.jpg)
Jobs Files for State Supreme Court Review in Jackling House Case
Jackling House circa 1970 (credit: Christopher Lloyd)Steve Jobs, who wishes to demolish the historic Jackling House in Woodside, CA, has filed papers asking the California State Supreme Court to accept an appeal of a lower court ruling which forbade him from doing so. In my last report on this case, I expressed the hope that Jobs would finally–after losing decisively in two lower court rulings–accept the will of the judiciary and agree to preserve Jackling House. There are several potential owners who’ve stepped forward and are willing to accept the house if it’s moved to another site, which would allow Jobs to build the new home he wants on
the current property. But Jobs persists in his wish to tear down the home which was built by famed California architect, George Washington Smith (who was responsible for the Spanish colonial revival style popular in southern California).
It is the mark of a very stubborn, very rich, and very petulant person–one used to getting his way in everything–to carry on with this case. The papers he has filed basically restate Jobs’ previous arguments which were solidly rejected by both the Superior Court and Court of Appeals (in a unanimous decision). As in the past, Uphold Our Heritage and its attorney, Doug Carstens, will oppose Jobs.
The intrepid Patty Fisher of the San Jose Mercury News wrote a nice human interest story about the House recently:
At the age of 89, Gladys Woodhams’ passion for preservation is still contagious.
Last week she called to tell me how delighted she was that a state appeals court had again foiled Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ plans to tear down his historic house in Woodside.
“I think it’s wonderful,” she said. “Just wonderful.”
After failing to get permission from the court to demolish the 17,000-square-foot mansion he bought in 1984, Jobs will have to find someone to dismantle the house and rebuild it somewhere else. Several people have expressed interest, and Woodhams would like him to hurry up and make a deal…
“If you have something worth moving and you have the money to do it, well, it’s worth the effort,” she said…
The problem with Silicon Valley, she says, is that people have too much money and too little respect for the past.
“Most of the money is in the hands of people who have bad taste,” she said. “And they don’t even know what they are spending it on.”
I can’t speak for the quality of Jobs’ taste, but he clearly has little or no respect for the past–at least the architectural past.
Steve Palm said:
What I don’t understand is why it’s OK for an outside group or agency to tell someone who has spent money to purchase something what they can do with it.
If they wanted it preserved, why did they not buy it?
If they still want it preserved, it shouldn’t cost the owner ANYTHING. They should reimburse him for the fair market value as if he had sold it outright, move it at THEIR expense, and then let him do what he will.
And please, if we start getting into the habit of trying to preserve every work of every architect who ever builds something, nobody will be able to ever do anything with their property again. Times change, times move on, let it go.
Richard Silverstein said:
“Outside” what? Jobs’ property? The State of California? If you’re a citizen of the United States your behavior generally conforms to the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Jobs, as a resident of California, has the same responsibility as all other residents of that State. If he doesn’t like the laws he can try to change them, or move to another country or another state where they’re more conducive.
He’s not selling. He wants to wreck it, not sell it.
You need to move to California, become a resident, run for state office, become governor, change the laws and then you can live there happily. Till then, the state will live in a state of errancy as far as you’re concerned.
Jackling House is not “every work” & George Washington Smith is not “every architect.” The nation’s foremost historic preservation organization, the National Trust for Historic Preservation determines that both the house and the architect are significant to the architectural legacy of the State of California.
Or are you saying that you have some expertise on this score that they don’t?
Dave Clarkson said:
What is the deal with this guy? People offer to take something off his hands and get it out of his way so he can build what he wants, but he’s stubbornly set on the destruction of something other people in his community love for no other apparent reason than to prove to everyone that he does whatever he wants. I really think this is a symptom of some mental problem. Or at least of extreme immaturity.