r/interestingasfuck • u/eliseereclusvivre • 1d ago

From 2014 to 2025, Mark Zuckerberg bought over 1,400 acres on Kauai Island and stole any land the natives wouldn't sell him, earning the moniker 'the face of neocolonialism.' r/all

70.8k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

920

u/deadletter 1d ago

Hawaii has an important law that says that if your family has traditionally resided there, it doesn’t matter who buys it, you still have to be given access and can reside on the property.

358

u/perldawg 1d ago

so…are you saying the stolen land is land he legally owns but doesn’t allow natives their rightful access to?

141

u/MartyBarrett 1d ago

If he doesn't follow the laws of owning the property is it legally owned? He legally bought it, but he apparently doesn't adhere to the rules of ownership set forth by the Hawaiian govt.

96

u/Chotibobs 1d ago

I think he still owns it legally yes. But in theory the government could punish him with fines or even some sort of eminent domain and seize the land, but they apparently haven’t done so. So yes right now he currently legally owns the land

45

u/Ok_Supermarket_729 1d ago

governments never enforce these things. Some guy in my city keeps blocking a public right of way to a beach, they've told him to stop but they won't fine him or expropriate his property which is what should happen in cases like these when they refuse to acquiesce

11

u/kndyone 1d ago

yep rich people have all learned to just ignore the law it wont do anything.

2

u/Otherwise-Course7001 1d ago

This is different. But you would have to sue for your easement. Easements are extremely common in property rights and Zuckerberg would just provide. The most he came so is make the route inconvenient until you decide to sell to him because you can't deal with it any more.

10

u/KSF_WHSPhysics 1d ago

Yes its still legally owned. If i do some unpermitted maintenance on my property they make me bring it up to code, they dont seize it

-3

u/MartyBarrett 1d ago

What happens if you refuse to bring it up to code?

7

u/KSF_WHSPhysics 1d ago

They fine you, then if you don't pay they put a lien on your house, and then they can foreclose to pay off the lien, at which point you would no longer legally own the property. There's a lot of steps between breaking regulations regarding your property and that property being seized

4

u/--peterjordansen-- 1d ago

That's not the same as stealing

1

u/Inevitable-Stress523 1d ago

I understand we are supposed to blindly hate billionaires and invent whatever reasoning to explain how they are bad, but if things actually worked this way, it would screw over millions of people who are not billionaires. Imagine if you lost the rights to your home because you didn't get a shed permit.

7

u/UhhDuuhh 1d ago

Not getting a shed permit and stopping the native population from accessing their ancestral homeland are not even remotely comparable.

7

u/Inevitable-Stress523 1d ago

If he doesn't follow the laws of owning the property is it legally owned?

I am just responding to this statement.

Also we should give natives back legal ownership of their land if we actually give a shit about them.

2

u/PhonyUsername 1d ago

What's so special about ancestral homeland? Can I just go in a house my grandad used to own? Seems like bullshit magical thinking.

0

u/UhhDuuhh 1d ago

Was your grandfather’s family and his entire community plagued with diseases spread by an invasive force that killed 90% of everyone he ever knew and was his home forcibly taken from him by that occupying force that also overthrew his government and established a new government that took away his rights and forced all the children in his community into reeducation camps where they were beaten if they used their native language?

If so, I will likely support your right to enter your ancestral home.

5

u/PhonyUsername 1d ago

That's like everywhere on the planet. We should parse land due to DNA results and resegregate by ancestry?

0

u/UhhDuuhh 1d ago

I’m not advocating for that at all. You are denying specific and basic rights given to a specific group of people that that are now being denied them.

You’re asking me about my moralistic logic, but let’s apply your moralistic logic. If someone does all of this to you and your family and takes everything you own, I guess that’s just fine to you, huh? As long as the people who do it to you are stronger than you, then it’s completely justified, right? I mean that’s just what happens everywhere on the planet, so why would you have a problem with that…?

1

u/PhonyUsername 1d ago

I think we all are letting it go except these few peoples. Are you hunting down and building camps on your ancestor's lands? They are the odd ones out, that's my point. Should we all do this and demand it back based on our ancestral rights?

