How long will this house need to be preserved? 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? get real. The fact that these preservation efforts to keep a house that lets face it, does not affect ANY of your daily lives whether its in existence or not is treated like its incredibly important is ridiculous.

Anyone who is in this historical preservation society is flat out ridiculous.

I think everyone needs to step back, stop being sentimentalist freaks and realize that frankly its not their business.

I actually thought Jobs might be in the wrong until I read your blog post today.

Certain commenters here who have long made up their minds on an issue come here & blame me & something I write for “changing their minds,” as if their minds weren’t made up to begin with. This commenter is a perfect example. Besides, don’t believe or disbelieve me. There’s now a legal record. Two levels of judicial review have determined him to be in the wrong.

It doesn’t really matter what you or I say. Judges determine the law & he’s broken it. Plain & simple.

Through your holier-than-thou attitude and unwillingness to even consider his side of the story,

Then I guess yr snarkier than thou attitude is an attempt to repay me? I’ve been following this story for well over a yr. YOu think I haven’t heard & read Jobs’ “side of the story??” I know what his side is. It’s pathetic & that’s been proven as I said by a Superior Court judge and three Appeals Court judges in a unanimous ruling.

Do you know the cutoff date for the appeal (if there is one)?

Thanks for the discussion!

When the State Court of Appeals rules in favor (at least that’s what we hope & expect to happen) of the preservationists in the next phase of the court battle I’ll post again & you can comment there if you wish.

When a government wants to regulate aesthetics, I think…there is something wrong…The South argued that elimination of slavery would change their way of life and would adversely affect their rich heritage and culture.

First, historic preservation is like Nazi aesthetics & now its like slavery. You really pull out all the stops don’t you. C’mon! It’s a just plain dumb analogy. And btw, the South objected to abolition much more strenuously because it would “adversely affect” their society’s economy. Certainly abolition affected heritage & culture, but this was a secondary factor compared to the utter devastation it posed for the munificent plantation lifestyle enjoyed by the aristocratic land-owning class.

arguments in support of preserving neighborhood culture (white) and preservation of neighborhood economic interests (real estate values) do not override individual rights,

Lord, now historic preservation is akin to racist property covenants! That’s rich.

To date, no one has offered to pay for the building’s removal and restoration, I understand.

You understand incorrectly. Two potential buyers have come forward. But one wishes to move the house entirely away from Woodside. Preservationists wish to retain the home for the area in which it was built. I’m not certain what the outcome was with the other offer. Jobs is the party who must negotiate w. them and the outcome is not fully in the preservationists control, though they may have some leverage in terms of final veto power since the law has found in favor of their position that he cannot demolish the home.

The style may be valued, but the style can be preserved through drawings, photographs and individual artifacts

This is akin to saying we can shred the original Mona Lisa but “preserve” it through photographs. That argument would go over well with the Louvre I’m sure. Or should we tear down Versailles while preserving Marie Antoinette’s bedstead to remind us of the palace’s former glory?

Tearing this building down will not destroy its style, and I believe that expert architectural historians would agree.

Actually, expert architectural historians (from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and others) universally agree with the preservationists legal efforts and have written Friend of the Court briefs supporting them. I’m not aware of a single architectural historian who’s said anything differently. Though you’re welcome to try to find one.

this looks to be about is a small group of people that is demanding to be paid off

That is a vicious calumny. I am a founding member of Uphold Our Heritage and have been intimately involved in this entire case. I know what my motivations & UOH’s are. You are a despicable person for making such assumptions. It only proves your own paranoia & mistrust but is absolutely no reflection on the preservationist mission in this matter. If you were decent you would apologize. We’ll see how decent you are.

All across the country, property owners are faced with aesthetic restrictions when building. Many, many, many ordinances make aesthetic demands on property owners who want to build.

You are confusing BUILDING ordinances with PRESERVATION ordinances. They have nothing to do with each other. Building ordinances regulate the types of issues you raise. But they serve a wholly diff. purpose than preservation ordinances which are designed to preserve a limited number of specific historic structures.

My philosophy is not “radical libertarian” - it’s Jeffersonian.

