My favorite Mark Zuckerberg neighbor anecdote is the guy who is surrounded on 3 sides by all properties Zuckerberg snatched up however has refused multiple offers by Zuckerberg's "people:" https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/10/us/mark-zuckerberg-palo-a...
My favorite part of that story:
He said a security guard approached him and asked what he was doing.
“I said, ‘I’m standing on the sidewalk looking at this project for review.’ He said, ‘Well, we’d appreciate it if you could move on,’” Mr. Baltay recalled. “I was pretty shocked by that. It’s a public sidewalk!”
Zuckerberg could have built a fancy house in Woodside or Atherton which is where billionaire CEOs live. Instead he bought property in the middle of regular people and disrupted their lives.
I assume he's planning to build a super mansion once he gets enough acreage.
Reminds me of a guy near me who bought three already massive adjacent properties. Tore down two of them. One become a pond. The other one was rebuilt into a massive $30M mansion. The third was already a $15M mansion so he kept that as his guest house. The funny thing is that his guest house... has a guest house.
Is this also in California? Can’t imagine they’re very many places in the world where people behave this way. That is, people with enough wealth and interest in doing this in particular location.
Can’t imagine they’re very many places in the world where people behave this way.
Really? Because it happens everywhere. I've seen it from Chicago to Seattle to South Carolina. Start going to the zoning board meetings of any town with enough people, and you'll run into it.
In London, they tend to expand down, rather than out, but it happens so often there's a term for it there: Iceberg homes.
If I am visiting with my mother in law, I would consider the host very gracious and attentive to all the needs of his guests.
Do you do this a lot?
As little as possible, unless the guest house I am staying in has a guest house. Then I would consider it.
Lots of billionaires live in Palo Alto. You pretty much can't walk down University Avenue or grab a coffee at Town and Country without bumping into one. Plus most of Zuckerberg's neighbors are not "regular people", at least not from a wealth standpoint. This brings to mind the famous quote from a Palo Alto city meeting where one of the residents complained about "billionaires running roughshod over us regular millionaires!"
If you consider Palo Alto "regular people". I think regular people consider Palo Alto as where centimillionaire CEOs live.
He purchased each plot for between $5 and $15M. The article describes the residents as "Doctors, lawyers, business executives and Stanford University professors".
I would not call these "regular people"
These weren't inherently $15M properties - obviously price is no object for him and once he started buying adjacent properties the prices went way up. Zuckerberg paid $14 million in 2013 for a 2,600 sq ft house that was valued at $3.17 million [1]
As far as whether they're "regular people", depends on perspective. Relative to the US / world, a net worth that includes equity in a $3M+ house is an outlier but most of these people live what would have been considered a typical "upper middle class" lifestyle a couple of decades ago [source: me, ex Palo Alto resident, still have friends there]. Putting a couple of kids through college has become insanely expensive. They don't have compounds in Hawaii or fly around on private jets.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/Zuckerberg-to-raze-4-hou...
OP didn't say "working class people". Doctors and lawyers are plenty regular people.
Doctors, lawyers, business executives are closer to "regular people" than those people are to billionaires.
Okay, but it doesn't mean they're regular people. Owning a single one of those plots out them in the 1% of household net worth, even if they had 0 other assets.
Ok but what does that contribute to the conversation? I think a good enough definition for regular people is if the average person can achieve that title with talent and hard work more than luck (not that luck doesn't also play a major factor). Whereas becoming a billionaire has a lot more to do with luck than hard work (even though hard work still plays a factor).
Billionaires are so rich that dermatologists and plastic surgeons look like old man Carl from "Up." Welcome to the oligarchy!
The gulf between well paid white collar workers and regular people is so massive which is "closer" depends mostly on which billionaire you're measuring.
Doctors and lawyers are extremely regular people.
Billionaire entitlement is just one of the problems afflicting the morbid wealthy. Most of them demonstrate a total lack of empathy and utter contempt for the rest of humanity.
We see that with Trump's second presidency. The WH ballroom, Gatsby party during shutdown, while withholding SNAP emergency funds, gifts from foreign governments, all the deals for corporations and billionaires, tariffs, pardons, etc.
This is how crazy shit like accelerationism, communism, or French Revolution take hold: wider factional extreme consolidations of power and swings between them rather than stable groups of sane, restrained people with a sense of shame and reasonableness set in roughly-balanced, countervailing opposition. (Status quo statism is not necessarily sustainable if it's been terrible for too many for too long either.)
