Hawaiians call Mark Zuckerberg 'the face of neocolonialism' over land lawsuits
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The wikipedia article on quiet title is also clarifying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_title
So is this article on quiet title: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/who-can-claim-propert...
If I understand it right, the issue here is situations like the following. You've got a parcel of land which was 1/2 owned by brother A and 1/2 owned by brother B (due to, e.g., inheritance). Brother A occupied the parcel for 20+ years and eventually sold it to someone else. At this point, according to Hawaii's adverse posession law, brother A owns it but owes compensation to brother B. Now many years later, brother A or his descendents sold to Zuckerberg (or some similar chain of title), and brother B's descendents may not even know they had some right to the land.
There's a theoretical possibility that some descendent of brother B may show up and claim the land.
These quiet title lawsuits are a way for Zuckerberg to pre-emptively settle all such issues. It's also apparently a very common and accepted way to handle such issues in Hawaii.
This is basically just a horrible legal hack around the fact that Hawaii (like many places) has a totally broken title registration system. Without this hack it might be difficult/impossible for a land owner to know with any certainty that they actually own the land they just purchased.
If someone knows more about this, or if my understanding is incorrect, please correct me. I know little beyond what I learned via google.
In reality the law is not a programming language, and trying to treat it as such is a common cause of disappointment, frustration, anger, needless bickering, extended conflict, and vexatiously long and mostly unenforceable contracts.
After going through an extremely nasty contract dispute I learned that contracts have limited value and that I should never trust anyone, even if 4 lawyers reviewed the terms.
There's a large cohort of smart people who've read a program and think this means they grasp its semantics; but without understanding the language specification, compiler bugs, undefined behavior implementation, posix specification, operating system bugs and configuration of deployment environment.
Much like programming languages, law language has evolved to be written in a way that's unambiguous as possible. Like programming languages, contracts and the like don't succeed in having 100% predictable semantics.
One source of unpredictability of results comes from the lack of a stable, 100% predictable execution platform (namely, judges, juries, lawyers, and current case law and legislation), much like compilers and platforms do not 100% specify their behavior, or even when they do, the run-time behavior is not perfectly predictable (e.g. when does the GC run).
Another source of unpredictability is that law at the end of the day must interface with the non-legal world ('facts' vs. law) and so touches global context which isn't known when the law or contract was drafted, which one might compare to dealing with unforeseen interactions with the OS, deployment environments, user input, etc.
So while laws and programs try to accurately and precisely encode their own internal semantics, they sometimes fail because they depend on other things that don't have perfectly defined semantics.
My ex went to law school, and I found the attitude of "non-lawyers have no business having opinions about the law" that her law school promoted to be vile. That said, I've found that it's a good idea to assume that any legal issue is NOT straightforward. Doing otherwise usually ends up making me look ignorant, and has me spreading false conclusions to other non-lawyers around me.
The value doesn't have to be equal, simply that both sides offer something of value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration#Monetary_value_o...
If they are owned by rich people, maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe it's a way to spread their wealth to the lesser fortunate. Heh.
Areas without a clear title tend to be poor because as soon as someone tries to build a factory, workshop, business, or even just a nice house they're hit with multiple lawsuits.
Development isn't an unambiguous good. It's very possible the owners are happier with possession of family land over whatever sum of money they could get.
Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
This whole situation also reminds me a bit of the Vogons destroying earth:
"There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams."
This is private land owned by a large number of people (many of who might not even realize it).
Such a need for strict definition of ownership (beyond any natural meaning) is the actual colonialism as felt by the indigenous
Without passing judgement on pros or cons; if someone from a foreign land xomes to you and insists that you adopt their ways of dealing with ownership and abandon your own, that is colonialism.
Rephrasing GP with emphasis:
> Such a need for strict definition of ownership (beyond any natural meaning) is the actual colonialism as felt by the indigenous
The same type of colonization is happening to our information environment via the imposition of "imaginary property".
You mean in terms of airspace? Because that's a thing but it ends at space, which nobody owns. It's a system that works pretty well.
But airspace is a good example too of something that has not been formally divided up with property rights. We would only say that USG "owns" the airspace as a way of understanding within the malapplied framework - it doesn't accurately describe the situation on its own merits.
