Alan Kimble Fahey vs the City of Acton

From AOL News

LOS ANGELES — The man who built a colorful collection of bizarre structures called Phonehenge West in the Southern California desert has been convicted nine misdemeanors for building without a permit. Jurors will consider five more counts against Alan Kimble Fahey, of Acton, on Wednesday. They asked to hear both sides reargue their cases Wednesday before they deliberate further.

Fahey, 59, faces seven years in prison if convicted on all charges. Prosecutors declined to comment until the other charges are resolved. Fahey, however, didn’t hesitate to speak out. He complained that he had been railroaded and plans to appeal. “I’m not stunned,” he said. “I didn’t get to have one witness. I couldn’t show one exhibit. I wasn’t allowed to have the jury come to my property.”

Fahey began building Phonehenge West in 1984 on his 1.7-acre property in the sparsely populated Mojave Desert community of Acton, 50 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. Over the years it has grown to include a barn where he and his family live, another structure that resembles a railroad car, and a tower with stained-glass windows that rises 70 feet. Several buildings are made of utility poles and steel beams and are connected by ramps and bridges.

Authorities say they are a safety hazard and must be torn down, but Fahey’s supporters say the complex is a work of art.

Fahey, who has worked on Phonehenge West for nearly 30 years, ran afoul of county building inspectors almost from Day One.

During trial testimony, which lasted a week, authorities said they visited his property several times between 1986 and 1995 and again in 2006 and 2007. They said they issued citations and stop-work orders but that he ignored them.

Fahey said he initially tried to work with building inspectors but that they repeatedly demanded changes, lost his plans at one point and quit contacting him for several years while he continued to build.

“I made them look like monkeys,” the colorful, outspoken builder said.

Sixth Appellate Court Decision Renders County of Santa Cruz Unlawful in its Recordation of Red Tags…Again

Filing Affects Thousands of Residents Slandered with Illegal Filings by Santa Cruz County 

Superior Court Case # CV158731

In a 4/18/11 decision, County of Santa Cruz v. Carrick, the 6th District Court of Appeals found that the County of Santa Cruz (County) was not authorized to record a notice of violation against landowner, Paul Carrick, in absence of a statute or court order permitting the recordation. Judge Duffy has directed the County to expunge the red tag recordation against Carrick. The ruling is significant as it potentially impacts illegally processed red tags against thousands of local land and homeowners.

Full story coming soon.

Red Tag Victory – Aptos Family Wins $750,000 judgement against County of Santa Cruz

As of this writing, only the Mid County Post has posted an article on the settlement:

http://www.mcpost.com/article.php?id=3294

County Red Tags Shrubbery

Tom Burns, Planning Director County of Santa Cruz and his minions red tagged an Aptos families hedge fence. That’s right – shrubbery. A hedge. Bushes.

Over the course of several years, county officials applied capricious and contradicting applications of county code, seemingly with the approval of Santa Cruz County 2nd District Supervisor – Ellen Pirie.

Fortunately, the Aptos family had the resources to fight the county. And won.

Read more here.

Redevelopment has Lapped from the Public Trough Long Enough

Originally posted: 02/20/2011 in the Santa Cruz Sentinel

Commentary by Doug Kaplan

One of the most important elements of Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal — restructuring the state’s $5.7 billion-a-year redevelopment program — is complicated in its details, but very simple in concept.

Imagine a wide valley covered by some 400 farms. Each of these farms draws its water from the same aquifer that was once abundant but now is about to run dry. The authorities have three choices: shut down the farms; regulate the amount of free water they draw; or start charging farmers for the water they use, under the assumption that farmers will waste less water if they have to pay for it.

The farms in this analogy are California’s 390 local redevelopment agencies. The once-abundant, now depleted, aquifer is the state’s general fund from which redevelopment agencies ultimately draw their “free water.”

The first choice — shutting down the state’s redevelopment program altogether — is a nonstarter. Even though redevelopment agencies have squandered billions of dollars over the decades subsidizing Walmarts, Home Depots, shopping centers and similar projects throughout California, many agencies have spent money on a number of worthwhile projects, such as building low-cost housing and rebuilding public infrastructure. Closure is not an option.

