it's necessary. For road expansion, like taking land for expanding roads from 1 or 2 lanes 100 years ago to the massive highway systems we have today, it was probably a good thing. To condemn a property so the city can build a new sports complex or city offices, is abuse. .
In many to most cases, I think so. The "government" can also seize people's cars and boats, if even a very small amount of any drug is found, even a small amount of marijuana. Sometimes people can't get their property back, even when they are absolved of any actual crime.
Land snatching for re purposing by government