Kevin Spillane is a spokesman for Protect Our Homes Coalition — Yes on 90, the chief proponent of California’s Proposition 90. Spillane heads The Stonecreek Group, a Republican political consulting firm that counts Protect Our Homes Coalition among its clients.

What can you tell us about Proposition 90 and the other regulatory takings initiatives on the ballot around the country?

I think a key aspect of the California initiative — I can’t address the other initiatives in the other states — but the way the California one was written is that it is prospective, and so all existing laws, regulations, and ordinances that are in effect on Election Day are not impacted by the initiative. And it even goes further in that it provides that you can amend many of those existing laws, regulations, or ordinances as long as those are part of furthering the original purpose of those laws and regulations. So, in terms of the impact that it has, the other side has frankly been exaggerating dramatically how widespread that impact would be, given the fact that it is prospective.

Let me step back a little further and just get you to describe what the initiative is about, what its purpose would be, in your view.

It is, as you already know, in response to the Kelo [v. City of New London] decision by the Supreme Court. It limits the ability of local and state governments to use their eminent-domain powers to transfer one private party’s property to another private party. So, it has a different provision to deal with that, it basically prevents explicitly doing that. But, in addition, there are other reforms that contain some eminent domain — for example, on blight, we actually have been criticized because we still have a provision in the language that provides for governments to declare property “blighted,” but there are restrictions that it has to be done on a parcel-by-parcel basis, as opposed to condemning an entire neighborhood, which is often the case now. There are other restrictions that hopefully make it difficult for the eminent-domain process to be abused in that — and this has happened several times — if someone loses their property to eminent domain and it is not used for the purpose for which it was condemned, they have the right to get their property back. Also, if parts of their property are not used that were condemned, they have the right of first refusal on those aspects of it.

Tell me about the regulatory-takings part of the initiative.

The part that you’re most interested in, the regulatory takings, also provides that where there is a government action or regulation or ordinance in the future, going out past the election that significantly financially impacts a property to devalue it, that the owner is entitled to compensation for that adverse economic impact on the property.

Can you give me a hypothetical?

One of the reasons behind it is that, frankly, to get to eminent domain is usually a last resort for local governments, and it’s more limited. Usually what the governments do is that they will declare an area blighted — so that the property’s value is dramatically decreased, it’s virtually impossible to get anyone else to purchase the property — [and then] put it into a redevelopment zone, thereby tying the hands of the seller. And the only one that’s available to purchase it or likely to purchase it is the government, offering a reduced rate. They will also downzone the property and reduce its value, therefore again making it more possible for them to purchase the property at a dramatically reduced price. They have a number of tools at their disposal that are short of actually condemning it, and that’s a major part of the motivation behind the regulatory-takings language.

Now, to give you a hypothetical, and this is something that the other side has been more than happy to try to spread misinformation, one has an existing property. Let’s say it’s zoned for two houses per acre. The local government downzones it so that it’s one house per acre. That is a devaluation of the property, and that owner would be entitled to compensation. If the property is currently zoned for one house per acre and the owner would like to have it rezoned for two houses per acre and the local government rejects that, that is not grounds for takings because, frankly, he bought it knowing what it was zoned for, and just because he’d like to zone it to make it more valuable doesn’t mean he’s entitled to it. It really is about changing the rules on someone in midstream, if you will. It’s basically changing the property value through government action after it’s been purchased. It’s not about trying to make it more valuable, it’s about protecting the private property rights of the property owner and trying to prevent government action that’s adverse, so that if the government decides that it wants to take an action that is an important priority, it’s not on the shoulders of one individual or a handful of individual property owners, but it’s the collective society, through their government, that is ultimately bearing the cost of that action.

And what about, again speaking hypothetically, other types of land-use regulation or zoning — things like adult businesses, or noise restrictions, or even air pollution? I’m just throwing stuff out, but what about those sorts of things?

There’s a “ public safety and health” provision in the language, too — that the government has the right to declare any zoning, if it is [to protect] public safety and health, that it is exempt from the takings. And with the blight provision, they are [able] to go after adult bookstores.

What prompted the regulatory-takings part of this initiative? Is there some sort of trend that people have spotted out there? We all know about the Kelo decision and the eminent-domain concerns that that decision raised last year, but I’m wondering what led to the takings part of this provision. Was there some evidence that it’s being abused?

Different people suggested that, without the takings language, whatever reforms you offer on eminent domain, because of the process that government uses just short of eminent domain to basically devalue a property and make it easier to condemn it and [result in] an unfair reduced price to the landowner, that you needed to provide additional language to strengthen those property protections. The initiative is one that, in terms of the main language, the regulatory-takings language, was originally based on a number of bills that were introduced in the California legislature that died, that did not get out of committee. And the regulatory-takings language was language that different legal/policy types suggested as a way to even strengthen it further if you’re going to have to go the initiative route if the legislature was not willing to act on the issue. And there you have it.

You look at the California secretary of state filings, in terms of contributors to the Yes on 90 campaign, [and] you see Howard Rich’s name come up, or groups connected with Howard Rich come up. What can you tell me about him and his involvement in the Proposition 90 initiative?

