4 ms·

Apparently I am not acquainted with the plight of unused campgrounds, because this makes me want to go find some redwood trees and throw up on them. Could some

Apparently I am not acquainted with the plight of unused campgrounds, because this makes me want to go find some redwood trees and throw up on them. Could someone explain to me in what alternate reality these temporary changes were worth $2.5 million in fines? I like California, or should say I liked California until reading this. But it now appears that the inmates are running the asylum.

bryanlarsen 13y ago
Damage to waterways can easily justify fines that large or larger.
- downandout 13y ago
  And you are claiming that you, or anyone else for that matter, can prove that installing a few temporary platforms and fake ruins caused actual damage to a waterway?
  - mseebach 13y ago
    The problem seems to be that some platforms were build on the bank of the creek with no erosion control, meaning that a good rain storm or two might cause it to collapse into the creek which presumably would block it. There's certainly, let's call it "journalistic excess" in the story (OMG! Google busses!) but I think real damage was done. Weird that neither Parker or the owner had the sense to think that they should clean up afterwards. The specifically sought out the place because of its ecological beauty.
  - MarciaPetros 13y ago
    Can you, or anyone else for that matter, prove that installing a few temporary platforms and fake ruins WILL NOT cause actual damage to a waterway? If you can't see that these regulations are there specifically to protect precious natural reserves from unanticipated damage, you are a moron. The penalty for such barefaced contempt of the law should be death. As a billionaire with an army of lawyers, Sean Parker has no excuse for flaunting the general will of the public in this way. This isn't an innocent mistake made in a drunken moment of passion. This is calculated, premeditated contempt for the laws of our society. If Sean Parker has so little respect for our laws he should have his wealth stripped and be excommunicated from the state. He should feel lucky to escape this kind of crime with his life. Obviously American society is degenerate and borderline non-existent when this kind of conspicuous contempt for society receives apologies by supposedly well-educated people.
    - downandout 13y ago
      Can you, or anyone else for that matter, prove that installing a few temporary platforms and fake ruins WILL NOT cause actual damage to a waterway? Someone qualified to do so probably could, yes. Asking preposterous questions like this isn't lending your side of the argument any credibility.
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        A group of people, ostensibly qualified, decided that it was worth a $2.5 million dollar fine. The burden of proof is on you.
        downandout 13y ago
        Please list their qualifications.
        FireBeyond 13y ago
        You've really lost the plot - you have nothing more to argue than "prove it", "don't believe it", etc., in a manner that amounts to little more than "nah nah I can't hear you". I have friends who are geologic and hydrologic engineers. Their conclusion on reading the 132 page report published was that it was written by persons who similar qualifications, and not laymen. You're the one arguing against reason, that somehow the California state governments ecology agency just employs random yahoos to conduct geologic assessments on natural parks and issue seven digit fines if they don't like what they see, all because we shouldn't be hating on one of the Facebook guys...
    - wavefunction 13y ago
      I don't know if I'd advocate death, but he certainly "knew better." It's bad enough he spent more on one day than most Americans can earn in a lifetime, but for what? Some ephemeral bullshit in exchange for lasting damage to the commons?
  - calinet6 13y ago
    There was a bridge built over a waterway, yes, with a hard concrete channel underneath. Unless done absolutely correctly (and this is a very complicated subject of environmental science) the hard bottom channel can create erosion that destroys local riparian habitat within the erosion zone, as well as sedimentation that destroys (yes, destroys) downstream habitat. The increased sedimentation also changes the water chemistry and particulate content, so species of fish, insects (which fish, birds, and other animals eat, being an important base of the food chain), and other species are greatly affected, if not entirely killed off downstream. Of particular interest with this stream is salmon spawning, which is extremely sensitive and a huge focus of environmental groups in California and the northwest, for good reason. No one is simply claiming it—it is absolutely proven.
    - stingrae 13y ago
      It was my understanding from the article that they actually built the pond over which the bridge was built. Would this still be considered a waterway in your understanding? Not to seem like I am defending this terrible act. Digging a pond in an old redwood grove seems like it would cause quite a bit of damage.
      - calinet6 13y ago
        Hm, in that case it might be more forgivable. But from the photo here: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/andforwhat.jpg http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/andforwh... -- (note the filename, ha) -- it appeared to be a streambed where they built the pond.
  - whyenot 13y ago
    Federally listed steelhead use the lower reaches of the creek to spawn. Construction without taking measure to keep sediment from reaching the creek will affect steelhead reproductive success downstream and would be considered a take under the endangered species act.
joonix 13y ago
People like you, who can't understand why a massive forest full of redwood trees is worth protecting with heavy-handedness, who California would love to keep outside of its borders. So I think they're doing something right.
robmil 13y ago
The fine has both to be punitive and to serve as a deterrent to others — so to be punitive, it has to be relative to the income of the person/company being fined, and to be a deterrent it also needs to be severe. I don't see any reason it has to be similar to the direct cost of the damage caused.
saalweachter 13y ago
He didn't own the land he was modifying. If he was illegally bulldozing redwoods on land he paid cash money for, you might be able to make an argument about environmentalism. But he didn't own it. That's straight up property rights.

