Phonehenge West and Property Rights

[Sirea]

There is a man out in Acton, California, named Alan "Kim" Fahey. For almost 30 years he's been building a structure on his property in the Mojave Desert that's been dubbed "Phonehenge West": an eclectic, artistic assortment of buildings out of salvaged materials, interconnected by bridges and featuring, among other things, stained glass windows and a 70-foot tower overlooking the scenery.

He tried getting permits before building several of the structures, only to get the run-around from L.A. County, have his plans lost not once, but twice, and having to deal with snide county officials who essentially robbed him over the course of years only to deny his permits while laughing and lining their pockets. He built anyway, for over 20 years, and they never bothered him. Until 2006.

He has faced endless court battles to save his property, finally being given 45 days last month to tear down everything except the original ranch house. Just today, not even 30 days after the order was given, he was placed in custody without being sentenced, with a $75,000 bail. $75,000 dollars to keep a 60-year-old man in prison, because he built a house.

A "convicted tree house builder", they want to throw Kim Fahey in jail for 7 years for not having permits. This man did nothing wrong. He lives in the middle of the desert, none of his neighbors have a problem with what he's doing (contrary to claims by the county that "a neighbor" complained about his property), and they cannot prove that his buildings aren't safe. They want him to rot in jail for 7 years for not having a piece of paper. Murderers, rapists, and child molesters have gotten less time in jail than they want him to serve, and that is simply ludicrous.

Devin Schiro made a beautiful documentary about Phonehenge West, which can be viewed here on Vimeo. I'm not ashamed to say that it actually made me shed a tear or two.

This isn't just happening to Kim Fahey either. This article by LA Weekly outlines how county officials have been bullying numerous desert dwellers off their property, forcing them to strip down homes that they've lived in for many years. And if you want to widen the conversation to eminent domain, it gets even uglier.

A high-profile case on eminent domain, Kelo vs. City of New London, happened right in my home state of Connecticut. They kicked all those people off their property and bulldozed their homes; want to know what happened to the big development deal that was supposed to happen, with high-priced condos and shopping malls? The entire deal fell through, nothing was ever built on that property. If I drive there right now to the old Fort Trumbull neighborhood, all I'll see is an open field of nothingness where there was once a thriving community.

This is something I feel very strongly about. If our property, the property we build our homes on, pay our taxes on, live our lives on and raise our children on, isn't ours, then who's is it? Do you think it's right for someone to come bang on your door, surrounded by armed agents, and tell you that the home you've lived in for most of your life has to go? What would you do? This is what scares me the most about one day owning my own home; the idea that someone can just kick me out, uproot my life, because someone else wants my land, or because they don't like that treehouse that I built in the backyard for my kids, or simply to exercise their political muscle.

I don't care if this thread gets locked for being "political", I don't care if I get a bunch of naysayers with the predictable "he deserves what he gets" and "why should I fight for this, I'm a law-abiding citizen, this'll never happen to me," and "lol, this doesn't belong on a gaming forum!" I don't even care if it get no comments at all and the thread dies in obscurity. I'm standing up for something I believe in, and if I can even get one other person to look at this and get angry and think "this isn't right", then it will have served it's purpose.

[Valiance]

Watched the video and read the story on Reason.com.

I agree with you 100% Sirea it is total BS. You might not know it yet Sirea but you my friend are a Libertarian. Welcome to the fold, read some Hayek, read some Friedman and check out Reason.com and the like. Welcome.

V

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I watched the video as well, and read what ya wrote. This is amazing.

The County of Los Angeles needs to leave this family alone. It's an absolute shame what they have done to him.

There are good reasons to require and enforce permits. There appear to be no safety issues with this mans hard work. If these structures meet or exceed the codes of the county, which apparently they do, then someone higher up (Mayor or CA Governor) should have ended this witch hunt long ago.

And as of yesterday he sits in jail. Locked up for refusing to destroy his own home. The video is heart wrenching. This man has done no harm to society. He is no threat, and no risk.

