Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘steve-jobs’

Does Everybody Really Love Steve Jobs?

Tuesday, January 9th, 2007

Steve Jobs apparently made a smashing success of his annual Apple presentation at the MacWorld Trade Show this year while introducing the new iPhone and AppleTV products. But as tech media analysts note, he almost had to hit a home run because of the deep scrutiny he is facing from the Justice Department regarding his role in backdating stock options for himself and other senior executives. Many of these same analysts note that while Jobs should lose his job for his involvement (many chief executives have recently lost theirs for precisely the same infractions that he appears guilty of), he likely won’t. Why? Because everybody loves Steve:

…Three recent articles argue that the options issue should — but probably will not — be the real focus [of the Show].

Their general conclusion: Everybody (except, presumably, for all these pundits) loves Steve Jobs, so he is going to get away with whatever part he played in the scandal. The articles suggest that Mr. Jobs’ rock-star status in the industry may have saved him and his company from a serious setback.

I’d like to add another class of people to those who aren’t wild about Steve Jobs, besides the three media pundits who wrote those pieces about the backdating scandal: historical preservationists. This blog has been covering the story of Jobs’ mad dash to demolish his historic home Jackling House in Woodside, CA. His ‘dash’ was dashed by an ad hoc group, Uphold Our Heritage, which organized to save the historic 1923 mansion built for copper baron, Daniel Jackling and designed by distinguished California architect, George Washington Smith (who also designed the historic Spanish Revival gems in Santa Barbara).

John Heileman, writing in New York Magazine, notes Jobs’ iconic status:

Over 30 years, Jobs has carefully, famously honed his image as the archetypal un-businessman. As an aesthete, an idealist, a man for whom money was peripheral. And now he and Apple are relying on that image to shield him from imputations of financial chicanery. The thrust of their message is that we should believe that Jobs is innocent because he is … Steve Jobs.

Does this man sound like an “aesthete and idealist” or a selfish, imperious fool? He publicly argued that Smith’s Jackling House was an eyesore which deserved demolition (keep in mind it was an eyesore because he refused to maintain it for fifteen years). He also argued that he would build a new home of much greater historical significance in its place. As you might imagine, this bit of monomania didn’t go over too well with the preservationists. In fact, it didn’t go over too well with Judge Weiner of the California Superior Court, who slapped Jobs down saying the home WAS historically significant; and that he hadn’t exhausted all (or even any) efforts to preserve the house.

In fact, in the year since Weiner’s ruling was announced three serious offers have come from wealthy individuals wishing to preserve Jackling House. Lucky for Jobs, his refusal to negotiate in good faith with any of them can’t be used as part of the record against him by the Court of Appeals. Jobs has told the bidders he isn’t interested in discussions with them till he sees whether he wins or loses his appeal. Does that sound like a man showing good faith?

So people can brag on Steve Jobs business acumen, his marketing genius and whatever else they wish to. But there is a group who are distinctly not impressed by Steve Jobs. And while we’re talking about whether or not Steve Jobs thumbed his nose at the law by backdating those options; we should also keep in mind that he has thumbed his nose at a California preservation ordinances too. In both cases, what Steve Jobs has told the world is that he’s too big and too important to be constrained by laws that limit mere mortals.

So far, California hasn’t let Jobs get away with this regarding his property. I hope that the federal government will not let him get away with it regarding the options scandal.

For anyone wishing to support Uphold Our Heritage’s legal efforts, please contribute.

Steve Jobs Appeals Jackling House Ruling to Court of Appeals, Refuses Offers to Save House

Sunday, December 31st, 2006

Spanish Revival Architecture
Steve Jobs lost a State Superior Court ruling last year which prevented him from demolishing the historic Jackling House in Woodside, CA. In the interim, the preservationists opposing Jobs have presented to him a serious proposal from Gordon Smythe, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, that would involve moving the house to a new location and preserving it. Uphold Our Heritage has been generally supportive of Smythe’s proposal. After the group ironed out most of its issues with the potential buyer, Jobs refused to conclude a deal with him.

Jobs prefers appealing the ruling to State Court of Appeals in a desperate hope that what he didn’t win in Superior Court, he might win in a higher court. The hearing was held on December 20th. While no one knows which way the three judges will rule, UOH’s attorney was heartened by the fact that the one justice who asked questions framed them in much the same terms (Superior Court) Judge Weiner did in her original ruling.

