
Hawaiians call Mark Zuckerberg 'the face of neocolonialism' over land lawsuits - fmihaila
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-land-lawsuits-kauai-estate
======
yummyfajitas
This article describes the process in significantly more detail:
[http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-...](http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-
zuckerberg-sues-to-force-land-
sales/?HSA=74dae150a1d9f99e2592d0eac31ea430d01f35d5)

The wikipedia article on quiet title is also clarifying:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_title](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_title)

So is this article on quiet title: [http://www.nolo.com/legal-
encyclopedia/who-can-claim-propert...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-
encyclopedia/who-can-claim-property-based-adverse-possession-hawaii.html)

If I understand it right, the issue here is situations like the following.
You've got a parcel of land which was 1/2 owned by brother A and 1/2 owned by
brother B (due to, e.g., inheritance). Brother A occupied the parcel for 20+
years and eventually sold it to someone else. At this point, according to
Hawaii's adverse posession law, brother A owns it but owes compensation to
brother B. Now many years later, brother A or his descendents sold to
Zuckerberg (or some similar chain of title), and brother B's descendents may
not even know they had some right to the land.

There's a theoretical possibility that some descendent of brother B may show
up and claim the land.

These quiet title lawsuits are a way for Zuckerberg to pre-emptively settle
all such issues. It's also apparently a very common and accepted way to handle
such issues in Hawaii.

This is basically just a horrible legal hack around the fact that Hawaii (like
many places) has a totally broken title registration system. Without this hack
it might be difficult/impossible for a land owner to know with any certainty
that they actually own the land they just purchased.

If someone knows more about this, or if my understanding is incorrect, please
correct me. I know little beyond what I learned via google.

~~~
flippyhead
I once heard someone describe law as simply software for people. I love how
you describe these maneuvers as hacks.

~~~
inopinatus
That is a common misconception, especially amongst engineers. There's a large
cohort of smart people who've read a contract and think this means they grasp
the law; but without understanding jurisprudence or equity, common/case law,
the myriad forms of legislation, actual legal proceedings &c &c.

In reality the law is not a programming language, and trying to treat it as
such is a common cause of disappointment, frustration, anger, needless
bickering, extended conflict, and vexatiously long and mostly unenforceable
contracts.

~~~
ergothus
Agreed. One of the most startling discoveries I had about contracts was the
concept of "consideration", i.e. that both parties of a contract should be
getting something of roughly equal value. Without consideration, the contract
becomes unenforceable. Prior to learning that, I viewed contracts as a set of
rules, and if you didn't like the rules you agreed to, well, you lost at the
contract game. Consideration turned out to be the first of a lot of contract
concepts I didn't know of (and doubtless there are many concepts I still don't
know about).

My ex went to law school, and I found the attitude of "non-lawyers have no
business having opinions about the law" that her law school promoted to be
vile. That said, I've found that it's a good idea to assume that any legal
issue is NOT straightforward. Doing otherwise usually ends up making me look
ignorant, and has me spreading false conclusions to other non-lawyers around
me.

~~~
smallnamespace
> something of roughly equal value

The value doesn't have to be equal, simply that both sides offer something of
value:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration#Monetary_value_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration#Monetary_value_of_consideration)

~~~
ergothus
Many record contracts are overturned once the person gets famous. I was told
this was usually due to consideration issues, though I don't know that is a
fact.

------
Firegarden
I live on Kauai. I moved here 5 years ago from Canada. I can tell you most
people don't understand Hawaii has a much different culture, history and
people than "mainland" America.

Mark is making a huge mistake. The people on this island in particular are
much more community and heart based. The fundamental mistake Mark is making is
that he is entering into a lose-lose situation. This will NEVER be forgotten
and he will NEVER be welcome here. He will always have to watch his back while
he is here.

In my opinion his best course of action is to stop all law suits and make
amends. People will forgive him for making a mistake but only if he can admit
it first. This is not California. The island will "spit him out".

Kauai is known for being the last island of Aloha. Good luck Mark.

~~~
lagadu
> He will always have to watch his back while he is here.

What do you mean "watch his back"? People will physically attack or steal from
him? Because that sounds like the kind of society any reasonable person
wouldn't want to be a part of.

~~~
Firegarden
Your guess is as good as mine. What would you do to someone that used their
money to take away home land that has been in your family for generations
because you didn't have the right paper work to prove your ownership in a
court of law.

Living out here you realize that the bodies are not buried in dirt.

------
bruceb
I can understand him wanting to make sure land ownership claims are settled.

On the otherhand him taking about how he is against walls then litterly
building one in Hawaii that blocks people's view of the water is the height of
hypocrisy.

