
Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales - haywardsmyfault
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/01/18/business/facebooks-zuckerberg-sues-to-force-land-sales
======
abtinf
It is clear that almost no one commenting here has actually read past the
first few paragraphs of the article (if that). It is very well written and
explain that this is an extremely complex issue.

Property rights are the foundation of civil society. Due to variety of
factors, Hawaii has destroyed property rights on some parcels due to
degenerate laws and legal customs.

Just consider one point raised by the article: one small parcel has over 300
informal owners who are descended from a Portuguese immigrant who bought the
land over 110 years ago and that "individual ownership fractions range from
about 1/7 (about 14 percent) to 17/333,396 (less than a one-hundredth of 1
percent)."; when everyone owns something, no one owns it. This is an
enormously complicated legal problem and there are no simple answers for how
to resolve it.

~~~
jeswin
I am surprised by the number of people who claim this is rich bashing.

Indigenous people around the world have lived for centuries with widely
different concepts of property ownership. In many cultures, once you reach a
working age you build your house where land is available and do your bit (say
farming, or crafts) towards a functioning society. There is no land ownership
record, but rather it's based on trust. Once these lands become part of
countries without adequete protection for indegenous cultures, they become
susceptible to exploitation. Interpreting their culture through our legal
system is one way to do this.

The indigenous people of Hawaii (and elsewhere in the world) are the true
owners of that land. Even if you get legal rights from each one of the current
owners, it still deprives the unborn children of their rights.

It's unfair at best. At best.

~~~
0bfus
I agree with you that the social structures we've set up have largely forced
the hands of the indigenous people who want to keep their lands in their
families in perpetuity to sell. How can we actually make sure these lands stay
within families forever possible though? To do something like disallowing the
sale of these lands outside of their communities doesn't seem particularly
ethical either. In this case, that could mean that some of the landowners who
might be hard pressed for money might have a pressing need to sell, so how
could we forbid that? Just like preserving our diverse cultures, I totally
understand the value proposition, but how can you ethically force cultural
preservation? Not a perfect analog, but I'm curious how you think a more
equitable system might work here.

~~~
matt4077
Isn't that the exact problems that Indian reservations were set up to solve? A
kind of community-administered perpetual land grant, basically.

It seems that – some problems within the tribal administrations non-
withstanding – the external legal relationships are solved pretty well within
that framework.

~~~
RA_Fisher
What you're describing is forced (w/ threat of violence) migration and I don't
think it's easily justified. Care to take a shot?

~~~
matt4077
I was talking about today's reservations as a legal vehicle to allow perpetual
group ownership & administration of land, so as to preserve it for a culture.
I may have forgotten the part where, once the structure is set up, owners
would voluntarily add their property if their shared this objective.

------
tabeth
Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below
the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an
interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards
why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think.

Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that
position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind of a (10th-to) last place
aversion-like response. [1]

[1] [http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234](http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234)

An interesting quote. Notice how the behavior I describe is actually the
opposite of this. It's kind of Stockholm syndrome like, actually (people on
the top end, but not anywhere near the top, wanting to maintain the status of
those at the top, in hopes of getting their themselves).

> Last-place aversion – and the accompanying lack of support for
> redistribution – is particularly pronounced when people near the bottom of
> the distribution have their attention focused on keeping the people below
> them down, rather than on redistributing wealth from those at the top. [2]

[2] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/occupy-wall-
stree...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/occupy-wall-street-
psychology/)

~~~
olalonde
I think it's more of a knee jerk reaction to the "wealthy people are evil"
narrative that is quite common in the media. Some people just read the
headline and immediately assume it's another instance of this, whether they
are right or wrong.