Other factors have encouraged those battling to save Jackling House. Preservationists have discovered other offers to Jobs in the past year which he and his representatives never acknowledged to them. In addition, the Town of Woodside commissioned a study of the relocation options for the house and their independent expert found there were many viable options. All of which weakens Jobs’ contention in his claim that there are no ‘feasible’ preservation options for the home. Since none of these offers had been made before the Superior Court decision nor had the Town study been conducted, we believe Jobs’ case has further eroded in the interim.

What I find passing strange is that given the hot water which both he and Apple find themselves in regarding backdating of stock options, you’d think he’d want to negotiate his way out of peripheral matters such as this one in order not to have any legal distractions facing him. But apparently Steve Jobs is one of those Bill Gates-Steve Ballmer types who brook no opposition or compromise when it comes to realizing their perceived personal or business interests. It’s one thing to be so pig-headed when you’re a master of the universe. But after so many other CEOs have been felled by similar backdating imbroglios, Jobs is no longer a king. And if the SEC decides to launch a full investigation, Jobs and Apple will come under a microscope. I can’t imagine that having the Jackling House hanging over his head will be conducive to presenting him before the public as a fully sympathetic individual nor as one fully willing to respect the law as it pertains to him.

The Amazon link above to Spanish Revival Architecture features Jackling House prominently as a sterling example of this vintage architectural style.

Tikun Olam Linked in New York Times Real Estate Blog!

Thursday, March 2nd, 2006

I just had to add that exclamation point at the end of my title even though most of the rest of the world will find this post ho-hum. I’ve been blogging for four years and using the Times as a media source almost every day. I’ve never been linked at the Nytimes.com site, ever. Here’s how Tikun Olam found itself linked there.

Walkthrough blog screenshotTikun Olam in the Times

I helped create a historic preservation group, Uphold Our Heritage, which is fighting to preserve Jackling House. This is the house that Steve Jobs has been fighting for four years to demolish. The group won a major legal battle in California Superior Court with a judge turning down Jobs’ request to demolish the house, which was designed by renowned California architect, George Washington Smith.

I’ve written several posts about the legal battle. Yesterday, a Silicon Valley online gossip rag (yes, there are such things I guess!), Valleywag.com, picked up my story. The only problem is that the editor got the story wrong in one fundamental detail. He wrote:

the town acts like he wants to build a giant Borg cube designed by Jonathan Ive. They say the old house is too historical to tear down.

Actually, the Town of Woodside would love for Jobs to tear down the house and build a “giant Borg cube” on the site. Only Uphold Our Heritage stood between Jackling House and the wrecking ball.

Valleywag.com’s story was in turn picked up by the Times’ real estate blog, Walkthrough. So that’s how I made the Times.

For several years I’ve been complaining that the Times is behind the times (so to speak) technologically. I’ve pointed out how the Nytimes.com site does not integrate common online features into its site. But I have to say that if these new niche blogs that the Times offers can decentralize and democratize the site enough so it can include someone like me who’s previously been ignored–then clearly Marty Nisenholtz and Nytimes.com are doing something right.

California Judge Rules Steve Jobs Can’t Tear Down Historic Jackling House

Tuesday, February 28th, 2006

Jackling HouseDaniel Jackling House, Woodside, CA. (photo: Woodside History Committee)

On January 27th, California Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner rendered a final judgment against Steve Jobs in his bid to demolish the historic Jackling House. Uphold Our Heritage, a group I’ve supported even before its formal inception, led the battle to preserve the home when the Town of Woodside essentially capitulated to Jobs’ demand that the house must go.

Daniel JacklingDaniel Jackling, founder of Utah Copper Company (photo: NN.Railfan.net)

The house was built by Daniel Jackling, a western mining magnate who revolutionized the copper industry at the turn of the century. He built his palace in 1923. I’m certain he was as entrepreneurial in his day as Jobs’ is in ours. It was designed by renowned California architect George Washington Smith (who was responsible for Santa Barbara’s “Spanish hacienda” style). For further background, see my earlier post about the campaign to save Jackling. The Uphold Our Heritage site also contains valuable information about the home’s history and the architect’s legacy.

Bloomberg News published its own story about the case yesterday, Apple’s Jobs Fights Preservationists Who Want to Save His House. Apparently, CNN ran a story which made a bollocks out of the entire case saying that Jobs was fighting with the Town of Woodside which was attempting to prevent him from demolishing the home (it isn’t, but Uphold Our Heritage IS). The reporter accepted at face value Jobs’ contention that the house is a “monstrosity.” I’ve tried to find this story on their website without success. Apparently, they thought better of profiling it online.

