Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Sues Hundreds of Hawaiians To Force Property Sales To Him (msn.com)
mmell writes: Apparently, owning 700 acres of land in Hawaii isn't enough -- Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has filed suit to force owners of several small parcels of land to sell to the highest bidder. The reason? These property owners are completely surrounded by Zuckerberg's land holdings and therefore have lawful easement to cross his property in order to get to theirs. Many of these land owners have held their land for generations, but seemingly Mr. Zuckerberg can not tolerate their presence so close to his private little slice of paradise. Landowners such as these came to own their land when their ancestors were "given" the land as Hawaiian natives. If successful in his "quiet title" court action, Mr. Zuckerberg will finally have his slice of Hawaii's beaches and tropical lands without having to deal with the pesky presence of neighbors who were on his land before he owned it. Who knew that Hawaiians were just another kind of Native Americans? CNBC reports: "The cases target a dozen small plots of so-called 'kuleana' lands that are inside the much larger property that Zuckerberg bought on Kauai. Kuleana lands are properties that were granted to native Hawaiians in the mid-1800. One suit, according to the Star-Advertiser, was filed against about 300 people who are descendants of an immigrant Portuguese sugar cane plantation worker who bought four parcels totaling two acres of land in 1894. One of that worker's great-grandchildren, Carlos Andrade, 72, lived on the property until recently, the paper said. But the retired university professor told the Star-Advertiser that he is helping Zuckerberg's case as a co-plaintiff in an effort to make sure the land is not surrendered to the county if no one in his extended clan steps up to take responsibility for paying property taxes on the plots."
From TFA, it seems like these are old titles, many of the people who inherited them have no idea they "own" these properties, and thus haven't been paying property taxes on them since 180something.
I don't much care for The Zuck, but before taking off on the all too predictable partisan political tears, people should inform themselves on which Supreme Court justices ruled which way on the Kelo decision.
I think "Schwanzlutscher" is what you are looking for . . . but Arschloch is more appropriate, in this case . . . I'll try to think up something better, or ask some friends, since I am fluent in German, but not a native speaker . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If you read the article, these are parcels of land that no one lives on, but more than one people *own*. What his case is doing is forcing the land to be sold so that those owners can come forward and get paid for it. Most owners don't even realize they own the land.
So no one is being *forced out of their homes*. Basically they are getting money they didn't realize they had.
Who knew that Hawaiians were just another kind of Native Americans?
Apparently everyone but the author. What a moron.
In general, in Common Law, if you buy land that has known encumbrances, then you inherit the obligations that go with that encumbrance. I have land that has a water easement on it so people up the road can pump water from a creek nearby. Since that was attached to the land when I took possession, I'm obligated to allow the neighbors to continue to operate water lines. I can certainly try to buy them out or otherwise offer incentive for them to voluntarily vacate the easement, but if I go to a judge and demand he terminate the easement and kick my neighbors' water lines off my property, I'm going to be shown the door. Of course, I'm not a fucking dirtbag, so I accept certain limitations on my ownership that I voluntarily took on, and don't try to push people off with threats of legal action.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
People have been saying it for years, but I really feel like this place isn't what it used to be. Here we have a terrible, click-baity headline followed by a terrible, lazily editorialized summary, none of which is "News for Nerds" or "Stuff that Matters."
Really, does this impact us in some way that I'm not seeing? At least with stories about Steve Jobs's megayacht, there was a cool megayacht to be interested in.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
So because Zuckerberg either knowingly bought, or failed thru lack of due-diligence to learn before purchase, that this encumberence would be a factor, it's now the problem of those other land-owners to defend their right to own the land without legal pressures to sell from a man with enough resources to run them dry and into bankruptcy in court?
These arent people that snaked their way onto this land. They are people with a historical and ancestral right to retain their ownership and access.
This is nothing more than another loophole to exploit what is effectively a misappropriation of eminent domain by an entitled, self-righteous jackwagon who wants his own little fiefdom.
It's one thing to keep offering more and more to purchase the land, or to proceed in court to provide zuckerpuke with records that outline all the stakeholders, or even to refuse to provide any specific care to the easements beyond the most basic capability to access internal plots. It's another to crusade with the weight of money, wealth, influence and court of law to force a sale.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
RTFA. Ownership of a grant total of 8 acres entirely enclosed within Zuckerberg's land is unclear. Nobody lives there. Nobody's paid taxes on the land in decades. The lawsuit basically says, "step up or shut up." If anyone actually steps up and says, "It's mine, here's the taxes and the proof I own it," then it doesn't get sold.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
the county is likely within its power to seize the plots
I don't know how Hawaiian law works. But in my state (WA), unclaimed property is protected forever. Counties (and other parties) might be able to file a lien for fees, taxes and other obligations owed. But I don't think they can just 'take it away'.
and sell them to cover the costs
What costs? For unimproved land with no services, the cost to the county is zero. Even then, once the property owner is identified, they have the right (at least in my state) to make good on back taxes and fees.
Have gnu, will travel.
you didn't read the article, did you?
this is land that has been abandoned and nobody has been paying property taxes
This. Despite the Power To The People headline, this is something he's forced to do under Hawaiian law if he wants to have any hope of a clear title to the property.
More interesting is probably the term that Native Hawaiians are using to describe him, which would be "haole".
Well, he is haole. The meaning of the word in the Hawaiian language is really "foreigner" but in common talk here, it has come to be a sometimes derisive term for a Caucasian. It can be, but is certainly not necessarily, racist or derogatory, and it isn't either of those in the true Hawaiian meaning of the word.
The Zuckerberg development was the lead front page story in today's Star Advertiser (our local Honolulu newspaper). It seemed to be to be presented in a negative light, as in, here goes another rich haole from the mainland grabbing Native Hawaiian land. It's easy to see it that way but in Hawai`i hardly anything is simple or straightforward, and I'm reserving judgment until I learn more about it, though siding with Zuckerberg would be pretty distasteful.
The lawsuit(s) being filed are to determine ownership of the parcels of land. Not to force the sale of the land.
Zuckerberg is suing to find out who owns the land so that he can negotiate to purchase the land from them. Right now he can't purchase the land because no one knows who owns it.
He is not suing to force the sale, he is suing to make the sale possible.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Ha-ole literally translates into "without breath" as Hawaiians in the time of Captain Cook's encounter greeted each other by touching foreheads together and exchanging breaths (the honi). Cook, obviously not Hawaiian, was unaware of the custom and didn't greet the Hawaiians in this way and was assumed to be "without breath." The term entered the vernacular and today is a pejorative for Caucasians.
Let's please not. The reason his last name means "sugar mountain" in German is because in the late 18th Century the various Germanic empires forced all Jews to have surnames, instead of being known as (e.g.) Yeshua ben Youssef -- a patronym, not a surname. If your family was on bad terms with the local magistrate then you might have had a surname that was actually insulting rather than merely ridiculous. So unless you're interested in reviving a particularly vile brand of antisemitism, please let's not give this man an insulting surname, even if you think he deserves shame and ridicule.
There was nothing specifically antisemitic about these name changes. Efforts like these were a general trend during the enlightenment. All kinds of minorities and even entire nations were forced to change their age old naming conventions. This happened in large parts of Scandinavia for example where people were forced to abandon a traditional naming convention so old that it predated written history and replace them with the continental first/last name tradition. Various governments also tried to systematically exterminate minority languages and cultures such as Slavic languages in Germany, and Celtic languages in France, the UK and Ireland. The same happened to Native Americans in the US where the government even resorted to forcibly removing native children from their families, raising them in boarding schools and subjecting them to brutal discipline if they spoke their own language.