8 ms·

For Sale: America’s Largest Private Grove of Giant Sequoias

149 points by thread_id 7y ago

mirimir 7y ago
> We value your privacy I hate popups that can't be dismissed. But reader mode works regardless, at least.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mirimir 7y ago
  Edit: Refusing tracking-free access violates GDPR.[0] That is, unless you explicitly deny access to EU residents.[1] 0) https://www.gdprtoday.org/dutch-dpa-rules-websites-must-allow-people-to-refuse-tracking-cookies/ https://www.gdprtoday.org/dutch-dpa-rules-websites-must-allo... 1) https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29562/is-it-possible-to-refuse-offering-service-to-gdpr-protected-customers https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29562/is-it-possible...
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    [1] is not the only way There are a number of ways to demonstrate that you are not doing business in the EU and thus do not have to comply with the GDPR and can refuse tracking-free access.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      How so? But yes, I do see that Atlas Obscura does do that. On their privacy policy page, I find: > The Website is hosted in the United States and is intended for and directed to users in the United States. If you are accessing the Website from the European Union, Asia, or any other region with laws or regulations governing personal data collection, use, and disclosure, that differ from United States laws, please be advised that through your continued use of the Website, which is governed by U.S. law, this Privacy Policy, and our Terms of Use, you are transferring your personal information to the United States and you consent to that transfer.
      - mirimir 7y ago
        Edit: Upon reflection, I don't think that this satisfies GDPR. They would need to entirely deny access to users in the EU. Just telling them that US law applies, and that they can access the site only if they agree to give up their rights, doesn't suffice. But I guess that we'll see. I'm sure that complaints have been lodged.
        shkkmo 7y ago
        I think the key part is this assertion: "The Website is hosted in the United States and is intended for and directed to users in the United States." As long as there aren't other indications that the business is actually doing business in the EU (e.g. has German or French localization, sells stuff to EU based customers, etc), this helps demonstrate that they don't need to comply with the GDPR. While there are many companies that have chosen to try and block users in the EU, I don't think this is required, or intended by GDPR.
        mirimir 7y ago
        Maybe so. I guess that we'll see.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      GDPR applies regardless of whether you're doing business, and IIUIC applies to _people_ from the EU rather than just people currently in the EU.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        > applies to _people_ from the EU rather than just people currently in the EU. No, it applies to "data subjects who are in the Union" (art. 3 - "Territorial scope"), not from the Union. (This is for non-EU data processing organizations; the EU-based organizations/companies must apply the GDPR to everyone in the world)
        pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        I read it as they are "in the Union" by virtue of nationality; that is they are "[legally] in the Union" [https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/]; https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/]; but it seems you're right, eg. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
      - wavefunction 7y ago
        The company I work for interprets it as any EU citizen any where on the globe, so we just implemented GDPR for every one regardless of their location or particulars.
onetimemanytime 7y ago
$15 million....what's that, an olive in the salad of US military? Have USA buy it...
- adventured 7y ago
  Could easily do it financially, the problem is you have to get the attention of someone in government that matters and prompt them to go to bat to convince numerous other people of the need to spend the money. Stray spending like that only happens as a pet cause that someone with influence champions, in doing so they burn a political marker (diverts funds from someone else's pet cause). Alternatively you have to get someone to put it into a future budget for one of the land management services, which can take years depending. Might be far easier to get a rich person to fork over the $15m and then hand it over to the forest service, like so: "The league plans to transfer the land to the US Forest Service in the next decade, which will make it part of the Giant Sequoia National Monument."
  - beamatronic 7y ago
    Where’s a Gates or a Zuckerberg when you need them?
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Why does the world's wealthiest country have to rely on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals to protect its natural and cultural heritage? I think the Parks Department can handle this one.
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        There are already large Sequoia groves under the protection of the parks and other departments.
        pvaldes 7y ago
        ...And each one that remains counts in our survival at middle term. Should be easier and less expensive to protect than an equivalent area in Amazonian rainforest.
imode 7y ago
I will be shocked if they can raise the required amount. Shame that this property will probably be bulldozed and exploited like every other natural resource on this planet. To downvoters, is it because I'm right, or because you don't like the consequences?
- lacker 7y ago
  I doubt anyone would bulldoze the area. It doesn’t have all that much commercial value as an empty field. The most likely outcome if they don’t manage to raise the 15m is that the property stays as it is, and the owners hold out to get more money later, while preserving the trees to keep up its property value.
buboard 7y ago
I see a cottage industry forming which will raise prices of rural land due to visibility and environmental campaigning.
gigatexal 7y ago
Someone please buy it to conserve it and it harvest
- gigatexal 7y ago
  doh! I meant someone buy it to conserve it and protect it from harvesting.
  - BasicObject 7y ago
    You can edit comments. FYI
pvaldes 7y ago
Once-in-life opportunity for making murica great again easily without waiting for 1000 years for a new national park.
zyordz 7y ago
https://www.savetheredwoods.org/project/alder-creek/ https://www.savetheredwoods.org/project/alder-creek/
mlvljr 7y ago
Any sasquatch around?
amelius 7y ago
I won't be surprised if the Chinese buy it. They buy everything these days.
MiguelVieira 7y ago
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-16/alder-creek-giant-sequoia-grove-conservation https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-16/alder-cr... "After more than seven decades of ownership, the Rouchs have struck a deal to sell their sequoia-studded piece of the Sierra Nevada to the Save the Redwoods League, a century-old conservation group that has long hankered after the property."
- JoBrad 7y ago
  I think the linked article has the same information: > The [Save the Redwoods] league recently signed a purchase agreement with the family, and is seeking $15 million from the public to acquire the land and the giant sequoias on it, nearly 500 of which have a diameter of six feet or more.
diveanon 7y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a couple people on this site who could afford to buy it outright. Someone just make a gofundme and turn it into public land.
- trappist 7y ago
  Why? It seems to me private ownership has performed at least as well as public for the preservation of the trees.
  - lacker 7y ago
    Not really. The current owners have cleared some of the forest, just not the sequoias, which probably isn’t optimal for preservation. I mean, I don’t blame the current owners, but it does seem like the trees would likely be better off as part of the adjacent park than staying in private hands.
    - guerrilla 7y ago
      > I don’t blame the current owners I do. Who do you blame?
- lacker 7y ago
  If you read the article, that’s precisely what they are doing. (Well, they aren’t using go fund me.) They just need another $8 mil.
williesleg 7y ago
I'd make some charcoal and houses. Not enough houses, too many homeless. Can't afford housing. Not enough BBQ, love me some BBQ. -Bernie
justhw 7y ago
I've wanted to see these trees for a long time and recently got the chance to camp in Sequoia National Park. It was breathtaking to say the least. One of my favorite places.
- jcims 7y ago
  Saw them for the first time at the same park about four years ago. One of the trippiest sober experiences of my life. They seem alien.

