Sean Parker Fined $2.5M For Being Himself

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I was actually going to say Parker was fined for excessive douche-baggery but I wasn't sure if that was a real word or not. What a jackass.

Work done preparing for the wedding party inflicted "damage to the structural integrity of redwood trees and the ecosystem they support by the placement of cement and structures immediately against existing redwoods," according to the California Coastal Commission's report.
Click to expand...
 
who wants to marry him anyway. oh, it's about the money. i mean, his inner values.
 
I hear they settled on that 2.5 million dollar payoff pretty quickly.
 
Douchebag? Yes, he even looks the part...

1288627942_sean-parker-290.jpg
 
If he fixes it, I don't really care. He didn't throw a fit or try to hold things up in legal battles, he just said "Whoops, here is money to fix it". Is he an ass for doing this in the first place? Sure. There are far bigger assholes out there, though.
 
I'm sorry but I don't see what the big deal is. The guy spent a few million making the place look nice for his wedding. California fined him $2.5mil for "damages" to an area that was barely maintained and was naturally occurring long before settlers showed up. Not like he tore down a cabin or demoed a road. If they had a problem with this where were the park rangers, stopping them when they trucked in all the construction gear.

If anything California is going to profit off this little make over. Doubt the park is going to demo the area and put it back to the original. They will most likely keep it the way it is, add to it, and charge for weddings to be held there. It's a Win-Win for California. $2.5 Mil up front and a new revenue maker.
 
Without even know the details? Why the Sean Parker jealousy, [H]?
 
This just reminded me of that time they found a whole pot farm in a national forest, slash and burn baby!!!! Those trees were high :D
 
Another person that needs to be put in a room with 10 guys with baseball bats for about 2 hours if not more.
 
I think this is great. California is basically anti-everything, and a permit to do this would have likely taken years, or stalled forever.

Building an elevated platform next to a stream? Placing a rock next to a tree? This guy is a true danger to society.
 
seems overmuch for a wedding to me, but so do the 25k use once gowns that people buy on say yes to the dress. It is questionable on how this came about. Nobody noticed all the construction equipment and workers for a month? I would suggest the site get checked out for safety and ecological concerns and then left alone for others to use. And I imagine there will be a lot of people that want to use it.
 
He does have a face that looks very punchable.
 
Meh, if he is like most guys getting married, he just said yes to whatever the to be wife wanted. Headline would likely be more accurate if it said "Wife to be gets Sean Parker fined 2.5 mil". Just guessing though.
 
It does not sound like it was his property to perform the construction on. It also sounds like he did not get permission to perform said construction. It sounds like he figured it was going to be easier to ask for forgiveness instead of permission.

As a land owner. We run into things like this on a regular basis. The problems we run into are not of this monetary scale but it does not matter. It is not right to take some other persons property and treat it like its your own. The funny thing with us is, most of the time if the person had asked us before they trespassed and took without asking, we probably would have worked with them and let them use the land.
 
traderj said:
California fined him $2.5mil for "damages" to an area that was barely maintained and was naturally occurring long before settlers showed up. Not like he tore down a cabin or demoed a road. If they had a problem with this where were the park rangers, stopping them when they trucked in all the construction gear.
Click to expand...

Really? You don't get that this being an unmolested natural area is the whole point? Without some careful work to try to return that area to its natural state, it's probably going to result in a ton of erosion and the deaths of a number of the redwood trees (which are already endangered due to douchebaggery like this) in that area.

I say shame on California for settling for $2.5mil. I'd be surprised if it didn't cost many times that to fix the damage. Hell, he probably accounted for that as part of the wedding expenses.
 
Yep, he is. The arrogance required to even think you can truck in heavy machinery and do all this in a National Forest is mind-boggling - and I'm not even an environmentalist.
 
I've seen Sean Parker talk in person.
He is a very, very smart man.

Arrogant? Maybe, but that's the kind of attitude you need to disrupt the music industry the way he and Fanning did with Napster.
 
Who thinks its OK to take bulldozers and shit to public land (especially in protected forests) and make it all pretty for their wedding? A rich, arrogant douchebag, thats who.
 
Monkey God said:
Who thinks its OK to take bulldozers and shit to public land (especially in protected forests) and make it all pretty for their wedding? A rich, arrogant douchebag, thats who.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with this?
 
MetalX said:
What does that have to do with this?
Click to expand...

Did you RFTA?

Sean Parker is best known as one of Napster's co-founders as well as one of the financiers behind Facebook. He's back in the news this week as the face of Silicon Valley excess after spending $9 million on his wedding last week in California's Big Sur.

He also wound up in trouble with state conservationists for unauthorized changes carried out to the campground hosting the festivities.
Click to expand...
 
Monkey God said:
Did you RFTA?
Click to expand...

