After his blog post about perpetually buying new clothes and never washing his donated clothing as an act of goodwill is really starting to make me think he is either a douche, lived his entire life in a bubble, or he is just delusional.
Strange, that wasn't my take from Rhinehart's blog post. His lifestyle is certainly... alternative. But I think his choices appear to be driven more by dispassionate energy calculations than douchebag judgmentality.
Which isn't to say that I am convinced by half of his "life hacks" as being more energy-efficient - I'm uncertain if he has accounted for a lot of externalities of the stuff he advocates (like costs of trashing / recycling used clothing? Food wastage from frequent restaurant usage? Uber over Tesla?) But what's interesting to me is that even if we assume the worst case, the energy profile of his lifestyle does not appear to be too far off from that of the typical consumer.
In a sense, he's attempting an extreme form of dog-fooding of the ethos of his company - Soylent undergoes constant iteration and refining of its core ingredients to further its objective of being eco-friendly and healthy - some choices don't work out because they are sourced from the same places as the fast food industry, or may trigger hitherto unknown reactions within one's gut microbiome... but that's not a good reason to swear off experimentation altogether (albeit with reasonable safety regulations). And on occasion, his method may lead him to stumble across an objectively good idea.
At any rate, I'd rather cut a man some slack to dream and experiment on new ideas, than dismiss him off-hand as a delusional silicon valley kid.
WRT clothing recycling, he says that he donates the clothing to be mass-washed and distributed by clothing banks. He figures that this is lower-impact than throwing it out or washing it himself.
I also wouldn't be so quick to imagine that a restaurant will waste more food per meal than you do. Unless you make a specific effort not to waste ingredients, there's a good chance that you're squeamish about some part of a plant that you don't mind eating at a restaurant.
Funnily enough, nobody suggested an actual solution in this whole thread: grafiti resistant coatings? high-durability windows? a simple pole foundation? land access sensors?
Nope, everyone is predisposed with judgement for what should have been a pretty mundane neighbourhood complaint.
On whether I am myself mistaken about the ecological impact of clothing, eating out, etc. I agree - it is hard to compare efficiencies in a complex environment, or to quantify the net environmental impact of any one action, so my assumptions may well be just as flawed, if not more so - even if I am not personally convinced by the validity of Rhinehart's choices, who am I to judge?
This guy is an absolute douchebag. He's a disrespectful piece of shit and anyone involved with Soylent in any capacity ought to be ashamed with his antics. For those who don't know, Lincoln Heights is a working class neighborhood, that as of the last 2-3 years is undergoing rapid gentrification.
You're being downvoted, probably for the forcefulness of your opinion. But sometimes there just isn't a "nice" way of stating things like this. FWIW I agree with you.
This guy isn't yet anywhere near the level of douchebag that, say, Martin Shkreli is. But he's well on his way.
Came here to ask this. Why was the land sold in the first place, if it's a public piece of land? Why doesn't the City of LA buy the land and place it in the public trust?
I hate these half-assed pieces of reporting. I don't like the guy, he sounds like Ehrlich from SV, but if you're reporting this as news, at least fill in the blanks!
Growing up and having a little exposure to people who tagged, I find it hilarious he thinks there "There is no evidence of illegal activity taking place on the property... I have private security conduct regular inspections." given the whole container is tagged inside and out and the windows are now all smashed in.
his point is that there is no proof that the graffiti was done without authorization. neither is the window smashing. for all people know, he could have trashed his property himself, which is totally legal. or he could have given permission to someone to do it.
Just the tagging/graff isn't illegal if he's okay with it.
Certainly there is drug use, public sex, etc., occurring in this large parcel of empty space in an urban area, much like literally any park.
I think that sort of phrase is the standard rejoiner when a reporter asks you about the possibility of illegal activity on a property that you own. It doesn't really imply much.
I believe he's talked about how Soylent, for a lot of people, is meant to replace meals that you'd rather not spend time cooking and cleaning for. i.e., not social gatherings and BBQs.
> Connection to the past is a powerful thing, and it’s important to take time to renew our social bonds. We at Soylent encourage you to enjoy your feasts of choice, and hope that they will be made all the more festive with the knowledge that your everyday sustenance can be obtained with far less effort. When the dust settles and you’re tired of leftovers, we’ll be here for you.
Would you be so sanguine about "if he bought it he can do what he wants with it" if he were upwind of you, and kept a pig farm or something? What if your child were allergic to bee stings, and he kept bees on land he owned near you?
Ownership isn't a free pass to do whatever you want, and the neighbors can suck it.
There are also people here who think climate change is propaganda, and probably even some that think the moon landing was faked. That doesn't make any of these things true.
I agree. However, if you posted on Prison Planet something that might seem blasphemous to that line of thought, you might run into some backlash. Here, you might run into someone who thinks your property rights trump the rights and needs of others. I'm not one of them.
still I would love to know what the restrictions for that parcel of land is. are they unlawfully restrictive?
