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

Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#41

Post by rprasad »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #32

I think this just bureaucracy run amok. It's something from an 80s movie. Regulations have their place and I don't want to get into any discussion about "big government" but I think this is a bit too far for something that has become such a community icon. Also, I find it odd if they are already at $173K, I would think there would be several alums or those sympathetic that could shell out a measly $80K, that's a roun…

Or, you know, they could have just made sure the building was up to code first, like every other business, organization, and individual.

Being a startup does not give them carte blanche to ignore basic laws of society, especially not laws which address actual safety concerns. [Of relevance to Hacker Dojo: see pretty much every mass casualty club/nightclub tragedy of the past decade, in which dozens died in each instance due to code violations.]

More importantly: if someone had gotten hurt or died in Hacker Dojo as a result of a code violation, all of their officers would be facing criminal negligence charges.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#42

Post by temphn »

rprasad wrote: post #38
ramanujan wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All regulation from the TSA to the local building officials is optimized to sound like a good idea. Who could be against health or safety? And that then becomes the thin end of the wedge, as the requirements and fees spiral from there. 1. Sprinklers and fire exits? Arguably necessary. 2. ADA compliant bathrooms and wheelchair ramps? Not part of a reasonable MVP[1]. What if every website "had to" be readable in Braill…

This is quite possibly the least informed comment I have ever seen on HN, and that says a lot. In other words: give these guys an inch and they'll take a mile, asserting their author-it-ay the whole way. It always starts with something reasonable sounding (fire codes) and then moves to incentivizing the government for uncovering more violations and more fines. And it's very hard to figure out all the violations ahead…

Speaking of uninformed comments, weren't you the guy pounding his chest as a lawyer about how no companies actually take international tax law into account, who then got tooled when the Double Irish was pointed out?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3565426

You were colossally wrong about something ostensibly in your domain of expertise, and then too you said something similar ["I do international tax for a living. I laughed so hard at this line I started crying."].

You seem to thus have a history of making hostile, bold, unsubstantiated statements. OP might be wrong, but at least provides links and argument. You simply cite the ADA at its word, while conceding en passant that enforcement might be "overzealous" [ya think?].

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#43

Post by rprasad »

DannyBee wrote: post #15
lhnn wrote: post #2

Let me end this conversation before it begins: "Why should the government tell me I need this many exits, or that I need a wheelchair ramp if no-one needs it?" "Because you're too short-sighted to see how important those things are. The government is watching out for you and those unfortunate enough to know you."

It's hard not to feed a troll, so .... 1. Fire sprinklers were added to the IRC and IBC due to their ability to prevent fires (surprise!), in light of the fact that costs have come down significantly, and they can now make them look "not ugly". Fires aren't just going to damage your building, they'll damage the stuff you don't own as well. 2. The number and placement of fire exits is usually based on the distance one…

Additionally, fire kills people, as does the voluminous smoke it gives off.

Fire exits are required to make sure people can exit a burning building within 3-7 minutes (varies by jurisdiction). This is based on an unfortunate history of tragedies involving people dying in fires, in which it was discovered that people who did not manage to escape in the first few minutes usually succumbed to the smoke.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#44

Post by catch23 »

neurotech1 wrote: post #25
evmar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny to contrast to Noisebridge, which seems to me must surely be illegal by all sorts of codes. I wonder if the equivalent authorities in SF just have more important things to worry about.

Ironically, at Noisebridge they are wheelchair accessible and have sprinklers in the ceiling. The wheelchair/scooter users visit regularly. I'm 99% sure the sprinklers were already installed when they moved in. A lot of build-out work was done when moving to the current location.

Does noisebridge have concrete wall enclosed dumpsters? Did they also perform a traffic study when they moved in?

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#45

Post by kragen »

varelse wrote: post #16
ramanujan wrote: post #11

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/384590180/an-events-spac... ^ Chip in here if you are inclined to support fellow hackers. They need to raise $250,000: “If they can’t comply, they can’t use the building as they want to,” said Anthony Ghiossi, the chief building official for the city. Hacker Dojo opened without a permit, Mr. Ghiossi pointed out. It is currently prohibited from hosting events that draw more than 49…

What I'm not seeing in these articles about this place is any sense of responsibility by Hacker Dojo's owners for not doing the due diligence to know what they were getting into in the first place. I don't consider well-intentioned cluelessness a barrier to innovation but your mileage may vary. Ellis Berns doesn't sound like a villain to me but rather just a guy in a tough situation. If the town of Mountain View does…

A small but crucial point: Hacker Dojo doesn't have owners; it has members.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#47

Post by veemjeem »

kragen wrote: post #45
varelse wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm not seeing in these articles about this place is any sense of responsibility by Hacker Dojo's owners for not doing the due diligence to know what they were getting into in the first place. I don't consider well-intentioned cluelessness a barrier to innovation but your mileage may vary. Ellis Berns doesn't sound like a villain to me but rather just a guy in a tough situation. If the town of Mountain View does…

A small but crucial point: Hacker Dojo doesn't have owners; it has members.

