undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyieldcrv25d ago0 comments

The size of the land isn’t inherently why those concessions were made.

Hawaii had full legal authority to sell the entire thing, the same as the US Virgin Islands had full legal authority to sell Little St James

There is nothing in the parent US constitution deterring that either.

Hawaiian authorities partially by a hair sliver decided to try to do something to benefit the Hawaiian people in the face of capital, while collecting the capital. A more patient Ellison or one determined not to have anyone there could have wound up with the whole large private island.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

asdff24d ago· 2 in thread

I looked into it because I was curious. Apparently state of Hawaii has owned the 2% for some time, maybe 100 years. Ellison bought the land directly from murdoch who owned the holding company that owned Dole and the 98% portion. So Unfortunately for Hawaii they didn't really make anything off Ellison buying the vast bulk of the island. Maybe in some taxes when it was sold perhaps.

Also, Hawaii, going back to the territory days 120 years ago, did not have authority to sell the whole thing either. There was a cattle rancher who owned half of it and he wanted the other half, and he worked out a land exchange deal to secure nearly the whole thing without having to do a sale and work around the hawaiian organic act.

yieldcrvOP24d ago

now that's a fun rabbit hole. private individual/family land owners for centuries now, while just our very public tech royalty gets the ire as if they are new.

asdff23d ago

After reading a little Hawaiian history, it is shocking native Hawaiians aren't in open rebellion.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse