Soylent CEO's shipping container home is a 'middle finger' to LA, locals say | Hacker News Reader

Soylent CEO's shipping container home is a 'middle finger' to LA, locals say

theguardian.com

11 pointszoul7 comments

Gabriel flouted zoning bylaws, plunked down a building with inadequate security and no permits, ran disruptive parties, left trash lying around which only encouraged vandals and lowlifes. Basically, he acted with the entitlement and arrogance of the nouveau riche. And now he's wondering why they hate him.

You don't live in a bubble. The people who live around you DO matter.

I think the people in the neighborhood have a legitimate complaint considering it's "open to the public" which is not permitted. Just because you own the land doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. That's why we have zoning laws.

But I have to laugh at all of these people indicating they are entitled to this land as some sort of free park, which I assume, was likely private land, not public land before it was purchased by the Soylent guy:

"Residents have long lobbied to keep the rugged hilltop, which is popular with hikers and joggers, a de facto park free of development."

If they want it to be a park, why don't they pool resources together and do that and then set it up as a park? Everybody wants to complain but nobody wants to backup their complaining with their own money.

I don't understand what "open to the public" means. I suspect that a complaint on those grounds is grasping at straws from a coalition of NIMBY neighbors and entitled hikers.

If I buy a property that people have been illegally trespassing on for years and put a house on it, is that open to the public?

I would think you would have to explicitly post permission to be on private land because I assume it's implicitly not permissible to trespass...

Probably, just not secured to prevent people from entering. The complaint is likely that the property is a nuisance and/or hazard due to failure to properly secure the building/property (it doesn't help that the building/container wasn't permitted).

If you own abandoned property you are usually required to board up windows/doors or otherwise prevent people from entering as well as place no trespassing signs on the property.

For permitted active residential construction you can usually get by with construction fencing and no trespassing signs.

It doesn't seem like he is actively developing or living in the property; more or less just using it as a occasional getaway.

Considering they said people had been using it for hiking and whatnot, it does sound like everyone had been trespassing on it for years. And now it's suddenly bad trespassing because they don't like what is on it :)

What's wrong with that if he owns the land? Would it make any difference if he painted the container green instead of red?

Because apparently having an “abandoned or vacant building open to the public” is illegal. You also need to have the correct permits.

Even for things on your own land.

As to the color, no, it won't make a difference. It's only one of many complaint or problems given.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com