Soylent CEO Could Face Criminal Charges for LA Hilltop 'Experiment'
la.curbed.com
la.curbed.com
Can I say "your orchard is an eye sore, you have to flatten it"?
If he bought the land then I don't see a reason to press criminal charges. I could see them saying "you need to maintain the property," but I don't understand "you need to remove it."
I think it's crazy that people can come on to your private property and say "remove this" and make you comply. If anything, why the hell aren't the cops arresting people who are destroying his private property? In my eyes they are coming after a victim.
Because he had "private security" conducting regular inspections.
I don't know if you live in California, but "permits" are the go to weapon of neighborhood activist groups to try to get what they want. Whether it is to prevent building, property use, or nuisances. My guess is that someone argued the container is a "building" (it has windows and a door after all), and every city requires that you get a permit before you put a building on your property. Whether it is a lowly garden shed or a guest house.
Should neighbors be able to attack each other with the municipal code? That is a pretty deep question. Do they? Sure all the time.
Some negative effects are wrongful, but far from all.
[0] - http://image.syracuse.com/home/syr-media/width620/img/weathe...
This was told to me by a US police officer who came in to talk to us about getting ready to drive. He said going to the mall or a football stadium on a Sunday is the perfect way to get practice. It just needed to be private property.
Edit: To clarify this happened a few years ago when I was still in high school.
There are millions of things the government could go after him for but they didn't. They didn't go after permits, or safety codes, or anything. They cited him for "abandoned or vacant building open to the public" which is complete BS.
If they went after him for building permits (which do not apply here) or anything else I'd agree that is fine. That is not what happened. What they have done is essentially went after him for a charge of "I don't like what you have that here, it looks ugly"
Also, having an vacant building open to the public is a safety code violation. Why do you think empty building have locked doors and fences around them?
If he had built a gazebo or similar structure on the land, would the neighbors have anything to say about it (except maybe "make sure the homeless can't be comfortable in it")?
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?9185=9185&Acti...
Maybe it's intentionally BS, and the city expects him to win. Then the city can say, "well a jury found him not guilty" and shut up the annoying neighbors without looking like they are ignoring the problem.
Hopefully you are right and this turns out in RR's favor.
Look at the Tiny House movement. It's clever but it is also a symptom of something rotten. There is something wrong with a society where half a person's working life is dedicated to the establishment and maintenance of mere shelter.
But also, that is not what happened. He did what amounted to putting a box on a hill.
Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly.
Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same?
(Had to sneak in the pun)
The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them.
The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible.
The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it."
To me, that is unreasonable.
> Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly
Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.
Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.
Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...
(this is a rough euphemism for a zoning ordinance, where people buy land in cities with standing agreements not to do stupid shit that bothers their neighbors)
FWIW, basically everyone in the world disagrees with you. Sunlight is an essential factor in building codes.
At least we've backed off from the "this is just like building a giant dome over your neighbor's house to deprive them of all sunlight" analogy. That was silly.
Awesome. Can't wait to establish my crack den/brothel/suboxone clinic/for profit prison/coal mine/pesticide factory/eurotrash party house as your next door neighbor.
Zoning regulations a reason.
From the looks of the pictures, it would take a pretty huge earthquake to get that container even to a spot where it could start rolling; the container would be the least of your problems.
Particularly because the other statements also seem like they are grasping at straws for anything to use against him.
At the end, the neighbours are just being annoying
EDIT: i need coffee
To me, this backlash seems like one of those over-regulated/over-litigious things about America that make it more hostile to people exploring their lives than a poorer or less developed country.
But maybe it's wrong to say it's the country. Pretty sure his neighbors would have joined him if this happened in Appalachia instead of LA.
Just because you own the land doesn't mean that (a) you can construct any dwelling you want and (b) you can do anything you want on it if it affects your neighbours.
Why does this call to mind all the goofy statistical comparisons that pit USA against ten tiny nations in Europe plus Japan? Get out more, man.
Im with the OP here, in a less litigus/hyper-regulated community and most importantly a more socially laid back one this would not be such an overblown problem.
Most likely a problem like this could easily be dealt with by being approached by the neighbors and being politely told of their problems with it. Reasoning with him first and resorting to law only for extreme situations. Even in the article he said he's doing it because a neighbor complained. That makes you question the value of immediately jumping to the leg system to solve all of your minor problems. As Americans seemed to have been raise to do.
No wonder the legal system is continually bursting at the seems from demand for court time.
He didn't live there for decades unlike his neighbors. He also doesn't have to deal with the results of what he's doing, unlike his neighbors who are dealing with at very least vandalism, possibly worse, and he's obviously in denial about it. But it doesn't really matter to him because he's making millions and the spot is a place where him and is friends party and then don't deal with the results.
It's common courtesy. Nobody has to comply with unreasonable demands of neighbors, but they can try not being a dick. It's entitlement to do otherwise.