That’s delightful. If you’re Jeffersonian, then you should be willing to place some value on Jefferson’s crowning architectural achievements–Monticello and the Univ. of Vir. campus. But if you’re true to yr libertarian principles you should allow for the fact that the current owners, should they wish, could sell these properties off & allow them to be demolished. Which is it–are you Jeffersonian or libertarian?

And for you to say that Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s first great architects, would embrace your rampant Darwinian view of private property rights is laughable.

Historic preservation is an ideological issue, and it has no constitutional basis

That’s horseshit. Historic preservation is NOT an ideological issue. It is only an ideological issue for an ideologue such as yourself. Lot’s of things that are considered hard & fast law have no specific “constitutional basis.” The abolition of slavery, one man-one vote, abortion rights. All of these were inferred from constitutional principles with no clear-cut basis in the original text. That doesn’t make them any less valid. Besides historic preservation is NOT a federal issue. It is a state & local issue. And I’m relatively sure there is some basis in the CA. state constitution for historic preservation, as it is fixed law (for everyone but the likes of you).

The town of Woodside (actually, the State of California) requires property owners to…pay money to an ideological “cause” of historic preservation as determined by narrow special interest groups.

I have no idea what you’re ‘on’ about. What “money” are you talking about? Historic preservation is only a “narrow special interest” group to radical Darwinians like you. While many Americans know little about historic preservation (hence the public apathy leading to abysmal decisions to tear down architectural jewels like the old Penn Station), the vast majority of those who do, value it very highly.

There is no constitutional amendment upholding the authority of government to demand aesthetic obeisance and subserviance [sic] to self-appointed, ad-hoc historic preservation groups.

There doesn’t have to be. That’s what plain, ordinary state laws are for. There’s a state law governing historic preservation. You don’t like it–fine. You think it’s unconstitutional–fine. Please, do go ahead and start a state initiative to abolish all aspects of state law that prevent individuals fr. exercising their full powers. I’d like to see such a campaign & how much public support it would win. I’d even like to see an initiative restricted to abolishing historic preservation laws. They’d fail miserably too. Or maybe you’d like to bring a case before the State Supreme Court arguing such laws are unconstitutional? I’d like to see you do it and see how many votes you’d get. Go right ahead.

The courts have upheld historic preservation (and the issue is not about historic preservation, really it’s about control) on economic grounds

I won’t take this argument solely based on yr unsupported word. I’m certain that historic preservation has been upheld on a variety of grounds & that economics are but one of many factors supporting it.

my guess is that, in similar circumstances, 98% of Californians would agree with Steve Jobs.

Yes, the key phrase is “in similar circumstances.” If every Californian was worth $10 billion, then there might be no support, or very little support for historic preservation (then again there might be a great deal of support for it as long as you weren’t the person who wanted to destroy your historic home). Economic self-interest tends to distort people’s values when they’re god-awful wealthy. Luckily, the Jobs and Geffens of CA. constitute a very small percentage of the population. The rest of us plebes (I don’t live in CA. but did for 17 years) have more normative values–historic preservation being but one of them.

When it’s your property, it’s not a minimal restriction, it’s a big deal.

And that’s precisely why we have laws that govern all of us. That’s why we don’t allow the wealthy to buy the laws or shape them to their advantage. Laws made to benefit the few are bad laws. Sure David Geffen hated allowing a walkway on his property for public beach access. It was a big deal for him. But thankfully, the interests of the broader public subsumed his individual interest. Geffen argued the case for years & finally lost. The same holds true for Jobs.

NO ONE wants to have their property deemed to be “historically significant”

A wholly wrong & ignorant claim. Thousands of properties, including private homes are deemed historic landmarks every year with their owners full approval.

Some individual property owner will have to find to find the courage and reasons and time to argue his way through the courts, with very little help and against well funded, well entrenched opposition.

As I wrote above, Geffen tried & failed to do precisely that. Jobs is now trying to appeal his way through the state legal system. Hopefully, he’ll fail as well. We’ll see.

Steve Jobs has taken a salary of $1 for the past ten years and has quadrupled (at least) the value of his shareholders stock. And he’s selfish?