Well, the honorary chairwoman of the initiative is a state legislator named Mimi Walters [a Republican assemblywoman]. She is one of the legislators who introduced bills on eminent-domain reform, and it didn’t go anywhere. When her legislation failed, she approached Howie Rich about providing seed money for the initiative campaign. He helped to do that by generating money, raising money from different sources, to help get it qualified on the ballot.

So did she know him already?

I actually don’t know, because frankly I wasn’t a part of that. I don’t know where they first met. That’s actually an interesting question — they did have interactions with each other over the past year, and I don’t know the details of those.

And another significant funder, although not to the level of Howard Rich, is Howard Ahmanson of Orange County. Do you know him? Do you know of him?

I know of him. I know his political [liaison]. We solicited a contribution from him as well. One of the institutions that are adversely affected by eminent domain are churches, interestingly enough— something I didn’t know going into this campaign. Ahmanson is someone who does a lot of philanthropic and political giving, as you already know, and that was one of his concerns — the way churches are subject to eminent-domain abuse because they don’t pay property taxes, [and they are] often in prime urban real estate. So local governments — one of the major motivations for eminent-domain abuse is generating additional tax revenue, and therefore churches are often subject to this kind of abuse of the process because they are not as lucrative, revenue-wise, as another use of the property could be.

How much do you know about Mr. Ahmanson’s life outside of politics? Have you done much reading on him?

I don’t know much, to be honest. Frankly, he was solicited because he’s known for being someone who was likely to contribute and we were soliciting from a wide array of people, to tell you the truth.

What’s the outlook, in your view, at this point? Are you optimistic that this will pass? Is it going to be a tough fight? Just what’s your take on what might happen in a couple of months?

Well, the initiative is ahead in the polling. And the biggest burden for the initiative — if you look at polling on the individual aspects, in terms of talking among your friends in the environmental community — what’s interesting is that both the eminent-domain reform and the regulatory-takings language tests very positive, very powerfully, across partisan lines, across socio-economic differences. And that is very positive. The [California] attorney general, who is known for doing this, gave the initiative a title in some ways, which you are already familiar with so I won’t explain it to you, that is very legalistic and vague and confusing. Honestly, if I read it, I don’t know what it means. I’m with the initiative program.

So with 13 ballot measures on the ballot and the dynamics involved with that, and a tremendous amount of money being spent on the other initiatives that deal with the cigarette industry and the oil industry, our biggest obstacle is, frankly, voter confusion and misinformation. So, we’re hopeful, but we know that the other side is running a frankly dishonest campaign. They have put out a lot of often contradictory attacks on us. And the Howie Rich [angle] is one that I’ve certainly heard many times before, but I’d point out to you, if you’re interested in being fair about this, that in their own ballot arguments in opposition to this in the voter pamphlet, that the other side says that the initiative has been placed on the ballot by a handful of wealthy landowners, which — I would like to know who those people are, because I wish I had their contributions. On the other hand, they’re attacking us for being supported by this out-of-state, mysterious figure, which is most contradictory.

The other thing is that, for example, the [California] Republican Party just endorsed the initiative. And we’ve got Democrats on board and, frankly, we don’t view this as a partisan issue in the least. Rich is nonpartisan. Just to make the point, since you’re doing research on him, you’ll see that, frankly, Republican and Democratic politicians both don’t particularly care for him because his focus has always been on term limits, which makes both parties unhappy.

One of the attacks they were making was that this was a grand scheme to help boost Republican voter turnout, but in fact that’s not true, this was not the motivation in the least. In fact, one of the areas we’re targeting is focusing on minority communities, and if you look at the polling, there’s strong support [for the ballot initiative] in minority communities, but particularly the African-American community. And we’re going to be trying to turn out those voters in November, which you can be pretty confident are not going to be voting Republican. But that’s the kind of thing that they’re trying to throw the kitchen sink at us, they’re throwing everything they can at us, whether it’s contradictory or not. They’re putting up a lot of false information about the consequences — and life as we know it will not be destroyed if this initiative passes.

The other thing is, if you look at the language of the initiative, eminent domain, for example, is not ended as a tool, it’s just restored to its original purpose, which is to be used for legitimate public purposes. You can still employ it for parks and police stations and roads and schools, but we’re just trying to make it so you don’t lose your local business or home to a Lowe’s or a Costco or a Target — or, frankly, a Mercedes-Benz dealership next door. One of the eminent-domain victims who signed our ballot arguments owned a restaurant in Los Angeles County in the town of Arcadia. The city council was moving to take away his restaurant from him so that the Mercedes-Benz dealership could pave over his restaurant to build a parking lot so they could park more cars, therefore sell more cars, and therefore sell more to generate more tax revenue for the city government.

So that’s the kind of thing, and there are other examples across the board. The other side says that there’s not a problem with eminent-domain abuse in California, that we’re better protected that other states. And I know a lot of folks who disagree with that very strongly from personal experience.