The problem is that in many areas the land use restrictions are very similar to regulated businesses, there to protect those who came first and don't want competition or others near them. While I think a shipping container is absurd I want to know, what is the restriction on building a house there?
The only thing unsafe about a shipping container is that one could (with some difficulty) climb on top of it and then fall off. Or I guess someone else could lock one inside, but that seems like a voluntary violent action rather than negligence per se.
At the same time he is doing neither of these things. It's hard to make the case that something that you find subjectively visually unappealing is the same as a pollutant or allergen.
Though, even under those circumstance, how would you feel if you were a beekeeper who had carefully curated and bred your hives for years, you moved, and all of a sudden your bees, whom you see as lovely helpful animals going out and literally making flowers bloom every day, are ordered destroyed because your neighbor has an allergy? Ownership isn't a free pass to do whatever you want, but it's equally false to imply that nobody has any ability to assert their own interests, or as is the case here, novel ideas over the status quo.
I think ownership really does make a big difference here because if he were just dumping a container into a park because he can afford a shipping container and moving it to a park, that'd be very clearly dickish. If he built a wooden gazebo after buying the lot with lots of hostile armrests so that the homeless couldn't shelter there, nobody would care at all and the neighbors would probably love it. It seems like he's done a slightly more flamboyant and slightly more humane version of the gazebo. Putting glass in the windows was a bad move from the start, but they're probably better as shutters or open-air anyway. In a year, it probably wouldn't be bright red at all, because local graffiti artists would have covered it larger pieces and it would look exactly as the community of humans using the parkspace dictated. (Assuming he doesn't just paint over the graffiti, which would truly be a dick move.)
Is the entire range of action that ends in asserting one's own volitions over another's so reducible? What makes this "unilateral" besides there being opposing interests? This isn't even always (maybe not even typically!) wrong -- if the Westboro Baptist Church moved next door to me it's not like I'd be wrong in acting unilaterally, my neighbors' concerns be damned, in say flying a pride flag.
What makes it unilateral is that he's the one making an incursion here. A more apt parallel would be the WBC moving into your neighborhood and having people march up and down the block, 24/7, with "GOD HATES FAGS" placards.
Do you legitimately think that's not thumbing their noses at their new neighbors? Do you actually believe that the neighbors – you know, the folks who were there first — have no choice but to suck it up? "Welp, they bought the house and moved in. Nothing to be done about it now."
I guess that depends on how you define "suck[ing] it up". If you mean "not assault or harass their new neighbors, or vandalize their property" or anything like that, then absolutely yes.
If, on the other hand, you mean suddenly dropping over for tea and scones of a weekend morning, or fruity pink drinks after work, then no, I don't think they're obligated to "suck it up". Their neighborhood, from their perspective, has just been "invaded", and they have a legitimate right to feel aggrieved by that, right or wrong, bigotry or not, assholery or otherwise.
Just like the folks in Lincoln Heights have a right to feel aggrieved by Rhinehart's ugly, unmaintained container — except, of course, that the gay couple didn't break any laws. (Just a few years ago, they might have, depending on jurisdiction, but since Lawrence v. Texas, there isn't even that; it's just confrontational, and possibly even rude.)
I guess if you think a gay couple flying a pride flag is confrontational or rude, we have significantly different opinions to the extent that we can't come to any consensus on this or similar issues.
I'm also doubtful that the gay couple truly hasn't broken any laws. I'm sure that with enough digging, the homophobic neighbors can find a fence on the wrong side of the property line, a deck that isn't zoned properly, or something similar; the neighbors could even pass a HOA regulation prohibiting pride flags. Does that make it morally justified, because it's "their" homophobic town? It seems like you think so.
Wow, nice try at painting me as bigoted, or whatever. Cheap rhetoric is cheap.
Would you call it confrontational for a KKK member to move into a black neighborhood and fly Ol' Dixie? Because that's perfectly parallel to your proposed scenario, and that's what you're arguing for.
Just because the people we're talking about are members of a protected class doesn't change the logic of the situation.
Slightly OT, but I'm allergic to bee stings and a former(!) beekeeper. I'd have no problem with my neighbour keeping bees, and I'm in the UK where plots are tiny. Unless you're right next to the hive, most bees aren't going to bother you. A fence is enough to keep them away: they fly up and over it, then most of them will fly right over your garden. A few will stop to pollinate your plants for free. Bees aren't like wasps: they don't sting unless you're threatening the hive or about to crush them. Don't fear the bees!
A lot of towns actually have right to farm bylaws. There are some restrictions--I think it's a 5 acre minimum acreage in my town. So I agree with your general point but agriculture is considered normal use of property in many places.
I agree with a number of other replies to the "what's the problem, it's his land!" perspective. Are people really that unaware that they are sitting in a room on land benefiting from an extremely long debate about how land owners can and should use that land?
Where's the debate in this case? All I can see is Rhinehart mushroom-stamping this hilltop with an ugly container, which he refuses to clean up or maintain, and then thumbing his nose at anyone or anything who disagrees with him, including black-letter law.