He came up with a meal replacement drink. Great. That doesn't entitle him to move into a community and disregard everyone else. That's how communities get destroyed. Worse, when that stuff is encouraged (or shrugged off), cultures get destroyed. Being a dick is not sustainable.
Aside from HN's guidelines...
What do you propose? That we should just buy the latest and greatest tech, ignoring where that money goes how it impacts the world around us?
That's how you get might makes right. That's how you get corruption and entitlement from those in charge (who are always the ones with money).
This isn't about ideology. This is about sustainability, it's about history. This stuff has all happened before. There are tomes written about Gilded Age CEOs who couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone around them because they were the gods of industry. People get hurt from that.
Couldn't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthro...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon#Philanthropy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie#1901.E2.80.931...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford#Stanford_Unive...
You can find a bunch of examples of good behavior, that doesn't mean destructive behavior wasn't occurring. That's the problem, none of these people are classically "evil". They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us.
Related to Carnegie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood
> Henry Clay Frick led a group of speculators, including Benjamin Ruff, from Pittsburgh to purchase the abandoned reservoir, modify it, and convert it into a private resort lake for their wealthy associates. Many were connected through business and social links to Carnegie Steel. Development included lowering the dam to make its top wide enough to hold a road, and putting a fish screen in the spillway (the screen also trapped debris). These alterations are thought to have increased the vulnerability of the dam. Moreover, a system of relief pipes and valves, a feature of the original dam, previously sold off for scrap, was not replaced, so the club had no way of lowering the water level in the lake in case of an emergency. The members built cottages and a clubhouse to create the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, an exclusive and private mountain retreat. Membership grew to include more than 50 wealthy Pittsburgh steel, coal, and railroad industrialists.[8]
You were the one that claimed they couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone. That flood, while a tragedy and something that should probably have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, doesn't really prove your point. It's not like they benefited from its destruction.
So he owns it. It's his land and the next person that comes around can do what they want with it. If that's remove or maintain the container that's up to them.
It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks. If they want to claim it's a fire hazard, then yes. But they'll be hard pressed to do that. If they want to claim it's a public safety hazard they can do that. But they'll be hard pressed to do that: it's private property.
Seems like they are pulling the common government card of pulling a law out that hasn't been used in a while to make someone comply with some unreasonable demands.
None of what you said is true in most countries including the US. The government has and will continue to regulate what you do on your own property so much as it affects other members of the community.
And yes putting an unsecured shipping container on top of what looks like a hill is a stupid and criminally negligent thing to do.
That is exactly what governments decide.
Private property does not mean, "do whatever you want" it merely gives you certain rights that the government enforces. They also enforce certain standards for the properties they sell to you.
I don't even know how this thread got this far. You have rights on property, those are expressed in your deed. Those rights are granted to you. That isn't ownership, and the lack of the term "owner" on your deed is by design.
And I guess we should care because it's not great to see the "typical Silicon Valley disruptive CEO" narrative personified.
Ownership isn't a free pass to do whatever you want, and the neighbors can suck it.
The problem is that in many areas the land use restrictions are very similar to regulated businesses, there to protect those who came first and don't want competition or others near them. While I think a shipping container is absurd I want to know, what is the restriction on building a house there?
If you can properly secure it, demonstrate its structural integrity, fire safety etc then it's usually fine.
Though, even under those circumstance, how would you feel if you were a beekeeper who had carefully curated and bred your hives for years, you moved, and all of a sudden your bees, whom you see as lovely helpful animals going out and literally making flowers bloom every day, are ordered destroyed because your neighbor has an allergy? Ownership isn't a free pass to do whatever you want, but it's equally false to imply that nobody has any ability to assert their own interests, or as is the case here, novel ideas over the status quo.
I think ownership really does make a big difference here because if he were just dumping a container into a park because he can afford a shipping container and moving it to a park, that'd be very clearly dickish. If he built a wooden gazebo after buying the lot with lots of hostile armrests so that the homeless couldn't shelter there, nobody would care at all and the neighbors would probably love it. It seems like he's done a slightly more flamboyant and slightly more humane version of the gazebo. Putting glass in the windows was a bad move from the start, but they're probably better as shutters or open-air anyway. In a year, it probably wouldn't be bright red at all, because local graffiti artists would have covered it larger pieces and it would look exactly as the community of humans using the parkspace dictated. (Assuming he doesn't just paint over the graffiti, which would truly be a dick move.)
The same, no. But on the same spectrum — namely, a property owner acting unilaterally, his neighbors' concerns be damned — absolutely.
Do you legitimately think that's not thumbing their noses at their new neighbors? Do you actually believe that the neighbors – you know, the folks who were there first — have no choice but to suck it up? "Welp, they bought the house and moved in. Nothing to be done about it now."
If, on the other hand, you mean suddenly dropping over for tea and scones of a weekend morning, or fruity pink drinks after work, then no, I don't think they're obligated to "suck it up". Their neighborhood, from their perspective, has just been "invaded", and they have a legitimate right to feel aggrieved by that, right or wrong, bigotry or not, assholery or otherwise.
Just like the folks in Lincoln Heights have a right to feel aggrieved by Rhinehart's ugly, unmaintained container — except, of course, that the gay couple didn't break any laws. (Just a few years ago, they might have, depending on jurisdiction, but since Lawrence v. Texas, there isn't even that; it's just confrontational, and possibly even rude.)
I'm also doubtful that the gay couple truly hasn't broken any laws. I'm sure that with enough digging, the homophobic neighbors can find a fence on the wrong side of the property line, a deck that isn't zoned properly, or something similar; the neighbors could even pass a HOA regulation prohibiting pride flags. Does that make it morally justified, because it's "their" homophobic town? It seems like you think so.
Would you call it confrontational for a KKK member to move into a black neighborhood and fly Ol' Dixie? Because that's perfectly parallel to your proposed scenario, and that's what you're arguing for.
Just because the people we're talking about are members of a protected class doesn't change the logic of the situation.
People need to calm down. You're more likely to die of lightning strike than bee sting in the US.
After all, its legal! ...Or, well, no, its not necessarily legal, but the reasons why it's illegal aren't immediately obvious! Shouldn't that mean I get to do whatever I want?
Wow that's some auction luck. Is anyone else amazed someone was able to buy stellar La real estate for so cheap?
Source - I've bought a lot of land at a city tax auction.
edit: (a lot = single lot of land)
Out of curiosity, why do you buy land? Are you a property developer?
Most of the tax delinquent pieces of property that I've come across that go to auction are sometimes 5-10+ years delinquent & in "blighted" neighborhoods. The patience and laws of cities and states varies in how fast they take action on foreclosing on delinquent taxes.
From my basic research, a sizable number of properties fall behind on taxes due to the death of an owner and an out of state heir essentially "giving up" on the property as it wasn't worth the trouble.
In the case of my property - the city acquired it via a tax foreclosure, used it as an access point for some infrastructure construction, let it sit for 10+ years after they were done with it then lumped it in with an auction.
On another note - Some cities will also sell land with requirements that low income / affordable housing be build on it.
The guy has his head in the sand.
Certainly there is drug use, public sex, etc., occurring in this large parcel of empty space in an urban area, much like literally any park.
I think that sort of phrase is the standard rejoiner when a reporter asks you about the possibility of illegal activity on a property that you own. It doesn't really imply much.
Says the Soylent salesman. Irony!
I hate these half-assed pieces of reporting. I don't like the guy, he sounds like Ehrlich from SV, but if you're reporting this as news, at least fill in the blanks!
I guess soylent is not that cool for parties and social gatherings...
http://blog.soylent.com/post/133807501267/go-feast
> Connection to the past is a powerful thing, and it’s important to take time to renew our social bonds. We at Soylent encourage you to enjoy your feasts of choice, and hope that they will be made all the more festive with the knowledge that your everyday sustenance can be obtained with far less effort. When the dust settles and you’re tired of leftovers, we’ll be here for you.
There are so many choice quotes in this post, I wholeheartedly recommend reading the whole thing. If you haven't, it will make your decade.
Which isn't to say that I am convinced by half of his "life hacks" as being more energy-efficient - I'm uncertain if he has accounted for a lot of externalities of the stuff he advocates (like costs of trashing / recycling used clothing? Food wastage from frequent restaurant usage? Uber over Tesla?) But what's interesting to me is that even if we assume the worst case, the energy profile of his lifestyle does not appear to be too far off from that of the typical consumer.
In a sense, he's attempting an extreme form of dog-fooding of the ethos of his company - Soylent undergoes constant iteration and refining of its core ingredients to further its objective of being eco-friendly and healthy - some choices don't work out because they are sourced from the same places as the fast food industry, or may trigger hitherto unknown reactions within one's gut microbiome... but that's not a good reason to swear off experimentation altogether (albeit with reasonable safety regulations). And on occasion, his method may lead him to stumble across an objectively good idea.
At any rate, I'd rather cut a man some slack to dream and experiment on new ideas, than dismiss him off-hand as a delusional silicon valley kid.
I also wouldn't be so quick to imagine that a restaurant will waste more food per meal than you do. Unless you make a specific effort not to waste ingredients, there's a good chance that you're squeamish about some part of a plant that you don't mind eating at a restaurant.
Funnily enough, nobody suggested an actual solution in this whole thread: grafiti resistant coatings? high-durability windows? a simple pole foundation? land access sensors? Nope, everyone is predisposed with judgement for what should have been a pretty mundane neighbourhood complaint.
food, decent food, is still a scarcity for the poor
This guy isn't yet anywhere near the level of douchebag that, say, Martin Shkreli is. But he's well on his way.
Sounds like he's helping to counteract that by reducing the neighborhood value.