City will not allow Steve Jobs to demolish own home

[IJ Reilly]

Well, it's sure not going to change as long as no one speaks out against it.

You make a huge assumption, which is that your view should or would prevail. I think it most certainly should not, and would not, as I think most people understand that it would represent a step right back into the 19th century, a place where some people like to live in their minds, but the vast majority would not like to live with their bodies.

As for Kelo (not to change the subject), but this is one of the most completely misunderstood Supreme Court decisions of recent years. It in fact changed absolutely nothing in terms of the law. What shocked people about Kelo is that local governments in many states have powers or eminent domain beyond what they might expect. The lesson is that you might just want to pay some attention to what your local government is doing with its powers to condemn private property.

Speaking of what people know and don't know, in this and previous threads on this subject I made an effort to explain some of the legal and technical issues at work here, since I happen to know them in detail. I eventually gave up because the number of people who were actually interested in the facts was too small to justify the effort.

 

[jsw]

... I think most people understand that it would represent a step right back into the 19th century, a place where some people like to live in their minds...

And, apparently, where the "majority" want to live, because they prefer to keep fire-hazard pre-building-code 19th century relics intact forever.

But, of course, it's their right.

 

[Oryan]

Of course, I agree that zoning laws should restrict the building of outrageous structures. But, stopping people from tearing down their own property? Insane.

Let the local government buy it instead and justify the cost during the next election.

I agree that the "public" should not be able to tell landowners they can't tear down a structure, but I also don't like the idea of local government buying the property after what happened in my hometown. A guy wanted to tear down an old, long-vacant $40,000 home. The historical preservation society convinced the city to pay $1.5 million to have the house moved. Absolutely unbelievable. Especially when we are cutting funding for education.

 

[jsw]

I agree that the "public" should not be able to tell landowners they can't tear down a structure, but I also don't like the idea of local government buying the property after what happened in my hometown. A guy wanted to tear down an old, long-vacant $40,000 home. The historical preservation society convinced the city to pay $1.5 million to have the house moved. Absolutely unbelievable. Especially when we are cutting funding for education.

What a waste of tax dollars. I would guess that the extra, oh, 10+ teacher-years that money could have paid for instead would have been less useful to the community.

 

[link92]

95 years? old?

 

[StealthRider]

...He would have no trouble finding buyers.

Not true. I believe one of the conditions for his demolition of the house was that he had to offer it for sale for a set amount of time. No one wanted to buy it, therefore, until the nutjob California courts stepped in, he would have been allowed to demolish it.

What the hell is this? City governments can no longer handle zoning, etc.?

And stop double-posting. It's annoying. Someone on here as long as you should know better.

 

[Counterfit]

I would love to live in an Ive ininspired house!!

Rounded white acrylic with brushed aluminum accents? No thank you

 

[jsw]

Rounded white acrylic with brushed aluminum accents? No thank you

Don't forget - Ive would also make it incredibly small. The new, 1' cubed, iHouse™.

 

[nbs2]

IJ, please don't take my earlier comments too personally. If we were to hang out, I would likely not talk to you about your employment - but we could talk Macs

Anyhow, here is the issue that I have - what is the effect on external actors. Do I think that there is a point to wetland regulation or zoning restrictions? Yes - what a person uilds on their property will affect the community directly. It isn't an issue of "I don't like green houses because they make the neighborhood look tacky," but damage to the property of others, especially as the other owners purchased their plots within the expectation of establishe development plans.

I agree with many others that tearing down this house would be no different than destroying Guernica or the Mona Lisa or the David or any other piece of art (were they to be held by a private owner). If that is what the owner wants, so be it. If someone else wishes to preserve the art, make an offer that can't be refused. If Steve bought the home with the historic designation already applied, I would think that he would have a duty to fulfill the requirements of the sale. However, if there was not, the I believe he is within his rights.*

My other concern is that the judge and the historic society believe that the owner is not a sufficient determiner of the quality of bids that are made for the property. Beyond the protected classes, if property truely is private, should not the owner(s) be the sole decider(s) of to whom it is sold?

*This opinion disregards any legal opinions on the subject. As in all things, the SCOTUS can look back and say that current stare decisis is wrong.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Not true. I believe one of the conditions for his demolition of the house was that he had to offer it for sale for a set amount of time. No one wanted to buy it, therefore, until the nutjob California courts stepped in, he would have been allowed to demolish it.

What the hell is this? City governments can no longer handle zoning, etc.?

And stop double-posting. It's annoying. Someone on here as long as you should know better.

Not true. The house was not offered for sale, but for relocation -- which is a very, very different kettle of fish.

I am not double-posting.

 

[jsw]

Can we all agree that, for our own individual reasons and personal beliefs, each of us would, in a heartbeat, trade places with Mr. Jobs?

Some of us would use our new-found wealth to restore the home to its original... beauty. Others would rage on about the unfairness of local laws whilst living in one of our other multi-million dollar dwellings.

And we'd know what's coming tomorrow.

