“Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs Wednesday lost a bid to a state appeals court in San Francisco for a permit to demolish an historic 30-room house in Woodside and replace it with a smaller residence,” Bay City News (BCN) reports.
“The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling in which San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner last year set aside a permit granted by the Woodside Town Council for demolition of the building, known as the Jackling House,” BCN reports.
BCN reports, “The two-story, 17,250-square-foot house was built for copper magnate Daniel Jackling in 1926. It was designed by George Washington Smith, a leading architect in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, and qualifies as an historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act, the court said.”
“Jobs bought the building in 1984, lived in it for about 10 years and then rented it for several years after moving to Palo Alto. It has been vacant since 2000 and has been allowed to deteriorate, according to the court ruling,” BCN reports. “Jobs began seeking a permit to demolish it and build a smaller 6,000-square-foot home for himself and his family in 2001. He was granted the permit in 2004 by a 4-3 vote of the Town Council, against the recommendation of the council’s staff. Then a conservation group called Uphold Our Heritage filed a lawsuit challenging the action.”
“In Wednesday’s ruling, a three-judge appeals panel agreed with Weiner’s finding… Jobs’s lawyer, Howard Ellman, said he could not comment on Jobs’s plans or on a possible further appeal because he has not been able to reach Jobs, who is at Apple’s Macworld trade show in San Francisco Wednesday,” BCN reports. “Ellman said ‘discussions are in progress’ for a private group to take over the house and move it to a different site.”
Full article here.
Related articles:
Steve Jobs patiently waits to tear down his 30-room Jackling House ‘abomination’ – February 27, 2006
Judge stops Apple, Pixar CEO Steve Jobs from demolishing historical house – January 04, 2006
Apple CEO Steve Jobs offers ‘dump’ of a house free to anyone who’ll take it away – January 03, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs gets green light to tear down his ‘dump’ of a house – December 15, 2004
Preservationists battle Apple CEO Steve Jobs over his ‘dump’ of a house – October 17, 2004
Steve Jobs not allowed to demolish his home because it has historical value and significance. It is only 75 years old. So, what is the historical significance? Steve Jobs lived in it!
I guess it’s the price of success and fame. Coming up next: Steve Jobs not allowed to throw away any black turtlenecks. Jonathan Ives not allowed to move any items on the desk where he designed the iPod.
“because he has not been able to reach Jobs”
Hey, I know he’s got a cell phone with him – I’ve seen him holding it on TV.
Right on Mike!!
It’s his property. If there was a clause attached to the property before he bought it, then fine. If it is some sort of historic monument, then buy it and place it on the registry. If not, the touchy feely bedwetting do gooder’s need to shut up and get a life. Eventually, everything in this country could have the case made that it has some sort of emotional and historic value, and with rulings like this, precedence is being set. Bad precedence.
Where were these people whilst the property was deteriorating??
Why are judges allowing whiners to rule.
MW: feeling. How appropriate.
Only on the loony left coast. San Francisco: Land of the Unfree.
If you wanna see what happens when you tear everything down; check out Tampere, Finland.
There’s pretty much nothing old left. Caterpillar was the name of the game for way too long.
He wants to tear down a large house and build a smaller one. He isn’t building a strip mall.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Except for California, where private property rights no longer exist. God help America.
Some liberal idiots can tell you what to do with your property just so they can all “feel good”.
Only on the loony left coast. San Francisco: Land of the Unfree.
Wait, are liberals self-indulgent hedonists or hyper-nosey control freaks?
It’s funny when conservatives complain about restrictions to capital and property by screaming bloody death to freedom but when it comes to restricting personal freedoms, they’re all so gung-ho about it. Don’t smoke that! Don’t stick your dick in that! Don’t write that! Shut up and let us spy on you! No problem. Don’t do that to your historic property! Oh nos! Another liberal dagger in the back of freedom!
I echo several previous posters: it’s his property, so he shouldn’t be dictated to by the goverment about what he can do with it.
I do sympathize with the preservationists. But if theyre so hot on saving the Jacklin, let them put their money where their mouth is and either
a. buy the property from Steve at fair market value, or
b. pay to move the house to a new location.
(Which reminds me: didn’t Steve offer to GIVE the house to anyone who’d pay to move it a couple of years ago — but there were no takers?)
Of course, there are some who will tell you that the whole private property thing is a myth anyway. (Dont’ believe it? Miss a couple of property tax payments and see who ends up “owning” your property.) But that’s probably beyond the scope of the present discussion.
“Jobs’s lawyer, Howard Ellman, said…he has not been able to reach Jobs, who is at Apple’s Macworld trade show in San Francisco Wednesday.”
Aha! I TOLDJA that iPhone thing wouldn’t work!!