149 points by thread_id 7y ago

mirimir 7y ago

> We value your privacy I hate popups that can't be dismissed. But reader mode works regardless, at least.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mirimir 7y ago
Edit: Refusing tracking-free access violates GDPR.[0] That is, unless you explicitly deny access to EU residents.[1] 0) https://www.gdprtoday.org/dutch-dpa-rules-websites-must-allow-people-to-refuse-tracking-cookies/ https://www.gdprtoday.org/dutch-dpa-rules-websites-must-allo... 1) https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29562/is-it-possible-to-refuse-offering-service-to-gdpr-protected-customers https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29562/is-it-possible...
- shkkmo 7y ago
  [1] is not the only way There are a number of ways to demonstrate that you are not doing business in the EU and thus do not have to comply with the GDPR and can refuse tracking-free access.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    How so? But yes, I do see that Atlas Obscura does do that. On their privacy policy page, I find: > The Website is hosted in the United States and is intended for and directed to users in the United States. If you are accessing the Website from the European Union, Asia, or any other region with laws or regulations governing personal data collection, use, and disclosure, that differ from United States laws, please be advised that through your continued use of the Website, which is governed by U.S. law, this Privacy Policy, and our Terms of Use, you are transferring your personal information to the United States and you consent to that transfer.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      Edit: Upon reflection, I don't think that this satisfies GDPR. They would need to entirely deny access to users in the EU. Just telling them that US law applies, and that they can access the site only if they agree to give up their rights, doesn't suffice. But I guess that we'll see. I'm sure that complaints have been lodged.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        I think the key part is this assertion: "The Website is hosted in the United States and is intended for and directed to users in the United States." As long as there aren't other indications that the business is actually doing business in the EU (e.g. has German or French localization, sells stuff to EU based customers, etc), this helps demonstrate that they don't need to comply with the GDPR. While there are many companies that have chosen to try and block users in the EU, I don't think this is required, or intended by GDPR.
        mirimir 7y ago
        Maybe so. I guess that we'll see.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    GDPR applies regardless of whether you're doing business, and IIUIC applies to _people_ from the EU rather than just people currently in the EU.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > applies to _people_ from the EU rather than just people currently in the EU. No, it applies to "data subjects who are in the Union" (art. 3 - "Territorial scope"), not from the Union. (This is for non-EU data processing organizations; the EU-based organizations/companies must apply the GDPR to everyone in the world)
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        I read it as they are "in the Union" by virtue of nationality; that is they are "[legally] in the Union" [https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/]; https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/]; but it seems you're right, eg. https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-does-data-protection-law-apply_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
    - wavefunction 7y ago
      The company I work for interprets it as any EU citizen any where on the globe, so we just implemented GDPR for every one regardless of their location or particulars.