 

[QCassidy352]

You make a huge assumption, which is that your view should or would prevail.

I absolutely do not make any such assumption. Please reread my post.

*If* there is enough time and support (and I honestly have no idea if there is - I suspect not because people don't care enough), this can and will change.

All I am saying is that IF there is to be a change, it can only come if those who oppose this kind of injustice speak out against it.

As for Kelo (not to change the subject), but this is one of the most completely misunderstood Supreme Court decisions of recent years.

Thanks, but i understand Kelo perfectly. You missed my point, which was simply that sometimes the ruling of the Supreme Court does not end an issue. There is no Constitutional prohibition of the kind of eminent domain taking that happened in Kelo. However, there will soon be many state statues (and hopefully a federal one) banning that kind of exercise of eminent domain. The same could happen with land regulation, the opinion of the SC notwithstanding.

 

[IJ Reilly]

My other concern is that the judge and the historic society believe that the owner is not a sufficient determiner of the quality of bids that are made for the property. Beyond the protected classes, if property truely is private, should not the owner(s) be the sole decider(s) of to whom it is sold?

This question goes straight to the heart of the technical and legal issues in play. California environmental law requires that local governments consider the environmental impacts of the actions they take (such as issuing permits for development), and to avoid or mitigate impacts whenever avoidance or mitigation is considered to be "feasible." The definition of feasibility is complicated, so I won't go into it here, but suffice to say that the environmental documents prepared in connection with the activity are supposed to address these questions. The key is, compliance with the law is the responsibility of the local government, not the property owner.

So, given my knowledge of the law and case law, and what I've read about this instance, it appears the issue here is that the city allowed Steve Jobs to decide if mitigation (e.g., the proposals to relocate the house to another site) was feasible. Big problem. The city was wide open to a suit if the issue was handled in this fashion.

BTW, the title of this thread is inaccurate. The city was entirely prepared to allow him to demolish the house. They simply tripped over their own shoelaces in an effort to issue him a permit.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Thanks, but i understand Kelo perfectly. You missed my point, which was simply that sometimes the ruling of the Supreme Court does not end an issue. There is no Constitutional prohibition of the kind of eminent domain taking that happened in Kelo. However, there will soon be many state statues (and hopefully a federal one) banning that kind of exercise of eminent domain. The same could happen with land regulation, the opinion of the SC notwithstanding.

Yes, some people have been working very hard for a long time to overturn the last 80 years or so of Fifth Amendment case law, so far to little effect. As much as I like to debate philosophy and theory, in this case I'm trying to remain in the present and real world. And in that world, the process which Steve Jobs is going through is not only Constitutional, in California, it's very much required.

 

[calculus]

Why did you buy it Steve?

Jobs says he never liked the 30-room Jackling House, which he bought 21 years ago.

I am speechless!

 

[Don't panic]

I agree with IJ on the basics concepts: there is a right/duty to preserve historic buildings, even if they are privately owned.

the funny part is that the major claim to fame of the Jackling House is probably the fact that Jobs wants to take it down (which i am sure it's ironically adding more "historic value" to the property, as 'the house that Jobs hated').

 

[w_parietti22]

If Steve wants it to happen, it will happen.

For example, some guy bought the J.C. Black mansion (see 1st pic) and torn it down without telling anybody. (see 2nd pic) This house happened to be one of the most famous houses in my neighborhood (designed by one of Frank L. Wrights preteges) and is directly across the street from the well know Kerry Park. (See 3rd)

 

[IJ Reilly]

I agree with IJ on the basics concepts: there is a right/duty to preserve historic buildings, even if they are privately owned.

the funny part is that the major claim to fame of the Jackling House is probably the fact that Jobs wants to take it down (which i am sure it's ironically adding more "historic value" to the property, as 'the house that Jobs hated').

Fame, as in currently? Yes, I suppose, given that nobody on this board but for myself probably would have known about it had Steve Jobs not been the property owner.

But I especially liked Steve's comment that any house he built might be important historically some day. Even if you like what he's done for Apple, you've got to admit, humility is not a word in his dictionary.

 

[QCassidy352]

Yes, some people have been working very hard for a long time to overturn the last 80 years or so of Fifth Amendment case law, so far to little effect. As much as I like to debate philosophy and theory, in this case I'm trying to remain in the present and real world. And in that world, the process which Steve Jobs is going through is not only Constitutional, in California, it's very much required.

We all very much understand what the law is. The court in this case made it pretty clear. If you're not interested in talking about the philosophy and theory of the situation, why participate in this discussion? To reaffirm what we already know, that the law is what it is?

Fame, as in currently? Yes, I suppose, given that nobody on this board but for myself probably would have known about it had Steve Jobs not been the property owner.

A most revealing remark. So when we say that this house is being preserved for "historical value," what does that really mean? That it's an important building, architechtually speaking, to roughly .01% of the population? So the other 9,999 out of 10,000 people (or something on that scale) couldn't identify the architect or the house... doesn't that tell you something? If practically nobody has heard of the guy or his work outside of a very small, very well-educated (on the subject) group, why should society as a whole care? I know I certainly don't.