(And FWIW this non-ownership is starting to show its cracks with the advent of high density batteries and cheap brushless motor controllers ("drones"). This situation in Hawaii seems like the equivalent of an airport suing to gain exclusive title over all airspace it currently mediates, trampling over all the rest of the existing airspace users)
A quiet title action and partition by sale is not a "legal hack." A quiet title action is a structured process for unifying title while compensating people with ownership interests. And because a single clear title in a property is much more valuable than a bunch of possessory interests in the same property (even put together), partition by sale maximizes the value of the land. So each person's share of the auction proceeds will be more than the market value of their original possessory interests.
None of this is indicative of anything being "broken." It's basically unavoidable so long as fractional interests in land and subdivision of interests on inheritance are permitted.
But as I said, I know only what I've learned via today's jetlag + modafinil fueled googling session.
But brother A can still sell his interest in the land. Whoever buys it steps into brother A's shoes--they're joint tenants with brother B (or his descendants). That's basically what Zuckerberg did. And as a joint tenant, he can seek a partition, which basically tells the court "hey, I don't want to share possession of this land, auction it and cash out everyone's interest."
Creditors are hesitant to deal with any questionable land until title has been quieted by this process so they know the purchaser has full ownership and there can be no further disputes. The quiet title process is a request for all those with interest in the land to speak up and resolve the situation.
This prevents, for example, handing out a construction mortgage for someone to build a home on the land and then realizing three years later that your collateral is in jeopardy because several entities have decided to dispute the mortgagee's right to that land after the home was built.
Mark is making a huge mistake. The people on this island in particular are much more community and heart based. The fundamental mistake Mark is making is that he is entering into a lose-lose situation. This will NEVER be forgotten and he will NEVER be welcome here. He will always have to watch his back while he is here.
In my opinion his best course of action is to stop all law suits and make amends. People will forgive him for making a mistake but only if he can admit it first. This is not California. The island will "spit him out".
Kauai is known for being the last island of Aloha. Good luck Mark.
What do you mean "watch his back"? People will physically attack or steal from him? Because that sounds like the kind of society any reasonable person wouldn't want to be a part of.
Living out here you realize that the bodies are not buried in dirt.
The way it works is if you come with aloha people will embrace you. Or own up to your mistakes and people may forgive.
If you come in like this, things can get ugly.
On the otherhand him taking about how he is against walls then litterly building one in Hawaii that blocks people's view of the water is the height of hypocrisy.
Denying access to formerly communal areas when you aren't going to be there : kinda crappy.
1 mile, long, 6 feet tall?
Several local people living on the property were kicked off when Zuckerberg bought the land. A 6 foot wall was built and police began regularly patrolling a nearby road off the property questioning people walking on the road.
They do not have money. Their wealth is in the community, sharing, fishing rights and land rights.
They don't believe in buying each other out. Sharing is a big part of their culture and is part of aloha.
Our mainland system is being imposed on them.
That being said, didn't Z just buy the land from other people? How was he able to even "buy" the land without full agreement of all of the owners to begin with? Shouldn't the land not belong to him until the transaction is complete?
In any case, the regular people always get screwed in these cases and always will until things are completely communal. Land shouldn't be owned by anyone. Rather, it should be able to be used freely. There are obviously logistical issues, but perhaps that should be and place and we'll figure out the rest?
> Makaala Kaaumoana, the executive director of an environmental group in Hanalei, Kauai, said that the lawsuits would help identify and inform descendants of links to the land they may not know about, which is “a good thing”.
> “It is always a sad thing when families lose their land, for any reason, but at least this way they are compensated,” she said.
The rationalization afterwards is also interesting.
> And Matt Goodale, a neighbor whose 10 acres of breadfruit, banana, mango, lychee and longan trees lie about one and a half miles from Zuckerberg’s property, said that the CEO’s purchase of the land was much better than the alternative: an 80-home development.
Good to know the rich look after each other.
[EDIT]
Source: http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-...
"For someone to use the law to not only establish title, but to also force a sale requires that they have an ownership claim. For some of the Kauai land, Zuckerberg has done this by purchasing interests from several part-owners."
That doesn't sound like caring about the community or acting in good faith.
Which tells me there are some who he's contacted and who have said "no".
I've been following this story fairly closely and the statement "He's bought some portions of the ownership, and is leveraging that via lawsuits to force the others sell." doesn't align with any of the documentation I've seen.
For one, he owns the land around the parcels, not portions of the parcels himself. For two, I don't think he's "leveraging" any sort of ownership to utilize the law as ownership does not seem to be needed for this process.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-...
For someone to use the law to not only establish title, but to also force a sale requires that they have an ownership claim. For some of the Kauai land, Zuckerberg has done this by purchasing interests from several part-owners.