Obviously my opinion is that it's ridiculous. I don't even feel entitled to something my parents had. It's laughable to think I'm entitled to something from someone I didn't know 100s and or 1000s of years ago because I have certain genetic markers in common.

Open your door to your house to whoever can prove they have some distant relation to someone who lived there 2000 years before if you think it's a good idea.

→ More replies

2

u/MartyBarrett 1d ago

He should allow the people access to the land if they are legally allowed access to the land. If he refuses he should face penalties, but he's rich so he won't.

2

u/Intelligent_News1836 1d ago

What does happen, if you build something without planning permission? Do they just make you take it down?

61

u/Treetokerz 1d ago

Yeah cause stealing land is illegal and these people are insane

37

u/aimless_meteor 1d ago

Sorry which people are insane here?

17

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

The people saying he stole the land. You can't just steal land and land rights are fairly easy to identify with a survey. Attorneys in Hawaii would be doing pro bono work if a native person's land was stolen by Zuck. The lawsuits would be guaranteed money for the attorney and the land owners who had their land stolen by Zuck.

22

u/MolehillMtns 1d ago

Wow. so amazingly confidently incorrect.

"stealing" means doing illegal and shady things to buy land that he's not supposed to be able to buy. exploiting loopholes, and using his lawyers (who are way better an more expensive than the ones here). to disenfranchise the families who lived there for generations.

like: if he buys everything aroung your land and doesnt let you through his to get to your- who's is it really?

he gets a pristine view so he gets what he wanted, and the family gets nothing.

just because he got his name onto a deed doesn't mean he didn't steal.

5

u/AanBvoider 1d ago

"stealing" means doing illegal and shady things to buy land that he's not supposed to be able to buy.

no it doesn't and you can't just change the definition of words to suit your preference

what illegal things did he do to buy the land?

-7

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

and using his lawyers (who are way better an more expensive than the ones here).

You're telling me that lawyers from the mainland US are more effective in court in Hawaii than local Hawaiian attorneys? That would be the first time ever that out of state lawyers are better than in state lawyers.

like: if he buys everything aroung your land and doesnt let you through his to get to your- who's is it really?

That's illegal in every state.

just because he got his name onto a deed doesn't mean he didn't steal.

Unless he unlawfully put his name on the deed then by definition he didn't steal it.

4

u/MolehillMtns 1d ago

Watch the Jon Oliver bit on Hawaii and get back to me.

I'm glad you can sit in your armchair thousands of miles away and tell me how it works where I live.

You also probably don't understand the history of native persons, the difficulty of the record system here 100 years ago, or any of the other layers that make up these islands.

At least say you will look into it before stomping and demanding "that simply can't possibly be!"

Or block me. Idgaf. You aren't important.

-4

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

Watch the Jon Oliver bit on Hawaii and get back to me.

I'm not going to watch a satire TV host and get my information from an entertainment show.

You also probably don't understand the history of native persons, the difficulty of the record system here 100 years ago, or any of the other layers that make up these islands.

My grandmother is 100% Hawaiian. I think I know a little bit.

At least say you will look into it before stomping and demanding "that simply can't possibly be!"

Get your information from a better source than a political satire show. You're just saying "I saw it on TV so it must be true!"

5

u/MolehillMtns 1d ago

i live here and watch the news. ive lived here my whole life. Jon Oliver just did an especially good piece on the subject. comedy or no it is fact-checked more than anything on fox. it is digestable in comedy format for folks with short attentin spans. i thought it might help you.

so sure bud gamgam was %100 wahine. doubt.

you fakin haole gotta pretend you know so much. go read a book.

→ More replies

3

u/WindupShark 1d ago

For the record; I think I probably agree with your premise more then the other guy but I will say for the sake of trying to find the truth in things, John Oliver does seem to have a very rigorous process for sourcing accurate information.

He talks about it in-depth in this interview:

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?si=gbobiN9m-yjfn2yV

1

u/No_Macaroon_9752 1d ago

You really should. John Oliver is hilarious, and he (and his team of researchers) works really hard to make his pieces accurate. He has drawn attention to problems facing people with disabilities, problems with the agriculture corporations in the US, immigration, healthcare, Trump, etc.