bryanlarsen 13y ago

Damage to waterways can easily justify fines that large or larger.

downandout 13y ago
And you are claiming that you, or anyone else for that matter, can prove that installing a few temporary platforms and fake ruins caused actual damage to a waterway?
- mseebach 13y ago
  The problem seems to be that some platforms were build on the bank of the creek with no erosion control, meaning that a good rain storm or two might cause it to collapse into the creek which presumably would block it. There's certainly, let's call it "journalistic excess" in the story (OMG! Google busses!) but I think real damage was done. Weird that neither Parker or the owner had the sense to think that they should clean up afterwards. The specifically sought out the place because of its ecological beauty.
- MarciaPetros 13y ago
  Can you, or anyone else for that matter, prove that installing a few temporary platforms and fake ruins WILL NOT cause actual damage to a waterway? If you can't see that these regulations are there specifically to protect precious natural reserves from unanticipated damage, you are a moron. The penalty for such barefaced contempt of the law should be death. As a billionaire with an army of lawyers, Sean Parker has no excuse for flaunting the general will of the public in this way. This isn't an innocent mistake made in a drunken moment of passion. This is calculated, premeditated contempt for the laws of our society. If Sean Parker has so little respect for our laws he should have his wealth stripped and be excommunicated from the state. He should feel lucky to escape this kind of crime with his life. Obviously American society is degenerate and borderline non-existent when this kind of conspicuous contempt for society receives apologies by supposedly well-educated people.
  - downandout 13y ago
    Can you, or anyone else for that matter, prove that installing a few temporary platforms and fake ruins WILL NOT cause actual damage to a waterway? Someone qualified to do so probably could, yes. Asking preposterous questions like this isn't lending your side of the argument any credibility.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      A group of people, ostensibly qualified, decided that it was worth a $2.5 million dollar fine. The burden of proof is on you.
      - downandout 13y ago
        Please list their qualifications.
        FireBeyond 13y ago
        You've really lost the plot - you have nothing more to argue than "prove it", "don't believe it", etc., in a manner that amounts to little more than "nah nah I can't hear you". I have friends who are geologic and hydrologic engineers. Their conclusion on reading the 132 page report published was that it was written by persons who similar qualifications, and not laymen. You're the one arguing against reason, that somehow the California state governments ecology agency just employs random yahoos to conduct geologic assessments on natural parks and issue seven digit fines if they don't like what they see, all because we shouldn't be hating on one of the Facebook guys...
  - wavefunction 13y ago
    I don't know if I'd advocate death, but he certainly "knew better." It's bad enough he spent more on one day than most Americans can earn in a lifetime, but for what? Some ephemeral bullshit in exchange for lasting damage to the commons?
- calinet6 13y ago
  There was a bridge built over a waterway, yes, with a hard concrete channel underneath. Unless done absolutely correctly (and this is a very complicated subject of environmental science) the hard bottom channel can create erosion that destroys local riparian habitat within the erosion zone, as well as sedimentation that destroys (yes, destroys) downstream habitat. The increased sedimentation also changes the water chemistry and particulate content, so species of fish, insects (which fish, birds, and other animals eat, being an important base of the food chain), and other species are greatly affected, if not entirely killed off downstream. Of particular interest with this stream is salmon spawning, which is extremely sensitive and a huge focus of environmental groups in California and the northwest, for good reason. No one is simply claiming it—it is absolutely proven.
  - stingrae 13y ago
    It was my understanding from the article that they actually built the pond over which the bridge was built. Would this still be considered a waterway in your understanding? Not to seem like I am defending this terrible act. Digging a pond in an old redwood grove seems like it would cause quite a bit of damage.
    - calinet6 13y ago
      Hm, in that case it might be more forgivable. But from the photo here: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/andforwhat.jpg http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/andforwh... -- (note the filename, ha) -- it appeared to be a streambed where they built the pond.
- whyenot 13y ago
  Federally listed steelhead use the lower reaches of the creek to spawn. Construction without taking measure to keep sediment from reaching the creek will affect steelhead reproductive success downstream and would be considered a take under the endangered species act.

joonix 13y ago

People like you, who can't understand why a massive forest full of redwood trees is worth protecting with heavy-handedness, who California would love to keep outside of its borders. So I think they're doing something right.

robmil 13y ago

The fine has both to be punitive and to serve as a deterrent to others — so to be punitive, it has to be relative to the income of the person/company being fined, and to be a deterrent it also needs to be severe. I don't see any reason it has to be similar to the direct cost of the damage caused.

saalweachter 13y ago

He didn't own the land he was modifying. If he was illegally bulldozing redwoods on land he paid cash money for, you might be able to make an argument about environmentalism. But he didn't own it. That's straight up property rights.