Personally, this kind of article doesn't "gratify my intellectual curiosity"
and I don't think it belongs on HN.

~~~
andrei_says_
Of course, wealthy people are not evil.

But maybe it just happens that in order to become wealthy, people more often
than not have to repeatedly choose wealth over generosity, exploit other
people, take advantage of resources that less privileged ones pay for without
explicit consent.

Also, it often happens that people who are already wealthy and possess more
than what they and their children would need for comfortable royalty-level
lives, continue accumulating wealth, focusing their disproportionally large
power in more exploitation, more privilege, more wealth.

I'm not sure where the line between not quite evil and ok, clearly evil lies
but sometimes I wonder if accumulating a lot of wealth while creating more and
more suffering for many other humans is a healthy behavior.

~~~
Hondor
The idea that rich people got rich because they screwed other people over is
quite common but also a made up generalization. It's an excuse that people who
worry about their own socioeconomic status make to feel better about
themselves. "I'm poor but at least I'm not evil like those rich people.".
Instead of searching for reasons why rich people are evil, why not just be
happy with your own life? You don't need to be rich. Stop worrying about
status and get on with whatever you enjoy.

~~~
andrei_says_
Capitalism exists on exploitation and maximizing profit by squeezing as much
as possible from people serving it. In this environment it is only logical
that the ones standing on top are standing at the top of pyramids of both
wealth and suffering of all who were exploited in the process.

Of course there are companies that choose to limit their profit in exchange
for better conditions for the ones exploited.

As for your statements implying that I am somehow conflating good/evil with
the excuse of the poor(/lazy) or that I am somehow dissatisfied with my own
status, I don't hold either of these views.

I am dissatisfied with privileged people like me blaming less privileged for
their lack of privilege as if that was a function of choice. Being poor is
caused by being born that way more often than by anything else.

I am well aware that the conservative view conflates wealth with virtue. Yet
somehow, with 62 people owning roughly as much as half the world's population,
I have my doubts. That'd be a lot of virtue!

------
AustinBGibbons
Zuckerberg purchased the land from all serious parties, and now his lawyers
are doing their due diligence to track down anyone who might own even a
"1/3,276" share, and are hardly treating anyone unfairly.

Put down your pitchforks, no one is being driven off their land.

~~~
nym
The issue is around compelling people to sell land they don't want to, that
has a tradition of belonging to that family.

~~~
smallnamespace
No, the issue is identifying the owners, at Zuckerberg's own personal expense,
most of whom seem to be completely unaware that they are partial owners.

The practical effect is some people get a windfall check in the mail that they
weren't expecting at all.

~~~
matt4077
It's a two-step process. First, they learn about their part ownership of some
land, which is probably a nice thing, although one shouldn't mistake it with a
gift or winning the lottery or some such. After that, their land is exchanged
for money, possibly against their will. That seems very much like any eminent
domain case, except for the whole for-the-good-of-the-public aspect.

------
thr0waway1239
"Three Zuckerberg companies — Pilaa International LLC, Northshore Kalo LLC and
High Flyer LLC — filed eight quiet title lawsuits Dec. 30 in state Circuit
Court on Kauai."

Hmm.. so the man who wants all of us to "open up" on his conglomerate of
social networks - sometimes even if we don't want to [1] (it is not for him,
you see, it is for this grand vision of connecting the world together) is
troubled by a reduction of his privacy.

Even more priceless stuff:

"Defendants have 20 days to respond to the legal complaint after being served
with a copy. If they don’t respond, they get no say in the proceeding. If they
choose to participate, it could be expensive if they want to be represented by
an attorney."

Hmm.. I wonder if the timing of the court filing might have to do with some
other major event happening around the 20th of January which might drown out
this "not-fake" news. Like, say, the inauguration of the President of the USA?

It is very interesting that by the time this news shows up on HN - the 20 days
are already up. Is it possible that FB could have suppressed this news in the
name of stopping fake news from spreading? I can't prove that the suppression
happened, but can you prove with certainty that it didn't?