The likely reason he was able to buy the land for only $25k is that no structures are permitted to be built. I'm sitting about 3 miles from there, and a whole lot of $500k houses around here get bought and razed for new construction.
If he wanted to be a total asshole, he'd remove his crappy little container and build an eye-sore of mansion, lights, guard dogs, etc, all the trappings of wealth and resource consumption that make people "happy" with development over a temporary metal box.
I suppose they would be happy enough if he just planted a bunch of silly turfgrass and spritzed it with poison once a week like any respectable citizen would.
He'd have to have a permit to construct a residence....even if he is willing to flaunt process, no contractor is going to risk their license on a giant visible project without paperwork.
Much ado about nothing. He put a shipping container on a flat piece of land that he owns. It's now graffitied so it bothers the neighbors. Why are we supposed to care?
Yeah, seems odd that people are getting worked up about it.
To me, this backlash seems like one of those over-regulated/over-litigious things about America that make it more hostile to people exploring their lives than a poorer or less developed country.
But maybe it's wrong to say it's the country. Pretty sure his neighbors would have joined him if this happened in Appalachia instead of LA.
This isn't an American problem. This would be a problem in most countries.
Just because you own the land doesn't mean that (a) you can construct any dwelling you want and (b) you can do anything you want on it if it affects your neighbours.
The responses by the neighbors make this seem to me not to be such a simple black and white case. They seem to have been minorly inconvenienced and then went about grasping for every possible bylaw and regulation and proceeded to pump up the charges ("he created a haven for criminality!") in order to give themselves an ounce of credibility. This was their autopilot response.
Im with the OP here, in a less litigus/hyper-regulated community and most importantly a more socially laid back one this would not be such an overblown problem.
Most likely a problem like this could easily be dealt with by being approached by the neighbors and being politely told of their problems with it. Reasoning with him first and resorting to law only for extreme situations. Even in the article he said he's doing it because a neighbor complained. That makes you question the value of immediately jumping to the leg system to solve all of your minor problems. As Americans seemed to have been raise to do.
No wonder the legal system is continually bursting at the seems from demand for court time.
He doesn't own it any more than any human being owns any spot of land. He's renting it until he dies or sells the land to someone else.
He didn't live there for decades unlike his neighbors. He also doesn't have to deal with the results of what he's doing, unlike his neighbors who are dealing with at very least vandalism, possibly worse, and he's obviously in denial about it. But it doesn't really matter to him because he's making millions and the spot is a place where him and is friends party and then don't deal with the results.
It's common courtesy. Nobody has to comply with unreasonable demands of neighbors, but they can try not being a dick. It's entitlement to do otherwise.
He came up with a meal replacement drink. Great. That doesn't entitle him to move into a community and disregard everyone else. That's how communities get destroyed. Worse, when that stuff is encouraged (or shrugged off), cultures get destroyed. Being a dick is not sustainable.
> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Aside from HN's guidelines...
What do you propose? That we should just buy the latest and greatest tech, ignoring where that money goes how it impacts the world around us?
That's how you get might makes right. That's how you get corruption and entitlement from those in charge (who are always the ones with money).
This isn't about ideology. This is about sustainability, it's about history. This stuff has all happened before. There are tomes written about Gilded Age CEOs who couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone around them because they were the gods of industry. People get hurt from that.
You can find a bunch of examples of good behavior, that doesn't mean destructive behavior wasn't occurring. That's the problem, none of these people are classically "evil". They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us.
> Henry Clay Frick led a group of speculators, including Benjamin Ruff, from Pittsburgh to purchase the abandoned reservoir, modify it, and convert it into a private resort lake for their wealthy associates. Many were connected through business and social links to Carnegie Steel. Development included lowering the dam to make its top wide enough to hold a road, and putting a fish screen in the spillway (the screen also trapped debris). These alterations are thought to have increased the vulnerability of the dam. Moreover, a system of relief pipes and valves, a feature of the original dam, previously sold off for scrap, was not replaced, so the club had no way of lowering the water level in the lake in case of an emergency. The members built cottages and a clubhouse to create the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, an exclusive and private mountain retreat. Membership grew to include more than 50 wealthy Pittsburgh steel, coal, and railroad industrialists.[8]
They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us.
You were the one that claimed they couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone. That flood, while a tragedy and something that should probably have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, doesn't really prove your point. It's not like they benefited from its destruction.
Because although we don't like to admit it, sometimes on HN Silicon Valley is our Hollywood and CEOs are our celebs. It appears we're not above the occasional dollop of juicy goss.
Yeah this is ageism at its ugliest. I can just hear the complaints of "damned kids whose shipping containers are somewhat visible on a faraway hill if I stand in this one particular corner of my lawn!"
> He's renting it until he dies or sells the land to someone else.
So he owns it. It's his land and the next person that comes around can do what they want with it. If that's remove or maintain the container that's up to them.
It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks. If they want to claim it's a fire hazard, then yes. But they'll be hard pressed to do that. If they want to claim it's a public safety hazard they can do that. But they'll be hard pressed to do that: it's private property.
