Slashdot Mirror
Larry Ellison Buys His Own Hawaiian Island
First time accepted submitter nrozema writes "Oracle co-founder and billionaire Larry Ellison is buying the Hawaiian island of Lana'i, the sixth-largest island in the U.S. archipelago. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie confirmed in a written statement that the current landowner filed a transfer application with the state's Public Utilities commission Wednesday to sell its 98 percent share of the 141-square-mile island to Ellison."
....tsunamis could be a good thing.
Larry Ellison also owns a MIG fighter jet. This cannot be good.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
NON-EVENT ... at all !!!
Thank you, whoever posted this thing. ... that I wonder what my day could have been if I hadn't received it.
Really.
It was so important to rellay this non-information
Old story here
the 141-square-mile island
I can't comprehend that size. Could we have the area in asteroid passing distances? Earth radiuses works too.
With these billionaires also starting their own private space programs too, all we need is a suave british agent and a hot local chick going to raid the compound threatening megalomaniacal schemes
"do you expect me to talk?"
"no mr. bond, I expect no SQL to this movie, I expect you to join that table with this collate, and then drop"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The title reads like it is a little misleading to me... The way I read it was in the context that he bought an island he already owned (which would not surprise me). I don't know why the /. editor who posted this thought it wouldn't be interpreted this way though... (or why I'm the first to comment on it?)
Surely: "Larry Ellison buys Hawaiian Island" would have sufficed?
While I might not have studied journalism, I did have a job as a journalist for about a year (as well as being made editor of some smaller sections to the online news site), and well, I think my article-editor would have kicked me in the head (or at least shat on me from a dizzy height, as was the norm I guess). Oh well.
Although I very much doubt this will be the last time this happens...
Buying a bare, windswept, island that has long ago been converted into a Pineapple plantation? The place is probably invested with rats. ...or soaked in pesticides. Seems like a waste of money to me. There isn't even a sandy beach.
My own Lanai is in the back of my house, and it has a built in pool and fire pit. I don't have to travel all the way to Hawaii when I want to use. Just pop out there after work. Ellison got suckered.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Next year's follow-up story - Oracle secedes, and couches itself as fully as possible in its total reality distortion field.
Then it sues Greece for having had oracles 2000 years ago.
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
"Good news! I have just sold one of our islands for half the proceeds from Oracle's upcoming multi-billion-dollar lawsuit against Google! Even if they get only half what they're asking, we will make a killing. I promise a hula hoop around every midriff!"
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Why is it that I feel a lot better about Richard Branson buying an island or David Copperfield buying an island than I do this jackass? When PeopleSoft was still an independent company I used to work there. Best job I ever had. Then Ellison decides to buy it and the whole culture changes. People, including me, are leaving in droves. Couldn't work there. Wouldn't work there. Ellison is the biggest douchbag on the face of the earth.
At least one other major island, Ni'ihua, is privately owned after being purchased from the Kingdom of Hawai'i in 1864.
Yeah, he's a butt-hair from getting his own southpark episode.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Starving Africans are the first worlds responsibility how? They have nobody to blame but there own people. Local warlord take the food they grow "make" them grow other crops etc. They have a choice to stand up and possibly die. Nobody else can be responsible for them they are not children the sooner we stop treating them as such the better. As to starvation in particular that's a population control, there fertility rates are insane with most of Africa at 4 children per family and some nations close to 8.
No sir I dont like it.
...prevent stuff like this.
It should be decided by Hawaiians what happens to Hawaii - and I assure you they wouldn't want some megalomaniacal (sp?) asshat with all that power over their lives.
Loading...
I have to disagree. A lion eating you because you infringed on his territory is remarkably similar to me shooting you for trespassing. We both mark our territorial boundaries and we both defend them. We can also both lose our territory if we fail to defend it.
Not true. A lion will eat what it kills, so the purpose is to provide food. The territory protection is secondary. So, unless you are going to eat the trespasser you shot they are not the same at all. Besides, human beings supposedly have the ability to use reason, where as animals rely on instinct. In other words, we have a choice for what we do or how we act. The lion can only act like a lion.