This story goes against the grain of what this country was founded upon, and rips that fabric in half. I hope LA County has the moral fortitude to let him go free.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



This one caught my eye too. A DISABLED American vet. Living in the desert in a tiny home because its all he could afford. Just him and his dog. He becomes homeless under county orders.

What a crying shame we can do this to any human, but to a disabled vet? This is his reward for fighting for our freedom???? This is disgusting. It should never be allowed to happen.

[DoctorWhofan]

I was going to write something big and expansive, but erased it all. I think about this guy the OP is talking about and feel sad and mad about the situation, then I walk around the island of Oha'u. Suddenly, yeah, but this may seem harsh, at least he has a home. At least the media is caring enough about him to call attention to him.

Paradise is not what you think.

I think I will leave this thread alone, now. Before I say something that will get me in trouble.

[ddohombre]

Ok...please don't take this as an endorsement of the Governments actions. I have not viewed the video yet, and just based on the face of what you wrote in the message, this sounds like an awful shame.

However, I want to play the Devils' advocate: I remember watching this movie called "An Inconveniant Truth" about all of the horrible things we are doing to the Environment. It was all full of doom and gloom and I walked out worried about the planets future etc. etc. It was a well put together film and illicited emotion in people who watched it and helped give way to all kinds of Carbon movements world wide.

Here's the problem. It was all for the most part bull**** based on junk science. I feel it did more harm than good although it did manage to line a certain Al Gore's pockets with tonnes of money. It wasn't until I researched the issue more and read a bunch of scientific papers and articles from both sides of the argument that I came to realize that I had been very carefully bamboozled.

My point? There are two sides to each story...the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. It sounds like the above mentioned video and newspaper articles are giveing one side, with the obvious bias that you would expect. I would love to be able to get the same amount of detail from LA County's side...I bet there is a bit more to the story than we know.

[Sirea]

</snip>

I am glad we are finally able to agree on something.

I was going to write something big and expansive, but erased it all. I think about this guy the OP is talking about and feel sad and mad about the situation, then I walk around the island of Oha'u. Suddenly, yeah, but this may seem harsh, at least he has a home. At least the media is caring enough about him to call attention to him.

Kim may not, probably will not, have a home for very long, aside from a jail cell. All those people in the desert will not have homes for very long, if they haven't gotten driven out already. The people in New London all lost their homes. You're right, this does need to be covered on a larger scale. So does homelessness, and not in the sense of "what can we do to get the homeless people to go away" but rather "how can we actually help them?"

Did you know that in Florida, people are being arrested for feeding the homeless and needy? In Orlando there is some asinine ordnance that states an organization can only hold two events a *year* to feed needy people. Where do all those hungry people go the other 363 days of the year? Sure, there are likely food banks and soup kitchens, but I would think any help would be appreciated. These people need to be helped, not treated as a scourge on society, like stray animals that'll just go away if you don't feed them, and stuff like this needs to be publicized.

My point? There are two sides to each story...the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. It sounds like the above mentioned video and newspaper articles are giveing one side, with the obvious bias that you would expect. I would love to be able to get the same amount of detail from LA County's side...I bet there is a bit more to the story than we know.

I would be inclined to concede that you may have a point if this were an isolated case. However, there are widespread stories, and they are all similar if not the same; it's gotten so bad in California that there is a society that meets regularly to discuss and fight it (Antelope Valley Truckers Organization). I watched the Kelo case unfold with my own eyes, I live less than 20 minutes from New London. It's not scare tactics like the global warming debacle, this is really happening, and on a wider and wider scale, and people need to be aware. It's one thing if they are claiming blighted, genuinely unsafe buildings and whatnot, it's another thing entirely when they're using "public use" laws for private endeavors, or going after innocent people. They'd have to drag me out of my house kicking and screaming with the bulldozer parked outside if they ever tried this on me.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I am glad we are finally able to agree on something.