The richest country in history of the world cannot afford healthcare or food banks, and has millions of homeless people living rough are absurd embarrassments, but can afford to bail out the austerity economic terrorist in Argentina, give bombs and missiles to a genocidal regime to flatten an indigenous population of millions into the Stone Age and man-made famine, bomb random boats claiming they're "narco-traffickers" without evidence, and maintain higher military expenditures than the next nine (9) countries combined.
>Zuckerberg could have built a fancy house in Woodside or Atherton which is where billionaire CEOs live. Instead he bought property in the middle of regular people and disrupted their lives.
it is easier and safer to have illegal school and other unpermitted things and all the noise and street blocking and all the other disruptions where regular people live than to piss off a billionaire neighbor.
This is Palo Alto and his neighbors for the most part aren't "regular people". They all own $5M+ homes.
A $5M home in Palo Alto is hardly a mansion.
I have close relatives in that same neighborhood. They are regular people. Yes their house is now worth millions but it wasn’t when they bought it and they are not wealthy (unless they sell and move).
ROFL. The neighbors are not "regular people" for any reasonable definition of that term.
> ROFL. The neighbors are not "regular people" for any reasonable definition of that term.
why do you say that?
Decamillionaires complaining about billionaires. A story as old as time...
Lol "snatched up". I'm told that Zuckerberg came in the night with three of his best confederates and just stole the deed. The government couldn't do anything because when lawyers tried to get it back Zuckerberg just said "The Bible says 'the mark shall inherit the Earth' and I am The Mark". Powerless against the Gospel of Mark, California had to kneel.
Presumably, when these people bought their homes, they felt they'd be able to live with a relatively continuous sense of community, not feel forced to sell as a billionaire's compound encroached on them.
There's an assumption that these homeowners are getting bought out above market, but what's the market rate for a multi-million dollar home next to the perpetual construction and noise of a billionaire's fife, on a street where an increasing number of homes are being bought out and lay vacant? And why would the property team not negotiate any sale somewhat aggressively?
"but what's the market rate for a multi-million dollar home next to the perpetual construction and noise of a billionaire's fife"
I assume still pretty good, as the expectation is the billionair will rather pay a bit more, than be annoyed by the delay of his plans of grandeur.
That was actually the California government’s argument: “When someone buys a house they also instantly get sale approval rights to all houses near them.” But Mark said “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s home” and the atheists were struck dumb by His power.
Today, we all live under the watchful Eye of Mark as He targets ads to us from His compound in the Bay Area. Some say they feel a light itching at the nape of their neck even thousands of miles away as Mark turns His gaze to them, but it’s an illusion: He uses software so His gaze is everywhere.
Zuck vs Bay Area NIMBYs… this is going to be a tough one to pick a side on
It's OK to care about what's going on around your home and in your community. "NIMBY" is usually meant to imply that they are being unreasonable in their complaints.
Are you Zuck's neighbor? (...just kidding)
At the individual level, I agree. Generally unfair to have some unzoned private school next to your house shuffling in people constantly. Though I doubt this would get much press if it weren't Zuck or the NIMBYs who can probably pull strings to get a story in the press about their harrowing plight and tormented lives (not saying that's what happened of course, and perhaps the neighbors aren't NIMBYs--who knows)
As a group though, I think Zuck and any NIMBYs deserve each other
Why not both? ¯ \ _ ( ツ ) _ / ¯
neither actually.
As a non US resident, I don't really get it.
Can someone explain why is it such a crime to run a school? (illegal maybe, but I guess the purpose is still to teach to young people). Shouldn't we promote the creation of schools?
Not a US resident either but there are zoning laws to ensure comfort for everyone. The article mentions the sorts of discomfort suddenly opening a school in a quiet neighborhood can cause. It causes upset especially when it's an elite private school that the neighborhood can't even benefit from at all.
> Neighbors complained about noise, security guards, and hordes of traffic
> For almost a decade, the Zuckerbergs’ neighbors have been complaining to the city about noisy construction work, the intrusive presence of private security, and the hordes of staffers and business associates causing traffic and taking up street parking
Doing so in a residential neighborhood is fraught with possible legal problems:
The city, the neighborhood association(s), the county and the state likely have questions about the school, whether it is legal, licensed, and inspected as specified by all jurisdictions. What about any traffic impediments it causes? Fire hazards, who certified the school, the teachers, the equipment, is food served, is it a commercial or nonprofit concern, on and on. You get my drift.
