Heather Wilhelm, at the time of the interview, was the communications director of Americans for Limited Government in Chicago. The organization’s stated goals are “to stop out-of-control spending, fight eminent domain abuse, and put the people back in charge of state politics.” She has since moved into a research position with the organization.

Would you give us your description of these anti-takings initiatives — how they came about, why they’re necessary, et cetera.

I think the Kelo [v. City of New London] decision really was a catalyst that made people across the country realize that property rights are on shaky ground. Shockingly, in the wake of Kelo, there was so much outrage, yet the rate of government takings skyrocketed, according to the Institute for Justice [a libertarian organization in Arlington, Virginia].

The initiatives are not all the same; they’re tailored per state. Most of them, with a few exceptions, cover two types of government takings: Kelo-style and regulation without compensation. They provide airtight property-rights protection.

Americans for Limited Government and other groups led by your chairman, Howard Rich — Fund for Democracy, Club for Growth State Action, and US Term Limits — plus organizations that have received funding from these groups, including America At Its Best and Montanans In Action, have donated at least $6 million to support groups advocating for these takings initiatives. Why?

I think this is an issue, and you’ll see this in these states, that unites people from both sides of the political spectrum — unites everyone — and hits home. People work hard to buy a house, it’s the American dream; churches can be the cornerstone of a community; people spend their whole lives building a small business. This protects property from bureaucrats who can literally bulldoze over people’s property.

Would you consider this to be a grass-roots movement?

I definitely would. For the past couple of months, I’ve been talking to these leaders out there, [and] they’re getting huge response. In Arizona, I think [we have] several hundred vocal donors, and that’s only after a couple of months. I get e-mails all the time asking for help. Initiatives resonate. They give voters the final say in all of these states.

Can you tell us a little bit about your chairman, Howard Rich? Why is he interested in the takings issue?

If you want his perspective, I suggest e-mailing him. But, on a personal note, I think anyone who believes that property rights are important is interested in the takings issue.

Critics say that the initiatives are deceptive and go far beyond eminent domain, that they could severely impact land-use regulation and other government actions.

These initiatives are all about protecting property rights, and they also put communities back in charge of important land-use decisions. Right now, a few bureaucrats can run the show, disregarding property rights and forcing a few individuals to pay the price. With these reforms, property rights are respected, and the whole community is brought into the equation. Most of the opponents of these initiatives, it should be noted, tend to come from leagues of cities and towns [and] are the very people involved in many local government takings. So it’s not surprising that they would oppose these measures.