4 ms·

He doesn't own it any more than any human being owns any spot of land. He's renting it until he dies or sells the land to someone else. He didn't live there fo

He doesn't own it any more than any human being owns any spot of land. He's renting it until he dies or sells the land to someone else. He didn't live there for decades unlike his neighbors. He also doesn't have to deal with the results of what he's doing, unlike his neighbors who are dealing with at very least vandalism, possibly worse, and he's obviously in denial about it. But it doesn't really matter to him because he's making millions and the spot is a place where him and is friends party and then don't deal with the results. It's common courtesy. Nobody has to comply with unreasonable demands of neighbors, but they can try not being a dick. It's entitlement to do otherwise. He came up with a meal replacement drink. Great. That doesn't entitle him to move into a community and disregard everyone else. That's how communities get destroyed. Worse, when that stuff is encouraged (or shrugged off), cultures get destroyed. Being a dick is not sustainable.

seizethecheese 10y ago
Yeah, it sounds annoying for the neighbors. How is this newsworthy outside of a local LA neighborhood newsletter?
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  https://hn.algolia.com/?query=soylent&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=soylent&sort=byPopularity&pref...
  - seizethecheese 10y ago
    Soylent the technology company is relevant to us. This story is not relevant to those who live outside the neighborhood in question.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Aside from HN's guidelines... What do you propose? That we should just buy the latest and greatest tech, ignoring where that money goes how it impacts the world around us? That's how you get might makes right. That's how you get corruption and entitlement from those in charge (who are always the ones with money). This isn't about ideology. This is about sustainability, it's about history. This stuff has all happened before. There are tomes written about Gilded Age CEOs who couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone around them because they were the gods of industry. People get hurt from that.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Gilded Age CEOs who couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone around them Couldn't they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie#1901.E2.80.931919:_Philanthropist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie#1901.E2.80.931... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford#Stanford_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford#Stanford_Unive...
        aaron-lebo 10y ago
        Philanthropy doesn't just erase the past. You can find a bunch of examples of good behavior, that doesn't mean destructive behavior wasn't occurring. That's the problem, none of these people are classically "evil". They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us. Related to Carnegie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood > Henry Clay Frick led a group of speculators, including Benjamin Ruff, from Pittsburgh to purchase the abandoned reservoir, modify it, and convert it into a private resort lake for their wealthy associates. Many were connected through business and social links to Carnegie Steel. Development included lowering the dam to make its top wide enough to hold a road, and putting a fish screen in the spillway (the screen also trapped debris). These alterations are thought to have increased the vulnerability of the dam. Moreover, a system of relief pipes and valves, a feature of the original dam, previously sold off for scrap, was not replaced, so the club had no way of lowering the water level in the lake in case of an emergency. The members built cottages and a clubhouse to create the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, an exclusive and private mountain retreat. Membership grew to include more than 50 wealthy Pittsburgh steel, coal, and railroad industrialists.[8]
        icebraining 10y ago
        They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us. You were the one that claimed they couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone. That flood, while a tragedy and something that should probably have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, doesn't really prove your point. It's not like they benefited from its destruction.
    - SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
      Because although we don't like to admit it, sometimes on HN Silicon Valley is our Hollywood and CEOs are our celebs. It appears we're not above the occasional dollop of juicy goss.
      - seizethecheese 10y ago
        Exactly, thank you for articulating this so well.
      - gravypod 10y ago
        I hate to admit it but your're right. Put it in words better then I could.
robryk 10y ago
> He didn't live there for decades unlike his neighbors. How is the length of time one owns some land relevant?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Yeah this is ageism at its ugliest. I can just hear the complaints of "damned kids whose shipping containers are somewhat visible on a faraway hill if I stand in this one particular corner of my lawn!"
gravypod 10y ago
> He's renting it until he dies or sells the land to someone else. So he owns it. It's his land and the next person that comes around can do what they want with it. If that's remove or maintain the container that's up to them. It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks. If they want to claim it's a fire hazard, then yes. But they'll be hard pressed to do that. If they want to claim it's a public safety hazard they can do that. But they'll be hard pressed to do that: it's private property. Seems like they are pulling the common government card of pulling a law out that hasn't been used in a while to make someone comply with some unreasonable demands.
- threeseed 10y ago
  You don't own a house do you ? None of what you said is true in most countries including the US. The government has and will continue to regulate what you do on your own property so much as it affects other members of the community. And yes putting an unsecured shipping container on top of what looks like a hill is a stupid and criminally negligent thing to do.
- swang 10y ago
  > It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks. That is exactly what governments decide. Private property does not mean, "do whatever you want" it merely gives you certain rights that the government enforces. They also enforce certain standards for the properties they sell to you.
- karma_vaccum123 10y ago
  Look for the word "owner" on your deed. Find it? Nope. What you will find is usually "tenant". That's intentional. I don't even know how this thread got this far. You have rights on property, those are expressed in your deed. Those rights are granted to you. That isn't ownership, and the lack of the term "owner" on your deed is by design.

