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."

Comments

"The highest bidder"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who else is going to bid for land that's surrounded entirely by someone else's land, and subject to these kinds of legal encumbrances?

The man is a bastard and a prime candidate for an urgent visit from a large group of people toting pitchforks and torches, if anyone can find any in present-day Hawaii.

Re:"The highest bidder"?

[MightyMartian]

We have similar easements and accesses in my neck of the woods. One of the most contentious where I live is public access to lakes (I gather this is also an issue in Hawaii with access to beaches). Basically the law says that landowners are certainly allowed to own land up to the beach, but they cannot own the beach or any stretch of the water. There are some slight variances on this principle for self-contained bodies of water, like artificial lakes, but in general, you can own land adjacent to a lake or stream, but you don't own the lake or stream, or the immediate vicinity around it. Further, there are public access points to the beach, which often do cross peoples' property, but by law the property owners cannot impede peoples' access to the lake, nor can they attempt to block the access points. Further, if they build warfs or boat launches, well, they're doing so on public land, so while they may be free to locate those structures there, they can't prevent other people from using them.

Every year property owners around various lakes in the area try to block access trails, make absurd threats against people enjoying what constitute public lands, and generally be fucking assholes. That they bought this land knowing full well that they are not lawfully empower to prevent access is irrelevant. They're big crybabies who want to assert defacto ownership over land and water that explicitly does not belong to them, and never will.

Re:"The highest bidder"?

[Feyshtey]

Actually, I did read the article. Did you? If yes, did you comprehend it?

From the article :

Zuckerberg's lawyer, Keoni Shultz of the firm Cades Schutte, in a statement to CNBC said, "It is common in Hawaii to have small parcels of land within the boundaries of a larger tract, and for the title to these smaller parcels to have become broken or clouded over time."

"In some cases, co-owners may not even be aware of their interests," ...

Start with the understanding that the declaration is from an atorney for Zuckpunk. And even given his obvious and perfectly legitimate bias he makes no claim that the statement is all inclusive. It is not a blanket assessment. It is not predetermined that all property owners have the same situations, knowledge of ownership, desire for ownership, or unpaid tax liabilities. It instead suggests that while a person with a shared ownership of a parcel might be fully vested in remaining an owner, other co-owners of that parcel might not know that they also have stake in the land.

In fact the only place that the article even mentions taxes is in the case of a single partial owner of a particular parcel.

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.

Care to amend your comments?

What is it about having money...

[ZorinLynx]

What is it about having money that turns people into such assholes?

I mean really, 700 acres? How can someone not find sufficient privacy for their family on 700 acres, even if it contains a few parcels he doesn't own?

Re:May not be as bad as the clickbaity headline sa

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not reading TFA correctly, because if they have " no idea " they own them then obviously they aren't crossing his property to visit property they don't care about.

The editors should have fixed the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have high expectations for the quality of the content on Slashdot, but this summary is particularly bad.

Regardless of what your stance is on this matter, the fact remains that the summary is highly biased and editorialized, to the point of the entire submission being rubbish.

Crap like

Apparently, owning 700 acres of land in Hawaii isn't enough

and

but seemingly Mr. Zuckerberg can not tolerate their presence so close to his private little slice of paradise

and

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

and especially

Who knew that Hawaiians were just another kind of Native Americans?

should have all been removed, and doing so would have made the submission far more informative and objective.

The "Who knew ... just another kind of Native Americans?" junk is particularly stupid. The people called "Native Americans" today are just the descendants (ignoring how many of them are also descended from Europeans, sometimes proportionally more so than from non-Europeans) of the most recent waves of migration to the Americas from Eurasia. It's rarely mentioned how these later waves likely destroyed previous cultures in the Americas, such as the Clovis people, because that wouldn't fit with the leftist narrative of today's "Native Americans" being perpetual victims.

The editors should have seriously reworked this submission's summary. Perhaps it would have been better just to throw it out completely, it's so inherently bad.

This summary and all of its obvious bias just makes those against Zuckerberg's actions look like kooks and extremists.

Re:The editors should have fixed the summary.

[rmdingler]

Quite right. Exaggerating one's facts, even when in the right, is a common mistake when presenting one's case.

It lends credence to the deniers, who can denounce everything you present in your argument if you stretch one or two facts.

It is the polar opposite of fortuitous that this strategy is regularly employed in important debates like global warming and minimum wage.

Re:The editors should have fixed the summary.

[Cinnamon Beige]

Actually, if you go through the history of the Americas, you find a lot of records of one group pushing out another, as well as some pretty good evidence that groups did indeed get wiped out. (Proving it tends to require there be written records.) Pushing out native peoples is not a European invention; until modern times it and weather were the driving forces behind all human migrations, and it still drives a lot of migration to this day.

Re:Jewish Surnames

[ghoul]

So does being Jewish give you a pass for being an A*hole? Finally I understand Israeli behaviour.

Re:Jewish Surnames

[Anonymous Coward]

Being Jewish gives you a pass on nothing. It means you've already had your family name changed to something stupid.