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."

13 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. "The highest bidder"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"The highest bidder"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:"The highest bidder"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. Re:Typical by qwerty823 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Zuckerberg by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's German for "Rich Pathetic Sociopathic Bastard..."?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:Zuckerberg by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Funny

    Zuckerberg

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  5. Editorial Summary is Terrible by chispito · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!
  6. The editors should have fixed the summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:700 acres??? by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Funny

    "640 acres should be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  8. Re:What is it about having money... by RealGene · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    Let the record show that Zuckerberg was an asshole long before he had money.

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  9. Re:Zuckerberg by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Zuckerberg by tsotha · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Zuckerberg by chipschap · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.