seizethecheese 10y ago

Yeah, it sounds annoying for the neighbors. How is this newsworthy outside of a local LA neighborhood newsletter?

aaron-lebo 10y ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=soylent&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=soylent&sort=byPopularity&pref...
- seizethecheese 10y ago
  Soylent the technology company is relevant to us. This story is not relevant to those who live outside the neighborhood in question.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. Aside from HN's guidelines... What do you propose? That we should just buy the latest and greatest tech, ignoring where that money goes how it impacts the world around us? That's how you get might makes right. That's how you get corruption and entitlement from those in charge (who are always the ones with money). This isn't about ideology. This is about sustainability, it's about history. This stuff has all happened before. There are tomes written about Gilded Age CEOs who couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone around them because they were the gods of industry. People get hurt from that.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Gilded Age CEOs who couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone around them Couldn't they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthro... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon#Philanthropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie#1901.E2.80.931919:_Philanthropist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie#1901.E2.80.931... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford#Stanford_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford#Stanford_Unive...
      - aaron-lebo 10y ago
        Philanthropy doesn't just erase the past. You can find a bunch of examples of good behavior, that doesn't mean destructive behavior wasn't occurring. That's the problem, none of these people are classically "evil". They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us. Related to Carnegie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood > Henry Clay Frick led a group of speculators, including Benjamin Ruff, from Pittsburgh to purchase the abandoned reservoir, modify it, and convert it into a private resort lake for their wealthy associates. Many were connected through business and social links to Carnegie Steel. Development included lowering the dam to make its top wide enough to hold a road, and putting a fish screen in the spillway (the screen also trapped debris). These alterations are thought to have increased the vulnerability of the dam. Moreover, a system of relief pipes and valves, a feature of the original dam, previously sold off for scrap, was not replaced, so the club had no way of lowering the water level in the lake in case of an emergency. The members built cottages and a clubhouse to create the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, an exclusive and private mountain retreat. Membership grew to include more than 50 wealthy Pittsburgh steel, coal, and railroad industrialists.[8]
        icebraining 10y ago
        They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us. You were the one that claimed they couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone. That flood, while a tragedy and something that should probably have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, doesn't really prove your point. It's not like they benefited from its destruction.
  - SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
    Because although we don't like to admit it, sometimes on HN Silicon Valley is our Hollywood and CEOs are our celebs. It appears we're not above the occasional dollop of juicy goss.
    - seizethecheese 10y ago
      Exactly, thank you for articulating this so well.
    - gravypod 10y ago
      I hate to admit it but your're right. Put it in words better then I could.

robryk 10y ago

> He didn't live there for decades unlike his neighbors. How is the length of time one owns some land relevant?

jessaustin 10y ago
Yeah this is ageism at its ugliest. I can just hear the complaints of "damned kids whose shipping containers are somewhat visible on a faraway hill if I stand in this one particular corner of my lawn!"

gravypod 10y ago

> He's renting it until he dies or sells the land to someone else. So he owns it. It's his land and the next person that comes around can do what they want with it. If that's remove or maintain the container that's up to them. It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks. If they want to claim it's a fire hazard, then yes. But they'll be hard pressed to do that. If they want to claim it's a public safety hazard they can do that. But they'll be hard pressed to do that: it's private property. Seems like they are pulling the common government card of pulling a law out that hasn't been used in a while to make someone comply with some unreasonable demands.

threeseed 10y ago
You don't own a house do you ? None of what you said is true in most countries including the US. The government has and will continue to regulate what you do on your own property so much as it affects other members of the community. And yes putting an unsecured shipping container on top of what looks like a hill is a stupid and criminally negligent thing to do.
swang 10y ago
> It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks. That is exactly what governments decide. Private property does not mean, "do whatever you want" it merely gives you certain rights that the government enforces. They also enforce certain standards for the properties they sell to you.
karma_vaccum123 10y ago
Look for the word "owner" on your deed. Find it? Nope. What you will find is usually "tenant". That's intentional. I don't even know how this thread got this far. You have rights on property, those are expressed in your deed. Those rights are granted to you. That isn't ownership, and the lack of the term "owner" on your deed is by design.