Seems like Ellison, Trump and Zuckerberg are not so dissimilar after all.
Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
41–50 of 195 posts
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#42If Zuck truly is planning to run for office as some speculation has supposed, this does not look good for that. This reeks terribly, I was unaware this was even legal, but this is almost literally depriving someone of their property because you have the money.
With the practices of the currently elected president anything goes.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#43I'm struggling to make sense of this....Zuckerberg purchased 700 acres of land, but other families are still using that land (or have the right to)? How can you purchase land that others legally own?
I'm confused too, but reading this: >Close to a dozen small parcels within Zuckerberg’s Kauai estate are owned by kamaaina families who have rights to traverse the billionaire’s otherwise private domain. ...that suggests to me there are essentially landlocked parcels owned by the natives, perhaps? And if they are land locked, well, the people have to cut through his property to access their land, I suppose.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#44If Zuck truly is planning to run for office as some speculation has supposed, this does not look good for that. This reeks terribly, I was unaware this was even legal, but this is almost literally depriving someone of their property because you have the money.
He's learning from the best legally elected politicians these days.
He's attempting to emulate Kholsa and those trials in Half Moon Bay.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#45If Zuck truly is planning to run for office as some speculation has supposed, this does not look good for that. This reeks terribly, I was unaware this was even legal, but this is almost literally depriving someone of their property because you have the money.
The news story also reaks of a cliche smear-job though. I have a hard time Zuckerberg sits on moneybags in his house cursing the filthy peasants. Seems like it's more just a weird land practice (many people own the land he thought he bought) and he wants some privacy.
> (many people own the land he thought he bought) and he wants some privacy.
Then tough luck for him. He should have figured that out before he blew 100 million dollars on it. This "weird land practice" is likely meant to protect native Hawaiian people from being forced out of their homeland which, if this article is accurate, is what Zuckerberg intends to do.
EDIT: I did go looking and a few others are reporting on this. A lawyer representing Zuckerberg claims that Zuckerberg "has no intention of contesting any co-owner who can prove their interest in any of the land parcels." We'll see, I guess.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/34289685/facebook-ceo-sui...
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#46Surely his lawyers informed him of the situation when he bought it. In Hawaii (or the US in general) can people own beaches below the high tide mark? Surely it's impossible to have 100% seclusion anyway as people can land by boat when the tide is low and enjoy at their leisure?
All beaches are public property in Hawaii.
http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/public-access-rights
But Zuck doesn't spend his time on the beach on his property.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#47Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think.
Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind of a (10th-to) last place aversion-like response. [1]
[1] http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234
An interesting quote. Notice how the behavior I describe is actually the opposite of this. It's kind of Stockholm syndrome like, actually (people on the top end, but not anywhere near the top, wanting to maintain the status of those at the top, in hopes of getting their themselves).
> Last-place aversion – and the accompanying lack of support for redistribution – is particularly pronounced when people near the bottom of the distribution have their attention focused on keeping the people below them down, rather than on redistributing wealth from those at the top. [2]
[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/occupy-wall-stree...
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why isn't that enough? According to the article, the owners of the parcels have the right to traverse the land he already bought. From the sound of the article, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. He wants his privacy and, thanks to bizarre land ownership practices in Hawaii, these parcels are fractionally owned by hundreds of individuals making it impossible to make a traditional offer. This legal process…
It's only Bizarre to you, it's not Bizarre to the people who own the property I'm sure. What's Bizarre is being forced to sell land that you've owned for generations.
Given that some of the owners don't even know that they have an ownership stake in these properties, I'm not sure that's correct.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#49I'm struggling to make sense of this....Zuckerberg purchased 700 acres of land, but other families are still using that land (or have the right to)? How can you purchase land that others legally own?
He owns land that surrounds these land parcels.
I think it's possibly more complicated - there's kind of a 'collective ownership' scheme whereby there are tons of people who 'share' ownership of pieces - many of the titles may be lost, people don't know they've effectively inherited them, some may be owned by deceased who have no identifiable heirs so the ownership is ambiguous etc. etc. etc..
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#50It is clear that almost no one commenting here has actually read past the first few paragraphs of the article (if that). It is very well written and explain that this is an extremely complex issue.
Property rights are the foundation of civil society. Due to variety of factors, Hawaii has destroyed property rights on some parcels due to degenerate laws and legal customs.
Just consider one point raised by the article: one small parcel has over 300 informal owners who are descended from a Portuguese immigrant who bought the land over 110 years ago and that "individual ownership fractions range from about 1/7 (about 14 percent) to 17/333,396 (less than a one-hundredth of 1 percent)."; when everyone owns something, no one owns it. This is an enormously complicated legal problem and there are no simple answers for how to resolve it.