anyone can be forced to give up land to the government. similar cases have been upheld time and time again by various levels of state and federal courts over the years, including one controversial case where i live. the government is just *supposed* to compensate you justly. they do this when they need to build new highways and such. so if its a public school, they can force you to give up the land. it has nothing to do with your political stance.

if you're asking *should the person sell the land*, then thats different. BUT it still doesn't reflect the person's political stance. people have different reasons for doing different things. this isn't much of a political issue. maybe its sort of a community wellfare issue, but on such a low level of politics (local city politics), there aren't really distinct party lines. cities don't make big decisions on tax and economics (they make little decisions sometimes, depending on the size of the city), or on things like abortion and civil rights.


i'll give you my take on an explanation of conservative vs liberal, however. liberals tend to want big government - more government spending, more social programs, trying to take care of everyone at the same time. well, kind of. liberals tend to want to do things like tax the rich more than the poor. liberalism is more on the side of socialism - no, not communism. when i say socialism, i mean social programs and things like that. the problem with these things is that in order to achieve them, they have to tax more. where else would they get the money?

conservatives tend to prefer smaller government. less government involvement in peoples' lives, less spending overall. hence, tax cuts. conservatives also tend to prefer a more even tax breakdown - people pay closer to the same percentage of taxes all accross the board. a lot of people don't like this because they don't think poor people should have to pay the same *percentage* of taxes as people with more money at the time. judge of this what you will...

so i really don't think this fits into your example. community benefits like more schools in a town or city aren't really social programs, because they are more focused and not all-encompasing. a social program is something like social security. the idea is everyone benefits (which is almost never really the case).

yeah, those are generalizations. usually reflected by party platforms pretty evenly, but of course, not always. i'm definately conservative, but i am pro-choice and such... i don't really think these kind of issues should be divided by party. things like economics, spending, taxes, etc should be divided by party.