Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

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 ‘uphold-our-heritage’

Jobs’ Jackling House Saved? Not Really

Friday, July 17th, 2009
Jackling House in happier days (1960)

Jackling House in happier days (1960)

An article in a Silicon Valley newspaper misleadingly heralds an agreement between Steve Jobs and the town of Woodside that supposedly guarantees the preservation of Jackling House, a historic California home he owns in that town. It was originally built for copper baron Daniel Jackling, who, like Jobs, made a fortune in a new technology of his day, providing the copper for electric wiring. Jackling commissioned George Washington Smith, who later created the Spanish Revival look of Santa Barbara, to build his dream palace.

For several years, Gordon Smythe, a technology entrepreneur, has offered to preserve Jackling House and Jobs has refused because he preferred tearing it down in order to build Mr. Blandings dream house on the six acre property.

After a historic preservation group, Uphold Our Heritage, organized to block Jobs’ plans and won a victory in State Superior Court, Jobs attempted to appeal to the State Supreme Court. But he also allowed his lawyer to reopen talks with Smythe. It appears that they’ve come to an agreement and that was what the town council approved.

Jobs malign neglect of Jackling House

What does this agreement actually do? Does it preserve Jackling House? Not really. Uphold Our Heritage has engaged experts who’ve told them relocation of the House would cost approximately $4-million excluding the purchase of a new piece of property. Jobs has always refused to pony up this money. And in this agreement he offers $600,000 for Smythe to take it off his hands. The problem is that Smythe does not yet have a property to which to move the House, nor does he have the funds for the actual relocation.

In the interim, he plans to store the House in pieces. When and if he does restore it in a new location, he’s specified that he will only rebuild the original portion of the House built in 1925, but will not restore a 1931 addition.

So we really have a half-assed resolution of the issue. This is why Uphold Our Heritage will go before Judge Weiner in August to present its position on the agreement. The group hasn’t yet determined what that position will be, but if it does oppose the deal and the judge finds in UOH’s favor, then it’ll be back to the drawing board. And it will mean the continuation of Jobs’ painful neglect of the home which has turned it into a boarded-up relic.

Typically, Jobs’ attorney has placed blame on the preservation group if it derails any agreement with Smythe, claiming that it stands in the way of restoration of the House.  When it comes to people like Steve Jobs, it’s always the other guy’s fault.  Never his own.  Given his billions, shelling out $4 million to save this House is a pittance.  But he just won’t do it on principle.

Given Jobs’ history of high-handed, opaque behavior as a corporate CEO in which he attempted to conceal backdated stock options and refused to tell his shareholders that he’d undergone a liver transplant (until he had no choice), it’s not surprising that he’s willing to see a beautiful example of California historic architecture go to ruin in a fit of personal pique.

California Supreme Court Refuses Jobs Appeal, Jackling House Saved!

Friday, April 27th, 2007
Jackling HouseDaniel Jackling House, ‘tear-down’ no more (Woodside History Committee)

When last we saw our hero, Steve Jobs he had lost a Superior Court case attempting to demolish historic Jackling House in Woodside, California created by famed architect George Washington Smith (designer of many Santa Barbara Spanish Revival buildings). Steve, never one to accept anything that stands in the way of realizing his ambitions, asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. This week it refused. This means that Jobs has exhausted his legal remedies and must find someone to take the House and relocate it if he [Jobs] still wishes to build his dream house on the property.

Uphold Our Heritage, the preservation group established to save the house has always advocated for a resolution that would allow Jobs to build his new home while preserving Jackling House. Unfortunately, he has persevered in demanding his right to destroy it. The preservation group has found several preservation-minded individuals interested in negotiating with Jobs about relocating the home. Let’s hope that Jobs will see reason and begin negotiations in earnest with one of these potential buyers and the UOH attorney, Doug Carstens.

It never needed to come to this. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees, thousands of hours of staff time by the city of Woodside and various judicial venues that heard the case. I guess when you’re Steve Jobs the world marches to your rhythm rather than the other way around.

