As the parent of a millennial I am forced to admit that I have learned way more about Pokémon GO than I would have otherwise cared to learn. Not only am I getting a lesson, but so are some land owners who have had the unfortunate circumstances of running into pokémoners (is that what we should call them?) illegally trespassing on their properties.
The new craze is a phone application which shows Pokémon figures in areas through your smart phone. Yes, the Pokémon Go craze is already affecting land owners throughout the nation. Who would have thought that a smart phone game would drive gamers to trespass onto other people's property to accumulate the various creatures? In New York the Police Department sent out a notice that not only warned users not to trespass onto private property, but also to refrain from playing the game while driving or biking. Another report detailed how a home was marked as a Pokémon Go gym where people can train their creatures. Thereafter, the owner noticed a steady stream of cars blocking his driveway and people hanging out in his yard, all waving their smart-phones.
Players of this game are not limited to Americans. Indeed, there are reports of people getting hurt playing the game in the UK where four teenagers had to be rescued from a mine after getting lost in the complex for more than five fours. Real danger has also befallen players. For example, in Florida a 19 and 16-year-old were playing the game in their car when a resident walked out of his house and shot at them.
In California, trespassing is a violation of penal code section 602. Thus pokémoners need to think hard before they go chasing after Charmander (this is the name of one of the creatures for the uninitiated) onto private property.
|
|
Case of the Month
Airbnb, Inc. v. City of San Francisco
Airbnb, Inc. runs an online platform where people can list properties for short term rentals. Airbnb, Inc. filed lawsuit in the U.S. District court for the Northern District of California on last month seeking to enjoin the recently enacted amendments to the city's so called "Airbnb law" claiming the law is a form of prior restraint, prohibiting persons wishing to list their properties for rent on Airbnb and other such platforms without the platform company first contacting the city's office of Short-term Residential Rental Administration and Enforcement to verify that the unit is property registered with the city. The suit seeks to strike down the law as violative of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Stored Communications Act and the first Amendment.
The San Francisco law, initially going into effect on February 1, 2015, legalizing short-term rentals in the City upon certain, specific conditions. Before this, San Francisco banned residential rentals of less than 30 days in multi-unit building as rentals. San Francisco's short term rental law applies to all buildings containing one or more residential units that are owned or rented by individuals who are permanent residents of San Francisco. This includes owners or renters of single-family dwellings (the initial version of the law excluded single family homes, but this was later changed).
Under the law, all such individuals must reside in their units for at least 275 days per year, register and obtain a permit from the Office of Short Term Rental, and pay a $50 fee every two years. Such registration must be done in person. Persons wishing to do short term rentals will also need to obtain a city business license, and are required to be covered by liability insurance with at least $500,000 in coverage. Anyone caught violating the law is subject to fines of $484.00 for the first violation and $968.00 for repeat offenders.
Historically in many circumstances, the courts have relieved web platforms of liability for the actions of those posting on their sites. It will be interesting to see if the court will relieve Airbnb and their cohorts of such requirements under this San Francisco law.
|
Money Apparently Doesn't Buy Happy Neighbors
As of January 2016, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, was listed as the sixth richest man in the world. Despite his financial fortunes, his relationship fortunes with his Hawaiian neighbors is not good. Reportedly, his neighbors are not keen on the rock wall he is having built on his property on the north shore island of Kauai. One neighbor, Retiree Moku Crain, told reporters that he thought the wall looked daunting and forbidding. The new wall, at 6 feet, is taller than the existing wall on the property.
Zuckerberg purchased the 750 acre, lushly landscaped property in 2014 for around $100 million. Reports from his camp say the wall is being built as a sound barrier for road noise, which is not uncommon and not being built to anger his neighbors. The property is reported to include an organic farm, a sugarcane plantation, and access to the white sand Pila'a beach which is open to the public. Comments from other neighbors have included the words oppressive, immense, and a monstrosity.
Based upon the circumstances, it is highly unlikely that the wall will come down. For neighbors unhappy with the look of the wall the only hope is that Zuckerberg will soften the wall's look by planting foliage around it.
|
|
Upcoming Speaking Engagements
|
August 16 - Los Angeles Escrow Association Dinner Meeting
August 18 - NAHREP Ventura County Economic Summit and Fraud Awareness
For inquiries or questions about any of these events, please email [email protected].
|
|
|
STAY CONNECTED
|
|
|
|
|