Seems like they are pulling the common government card of pulling a law out that hasn't been used in a while to make someone comply with some unreasonable demands.
None of what you said is true in most countries including the US. The government has and will continue to regulate what you do on your own property so much as it affects other members of the community.
And yes putting an unsecured shipping container on top of what looks like a hill is a stupid and criminally negligent thing to do.
> It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks.
That is exactly what governments decide.
Private property does not mean, "do whatever you want" it merely gives you certain rights that the government enforces. They also enforce certain standards for the properties they sell to you.
Look for the word "owner" on your deed. Find it? Nope. What you will find is usually "tenant". That's intentional.
I don't even know how this thread got this far. You have rights on property, those are expressed in your deed. Those rights are granted to you. That isn't ownership, and the lack of the term "owner" on your deed is by design.
Wait, if he bought the land then I don't really see a problem. I know that "it's an eye sore" but that is subjective.
Can I say "your orchard is an eye sore, you have to flatten it"?
If he bought the land then I don't see a reason to press criminal charges. I could see them saying "you need to maintain the property," but I don't understand "you need to remove it."
I think it's crazy that people can come on to your private property and say "remove this" and make you comply. If anything, why the hell aren't the cops arresting people who are destroying his private property? In my eyes they are coming after a victim.
Owning a plot of land doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. I can't buy a plot in the suburbs and build a skyscraper on it. Buildings require permits, even buildings made of shipping containers.
"should" is perhaps the right question, however in California the answer is "does it?".
I don't know if you live in California, but "permits" are the go to weapon of neighborhood activist groups to try to get what they want. Whether it is to prevent building, property use, or nuisances. My guess is that someone argued the container is a "building" (it has windows and a door after all), and every city requires that you get a permit before you put a building on your property. Whether it is a lowly garden shed or a guest house.
Should neighbors be able to attack each other with the municipal code? That is a pretty deep question. Do they? Sure all the time.
Honestly? Maybe. Depends on how long it's there and what it's used for. It can negatively effect both my quality of life and my financial situation. You don't have a right to do that.
To my knowledge there is absolutely no law on the books preventing someone from driving any automotive vehicle on private property in the united states.
This was told to me by a US police officer who came in to talk to us about getting ready to drive. He said going to the mall or a football stadium on a Sunday is the perfect way to get practice. It just needed to be private property.
Edit: To clarify this happened a few years ago when I was still in high school.
And that's why it's a maybe. If it's sitting there because you're moving or turning it into a tiny house, that's one thing. If it's abandoned and has become a den of heroin addicts and meth cooks, or full of trash then that's another.
This particular container is attracting vandalism where it sits, arguably a quality-of-life issue extending beyond the property line. Dunno about the general case. This particular case here gives no reason to argue that permits in general are a case of government overreach.
Well he wasn't doing "anything he wanted to" and he definitely wasn't "building skyscrapers" on the land. He had a shipping container and it seems like someone threw a party on the land.
There are millions of things the government could go after him for but they didn't. They didn't go after permits, or safety codes, or anything. They cited him for "abandoned or vacant building open to the public" which is complete BS.
If they went after him for building permits (which do not apply here) or anything else I'd agree that is fine. That is not what happened. What they have done is essentially went after him for a charge of "I don't like what you have that here, it looks ugly"
So putting an unsecured (both to random individuals and to the hillside) container wasn't what he wanted to do? If not, he should totally sue someone, because if I ordered a pizza and an empty shipping container with windows cut out on the sides was delivered instead, I'd be mad.
Also, having an vacant building open to the public is a safety code violation. Why do you think empty building have locked doors and fences around them?
If he had built a gazebo or similar structure on the land, would the neighbors have anything to say about it (except maybe "make sure the homeless can't be comfortable in it")?
He did go and call it an experiment in sustainable living, implying the intent was for it to be a dwelling. I don't think it's unreasonable for some permit requisites to apply to it, like being a rust hazard or a danger to neighbors during an earthquake.
Perhaps this is distracting the conversation then. I just brought up rust because it is a common element of rental inspection (http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/looking.shtm...), and because inhaling iron particles has been known to cause respiratory issues - probably more relevant in a human enclosure than in a mailbox (albeit not as serious as asbestos or lead). But the point stands, if the container is generally accepted as a public-access dwelling, then it is not unreasonable to subject it to inspection for livability.
> They cited him for "abandoned or vacant building open to the public" which is complete BS.
Maybe it's intentionally BS, and the city expects him to win. Then the city can say, "well a jury found him not guilty" and shut up the annoying neighbors without looking like they are ignoring the problem.
I think jrockway was more implying that they are looking to file this case and lose it, so that people will stop prodding to file more cases which they will also lose. This is totally compatible with laziness.
Excuse me, let me introduce you to Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, or a litany of prosecutors who have filed trumped up or erroneous charges against someone just for the sake of power and attention. Sometimes it's not about winning or losing, but punishing someone the state disagrees with.