With something like this, he owns the land, not the island. That may sound stupid, but the island itself is part of Hawaii. For example - if the governor or legislature decides to build a highway across the island, they simply declare eminent domain and seize the land they need (paying for it at some "going rate"). However if he really owned the island, the government couldn't legally do that. So he is like any other landowner. The only difference is that he owns 98% of the land. All of the normal laws about land use still apply. If they have zoning there, it still applies. If they have laws like California does about maintaining free access to certain parts of beaches and waterways, those still apply. That's a far cry from what most people think of when they say someone owns an island. They generally think of it as the person being basically the sovereign there. And that is not true in this case. Larry isn't the king.
So... shooting trespassers is ok if we eat them afterwards?
A new lion can come and kill the old owner. If I shoot you while you sleep in your bed can I have your land?
Clearly not, property ownership is very different for humans than territory for animals.
So he can finally make money off Java.
Need Mercedes parts ?
the majority of us do.
The real difference between us and "them" is many of them are never satisfied with where they are in life and forever seek to improve upon it. Let alone except in very amazing cases the majority of these people spend the end of their life with the wealth. The internet revolution did spawn a lot of people with enough youth to enjoy their wealth longer.
See my tag, compare your achievements to your goals, never compare yourself to another. You can set a goal to have/do what they are doing but only compare the results to your personal goal.
Are you unhappy in your life? I think its awesome that there are people who can buy an island. Would I want to? Sure but I know I don't have that "not sure what it is" to try and follow through.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
...prevent stuff like this.
It should be decided by Hawaiians what happens to Hawaii - and I assure you they wouldn't want some megalomaniacal (sp?) asshat with all that power over their lives.
The island just passed from one megalomaniac billionaire to another. It was previously owned by David Murdock (via his real estate holdings company, Castle & Cooke).
The particular island in question seems to have been almost-wholly owned by super-rich landholders for ~150 years.
If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede.
Then again there was that whole Civil War thing, which suggests that not everyone agrees about that principle.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
the idea of a single person owning the island of Lana'i is crass in the extreme.
Why? Its just an extreme instance of private property rights. So at what point do you say that this much property is enough but any more is not right? 141 square miles is big, but its not the largest private land parcel by a long shot.
Now, if you want to raise the issue of how the original land owner, Castle and Cooke, came to possess this island, that's another (interesting) issue.
Have gnu, will travel.
Have gnu, will travel.
If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede.
Then again there was that whole Civil War thing, which suggests that not everyone agrees about that principle.
Now wait. Everybody knows the US Civil War had to do with vampires. There's even a new documentary coming out in theaters about it.
Apple Foxconn and Clinton are actually late to the party on this one. They didn't move in until more boring infrastructure companies (power, water) set up shop.
Even before Nixon went to china the US was selling the chinese power generators through US companies that had non US subsidiaries. There was I think, a reasonable belief that the wedge between Russia/Soviet Union and China could be taken advantage of by friendly sales of non military things even before full on recognition of (Communist) Peoples Republic of China as the government rather than the Republic of China.
But yes, you're right. The solution to poverty in africa comes from trade. What's happened is that pure aid, in the form of food or money, has devastated economies, since someone from france will give away food why would you pay a local guy to grow any? Since the government gets half of its revenue from aid why would you pay taxes etc. Those two have combined to wreck chaos on economies (they aren't complete 100% effects). Trade isn't really possible until those countries can have credible education and legal systems (so investors won't lose all their money), and there will probably need to be some infrastructure investment.
There's still a need for aid for the moment, locusts, droughts that sort of thing, aren't going to be solved overnight. But in the long run Africa needs development from trade.
Not true. A lion will eat what it kills.
I'm not sure about lions, but wolves will kill coyotes that infringe on their territory, but they will not eat them. Coyotes will kill foxes that also compete for the same food source, and generally the coyotes will not eat the foxes. Killing your prey and killing your non-prey competitors are both common in the animal world. Animals, even predators, do not always eat everything they kill.
