
Soylent CEO's shipping container home is a 'middle finger' to LA, locals say - zoul
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/27/soylent-ceo-rob-rhinehart-shipping-container-home-la
======
kstenerud
Gabriel flouted zoning bylaws, plunked down a building with inadequate
security and no permits, ran disruptive parties, left trash lying around which
only encouraged vandals and lowlifes. Basically, he acted with the entitlement
and arrogance of the nouveau riche. And now he's wondering why they hate him.

You don't live in a bubble. The people who live around you DO matter.

------
eeeeeeeeeeeee
I think the people in the neighborhood have a legitimate complaint considering
it's "open to the public" which is not permitted. Just because you own the
land doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. That's why we have
zoning laws.

But I have to laugh at all of these people indicating they are entitled to
this land as some sort of free park, which I assume, was likely private land,
not public land before it was purchased by the Soylent guy:

 _" Residents have long lobbied to keep the rugged hilltop, which is popular
with hikers and joggers, a de facto park free of development."_

If they want it to be a park, why don't they pool resources together and do
that and then set it up as a park? Everybody wants to complain but nobody
wants to backup their complaining with their own money.

~~~
parineum
I don't understand what "open to the public" means. I suspect that a complaint
on those grounds is grasping at straws from a coalition of NIMBY neighbors and
entitled hikers.

If I buy a property that people have been illegally trespassing on for years
and put a house on it, is that open to the public?

I would think you would have to explicitly post permission to be on private
land because I assume it's implicitly not permissible to trespass...

~~~
draker
Probably, just not secured to prevent people from entering. The complaint is
likely that the property is a nuisance and/or hazard due to failure to
properly secure the building/property (it doesn't help that the
building/container wasn't permitted).

If you own abandoned property you are usually required to board up
windows/doors or otherwise prevent people from entering as well as place no
trespassing signs on the property.

For permitted active residential construction you can usually get by with
construction fencing and no trespassing signs.

It doesn't seem like he is actively developing or living in the property; more
or less just using it as a occasional getaway.

------
kozak
What's wrong with that if he owns the land? Would it make any difference if he
painted the container green instead of red?

~~~
dalke
Because apparently having an “abandoned or vacant building open to the public”
is illegal. You also need to have the correct permits.

Even for things on your own land.

As to the color, no, it won't make a difference. It's only one of many
complaint or problems given.