Actually that's the problem: With very specific exceptions to pollution, etc. you should be allowed to do with it as you please. It's yours. You bought it and now own it. Who would ever cede this right??
Property rights in the US and UK have deteriorated.
Look at the Tiny House movement. It's clever but it is also a symptom of something rotten. There is something wrong with a society where half a person's working life is dedicated to the establishment and maintenance of mere shelter.
I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire. It's my property so I do what I want.
You have multiple paths for recourse. Your plants don't need to be inside, you can install a sun roof, you can get lights, or finally you can talk to your neighbor.
> I'll put a parabolic reflector on my property to focus sunlight into a single point on your house, setting it on fire
The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them.
The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible.
The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it."
To me, that is unreasonable.
> Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly
Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.
Wonderful example of a strawman attack if I've ever seen one.
Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.
What's so bad about attaching a covenant to a piece of land and then subdividing it?
(this is a rough euphemism for a zoning ordinance, where people buy land in cities with standing agreements not to do stupid shit that bothers their neighbors)
That's why it was such a ridiculous and inapplicable hypothetical to raise in this discussion. One only notices a box on a hill when it is one's strict intention to do so.
Unless the box is orange and placed around an area that was ear marked to become a park and a popular hiking spot. Then maybe everyone that goes up there will notice your box.
Who are these people that have the time to hassle property owners, city officials, and "criminal" (read: wrong skin color) "park" visitors on a regular basis, but can't pony up $20k among the whole group to actually get done what they claim to want done?
At least we've backed off from the "this is just like building a giant dome over your neighbor's house to deprive them of all sunlight" analogy. That was silly.
> "I don't care what you do next to my property. It is your property."
Awesome. Can't wait to establish my crack den/brothel/suboxone clinic/for profit prison/coal mine/pesticide factory/eurotrash party house as your next door neighbor.
You've managed to simplify the argument into a yes/no question. Congratulations. You have also managed to completely avoid the central issue: It's his land. Like it or not it's his. If you want to pass ordinances regulating the height of walls and structures go for it. Otherwise, kindly go pound sand.
Bought my parcel of land next to a large city's medical district as an investment. Might eventually build on it - tbd.
Most of the tax delinquent pieces of property that I've come across that go to auction are sometimes 5-10+ years delinquent & in "blighted" neighborhoods. The patience and laws of cities and states varies in how fast they take action on foreclosing on delinquent taxes.
From my basic research, a sizable number of properties fall behind on taxes due to the death of an owner and an out of state heir essentially "giving up" on the property as it wasn't worth the trouble.
In the case of my property - the city acquired it via a tax foreclosure, used it as an access point for some infrastructure construction, let it sit for 10+ years after they were done with it then lumped it in with an auction.
On another note - Some cities will also sell land with requirements that low income / affordable housing be build on it.
> "If an earthquake comes, that thing’s going to roll right down the hill and crush everything in its path" - public safety chairman
From the looks of the pictures, it would take a pretty huge earthquake to get that container even to a spot where it could start rolling; the container would be the least of your problems.
I also found that a curious comment to make given that the structure is not close to the edge and would have to move quite a far distance to be at risk of causing any significant damage. Homes need to factor in earthquake risks but at the same time you need to be realistic about those risks. I hope the person making that statement has a little more to back it up than just speculation of extreme worse case scenarios (ie: level 8-9 earthquakes).
Particularly because the other statements also seem like they are grasping at straws for anything to use against him.
Look, I'm from Chile, literally the country with the worst earthquake in history. That thing isn't gonna roll down, things in a earthquake don't jumble around like in a bingo ball blower and btw that's probably the most stable building in LA, houses in the US are made of plasterboard glued with snot to shitty pine-wood, they aren't designed to be stretched and compressed.
At the end, the neighbours are just being annoying
Makes the guy sound like a grade-A douchebag but then again this is pretty bad gossip rag reporting. Maybe he's pulling a Shia LaBeouf and doing some avant-garde thing?
This reads like a satire of the out-of-touch Silicon Valley archetype. Guy buys a bit of land in the middle of a pristine public park and puts a big day-glo orange box in it for abstruse reasons, and wonders why people are annoyed at him.
After all, its legal! ...Or, well, no, its not necessarily legal, but the reasons why it's illegal aren't immediately obvious! Shouldn't that mean I get to do whatever I want?
So you do a Series A these days and you get fuck-you money just like that. Good to know the pension fund LPs money is going to good use with over inflated salaries.
166 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 204 ms ] threadThere are so many choice quotes in this post, I wholeheartedly recommend reading the whole thing. If you haven't, it will make your decade.
Which isn't to say that I am convinced by half of his "life hacks" as being more energy-efficient - I'm uncertain if he has accounted for a lot of externalities of the stuff he advocates (like costs of trashing / recycling used clothing? Food wastage from frequent restaurant usage? Uber over Tesla?) But what's interesting to me is that even if we assume the worst case, the energy profile of his lifestyle does not appear to be too far off from that of the typical consumer.
