

The Sean Parker Wedding Is the Perfect Parable for Silicon Valley Excess - lysol
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/06/new-government-documents-show-the-sean-parker-wedding-is-the-perfect-parable-for-silicon-valley-excess/276521/

======
calinet6
This is absolutely disgusting.

I wonder if it had been a more prominent natural area, such as Yosemite Valley
or Muir Woods or Yellowstone where he decided to build his castle. Surely he
could afford whatever fines would be levied anywhere, but the public outcry
would have been far more prominent, the beauty of the areas well-known and
understood and agreed-upon.

These are places we have mutually determined to protest and hold sacred in our
country. The National Parks and Forests, especially in the West, where there
is some notion that the natural land—the wilderness—is above the petty desires
of human folly. The green that grows trumps that which is printed, and no man
can override it.

I grew up summers in Yosemite, in the high country, where in two days you can
hike to places that perhaps no man has ever set foot. There is something
sacred about that, not in a religious way but in a sense of truth and place
and knowing the world which produced you by whatever means.

I know a grove of trees and a stream there. They is as nondescript and
unremarkable as this one, except that they are absolutely remarkable for their
beauty. If anyone built a castle there, I'd personally assist in bringing them
to justice, and personally assist in restoring the land to its natural state.
I'm thankful that the protection of the National Park and surrounding
wilderness areas are present to prevent this sort of destruction in at least
certain regions.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate slight against nature; far from it. It's a
small thing. But it shows a lack of respect and carelessness that need not be
rewarded, and in this case, I think the punishment and disrespect directed
toward this event is entirely valid. We cannot prevent every use of the land,
but we can encourage respect and understanding. In this case there was no
respect and no understanding—especially not of riparian habitats and stream
management—those regulations are there for good reasons and you can't pick and
choose haphazardly whether you follow them.

If you've ever been to Big Sur, you know it's a special place, regardless of
the imaginary borders we may or may not choose to lay down in symbolic
protection. I'm happy that however small this infraction might have been, it
will be met with fines and public humiliation. Silicon valley excess? That's
up for debate, but who cares? It was dumb and disgusting.

~~~
scarmig
But Big Sur is hardly some little known park. It's well above Muir Woods in
annual visitors (I'm seeing 3M vs 700k) and not too far behind Yosemite (3M vs
4M).

I'm pretty surprised that there hasn't been an uproar over it yet. This is the
first I've heard of it. Good on Madrigal.

~~~
calinet6
Well, the problem is jurisdiction and ownership. Big Sur isn't a National
Park, it's really just a region, including a State Park scattered around an
area with privately owned land as well. In contrast, Muir Woods is just a very
small national monument (AFAIK, hence its small visitation) and Yosemite has
the protection of the NPS and federal government.

Looks like the hotel was on private land, so really the issue is the waterway
modifications and general carelessness with regards to laws and regulations.
Those laws and regulations are still extremely important: water is a complex
subject especially in the west. In this case the river flows directly through
the state park and has many ecological considerations, as well as fishing
(salmon spawning) and other wildlife.

So, it's still private land, but anything that happens to a stream in
California has gotta be done right or you're in trouble, and there's a damn
good reason why even if you don't like fish.