The best part in all this is how tuned out FB employees are about these kinds
of things. I bet they don't even see the connection between what they claim is
good for everyone (a private entity purporting to connect the world as its
grand mission and violating all manners of decency in the process) and what
they claim is good for their boss (an individual who knows exactly what it is
like to be on the _receiving_ end of privacy invasions). "Do as I say, but not
as I do". But it is important to show how tuned out they are, because
otherwise you can bet they will come back a little while later claiming that
they had no idea these things are going on.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12588449](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12588449)

------
Zanni
If Zuckerberg is trying to dislodge residents from their homes, that's
reprehensible. On the other hand, if he's merely trying to gain clear and
unencumbered title to land that he's already bought and paid for, that's ...
just common sense? Unfortunately the article doesn't really make it clear
which scenario is operating here.

The writer invokes the word "kamaaina," which a lot of folks here are
interpreting as "Native Hawaiian." It literally means "child of the land," but
is used locally to mean "Hawaii resident." If you've lived in Hawaii long
enough to get a Hawaii driver's license, congrats, you're kamaaina, as
distinct from "malahini" (newcomer) or "kanaka maoli" (which does mean Native
Hawaiian).

~~~
lisper
What the article doesn't mention is that we only got to this situation in the
first place after centuries of nastiness and dirty tricks that deprived the
native Hawaiians of their land in a similar fashion to the way the native
Americans on the mainland were deprived of theirs. What is "legal" today is
only "legal" because some rich white guys decided to make it so using methods
that would horrify most of us today. But the reason that these methods are no
longer used is not because the rich and powerful have developed a more refined
sense of morality, it's because the populace has been subdued to the point
where they are no longer necessary.

------
haywardsmyfault
You could argue some of the land parcels in question are owned by growing
numbers of family members with each new generation, and that therefore it's
likely some (even most) owners wouldn't utilize the land. However, it's also
interesting to digest this situation alongside Oxfam's report [1] on 62 people
accumulating more wealth than half the world's population combined. Zuckerberg
owns 700 acres of Kauai[2]. Why isn't that enough?

[1] [http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-
releases/2016/01/...](http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-
releases/2016/01/62-people-own-same-as-half-world-says-oxfam-inequality-
report-davos-world-economic-forum)

[2]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11160588/Mark-
Zuckerberg-buys-part-of-Hawaii-for-100-million.html)

~~~
curun1r
> Why isn't that enough?

According to the article, the owners of the parcels have the right to traverse
the land he already bought. From the sound of the article, this is making a
mountain out of a molehill.

He wants his privacy and, thanks to bizarre land ownership practices in
Hawaii, these parcels are fractionally owned by hundreds of individuals making
it impossible to make a traditional offer. This legal process, far from being
abusive, is the standard process when dealing with these sorts of parcels
since it clarifies who actually owns the properties. It sounds like once the
list of owners is established by the court, he'll make a traditional offer
rather than forcing an auction.

~~~
disordinary
It's only Bizarre to you, it's not Bizarre to the people who own the property
I'm sure. What's Bizarre is being forced to sell land that you've owned for
generations.

~~~
gnopgnip
Some of these pieces of land have hundreds of owners. In this case one of the
owners has an interest of less than a one-hundredth of a percent. Most of the
owners do not even know what they own. The legal fees to establish who has a
fractional interest in the property would outweigh the value of the property
normally for each individual owner, but with Zuckerberg footing to bill to
find out the family tree all of the owners will benefit.

------
willvarfar
It reminds me of old maps of Swedish villages. In the 1700s there was a big
push to accurately record who owned what in each village. The fields were
divided into strips of ownership divided between children and by the 1700s
this meant that each map has fields made up of long strips just a few feet
wide. There were various schemes called 'skifte' to rationalize things, e.g.
Solskifte (literally "sun shift") where the big farms were numbered clockwise
(the direction the sun goes in) and the fields likewise and assigned. Of
course they also took account of how good the fields were etc. My own house
was built by a farmer selected to move from a village quite a long way away
and given land to move to 1850. We have a list of timber etc he was entitled
to take from his farm, which reads like a shopping list of the materials used
to make the very grand new house.

