MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

We should all have such problems...

Hey, Steve...what if it were to accidentally catch fire?

You don't know the history of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, the Woodside Town Council does.

I love my Mac, and have long admired Apple and Steve Jobs, but I side with the preservationists on this topic...

I've seen the photos of the Jackling house in it's heyday, and it was quite beautiful. Sure, from the current day photos (the house has been vacant and mostly ignored and deteriorating for the past 6 or so years), it doesn't look so good, but it's hardly an abomination. A little spit and polish and it would be back in no time....

Seriously, if Jobs didn't like Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, which is a as much an example of Californian architecture as anything, then why did he live in it for 10 years? Okay, fine, so he wants to build a new house there. I don't see a problem with that, but the house is unquestionably of historic value, so why doesn't he just pay to have the house relocated, to say Golden Gate Park perhaps? It might cost a few million to do so, but that's a drop in the bucket for a guy with $7 billion.

I'm siding partially with Jobs on this. If he can't do what he wants with his property, is it really his property? So, he is forced to keep it like it is? Is anyone going to want to buy the property from him if they can't do what they want with it?

If the council wants it to be a historic site, then they should buy it from him and make it a park.

I agree with Save it...

If it were not built by historical characters or in an historical style... but it is both. I love Steve, but this is probably the right decision.

I'm sure Steve could find another location to build his new house if he has to. Why is he so set on that property location that he's perhaps willing to relocate the mansion even just to build there? Must be the right neighborhood.

A little flexibility in life can lead to unexpected positive outcomes. I'm sure Steve will figure it out.

Why the heck did Jobs buy the place to begin with? It it's too large now, it must have been too large then. Besides, the rage to preserve historical buildings is endemic among the hoity-toity and has dimished property right of owners for years. I'm surprised that Steve wasn't allowed to build a smaller home in the same Spainish Colonial style. Chalk one up for leftwing traditionalists.

Lame that a building that's like 75 years old is considered to have "historic value" in this country. There are millions of people older than that house for crying out loud.

@jeff
I'm siding partially with Jobs on this. If he can't do what he wants with his property, is it really his property? So, he is forced to keep it like it is? Is anyone going to want to buy the property from him if they can't do what they want with it?

Kinda like the Taliban blowing up a massive ancient Buddhist statue ( which predates Islam by a thousand years or so) but hell they found it "unsightly" so it had to go.

It's his property and he should be able to raze it.

Now we're learning how bad San Francisco is getting - a men's choir visiting from Yale was savagely beaten by some young thugs, and the police are refusing to arrest those criminals because one of them is the son of a politically-connected local doctor. The corrupt mayor Gavin Newsome and police chief Fong are siding with the punks who stalked the choir members, kicking and beating them until one suffered a broken jaw.

As a Mac software developer, I've attended MacWorld Expos in the past and had a great time. But the city is going to hell, and I'm scratching San Francisco off of my list for future visits.

Steve Jobs should just pack up and leave California - and take Apple with him.

Certainly none of my business.

Yea, my smaller house is only 6,000-square-feet as well. A little small, but you get use to it.

"I love my Mac, and have long admired Apple and Steve Jobs, but I side with the preservationists on this topic... "

Then you're an idiot. It is HIS property! Who are they to tell him what he can do with it?

This is another classic case of the government overstepping its authority.

the whole country is shit...
move to canada

Tom Cruise... You're funny dude. You've been missed.

BURN IT!!!!!!! Who gives a shit if some house is toasted. HE owns it. Some liberal idiots can tell you what to do with your property just so they can all "feel good". He stated he was going to rebuild with the same "Theme " Just another case of showing "Stupid Liberalism".

"He was granted the permit in 2004 by a 4-3 vote of the Town Council, against the recommendation of the council's staff."

would they have voted this way if was an average person in a middle class neighborhood? in my hometown, minor alterations in historic areas are frequently denied; and these houses are valued at less than 150K.

its nice to see a spoiled billionaire have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us; it doesn't happen very often.

Good. Not even His Steveness should be above protecting cultural heritage.

Save the house.

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.

And what is that houses carbon footprint? What would the new one be?

Let him raze it.

The same leftist gangsters who argue for denying Jobs the right to demolish HIS bought and payed for home would likely favor the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which also says the state can steal your property.

TC? Where you been.

Steve, make it look as if some kids had a fire going in there and throw around a lot of CHEAP beer cans, and let that little fire do it's thang.

Unreal he can be told what to do with his property.

geeze. the thing isn't even a hundred years old. crush it! I think they have a lot of brass giving him a hard time on this- a building that can only be seen from the air.

He should rent it out to sharecroppers for a dollar a year. See ho they like that.

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

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

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.

Here's a great alternative. Stevie J should do a special edition show of "This old house" then put it on iTunes

Paint it black and florescent green Light it up at night with stadium lights and Black lights. Make it an eye sore on the community so they demand that you burn it.
Make it a Crack house.
I have heard that if you make a meth lab in your house they will destroy it because it is too dangerous to let people live in.
Find you some Termites and help them colonize the place.