4 ms·
Vineyard of Silicon Valley VC hit with $4m in penalties after bulldozing wetland
- olliej 7y ago3 million is pittance for people like this. They should have a fine and be required to fully restore the land they destroyed. We don’t let someone who stole a tv keep the tv, not should we when they’re stealing public resources. Otherwise the message is very simple: breaking the law only adds to the construction cost but let’s you keep the construction.
- LegitShady 7y agoThey can't restore it in that location as its been so heavily disturbed, but offsite compensation is common in industry. That being said, where I live the people involved would have likely risked real jail time.
- olliej 7y agoWetland restoration is possible, it just takes years and years, but is possible, and will cost real amounts of money.
- LegitShady 7y agoI work in industry that deals with that all the time. I'm saying that compensation can happen off site (Creating a wetland elsewhere in compensation for habitat lost) in many cases when the original wetland is already beyond saving.
- sandino 7y agoThey should have a fine and be required to fully restore the land they destroyed. No, they shouldn't simply be fined and required to restore the land. In addition to all of this -- they should be put in jail. That's the only way these people will begin to get the message.
- olliej 7y agoThese people inevitably hide behind companies. The obvious solution is to make executives of companies that commit criminal acts themselves be held criminally liable. After all they've spent decades arguing their grossly disproportionate incomes is due to the "risk" they're taking. But in the US especially it seems unlikely law makers will ever hold the people who pay them culpable
- lunias 7y agoAgreed. In the event that the land cannot be restored then you should be required to purchase a similarly sized piece of land and donate it to a preservation society. The destroyed land should also be donated. An eye for an eye doesn't work when one person values their eyes less. The perpetrator must see punishment greater than that experienced by the victim.
- FreedomToCreate 7y agoThere is a good chance they knew that and the fee is cheaper than spending money to convince the county to allow them to build (ex. paying for environmental studies and permits)
- xenospn 7y agoThey’re a VC. Managing risk is what they do.
- jiveturkey 7y agoyep. just like the Sean Parker wedding. completely planned.
- rdtwo 7y agoThat was probably a smart move on the contractors part. They would have never been able to get permits for that stuff and it would have taken years. Filling in wetlands is almost always the right thing to do economically
- Tiktaalik 7y agoSure let's fuck over the habitat of migratory birds because it's "the right thing economically". Who cares the consequences? What a psycho thing to think. Fuck off.
- rdtwo 7y agoIncentives drive behaviors, this is true everywhere. If the fines are less than the benefits X odds of getting caught then the behaviors will continue. In this case they should have been forced to restore wetlands in place or forfeit the land. This minor fine is just the cost of doing business
- adfm 7y agoThis is why we can’t have nice things.
- rdtwo 7y agoThis is why we need government fines that are always greater than the benefits received from the violations