------
rweba
This article makes me respect Bill Gates more. You never hear of him being
involved in cringy stuff like this.

Yes, it may be legal, but it definitely doesn't look good.

Also, is it just me or is Zuck becoming rather paranoid about his privacy and
security?

(1) He apparently has SIXTEEN bodyguards at his house:
[http://pagesix.com/2016/02/14/mark-zuckerberg-
has-16-bodygua...](http://pagesix.com/2016/02/14/mark-zuckerberg-
has-16-bodyguards-at-his-home/)

(2) He bought all the houses surrounding his in Palo Alto to protect his
privacy: [http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/15/palo-alto-mark-
zuckerb...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/15/palo-alto-mark-zuckerberg-
compound-raises-red-flags-for-city-board/)

(3) He tapes his laptop camera and microphone:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-
zuck...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/22/mark-zuckerberg-
tape-webcam-microphone-facebook)

(4) He goes jogging with FIVE bodyguards:
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464044/Isn-t-
work-T...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464044/Isn-t-work-T-shirt-
Mark-Zuckerberg-heads-jog-wearing-trusty-uniform-carrying-phone.html)

(5) THIS current article.

Obviously a famous rich guy will need more security than the average person,
but other billionaires don't seem to take it this far.

~~~
trhway
don't forget that one.

[http://fortune.com/2011/05/26/mark-zuckerbergs-new-
challenge...](http://fortune.com/2011/05/26/mark-zuckerbergs-new-challenge-
eating-only-what-he-kills-and-yes-we-do-mean-literally/)

""The only meat I'm eating is from animals I've killed myself," says the
Facebook founder and CEO."

------
sb8244
I'm struggling to make sense of this....Zuckerberg purchased 700 acres of
land, but other families are still using that land (or have the right to)? How
can you purchase land that others legally own?

~~~
noobermin
I'm confused too, but reading this:

>Close to a dozen small parcels within Zuckerberg’s Kauai estate are owned by
kamaaina families who have rights to traverse the billionaire’s otherwise
private domain.

...that suggests to me there are essentially landlocked parcels owned by the
natives, perhaps? And if they are land locked, well, the people have to cut
through his property to access their land, I suppose.

~~~
markdown
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easement)

------
narrator
At least Larry Ellison had the good taste to work with the local population of
the Hawaiian Island he bought to provide jobs for them and such.

------
dbjacobs
Here is my IANAL understanding. If multiple people own a property all it takes
is one person who wants to sell and they can force a partition sale.

So my guess is Zuckerberg is using the quiet title suit to get the names of
all the players. He then just needs to get enough of the fractional owners of
each property on board and he can then pay the legal fees to help them with
their partition actions and then purchase the properties and clear his title.

~~~
notyourwork
Sounds about right, or perhaps get lucky and settle with some who are
desperate for money.

------
noobermin
If Zuck truly is planning to run for office as some speculation has supposed,
this does _not_ look good for that.

This reeks terribly, I was unaware this was even legal, but this is almost
literally depriving someone of their property because you have the money.

~~~
mjfl
The news story also reaks of a cliche smear-job though. I have a hard time
Zuckerberg sits on moneybags in his house cursing the filthy peasants. Seems
like it's more just a weird land practice (many people own the land he thought
he bought) and he wants some privacy.

~~~
3131s
> (many people own the land he thought he bought) and he wants some privacy.

Then tough luck for him. He should have figured that out before he blew 100
million dollars on it. This "weird land practice" is likely meant to protect
native Hawaiian people from being forced out of their homeland which, if this
article is accurate, is what Zuckerberg intends to do.