It's more that he moved into a dense residential neighborhood of single family homes and started buying up all the neighboring houses (11 so far, and he's offered on even more!) to create a massive walled off compound for himself, on which he then opened a private school for his family and his friend's kids. If he wanted to build some billionaire private compound why not go do that somewhere more remote where he could just have a ton of land enjoy doing whatever he wants with privacy and not bothering everyone instead of greedily hoovering up all family homes in a dense metro neighborhood. Not only is he decreasing housing in an area where it is desperately needed but he's bothering his neighbors with construction and noise with neverending renovations, increased traffic for all his staff, and his security team now harasses the neighbors when they're walking around on public sidewalks in front of their own houses.
Selection bias. Live and let live people don't wind up living in Palo Alto.
I don't get why he insist on doing what he want there. He could have way more land and privacy by living deeper inland, like Portola Valley or west of Saratoga. But still within spitting distance to civilization.
IMO past like 1k sqft per person living at the address, the property tax should be exponential.
Given his wealth, this just feels lazy and unimaginative. Running a secret illegal school, okay, I get that. But getting caught up on the drop off and pick up? How does he not just build a secret tunnel entrance?
Or just get a secret tropical island.
Or not so secret. He has a huge compound on Kauai.
The more I hear about this Zuckerberg character, the less I like him.
> For almost a decade, the Zuckerbergs’ neighbors have been complaining to the city about noisy construction work, the intrusive presence of private security, and the hordes of staffers and business associates causing traffic and taking up street parking.
Sounds like a normal day in the city
Do you actually consider this neighborhood in Palo Alto a city?
Not my city.
I’m more confused why would he start a school in the first place…
So his kids will have the best of the best and won't have to interact with gen pop.
The reality is that billionaires can do whatever they want. The negative consequences are minimal or non existent
It's the Bay Area. Your neighbours will revolt if you decide to grill a steak without getting a permit. They're all 80 year old ancients who've decided that children are the great evil. In Berkeley, they tried to get student housing banned under the idea that the students cause pollution. Nice one.
But it does illustrate a point: most people are enthusiastic supporters of rich NIMBYs. They'll complain about this and that but in the end they're enthusiastic supporters of rich NIMBYs.
This isn't an accurate picture of the Bay Area I just left after residing in for five years. It's almost like you're only familiar with one corner of it.
I've lived in the bay area my entire life this is an accurate picture.
It is an accurate picture of Boulder though...
"They're all 80 year old ancients" is an "accurate picture" of a place where the median age is 28 and only 3% are actually that old?[1]
[1]https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US0807850-boulder-c...
Boulder homeowners are not representative of the population of the city.
Like, a lot of the town is just kids at CU. Also, a lot of the younger families are in what little apartments or condos there are in the city and aren't homeowners. Also, like, you probably should only look at adults anyways as under 18s are very unlikely to have their own houses.
Granted a lot of 80+ year olds are in care facilities.
And like, maybe we can relax this to 60+ years olds, in which case based on the raw data there, that's about 18% of the population.
I mean, just looking around Boulder, the homeowners are old people, that's pretty clear.
It's literally any rich neighborhood.
Historic. Parking. Lots.
That. Clarifies. Nothing. And. This. Isn't. A. Constructive. Way. To. Respond.
I’m late to this but just know the complaints about having a school in your neighborhood don’t fall on just Zuckerberg.
Neighborhoods will literally do their hardest to shut down newly formed schools on old school campuses. Yes, if a place had a school on it before but went out of business or was formerly a government one or whatever - it doesn’t matter - if it comes back then the neighbors will protest and try to shut it down.
This is how the Bay Area operates. People on HN (who are not from Silicon Valley and not involved in children’s upbringing) do not understand the level of NIMBYism that exists here. There is a reason why these homes are all so fucking expensive. Every neighborhood absolutely refuses to build due to NIMBYism.
Imagine being so sure of your right to rule over other humans that you make a school illegal.
I think it's more that he disregarded residential zoning and opened a school for 30 kids, with a full docket of “residential support staff” including “childcare, culinary, personal assistants, property management, and security" without any permits.
If your next door neighbor opened a 30+ person school or other large business next to your property without any permits and against what your neighborhood was zoned for you might not be happy.
