4 ms·

The article also indicates he was paying a very large amount in liability taxes and maintaince for a road he possibly owned (it says $500k), and was only offere

The article also indicates he was paying a very large amount in liability taxes and maintaince for a road he possibly owned (it says $500k), and was only offered the ability to charge $2 for parking to offset that. Given, I'm not sure where the $500k comes from. It also seems he was trying to restrict access to the road, not the beach. Maybe he didn't own the road, but it seems you should be able to restrict access to a road you own, but that no one owns a beach, and it didn't actually say he restricted the beach. Maybe that was the intent, but maybe it was due to problems with the cars parking along the road after leaving it open for two years. I do believe most VCs can reduce the potential of the company when the founders have a cohesive vision for it already and know how to run it, and they do have an interest in saying they are better than the others :) So it is a lot about finding those that give good advice, but don't force it, and that's incredibly hard to judge in initial conversations with any of them. I'd recommend talking to companies they are invested in and their fellow board members (i.e. the founders who created the tech) that work for companies they have invested in.

Retric 11y ago
It's very common for property owners to be required to allow access to another property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement Basically, he entered into a contract as part of buying property and now he does not want to abide by it. Which suggests doing business with him is a terrible idea.
- escape_goat 11y ago
  I have some relevant experience. My father owns a property with an easement, purchased from an attorney who worked in easement law, in a different jurisdiction: this man himself mistook some points of law, and last minute paperwork was required. At several levels of government, various departments use maps that clearly indicate (incorrectly) that my father does not own the easement, and the city at one time attempted to suggest that it was frontage. And this is regarding an easement whereupon there is a well-established thicket, not a road. This brings me to the consideration that real estate agents are not lawyers, and that legal status of the easement might have been unclear or incorrectly represented when the purchase was made. Also, I think that if the road was being treated simultaneously as a liability and an obligation by whatever mix of regional law pertained, a legal confrontation would be completely understandable. I do not know or assert that any of these things are the case, but I know that easements are complicated beasts, and that a simple violation of contract may not be the only explanation here.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
s73v3r 11y ago
If he didn't want that responsibility, then he shouldn't have bought the land in the first place.

Retric 11y ago

It's very common for property owners to be required to allow access to another property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement Basically, he entered into a contract as part of buying property and now he does not want to abide by it. Which suggests doing business with him is a terrible idea.

escape_goat 11y ago
I have some relevant experience. My father owns a property with an easement, purchased from an attorney who worked in easement law, in a different jurisdiction: this man himself mistook some points of law, and last minute paperwork was required. At several levels of government, various departments use maps that clearly indicate (incorrectly) that my father does not own the easement, and the city at one time attempted to suggest that it was frontage. And this is regarding an easement whereupon there is a well-established thicket, not a road. This brings me to the consideration that real estate agents are not lawyers, and that legal status of the easement might have been unclear or incorrectly represented when the purchase was made. Also, I think that if the road was being treated simultaneously as a liability and an obligation by whatever mix of regional law pertained, a legal confrontation would be completely understandable. I do not know or assert that any of these things are the case, but I know that easements are complicated beasts, and that a simple violation of contract may not be the only explanation here.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

s73v3r 11y ago

If he didn't want that responsibility, then he shouldn't have bought the land in the first place.