Last December, when Weiner filed her preliminary decision I wrote Steve Jobs Loses Fight to Demolish Historic Landmark. Now that the decision is final I’m delighted. Of course, Jobs attorney has publicly stated that his client will appeal the ruling to the State Supreme Court. This will land Jobs in the same spotlight as David Geffen, another celebrity who took land use decisions into his own hands–and lost. In Geffen’s case, he defied the State’s right to permit public access to his beachfront property in order for individuals to get to the Malibu beach. I’m glad that the Supreme Court doesn’t take it lightly when celebrities ride roughshod over State law when it comes to uses of their property.

Here is a portion of Weiner’s decision:

The administrative record reflects a severe lack of evidence supporting…findings that the EIR alternatives are “economically unjustifiable” or economically infeasible [this refers to Jobs' claim that relocating the home was economically unjustified].

…Their [the Town of Woodside's] finding of economic infeasiblity is not supported by substantial evidence, and was arbitrary and capricious. This was an abuse of discretion.

What the Town…approved is the utter antithesis of its existing General Plan. The theme of the General Plan is one of conservation, preservation, and certainly maintenance of existing structures. It is arbitrary and capricious for the Town of Woodside to imply or interpolate the provisions of the General Plan contrary to its express components.

Such findings simply demonstrate the Town Council’s exaggerated efforts to find a means to the end that Jobs seeks.

In regard to the “conditions” placed upon the demolition permit [that Jobs take a year to find someone willing to move the house off-site] , there has been no showing that these conditions are actually enforceable [i.e. if there were a buyer willing to relocate the house, Jobs would be under no obligation to turn the house over to him/her]. Jobs is the sole decision maker in determining whether or not to accept any proposals for relocation.

Woodside made a finding that the EIR alternative to have the house relocated to another site was not feasible, yet it required that efforts be made to see if the house could be relocated to another site to a willing taker. This demonstrates the absurdity of the “findings” of infeasibility made by Woodside.

Accordingly the finding of overriding consideration was not supported by substantial evidence, and the granting of the demolition permit by Woodside to Jobs was an abuse of discretion.

Congratulations to Clotilde Luce and Uphold Our Heritage for waging a brilliant campaign with the help of Chatten-Brown Carstens, a law firm specializing in cases involving the California Environmental Quality Act. This is a huge victory for historic preservation. It should be a lesson for cities (like mine here in Seattle) which have essentially no regulations intended to preserve existing housing stock (and especially historic homes). Preserve it or lose it!

UOH’s defense of Jobs’ appeal will cost at least $35,000. UOH has confidence it has a strong case on appeal. If you admire historic architecture, if you’ve ever visited Santa Barbara and loved it, if you believe in preserving our artistic heritage, and if you just want to make sure Goliath doesn’t get to run roughshod over the Davids of this world, please consider making a contribution to support the legal defense of Jackling House via the group’s Paypal account.

Tax-deductible donations may also be made through:

National Trust for Historic Preservation
Western Office
8 California Street
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94111-4828

Please note “for Jackling House” on the check.

Steve Jobs Failed Fight to Demolish Jackling House, My Scoop That Never Was

Saturday, January 7th, 2006
steve jobs-jackling house post screenshotMy blown shot at a national news scoop

You remember the old saw: what if a tree fell in the forest and nobody heard it? Well, today I’m asking the question: what if you’re a blogger who publishes a national news scoop and nobody knows?

I don’t normally consider myself a blogger who creates hard news stories. But last week, I published a post here which was a scoop: Steve Jobs Loses Fight to Demolish Historic Landmark. On December 28th, a California Superior Court judge turned down Steve Jobs application to tear down the Daniel Jackling House, a historic residence in Woodside, CA. He’d been fighting Uphold Our Heritage (UOH), a historic preservation group established to fight for the home’s survival, for over a year. The group’s founder informed me of the court ruling on December 28th. I first published my post on December 30th. I wrote to a good number of media sites including the San Jose Mercury News, the Los Angeles Times and the Seattle Times (my local paper, where I know the assistant editor for business) querying their interest in my story. My friend was the only one who replied and he declined the story saying he didn’t think it “was up his alley.”

Shortly after I published, UOH’s founder invited Peter Slatin over to dinner. He publishes a real estate blog at Forbes.com. Slatin published the first mainstream media story on Jobs’ court defeat on January 4th. Shortly thereafter, AP picked up the story. I just checked Google News and 100 media outlets now have the story. And guess who finally published: the San Jose Mercury News! That’s the tale of my scoop that never was.

