Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson, Jr. lives in Orange County, California. According to records filed with the California Secretary of State, Ahmanson’s Fieldstead and Company gave $200,000 on April 6 to the Protect Our Homes Coalition, the committee pushing the passage of Proposition 90.

The Center for Public Integrity’s Jim Morris put the following questions to Ahmanson by e-mail on September 19, 2006; he responded eight days later.

Records show that Fieldstead and Company has given $200,000 in support of Proposition 90. What prompted this contribution? Have regulatory takings and eminent domain been subjects of interest for some time, or were you approached to contribute?

I was there when they tried to run the [Orange County] Rescue Mission out of Santa Ana in the late 1970s. Ever since then, I have had a passion for churches ministering to the poor (the poor can be defined as “blight” inherently and therefore removed) and for the property rights of people without access to the levers of power. We have worked quite a bit with the Becket Fund [for Religious Liberty], including the successful fight against the city of Cypress in the landmark case of Cottonwood Christian Center v. The City of Cypress, and have been supportive of the land-use rights of religious organizations for a long time.

One of the major funders of takings initiatives in the West is Howard Rich of New York. Do you know Mr. Rich? If so, please elaborate.

I have never met him or spoken to him.

What role, if any, did you play in development plans for the Ahmanson Ranch in Ventura County in the 1990s? Were you pleased or displeased with the sale of 3,000 acres of that land to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy in 2003? Did this in any way influence your thoughts on government regulation and/or environmental protection?

The so-called Ahmanson ranch property was owned by H.F. Ahmanson Company, the public company that was founded by my father. I was never an officer of H.F. Ahmanson Company, and I was never involved in the plans to develop this property or in the decision to sell it to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. This project, and the controversy that surrounded it, have not influenced my views on the governmental taking of private property.

Some stories written about you in recent years suggest that you hold extreme religious beliefs. It’s been written, for example, that you have supported the Chalcedon Foundation, whose founder advocated death by stoning for homosexuals. In a 2004 article in the Orange County Register, you were quoted as saying, “It would still be a little hard to say that if one stumbled across a country that was doing that, that it is inherently immoral to stone people for these things. But I don’t think it’s at all a necessity.” Others say your remarks have been taken out of context and your beliefs are misunderstood. How do you respond?

I see no relevance of this question to the issue of Proposition 90, but, for the record, I do not advocate, and I never have advocated, the stoning or execution of homosexuals.

Critics of Proposition 90 say it would go far beyond eminent domain and bring land-use regulation to a virtual halt. They say it could lead to environmental harm and myriad other problems. Your response?

Oregon, of all places, instituted a regulatory compensation law and the world didn’t come to an end there. I’m not happy that regulatory compensation is bundled into the same proposition as eminent-domain reform, but I still don’t think it would be a bad thing.