Silicon Valley Techies Fight to Save a Popular but Illegal Haven • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by tptacek » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 8:51 PM UTC

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.…

What the hell kind of comment is this? "Weren't you that guy that got burned on that other thread"? Weren't you the tax lawyer who was wrong about tax law? What is that even supposed to mean? Don't write things like this here. Agree, disagree, loathe, whatever, but leave emotions from unrelated past threads in the past.

A debate about international tax law with a tax lawyer on a thread about fire codes?

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

#92

Post by tptacek » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 8:59 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #88

temphn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, you were just wrong, and you know you were wrong. The substance of your comment was that multinationals just consider tax a cost of doing business, and that new taxes alone wouldn't motivate them to consider moving operations overseas. That's flatly wrong. The distinction between US and Irish tax code is and was indeed highly material. And one you were not aware of, despite being an "international tax lawyer".…

Clearly there actually are a myriad of strategies which multinationals can use to minimize their tax bill by exploiting differences between countries, and even more clearly those countries with the most favorable tax regimes are the ones chosen as places to expand. Which is exactly the phenomenon whose existence you denied: I said nothing of the sort, and HN can read the comment you linked. My comment claimed only th…

It sucks that you feel the need to reply to comments like that.

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

#93

Post by bluehat » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:06 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #77

I'm assuming Hacker Dojo does not actually own the building and is leasing the space. Why isn't the building owner being held at least partially accountable for bringing the space up to code? I'm guessing it wasn't detailed in their lease, but how long is the lease for? Is there a possibility of breaking it and finding a building that does meet the requirements for how they want to use it? Also, in most jurisdictions…

They busted us less than a week after signing a 3 year lease.

In California, there are no protections when you do a commercial lease to make sure the space is legal for you to use. The tenant is responsible for making the space usable.

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

#94

Post by bluehat » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:09 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #41

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 inst…

We had an old permit which did not require these things, only a fire alarm system (which costs $35K and we had installed).

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

#95

Post by bluehat » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:11 PM UTC

lilsunnybee wrote: post #86

nateabele wrote: post #58

This is rent-seeking, plain and simple. As municipalities slide ever closer toward insolvency, expect to see these spurious regulations enforced and enacted, ostensibly fronted by bleeding-heart do-gooders, but with the express intent to extort as much money as possible from productive individuals.

Yeah no. Rent-seeking would be asking $250,000 just for the permit to run their hacker-space. The city is only requiring that their public space be safe and accessible, not telling them the contractors they should hire and where they are required to spend their money. Heck if the dojo members were dedicated and diligent enough they could do most of the work themselves, probably for a lot less than the estimates they'…

A significant chunk of the $250K does go into permits. Also, we have done all of the work ourselves that we are legally permitted to, the remaining work has to be done by a licensed contractor (by law).

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

#96

Post by bluehat » Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 9:12 PM UTC

xfhai wrote: post #81

It was a glass factory, so why not ask permission to exist as a factory. Maybe there would be lesser requirements. Hackerspace is not really an office.

The concern is that we teach classes, which people don't do in a glass factory.

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

#97

Post by forensic » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 1:28 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #80

forensic wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know that governments aren't businesses? You're applying principles of making money to governments. Governments ARE NOT there to make money. They are there to serve the public interest. Concepts like profit and minimum viable product do not apply. Governments are good and they exist for a reason. You are arguing in support of all kinds of unsafe, unenlightened, harmful, discriminatory practices all under the…

Your post completely ignores the point ramanujan was making, and merely makes vague emotional appeals to the reader. "Won't someone think of the children?"

Actually, my post just gets at the heart of his comment. I am not fooled by his surface level criticism. I am seeing through to the underlying motivation that presents this kind of highly deceptive bullshit.

There are many problems in the world. People who make it their business to attack governments for supporting wheelchair access and fire-codes are engaging in a special kind of evil.