I get a lot of people coming to these posts who tell me in their infinite wisdom as ‘architectural historians’ that Jackling House looks like a load of rubbish. To them I’ll add a few quotes from the Uphold Our Heritage site:

The Jackling House [is in] the California Register of Historic Places for its association with an historic figure, copper baron Daniel Jackling, and for its exemplary design and materials, the work of master architect George Washington Smith, known as the “Founding Father” of Spanish Revival architecture in this country.

…George Washington Smith is one of only NINE great California estate designers acknowledged in “The Garden Book” (Phaidon, 2002). Smith gets a full page in the book, along with the world’s most important designers of palaces, châteaux, country houses, including Thomas Jefferson, Frank Lloyd Wright, and the designers of the Alhambra, the Imperial Palace and Gardens in Tokyo, and Versailles!

In her book on “The Santa Barbara Style” (Rizzoli, New York, 2001) author Kathryn Masson lauds:

Smith’s masterful interpretation of the architectural vocabulary of vernacular buildings in Andalusian Spain. His use of authentic materials and command of architectural forms convey a romantic Mediterranean atmosphere. Traditional Spanish design is authenticated by thick stuccoed walls that allow for deep window and door openings, heavy overhangs with carved wooden corbels that throw structured shadows back onto the gleaming wall surfaces, and design elements such as hidden gardens, colonnaded porches, and multi-leveled building units with varying rooflines.

On a related subject, I noted that the NY Times business columnist Joe Nocera (TimesSelect required) wrote today about Steve Jobs and the current Apple options backdating scandal. Some of his observations of Jobs’ personality and behavior are amazingly pertinent to his actions in the Jackling House case:

Now let’s look at the other [second] grant–the 7.5 million options to Mr. Jobs himself…

Consider, first, Mr. Jobs’s desire to replace the 20 million options [which were "under water"] with the 7.5 million options. What he was really trying to do was reprice his options without actually admitting that — because repricing would entail an accounting expense. To avoid the expense, he was supposed to wait six months and a day after the cancellation of the first package before Apple gave him the new package.

But he was Steve Jobs, and he wasn’t about to go optionless for six months and a day…

You get the strong impression that nobody dared to say no to Mr. Jobs, a notoriously difficult and abrasive chief executive. One imagines the trepidation of the compensation committee members — or Ms. Heinen [corporate counsel] — in telling him that he couldn’t get a low option price because the stock had risen during the negotiations.

So instead, they found a date in October that approximated the stock price in August — and an underling created phony board minutes.

What is particularly galling is the double standard. You hear from lots of sophisticated investors that it would be terrible if Mr. Jobs were forced out at Apple. How, they say, would that help Apple shareholders?

But lots of other chiefs have lost their jobs because of options backdating, and several have even been indicted. However indispensable he may be, the notion that Mr. Jobs can’t be touched because he’s Steve Jobs is something terribly corrosive.

If the S.E.C. is coming to the view that options backdating is just a peccadillo, as Silicon Valley has claimed all along, it should say so. But if it believes this is serious stuff, then it shouldn’t be making excuses for Steve Jobs, as it appears to be doing.

As for Mr. Jobs, as hard as he’s worked to convey the image of an above-the-fray visionary, that’s not quite the reality, is it? I recently stumbled across this comment from him, circa 1985: “I’m at a stage where I don’t have to do things just to get by. But then I’ve always been that way, because I’ve never really cared about money.”

Yeah, right.

What Nocera notes, and the Jackling House episode confirms, is that Steve Jobs could have close to what he wants, but not quite the whole echilada, if he would just compromise a wee bit with reality in the form of corporate securities law (the stock options) or the California code (preserving Jackling House). But he won’t do it–on self-serving principle. And that’s where he gets himself into trouble. In the case of Jackling House, it isn’t a matter that will bring his empire down like a house of cards. In the case of the options scandal, it probably should but it won’t. Again, Steve Jobs lives a charmed life–one that isn’t earned. And that, as Nocera correctly note, is “something terribly corrosive” of societal values.