Could you provide a source for this? To my knowledge this was his first effort at acquiring the properties. Also, the structure of the law he's using requires the land to be sold at auction to the highest bidder making it, theoretically, fair market value.
This was part of the article a few days back on HN which first introduced the issue.
So lemme get this straight, if my ancestors worked hard to provide for their families and I, down the line, inherit some land or money I should feel bad about this? Why?
You don't have to feel BAD about it; just recognize it. People inherit vastly different conditions by sheer accident of birth.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(social_inequality)
Why link to the Wikipedia page and not to an actual definition?
The Wikipedia entry offers "an actual definition." Also, the Wikipedia entry is based on numerous references and published literature supporting the definition.
But for others, Zuckerberg’s lawsuits are unnecessary and unneighborly.
“Zuckerberg is saying he wants to respect the local culture and Hawaiian values but … I was always taught that if there was a dispute with somebody you go and knock on their door, sit down, and you kukakuka [discuss] and you hooponopono [make it right],” said Hawaii state representative Kaniela Ing of Maui. “You don’t initiate conversation by filing a lawsuit.”
Ing criticized Zuckerberg as “using the same legal loopholes sugar barons in Hawaii exploited centuries ago”, and said he planned to introduce state legislation to reform the quiet title process. One proposal would let kuleana owners group together and form a trust, in order to achieve a fairer price for their land.
and
“We have been waiting for contact,” said Hope Kallai, who lives on the same street as Zuckerberg, one property away. Kallai said she and other neighbors have attempted to reach out through Zuckerberg’s lawyers and ranch manager with no success. They did know that the billionaire was in town for Christmas, though, because they saw security guards parked on the road.
Very proactive.
This is a problem between you and my brother, not you and me. This is also a story as old as colonialism.
If you think this is all fine and dandy, and lives up to the greatest virtue of capitalism, please replace the horse in the analogy with shareholders having partial ownership of a company, and being forced to give up their stake, just because Zuckerburg paid off the biggest shareholder.
Nobody's putting a gun to his head, forcing him to buy 700 acres of land in Hawaii. If he can't come to an agreement with all the owners of the land, he should go back to California, instead of suing minority owners. That's generally how business works.
Large-scale reverse splits occasionally happen in real life, as a means of forcing smaller investors off the ownership rolls.
Again, RTFA.
He isn't conducting the lawsuit out of some strange desire to figure out who is related to whom, or to clarify some papers. The purpose of a quiet title lawsuit is to steal a piece of land from its owners.
Discovering who the other claimants are is the first step in this process. The second step in this process is... To force them to put their land up for auction, where it will be sold to the highest bidder. The current landowners have no say in this. [1]
And, at the end of the process, Zuckerburg's investigation and attourney fees will be billed to... The owners of the land. For some of those parcels, they are quite likely to be higher then the cost of the parcels.
You couldn't come up with a less fair law if you tried - because it was specifically designed to benefit a wealthy party, that wants to take possession of a bunch of land, and the only thing in the way is a bunch of peasants who refuse to sell.
[1] http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-...
The issue here is that many of the comments have devolved into "gratuitous negativity."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1290682...
How would this work? Honest question.
I agree that the concept of land ownership is a little weird - it's one of the most limited, exclusive resources we have.
Hypothetically, I would love to be able to use this land that Z is "buying" under the current land ownership paradigm. But that free use, to me, would look like pouring a concrete foundation and building a structure with a bunk room, kitchen, bathroom, common area, with storage for a Hobie Cat, some surfboards, and SCUBA gear, and a patio overlooking the ocean. I'd want the rest of the land to be nicely forested. I would come out for a week every couple months. Would I have freedom to do this in a non-land-ownership system? What would prevent others from building in front of me, or using my structure when I wanted to be there?
As things come up people would just revote. Since no one owns the land there wouldn't be any conflict of interest. You may point out that those who originally voted may be conflicted, but I disagree: any proposition that would benefit the majority would clearly win. Any proposition that doesn't would necessarily be struck down.
This kind of system has its own problems, though. Long term sustainability is one, requisites for voting is another. But these problems I think are separate.
This is not a theoretical exercise. This happens everyday in America in co-op boards, HOAs, etc and it doesn't require anybody saying out loud why an individual is being rejected. The current US president got caught doing this in the 1960s. If you want to redesign land use rights wholesale I would hope you wouldn't make this kind of discrimination more common... maybe that's just me.