~~~
yunolisten
> how he is against walls then litterly building one

1 mile, long, 6 feet tall?

~~~
loafa
A wall one mile long to protect one guy from trespassers is reasonable but a
wall two thousand miles long to protect 250 million people is ridiculous,
according to Zuck.

~~~
criddell
I think calling people traversing the property _tresspasser_ is part of the
problem.

------
local_kauai
The thing is, a lot of Hawaiians don't want to sell. This lawsuit forces sale
of their rightful property to the highest bidder. It's a clever way for rich
mainlanders to obtain property from Hawaiians. A lot of Hawaiians are not
interested in the money.

Several local people living on the property were kicked off when Zuckerberg
bought the land. A 6 foot wall was built and police began regularly patrolling
a nearby road off the property questioning people walking on the road.

~~~
harryh
If those Hawaiians don't want to sell they can buy out their co-owners at
which point they would own full title to the land.

~~~
local_kauai
In mainland terms that makes sense but in Hawaiian culture it does not.

They do not have money. Their wealth is in the community, sharing, fishing
rights and land rights.

They don't believe in buying each other out. Sharing is a big part of their
culture and is part of aloha.

Our mainland system is being imposed on them.

------
whatok
As someone who was born, raised, and lived a significant portion of my life in
Hawaii, I really wish he approached this in a better way or just chose a
different place. There is still a lot of negative sentiment (arguably
justifiable given history) towards "outsiders" within the islands and
maneuvers like this do not help things. I don't see how the negative publicity
surrounding this is worth having property and "joining a community" that
you'll probably only spend Christmas in.

------
tabeth
The idea of someone living in multiple places is just hilarious. The epitome
of privilege.

That being said, didn't Z just buy the land from other people? How was he able
to even "buy" the land without full agreement of all of the owners to begin
with? Shouldn't the land not belong to him until the transaction is complete?

In any case, the regular people always get screwed in these cases and always
will until things are completely communal. Land shouldn't be owned by anyone.
Rather, it should be able to be used freely. There are obviously logistical
issues, but perhaps that should be and place and we'll figure out the rest?

> Makaala Kaaumoana, the executive director of an environmental group in
> Hanalei, Kauai, said that the lawsuits would help identify and inform
> descendants of links to the land they may not know about, which is “a good
> thing”.

> “It is always a sad thing when families lose their land, for any reason, but
> at least this way they are compensated,” she said.

The rationalization afterwards is also interesting.

> And Matt Goodale, a neighbor whose 10 acres of breadfruit, banana, mango,
> lychee and longan trees lie about one and a half miles from Zuckerberg’s
> property, said that the CEO’s purchase of the land was much better than the
> alternative: an 80-home development.

Good to know the rich look after each other.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
> Land shouldn't be owned by anyone. Rather, it should be able to be used
> freely.

How would this work? Honest question.

I agree that the concept of land ownership is a little weird - it's one of the
most limited, exclusive resources we have.

Hypothetically, I would love to be able to use this land that Z is "buying"
under the current land ownership paradigm. But that free use, to me, would
look like pouring a concrete foundation and building a structure with a bunk
room, kitchen, bathroom, common area, with storage for a Hobie Cat, some
surfboards, and SCUBA gear, and a patio overlooking the ocean. I'd want the
rest of the land to be nicely forested. I would come out for a week every
couple months. Would I have freedom to do this in a non-land-ownership system?
What would prevent others from building in front of me, or using my structure
when I wanted to be there?

~~~
tabeth
I won't pretend like I'm an expert. However, I will say that in our supposedly
democratic land, a useful heuristic would be just to vote. If the land was not
owned by anyone and this could be magically enforced, then the people would
simply vote for its use, right?

As things come up people would just revote. Since no one owns the land there
wouldn't be any conflict of interest. You may point out that those who
originally voted may be conflicted, but I disagree: any proposition that would
benefit the majority would clearly win. Any proposition that doesn't would
necessarily be struck down.

This kind of system has its own problems, though. Long term sustainability is
one, requisites for voting is another. But these problems I think are
separate.

~~~
madgar
You forgot about protecting minorities. What do you do when the majority of
the people in a jurisdiction like (eg.) Mississippi consistently vote down
land use by black people? Just accept that the people have spoken and that
black people are unwelcome in that jurisdiction?