onetimemanytime 7y ago

$15 million....what's that, an olive in the salad of US military? Have USA buy it...

adventured 7y ago
Could easily do it financially, the problem is you have to get the attention of someone in government that matters and prompt them to go to bat to convince numerous other people of the need to spend the money. Stray spending like that only happens as a pet cause that someone with influence champions, in doing so they burn a political marker (diverts funds from someone else's pet cause). Alternatively you have to get someone to put it into a future budget for one of the land management services, which can take years depending. Might be far easier to get a rich person to fork over the $15m and then hand it over to the forest service, like so: "The league plans to transfer the land to the US Forest Service in the next decade, which will make it part of the Giant Sequoia National Monument."
- beamatronic 7y ago
  Where’s a Gates or a Zuckerberg when you need them?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Why does the world's wealthiest country have to rely on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals to protect its natural and cultural heritage? I think the Parks Department can handle this one.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      There are already large Sequoia groves under the protection of the parks and other departments.
      - pvaldes 7y ago
        ...And each one that remains counts in our survival at middle term. Should be easier and less expensive to protect than an equivalent area in Amazonian rainforest.

imode 7y ago

I will be shocked if they can raise the required amount. Shame that this property will probably be bulldozed and exploited like every other natural resource on this planet. To downvoters, is it because I'm right, or because you don't like the consequences?

lacker 7y ago
I doubt anyone would bulldoze the area. It doesn’t have all that much commercial value as an empty field. The most likely outcome if they don’t manage to raise the 15m is that the property stays as it is, and the owners hold out to get more money later, while preserving the trees to keep up its property value.

buboard 7y ago

I see a cottage industry forming which will raise prices of rural land due to visibility and environmental campaigning.

gigatexal 7y ago

Someone please buy it to conserve it and it harvest

gigatexal 7y ago
doh! I meant someone buy it to conserve it and protect it from harvesting.
- BasicObject 7y ago
  You can edit comments. FYI

pvaldes 7y ago

Once-in-life opportunity for making murica great again easily without waiting for 1000 years for a new national park.

zyordz 7y ago

https://www.savetheredwoods.org/project/alder-creek/ https://www.savetheredwoods.org/project/alder-creek/

mlvljr 7y ago

Any sasquatch around?

amelius 7y ago

I won't be surprised if the Chinese buy it. They buy everything these days.

MiguelVieira 7y ago

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-16/alder-creek-giant-sequoia-grove-conservation https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-16/alder-cr... "After more than seven decades of ownership, the Rouchs have struck a deal to sell their sequoia-studded piece of the Sierra Nevada to the Save the Redwoods League, a century-old conservation group that has long hankered after the property."

JoBrad 7y ago
I think the linked article has the same information: > The [Save the Redwoods] league recently signed a purchase agreement with the family, and is seeking $15 million from the public to acquire the land and the giant sequoias on it, nearly 500 of which have a diameter of six feet or more.

diveanon 7y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a couple people on this site who could afford to buy it outright. Someone just make a gofundme and turn it into public land.

trappist 7y ago
Why? It seems to me private ownership has performed at least as well as public for the preservation of the trees.
- lacker 7y ago
  Not really. The current owners have cleared some of the forest, just not the sequoias, which probably isn’t optimal for preservation. I mean, I don’t blame the current owners, but it does seem like the trees would likely be better off as part of the adjacent park than staying in private hands.
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    > I don’t blame the current owners I do. Who do you blame?
lacker 7y ago
If you read the article, that’s precisely what they are doing. (Well, they aren’t using go fund me.) They just need another $8 mil.

williesleg 7y ago

I'd make some charcoal and houses. Not enough houses, too many homeless. Can't afford housing. Not enough BBQ, love me some BBQ. -Bernie

justhw 7y ago

I've wanted to see these trees for a long time and recently got the chance to camp in Sequoia National Park. It was breathtaking to say the least. One of my favorite places.

jcims 7y ago
Saw them for the first time at the same park about four years ago. One of the trippiest sober experiences of my life. They seem alien.