------
eplanit
It seems Mr. and Mrs. Parker should have purchased their own coastal land for
their fanciful wedding. Surely they could afford to do so. They could have
probably avoided public scrutiny. However, I think the author's indignation
and clear bias are a little over-the-top -- I think he even came close to
using the all-powerful "middle class" hammer we've been beaten over the head
with so much in the last year or two: "Basically, what was supposed to be a
facility that people of all incomes -- including the general public -- could
visit had become a high-end resort...". Sigh. It's worth noting also the CCC
is notorious for their zeal in enforcement. Ask anybody who owns property
along the California coast, and you will hear story after story of severe
enforcement. Most any project is deemed to have significant impact;
consequently, only those with deep pockets can afford to obtain the costly
permits. To Mr. Madrigal, though, this is "...also part of the new Silicon
Valley parable".

~~~
anigbrowl
But it's the law in California that you can't cut off public access to the
coastline or alter it willy-nilly, and has been for a long time. If you want a
private bit of coastline you can look in an adjoining state or on one of the
other coasts. Now it's true that most people don't find other coastlines
around the US as nice as that of California's but that's _why_ it's rigorously
conserved as a public resource.

I do think it's up to Mr Parker how he spends his money and while I think $10m
for a wedding seems a bit daft to me that's partly because I don't have $1
billion in the bank; at least he's spreading it around, and I respect him for
just paying the fines instead of litigating the matter or attempting to evade
it via an offshore business address (although in a case like this, it would be
relatively easy to 'pierce the corporate veil' and litigate against the
individual whom the corporation exists to benefit).

On the other hand, just because you're very wealthy doesn't give you an
automatic right of purchase to things that have been designated as 'not for
sale.' You're arguing for a private right of eminent domain - because an
individual has the money and the willingness to spend it, should that confer
the right to purchase something others (individually or collectively) do not
wish to sell? I don't think so.

~~~
owenjones
| But it's the law in California that you can't cut off public access to the
coastline or alter it willy-nilly, and has been for a long time.

Really? What a great law!

~~~
nicw
Kinda. All coastlines are public-access, but if you own the property up to the
coast (say, a cabin on a river), you _do not_ have to grant access across your
property. So, you could walk down the river and hang out in front of this
cabin, but you can't trespass across private property.

~~~
anigbrowl
Correct, but if there's a pre-existing easement (right of way) you can't buy
the property and then close it off. I mention it in this context because of
the agreement the inn had signed to make its parking area available to campers
and hikers, which it appears to have reneged on.

------
IvyMike
This is getting a lot of bad press for Mr. Parker--my eco-aware friends on
facebook (yeah, I know) are going nuts over this.

If I were him, I'd want to salvage my reputation and quick. Maybe donate some
huge amount more (Wedding cost was $10M? Donate $10M.) and humbly apologize.
Otherwise, he'll always be "that facebook guy who cut down the forest."

~~~
hello_newman
Not that I know the guy, but he comes across as the type who just doesn't
care.

I respect him for what he did at Napster, what he attempted to do at Plaxo (as
some start ups today have, in a way, picked up where he left off), what he
helped Facebook become, and what he did at Spotify, but he comes off as
incredibly cocky[1] and has a talking style filled with arrogance[2].

Again, nothing but respect for what he accomplished in the business world. But
nothing seems to piss people off more than a rich guy who thinks he can do
whatever he wants. Especially when it involves the environment...in
California...in a National Park. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

1: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2011/09/21/sean-
pa...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2011/09/21/sean-parker-agent-
of-disruption/) . The interviewer seemed to convey his tone pretty well.

2: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCyMz-u-HcQ> . Good interview, and he is
obviously incredibly smart, but he comes off in such a way that seems very
egotistical. Maybe when you're a billionaire you can get away with that.

------
shrikant
This is the sort of shit that "it's better to ask for forgiveness than to ask
for permission" devolves into.

~~~
chrischen
That adive is only for people trying to do something good... It's based on the
assumption that you'll probably be forgiven.

------
whyenot
I'm not sure a $2.5 million fine means very much when you have an estimated
net worth of $2.1 billion.

~~~
rurounijones
One reason I like a system where fines are x% of income like in some nordic
countries that can result in 6 figure ($) speeding tickets[1].

[1] [http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket-news-
fin...](http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket-news-finnish.html)

