Hacker News Reader

Comment by pfarnsworth | Hacker News Reader

Did you even bother reading the article? Zuckerberg is trying to do the right thing but identifying all the owners of the land first, and then trying to arrange to pay them. That's how it works in Hawaii, except he's being extremely proactive and in a manner that is friendly to the owners, if you RTFA.

View on HN

From TFA:

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.

If he was trying to do the right thing he would be using his wealth to better the world, not buy parcels of land. What doublespeak.

I reject your premise, but just to play along for a minute...

https://chanzuckerberg.com/

A person who's convinced that Zuckerberg is a selfish agent will choose to cynically interpret this as some sort of tax evasion, PR stunt, etc

Fair point. That said, even if a cynic interpreted a personal foundation as such, it doesn't preclude the philanthropist from harboring altruistic motives.

The issue here is that many of the comments have devolved into "gratuitous negativity."

When did trying to legally buy land from people who are willing to sell it become the wrong thing?

Me and my brother both own a horse. I have no immediate need for the horse, so I let my brother use it, but still maintain my stake in its ownership. My brother sells you the horse for $100, without asking me. You offer to buy me out for $50... And when I decline, threaten a lawsuit (On the grounds that you will put the horse to better economic use then I would have.)

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.

A company has 1000000 shares outstanding. Mr. Z buys 500001 of them at fair market price. He then votes himself onto the board and proposes a 500001-to-1 reverse split. The measure passes with 500001 votes in favor. Everyone having fewer than 500001 shares is paid cash for their shares, while Mr. Z turns in 500001 old shares for one new one. Mr. Z is now sole owner.

Large-scale reverse splits occasionally happen in real life, as a means of forcing smaller investors off the ownership rolls.

If you read the article, the lawsuit isn't to force the owners to sell their land. They don't even know they own the land. Zuckerberg tracked down 300 heirs of a small piece of land that was never transferred properly decades previous. The lawsuit is a formality to first find all the owners, and to declare them owners of parts of the land, so that he can negotiate with them.

Again, RTFA.

Some of them don't know that they own the land. Many of them most certainly do.

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-...

He's donating his money at a scale of generosity that you will never achieve.

Poor people donate a greater percentage than Z:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1290682...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com