Well, yes. That's how democracy works: there's a vote and the majority wins. Are you opposed to democracy?
Yeah, it sucks if you're a minority, but what can you do? This is a fundamental flaw in democracy. We attempt to mitigate it by having constitutions and laws and representatives who are voted on in multi-year cycles, which in engineering terms has the effect of creating a long feedback loop so that the populace's short term emotions don't create too much instability and chaos, but it only works to a point.
The alternative is a non-democratic system like what they do in China. And they don't seem to be too keen on protecting the rights of minorities either.
Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic
Line 1: "A democratic republic is both a republic and a democracy."
Furthermore, not all republics are democratic. North Korea and China are both republics, as is Iran. I already mentioned China in my previous post. Do you really think North Korea protects anyone's inalienable rights? Or Iran?
Of course within a few generations of inheritances and sales that equitable distribution of land will no longer look like that at all.
Unfortunately, we all know what happens when you put groups of self-interested humans in charge of a society, and I don't think any group of completely altruistic ones is going to take over the world any time soon.
Also, the only successful communist country currently in existence is actually a hardcore capitalist dystopia.
I'm not sure there is any other "common ownership of land" scheme that isn't just communism with window dressing or superintelligent AI thrown in. If there is, please do enlighten me.
In practice it winds up as you describe, with strongmen at the top.
It has always failed scaling it up, but maybe that's just a sign we shouldn't try to scale it up.
Of course, this has implications for large democracies, as well as large communes.
As a familiar example, one could look at state and national parks. A state park is owned by the people and maintained by the government; use by individuals is controlled and negotiated. You want to camp? Great, book a spot. You want to do some logging? Maybe, but you'll need a permit. You want to clear cut and build a strip mall? Nope.
Your example of an exclusive vacation home doesn't fit well with that approach in that you're not part of the Hawaiian community. You want to control the land even when you're not there, which is ownership.
Giving up ownership for vacation property would be something more like Die Naturfreunde. My understanding is that they maintain a set of communally owned and operated guest houses around the world. There's one just north of San Francisco, a lovely hostel and beer garden in Muir Woods. If you want to be a member there, you have to consistently contribute labor to maintaining it.
Look at housing societies in India; they enforce rules like no single women or no Muslims.
It's convenient when you're in the majority but inconvenient when you're in the minority.
How would you decide between so many different wants? I can not decide between say whether this land should be used for a mall or a factory.
In fact, in the real world if I knew, I could earn good money by building whichever is better. Information is money.
This system is also poor as people who value land less end up with excess land and people who do value land more end up with a lack of land. How do you measure this "value"? Money.
> There's one just north of San Francisco, a lovely hostel and beer garden in Muir Woods. If you want to be a member there, you have to consistently contribute labor to maintaining it.
This ignores specialization, i.e. I could be doing something that I'm good at (like programming) and the labor can be done by someone else (who doesn't have any better option) with the money I earn.
EDIT: replaced LTV criticism with specialization argument
Personally, I'm a practicing capitalist, and somebody who approves of using market mechanisms for a wide variety of things. But nothing is perfect, and people legitimately have different values. So I think it's worth understanding those other approaches. I have no idea why people find that so threatening.
Who?
> Who can't even quietly consider other approaches that might work just fine in particular circumstances.
I explained how it might not work.
You are attacking me but not my reasoning.
I am just criticizing communal ownership since it does not work.
> I have no idea why people find that so threatening.
Who?
You haven't gotten to reasoning yet. I critiqued your style of argument: the outraged hot take, the instant defense of something that wasn't even attacked. It was a spew of semi-random points, not a coherent argument.
There's no point in discussing the details with you, because you aren't interested in learning anything. When called on your drama, you pretend to be purely rational. If you can't even admit your reaction or look at your own post honestly, why would I ever engage with the details of what you claim your point to be?
I just said how collective ownership fails and how capitalism is a better solution. Is there something I said that I shouldn't have?
> There's no point in discussing the details with you, because you aren't interested in learning anything.
I am. Go critique my points. Maybe show me some empirical examples to rebuke me. Send me research articles. Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed.
> When called on your drama, you pretend to be purely rational.
What drama? I was just a little bored and decided to poke a low hanging fruit (collective ownership).
> If you can't even admit your reaction or look at your own post honestly, why would I ever engage with the details of what you claim your point to be?
I'm pretty sure I wasn't angry or anything. Uncharitably, I was thinking "haha, commies are stupid", but I don't think I let that affect my comment.