EDIT: I did go looking and a few others are reporting on this. A lawyer
representing Zuckerberg claims that Zuckerberg "has no intention of contesting
any co-owner who can prove their interest in any of the land parcels." We'll
see, I guess.

[http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/34289685/facebook-ceo-
sui...](http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/34289685/facebook-ceo-suing-
hundreds-over-kauai-land)

~~~
refurb
_This "weird land practice" is likely meant to protect native Hawaiian people
from being forced out of their homeland_

That seems like wild speculation on your part. Any evidence to back up your
claim?

~~~
3131s
From the article I posted:

" _Under the Kuleana Act of 1850, those lands are also passed down to people
who now only own fractions of an interest in the property._ "

And from Wikpedia:

" _Another notable part of the Great Mahele was the Kuleana Act of 1850._ "

" _The Great Māhele was one of the most important episodes of Hawaiian
history, second only to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. While intended
to provide secure title to Hawaiians, it would eventually end up separating
many of them from their land._ "

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_M%C4%81hele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_M%C4%81hele)

So that was the intention, but if you read further into the Wikipedia article
it explains how many poorer Hawaiians did not understand the new laws and
therefore lost their land to rich Hawaiians and the nobility.

------
nojvek
Coming from Australia and learning about the indigenous history there, it was
quite a shock to learn how the land was stolen, men killed, women raped and
the children brainwashed. An entire generation lost.

I am in maui currently. It's a beautiful place. While the world is a much
better place I'm kind of against a billionaire owning so much of land here and
filing lawsuits left and right against the natives.

It's their land. Does one guy really need 700 acres to feel secluded? People
have lived there for generations.

The great thing about hawaii is a lot of places are publicly accessible. I
would hate some billionaire asshole to ruin it for everyone else.

------
disordinary
Surely his lawyers informed him of the situation when he bought it.

In Hawaii (or the US in general) can people own beaches below the high tide
mark? Surely it's impossible to have 100% seclusion anyway as people can land
by boat when the tide is low and enjoy at their leisure?

~~~
lefstathiou
I actually saw his property when my GF and I were in Kauai a few months ago
and visited the beach in front of his lot for fun.

So his property is adjacent to a land reserve so it is much more secluded than
just the land he owns. He is building a massive wall in front of the house
that is obstructing some of the views of people on the other side of the
street which they are not happy about (you can google to see it) and many of
the houses are now for sale. As for the beach front, by law all beaches in
Kauai are open to the public. However... his property is on a hill and it
appears that many people plant these extremely thick bushes that create a
thick thorned wall of shrub (many dozens of feet wide) that prevents access
(in addition to requiring you to walk up a steep slope). Just getting down to
the beach from the public access point took 15-20 min.

That said, I don't think the beach can be accessed by boat efficiently (very
rocky once you get past the sand) and swimming in it is very dangerous. For
those of you who have not visited, there are very aggressive undertows in
Kauai that can easily kill a kid or novice swimmer.

~~~
disordinary
Thanks for the info. :)

------
aresant
How do we even judge moves like this?

On the one hand this is one in a continued series of "I don't care how it
looks" real estate moves by Zuck.

EG like his plan last year to build fake houses on 4 zone residential lots
around his Palo Alto residence and turn the block into his private compound
[http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/15/palo-alto-mark-
zuckerb...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/09/15/palo-alto-mark-zuckerberg-
compound-raises-red-flags-for-city-board/)

And I get it, can you imagine being internationally famous for being a YOUNG
billionaire?

Life would be very strange.

I can see it seeming "fair" that you could use some of that wealth to claw
back what you can't have anywhere - privacy - when on the other hand you're
trying to be "macro good" as one of the world's largest philanthropists? (1 /
2)

So what do we do put a green checkmark in the "Good guy" column and a red
checkmark in the "asshole" column?

Sort of like any of us except his checkmarks are super sized?

