Tom Adams is president of the California League of Conservation Voters, which describes itself as the “nonpartisan political action arm of California’s environmental movement.” Its Web site says: “At CLCV, we work to elect the best environmental leaders, keep them accountable, and implement strong environmental laws in California.”

What is your take on these initiatives, like Proposition 90, that are on the ballot this fall and deal with both eminent domain and regulatory takings? What is, in your view, really going on here?

I think Proposition 90 is an effort to use a hot-button issue — eminent-domain reform — to try to enact a much broader, more radical property-rights agenda. I think the issue of eminent-domain reform, essentially, is being hijacked for other purposes.

Clearly, Howard Rich, the New York real estate investor, is the major funder — as best as we can tell — of all these initiatives, not just Proposition 90. Briefly, what do you know about him? Do you have any sense of why he’s gotten involved in ballot initiatives in places like California, Washington, and Arizona?

I think Howie Rich has made it clear that his agenda here is what he calls “Kelo­-plus.” That is, he wants to use eminent domain as his stalking horse, but his real agenda is to restrict the role of government through a greatly expanded concept of property rights.

Kevin Spillane, who is a consultant to the Protect Our Homes Coalition [Yes on 90], told me last week that a lot of the dire warnings about Proposition 90, in his opinion, are overblown. Let me read you a quote from Mr. Spillane. He said Proposition 90 is “prospective, and so all existing laws, regulations, and ordinances that are in effect on Election Day are not impacted by the initiative.” So he’s saying these fears about Proposition 90 are overblown and that this measure, if it passed, would apply only to new regulations. I’d appreciate your response to that.

I think the proponents are trying to hide behind an ostensible savings clause that would protect existing laws when, in fact, they have defined “government action” to include the implementation of all existing laws. So what they have done is they’ve said, effectively, that the implementation of existing laws — like the California Coastal Act or the state zoning law, by the Coastal Commission or by local governments — will trigger taxpayer liability if someone claims that those laws have affected them adversely.

Okay, so it’s not truly prospective?

It is prospective in the sense that it affects government actions after the ballot measure is enacted, but the way the have defined “government action” includes the implementation of existing statutes. So existing statutes will be definitely be affected by Proposition 90.

Walk me through a hypothetical, if you can.

Let’s use the hypothetical that the proponents use. In California there is a state zoning law which authorizes local governments to adopt zoning regulations, and local governments implement, if you will, the state zoning law by adopting local zoning ordinances. The ballot measure itself cites downzoning as an example of a future action that would trigger taxpayer liability. So the ballot measure itself acknowledges that the implementation of existing laws would trigger taxpayer liability.

Okay. I’m just trying to get a better grasp of it. Can you give me a specific? I’m thinking maybe more of an environmental law [like] the Clean Air Act?

Let’s take California’s regulation of forests. Those laws are all in place and under California law, if a person is going to engage in logging activity, they have to get a timber harvest permit. The California statutes that govern timber harvest permits are in effect now and presumably will remain in effect in the future. But when the [California] Board of Forestry issues a timber harvest permit, that will be defined as a new government action under Proposition 90. And if the timber harvest board imposes restrictions on logging — for the protection of natural resources, for example, it doesn’t allow clear-cutting, it requires protection against erosion, it requires protection for streams and creeks and rivers, it requires protection for species that inhabit the forest. If a forest company claims that those measures cause it some substantial economic loss, it will have a claim against the taxpayers under Proposition 90, despite the fact that those statutes are all in existence now.

What are some of the other negative impacts that we might expect if Proposition 90 passes? Just a few examples of things that are on your radar . . .

Well, Proposition 90 is very broadly worded. It doesn’t just create taxpayer liability for government actions that affect the value of real estate. It applies to government actions that affect any type of private-property interest. So, for example, if California was to adopt new regulations to protect consumers from predatory credit extension, businesses that are engaged in predatory credit extension would have a claim against the taxpayers. If California adopted new regulations to protect people’s privacy in their medical records and their financial records, businesses that were violating privacy rights perversely would have a claim against the taxpayers for any losses they incurred as a result of the regulation. Any kind of economic regulation affecting labor conditions or the rights of working people could result in claims. Changes in insurance rates or insurance regulations could trigger claims against the taxpayers. Proposition 90 is a sweeping measure that would reverse the role of government as we currently understand it and expose the taxpayers of California to billions and billions of dollars in claims.

In your view, is the Protect Our Homes Coalition, the ‘Yes on 90’ group in California, running a deceptive campaign? And, following up on that, is it working, in your view?

I think that what they’re doing is trying to hijack a popular issue to conceal a much broader and more radical agenda. And I think that’s a dangerous tactic because the public is sympathetic to reforming eminent domain. In fact, I think a lot of us in the “No on 90” coalition are sympathetic to reforming eminent domain. I think, however, that despite the popularity of eminent-domain reform, once we get the message out that the public as taxpayers are going to suffer from this measure, I think we’ll get through to the voters.