-6

u/Dav136 1d ago

Jon Oliver is a comedian, dude

-1

u/No_Macaroon_9752 1d ago

A highly respected and lauded comedian, who has a team of researchers to do deep dives into problems in America to draw attention to them. He also has HBO lawyers who tell him all about libel and slander. He’s funny and writes jokes, but that is necessary for a lot of people to be able to watch the news without crying. Think of Jon Stewart, who has worked for decades to get 9/11 first responders healthcare. Yes, he’s a comedian, but he’s also smart, empathetic, and factually accurate.

7

u/WutUtalkingBoutWill 1d ago

But the poster above says that even if the land is purchased the natives are still allowed access, so what is it? How are they insane if they at legally allowed access.

0

u/Late-Assist-1169 1d ago

Its called "I dont like zuck, so i am making up an unflattering headline"

7

u/WutUtalkingBoutWill 1d ago

And what's wrong with that? Fuck all these billionaires, the more people start shitting on all these cunts, the better, people need to wake up.

3

u/throwthisidaway 1d ago

And what's wrong with that?

I'm not saying the title is wrong, but as a general statement:

These people do enough shit that's wrong that we don't need to make up crap. Virtually every billionaire has done horrible, horrible things. Shit on them for that.

1

u/PippityPaps99 1d ago

Yeah no one is defending billionaires, bud. The point is you don't just get to make up shit because it's toward someone we all don't like. What are you, 14 years old?

There's easily a 100 other, probably far worse thingto criticize this asshole for. Even on the same very topic

He didn't "steal" land, he purchased property from a commercial real estate developer and then filed quiet title lawsuits but saying he "stole" the land is disingenuous.

I'm guessing no one here is actually going to read about the actual situation so , there's that.

-5

u/Late-Assist-1169 1d ago

Nobody forces you to use facebook.

2

u/WutUtalkingBoutWill 1d ago

I know that??? Why does it feel like you're trying to defend this piece of shit?

→ More replies

5

u/audaciousmonk 1d ago

And yet the entire Hawaiian islands were stolen…. When the US helped overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 through military support of a coup, and later annexed the territories

2

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

And yet the entire Hawaiian islands were stolen…. When the US helped overthrow the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 through military support of a coup, and later annexed the territories

And women couldn't vote or own land at that time. Do you think we're living the same as we did 1893?

2

u/audaciousmonk 1d ago

And yet the HHCA provides legal protections for native land access based on ancestral / traditional use

As for are we living in 1893….? I don’t know anymore, since the Republican Party took away abortion rights and seems hell bent in eroding pretty much all progress on civil or individual rights. Dragging us all kicking and screaming back to the fucking dark ages as they eradicate education, science, and a long list of other shit

4

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

And yet the HHCA provides legal protections for native land access based on ancestral / traditional use

So how did Zuck steal it and the HHCA didn't provide legal protection or help to the people whose land was "stolen" by Zuck? Is it because he didn't really steal it?

1

u/audaciousmonk 1d ago

You’re confusing land access with ownership

Which tells me you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re calling about

Btw there’s plenty of established legal precedence for other people to access property that you own (easements, right of way, waterway access, hunting or recreation programs, etc.) which includes the Hawaii specific HHCA

→ More replies

0

u/EntrepreneurLeft8783 1d ago

But women can vote now, yet the land remains annexed, so what is your point?

1

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

But women can vote now, yet the land remains annexed, so what is your point?

The land wasn't stolen the same way we aren't living in 1893.

0

u/grumpypandabear 1d ago

Using women's rights as a baseline for your argument at this particular time is certainly a choice. lol

https://preview.redd.it/rdi8uqx5rhce1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=19d055b9caa5baa0b473be1e889d0a8434fb2418

4

u/Icyrow 1d ago

on top of that...

literally, he bought it, from someone who lived there. someone allowed him to buy the land FROM THEM.

if i go into a shop and buy a ps5, i'm not stealing it. there are some oddities due to the law of "if your family resided there, you can always go back" (fuck know how that is supposed to work, i'd imagine it's largely a way for locals to steal from people like zuck and protect them, but if they owned it and sold it...)

