“Steve Jobs will give away his controversial fixer-upper house in Woodside to a local investor who plans to spend between $4 million and $6 million to relocate and restore it,” Becky Bergman reports for The Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal.
Bergman reports, “An appellate court denied Jobs’ appeal last week for a rehearing following San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner’s decision last year, which bars the executive from tearing down the 30-room mansion, known as the Jackling House.”
Full article (subscription required) here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Bizarro Ballmer” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
The saga continues: Steve Jobs loses appeal to demolish his ‘dump’ of a house– January 11, 2007
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
Ol’ Steve just can’t catch a break.
If someone else is paying to have the house relocated, it saves Jobs the cost of having it torn down and removing the debris. Other than any delays, seems like a good deal.
Surely this is a win for Steve. The new owner is to relocate it, therefore Steve ends up with a clear plot. Steve offered to do this year’s ago, give the house to anyone who would take it away.
The House That Hounts Steve!
Can’t understand why is that house so special? Tear it down.
Wish he would have fought it to the end – liberals gain ground one freedom loss at a time.
What’s it like to be in a position to give away a 30-room historic mansion?
Especially on a salary of $1 a year
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
This is a real estate deal, not a grand fight for freedom. If you want to defend liberty, take a stand against imperial fascism and impeach Bush and Cheney now.
“against imperial fascism and impeach Bush and Cheney now.”
Please. Go back to social studies.
Wish “W” would not fight to the end – conservatives gain ground one life lost at a time to the terrorists that moved into Iraq after the invasion.
Stop your petty bickering. As my son said, “Do not worry”
he is paying debris removal and transportation costs @ about $500k to get it off his hands
The $4 to $6 million to relocate and restore seems really low, especially in California where labor costs can be quite high.
I’m curious about the new iHouse that will get built in its place. The beautifully appointed master closet with row after row of black mock turtleneck and nicely worn jeans. Or the media center with nothing on the coffee table except his iPhone and the small remote for AppleTV.
mac user 47: “Wish he would have fought it to the end – liberals gain ground one freedom loss at a time.”
He did fight it to the end. He lost his final appeal.
Why use a label like “liberal?” Do you even know what it means? It is the opposite of someone who wants to remove or limit your freedoms. Every time someone uses the terms, it’s really a statement on there own ignorance, and it’s getting funnier and funnier to hear that term geared at those who don’t follow someone’s beliefs.
I guess you could call SJ and the team at Apple “liberals” because they don’t contribute to your “conservative” causes. Microsoft would be the company on your side. They are a huge contributer to the Republican party. Or are republicans “liberals,” in the way you term them?
“This is a real estate deal, not a grand fight for freedom.”
Good point. We shouldn’t ever argue about DRM because we have no rights over what we own.
why doesn’t he just have a ‘fire’
oh , damn i dropped my cigarette
bill would i’m sure
Will his new place be a glass cube?
“Wish he would have fought it to the end – liberals gain ground one freedom loss at a time.”
LOL.
(**COUGH COUGH**) DELUSIONAL.. (**COUGH COUGH**) IGNORANT.. (**COUGH**)…ahem.
“Can’t understand why is that house so special?”
If you understood architectural tradition in California, you would understand…
It’s great that this house was saved. it is very beaufitul to many people, including mine, and should be saved.
oh, and Moo… shove it up your ass.
“The $4 to $6 million to relocate and restore seems really low, especially in California where labor costs can be quite high. “
That is why the workers will be Mexicans.
My apologies Moo…
You’re right…
I meant to say that to Mac user 47… It can shove it up it’s ass!
Typical liberal, doesn’t care if the government takes away the freedoms and liberties that you cherish and people have died to preserve.
Tell us which freedoms and liberties are worth protecting and which are not. Start with your explanation of the rights of ownership, the definition of personal property, and how and when the government must offer fair compensation for taking away your rights of ownership and management of personal property. If you’re such a profound constitutional scholar, you should be able to explain your analyses to the rest of us common citizens in plain English without political embellishment or arcane legalese.
As an aside, it is “funny” how Democrats who voted to give the “administration” authority to go to war now confess that they did so because of:
1. Incomplete information (not to mention their own failure to order collection of appropriate intelligence to make an objective decision).
2. Poor judgment (not to mention their own incompetence in critically assessing intelligence reports that they also had complete access to).
3. Wanton ignorance (not to mention their own incapacity to correctly identify what information was crucial or necessary to make an informed and objective decision).
4. Irresponsibility (not to mention their own inadequate oversight and funding for intelligence gathering).
As I recall, these are the same behaviors that Democrats condemn the administration of committing as sins against the nation, but they use as excuses or reasons for being re-elected.
Screw MDN for posting an article that requires a subscription.
Couldn’t the house accidentally burn down?
