Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

staradvertiser.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 195 posts

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#121

Post by p94ka »

curun1r wrote: post #11
haywardsmyfault wrote: post #2

You could argue some of the land parcels in question are owned by growing numbers of family members with each new generation, and that therefore it's likely some (even most) owners wouldn't utilize the land. However, it's also interesting to digest this situation alongside Oxfam's report [1] on 62 people accumulating more wealth than half the world's population combined. Zuckerberg owns 700 acres of Kauai[2]. Why isn…

> 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…

Who has the right to 700 acres of privacy? I don't care how rich you are, there should be reasonable limits on what you can deny the public access to. In Sweden and Norway (and other places, I'm sure), they have a law called allemansrätten, which states that anyone has the right to roam on and camp on all land, as long as you don't cause any damage and reasonably respect others privacy. If the US had such a law, he probably wouldn't be engaging in this lawsuit.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#122

Post by smallnamespace »

nym wrote: post #95
AustinBGibbons wrote: post #32

Zuckerberg purchased the land from all serious parties, and now his lawyers are doing their due diligence to track down anyone who might own even a "1/3,276" share, and are hardly treating anyone unfairly. Put down your pitchforks, no one is being driven off their land.

The issue is around compelling people to sell land they don't want to, that has a tradition of belonging to that family.

No, the issue is identifying the owners, at Zuckerberg's own personal expense, most of whom seem to be completely unaware that they are partial owners.

The practical effect is some people get a windfall check in the mail that they weren't expecting at all.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#123

Post by nitemice »

cooper12 wrote: post #60
_m8fo wrote: post #47

Is 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…

I have some quotes that might provide insight: > Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. - purportedly by John Steinbeck > It is a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore…

I feel a lot of these quotes are true of, not just America, but many of its allies, such as here in Australia.

Aussies don't want to see themselves as poor, or in the lower socio-economic group. They all have aspirations of grandeur, and act as if pay day is just a great idea away. This is epitomised by the concept of the "little aussie battler" and the "Great Australian Dream".

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#124

Post by jeswin »

abtinf wrote: post #50

It 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:…

I am surprised by the number of people who claim this is rich bashing.

Indigenous people around the world have lived for centuries with widely different concepts of property ownership. In many cultures, once you reach a working age you build your house where land is available and do your bit (say farming, or crafts) towards a functioning society. There is no land ownership record, but rather it's based on trust. Once these lands become part of countries without adequete protection for indegenous cultures, they become susceptible to exploitation. Interpreting their culture through our legal system is one way to do this.

The indigenous people of Hawaii (and elsewhere in the world) are the true owners of that land. Even if you get legal rights from each one of the current owners, it still deprives the unborn children of their rights.

It's unfair at best. At best.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#125

Post by noobermin »

abtinf wrote: post #50

It 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:…

IANAL and IANA business/stocks person, so allow me to vomit nonsense, but how is this not unlike equity in a start-up? Or stocks in a public company? Especially in the latter case, one can have theoretically a 17/333,396 stake in a company.

I'd imagine it might be different though because companies are regulated and there are things like the FTC, and a company is an organization, so certain concepts like "liability" and "rights" to utilize the property are better defined than for a random parcel of land, but still, it's not like "ownership by many" is that foreign.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#126

Post by smallnamespace »

refurb wrote: post #51
haywardsmyfault wrote: post #2

You could argue some of the land parcels in question are owned by growing numbers of family members with each new generation, and that therefore it's likely some (even most) owners wouldn't utilize the land. However, it's also interesting to digest this situation alongside Oxfam's report [1] on 62 people accumulating more wealth than half the world's population combined. Zuckerberg owns 700 acres of Kauai[2]. Why isn…

Oxfam's report [1] on 62 people accumulating more wealth than half the world's population combined Measuring wealth is a pretty poor way to measure inequality. If you're a recently graduated brain surgeon with $400K in student debt, you have less wealth than a homeless person with a $100 bill in their pocket.

Identifying one edge case doesn't really prove an argument. Net wealth is not a perfect metric, but is probably the best one we have.

You can be sure 95%+ of brain surgeons have paid off all their student debts and have a lot more wealth than a homeless guy, considering their median salary is $395k per year.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#127

Post by sulam »

meanduck wrote: post #120
sulam wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erm, not to be all factual and shit, but politicians generally aren't in the 1% until after they're out of office. There are exceptions of course (the Clintons, because of the sheer length of service and variety of positions they've each held) but being a politician doesn't actually pay that well. There are perks, but you won't get into the 1% on perks. The 1% is primarily made up of people who have enough money that…

You missed the point. The 1% is not about wealth its about power over 99%. Even your random low level bureaucrat has more power than the 5% (wealth-wise).

The cop who pulls me over on the highway has more power over me than my mayor does, or even my governor. Looking at the policies Trump talks about that I can actually analyze ("Make America Great Again" doesn't count), none of them will affect me to the tune of more than $1K / year at best/worst.

I am, of course, ignoring the prospect of truly insane shit like starting a nuclear war with Russia. That would affect me pretty dramatically. :) But low level bureaucrats don't have the power to start a war, thankfully.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#128

Post by rusanu »

rtpg wrote: post #103
abtinf wrote: post #50

It 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:…

the part I don't get here: What's the legal framework for allowing Zuckerberg to force a sale? Let's say 20 people own parts of the house in front of yours. It's confusing, so you whine a lot, and suddenly a public auction is triggered? At the very least, he must understand that he is _not_ the owner, so everything else is kinda moot right? EDIT: seems like he bought out certain percentages of ownership on these parc…

Being Hawaii though, I don't think he will get a private beach, though :)

http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal-access-hawaii

http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/beach-access/

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#130

Post by rweba »

This article makes me respect Bill Gates more. You never hear of him being involved in cringy stuff like this.

Yes, it may be legal, but it definitely doesn't look good.

Also, is it just me or is Zuck becoming rather paranoid about his privacy and security?

(1) He apparently has SIXTEEN bodyguards at his house: http://pagesix.com/2016/02/14/mark-zuckerberg-has-16-bodygua...

(2) He bought all the houses surrounding his in Palo Alto to protect his privacy: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/15/palo-alto-mark-zuckerb...

(3) He tapes his laptop camera and microphone: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuck...

(4) He goes jogging with FIVE bodyguards: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464044/Isn-t-work-T...

(5) THIS current article.

Obviously a famous rich guy will need more security than the average person, but other billionaires don't seem to take it this far.

Post reply on HN