Jobs’ behavior concerning both Jackling House and the options scandal betrays his egomania and vanity. What he really wants to do regarding the house is tear it down so he can outdo his other Silicon Valley tycoon rivals who’ve built sumptuous palaces as monuments to their own egos. The irony here is that it’s possible that might’ve been Daniel Jackling’s own motive in originally building the house, since he himself was a copper baron trying to make his mark in the 1920s with an architectural statement. But regardless of whether there was vanity or ego involved in the original creation of this landmark, it has withstood the test of time in its 90 years of existence and is worthy of preservation.

Jackling House Historic Photos and Steve Jobs Taken Down a Peg or Two

Monday, January 22nd, 2007

For the latest update on Steve Jobs’ failure to gain a review by the California Supreme Court in his effort to destroy Jackling House, see this post.

Just after Steve Jobs lost his bid to demolish Jackling House, Christopher Lloyd visited the blog and wrote me a fascinating story about his personal bond to the House. In the early 1970s, a close relative owned the property and invited Christoper and his family to visit. They did and he had an enchanting stay. His father took these images and I reprint them here with Christopher’s kind permission. Should anyone visiting, wish to use these images you must contact him for permission. Clotilde Luce of Uphold Our Heritage, a former resident of the House herself, says these images fill a gap in the historical documentation of the House. So I reprint them here with pleasure.


Most of the previous photos I’ve seen have been in black and white and have not shown many exterior details of the house and its landscaping. What I like about Christoper’s images is that they show wonderful exterior details; and they also show how the House ‘lived’ in its surroundings. For those who know the northern California landscape, these pictures will remind you of the wonderfully lush understory of stately California oaks. The House here looks nothing like a manicured museum like Filoli, another historic home in the area. Jackling House here is lovingly maintained, but it is most of all lived in. It looks like it is being used, but used well. It would make George Washington Smith, its architect proud.


Jackling House front perspective Jackling House driveway
Jackling House door Jackling House outside door
Jackling House outside Jackling House courtyard

Now for something completely different. I love the dripping sarcasm of this column in the San Jose Mercury News by Patty Fisher:

Howard Ellman, Steve Jobs’ attorney, sounded pretty annoyed when I called him last week to ask about the Jackling House.

I wanted to know how Jobs had reacted when a state appeals court ruled Thursday that he couldn’t tear down his 30-bedroom historic mansion in Woodside.

Didn’t I understand how busy Mr. Jobs was? Ellman asked me. Didn’t I read my own newspaper?

Indeed, I understand. What with Macworld, Cisco Systems’ trademark lawsuit over the iPhone and those sticky questions about backdated options, Apple’s iconic chief executive had more pressing things on his mind than some drafty old house.

Not that the house has ever been a pressing issue for Jobs. Since 2000, he has neglected it, hoping it would fall down so he could build a smaller and spiffier house in its place.

Jobs is good at making things smaller and spiffier.

She notes that Gordon Smythe, a local venture capitalist, is very interested in taking on the house and moving it to a suitable local site. But Jobs, alas, hasn’t taken his interest seriously even though it would seem, after his two court losses, to be the only way Mr. Jobs’ Dream House will get built on the Jackling site:

Smythe wants to seal the deal, but Jobs is a tough guy to get a meeting with these days. Considering they live in the same neighborhood, I suggest Smythe stroll by with his baby and knock on Jobs’ door.

Kids grow up so quickly. If Jobs wants to build his own dream house before his kids leave home, he might want to move this project to the top of his to-do list.

After all, one thing we know about a cool gadget like the iPhone (or the Appletalker or CisNO or whatever the lawyers decide to call it) is that it becomes obsolete in a nanosecond. Someone — probably Jobs — will always design something even smaller and spiffier.