Scores of people are coming to my site as a result of those Google News links, but very indirectly. Google News isn’t referring them to my site. Google Images has crawled my photos of Jackling House. That’s what’s bringing them to me. Google web search isn’t even drawing many visitors. I feel like a blog news prophet without honor in my own country.

There’s a lesson in there somewhere. I’ve learned a few of my own. First, I’ve asked Google News to include my blog as one of their news sources. I hope they’ll respond favorably to my request. Second, I think this shows that many reporters rely on news wires like AP to tell them what’s newsworthy instead of relying on their own judgment and sources. Third, mainstream media continue to look askance at blogs as legitimate news sources. I’m sure MSM does look to blogs for generating some stories. But in the borderline areas that this story was in journalistically, reporters probably weren’t willing to see this as newsworthy until it’d been validated by one of their own, AP.

I think that’s unfortunate. Of course I say that for selfish reasons as no journalist or blogger wishes to see their scoop relegated to the dustbin of news history. But there’s a more serious point here. At least the story I was covering did get picked up. But think of the thousands or even tens of thousands of stories that bloggers may generate which are truly newsworthy, but not in the eyes of mainstream journalists.

Just think about that national scoop I offered my friend at the Seattle Times. I wonder if he’s having any second thoughts.

Steve Jobs Loses Fight to Demolish Historic Landmark

Friday, December 30th, 2005
Jackling HouseDaniel Jackling House, Woodside, CA. (source: Woodside History Committee)

I’m pleased to announce that Steve Jobs has lost his long and bitter struggle to demolish the historic Jackling House in Woodside, CA. The house was built by Daniel Jackling, a mining magnate in 1923. It was designed by renowned California architect George Washington Smith (who was responsible for Santa Barbara’s “Spanish hacienda” style). For further background, see my earlier post about the campaign to save Jackling.

California Superior Court judge Marie Weiner ruled yesteday (December 28th) that the Woodside town council acted in bad faith in granting Jobs a demolition permit:

The administrative record reflects a severe lack of evidence supporting any and all findings that the EIR alternatives are “economically unjustifiable” or economically infeasible.

George Washington Smith: Architect of the Spanish-Colonial Revival

All of this is unknown to the Town Council and thus their finding of economic infeasiblity is not supported by substantial evidence, and was arbitrary and capricious. This was an abuse of discretion.

What the Town of Woodside has approved is the utter antithesis of its existing General Plan. .. The theme of the General Plan is one of conservation, preservation, and certainly maintenance of existing structures. It is arbitrary and capricious for the Town of Woodside to imply or interpellate the provisions of the General Plan contrary to its express components.

Such findings simply demonstrate the Town Council’s exaggerated efforts to find a means to the end that Jobs seeks.

In regard to the “conditions” placed upon the demolition permit [that Jobs take a year to find someone willing to move the house off-site] , there has been no showing that these conditions are actually enforceable. Jobs is the sole decision maker in determining whether or not to accept any proposals for relocation.

Woodside made a finding that the EIR alternative to have the house relocated to another site was not feasible, yet it required that efforts be made to see if the house could be relocated to another site to a willing taker. This demonstrates the absurdity of the “findings” of infeasibility made by Woodside.

Accordingly the finding of overriding consideration was not supported by substantial evidence, and the granting of the demolition permit by Woodside to Jobs was an abuse of discretion.

–decision provided by Uphold Our Heritage

Jackling House 1960Jackling House, 1960

This is a preliminary ruling which could be amended by the judge before it is made final in ten days. But it is almost a certainty that Jackling House is safe.

Jobs has owned the house for several decades and allowed it to fall into serious disrepair. Preservationists have speculated that Jobs deliberately allowed it to deteriorate in order to strengthen his claim that the only solution would be to tear it down.

Now Jobs is faced with some serious choices. Either he can sell the house, renovate it (which would be an interesting choice considering that he has publicly said that he “detests” it), or abandon it allowing its condition to worsen even further. The last choice would be quite cruel and mean-spirited (at least as far as the house is concerned), but Jobs has shown a great deal of malice during the campaign to save the house so I wouldn’t put it past him.

Great congratulations go to Clotilde Luce and Uphold Our Heritage for waging a brilliant campaign (with the help of Chatten-Brown Carstens, a law firm specializing in cases involving the California Environmental Quality Act). This is a huge victory for historic preservation. It should be a lesson for cities (like mine here in Seattle) which have essentially almost no housing regulations intended to preserve existing housing stock (and especially historic homes). Preserve it or lose it!