So everyone shares the blame equally then. It's too bad the actual owner didn't mention this to the to-be-lease-holders. My guess is the owner was more desperate to lease the space out.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#48

Post by rprasad »

temphn wrote: post #42
rprasad wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite possibly the least informed comment I have ever seen on HN, and that says a lot. In other words: give these guys an inch and they'll take a mile, asserting their author-it-ay the whole way. It always starts with something reasonable sounding (fire codes) and then moves to incentivizing the government for uncovering more violations and more fines. And it's very hard to figure out all the violations ahead…

Speaking of uninformed comments, weren't you the guy pounding his chest as a lawyer about how no companies actually take international tax law into account, who then got tooled when the Double Irish was pointed out? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3565426 You were colossally wrong about something ostensibly in your domain of expertise, and then too you said something similar ["I do international tax for a living.…

Lol. No, in fact you were the one who tried to "tool" me.

You attempted to point out that: Well, if you are an international tax lawyer, obviously moves like the Double Irish show that the base of incorporation matters quite a bit: which is not true.

The Double Irish is a matter of where a company is headquartered, which has a distinct legal meaning that is not the same thing as a company's "base" of operations. The difference: headquarters = management; base = actual business activities.

The double irish takes advantage of a peculiarity of Irish law (which no longer exists in its original form) that did not impose income taxes on companies incorporated in Ireland but HQ'd in another nation. This loophole has since been closed (but companies taking advantage of it were grandfathered to prevent them from leaving Ireland). A variation of the Double Irish is still feasible today, but generally does not offer the same benefits as the original Double Irish.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#49

Post by kragen »

ramanujan wrote: post #31
FireBeyond wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"1. Sprinklers and fire exits? Arguably necessary." "Arguably"? No, they're absolutely necessary. It's a multi-tenant building. Why should my property and livelihood be threatened by your inability (or lack of desire) to follow the fire code? "2. ADA compliant bathrooms and wheelchair ramps? Not part of a reasonable MVP[1]." A reasonable MVP should include the ability for a social, interactive space to be inclusive.…

http://mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=5207 The city also began pressing for more codes to be met. Weekly rattled off what appear to be significant costs: $150,000 to make three bathrooms compliant with the American Disabilities Act, $130,000 for fire sprinklers, and potentially thousands more in building permit fees and other improvements. "They want us to commit to a traffic study, build concrete walls around t…

The other day I went past the República Cromañon on the bus. The street in front of it has finally been reopened. It's been closed ever since 196 music fans were burned to death because its operators thought the fire regulations were "safety theater", and chained shut the emergency exits.

You can compare the death tolls from similar earthquakes in places that have effective earthquake building codes (like Chile) and places that don't (like Haïti). That's not "theater". That's hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, prevented.

Fire used to be a major killer in the US, a century ago, far more than violent crime ever has been. People were routinely killed in panicked stampedes out of burning, or supposedly burning, theaters. Fire codes have reduced fire deaths to a tiny fraction of what they used to be.

I don't think this is a "basic philosophical impasse". I think you're just not aware of the relevant facts. Maybe if you're aware of them and just choose to ignore them, that's sort of "philosophical", in the sense that you're being insufficiently philosophical, perhaps even misosophical.

I strongly support my friends at Hacker Dojo who are undertaking the necessary improvements, and I encourage you to support them too, by donating money if possible.

Re: Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven

#50

Post by sabat »

ramanujan wrote: post #11

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/384590180/an-events-spac... ^ Chip in here if you are inclined to support fellow hackers. They need to raise $250,000: “If they can’t comply, they can’t use the building as they want to,” said Anthony Ghiossi, the chief building official for the city. Hacker Dojo opened without a permit, Mr. Ghiossi pointed out. It is currently prohibited from hosting events that draw more than 49…

It is indeed bullshit, particularly because there is no defensible, practical reason for that kind of regulation. This is little more than "you wanna do business? grease my fuckin' palm" on the part of city government.
Post reply on HN