(1) [http://mashable.com/2014/01/02/zuckerberg-charitable-
donatio...](http://mashable.com/2014/01/02/zuckerberg-charitable-
donation-2013/#anZC_WB.XaqI)

(2) [http://www.pcworld.com/article/3010838/software-
social/zucke...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/3010838/software-
social/zuckerberg-to-give-away-99-of-his-fortune-or-about-45-billion-to-new-
charity.html)

~~~
samirillian
Look, donating a small percentage of ill-gotten gains, however impressive the
number sounds, does not change anything. At all. How expensive has Facebook's
ecosystem of control been to humanity? Surely more than a morsel of that very
institution's stock?

And donations are always so ambiguous. For one, I wish someone would attempt
to quantify how much less a donated dollar helps than a dollar made at the
expense of the population hurts (ounce of prevention vs. pound of cure). For
example, what percentage of that donation is going straight to that
organization's advertising budget? Moreover, what is Zuckerberg getting in
return? Political clout? Further control over the city?

And if this is how he justifies kicking people off their land (which, yes,
clearly he is), it simply doesn't add up on the existential scales.

------
kem
I admit this is confusing to me, but the premise of this makes no sense to me.
It seems that the sale should still require some vote on the part of the
identified shareholders on whether or not to sell.

Isn't this basically saying that a ridiculously wealthy individual like
Zuckerberg could force a family to sell their inherited lands to him at
whatever price he wants to pay, as long as no one offers a higher price?
Without meaning to be glib, how is this even constitutional? What does it
matter how many owners there are? Don't they collectively have a say? If the
family voted "no," it seems that vote should be respected.

~~~
ChuckMcM
All states can have different laws so it is hard to comment as a non-Hawaiian.
That said, my wife helped settle the estate of her great uncle who held title
to property with his deceased ex-wife. One option was a quiet title hearing
where you try to contact everyone who might have an interest in the property,
and then inform them of a court hearing. In Washington state if they show up
and can prove they should have part owner ship, then the court creates a title
which includes them as owner. If nobody shows up the court can update the
title to make the person who is currently possessing the land the exclusive
owner.

My understanding of what the article said, was that if these Hawaiians showed
up and had proof of their ancestral ownership (probably ancestry records of
some sort), then they would be added to the title and at _that_ time
Zuckerberg could negotiate with them for the sale of their ownership interest
to him. Could be a big payday for some Hawaiians as you have a lot of
leverage.

But if they don't know about the trial and/or don't show up, then they forfeit
their interest.

------
Cozumel
$3 billion for Oculus, which is 'just' a headset, and $100 million for 700
acres of land, it seems strangely backwards! But forcing people from their
lands sounds pure evil.

------
eanzenberg
Pretty sad and pathetic.

------
ryandrake
> Now the Facebook CEO is trying to enhance the seclusion of his property
> [...]

Enhance the seclusion, LOL. So, 700 acres on an island in the middle of the
pacific ocean is not secluded enough. Of course, he'll win "because money",
but what a sad story.

~~~
Hondor
That's what money is for. So you can buy things you want. To do that you also
have to give away your money to the person who used to own those things, so
they win too. The reason he got so much money is because he gave a lot of
other people things that they wanted and they gave him their money. There's
nothing wrong with that - unless you think trade is wrong and we should all be
self-sufficient hunter gatherers, or that people who work hard to serve others
should not be rewarded for it.

------
ProAm
Seems like Ellison, Trump and Zuckerberg are not so dissimilar after all.

~~~
jonathankoren
You're forgetting Vinod Khosla who is trying to circumvent the California
constitution, because he doesn't like public property rights.

[http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/vinod-khosla-beach-
trial/](http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/vinod-khosla-beach-trial/)

------
bduerst
Kind of reminds me of the Crocker "Spite" fence, on Nob Hill in SF.

One of the big four millionaires in San Francisco build a spite fence around
the undertaker who wouldn't sell the property to him for his mansion. The
undertaker in turn build a giant coffin on the roof, visible over the spite
fence.

