4 ms·

> Without this hack it might be difficult/impossible for a land owner to know with any certainty that they actually own the land they just purchased. If they a

by devoply 10y ago

> Without this hack it might be difficult/impossible for a land owner to know with any certainty that they actually own the land they just purchased. If they are owned by rich people, maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe it's a way to spread their wealth to the lesser fortunate. Heh.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
The legal process here also spreads wealth around, just in a more liquid form. Rather than owning 1/16 of some parcel of land completely enclosed by Zuckerberg's compound, the lesser fortunate will get cash instead.
- devoply 10y ago
  But if they actually had the parcel they could negotiate with the billionaire himself which would lead to a better pay-off. Which would be the main problem that this system circumvents. The secondary problem is those pesky natives coming on your land. There is that Silicon Valley billionaire dealing with that in California if I remember, Kholsa, in his case it's so they can access the public beach.
  - koolba 10y ago
    Looks like Zuck is getting in front of those problems by preemptively building a wall around the property: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/technology/mark-zuckerberg-wall/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/technology/mark-zuckerberg-w...
    - local_kauai 10y ago
      The wall is built and the locals are pissed
wmil 10y ago
It's a bad thing. It prevents people from investing in developing the land. Areas without a clear title tend to be poor because as soon as someone tries to build a factory, workshop, business, or even just a nice house they're hit with multiple lawsuits.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  It's kept that land from becoming a strip mall. Development isn't an unambiguous good. It's very possible the owners are happier with possession of family land over whatever sum of money they could get.
- devoply 10y ago
  Though this is true to some extent. In the end the richest areas are not those that open themselves up to development via foreign investment. It's those that create a ton of protectionism and develop the resources themselves. Countries like China and South Korea. Probably why local Hawaiians are extremely poor while the rich gobble up the land. Foreign investment can take you a step up. To move beyond that you need local development. Local developers would need to develop the land with local workers, and sell out small parcels for a lot of money. Think 1,000 million dollar houses on the same plot Zuckerberg bought for 100 million.
  - goodcanadian 10y ago
    A nitpick, but local Hawaiians are not, generally speaking, extremely poor. They are, for the most part, fairly typical Americans. They and other long term locals face the same problems that locals in all desirable areas face: outsiders coming in with money and driving up prices.
    - local_kauai 10y ago
      This is with good intentions but simply not true. Someone driving up prices is very different than from someone stealing land handed down from your ancestors. This is a forced sale and effectively removes Hawaiians from the land giving it to a rich mainlander.

by devoply 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

The legal process here also spreads wealth around, just in a more liquid form. Rather than owning 1/16 of some parcel of land completely enclosed by Zuckerberg's compound, the lesser fortunate will get cash instead.

devoply 10y ago
But if they actually had the parcel they could negotiate with the billionaire himself which would lead to a better pay-off. Which would be the main problem that this system circumvents. The secondary problem is those pesky natives coming on your land. There is that Silicon Valley billionaire dealing with that in California if I remember, Kholsa, in his case it's so they can access the public beach.
- koolba 10y ago
  Looks like Zuck is getting in front of those problems by preemptively building a wall around the property: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/technology/mark-zuckerberg-wall/ http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/29/technology/mark-zuckerberg-w...
  - local_kauai 10y ago
    The wall is built and the locals are pissed

wmil 10y ago

It's a bad thing. It prevents people from investing in developing the land. Areas without a clear title tend to be poor because as soon as someone tries to build a factory, workshop, business, or even just a nice house they're hit with multiple lawsuits.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's kept that land from becoming a strip mall. Development isn't an unambiguous good. It's very possible the owners are happier with possession of family land over whatever sum of money they could get.
devoply 10y ago
Though this is true to some extent. In the end the richest areas are not those that open themselves up to development via foreign investment. It's those that create a ton of protectionism and develop the resources themselves. Countries like China and South Korea. Probably why local Hawaiians are extremely poor while the rich gobble up the land. Foreign investment can take you a step up. To move beyond that you need local development. Local developers would need to develop the land with local workers, and sell out small parcels for a lot of money. Think 1,000 million dollar houses on the same plot Zuckerberg bought for 100 million.
- goodcanadian 10y ago
  A nitpick, but local Hawaiians are not, generally speaking, extremely poor. They are, for the most part, fairly typical Americans. They and other long term locals face the same problems that locals in all desirable areas face: outsiders coming in with money and driving up prices.
  - local_kauai 10y ago
    This is with good intentions but simply not true. Someone driving up prices is very different than from someone stealing land handed down from your ancestors. This is a forced sale and effectively removes Hawaiians from the land giving it to a rich mainlander.