Zoning on average is a blight.
Industrial / High Rise is the only thing that should need permitting.
Fourplex / Duplex / Single Family / Small Offices / Schools should not.
Schools, kindergartens and daycares cause a shitload of noise from the children playing and the traffic. Small offices also induce lots of traffic, and small merchants even more.
You do not want to have that outside of zoning control because that is how you end up with a road designed to handle the need of a dozen homes (i.e. 24-30 cars a day) suddenly dealing with ten times that load - not just because of noise, smell and traffic jams but especially because road surfacing quality is usually "the cheapest you can get away with for the expected load", the road will go bad way faster than expected.
Zoning is not your enemy, zoning is your friend. Particularly if you value peace and roads you can drive on.
Nobody made a school illegal. Schools have to meet certain standards, whether educational or planning.
What a load of BS.
Sure it's not "fully illegal" in the same way that technically methadone can be bought and sold.
Like everything else you people get your grubby dick beaters on it winds up being regulated such that the only people who can justify going through the hoops other than governments that get preferential treatment are businesses specializing solely in doing whatever activity you're regulating.
It used to be possible for a man to have a side gig without violating the law, be it a school or something else, not anymore thanks to the likes of you.
if you love freedom so much, you should move to Somalia! no government to tax and regulate your life!
Isn't that contradictory? If a school doesn't meet certain standards presumably it would be illegal?
The concept of a school wouldn't be illegal. The people running the school would be committing crimes or at least be in some level of legal trouble with the city council, state or federal law. They could either be fined or go to prison, or they could get the relevant paperwork sorted out.
> The concept of a school wouldn't be illegal.
Yes it is, you explicitly said it would be illegal if you didn't get permission from the government. What you meant to say was that "The concept of a government-approved school wouldn't be illegal." which is very different from the concept of any school being legal, and also redundant because by definition a government-approved school is a legal school, since governments hold a monopoly on the legal system.
Imagine being so sure you can do whatever TF you want that you ignore the law and build a school where one is not allowed to be built.
How does this hurt you if your kids don't go there?
It doesn't hurt me personally but the article opens with the sentence "Neighbors complained about noise, security guards, and hordes of traffic. An unlicensed school named after the Zuckerbergs’ pet chicken tipped them over the edge."
Sounds like a lot of the problem was caused by cars, which shouldn't be necessary for a school, ideally.
The kids have to school and back home somehow, and ditto for the employees. Drive by a local school when it ends the day and marvel at the parents in line to collect their children.
that's a culture/car/public-transport problem, not a school problem. in a place where cars are the only way to get around you can't have any popular place without cars.
Some people have the capacity to think something is wrong even if they are not affected.
Kids will slam car doors at dropoff/pickup. It's pretty annoying. I used to live around the corner from a school and parents would use our street for it. They can also cause unexpected heavy traffic if they have some special event.
Good fences make good neighbors
Seriously? Beyond the unaccounted safety and traffic situation, you've obviously never lived next to a school. Kids are loud AF!
I lived right behind an elementary school (playgound was kitty-corner to my fence) two houses ago. During recess and lunch time, the kids were so loud I had to shout to hear people next to me inside my house.
...but forget all that: What you're advocating for is lawlessness. If you don't like the law, lobby to change it! Don't just violate it and screw over your neighbors in the mean time.
When billionaires break the law, we all suffer. I'll let you try to figure out why. you seem like a smart chap.
Your complaint amounts to "the law is not popular enough to be easily enforced against someone who has the means to defend themselves out of principal"
Repeal the law. Then nobody is breaking it.
That's an odd conclusion to come to from the premise. It's actually an argument against billionaires.
Weird take; Mark is literally a ruler, and the people are defending against his right to enforce his own rules??
I think when people think of the other side, they think of HOA's and their petty rules. So its how people feel about HOAs vs how people feel about the CEO of a social media company.
Now, the article claims MZ didn't file the proper permits. But this reads like a hit piece so take those claims about someone with a raft of lawyers not filing the proper permits with a grain of salt. What this isn't is some sort of political dispute that effects any of the rest of us. Its sort of rich people using PR as leverage in a dispute with someone who is really really rich. Nothing to see here, move along...
Suddenly all the YIMBY people are upset just because it’s Zuck.
This is how jealousy and regular ol' misanthropy manifests itself in the suburban biome