Watch Out What You Say About Apple…They Might Sue You

Sunday, March 13th, 2005

Judge James Kleinberg of the Santa Clara Superior Court ruled that three Apple-fan websites violated Apple’s copyrights by publishing insider information about upcoming company products (Apple Can Demand Names of Bloggers, Judge Says). This ruling allows Apple to subpoena the names of the confidential Apple informants who provided the information to the websites. Some of the judge’s reasoning according to the Times article:

Judge Kleinberg wrote that assuming Apple’s accusations are true [that the informants are Apple employees], the information is “stolen property, just as any physical item, such as a laptop computer containing the same information on its hard drive (or not) would be.”

Here we go again. This is the same fahrstunteh (“nutcase” in Yiddish) argument used by record companies regarding music file-sharing: “you’re stealing our property.”

To me, Kleinberg’s argument is terribly one-sided and refuses to take into account the nature of the websites in question. They are not attempting to profit from their purported purloined information. They are Apple enthusiasts who want to share their love of Apple and its products with others. In this sense, the fan websites help build excitement among the general population for Apple’s innovations. It’s little different from the new car enthusiasts who try to photograph prototype car designs in order to share with fellow car hounds. They’re building brand recognition and loyalty by fueling people’s desire to know about things they love such as technology products or new cars:

“Apple suing its most enthusiastic fans is like the Grateful Dead suing its concert bootleg tape makers,” said Paul Saffo, director of the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, Calif. Fan recordings have fueled that band’s popularity over the years. Mr. Saffo said the rumor mill had only helped Apple in the last 20 years.

If Apple were smart, they would try to build alliances with these sites and use them to build their marketing campaigns for these products, instead of making them enemies by suing them. In all this, Apple is going the litigious route of Microsoft in suing anyone and everyone who threatens them in even the most remote way. Apple is lucky it has such a devoted following because otherwise, this type of draconian, copyright-owner-take-all approach would sour people terribly.

Finally, I’ll close with Judge Kleinberg’s most incredulous statement:

[He] acknowledged that the public had a huge appetite for news about Apple, but said that “unlike the whistle-blower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials,” the Web sites are “doing nothing more than feeding the public’s insatiable desire for information.”

First, what’s so bad about ‘feeding the public’s desire for information??” Isn’t that what the mainstream media does by definition? And isn’t feeding the public’s desire for information performing a positive societal role? I think the judge was trying to liken the fan sites to paparazzi who feed fans’ insatiable appetite for gossip. But the Apple fan sites are nothing like paparazzi because they’re not exploiting Apple for financial gain. Instead, they’re performing a public service by informing Apple consumers of new product lines and technological developments at the company. How could any reasonable person (sans Steve Jobs of course) say that’s a bad thing?

Happily, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represents the websites, says it will appeal the decision all the way to the California Supreme Court if necessary. If you own Apple products, let Steve Jobs know of your displeasure. You may write to Apple spokesperson, Steve Dowling to make your feelings known.

Steve Jobs: Attila the Hun of Architectural Preservation

Sunday, January 2nd, 2005

UPDATE: After writing this post, Clotilde Luce, a former resident of Jackling House, started an organization, Uphold Our Heritage, whose purpose is to preserve Jackling House. If you’d like to support their efforts, please click this button which will enable you to donate to the group’s Paypal account.

*********************************

Apparently, Steve Jobs never met a historic home he couldn’t imagine tearing down to replace it with something soulless, sleek and new. Certainly not the Daniel C. Jackling House (1926) which he’s owned in Woodside, CA since 1983 (Free to a Good Home: A Captain of Industry’s Rejected Mansion).

Jackling_front_lawn_tp1

Jackling House vista (credit: Woodside History Committee-all photos from this source unless otherwise noted)

The San Francisco Chronicle wrote a good story in October, 2004 describing the home:

The house in Woodside sits hidden in the woods on a private lane off Mountain Home Road and was built in 1926 for copper baron Daniel C. Jackling. It was designed by George Washington Smith, who created the red-tile-and- stucco look of Santa Barbara and neighboring Montecito and whose Pettigrew House in Palo Alto is on the National Register of Historic Places. Smith homes in Santa Barbara and Montecito sell for tens of millions of dollars.