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

#98

Post by forensic » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 1:31 AM UTC

nateabele wrote: post #85

forensic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget positive liberty. The gilded age had copious negative liberty but very very low positive liberty. Democracy is definitely not the answer, but libertarianism is probably the greatest political threat to civilization as a whole at the moment. Meritocracy is the right course, the government needs to be stronger and needs to enshrine positive liberty as a human right.

I don't think you understand. In this debate, it's only possible to take one of two positions: put another way, either you believe people should be controlled, or you believe people should be free. I have a fundamental disagreement with the premise of 'positive' vs. 'negative' liberty, because it conflates separate, unrelated issues (as a corollary, I also reject the notion that anything someone else has to provide f…

Equal justice under the law is one component of positive liberty.

The gilded age saw the rise of Marxism and labour unions precisely because the super-rich domination of the world was so depraved, complete, and horrible.

A recognition of positive liberty is very very basic to understanding the human condition. Without access to food, water, shelter for every child, no concept of liberty is possible. The positive/negative liberty concept is important precisely because it exposes the stupidity of the 100% classical liberal approach, which HAS been tried and HAS failed.

The job of the state is to improve human lives, not to conform to some stupid dead ideology that is making a modern resurgence because propaganda has become so very ubiquitous and powerful.

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

#99

Post by ekianjo » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 6:16 AM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #89

pessimizer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>your responsibility as a person entering that building to understand the risks of being there - and refuse to enter/stay inside if you think the lack of sprinklers/fire exits is posing you a serious concern. I'd rather read an impenetrable 10 page EULA than examine an entire building (with absolutely no expertise) for the possibility that it might kill me. Maybe a compromise would be that the inspectors would show u…

This putting-up-signs thing has happened in a way, and we know how this turns out. In some rural areas there are places where the fire brigade is not paid for through local taxes, homeowners have to contract individually with the fire services to come. When a homeowner has a fire put but failed to pay the firemen the fire brigade does come out, makes sure that the inhabitants are safe, and then lets the house burn do…

Well if they did not pay for the fire brigade, what do they expect ?? It's like wanted the cake without paying the bill. I do not see anything shocking in your story. If I do not pay for a service, for an insurance, I am not supposed to get the benefit from it. It's perfectly natural.

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

#100

Post by ekianjo » Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 6:25 AM UTC

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #64

ekianjo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my mind, regulators could effectively issue recommendations but that should be where their power stops. If you do not want to have sprinklers and fire exits, it should be your responsibility, and your responsibility as a person entering that building to understand the risks of being there - and refuse to enter/stay inside if you think the lack of sprinklers/fire exits is posing you a serious concern. And you menti…

No, you need the codes. The world is not just you. If your building starts blazing, it's not going to just stop. Those people called firemen have to go and stop it, put themselves at greater risk by saving your rickety building before it destroys the buildings of others that did bother to follow codes. Now the firemen have to go, the ER gets full, etc all because you didn't think much of the regulations. Now, we the…

I dont agree with your point. You fail to understand several things. I believe that when you have a building you need to be insured on your property, right ? Then, the lack of proper fire safety devices in your building should raise the risk on your property, and therefore raise significantly the cost of your building insurance. Should your building burn in flames and spread around, damaging a few other buildings around, your insurance would cover the costs (just like your car insurance covers the costs when you injure a 3rd party in an accident). On top of that, the surrounding property owners could sue you for financial reparations for lost opportunities (business, rent, etc...) for which you would have to pay.

In the end, anyway, the insurance contract would cover most of the damage costs. That's why insurance systems exist and are usually mandatory. And the free market should reflect the cost of having no fire protection in your property. Net, you would not need to have regulations to enforce that, the costs themselves would probably entice you to get at least minimum fire protection, based on the insurances recommendations.

Seriously, most people seem to be believe that regulations have existed forever and that civilization was born with it. On the contrary, the amount of regulations we deal with nowadays is a very recent thing in History, and most people lived before with other systems in place to ensure their safety without the need of Big-Ass Governments.