The second choice — regulating the amount of money redevelopment agencies take — makes sense, and has been done in recent years, but unfortunately is no longer possible following the passage of Proposition 22 last November.

That leaves option No. 3 — making redevelopment agencies “pay for the water they use” — which is what Gov. Brown has proposed. Under the governor’s plan, local agencies could continue to do everything that redevelopment agencies have done in the past, but with their own money.

And if they wanted to borrow more than the $20 billion that redevelopment agencies currently owe, they could, but, like school districts that want to pass bonds to build schools, they’d first have to ask voters for approval.

The governor’s proposal to make redevelopment agencies self-funding would reduce the state’s projected budget deficit by about $1.7 billion, and because of the way state funding formulas work, schools would also receive a multibillion-dollar benefit over time.

Everybody wins, except, of course, the developers who receive redevelopment subsidies to build shopping centers, investment bankers who earn fees for issuing more than $1 billion of redevelopment bonds every year, land-use attorneys who help orchestrate the seizure of homes and businesses that stand in the way of redevelopment projects, and others who profit from the status quo. These interests are wealthy and well-connected, and they are fighting hard to keep their free water flowing.

The governor’s proposal is sustainable; the status quo is not. It’s that simple.

Doug Kaplan, a real estate developer and former school board trustee, lives in Aptos. This commentary first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Redevelopment Defined

Learn more about Redevelopment Agency abuse from California 72nd District Assemblyman Chris Norby‘s Redevelopment: The Unknown Government website.

Chris Norby, Assemblyman, 72nd Assembly District

Redevelopment: The Unknown Government

Redevelopment Abuse in SCC

More Redevelopment Agency shenanigans in Santa Cruz County. As the Sentinel article is merely an advertisement for Supervisor Leopold’s raid on Redevelopment monies, it is far more enlightening to post a commenter’s remark and simply link to the ad.

An $85,000 RDA grant for the year long program, where “an intern from UC Santa Cruz will help Weiss implement those projects, all of which will be funded by an additional $10,000 redevelopment grant.” Ummm…. $85K to figure out how to implement a 10K project? No wonder Gov Brown wants to audit RDA funds, and take control of the money.

I hope the Sentinel got some facts wrong on this one, there has got to be more to this story. (Or is this just another blatant attempt at steering tax dollars to local non-profits with little or no bang for my buck). ~Anonymous User

Senior Citizens Forced from Homes

Senior citizens in Mount Holly, NJ face an unjust eminent domain battle with township officials who are using the tactic to displace homeowners to benefit their development partners.

Regional entrenched media has virtually ignored the issue, but several bloggers have kept the story alive. Read about it here and here.

Rutgers University professor, Dr. David Tulloch, provides video and history at his blog Places and Spaces.

Planning Department Shake-Up

Informative Sentinel article from August 2010 announces new planning director and describes standard complaints from residents’ attempts to navigate county planning processes.

From the article:

While the county’s notoriously heavy-handed Planning Department has long talked about easing its bureaucracy and making life less difficult for the hundreds of architects, builders and homeowners who pursue building projects each year, the department’s reputation remains stained. A new planning director and perhaps the biggest staff shake-up in department history, however, have some people thinking change is on the way.

Previsich says the regulations have become way too confusing. She points to the dozens of “Policy Interpretations” that have become the de facto building code in the Planning Department, offering rules when the code itself is too complex to understand.

Read more.

Kathy Previsich, Planning Director

Santa Cruz County’s current Planning Director is Kathy Previsich. She was hand-picked by County Administrative Officer Susan Mauriello and took the reins March 1, 2010. Previsich replaced the notorious Tom Burns who retired at the age of 55 with a liberal pension.

The new Planning Director’s resume includes stints as Community Development Director in Morgan Hill and Capitola. She attended UC Santa Barbara majoring in Economics and Environmental Studies.

Mauriello was drawn to the new hire’s experience with mobile home parks and housing assistance programs. Previsich is married with two grown children. She lives in Aptos with her husband, John, a union representative.