Gw_smith

George Washington Smith created the architectural style
of Santa Barbara, but Steve Jobs “never heard of him.”
(credit: Architect.com)

The Woodside Town Council has just approved Jobs’ questionable plan to tear down the home if he cannot find someone to take it off his hands–free. I say, if Jobs wants to build a new home there–let him. But why not make him pay the $2.5-million it’d take to relocate it and rebuild it? Why the Town Council has let Jobs off so lightly is a mystery to me. You mean poor Steve can’t afford to shell out the extra $2.5-million? That’s nothing for the likes of Steve Jobs, all he has to do is sell a few hundred thousand more iPods to make up the difference. If I were Steve Jobs, I’d move the house, restore it and recruit a non-profit organization to manage it as a museum dedicated to the architectural legacy of George Washington Smith or to California architecture. Instead of coming across as a boorish, uncultured philistine, for a change Jobs would come across as a mature, civic-minded individual. What a difference that would make!

Daniel C. Jackling House–a Steve Jobs tear down?

Instead, this clueless Joe has made the following ignorant comments about his home showing he has an absolutely tin ear and obtuse mind when it comes to understanding the value of preserving a culture’s architectural legacy:

Jobs, the billionaire chief executive of Apple and Pixar, who has called the mansion, built for an earlier captain of industry, the copper baron Daniel C. Jackling, “one of the biggest abominations of a house I’ve ever seen.”

At a hearing earlier this year, he explained that he had always intended to knock it down, calling the house “poorly built” and professing never to have heard of the architect, George Washington Smith, revered elsewhere in California for creating, among other things, the architectural look of Santa Barbara.

“Why should I invest a lot of money to keep it protected when I want to tear it down?”

“It was never really a very interesting house to start with,” he told the planning commissioners. “So I think I could build something far, far nicer and far more historically interesting down the road.”

He described [the house] as “pretty much a dump when I moved in.”

Mr. Jobs said of Mr. Jackling: “He was a very wealthy man. Unfortunately, he didn’t have very good taste.”

Says who, Mr. Jobs? And you have better taste? Please don’t make me laugh! And finally we have this nugget from his attorney, who doesn’t appear to have a much more developed sense of decency than his client: “All he wants is the house off the property,” Mr. Ellman said. “What happens next is of little or no concern.”

Thalia Lubin, architect and member of the Woodside History Committee put the lie to all of this intellectual chicanery in this statement: The estate is “part of the cultural fabric of the town,” she said. “Every time you lose one of those threads, you’ve lost a little bit of history.”

Harry Kolb, a Santa Barbara real estate agent specializing in sales of George Washington Smith homes, places Smith into broader architectural context:

Smith is “revered” for his neo-European designs and wanted the homes to appear upon construction as if they had been expanded over the generations. He used multiple roof lines and non-functioning chimneys and varied the iron work adorning windows. Inside, he designed corner fireplaces, tile floors that rose slightly higher in the center of the room and rooms twice as long as they were wide with coffers, beam work and painted medallions in the ceilings to create an intimate feel, Kolb said.

Smith also liked to surprise homeowners with steps going up or down into a room simply for artistic purposes and indoor-outdoor walkways that would force residents to go outside to get to their bedrooms or other rooms in the house.

Kolb considers the homes works of art but knows they are not suited to everyone.

“I can understand someone saying a house of the 1920s isn’t appropriate today. They didn’t have kitchen-living rooms, their closets were small — people have more than three changes of clothing today. On the other hand, it’s just as easy for somebody who really likes that type of architecture to point out all the things that are special and that you don’t want to lose.”

Why should the architectural judgments of Neanderthals like Steve Jobs be substituted for architectural historians like the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which decries the effort to tear down the Jackling House?

Clotilde Luce, an architectural preservationist who lived in the Jackling House in the 1970s and is leading the effort to preserve it said this about Jobs’ plans: “I think it’s irresponsible and predatory to deprive the house to future owners, ones who know the value of a 17,000-square-foot masterwork by a great California architect.”

Cities, towns and neighborhoods throughout this country are fighting losing battles to preserve their architectural heritage. Young nouveau riche like Steve Jobs come along and feel they need to make their own architectural statements with the new palaces they wish to build. They know nothing of what has come before them. They care little what will come after them. They want what they want when they want it. Pity the poor, decrepit old home that stands in their way.

Don’t know about you, but I can do without Apple products in my life as long as Steve Jobs wants to be the Attila the Hun of historic preservation. Shame on you, Steve Jobs. You should know better!

Some of the above quotations come from this article in the International Herald Tribune (also published in the New York Times): Steve Jobs brings down the house