To me, it seems like you're the more angry one. Perhaps it is just an effect of you being text on a screen as opposed to a person I can see and talk to.
Like the three historical examples you ignored in the post you responded to? C'mon. Why would I waste more time?
> haha, commies are stupid
Yes, this is how you got to the "not even wrong" level of discourse and somehow thought it constituted reasoning. A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for.
Communists weren't stupid. Communism didn't work, but people trying it had a reasonable intuition that it would work because they had a lot of experience with communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales. And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values. Because they also had a lot of experience with unregulated capitalism fucking them over.
Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo. People here get endlessly mad when it happens to handwave away startups or new tech. But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up.
> Or write your own explanation of how collective ownership would be managed.
It is not my job to force-feed you an education just because you saw fit to make a poorly considered reply to something I wrote. If you want to be taken seriously, it is your job to go get one. This is an entire field of literature.
"Ejidatarios do not actually own the land, but are allowed to use their allotted parcels indefinitely as long as they do not fail to use the land for more than two years. They can pass their rights on to their children."
Taking land from landlords doesn't work because then no one will buy land in the future out of that risk, unless it is very clearly done as a one-time thing. See: one-time tax.
I'm not saying collective ownership does not exist but you haven't shown it works empirically or theoretically.
> A random salting of pure-theory, Econ-101 points is the sort of lazy, free-market fundamentalism that I have no time for.
What is wrong with pure-theory and Econ-101 points?
Mainstream economic theory is a refinement of Econ-101 with more complex modelling (imperfect competition, sticky wages).
Econ-101 can be used to rebuke many bad economic policies like what Venezuela is doing (capital control, etc).
> And, just as important, working in ways and yielding outcomes that matched their values.
Do famines and poverty reflect their values? Does food rationing reflect their values?
Does only the Politburo having access to the ZIL-111 reflect egalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIL-111)? Does Chaikas only being available for purchase by the Soviet government reflect egalitarianism?
> Communists weren't stupid.
Most communism (such as LTV) is bad economics (that's why the Marxist school of economics is very much outside the mainstream). Communism forgets the Laffer curve at 100%. Complete equality does not work.
> communal approaches working pretty well for them at smaller scales
It works at smaller scales of family, neighbors, etc because then the people are roughly homogeneous. Even then it is not optimal. Have you heard of horrible stories involving housing societies?
> Laughing alternatives off like this is just a knee-jerk defense of the status quo.
It's not a knee-jerk defense because I gave some thinking.
> But it's somehow common and acceptable whenever economics comes up.
I have been downvoted at times for my "fundamentalist capitalist" views. The earliest post in this thread that I wrote is at 0 points (maybe you downvoted it).
The land is still held by individuals, but they pay a use fee based upon the market value of the unimproved land. It's compatible with markets, capitalism, and in fact economists call it the most efficient tax possible.
It's also very environmentally friendly, insofar as it encourages efficient use of land, which would spur more infill instead of pushing the margin of land lower and lower, encouraging sprawl.
Why don't we use this tax, then? Mostly because it creates losers in the form of landowners, who tend to be extremely powerful, politically.
"This arouses furious opposition from landowners, in most countries a potent lobby, see it as highly unfair. They have got used to enjoying their rents and object to their sudden socialisation."[1]
If there's an upside, it's that it's been shown to be one of the only effective methods in implementing modern urban design and finance in a sustainable fashion. Just today, London expressed interest in seeing how LVT could remedy its housing crisis.[2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/04/land-val...
[2] https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/assembly/mayor-posi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
In addition, I think, even in the US system as it exists currently, property ownership rights are not 100% absolute. I mean, even Zuckerberg couldn't declare his new 700 acre holding to be, say, a toxic waste dump, or a launch pad for outer space rockets. He'd need a whole lot of government approvals to use the land in those ways, and he most likely would never get the approvals.
Land rights and usages are not absolute, even for the title bearer.
If you want to "improve" some land, go buy some ugly desert land in the LA area or something. Or better yet buy up some urban land filled with dilapidated buildings and bulldoze it and build something newer and better.
I'm not sure if you've ever visited some of the desert areas around LA, but I wouldn't describe them as ugly or view their potential destruction so flippantly.
Maybe I should have pointed to some other places. West Texas comes to mind: the area on I-40 going through the northwest part of the state (and Amarillo) is probably the ugliest natural (I guess) land I've ever seen. Just miles of flat, brown dirt.