We do on this topic. I used to recruit fellow college students to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and headed into the city (New York City) and walk the trains and subway stations handing out the food items we prepared. Sadly there WAS no organization set up in that particular town (a very well-to-do nyc suburb neighborhood). We didnt want to get in a newspaper, we didnt promote it. We just felt doing something was the right thing to do. We felt it was incredibly important. And judging from the gratification of those we served- THAT's what made us know we were doing good.

Yes it was dangerous, even in the early 90's, but sometimes you just need to do for your fellow human being.

[SableShadow]

Welcome to "safety".

Think about this the next time you vote on another law to "make us safer".

It isn't that people are morons, it's that they want to feel "safe", or they want to "protect" people/children/animals/food/environment/whatever...and don't understand the very real impact of their decision.

Also, here's four astericks in a row: ****.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Here's a story that's stuck with me a long time. It's about a former homeless man, Sam Tsemberis who solved homelessness for many.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3534623.shtml

Your story Sirea instantly reminded me of this story.

Snippet from story:

Chronically homeless people now cost taxpayers $40,000 a year each for shelters, jail time and emergency room visits.

This program costs $22,000 a year, and includes a home, nurses, social workers and drug counselors. They come with the apartment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, I recommend to readers to find out what YOUR COMMUNITY does about its homeless, and demand a better way. Then if your willing and able, and truly want to make a difference in your community, find out what organization is best helping the homeless and support it.

[Sirea]

Welcome to "safety".

Think about this the next time you vote on another law to "make us safer".

It isn't that people are morons, it's that they want to feel "safe", or they want to "protect" people/children/animals/food/environment/whatever...and don't understand the very real impact of their decision.

Also, here's four astericks in a row: ****.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

One of the greatest minds, would have been great to see him work the media and politicians today, one Benjamin Franklin.

[SableShadow]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

One of the greatest minds, would have been great to see him work the media and politicians today, one Benjamin Franklin.

*Everyone* says this. You will pardon my cynicism.

[Sirea]

*Everyone* says this. You will pardon my cynicism.

I've seen it attributed more often than not to Ben Franklin. No matter who said it, I believe it to a wise statement. People don't realize that often, they sacrifice their rights to make them feel a fraction safer. Is it worth it? You (general you, not directed at SableShadow) let me know how many rights you have to have taken away before you feel "safe" enough, and let me know if it was worth it in the end.

[Habreno]

Answer for you: None of my rights. For when I have all of MY rights will I be safe and able to keep MYSELF safe. You touch MY rights, I ought to touch yours. And the first one I take away is your "right" to touch MY RIGHTS.

Give this man HIS home. Give this man HIS ******* RIGHTS.

EDIT: Those are *'s, not anything else.

[Arnhelm]

I've seen it attributed more often than not to Ben Franklin. No matter who said it, I believe it to a wise statement. People don't realize that often, they sacrifice their rights to make them feel a fraction safer. Is it worth it? You (general you, not directed at SableShadow) let me know how many rights you have to have taken away before you feel "safe" enough, and let me know if it was worth it in the end.

Also mentioned is Thomas Jefferson. Good Ol' Tommie

[Uska]

Its outrageous he has been working on it so long just leave him alone its not really hurting anyone.

[Sirea]

It's worth noting, as is outlined in this video, that the complex is being built to withstand seismic activity (it also serves as an interesting guide to his property and where some of his recycled materials came from). Indeed, Kim's structures have survived at least two significant earthquakes that caused damage across Acton but not to any of his buildings.

As it was said in the documentary linked in the OP, his plans have been engineer/architect stamped and approved with assurance that they would be passed by the county, only to be denied; the buildings are sound, they just flat-out refuse to give him permits.

[Andora]

It's worth noting, as is outlined in this video, that the complex is being built to withstand seismic activity (it also serves as an interesting guide to his property and where some of his recycled materials came from). Indeed, Kim's structures have survived at least two significant earthquakes that caused damage across Acton but not to any of his buildings.

As it was said in the documentary linked in the OP, his plans have been engineer/architect stamped and approved with assurance that they would be passed by the county, only to be denied; the buildings are sound, they just flat-out refuse to give him permits.

