But after enough legal authorities assured him, guaranteed him, the mountain was too tall for a single entrepreneur south of Bill Gates to scale, he backed off.

Through local court proceedings, Mr. Surfas managed to recoup $2 million more than City Hall paid him for seizing his warehouse property at the intersection of National and Washington Boulevards. But since it cost him $400,000 in legal fees to win $2 million, his net was a more modest $1.6 million. By law, he was not entitled to recover his $400,000.

“Maybe that is not a lot of money to many people,” said Mr. Surfas, “but it is to me.

“In these kinds of eminent domain cases, the deck is stacked 100 percent against the property owner. It is no longer fair to say that you have property rights in this country. You do not.”

Question: That brings us to the two controversial, seemingly little understood propositions on the June 3 ballot, Prop. 98, Prop. 99. What do you make of them?

“It’s pretty simple. You want to vote yes on 98. Approximately 40 other states have already outlawed the taking of private property. Ninety-eight outlaws the government taking private property to give to another private individual.

“It would not stop governments from taking private property for freeways, libraries, what they call for the public good, as we understood it.

“Prop. 98 also includes something that some people are unhappy about, putting an end to rent control in California. This is just another form of taking somebody’s property rights away from them to benefit somebody else.

“Prop. 99 was put up, paid for and promoted by — guess who? The government agencies that live off of the taking of property. This proposition was only put on the ballot to confuse people on the whole issue.

“It is only there for the purpose of messing up 98 so 98 does not pass.

“The government agencies, the redevelopment agencies, are living off of the right-to-take right now. They don’t want to lose that right.

“In the case of Prop. 90 (the most recent anti-eminent domain ballot try) in November of ‘06, the people who were against it were the developers, city government. I still haven’t figured out how can put money into a government agencies can put in money to advertise against a proposition. But they did.

“They came up with about $15 million to go against Prop. 90 —compared to the $4 million or $5 million that was raised by individuals to promote Prop. 90, which would have put an end to the taking of private property.”

Question: The knock against Prop. 90 was that it was badly written, and that was given as the main reason it was defeated.

“I agree they added to much to it. But it depends who you ask. What Prop. 90 really said was —. I have to give you an example.

“The way the law is now, let’s say you own a big stretch of land. You bought the land for the sole purpose of developing it. You already have got the approval of government agencies to develop and turn this land into a tract.

“And then a politician says, ‘I don’t want that guy to build 30 houses over there. I think he should build nothing.’ The City Council then can take that property and pay for it as being valued as Empty Land.

“Prop. 90 would have put a stop to that.

“Who are we to say it’s fair to pick on a person who is a developer who invested in land to develop, and you take all of his work, his energy and improvement out of it by saying it isn’t worth that?

“That is what happens, and that is why Prop. 90 was written. But groups like the Sierra Club were against 90, and they threw their two cents in.

“So Prop. 90 was not as badly written as people perceived it to be.”

Question: What beat Prop. 90?