Of course, there's plenty of land marred by humans that could certainly benefit from being bulldozed and rebuilt anew, if someone is looking for land to "improve". Parts of New Jersey around Newark come to mind here, plus Detroit and lots of other places in the Rust Belt. There's also a bunch of desert north of Las Vegas NV that could use "improvement": it's marked by tons of craters from nuclear bomb testing.
Not to mention how well run recently liberated farms do under community mgmt once the evil (well trained in agriculture with skin in the game but inherently evil) landowners are chased out or strung up. so much better. and never, I repeat never, has transfering property rights to the people lead to the starvation of millions.
I would listen to the local radio broadcast at night, which I really enjoyed. It was some local DJ that would talk about native rights and issues. One thing that stuck out to me was an interview he did with a Native American from the main-land. The guest was amazed at how much local Kaui natives were able to defend their rights and maintain (at least influence) control.
1. The land ownership has been diluted over time such that there are many people who own small shares.
2. Zuckerberg is working with the majority owners of each parcel to trigger a forced-sale of the full ownership, which he intends to purchase.
This is no different than a majority shareholder forcing the sale of a business. It's a total non-story.
If he were Hawaiian, that would be true. But he's an outsider and he's world famous.
It's a story.
He is absolutely an outsider in Hawaii.
but, there's a difference between this particular theory and actual reality in Hawaii.
i mean, it kind of seems like the rules were designed by people who did plan and design for wealthy entrants.
Zuckerberg is going to have to track down all of these unknown people and cut a deal with them individually. and they know he's a zillionaire. what a lousy bargaining position. i would think it makes the task of transferring ownership a whole lot harder, slower and more expensive than buying a piece of land, in say, Columbus, Ohio or Fresno, California.
maybe i'm wrong here, but i don't think that information worked in Trump's favor during the election. it seems to me that somehow Trump won in spite of those things.
"That means I'm smart. When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by their huge tracts of land. You can do anything."
By suing the locals and hiding behind a walled, 700 acre estate. Sounds very neighborly.
Z has a lot of options. buying "700 acres of rural beachfront land" to create a "secluded family sanctuary" and "enhance the seclusion" is only one of them.
imagine if, instead, Z wanted to win a local popularity contest: he could create a permanent arrangement where he gives the state of Hawaii 699 of those acres for use by the local families that used to own it, or the general public -- keeping, say, one acre for his own family's use. it's an option.
there are other less extreme options, too, options that would also generate positive, as opposed to negative, attention in the press.
of course, none of this is required by law, but we should keep in mind that Z has many possible choices which the rest of us lack.
given the limited quantities of land -- especially beach front land -- in Hawaii and the long-term traditions (and poverty) of the local, long term inhabitants, it's understandable that people in Hawaii would scrutinize his choices and expect something less selfish.
even if he manages to gain full, legal title to the land, what can we expect the attitude of local people to be when they have even less access to that land than they did in the past?
I only hope the Silicon Valley dickbags work on fixing the homeless situation in SF rather than making more people homeless
This is not a popular opinion, but the more I see where the world is going, the more I would be encouraged by seeing aggressive taxation or forced charity/redistribution from the bulk of inheritance. Our system of capitalism needs some serious brakes if we want it to be sustainable in the long-term.
Yachts seem to require a ton of skilled labor to build and maintain. I assume they provide for many solidly middle class jobs.
The very wealthy would just hire their heirs as consultants or advisors and pay them exorbitant salaries. Sure, the government would take ~40% in taxes but that still better than losing 100% of it.
It would also push them to donate their fortunes to found private corporations and allow their heirs to "buy" the shares.
Or move their money offshore into assets that aren't readily convertible like real estate. How is the US government going to seize 10,000 acres of land in Brazil?
Unless you're prepared to enact Cold War era Soviet Union levels of control on all economic activity, the people who you most want to target will be able to side-step your plans.
For example, I'm firmly convinced that Carnegie's philanthropy was his attempt to buy his way out of hell because he knew that he wouldn't be alive too much longer.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.7.1.03.HTM
Edit: Their land stolen and plundered.
An absolute horrow show of your country being exploited, stunted, and manipulated for centuries for everyone else.
Like everything more complicated than "1+1=2" or "the sky is blue", it's a superposition of a bunch of pros and cons that different people will all weight differently. Where human nature screws everything up is the brain's tendency to want to focus on one pro or one con and pretend like everything else doesn't matter, or ignore the fact that rational, informed people might still disagree on how each pro or con should be weighted when evaluating whether something is a net good or net bad.