9 ms·
The idea of someone living in multiple places is just hilarious. The epitome of privilege. That being said, didn't Z just buy the land from other people? How w
by tabeth 10y ago
The idea of someone living in multiple places is just hilarious. The epitome of privilege.
That being said, didn't Z just buy the land from other people? How was he able to even "buy" the land without full agreement of all of the owners to begin with? Shouldn't the land not belong to him until the transaction is complete?
In any case, the regular people always get screwed in these cases and always will until things are completely communal. Land shouldn't be owned by anyone. Rather, it should be able to be used freely. There are obviously logistical issues, but perhaps that should be and place and we'll figure out the rest?
> Makaala Kaaumoana, the executive director of an environmental group in Hanalei, Kauai, said that the lawsuits would help identify and inform descendants of links to the land they may not know about, which is “a good thing”.
> “It is always a sad thing when families lose their land, for any reason, but at least this way they are compensated,” she said.
The rationalization afterwards is also interesting.
> And Matt Goodale, a neighbor whose 10 acres of breadfruit, banana, mango, lychee and longan trees lie about one and a half miles from Zuckerberg’s property, said that the CEO’s purchase of the land was much better than the alternative: an 80-home development.
Good to know the rich look after each other.
- falcolas 10y agoHe's trying to, not everyone wants to sell (or more accurately, they don't want to sell for the amount Z is offering). [EDIT] Source: http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-zuckerberg-sues-to-force-land-sales/?HSA=74dae150a1d9f99e2592d0eac31ea430d01f35d5 http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-... "For someone to use the law to not only establish title, but to also force a sale requires that they have an ownership claim. For some of the Kauai land, Zuckerberg has done this by purchasing interests from several part-owners."
- aaron-lebo 10y agoHow is he trying to when he won't even talk to his neighbors and his lawyers won't respond to them or journalists? That doesn't sound like caring about the community or acting in good faith.
- falcolas 10y agoHe's bought some portions of the ownership, and is leveraging that via lawsuits to force the others sell. Which tells me there are some who he's contacted and who have said "no".
- iaw 10y agoRather than speculating, could you provide documentation for these statements? I've been following this story fairly closely and the statement "He's bought some portions of the ownership, and is leveraging that via lawsuits to force the others sell." doesn't align with any of the documentation I've seen. For one, he owns the land around the parcels, not portions of the parcels himself. For two, I don't think he's "leveraging" any sort of ownership to utilize the law as ownership does not seem to be needed for this process.
- falcolas 10y agoEdited into my OP: http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-zuckerberg-sues-to-force-land-sales/?HSA=74dae150a1d9f99e2592d0eac31ea430d01f35d5 http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-... For someone to use the law to not only establish title, but to also force a sale requires that they have an ownership claim. For some of the Kauai land, Zuckerberg has done this by purchasing interests from several part-owners.
- iaw 10y ago> not everyone wants to sell (or more accurately, they don't want to sell for the amount Z is offering) Could you provide a source for this? To my knowledge this was his first effort at acquiring the properties. Also, the structure of the law he's using requires the land to be sold at auction to the highest bidder making it, theoretically, fair market value.
- falcolas 10y agoThe laws he's exploiting for the lawsuit require him to own a portion of the land - it's a law which is usually used with condos. So he has contacted at least some of the owners, and many of them said no, hence the lawsuit. This was part of the article a few days back on HN which first introduced the issue.
- dopamean 10y agoWhat do you mean by saying that it is hilarious? My come from a family that has multiple homes, mostly for vacationing purposes, and it's a nice thing. Sure you have to have some amount of privilege to afford it but I'm not sure what's funny about it.
- hxegon 10y agoUh, don't you know that money is evil and being rich is (like, uh, basically) a crime? REPENT CAPITALIST SCUM /s
- cmdrfred 10y agoYou don't consider yourself privileged?
- ferbivore 10y agoDid you even read the comment you're replying to?
- eonw 10y agomany people with lots of privileges to not see themselves as privileged, simply because they know nothing else.
- 67726e 10y ago> simply because they know nothing else. So lemme get this straight, if my ancestors worked hard to provide for their families and I, down the line, inherit some land or money I should feel bad about this? Why?
- umanwizard 10y agoThat's a false dichotomy; you can recognize that you're privileged without simultaneously feeling bad about it.
- 10y ago
- pfarnsworth 10y agoDid you even bother reading the article? Zuckerberg is trying to do the right thing but identifying all the owners of the land first, and then trying to arrange to pay them. That's how it works in Hawaii, except he's being extremely proactive and in a manner that is friendly to the owners, if you RTFA.
- aaron-lebo 10y agoFrom TFA: But for others, Zuckerberg’s lawsuits are unnecessary and unneighborly. “Zuckerberg is saying he wants to respect the local culture and Hawaiian values but … I was always taught that if there was a dispute with somebody you go and knock on their door, sit down, and you kukakuka [discuss] and you hooponopono [make it right],” said Hawaii state representative Kaniela Ing of Maui. “You don’t initiate conversation by filing a lawsuit.” Ing criticized Zuckerberg as “using the same legal loopholes sugar barons in Hawaii exploited centuries ago”, and said he planned to introduce state legislation to reform the quiet title process. One proposal would let kuleana owners group together and form a trust, in order to achieve a fairer price for their land. and “We have been waiting for contact,” said Hope Kallai, who lives on the same street as Zuckerberg, one property away. Kallai said she and other neighbors have attempted to reach out through Zuckerberg’s lawyers and ranch manager with no success. They did know that the billionaire was in town for Christmas, though, because they saw security guards parked on the road. Very proactive.