This is not a theoretical exercise. This happens everyday in America in co-op
boards, HOAs, etc and it doesn't require anybody saying out loud why an
individual is being rejected. The current US president got caught doing this
in the 1960s. If you want to redesign land use rights wholesale I would hope
you wouldn't make this kind of discrimination more common... maybe that's just
me.

~~~
Arizhel
>You forgot about protecting minorities. What do you do when the majority of
the people in a jurisdiction like (eg.) Mississippi consistently vote down
land use by black people? Just accept that the people have spoken and that
black people are unwelcome in that jurisdiction?

Well, yes. That's how democracy works: there's a vote and the majority wins.
Are you opposed to democracy?

Yeah, it sucks if you're a minority, but what can you do? This is a
fundamental flaw in democracy. We attempt to mitigate it by having
constitutions and laws and representatives who are voted on in multi-year
cycles, which in engineering terms has the effect of creating a long feedback
loop so that the populace's short term emotions don't create too much
instability and chaos, but it only works to a point.

The alternative is a non-democratic system like what they do in China. And
they don't seem to be too keen on protecting the rights of minorities either.

~~~
RUG3Y
The alternative is a republic, which is supposed to protect the inalienable
rights of the minority from the whims of the majority.

~~~
Arizhel
Are you one of those people who thinks a modern democratic republic somehow
isn't democratic? Did you miss my whole line about constitutions and laws?
Those are fundamentals of a modern democratic republic. Why is it that every
time someone mentions a democracy, someone like you pops up and claims that a
modern democracy isn't a democracy?

Read this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic)

Line 1: "A democratic republic is both a republic and a democracy."

Furthermore, not all republics are democratic. North Korea and China are both
republics, as is Iran. I already mentioned China in my previous post. Do you
really think North Korea protects anyone's inalienable rights? Or Iran?

~~~
RUG3Y
Maybe if someone always pops up to correct your vision of democracy, you're
not communicating very well.

------
microDude
I went to Kaui for a 2 week camping trip a few years back.

I would listen to the local radio broadcast at night, which I really enjoyed.
It was some local DJ that would talk about native rights and issues. One thing
that stuck out to me was an interview he did with a Native American from the
main-land. The guest was amazed at how much local Kaui natives were able to
defend their rights and maintain (at least influence) control.

------
marcoperaza
If my understanding is correct, the media is treating Zuckerberg very
unfairly. My understanding is:

1\. The land ownership has been diluted over time such that there are many
people who own small shares.

2\. Zuckerberg is working with the majority owners of each parcel to trigger a
forced-sale of the full ownership, which he intends to purchase.

This is no different than a majority shareholder forcing the sale of a
business. It's a total non-story.

~~~
xiaoma
> _" It's a total non-story."_

If he were Hawaiian, that would be true. But he's an outsider and he's world
famous.

It's a story.

~~~
marcoperaza
An outsider? He's an American and he has the same right to buy property in
Hawaii as anyone else in our country.

~~~
vkou
Do you know how Hawaii came under American control?

He is absolutely an outsider in Hawaii.

~~~
drakonandor
Less than 25% of Hawaii is ethnically native.

~~~
vkou
That has nothing to do with the culture of the place. If I invite you into my
home, and ask you to take off your shoes, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm
white, black, or reptilian. Please take off your shoes.

~~~
csallen
Isn't it a bit different if your home isn't actually yours, but belongs
collectively to whoever lives there, under a system of rules decided by the
people who live there, and those rules say it's fine if he doesn't want to
take off his shoes?

------
harryh
TBH this doesn't seem like a Mark Zuckerberg problem as much as a Hawaii laws
problem. How is it that there is land with no clear ownership? And how is it
that the law (the quiet title process) is written such that if the ownership
of that land is determined those people can be forced to sell? It seems like a
very strange system of rules.

~~~
visakanv
The rules were probably designed by and for a group of people with a specific
culture and worldview, who didn't plan or design for wealthy entrants (even
pre-Zuckerberg).

~~~
HillaryBriss
interesting. i wonder if maybe we should look at it in the opposite way.

i mean, it kind of seems like the rules were designed by people who _did_ plan
and design for wealthy entrants.

Zuckerberg is going to have to track down all of these unknown people and cut
a deal with them individually. and they know he's a zillionaire. what a lousy
bargaining position. i would think it makes the task of transferring ownership
a whole lot harder, slower and more expensive than buying a piece of land, in
say, Columbus, Ohio or Fresno, California.