In a sense, he's attempting an extreme form of dog-fooding of the ethos of his company - Soylent undergoes constant iteration and refining of its core ingredients to further its objective of being eco-friendly and healthy - some choices don't work out because they are sourced from the same places as the fast food industry, or may trigger hitherto unknown reactions within one's gut microbiome... but that's not a good reason to swear off experimentation altogether (albeit with reasonable safety regulations). And on occasion, his method may lead him to stumble across an objectively good idea.
At any rate, I'd rather cut a man some slack to dream and experiment on new ideas, than dismiss him off-hand as a delusional silicon valley kid.
I also wouldn't be so quick to imagine that a restaurant will waste more food per meal than you do. Unless you make a specific effort not to waste ingredients, there's a good chance that you're squeamish about some part of a plant that you don't mind eating at a restaurant.
Funnily enough, nobody suggested an actual solution in this whole thread: grafiti resistant coatings? high-durability windows? a simple pole foundation? land access sensors? Nope, everyone is predisposed with judgement for what should have been a pretty mundane neighbourhood complaint.
food, decent food, is still a scarcity for the poor
This guy isn't yet anywhere near the level of douchebag that, say, Martin Shkreli is. But he's well on his way.
Sounds like he's helping to counteract that by reducing the neighborhood value.
I hate these half-assed pieces of reporting. I don't like the guy, he sounds like Ehrlich from SV, but if you're reporting this as news, at least fill in the blanks!
The guy has his head in the sand.
Let's not pretend he is honestly ignorant about the situation. He is just being an asshole.
Certainly there is drug use, public sex, etc., occurring in this large parcel of empty space in an urban area, much like literally any park.
I think that sort of phrase is the standard rejoiner when a reporter asks you about the possibility of illegal activity on a property that you own. It doesn't really imply much.
I guess soylent is not that cool for parties and social gatherings...
http://blog.soylent.com/post/133807501267/go-feast
> Connection to the past is a powerful thing, and it’s important to take time to renew our social bonds. We at Soylent encourage you to enjoy your feasts of choice, and hope that they will be made all the more festive with the knowledge that your everyday sustenance can be obtained with far less effort. When the dust settles and you’re tired of leftovers, we’ll be here for you.
Ownership isn't a free pass to do whatever you want, and the neighbors can suck it.
The problem is that in many areas the land use restrictions are very similar to regulated businesses, there to protect those who came first and don't want competition or others near them. While I think a shipping container is absurd I want to know, what is the restriction on building a house there?
If you can properly secure it, demonstrate its structural integrity, fire safety etc then it's usually fine.
Though, even under those circumstance, how would you feel if you were a beekeeper who had carefully curated and bred your hives for years, you moved, and all of a sudden your bees, whom you see as lovely helpful animals going out and literally making flowers bloom every day, are ordered destroyed because your neighbor has an allergy? Ownership isn't a free pass to do whatever you want, but it's equally false to imply that nobody has any ability to assert their own interests, or as is the case here, novel ideas over the status quo.
I think ownership really does make a big difference here because if he were just dumping a container into a park because he can afford a shipping container and moving it to a park, that'd be very clearly dickish. If he built a wooden gazebo after buying the lot with lots of hostile armrests so that the homeless couldn't shelter there, nobody would care at all and the neighbors would probably love it. It seems like he's done a slightly more flamboyant and slightly more humane version of the gazebo. Putting glass in the windows was a bad move from the start, but they're probably better as shutters or open-air anyway. In a year, it probably wouldn't be bright red at all, because local graffiti artists would have covered it larger pieces and it would look exactly as the community of humans using the parkspace dictated. (Assuming he doesn't just paint over the graffiti, which would truly be a dick move.)
The same, no. But on the same spectrum — namely, a property owner acting unilaterally, his neighbors' concerns be damned — absolutely.
Do you legitimately think that's not thumbing their noses at their new neighbors? Do you actually believe that the neighbors – you know, the folks who were there first — have no choice but to suck it up? "Welp, they bought the house and moved in. Nothing to be done about it now."
If, on the other hand, you mean suddenly dropping over for tea and scones of a weekend morning, or fruity pink drinks after work, then no, I don't think they're obligated to "suck it up". Their neighborhood, from their perspective, has just been "invaded", and they have a legitimate right to feel aggrieved by that, right or wrong, bigotry or not, assholery or otherwise.
Just like the folks in Lincoln Heights have a right to feel aggrieved by Rhinehart's ugly, unmaintained container — except, of course, that the gay couple didn't break any laws. (Just a few years ago, they might have, depending on jurisdiction, but since Lawrence v. Texas, there isn't even that; it's just confrontational, and possibly even rude.)
I'm also doubtful that the gay couple truly hasn't broken any laws. I'm sure that with enough digging, the homophobic neighbors can find a fence on the wrong side of the property line, a deck that isn't zoned properly, or something similar; the neighbors could even pass a HOA regulation prohibiting pride flags. Does that make it morally justified, because it's "their" homophobic town? It seems like you think so.