8

u/saintsfan 1d ago

Yeah I’m confused about that law. So if you sell family land that was resided on, you can just show back up and claim you still live there even though you sold it?

9

u/Disordermkd 1d ago

Brother... Please take a few minutes to read and process this before giving shit analogies. Zucc didnt buy it FROM THEM, lol. Colonialists came and took the land from natives, and this land is government owned and government sold. "THEM" just have extra rights because they're natives.

1

u/Icyrow 1d ago

you bought a house in the US? or trying to?

you've stolen land from natives. COLONISERS TOOK THAT LAND FROM THEM.

you're a piece of shit for buying (STEALING) it.

fwiw, i don't believe the above, just making a point.. i can't imagine many people in the comments actually thinking that about their lives/homes.

fwiw, the decendents who owned packets of the land due to ancestors were forced to sell (at a very good price), land that was unused for generations, suddenly getting millions.

0

u/Lucky-Clown 1d ago

You can't just murder someone, that's illegal. Cops would stop you.

2

u/Iblockne1whodisagree 1d ago

You can't just murder someone, that's illegal. Cops would stop you.

Do people go to the courts and get legal documents signed by the state/city officials before they go and murder someone? If that's the case then you are right. If that isn't the case then you are wrong.

-7

u/JetFuel12 1d ago

Can you not figure it out from the first half of the sentence?

12

u/aimless_meteor 1d ago

“These people” could refer both to the native people or to “billionaires who ‘steal’ land in Hawaii” in this context

-7

u/JetFuel12 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes but only one way of interpreting the sentence is logical.

5

u/aimless_meteor 1d ago

“Stealing land is illegal so the native people are insane for thinking that’s what’s actually going on here”

“Stealing land is illegal. These billionaires are insane though! They don’t care about doing illegal things and they get away with it because of their wealth!”

Idk man, maybe I’m just dumb, thank you for clarifying for me

2

u/GlisteningNipples 1d ago

It was ambiguous. That person is just being a prick.

26

u/-AC- 1d ago

Yeah he kind of did... Hawaiian laws over ways to claim ownership is messy with multiple ways people could have a claim.

Zuck actually "sued" people whom his very own attorney thought had claim to the land he purchased to legally to pay them off for their claim.

4

u/Treetokerz 1d ago

This all seems overly complicated. He should of just bought land in Texas or something for his cattle farm.

2

u/onlyAlcibiades 1d ago

Yes, he owns the land he stole.

9

u/cownan 1d ago

Lol, I can't tell what's sarcasm anymore

1

u/yourstruly912 1d ago

It seems so but It has to be framed the most obnoxious and confusing way possible

-2

u/Klightgrove 1d ago

I’m so confused…you’re just supposed to let random people on your land too? That seems like a system which should just go.

2

u/BOQOR 1d ago

Trying to implement Western land laws in Hawaii is a recipe for disaster.

199

u/02bluesuperroo 1d ago

So what you’re saying is they didn’t/dont own the land. He cut off their legal access to it?

282

u/-AC- 1d ago

Claim to land ownership can be made in multiple ways in Hawaii. Some people owned the land he purchased without even knowing they did.

Zuck even tried blocking people from the beach touching his land, which is also illegal in Hawaii as "the public" owns the beaches except for military bases.

65

u/StarintheShadows 1d ago

Sounds like the next time Zuck’s in Hawaii the locals need to organize a giant beach party!

23

u/uno_dos_3 1d ago

36

u/Confident_Advice_939 1d ago

Zuckerface is just a smug spoiled kid, what do you expect?

65

u/CruelJustice66 1d ago

As someone local to Hawaii AND worked as a military civilian: NO. Not even the military can block access to the beach as it is public property.

The best they can do is ask the public walk around or hurry through the property (like at Pililaau Army Recreational Center out in Waianae) to reach the beach.

Under no circumstances is even the military allowed to block access to the beaches.

29

u/--peterjordansen-- 1d ago

That's not correct. My boat was in Pearl for 14 months and going around the barrier would immediately be met with an MA coming to get your ass. Military beaches are restricted to civilians. That base can have any amount of nukes on it at any time based on what submarine is ported there.