Yeah, did you? Doesn't say he bulldozed anything.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57587481/sean-parker-agrees-to-$2.5m-settlement-over-wedding-venue/

Not only is he donating $2.5 million to the park(wow, what a douche), but he got the go ahead to continue his plans. Nothing to see here, folks.
 
MetalX said:
Yeah, did you? Doesn't say he bulldozed anything.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57587481/sean-parker-agrees-to-$2.5m-settlement-over-wedding-venue/

Not only is he donating $2.5 million to the park(wow, what a douche), but he got the go ahead to continue his plans. Nothing to see here, folks.
Click to expand...

While you're right in that he didn't bulldoze anything, portraying the $2.5 settlement as a voluntary donation is a bit misleading:

The commission allowed Parker to proceed with his wedding plans on the condition that he pay the $2.5 million
Click to expand...
 
The most appropriate punishment would be to get his ass kicked by a Bear Hippie.
 
Neb said:
While you're right in that he didn't bulldoze anything, portraying the $2.5 settlement as a voluntary donation is a bit misleading:
Click to expand...

Another situation of money buying your way out of big problems. The fact that they were bought off is a slap in the face of environmental protection. Supposedly these are endangered trees. If they really want to protect the land and environment in that area they shouldn't have allowed themselves to be paid off, because that's essentially what they did. They should have stopped what he was doing, fined him and made him clean up the mess with oversight by the rangers (or whoever oversees the environment there).
 
traderj said:
I'm sorry but I don't see what the big deal is. The guy spent a few million making the place look nice for his wedding. California fined him $2.5mil for "damages" to an area that was barely maintained and was naturally occurring long before settlers showed up. Not like he tore down a cabin or demoed a road. If they had a problem with this where were the park rangers, stopping them when they trucked in all the construction gear.

If anything California is going to profit off this little make over. Doubt the park is going to demo the area and put it back to the original. They will most likely keep it the way it is, add to it, and charge for weddings to be held there. It's a Win-Win for California. $2.5 Mil up front and a new revenue maker.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a nature preserve is? It's land barely maintained and naturally occurring. That's the whole point. Parker went and upset it all. It's the little things that makes the big things happen. Water run-off might go another direction. Animals were frightened off by machinery, homes and habitats destroyed. You just don't know. That's why there's people who goes to these preserves to say yea or nay whether you can make changes, to make sure nothing gets upset by man made creations.
 
I think most people don't know that whole area is a State Park. It's mostly untouched, real Nature nature. (I think State Parks are one of the best things about California, personally)

I stayed in Big Sur a few years ago with my wife (then girlfriend). It can be surprising to people who have only lived in big cities (not me, grew up in a 5k farm town). The only source for the internet was spotty wi-fi in the hotel dining room. You can spend a day hiking and see only a handful of people. At night it's just so quiet. And driving there on Highway 1, one of the times we stopped to take pictures, we saw wild otters!

Now I get that not everyone is interested in that (I think of it like my hometown; nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there) But to go to a place like that, tear it up (fake ruins? really?!?), and then just throw money at the complaints is a whole other level of douche-baggery.

The best analogy I can come up with is stomping around my Japanese mother-in-law's house in muddy shoes, then giving her some money to buy a mop when she complains. Technically it solves the problem, but mostly is just pisses everyone off.
 
Just playing devil's advocate here, but...

Is it possible that the guy hired a company to put together his wedding for him, the company didn't get the proper paperwork, and when the guy figured out what happened, he took responsibility and paid the fine instead of pointing the finger?
 
TeeJayHoward said:
Just playing devil's advocate here, but...

Is it possible that the guy hired a company to put together his wedding for him, the company didn't get the proper paperwork, and when the guy figured out what happened, he took responsibility and paid the fine instead of pointing the finger?
Click to expand...

The problem with that point of view is that he was the one that created a LLC just for the purpose for setting up the entire event. That being said, going from the rebuttal email he penned, it does look like he was trying to do right. He states that he informally consulted with the Save the Redwoods League beforehand to try to prevent damage from occuring.

What I find interesting in his letter is this portion:
More importantly, because I was just renting the site from a hotel, my representatives were told by relevant agencies, such as the CCC and Monterey County planning commission, that it was the responsibility of the property owner, not the hotel guest, to obtain any necessary permits.

How can a hotel guest paying a hotel to host their wedding be in a position to legally apply for permits covering a property that they do not own? There was neither an obligation, contractual or otherwise, nor any legal way for me to apply for permits.
Click to expand...

Even though it wasn't the responsibility of his to obtain the permit it's a stretch to believe that they thought they could go ahead and build without first checking to make sure a permit existed. In general permits are a HUGE deal over in California and it's difficult to believe they accidentally forgot to check, simply assumed it existed, or wasn't needed.

Here's the full report by the commission, for reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top