Would you call it confrontational for a KKK member to move into a black neighborhood and fly Ol' Dixie? Because that's perfectly parallel to your proposed scenario, and that's what you're arguing for.
Just because the people we're talking about are members of a protected class doesn't change the logic of the situation.
People need to calm down. You're more likely to die of lightning strike than bee sting in the US.
http://www.paulgraham.com/jessica.html
To me, this backlash seems like one of those over-regulated/over-litigious things about America that make it more hostile to people exploring their lives than a poorer or less developed country.
But maybe it's wrong to say it's the country. Pretty sure his neighbors would have joined him if this happened in Appalachia instead of LA.
Just because you own the land doesn't mean that (a) you can construct any dwelling you want and (b) you can do anything you want on it if it affects your neighbours.
Why does this call to mind all the goofy statistical comparisons that pit USA against ten tiny nations in Europe plus Japan? Get out more, man.
Im with the OP here, in a less litigus/hyper-regulated community and most importantly a more socially laid back one this would not be such an overblown problem.
Most likely a problem like this could easily be dealt with by being approached by the neighbors and being politely told of their problems with it. Reasoning with him first and resorting to law only for extreme situations. Even in the article he said he's doing it because a neighbor complained. That makes you question the value of immediately jumping to the leg system to solve all of your minor problems. As Americans seemed to have been raise to do.
No wonder the legal system is continually bursting at the seems from demand for court time.
He didn't live there for decades unlike his neighbors. He also doesn't have to deal with the results of what he's doing, unlike his neighbors who are dealing with at very least vandalism, possibly worse, and he's obviously in denial about it. But it doesn't really matter to him because he's making millions and the spot is a place where him and is friends party and then don't deal with the results.
It's common courtesy. Nobody has to comply with unreasonable demands of neighbors, but they can try not being a dick. It's entitlement to do otherwise.
He came up with a meal replacement drink. Great. That doesn't entitle him to move into a community and disregard everyone else. That's how communities get destroyed. Worse, when that stuff is encouraged (or shrugged off), cultures get destroyed. Being a dick is not sustainable.
Aside from HN's guidelines...
What do you propose? That we should just buy the latest and greatest tech, ignoring where that money goes how it impacts the world around us?
That's how you get might makes right. That's how you get corruption and entitlement from those in charge (who are always the ones with money).
This isn't about ideology. This is about sustainability, it's about history. This stuff has all happened before. There are tomes written about Gilded Age CEOs who couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone around them because they were the gods of industry. People get hurt from that.
Couldn't they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller#Philanthro...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon#Philanthropy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie#1901.E2.80.931...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Stanford#Stanford_Unive...
You can find a bunch of examples of good behavior, that doesn't mean destructive behavior wasn't occurring. That's the problem, none of these people are classically "evil". They're smart people who have good ideas but they also have failings like all of us.
Related to Carnegie:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood
> Henry Clay Frick led a group of speculators, including Benjamin Ruff, from Pittsburgh to purchase the abandoned reservoir, modify it, and convert it into a private resort lake for their wealthy associates. Many were connected through business and social links to Carnegie Steel. Development included lowering the dam to make its top wide enough to hold a road, and putting a fish screen in the spillway (the screen also trapped debris). These alterations are thought to have increased the vulnerability of the dam. Moreover, a system of relief pipes and valves, a feature of the original dam, previously sold off for scrap, was not replaced, so the club had no way of lowering the water level in the lake in case of an emergency. The members built cottages and a clubhouse to create the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, an exclusive and private mountain retreat. Membership grew to include more than 50 wealthy Pittsburgh steel, coal, and railroad industrialists.[8]
You were the one that claimed they couldn't be bothered to give a damn about anyone. That flood, while a tragedy and something that should probably have been prosecuted for criminal negligence, doesn't really prove your point. It's not like they benefited from its destruction.
So he owns it. It's his land and the next person that comes around can do what they want with it. If that's remove or maintain the container that's up to them.
It's not up to the government to decide what buildings should be allowed based on their looks. If they want to claim it's a fire hazard, then yes. But they'll be hard pressed to do that. If they want to claim it's a public safety hazard they can do that. But they'll be hard pressed to do that: it's private property.
Seems like they are pulling the common government card of pulling a law out that hasn't been used in a while to make someone comply with some unreasonable demands.
None of what you said is true in most countries including the US. The government has and will continue to regulate what you do on your own property so much as it affects other members of the community.
And yes putting an unsecured shipping container on top of what looks like a hill is a stupid and criminally negligent thing to do.
That is exactly what governments decide.
Private property does not mean, "do whatever you want" it merely gives you certain rights that the government enforces. They also enforce certain standards for the properties they sell to you.
I don't even know how this thread got this far. You have rights on property, those are expressed in your deed. Those rights are granted to you. That isn't ownership, and the lack of the term "owner" on your deed is by design.
And I guess we should care because it's not great to see the "typical Silicon Valley disruptive CEO" narrative personified.
Can I say "your orchard is an eye sore, you have to flatten it"?