I guess Thomas Jefferson would be a sycophant for American corporatism too, at least by yr twisted notions. Steve Jobs has taken $1 in salary for 10 yrs. So what? What’s that supposed to mean? That he’s doing it for charity? I don’t have any problem with Steve Jobs running a successful company and making himself and his employees rich. But the way he runs his personal life is entirely separate fr. the way he runs his business life. And the rules governing both are different as well. If he doesn’t like the rules as they affect his disposition of Jackling House he has many alternatives, none of which (except demolition) he’s chosen to avail himself of.

read this as a sign that he holds principles that you have trouble grasping

Oh no, I have no trouble grasping Jobs’ values. They’re values of selfishness, boorishness, self-importance, & self-grandiosity, & a willingness to thumb his nose at established law that contravenes his own personal interest. I understand his values completely. I reject them & in this particular case, so does the State of California.

Are you certain that Steve Jobs hasn’t already contributed millions to other worthwhile causes?

I have not examined Steve Jobs personal philanthropy. But I am a professional non-profit fundraiser and study such matters in general terms for a living. I’m aware of many, many wealthy individuals who’ve given much more significantly to charity than Steve Jobs. If you want to claim him as a philanthropic angel I’m afraid you’ll have to do better than to presume he’s generous w/o providing any proof. And even if he is generous, it has nothing to do w. this particular matter.

…Even now that I understand your point, it’s still preposterous. The historic preservation movement is akin to Nazi aesthetics? Puh-leeze!…

When a govenment wants to regulate aesthetics, I think it’s worth paying attention and waking up, because there is something wrong. And yes, when governments force us to believe what they want us to believe - for no other reason than to prove that they can - the government is oppressive. It may sell newspapers and books, but “…historic and cultural preservation..” is not, itself, a persuasive argument to me. The South argued that elimination of slavery would change their way of life and would adversely affect their rich heritage and culture. You know what? They were absolutely right! The South has not been the same since slavery was abolished, but that does not mean that slavery is justified on grounds of historic, cultural, economic or aesthetic preservation.

Up until 1950, it was perfectly legal to enforce property covenants that prevented minorities from buying property in certain neighborhoods. These covenenants were upheld on economic grounds for almost a century after slavery was abolished, because they preserved property values. And you know what? The covenants did preserve property values! When minorities moved into all-white neighborhoods, property values plummeted. But arguments in support of preserving neighborhood culture (white) and preservation of neighborhood economic interests (real estate values) do not override individual rights, personal freedoms, and personal liberties. Eventually, these laws were overturned, but it took a very, very long time, and there was a lot of opposition.

…Historic preservation merely wishes to preserve valued architectural styles that already exist….

Valued by whom? The state of California has not offered to pay to have the house moved. To date, no one has offered to pay for the building’s removal and restoration, I understand. The style may be valued, but the style can be preserved through drawings, photographs and individual artifacts, and this is borne out by the style’s enormous popularity - realtors in California love it! It’s everywhere! Lots of people are willing and eager to have houses designed and built in this style, but that is their personal choice. That choice is not being made for them by people who are on religious missions, usually.

Tearing this building down will not destroy its style, and I believe that expert architectural historians would agree.

What this looks to be about is a small group of people that is demanding to be paid off - it walks and talks like extortion, plain and simple. They want to prove that they are in control and that they can force even wealthy and powerful people to yield to their demands, right? That’s what this is about - it’s a shakedown.

…It doesn’t want to impose any particular architectural standards or aesthetics in terms of new construction…

Are you an architect? Have you consulted with any architects, have you read the legal case, have you familiarized yourself with Woodside’s building ordinances, or any other building town’s ordinances, for that matter? All across the country, property owners are faced with aesthetic restrictions when building. Many, many, many ordinances make aesthetic demands on property owners who want to build. Height limits are the most obvious, but there are plenty of others that regulate materials, colors, projections, roof slopes, visibility of garage doors, yard sizes, etc. - you name it. Your statement is not true and not credible.

I believe that the reasons these aesthetic ordinances exist is simply because they have not been opposed for the right reasons.

….I know this offends yr radical libertarian philosophy. But don’t expect any sympathy fr. me….