- nubianwarrior 10y agoIf he was trying to do the right thing he would be using his wealth to better the world, not buy parcels of land. What doublespeak.
- dave5104 10y agoWhen did trying to legally buy land from people who are willing to sell it become the wrong thing?
- vkou 10y agoMe and my brother both own a horse. I have no immediate need for the horse, so I let my brother use it, but still maintain my stake in its ownership. My brother sells you the horse for $100, without asking me. You offer to buy me out for $50... And when I decline, threaten a lawsuit (On the grounds that you will put the horse to better economic use then I would have.) This is a problem between you and my brother, not you and me. This is also a story as old as colonialism. If you think this is all fine and dandy, and lives up to the greatest virtue of capitalism, please replace the horse in the analogy with shareholders having partial ownership of a company, and being forced to give up their stake, just because Zuckerburg paid off the biggest shareholder. Nobody's putting a gun to his head, forcing him to buy 700 acres of land in Hawaii. If he can't come to an agreement with all the owners of the land, he should go back to California, instead of suing minority owners. That's generally how business works.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago> Land shouldn't be owned by anyone. Rather, it should be able to be used freely. How would this work? Honest question. I agree that the concept of land ownership is a little weird - it's one of the most limited, exclusive resources we have. Hypothetically, I would love to be able to use this land that Z is "buying" under the current land ownership paradigm. But that free use, to me, would look like pouring a concrete foundation and building a structure with a bunk room, kitchen, bathroom, common area, with storage for a Hobie Cat, some surfboards, and SCUBA gear, and a patio overlooking the ocean. I'd want the rest of the land to be nicely forested. I would come out for a week every couple months. Would I have freedom to do this in a non-land-ownership system? What would prevent others from building in front of me, or using my structure when I wanted to be there?
- tabeth 10y agoI won't pretend like I'm an expert. However, I will say that in our supposedly democratic land, a useful heuristic would be just to vote. If the land was not owned by anyone and this could be magically enforced, then the people would simply vote for its use, right? As things come up people would just revote. Since no one owns the land there wouldn't be any conflict of interest. You may point out that those who originally voted may be conflicted, but I disagree: any proposition that would benefit the majority would clearly win. Any proposition that doesn't would necessarily be struck down. This kind of system has its own problems, though. Long term sustainability is one, requisites for voting is another. But these problems I think are separate.
- PJDK 10y agoBut how do you decide who gets a vote? Presumably there is some kind of rules based around locality, but then people are where they are due to the current land ownership rules!
- madgar 10y agoYou forgot about protecting minorities. What do you do when the majority of the people in a jurisdiction like (eg.) Mississippi consistently vote down land use by black people? Just accept that the people have spoken and that black people are unwelcome in that jurisdiction? This is not a theoretical exercise. This happens everyday in America in co-op boards, HOAs, etc and it doesn't require anybody saying out loud why an individual is being rejected. The current US president got caught doing this in the 1960s. If you want to redesign land use rights wholesale I would hope you wouldn't make this kind of discrimination more common... maybe that's just me.
- joyeuse6701 10y agoBegin with your own residence.
- gnopgnip 10y agoThe previous owner acquired it through adverse possession over a period of 10+ years. Due to a quirk in the local laws, compensation is still owed to all of those who descended from the original owners. In this case there are over 300 potential owners, some owning as little as one hundredth of a percent of the land. As long as there are unsettled claims no one will invest any time or money to improve the land. The quiet title action settles these claims allowing the land to either be sold or developed, and for all of the current owners to be compensated.
- Arizhel 10y agoThis is Kauai, Hawaii. The land doesn't need to be "improved", it's already perfect as-is. It doesn't need investment, it just needs to be left alone for the locals to enjoy and for nature. If you want to "improve" some land, go buy some ugly desert land in the LA area or something. Or better yet buy up some urban land filled with dilapidated buildings and bulldoze it and build something newer and better.
- Inconel 10y ago> go buy some ugly desert land in the LA area I'm not sure if you've ever visited some of the desert areas around LA, but I wouldn't describe them as ugly or view their potential destruction so flippantly.
- Arizhel 10y agoI have. Some of it is quite interesting and beautiful (like that place where they filmed all the ST:TOS scenes with the slanted rocks), others are not so much. Maybe I should have pointed to some other places. West Texas comes to mind: the area on I-40 going through the northwest part of the state (and Amarillo) is probably the ugliest natural (I guess) land I've ever seen. Just miles of flat, brown dirt. Of course, there's plenty of land marred by humans that could certainly benefit from being bulldozed and rebuilt anew, if someone is looking for land to "improve". Parts of New Jersey around Newark come to mind here, plus Detroit and lots of other places in the Rust Belt. There's also a bunch of desert north of Las Vegas NV that could use "improvement": it's marked by tons of craters from nuclear bomb testing.
- armenarmen 10y agoBecause the tragedy of the commons isn't a trope already. Communally owned things always end up being run super efficiently. There are no negative externalities, that's why Central Asia under the soviets was so pristine and unpoluted. Not to mention how well run recently liberated farms do under community mgmt once the evil (well trained in agriculture with skin in the game but inherently evil) landowners are chased out or strung up. so much better. and never, I repeat never, has transfering property rights to the people lead to the starvation of millions.
- bebop 10y agoNot that long ago 10 acres on the north shore of Kauai was not particularly expensive. It has largely been developed in the last 20 years or so. My point is that the neighbor may not be particularly rich, especially if he is a farmer. It may be that he is more willing to accept a large estate, rather than a subdivision in what is a largely rural area. Note that I am in no way commenting on the situation Zuckerberg finds himself in, but there are people on the north shore who farm (own land/not rich).