A house, on the other hand, can last for generations.

Or not, if Steve Jobs could have his way. Thank God, two California courts have told him he can’t.

UPDATE: Several commenters below have incorrectly claimed that when Jobs bought the House the law under which he is currently forbidden from demolishing it was not in effect. In their view, Jobs bought the building assuming he could do with it as he wished and then the State changed the rules on him thereby punishing him unfairly. This is not the case. Jobs bought the property in 1984 and the California Environmental Quality Act was passed in the 1970s.

Steve Jobs Loses Uanimous Court of Appeals Ruling, Jackling House Saved

Wednesday, January 10th, 2007
Jackling HouseDaniel Jackling House, ‘tear-down’ no more (Woodside History Committee)

Today brings news of a major legal victory for historic preservationists in their effort to preserve the historic Jackling House, currently owned by Steve Jobs. For over a year, Jobs’ has inveigled to circumvent California preservation ordinances which call for significant attempts to preserve historic homes before demolishing them. Jobs proposed demolishing the home to replace it with a newly constructed residence.

First, the Superior Court ruled unequivocally that he had not exhausted such efforts (actually, that he hadn’t even pursued any such remedies). Here’s how UOH’s attorney, Douglas Carstens characterized the victory:

January 2006 Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner decided unequivocally in favor of Uphold our Heritage. Judge Weiner found Mr. Jobs and the Town Council had sought to evade required provisions under the California Environmental Quality Act. Judge Weiner concluded that there was not evidence to support a finding that there were no feasible alternatives to demolishing this historic resource.

After losing the first round, instead of negotiating in good faith with the three serious offers from potential buyers, Jobs chose to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Today, this Court ruled unanimously that Jobs hadn’t a legal leg to stand on. Again, UOH’s attorney said:

The Court of Appeal upheld the mandate of the California Environmental Quality Act that projects with significant adverse impacts must be denied if there are feasible alternatives.

The San Francisco Chronicle story covering the ruling characterized one portion of the ruling of the three judge court:

The court cited estimates by the town’s Planning Commission staff that the house would cost $4.9 million to rehabilitate and another $4.1 million to add living quarters, office space and a fitness area. Jobs’ estimate was higher, but he failed to provide any information about the cost of building his proposed new home on the site, the court said.

Without that information, “it is not possible to determine whether the cost of renovating the existing historic structure is reasonable or feasible,” Justice Stuart Pollak said.

Although Jobs can’t be forced to restore the mansion, Pollak said, the town can’t allow him to tear down the historic structure as long as preservation remains a realistic alternative.

Reading between the lines, I’m wondering whether Judge Pollak is saying that if Jobs has presented a realistic cost for his new dream house that it would’ve been a multiple (given the enormous sums spent by the high tech Mr. Blandings when they build their dream houses) of the $9-million proposed cost of restoring Jackling House. Thus, the court would’ve been able to say to Jobs that restoring Jackling House is NOT infeasible compared to the cost of building his new dream house. Since Jobs didn’t present this cost to them, they have no way of judging whether $9 million is a reasonable number or not.

I don’t yet have the actual written ruling. But when I do I will quote it here.

A sweet victory. Jackling House is saved. So California justice has thankfully ruled that celebrities and the God awful powerful are subject to the same laws as you or I. Now, let’s hope that the Justice Department will take a page from California justice and not deem a popular high tech CEO above the law regarding his backdating of company stock options.

Mr. Jobs, a piece of unsolicited advice, there are three serious offers on the table. Instead of appealing this all the way to the State Supreme Court, see reason and sit down and talk with the three potential buyers. We’ve had enough of the noblesse oblige approach. Try abiding by the law and making a good faith effort to preserve the House. If you can satisfy the preservationists with a proposal to move Jackling to a satisfactory alternate site, you might still get to building your dream house. But you don’t get to back out of your obligation to preserve a valuable architectural legacy.

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.