Michael S. Malone
elmerfud@abcnews.com
effwerd, not all liberals are self-indulgent hedonists who are hyper-nosey control freaks. Just some of them. Some conservatives are as well.
Unfortunately, The Constitution used to protect private property from search and seizure. By not allowing Mr. Jobs to tear down a building that he owns the government has “seized” his property.
This may make some liberals and some conservatives happy, but not Mr. Jobs.
It’s funny when liberals complain about conservatives complaining about liberals and paint conservatives with the same broad brush that they are complaining about the conservatives painting the liberals with.
Put that in your bong and smoke it!
MDN word = “french” As in, Don’t get me started.
It’s funny when liberals complain about conservatives complaining about liberals and paint conservatives with the same broad brush that they are complaining about the conservatives painting the liberals with.
Ooh, what a unique and enlightened perspective. Are you telling me that generalizations don’t apply to each and every thing that might happen to falll under such a blanket statement? Wow! I’ve never heard of that before.
And I never would’ve thought to juxtapose these apparently contradictory sentiments in a comment on MDN.
A Woodside CA councilman reported all interior and exterior walls have holes throughout. All the while this abomination continues to deteriorate. Steve’s intention is to replace a 17,000+ square feet structure with a new home of about 6,000 square feet. Thereby creating MORE open space on the 9 acre property. Taxes are costing $30K+ a year. Where was this group when Larry Ellison dismantled a structure, now it sits in cargo containers waiting for reassembling elsewhere, and he built a Japanese Villa? Jobs’ new home will have more historical significance 80 years from now than the current monstrosity. How much time does Steve have with his still young family to enjoy his visionary new home?
I bet Gates is behind this…just kidding
I’m with Mike and Dave on this. Unless there was a specific clause when he bought it, then it is his as he wants.
If the “preservation group” is so thrilled with the house, they should have to buy it.
And sorry, Steve, but if you live by the sword (of liberalism) you can die by it too.
MW:power, as in we will see how much of it he swings.
17250 square feet. Wow. My house is 1/10th of that.
Youze guys!
I swear, you neocons need to get laid a little more often, ’cause whatever you’re gettin’ ain’t enough
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
TT, you know damn well that every town in Texas has a historical preservation mechanism, and NO, you can’t just do any damn thing you please with the property. How is this any different?
Y’all need to grow up a little when it comes to resposibility to the greater good. And find something else to hate besides a few whacked-out lefties.
not sure why this is such a big deal to you guys.
“”Ellman said ‘discussions are in progress’ for a private group to take over the house and move it to a different site.”
Seems to me that this would solve the problem quite fairly.
The greater good would be to downsize to a house just over a third the size of the current one. One that will take 1/3 less energy to heat and cool.
If these conservationist want to preserve it , they should buy it.
Electrical malfunctions occur daily. Even laptops burst into flame.
Jobs should donate the house to the Uphold Our Heritage conservation group.
They wanted it left alone. Let them pay the millions needed for its restoration and the cost of maintenance that all houses require.
Spit and polish, indeed. You can certainly tell who isn’t a home owner.
Some liberal idiots can tell you what to do with your property just so they can all “feel good”.
Liberal? They’re conservatives. They don’t want anything changed. The population is lucky they aren’t forced to drive to work in Model T Fords.
Conservatives…San Fransisco? You’ve got to be kidding!
Steve should borrow a Dell laptop, leave it running atop the gas stove and then leave for a few days.
The laptop will catch fire igniting the stove and the house will burn to the ground. Then, sue Dell for the value of the house and rebuild what he wants.
That would solve two problems at once.
Glad I don’t live in effed-up Cali…
@Mike is exactly right: To CONSERVE a property for historical or cultural value is to be a CONSERVATIVE, at least in this regard.
And no, despite the childish philosphy peddled by objectivists (“It’s my toy, I can burn it if I please”) and Ayn Rand freaks, we do not give absolute control over property to owners. Indeed, no rights in the Constitution are absolute – even freedom of speech doesn’t give you the right to cry fire in a crowded theater – nor should they be.
As another poster noted above, every town with any degree of culture or history has certain preservation rules – determined by elected officials and the voters who put them into office – that apply to property in that town.
The rule of law requires that wealthy and powerful people (like Steve Jobs) be treated the same in the eyes of the law as everyone else.
Why is this in any way debatable, either on a philosophical or practical level? It isn’t. It’s entirely reasonable, and the bile shown in some of the comments above is uncalled for.
Steve Jobs will now have to consider further appeals or consider compromises, and that proves the process is working as it was designed to. Let it continue, and let’s see what happens.
The property taxes are nothing to you. Just let it sit there unsold and unused for the next 100 years. You aren’t required to maintain it.