I don’t expect sympathy. At this point, the only thing I expect from you is religious intransigence. My philosophy is not “radical libertarian” - it’s Jeffersonian. Jefferson was this country’s first architect and he built and rebuilt for personal pleasure, not for money, not to keep his neighbors happy and not to preserve the then-popular English Colonial style, which he detested. I think the courts would listen to a Jeffersonian argument or two, but I don’t think they have ever been presented, at least from the research I have done.

…Again you’re off the mark & the analogy is wholly w/o merit. Simply put, if you own this particular house & the land on which it sits, you’ll have to either preserve it or negotiate with preservationists to move it to a suitable location where its integrity will be preserved….

The analogy and references to music, literature and poetry are dead on the mark. The Jackling house is claimed to be some sort of artistic masterpiece, and references to art, aesthetics, and the First Amendment are right on the money. The fact that you don’t understand the analogies is another story. Recently, I spoke to a very experienced attorney who was running for office as a municipal judge, and I asked him what he thought about government regulation of aesthetics. He didn’t have a clue - none whatsoever. He wasn’t dumb, he’d just never thought about it, because he only forms opinions on arguments presented in court.

“You’ll have to either…” is not a reasonable argument, it’s an statement of authority and power. “We own this neighborhood, so pay up.” It may be true right now, but it’s not persuasive.

Would you agree with a law that requires you pay to support the KKK or the campaign of David Duke? How about George Bush? Barack Obama? The fact is, is doesn’t matter how popular or loved the candidate is. The reason you can’t be forced to pay, no matter how rich you are, is because MONEY IS A FORM OF SPEECH and the First Amendment specifically protects speech. You can not be made to say things that you don’t agree with or support ideological causes that you don’t believe in. Do you understand that? Or not?

Historic preservation is an ideological issue, and it has no constitutional basis, just as aesthetics have no right answers. The town of Woodside (actually, the State of California) requires property owners to:

1.) Pay money. Individually. Not as taxpayers contributing to a government-funded or publicly sponsored program, or as commercial entities contributing to civic programs as a cost of doing business. They have to pay *personally*, as individuals, for things that other individuals do not.
2.) Pay money to an ideological “cause” of historic preservation as determined by narrow special interest groups. To preserve aesthetics that the property owner finds personally distasteful. And for which the historic preservationists can demand payment as consultants.

There is no constitutional amendment upholding the authority of government to demand aesthetic obeisance and subserviance to self-appointed, ad-hoc historic preservation groups. There is one that guarantees free speech, however, and I support that one, don’t you?

The courts have upheld historic preservation (and the issue is not about historic preservation, really it’s about control) on economic grounds - that historic preservation is an economic issue. But economic issues still do not prevail over freedom of thought and freedom of speech, especially at the personal, non-commercial level. Aesthetics are expressive qualities and are therefore aspects of speech. As a constitutional matter, what else can they be?

If aesthetic preservation is an economic issue, and because governments can pass laws to regulate local economics, then municipalities could enact ordinances requiring everyone to wear, say, black suits, white shirts and black hats, to wear white skin and to drive white cars, right? What would prevent that? Seriously, if a municipality passed those laws, what argument would you offer against them? Some “radical libertarian” nonsense?

…98% of Californians are willing to accept this minimal restriction on their property rights in order to preserve the state’s architectural heritage….

I’m not sure where you got that statistic, but my guess is that, in similar circumstances, 98% of Californians would agree with Steve Jobs. When it’s your property, it’s not a minimal restriction, it’s a big deal. Attend any local City Council meeting where citizens have their property evaluated by some Board of Do-Gooders. NO ONE wants to have their property deemed to be “historically significant”, because the property often *decreases* in value. The property owners get their hands tied and they have to negotiate with some historic preservationists about what they can and can not do, based on how much money they have available to spend. Sure, they like historic preservation as long as they don’t have to pay for it, and I think you fit in that category, no?

…I’m sure selfish billionaires like Steve Jobs and David Geffen would richly fund yr campaign. But do let me know so I can make a contribution to your opponent…

Reversal of these laws will not happen by people in elected office, but only in the courts. Some individual property owner will have to find to find the courage and reasons and time to argue his way through the courts, with very little help and against well funded, well entrenched opposition.