5

u/Crafty_Enthusiasm_99 1d ago

Incorrect. Just look at entire beach sides in Kauai near Nepali coast kallai is military encampments

5

u/-AC- 1d ago

Some restricted areas i thought in PMRF but I know they removed restrictions from most there.

1

u/BrokenVet8251 14h ago

As someone that was in the Navy and stationed in Kaneohe, you’re wrong. There is no public beach access to the beaches on base unless you’re sponsored on base by someone.

2

u/Crafty_Enthusiasm_99 1d ago

To be honest the law seems badly written to benefit both parties. Blocking beach public access though is illegal in almost all states in the US. Look at Ritz Carlton in Half moon bay for example

1

u/JesusSavesForHalf 1d ago

Isn't Fuckerberg one of the thieves that did the exact same thing in California?

1

u/tspoon-99 1d ago

When we were in Kauai (June ‘24) we made a point of going to “Zuckerberg’s beach.” He absolutely had a uniformed security guy ride up on an ATV and act all bowed up, staring at us through binoculars. We had a nice time, and he didn’t actually do anything to interrupt us.

You have to find the little jungly path, but it’s there. The public access is maintained by a committed group of locals.

2

u/No-Comfortable9480 1d ago

How did he try to block beach access?

20

u/-AC- 1d ago

Built a 6 foot wall around his entire property... you cannot block public access to the beaches in Hawaii.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/17/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-estate-kauai-land-rights-dispute

1

u/No-Comfortable9480 1d ago

There’s still access via trail. Similar to many beaches in Hawaii

9

u/DelightfulDolphin 1d ago

Do what they did to colonizers in Puerto Rico. Mob came out and disassembled the wall w a little threat of violence thrown in. Was aabsolfuckinglutely glorious.

2

u/-AC- 1d ago

Yeah... after he got in trouble for it... he also had security bothering people on the beach.

1

u/randomname560 1d ago

Did he get sued for this? Or did it somehow fly under the radar?

1

u/-AC- 1d ago

I believe local government got involved... there was a lot of protests at the time

46

u/redthrowaway1976 1d ago

When you “own” land in a western legal sense, you really own a bundle of rights to that land.

These other people also had rights to the land, as granted by law. No different than Zuck.

29

u/02bluesuperroo 1d ago

But it sounds like the land has a different owner who also has legal right to access the land, likely not as a result of native rights, but as a result of having purchased that right.

37

u/AlarmingAerie 1d ago

More like back then nobody had papers of who owns what land, because Hawains didn't treat land ownership like the colonialists did. So when colonialists came they just applied their own rules and took advantage of it. Pretending like giving access to hawains was a good compromise to feel better about stealing the land. And now they don't honor that deal anymore, cause these billionaires have zero morals.

-4

u/simon7109 1d ago

Billionaires aside, if you would buy land in Hawaii and someone would come to you that they used to live there, would you give them access free of charge?

17

u/redthrowaway1976 1d ago

If they have the legal right to do so, by what right are you denying them?

5

u/AlarmingAerie 1d ago

That's exactly the problem. Their way of treating land ownership is incompatible with current legal system so they got shafted.

They didn't just live there, they owned the land.

0

u/simon7109 1d ago

So who sold that land then?

7

u/CruelJustice66 1d ago

Yes because Native Hawaiians were in Hawaii first and while they don’t have proper paperwork all the time, they do have their own way of keeping track of property and lineage.

15

u/FeRooster808 1d ago

Hawaii has only been a state less than 100 years. Nancy Pelosi was a teenager when it became a state. As such native people are very much still there much like native Americans only the colonialism is much more recent.

Native Hawaiians have many rights like native Americans do though they aren't federally recognized as indigenous. There is some argument they should be. I leave that decision to them. But if they wish it i think they should be and Oprah, Zuckerberg and the like should have their properties returned to the Hawaiian people. They can afford the loss.

0

u/fuzzybunnybaldeagle 1d ago

What about the non rich people that own land in Hawaii? Genuinely curious what the solution should be for average people who own homes. Should they too give back their property?

2

u/FeRooster808 1d ago

A lot of those people are Hawaiian. Also a lot of Hawaiian buildings are leasehold. Do upu basically leasehold it for 99 years but you never own it. It's a common system in Asia as well.

Beyond that...there are options. For example almost half of Oklahoma was returned to the tribes in a supreme court verdict a few years ago. And a lot of non natives live on tribal lands. So there are means of returning lands without kicking people out.

But Zuckerberg and the like don't respect their rights and have actively seized things on sketchy ways. So throw them out.

Why is it acceptable to you that less than a hundred years ago Hawaiians were essentially forced into the US and to end their rule...but it's not ok to kick people out? That's convenient.

0

u/fuzzybunnybaldeagle 1d ago

It is not acceptable at all that a sovereign nation was overthrown by the greed of colonizers that planted Koa and spiked plants so the natives would have to wear shoes. That forced them to give up their language, religion/ beliefs and culture. . What in my comment made you think that was my belief?

I own a small shitty single wall construction house in Hawaii. I’m not Hawaiian. I tend to ask people who say that lands need to be returned to Hawaiians which lands and what should happen to non Hawaiians that own land. How many generations back do people have to own land before they get to keep it? Does anyone who doesn’t have native Hawaiian blood get to keep land? I am genuinely curious what people’s plans are when they say to give the land back to native Hawaiians. How much Hawaiian blood do you need to get land? To own Hawaiian homeland lots and homes you need 50% Hawaiian blood. There are fewer and fewer half blooded Hawaiians every generation. I enjoy these open dialogue to share and learn from others.

0

u/FeRooster808 1d ago

If I'm honest I think your questions are more transparent than you think they are. Regardless, I think that ideally in a situation where lands were returned that there would be some reasonable considerations made. But my greater point, which you pretend to answer but actually evade, stands. Why would it not be acceptable for non indigenous people's homes and lands to be stripped from them the same way as was done to the tribes not be acceptable? It would suck yes, but arguably would be more just than the initial theft was. Why different expectations for different people?

And look, I've lived it. My family owned many acres of land in Oklahoma including lucrative oil and mineral rights during the McGrit case. In the end the return was limited in scope but I agreed with it, and honestly would have agreed if it has been returned in full. Would it have sucked sure, but it still would have been just. More just really.

1

u/King-Rhino-Viking 23h ago

Your family has lived upon land for generations. In fact your ancestors have lived upon this larger island for hundreds and hundreds of years. Colonialism happens and down the line a dude comes by with a piece of paper and says he owns it.

Who is the rightful owner?

94

u/rick_regger 1d ago

We got the "Wegerecht" Here in Austria where you are partially allowed to use private "Wege"(path?) even when you not own them or have alternatives after you used them for several decades (as example when the prior owner allowed it)

33

u/I_voted-for_Kodos 1d ago

This is a law literally everywhere. Otherwise any rando could buy a square meter of land on either side of a road and set up a toll booth.

14

u/rick_regger 1d ago

not sure if you could buy a single squaremetre of land from a residentland, technically possible but cause the land is categorized into units from the local gov practically impossible, corruption aside.

that wegerecht applies for "neighbors" (afaik) and not every random guy that thinks he wants to walk there.

6

u/anyansweriscorrect 1d ago

They're not talking about using a road or sidewalk. This is more akin to using a path through your neighbors backyard. In the US, you'd get a gun shoved in your face. In other places, it's protected. See also UK right to roam.

4

u/Hands 1d ago

Well no, because they wouldn't own the road... and this is not the law everywhere, at least in the US I believe this is typically codified as an easement, but if you don't have an access easement you aren't legally allowed to just trespass on your neighbor's land even if there's no other way to get there.

Maybe you meant to say it's the law literally everywhere that has reasonable property laws. In a lot of Europe you're allowed to travel across other people's undeveloped land (or even camp, forage, etc) as long as it's in a transient manner, in much of the US you are not only not legally entitled to do so... but can legally be murdered by the property owner for trespassing.

2

u/I_voted-for_Kodos 1d ago

Right of way laws exist, in one form or another, literally everywhere, including the US. An easement is one of those forms.

0

u/Hands 23h ago

What's it called when there is no easement?