If he bought the land then I don't see a reason to press criminal charges. I could see them saying "you need to maintain the property," but I don't understand "you need to remove it."
I think it's crazy that people can come on to your private property and say "remove this" and make you comply. If anything, why the hell aren't the cops arresting people who are destroying his private property? In my eyes they are coming after a victim.
Because he had "private security" conducting regular inspections.
I don't know if you live in California, but "permits" are the go to weapon of neighborhood activist groups to try to get what they want. Whether it is to prevent building, property use, or nuisances. My guess is that someone argued the container is a "building" (it has windows and a door after all), and every city requires that you get a permit before you put a building on your property. Whether it is a lowly garden shed or a guest house.
Should neighbors be able to attack each other with the municipal code? That is a pretty deep question. Do they? Sure all the time.
Some negative effects are wrongful, but far from all.
[0] - http://image.syracuse.com/home/syr-media/width620/img/weathe...
This was told to me by a US police officer who came in to talk to us about getting ready to drive. He said going to the mall or a football stadium on a Sunday is the perfect way to get practice. It just needed to be private property.
Edit: To clarify this happened a few years ago when I was still in high school.
There are millions of things the government could go after him for but they didn't. They didn't go after permits, or safety codes, or anything. They cited him for "abandoned or vacant building open to the public" which is complete BS.
If they went after him for building permits (which do not apply here) or anything else I'd agree that is fine. That is not what happened. What they have done is essentially went after him for a charge of "I don't like what you have that here, it looks ugly"
Also, having an vacant building open to the public is a safety code violation. Why do you think empty building have locked doors and fences around them?
If he had built a gazebo or similar structure on the land, would the neighbors have anything to say about it (except maybe "make sure the homeless can't be comfortable in it")?
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/faq/index.cfm?9185=9185&Acti...
Maybe it's intentionally BS, and the city expects him to win. Then the city can say, "well a jury found him not guilty" and shut up the annoying neighbors without looking like they are ignoring the problem.
Hopefully you are right and this turns out in RR's favor.
Look at the Tiny House movement. It's clever but it is also a symptom of something rotten. There is something wrong with a society where half a person's working life is dedicated to the establishment and maintenance of mere shelter.
But also, that is not what happened. He did what amounted to putting a box on a hill.
Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly.
Can you please shed some light on how you think these two things are remotely the same?
(Had to sneak in the pun)
The difference is that Robert Rhinehart isn't setting fire to people or directly harming them.
The difference is that you are trying to directly cause serious bodily harm. This is the worst analogy possible.
The right analogy would be do I have the right to say "he has a parabolic reflector on his property that could start a fire. He needs to remove it."
To me, that is unreasonable.
> Libertarian nonsense falls apart so quickly
Only under the scrutiny of logic with more holes then Swiss cheese. If you'd like to debate libertarian policies then I'm all ears. My email is in my profile.
Ignoring the obvious property rights issues and the fact that the majority of libertarians still support the existence of limited government interference, even the most hardcore anarcho-capitalists who aren't covered by the above still believe in a non-aggression principle which would clearly be violated. But that is small percentage of an already small group.
Aggression is not a trivial concept to define.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle?wprov...
(this is a rough euphemism for a zoning ordinance, where people buy land in cities with standing agreements not to do stupid shit that bothers their neighbors)
FWIW, basically everyone in the world disagrees with you. Sunlight is an essential factor in building codes.
At least we've backed off from the "this is just like building a giant dome over your neighbor's house to deprive them of all sunlight" analogy. That was silly.
Awesome. Can't wait to establish my crack den/brothel/suboxone clinic/for profit prison/coal mine/pesticide factory/eurotrash party house as your next door neighbor.
Zoning regulations a reason.
Wow that's some auction luck. Is anyone else amazed someone was able to buy stellar La real estate for so cheap?
Source - I've bought a lot of land at a city tax auction.
edit: (a lot = single lot of land)
Out of curiosity, why do you buy land? Are you a property developer?
Most of the tax delinquent pieces of property that I've come across that go to auction are sometimes 5-10+ years delinquent & in "blighted" neighborhoods. The patience and laws of cities and states varies in how fast they take action on foreclosing on delinquent taxes.
From my basic research, a sizable number of properties fall behind on taxes due to the death of an owner and an out of state heir essentially "giving up" on the property as it wasn't worth the trouble.
In the case of my property - the city acquired it via a tax foreclosure, used it as an access point for some infrastructure construction, let it sit for 10+ years after they were done with it then lumped it in with an auction.
On another note - Some cities will also sell land with requirements that low income / affordable housing be build on it.
From the looks of the pictures, it would take a pretty huge earthquake to get that container even to a spot where it could start rolling; the container would be the least of your problems.
Particularly because the other statements also seem like they are grasping at straws for anything to use against him.
At the end, the neighbours are just being annoying
EDIT: i need coffee
Says the Soylent salesman. Irony!
After all, its legal! ...Or, well, no, its not necessarily legal, but the reasons why it's illegal aren't immediately obvious! Shouldn't that mean I get to do whatever I want?