~~~
dchest
LLC was fined, not the person. Company's income was $0, I guess.

~~~
claudius
Surely the LLC must have shareholders or executives that could be held
responsible?

------
Bjorkbat
Kinda reminds me of back when I used to grow organic vegetables for a living.
Well, tried to. The farmer I worked with specialized more in meats and the
like, and together me and him would drive down to Houston and The Woodlands to
make deliveries, because that's how we operated, people placed their orders
and we delivered at designated spots.

I learned a lot of things during that period, but the weird thing is, the one
that really stuck was how weird people with money can be. Oh, sure, we had our
share of middle class customers, but for the most part we delivered to
doctors, lawyers, business owners and the like, who would thrown down anywhere
from $200 to $1000 per order on meat and act like it was nothing. I don't
think they really cared about some of the values that come with the whole
local foods movement, or the values that come with organic farming, they just
heard about some health fad, decided to buy this meat, and stuck with it
because it tasted good.

This is just the same really, only on a much more epic scale. Yeah, these
people were rich, but at best their net worth was around $5 million, so their
obscenities were limited to just buying ridiculous amounts of meat for an
absurd amount of money while bringing it back home to their McMansion in a new
BMW or a Mercedes, sometimes a Cadillac Escalade if they insisted on being
that revolting. When you have a net worth that extends beyond the billion
dollar line, then the obscenity of your purchasing choices is virtually
unlimited.

And yet, you have these other titans with net worths that dwarf the net worths
of so many other people who could do the most obscene crap with their
money...but they don't. There's no shortage of rich people who are generous
with their money, but at the same time there's no shortage of rich people who
are just weird with it. I've ultimately decided that the difference is that
the former never gave much priority towards money in the first place, but they
got it anyway, or they had priority at first but changed their minds
afterwards because they have large minds, and now money is merely a tool for
greater things. Then you have that latter group of people who really wanted
money, and made conscious efforts towards that goal, but in the end small
minds are limited in ambition, so they make limited amounts of money and
flaunt their petty wealth in ways only a small mind can, with fancy cars,
McMansions, and large quantities of really expensive meat.

Sean Parker is just another one of those small minds, only he was one of the
few who got a little luckier than most, acquired wealth those little fish
could never possibly hope to achieve, and spent it in a way a small mind
typically would, by disregarding the natural legacy of an old growth forest so
he can build some tacky castle in the middle of it, all the while letting his
construction crew make all these amateur mistake, because once again, a small
mind.

I certainly hope my mind is bigger than such frivolities, just in case.

~~~
shin_lao
It's difficult to predict what (large amounts of) money will do to you.

When you start earning a lot, you obviously buy yourself and loved ones lots
of gifts, but if you're a well rounded individual it's just a phase.

Power will make you face your daemons in ways you cannot imagine.

------
babesh
From what I have heard secondhand he is very bright and very arrogant. This is
what you should expect from him. The question is whether he is an exemplar or
an outlier.

------
lifeguard
You should see Larry Ellison's compound on the peninsula.

~~~
mahyarm
This japan house in woodside right?
[http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2011/09/27/tour-the-
many-h...](http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2011/09/27/tour-the-many-homes-
of-larry-ellison/#1165-1)

~~~
lifeguard
Yes. I miss hearing his private jets and helicopters scream over Redwood
Shores in the 90s...

------
cafard
In what way is it a parable? Example sure, symbol maybe, metaphor perhaps.

------
thoughtcriminal
Yeah, yeah, so Sean destroyed some pristine wilderness for his lavish wedding,
but I heard he drives a Tesla. All is forgiven!

~~~
mr_spothawk
I love it when people make brand new cars with brand new eco-friendly lithium
batteries to save the environment.

------
photorized
Title is misleading. That's not excess. Excess is dropping $20k on a wedding
when you have a mortgage and are only making $50k/yr.

What Parker did was tasteless, but not the worst thing people with money do
sometimes.

~~~
calinet6
It's a slippery slope argument in some ways; sure he can afford it, but if
that's the case, should people with means be able to do anything they can
afford? Or is there some limit where we can reasonably call it "excess" by
nature of it being more than is reasonable for a person to need or desire;
even if the excess in question is just disrespect for the conventions. It is
an opinionated judgement, but it's not misleading.

~~~
photorized
I am not defending Parker. I saw 'excess' in the headline, I was expecting to
see some form of immoderate indulgence. What I saw, was in line with my
expectations, unfortunately. The guy's sense of perspective is probably long
gone.

Disregard for the conventions (and laws) is a different matter though. I hope
this goes beyond simple fines.

~~~
valleyer
So, you’ve tuned your expectations for Parker appropriately. Good. But that
doesn’t change the definition of “excess”.