1

u/cashleyborin 1d ago

We call that an easement in the US

1

u/govunah 1d ago

An easement or right of way if its outlined in a deed or other agreement.

We also have adverse possession where you can use and maintain a parcel or part of one for a period of time and if no one says anything it becomes yours. In most cases it's abandoned ally or property set aside for a street that was never built but abutting owner cares for the property. In my state the time is 10 years but you can't adversary possess state property but in must cases they'll sell it fairly cheap.

1

u/cashleyborin 1d ago

Sure, but that’s not what the person I was replying to was talking about. Also, an implied easement doesn’t have to be in writing.

1

u/lailah_susanna 1d ago

"Right of way" is probably the most literal translation, but in the UK they have an even more liberal right called "right to roam".

1

u/DiscoBanane 1d ago

In France and I guess most non-anglo countries this goes even further.

Trespassing doesn't exist. You can go literally anywhere, except in a building where someone has residence (but garden is okay). It's legal and you have to leave only if asked.

1

u/Practical-Log-1049 1d ago

Easements, we have them too

5

u/DrMooseSlippahs 1d ago

That's not likely true. We do have a law that requires access to sites of cultural significance. But that's not a family claim to the land forever.

4

u/captainbling 1d ago

That should be an easy court case to win. Here’s the fence. I can’t get in.

3

u/Juus 1d ago

Hawaii has an important law that says that if your family has traditionally resided there, it doesn’t matter who buys it, you still have to be given access and can reside on the property.

Dumb question here, but why is this law important? Can you make it make sense for me? Seems kind of bullshit to me.

2

u/Visual_Shower1220 1d ago

I think the issue then becomes: fuckerberg etc. calls the cops on someone visiting their rightfully owned land. Cops come out arrest the "trespassers" which forces them thru the legal system with fines etc. Issues goes to court, rules in favor of the natives but then drags it's feet doing literally anything like returning fines/removing the arrest. Rinse lather repeat until the natives have been arrested or pushed off their land enough times they literally get pissed off and unheard more than they already are. Cause the police aren't gonna have every persons name on a list of "okay to be on x land" they're gonna arrest/detain and deal with that later, we all know who piss poor of a job US cops do.

4

u/Tonythesaucemonkey 1d ago

So if I was a native I can sell my land, get a shit ton of money, and still squat on the land?

6

u/Curly_Shoe 1d ago

Well the price you get will be lower than a shit Ton of money. Lots of squatters makes the price go down. So he Kind of double-scammed them as He didn't pay the real price but still got Private access.

3

u/CorrectPeanut5 1d ago

Very few own land free and clear. Home ownership among the native population is on the rapid decline. Dropping over 5% in the 2010s and trending to do the same in the 2020s.

They aren't allowed to squat, but they do have the right to visitation. And you can't own beach shore. That doesn't stop his goons from chasing off anyone who dares get near his land.

5

u/Elite_Jackalope 1d ago

What is this law called, and does it work with anything?

I.e. I can sell you a car but retain full possession and use rights without your consent?

10

u/JungleBoyJeremy 1d ago

Look up Kuleana Rights.

And it’s not like selling a car. Hawaii history is a much more complex thing.

1

u/Ndmndh1016 1d ago

Ok that doesn't answer the question of why then, is Zuckerturd able to steal said land?

1

u/The_Moustache 1d ago

That's not even just a Hawaiian law, that's just an easement.

1

u/BigDeezerrr 1d ago

I don't understand how that law is expected to work. So if I purchase land and build a house someone can just show up and do whatever they want on my land because they had an ancestor there once? That seems to directly contradict the concept of owning land.

2

u/deadletter 1d ago

That’s correct - you need to start with the assumption that even though it’s an America state, it has a culture with different norms and ideas about ownership, enshrined into law in Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 and settled I case law in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii vs Hawaii County Planning Commission (1995).

Note that this is undeveloped land, so specifically Yucky Zuckerberg trying to buy a pristine island and put a fence around it.

1

u/BigDeezerrr 1d ago

I get that but it seems like they're trying to have it both ways. Either don't let people buy land because they don't share the same concept of property rights or don't let people on land bought by someone if they don't want them to be there. Taking the money and then not recognizing the land is owned just seems rife for conflict.

