Protectors required (don't apply via FB)

[leilanidude]

Probably "a thing" because huge money is involved, not just someone with big money.

[My 2 cents]

Eric1600 - He cannot restrict beach access. State law. In fact, if beach access is restricted by terrain or something else he could be required to provide an easement for access. It's happened many times before. George Harrison comes to mind.

"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."

If the properties were all contiguous to each other then I could see him providing an easement to them, it would be a lot easier than all of this, but I can understand why he would not want to provide a dozen separate easements or allow access willy nilly.

And as far as the 20 days notice to respond, this is pretty much standard procedure, and the response could be as simple as "let's talk about this." The guy who is saying that Zuckerberg has the best lawyers in the world and that these Kamaaina owners need to lawyer up against him all in the same sentence is out of his mind. Or looking to stir up the situation and profit from it, perhaps?

Until an actual owner steps up and provides arguments against this instead of outsider speculation, I will see it as a win win situation.

[Guest]

I find this buying out act by Zuckerberg to be disrespectful, egotistic and selfish. This should not be allowed to happen "shame on the county of Kauai" and this Zuckerberg is taking advantage of the corrupt system in place that only he can either afford or be represented. Native Hawaiians, local families, and even OHA should have first crack at tending or buying these types of land parcels once they are cleared or cleaned. jmo

[knieft]

quote:

---

Then what is the problem? Why is it even news?

---

It's beginning to look like simpleclick bait with a headline like "Facebook's Zuckerberg is suing hundreds of Hawaiians to force them to sell property to him" and the article mostly not supporting the headline.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/19/mark-zuck...-sale.html

Cheers,
Kirt

[leilanidude]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gypsy69

I find this buying out act by Zuckerberg to be disrespectful, egotistic and selfish. This should not be allowed to happen "shame on the county of Kauai" and this Zuckerberg is taking advantage of the corrupt system in place that only he can either afford or be represented. Native Hawaiians, local families, and even OHA should have first crack at tending or buying these types of land parcels once they are cleared or cleaned. jmo

---

You may want to read the article and then go back and edit your post.

[Chunkster]

This piece of click bait is showing up all over the internet with even more inflammatory and grossly untruthful headlines, such as this piece of work:

http://usuncut.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-...nd-resort/

Yeah, right. Forcing people off ancestral lands they didn't know they owned and/or had a .005% ownership share.

And when did getting the facts right matter to gypsy?

[Eric1600]

Access to the white sand Pila`a Beach will be blocked by his property because there is no direct right-of-way to the beach.

He also built a tall rock wall that blocked a classic ocean view of the bay and many in the community tried to talk to him about it, but he didn't engage them at all and the neighborhood association chose not to pursue removal. He doesn't want to provide easements, he has stated that he wants the whole block of land which is why he is doing a quiet title.

[MarkP]

quote:

---

Originally posted by leilanidude

quote:

---

Originally posted by gypsy69

I find this buying out act by Zuckerberg to be disrespectful, egotistic and selfish. This should not be allowed to happen "shame on the county of Kauai" and this Zuckerberg is taking advantage of the corrupt system in place that only he can either afford or be represented. Native Hawaiians, local families, and even OHA should have first crack at tending or buying these types of land parcels once they are cleared or cleaned. jmo

---

You may want to read the article and then go back and edit your post.

---

X2. If you really had no idea that you had a 1/100th share in a 1/10th acre landlocked parcel, and the legal maneuvering is something that you yourself might do if the shoe was on the other foot, it is really inappropriate to define this as "wrong".

[My 2 cents]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric1600

Access to the white sand Pila`a Beach will be blocked by his property because there is no direct right-of-way to the beach.

He also built a tall rock wall that blocked a classic ocean view of the bay and many in the community tried to talk to him about it, but he didn't engage them at all and the neighborhood association chose not to pursue removal. He doesn't want to provide easements, he has stated that he wants the whole block of land which is why he is doing a quiet title.

---

Many years ago George Harrrison blocked beach access with his property in Hana and the State forced him to provide an easement. It's State law and it doesn't require a lawyer/money battle, it just requires the government officials to do their jobs. (Damn, I just fed Kalakoa!) The rock wall would be a County issue, and if it violates any laws then a simple complaint to the Planning Dept. should take care of it. (There I go again!) The neighborhood board probably doesn't have any authority and it doesn't have to be them to file the complaint.

But I get your point, Eric. He is saying that he wants to work with the community, but there may be other circumstances that suggest otherwise.

[MarkP]

It is amazing how many posters jump in with both feet with an extreme take on this when they either have not read any of the details or in some cases lack the capacity to process information.