No criticism about the ridiculous wealth disparity in the world is appropriate if it comes from someone who spends significantly more than his share.
I wish I could mod this whole thread about share of wealth irrelevant. Whether Larry Ellison buys a huge chunk of real estate in Hawaii has nothing to do with whether a starving kid in Africa gets a meal today. And if Larry never got to the point where he could afford such a thing doesn't matter one iota to solve the plight of impoverished people around the world.
There are many fair criticisms about his management tactics and business decisions, but I fail to see how someone who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to charity can be criticized for what appears to be yet another business deal.
The laws of the U.S. and Hawaii should ensure that he doesn't do anything harmful to the people or environment of this island. And if his involvement means the people that live there have a better life and he comes out ahead financially, then that's a net win we should all agree on.
I like teamwork. It's easier to assign blame that way.
You can't give him a tax cut, he already doesn't pay taxes. He doesn't exercise his options, because that would be a taxable event, he just borrows money against them, which isn't taxable income. But if you claim that the rich aren't on a level playing field, then you're engaging class warfare.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Most of us who have posted negatively is because of what seems to be a very self-focused decision. I think there are many of us who want to help feed the hungry, house the homeless, and cure the ill, but we also have challenges of our own, children to raise, and even have fears for providing for our own retirement. You cannot help others if you cannot even help yourself. That said, many of us give to charities, tip waitstaff generously, lend tools to neighbors we barely know, etc. If I had billions I know I would have a few more luxuries that I do now, but I would like to think that I would give myself up entirely to hedonism. That said, I don't know Ellison's motives. Carnegie was highly criticized most of his life and only near the end did he become the renowned philanthropist he is remembered as today. Maybe Ellison will build an orphanage and a charity hospital on the island and set up a foundation to fly the world's poor and needy to Hawaii for treatment. But seriously, who am I kidding. Most people once they reach a particular stage of wealth develop a very hardened shell. They know so many around them, even their own friends and family, resent their wealth. Those who act most kindly to them they suspect of being superficial, only wanted to be included in their wills. The more wealth you have the more people ask you for money, and there are plenty who try to put you into a guilt trip or flat out insult you for not giving enough. One of the worse things you can do is give to charity and leave your contact info. The National Do Not Call list makes exceptions for charities to hound you at your personal phone number and by mail. It can be almost as bad as owing a debt collector. And the charities sell your info to other calling lists. So I can see how coming into wealth could lead you to be cold and calloused, but that is a challenge that must be overcome to be a decent human being.
There's also nothing wrong with publicly exposing extravagant spending by the wealthy, especially when behavior is unethical, like buying ivory, hiring child labor, or abusing domestic staff. I don't see anything unethical yet about Ellison's purchase, but it is easy to presume a self-driven motivation given his history of purchasing extravagant play things. There's also nothing wrong with citizens and governments applying social pressure on the wealthy to do more good with their wealth. If most of the rich managed their assets like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates there would probably be much less resentment and animosity like you see in the OWS movements. At some point there can be concern that too small of a minority could gain too much of the wealth, which is a genuine threat to the success and security of a democracy. Corporations should not be allowed to be "too big to fail". Once in such a position it is too easy for them to make their demands and get what they ask for. The American Revolution was fought more against the over-reaching influence of the East India Trading Company than it was a rebellion against UK parliamentary government. Though King George III, the UK monarch, had very little in the way of government authority in the UK, he was a major shareholder of the East India Trading Company, and it was the actions of his company and it's lobbyists that led the US to rebel. Most literature of the time directed anger squarely to King George. The British Prime Minister during the American Revolution was Lord Frederick North, yet most Americans wouldn't recognize the name if they heard it.
Now wait. Everybody knows the US Civil War had to do with vampires.
Right, and we were talking about Larry Ellison, so ...
Frank Partnoy gives a pretty good explanation in F.I.A.S.C.O Blood in the Water on Wall Street of how the wealthy can use a Total Return Swap to avoid taxes.
You may not be aware of it, but there is a strong secession movement in Hawaii. Check it out. It has had no real effect.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."