1

u/deadletter 1d ago

You seem to be imposing a western view of property ownership to the situation, but Hawaii is a mixture of that value system and another, which is protected in Hawaii law.

1

u/BigDeezerrr 1d ago

I'm saying lets remove the western view of property ownership completely if that's what the people of Hawaii want on their island.

Maybe I'm misreading it and they've always had this hybrid ownership system, but I interpreted your comment as we showed up and forced them to start accepting money for property rights. It should be one or the other instead of two conflicting concepts being law simultaneously

1

u/deadletter 22h ago

From whence does ‘should’ derive? Law? Bible? Religion? Philosophy? Your feelings? Utilitarian optimizing of happiness?

Should doesn’t even make sense when one realizes there’s no shared basis.

1

u/Whiterabbit-- 1d ago

so you can sell your ancestral land and still retain the right to access and reside on the land?

2

u/deadletter 1d ago

Ownership the way we think of it only began with the wholesale destruction of the kingdom of Hawaii. So they never sold it in the first place, and have their right to be there - not build houses, but can camp, stay for periods, fish, hunt etc - because of ancestral tradition and access. Kuleana rights someone called them, and I posted the names of the cases/laws I found to someone else, but on phone now.

1

u/Whiterabbit-- 1d ago

Oh. Makes sense. We are trying to keep two overlapping traditions alive.

1

u/Wide_Combination_773 1d ago

Pretty sure that law requires someone to have actually physically resided on the land within X years of a claim to it from a relative/descendant. Otherwise any Hawai'ian can claim private ownership rights to any land in Hawai'i, technically (lets set aside the arguments from anti-colonialists who agree with this interpretation, for a moment).

Under the current system of property laws in the US - property laws largely derived from older English common law - if nobody has lived on the land in decades, how can you rightfully claim it if you don't have some form of other legal title to it?

1

u/2JZ1Clutch 1d ago

This requires enforcement of the laws. That's not exactly enough vogue as of late.

1

u/PSUVB 1d ago

This has literally nothing to do with the land Zuckerberg bought.

The law that has nothing to do with Zuckerbergs land also doesn’t say you can reside there. It says you need to be given reasonable access.

1

u/yourstruly912 1d ago

So he actually bought the land?

1

u/bert0ld0 1d ago

So even zucko cant block access, no?

1

u/smurferdigg 1d ago

That’s a pretty weird law. Like who sells it and who would buy land if some people can just show up and camp out cos it’s their land too?

1

u/[deleted] 21h ago

So, essentially, there is no property in Hawaii. This kind of flies in the face of constitutional property protections. Can the buyer continue to have access to his money that he gave to the sellers?

1

u/deadletter 21h ago

This is slippery slope fallacy - when one owns unimproved land in Hawaii, people who can show traditional and ancestral access to that land for camping, hunting and fishing need to continue to have access. It doesn’t invalidate all transfer of money and property to have a caveat to exclusive use.

1

u/NoEntertainment483 1d ago

Geez, why would anyone ever want to buy land in hawaii then?? Like I buy it but then any descendants from all time (which would boom in numbers with each generation) could just come live on it??? That's nuts.

4

u/Kckc321 1d ago

I think that’s the point…. Hawaii is extremely desirable, and not very large.

2

u/NoEntertainment483 1d ago

Sure I get that. It’s the 13th most densely populated. But other states are more densely populated and don’t have rules like that. Just as a land owner that would be a hard pass to me. It might be pretty but no way are people I don’t know who I have no control over just randomly living on my land. Montana is very beautiful. I’d rather go buy there and not have that sort of hassle.

1

u/deadletter 1d ago

You can’t live live, but you can go, fish, camp, stay some amounts of time. Someone else in this hugely branching thread said they are called Kuleana rights

1

u/NoEntertainment483 1d ago

Still… what if the person is like a child molester or something. They can just come camp sometimes at my house?

1

u/deadletter 1d ago

I believe it’s applicable to undeveloped land, so if you have ten square miles of land and somewhere on it this whataboutism chimo is hanging out for periods - not full time occupancy - then yes.