Here's the fence, before the coffin:
[http://i.imgur.com/n1o7S3T.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/n1o7S3T.jpg)

------
wavefunction
Unlike Gates, Young Zuck couldn't change his spots.

~~~
throwaway2dayok
It might come with age; perhaps Young Zuck needs to mature into an Older Zuck

------
jhonovich
Hawaii has defeated many powerful forces. Recall the Superferry disaster /
ouster.

Whether or not Zuckerburg is right or wrong, locals have significant power to
disrupt the actions of rich and powerful outsiders.

Too much of the comments here are analyzing the legal issues and the not the
political / social forces involved in a haole vs local conflict.

------
ktRolster
_the Facebook CEO is trying to enhance the seclusion of his property by filing
several lawsuits aimed at forcing these families to sell their land at a
public court auction to the highest bidder._

With a friend, you could really push up the price and make a ton of money.

------
CodeSheikh
This story is extra sensationalized here. I am sure Zuck will let go a $100
Million investment to avoid negative publicity. We cam all wait and see how
this pans out. If anyone is a culprit here is the middle party aka realtors,
as usual.

------
rb2k_
Zuck's answer:
[https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103427714244971](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103427714244971)

------
gkoberger
A lot of these people aren't even living, and some of the cases even have the
support of descendents/relatives. It seems most of the owners don't even know
they own the land, and this is less "suing to force sale" and more "this is
how land sales are done in Hawaii due to legacy property ownership."

Having read the entire article, it doesn't seem a single Hawaiian involved has
a problem with their land being "taken away". Maybe they just didn't quote
those people, however it seems like this is all pretty legitimate.

------
general_ai
Dude is worth $53B. There's nothing they can do.

------
dmourati
My first year law professor taught us that property law is a bundle of rights.
Here's an example that shows that he was right.

------
enraged_camel
>>Now the Facebook CEO is trying to enhance the seclusion of his property by
filing several lawsuits aimed at forcing these families to sell their land at
a public court auction to the highest bidder.

Wait, I thought only the government could force the sale of a piece of land,
via Eminent Domain? How can a judge rule that a private party must sell their
property to another private party?

~~~
xyzzy4
_> How can a judge rule that a private party must sell their property to
another private party?_

If the law says you can do it, and nothing in the state or federal
constitution prevents it, then why not?

------
amaks
Where is his appropriate extensively liked facebook post on that subject?

~~~
jonathankoren
I'm sure his staff is crafting a soft focus photo spread on the issue as we
type.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/this-
team...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/this-team-runs-
mark-zuckerberg-s-facebook-page)

~~~
amaks
This explains a lot. Zuck, essentially, is: [http://blogs-
images.forbes.com/kathleenchaykowski/files/2016...](http://blogs-
images.forbes.com/kathleenchaykowski/files/2016/02/oculus-1200x799.jpg)

------
jhou2
Compared to what oil barons and railroad tycoons did a century and a half ago,
this is hardly anything.

------
meesterdude
he paid for 700 acres already - and it's not enough?

------
elastic_church
> Quiet title actions are the standard and prescribed process to identify all
> potential co-owners, determine ownership, and ensure that, if there are
> other co-owners, each receives appropriate value for their ownership share.

Basically doing the state's work for them, getting rid of that state's
antiquated cop-out law.

------
RichardHeart
Land rights shall need be part of Universal Basic Income. The capital class
will buy away all the land from the labor class faster as automation and
capitalism keeps kicking ass.

<s>Whats the use of owning 700 acres of beachfront property if you can't
exclude all the humans that used to live there. It's not like you could have
avoided displacement by purchase of a smaller plot to enjoy. It's not like he
could have chosen a less populated island to start with.

Privacy advocate Mark Zuckerberg deserves more privacy at the cost of mere
mortals. Sue that underclass till they break Mark! /s