I mean, he could say he was testing out a Dell laptop because it’s always good to see what the competition are up to…. And while in his possesion, the Dell’s battery exploded, started a fire and burnt the house down.. he he he…
what moo is saying (in so few words) is that you are confused on what constitutes liberal and conservative viewpoints. Steve in this case is advocation individual property rights against the governments right to control the destruction of what it deems worthy of preserving. This is a fundamental tenant of a conservative viewpoint.
The local government’s position that the house even though it is privately owned should be preserved, to the benefit of the society, is a very liberal or even socialist viewpoint.
Steve is not a conservative but in this case he is advocating a (very) conservative viewpoint of personal property rights.
Don’t feel bad, most young liberals mistakenly think that eminent domain is a conservative position (the taking of private land/homes because the government wants it) It is not. it is a very liberal / socialist viewpoint (ie the community would be better off if we took your ranch and made it a golf course)
As a rule of thumb, advocating states rights over individuals is typically liberal and the inverse, personal rights over the rights of government is normally a conservative position.
I get a kick out of the politics that shows up on MDN forums.
Me, well, I don’t think there is much spits difference between republicans and democrats. They like it when we are divided evenly and always fighting.
As for Steve’s house. I wish I could see more pictures of it. Not because I want to worship the great Steve’s house, but I am curious what makes it so special that someone wants to spend $4 million moving it and the city won’t let Steve tear it down.
… and oops! It just fell off the back of the truck, your Honor. Into 2 million match stick sized pieces…
Location for the restoration? Some bog in England
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Ahhh strike up one more for our secret liberal conspiracy to control everything.
oops did I post this on a non liberal site… please disregard above statement.
CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT! CRACK POT ALERT!
:END OF TRANSMISSION:
Or is “crack pot” one word? MMM, yes. Crackpot, ahhh.
Can’t wait to see the house Steve will build in its place.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
He’ll should probably patent it as well.
The conservative logic on property rights generally runs shallow, and the argument made above, @mac user 47, is a classic example. Let me quote your statement of the “fundamental tenant of [the] conservative viewpoint”: “advocation [of] individual property rights against the governments right to control the destruction of what it deems worthy of preserving.”
I said that your advocation of individual property rights, “runs shallow”; let me explain what I mean. When the government tries to step in and restrain the property right of a land owner to tear down his house, or to mine his property, the conservative asserts property rights law dating back to early English Common Law or the Justinian Code. These rights are seen as- and asserted as- absolute, BUT ONLY WHEN THE RIGHTS BEING PROPOUNDED CORRESPOND WITH THEIR PARTICULAR/PECULIAR MORALITY.
You would say, “If I buy a piece of property that I want to mine, I have a right to do that. If you want to preserve the forest, you have the right to buy it, or to pay me to give up my right to mine. Just because other surrounding property owners don’t want mining in the region should not take away my right to use my property as I wish.” That is correct, isn’t it? You have YOUR right to use YOUR property as YOU wish?
Are those rights absolute? You are thinking that they are, but let me give you a counter-example. What if I outbid you on the property, and I decide not to build a mine on it, but instead I decide to build a whore house on it, and I decide to grow pot on MY property. I’m not going to have my working-girls doing my private business in town- they’ll only work on MY property, and I’m not going to let MY pot leave MY property, I just want to utilize MY property rights and MY right to privacy.
So do you conservatives want to preserve my “individual property rights”, or are you doing what you asserted in your argument that the liberals want to do, preserving “the governments right to control the destruction of what it deems worthy of preserving”, in this case, your conservative morality.
Feel free to answer back.
Oh poor Steve. it must be so hard to have billions of dollars and the govermnebt will not let you demolish your house. We can all relate to your problems.
I suppose you call that old house “historical” because of your short history, and therefore you have doubs about it being worth conserving or not. It’s funny that. For me an historical building is more than 1000 years old. Oh, I forgot you only wore a figleaf back then
@Joan:
If you call it historical house only when its 1000+ years old, then there’s pretty not many left in the world. Having said that would mean, there’s only Aztec, Inka and probably other houses left in America.
Ok, here in Europe we would still have some more…
Anyway, for me the Jackling sounds like a place which should be left like it is and not tear it down and place it somewhere else. This is an example from Germany how historical buildings can be used: http://www.villahuegel.de/english/index.htm
to: @mac user 47
liberal |ˈlib(ə)rəl|
adjective
1 open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values : they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people.
• favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms : liberal citizenship laws.
• (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform : a liberal democratic state
socialism |ˈsō sh əˌlizəm|
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on this theory.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
If your IQ is bigger than your shoe size, you can probably understand that socialism/communism is very unliberal
“(ie the community would be better off if we took your ranch and made it a golf course)”
That is socialistic way of thinking, not liberal. Don’t feel bad. Most conservatives mistakenly think so. 😀
The rumor is that Steve would have kept it if only they’d let him change the name from The Jackling House to The Jackoff’s House.
why don’t you stupid people leave your coments to your self and leave steven jobs alone so he can get some peace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thorin needs to shut up
give me some moneyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!