Sadly, your personal attack - and the ones in your article slandering Steve Jobs - are one of the most telling parts of your argument. You don’t seem willing to raise money to buy the house and pay for its preservation, but you are willing to spend money to elect people who want to wipe out our basic freedoms. Steve Jobs has taken a salary of $1 for the past ten years and has quadrupled (at least) the value of his shareholders stock. And he’s selfish? I read this as a sign that he holds principles that you have trouble grasping. If you want to preserve his house, why don’t you pay for it?

And who knows how much he’s already contributed to cultural or other worthwhile causes? Some donors make a big show out of their contributions, demanding that this concert hall or that theatre or some musuem be named after themsleves. They have “their architect” design the building and loan their own personal collection of paintings to hang on the wall. Those donors make sure everyone knows what wonderful humanitarians they are and what great contributuions they’ve made toward the advancement and preservation of culture.

Other donors give money quietly and anonymously. They do it secretly, privately, for reasons of their own. They support causes but want the focus to be on the cause - not the donor. Are you certain that Steve Jobs hasn’t already contributed millions to other worthwhile causes? I don’t know that he has, of course, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

The government wanted to preserve traditional German styles and culture, and used police powers to regulate aesthetics? They ran those Bauhaus folks out of Germany, right? Your argument seems to favor goverment regulation of aesthetics, in similar fashion, am I not mistaken?

Even now that I understand your point, it’s still preposterous. The historic preservation movement is akin to Nazi aesthetics? Puh-leeze! Historic preservation merely wishes to preserve valued architectural styles that already exist. It doesn’t want to impose any particular architectural standards or aesthetics in terms of new construction. Developers can build whatever & wherever they want as long as they adhere to law and zoning ordinances. No one’s stopping Jobs fr. building whatever piece of crap mansion he wishes on an empty site or on a site containing an existing structure which is not historically significant.

I know this offends yr radical libertarian philosophy. But don’t expect any sympathy fr. me.

No one should have the right to tell me what music I have to buy, what type of art I have to have in my home, what books of poetry I must buy to put on my bookshelf, what kind of dancing I may or may not perform, what style of clothes I may or may not wear.

Again you’re off the mark & the analogy is wholly w/o merit. Simply put, if you own this particular house & the land on which it sits, you’ll have to either preserve it or negotiate with preservationists to move it to a suitable location where its integrity will be preserved. Beyond this, I’m simply uninterested in yr irrelevant analogies & libertarian ideology.

98% of Californians are willing to accept this minimal restriction on their property rights in order to preserve the state’s architectural heritage. If you don’t like the law get yourself elected to the CA. state legislature, where you can try to persuade yr fellow legislators to change them. I’m sure selfish billionaires like Steve Jobs and David Geffen would richly fund yr campaign. But do let me know so I can make a contribution to your opponent.

Perhaps you should read my post again. I wasn’t arguing that the Bauhaus became part of police state powers - just the opposite. I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that the German government opposed the Bauhaus aesthetics. The government wanted to preserve traditional German styles and culture, and used police powers to regulate aesthetics? They ran those Bauhaus folks out of Germany, right? Your argument seems to favor goverment regulation of aesthetics, in similar fashion, am I not mistaken?

No one should have the right to tell me what music I have to buy, what type of art I have to have in my home, what books of poetry I must buy to put on my bookshelf, what kind of dancing I may or may not perform, what style of clothes I may or may not wear. But you seem to be glad that we now have a government that can dictate the aesthetics of our own homes and a legal system that allows people to impose styles upon their neighbors.

The government does not make journalists, musicians, poets or filmmakers submit their work for pre-publication censorship or approval. Why should anyone have to justify or defend the style of their own house to anyone else?

In the 1980’s, in Beverly Hills, some people didn’t like the way a neighbor had decorated his house, so they burned it down, and people cheered. No one was ever arrested. Some people find this funny, but I think it is very, very sad.

Is that what you mean by making a better world? By supporting governments that dictate personal aesthetics?