This is not about safety, its not. Making it so you cant garden in your own front yard is not about safety. Its about powerful people using the Government to "protect investments"

We have it here in this game even. Read the crafting forums, players want Turbine to protect a perceived investment.

Seat belt laws do not come from happy hippies wanting to bubble wrap the world. These Laws come from Insurance lobbyists who push for the change.

Real estate has change to a consumable commodity, its no longer about family homes. Those who use it for quick cash do not want any individual to change anything about quick turnover of cash. So now the government's job is to protect that. It sucks. Not sure we can ever change that.

It sucks. Not much more to say that will not get me banned. Just look for the real reason things happen. Whats that line? Follow the money? That's what has power.

[Hafeal]

OHowever, I want to play the Devils' advocate ...

My point? There are two sides to each story...the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. It sounds like the above mentioned video and newspaper articles are giveing one side, with the obvious bias that you would expect. I would love to be able to get the same amount of detail from LA County's side...I bet there is a bit more to the story than we know.

Indeed, there are always 2 sides and it is rare that cases fall into black & white rather than shades of grey. Some of the Judge's reasoning of the case can be found here. For those who can't link:

Man jailed for not dismantling Phonehenge West

Alan Kimble Fahey disregarded court's order to take down portions of the 20,000-square-foot structure, which includes a 70-foot tower, judge rules.

• 

July 09, 2011|By Ann M. Simmons, Los Angeles Times
Alan Kimble Fahey, who was convicted of building code violations for constructing an elaborate complex dubbed Phonehenge West, was sent to jail Friday for refusing to comply with orders to vacate and destroy parts of his Antelope Valley landmark.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Daviann L. Mitchell set Fahey's bail at $75,000 and had deputies escort the 59-year-old Acton man from the courtroom. The stiff penalty drew protests afterward from an overflow crowd of Fahey's backers. Like him, they oppose what they consider excessively stringent building codes.

The judge told the courtroom that she had not wanted to put Fahey in jail at first. She had left him a free man since his conviction in early June so he could dismantle the illegal portions of his creation "in a safe and orderly fashion," she said.
Photos: Phonehenge West
But "he blatantly disregarded the court's orders," Mitchell said. She said her key concerns were fire hazards. Much of Phonehenge West is made of wood. Also, the county says the property lacks sufficient water and access for firefighters.

A retired phone service technician, Fahey spent almost 30 years constructing the 20,000-square-foot labyrinth of interconnected buildings, stopping only when Los Angeles County code enforcement officials forced him to in 2008. The creation, which includes a 70-foot tower, is a hodgepodge of reddish buildings — some built with telephone poles — connected by bridges and ramps. Fahey keeps a guest book that visitors sign.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Patrick David Campbell told the judge that he had visited Fahey's property since the conviction but saw no "significant evidence" that Fahey had made any effort to comply with the judge's orders.

People were still living in the unlawful buildings, illegal electrical sources were still connected and few personal belongings appeared to have been removed from the unpermitted structures, Campbell said.

Fahey spoke in his own defense. He told the judge that he was trying to dissemble the property and had removed 70 of 140 windows and a few doors. He said he didn't know how to disconnect the illegal electrical sources without cutting off power and water to his entire property. And although he had asked residents in the illegal structures to leave, they had no place else to go, Fahey said.

Jerry Lennon, Fahey's lawyer, argued that in light of how long it had taken to build the complex, ample time would be needed to dismantle it. The attorney, who had defended Phonehenge West as an artistic creation, requested the judge reduce the amount of his client's bail because he was not a flight risk.

But Mitchell was unmoved. "You're putting your family, first responders and the community at risk," she told Fahey. Fahey's wife, Pat, who is helping her husband file an appeal, said after the hearing that the couple's lives have been "tense" and "difficult" since the conviction. Their son Noah, 26, said he and others were going "to pull strings to see if we can get him bailed out."

Fahey will be sentenced July 22 for his original criminal building code offenses. He could face more jail time and substantial fees, according to his lawyer.
Photos: Phonehenge West
ann.simmons@latimes.com