Opponents drop appeal of Steve Jobs’ permit to demolish his ‘dump’ of a house

“The end seems nearer than ever for the Jackling house, that rambling Jazz Age Woodside summer home designed by architect George Washington Smith for copper baron Daniel C. Jackling and owned since 1984 by Apple Corp. chief executive Steve Jobs, who’s been trying since 2001 to replace it with something smaller and more modern,” Dave Boyce reports for The Almanac.

Boyce reports, “Uphold Our Heritage, a group that sought to preserve the house as an important piece of Woodside history, on July 19 dropped its appeal of a March 2010 ruling by San Mateo County Superior Judge Marie S. Weiner that granted Mr. Jobs a demolition permit, said Doug Carstens, Uphold’s attorney.”

Mr. Jobs’ attorney, Howard Ellman, “when asked if he had a comment on Uphold’s decision to drop its appeal, replied: ‘No. The result speaks for itself. They abandoned the appeal and we’re going forward,'” Boyce reports. “Uphold’s decision ends a multi-year effort in the courts to stop Mr. Jobs. Uphold succeeded in preventing the demolition in a 2004 lawsuit, a decision that Mr. Jobs appealed but that was upheld by the state Courts of Appeal in 2007. Mr. Jobs then modified his demolition plans to address the issues noted in the 2004 decision and won a judgment in March.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Since 2001, a U.S. citizen has been trying to get “permission” to replace a house that he owns that sits on his own property. Nine (9) years. If that seems reasonable to you, you’re nuts.

55 Comments

  1. The wolf then came to the house of bricks.

    ” Let me in , let me in” cried the wolf

    “Or I’ll huff and I’ll puff till I blow your house in”

    “Not by the hair of my chinny chin chin” said the pigs.

    Well, the wolf huffed and puffed but he could not blow down that brick house.

  2. MDN. You are nuts, some times.

    Yes, is reasonable, if it’s history and therefor worth saving. Does not matter who owns it. We have such laws in Sweden to protect old buildings of cultural value to be destroyed or altered. For the most part, it’s a good law.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.