------
dilap
Not very good optics if he really is planning on running for public office.

~~~
visakanv
"Mr. Zuckerberg, is it true that you screwed a bunch of Hawaiians out of their
property?"

"That means I'm smart. When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do
anything. Grab 'em by their huge tracts of land. You can do anything."

~~~
jbmorgado
"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and rip somebody of their lands and
I wouldn't lose voters"

------
_1
> "fell in love with the community " ... and decided to "plant roots and join
> the community ourselves".

By suing the locals and hiding behind a walled, 700 acre estate. Sounds very
neighborly.

------
HillaryBriss
people that rich live by a different standard. we can expect more from them
than from a middle class home buyer.

Z has a _lot_ of options. buying "700 acres of rural beachfront land" to
create a "secluded family sanctuary" and "enhance the seclusion" is only one
of them.

imagine if, instead, Z wanted to win a local popularity contest: he could
create a permanent arrangement where he gives the state of Hawaii 699 of those
acres for use by the local families that used to own it, or the general public
-- keeping, say, one acre for his own family's use. it's an option.

there are other less extreme options, too, options that would also generate
positive, as opposed to negative, attention in the press.

of course, none of this is required by law, but we should keep in mind that Z
has many possible choices which the rest of us lack.

given the limited quantities of land -- especially beach front land -- in
Hawaii and the long-term traditions (and poverty) of the local, long term
inhabitants, it's understandable that people in Hawaii would scrutinize his
choices and expect something less selfish.

even if he manages to gain full, legal title to the land, what can we expect
the attitude of local people to be when they have even less access to that
land than they did in the past?

------
corysama
The article is much less aggressive than the title.

------
eplanit
[dupe]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13468767](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13468767)

------
nojvek
This is gentrification for the Hawaiian right? I was just in maui last week
and it was beautiful. Mark buying 700 acres just signals other billionaires in
a dick measuring contest. Maui real estate is already insanely priced for the
average person.

I only hope the Silicon Valley dickbags work on fixing the homeless situation
in SF rather than making more people homeless

------
free_everybody
Zuck is just trying to straighten out who owns the land and who should be
compensated. The article throws around the word 'lawsuit' with the intent of
invoking its negative connotations with the reader. There is a good discussion
to be had about Hawaiian land ownership but Zuck is not the (only) villain
here.

------
fallingfrog
"Neo"?

~~~
mhurron
Ya, sounds like the same stuff that's being going on the whole time.

------
jly
Zuckerberg seems like a good guy, he clearly has some very strong
philanthropic ideas about how he will spend his vast fortune, and he seems to
be trying to navigate the strange property laws of Hawaii in the right way.
Having said that, it kind of pains me to see one of our millennial altruistic
thought-leaders already fully engaged in such wealth and property
consolidation. $100M, multi-hundred acre estate in a place he may spend a
couple weeks per year? It doesn't give me a lot of confidence for the future
of our species, sadly.

This is not a popular opinion, but the more I see where the world is going,
the more I would be encouraged by seeing aggressive taxation or forced
charity/redistribution from the bulk of inheritance. Our system of capitalism
needs some serious brakes if we want it to be sustainable in the long-term.

~~~
jayjay71
I saw a comment on HN about this recently where someone suggested a 100%
inheritance tax. I wonder what society would be like if we were able to
implement this effectively.

~~~
harryh
It seems to me that would only incentive rich people to be more outlandish
consumers during their lives. If the government won't let me give it to my
kids I might as well go ahead and buy that yacht.

~~~
Inconel
I'm not nearly knowledgable enough on economics to determine the overall
effects of such a tax, so please take this with a very large grain of salt,
but couldn't it be argued that you purchasing a yacht would be better for the
economy than passing on a fortune to heirs?

Yachts seem to require a ton of skilled labor to build and maintain. I assume
they provide for many solidly middle class jobs.

------
gukov
What happened to "bridges, not walls", Mark?

------
randyrand
I find it interesting that colonialism is bashed so much when in reality it
brought much of the world into the modern era. would the world really be a
better place if colonialism never happened ?

~~~
woofyman
Colonialism killed hundreds of millions.

[https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.7.1.03.HTM](https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.7.1.03.HTM)

Edit: Their land stolen and plundered.

~~~
randyrand
"their land?" the land on this world needs to be shared.You cant just expect
to own an entire continent for yourself and not have to share it.