So I really have 2 points here.
1) Even a truly historic work, like a picasso painting, should not be entitled to any sort of governmental protection when owned by a private individual. (We've been over this one for most of the thread.)
2) Even if I accept that a truly historic, significant work should be protected, shouldn't the standard for "historic and significant" be a little higher than "a very very small group of experts in the field care about it?" I mean no offense by that, really. But shouldn't this kind of governmental protection only attach to things that society as a whole actually cares about? Both Picasso's works and the National Cathedral have been mentioned in this thread. I think the public as a whole would agree that those are truly important and historically significant works. But this house?

 

[StarbucksSam]

You make a huge assumption, which is that your view should or would prevail. I think it most certainly should not, and would not, as I think most people understand that it would represent a step right back into the 19th century, a place where some people like to live in their minds, but the vast majority would not like to live with their bodies.

As for Kelo (not to change the subject), but this is one of the most completely misunderstood Supreme Court decisions of recent years. It in fact changed absolutely nothing in terms of the law. What shocked people about Kelo is that local governments in many states have powers or eminent domain beyond what they might expect. The lesson is that you might just want to pay some attention to what your local government is doing with its powers to condemn private property.

Speaking of what people know and don't know, in this and previous threads on this subject I made an effort to explain some of the legal and technical issues at work here, since I happen to know them in detail. I eventually gave up because the number of people who were actually interested in the facts was too small to justify the effort.

I think that you are living in 1950s ideals that have no basis in today's reality. As a student, I can tell you that I know very few people of my generation who have ANY appreciation for pre-modern art or architecture, and I cn assure you that ALMOST NOBODY and CERTAINLY not the majority of my generation cares about preserving "some old building" for historical purposes. While it is sad, our generation's view is that history is in the past, and we should just move on already.

I just took a poll of people who are currently online on my buddy list. I received seventeen answers from people all between the ages of 15 and 27. Most of them are about 17. The count was 15 No, 2 Yes. While this is not very scientific, it would indicate that 88% of people in my generation whom I associate with and consider to be fairly intelligent (I associate with them... I am a picky bitch) think that historic buildings have no value. Therefore, I doubt your idealistic view would prevail by any means. Should prevail... well...

I personally believe that private property is private property. While I'm all for things that enhance public safety like gun control, and things that prevent major out-of-place eyesores like zoning laws, I think that property that a private citizen owns should not be governed by whether or not it is historic. If I buy a 230-year-old house that George Washington took a leak in, it's MY 230-year-old house REGARDLESS of whether George Washington took a leak in it or not. Therefore, if I want to tear it down, it's not the government's business to tell me otherwise. If they care that much, they should have bought it themselves.

 

[IJ Reilly]

We all very much understand what the law is. The court in this case made it pretty clear. If you're not interested in talking about the philosophy and theory of the situation, why participate in this discussion? To reaffirm what we already know, that the law is what it is?

I am interested in talking about it because clearly very few understand the law. I'd be very surprised if anybody here apart from myself knew the first thing about California environmental laws. So I tried to explain them, for those who might like to know what this dispute is actually about.

A most revealing remark. So when we say that this house is being preserved for "historical value," what does that really mean? That it's an important building, architechtually speaking, to roughly .01% of the population? So the other 9,999 out of 10,000 people (or something on that scale) couldn't identify the architect or the house... doesn't that tell you something? If practically nobody has heard of the guy or his work outside of a very small, very well-educated (on the subject) group, why should society as a whole care? I know I certainly don't.

So I really have 2 points here.
1) Even a truly historic work, like a picasso painting, should not be entitled to any sort of governmental protection when owned by a private individual. (We've been over this one for most of the thread.)
2) Even if I accept that a truly historic, significant work should be protected, shouldn't the standard for "historic and significant" be a little higher than "a very very small group of experts in the field care about it?" I mean no offense by that, really. But shouldn't this kind of governmental protection only attach to things that society as a whole actually cares about? Both Picasso's works and the National Cathedral have been mentioned in this thread. I think the public as a whole would agree that those are truly important and historically significant works. But this house?

It is revealing, but in quite the opposite way you think. It's revealing that few would know let along care about this particular situation outside of the community in which it is happening, were it not for the celebrity involved. The national media attention in no way changes the facts of the situation. It only changes the number of people who feel compelled to have strong opinions about people and things they really know nothing about.

As for the historical significance of this particular building, you have little choice but to accept it, because this not the fact in dispute here. Works by Picaso (not architecture, last I checked) and the National Cathedral are not in the least bit relevant to this discussion.

 

[WildCowboy]

This thread and its previous incarnation are like a car wreck. As much as I want to stop reading the posts, I can't help but click on the link every freaking time I see it pop up in New Posts. I can certainly see both sides of the issue, but just when it seems like it's been beaten to death, there's more! Keep up the good work.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I think that you are living in 1950s ideals that have no basis in today's reality. As a student, I can tell you that I know very few people of my generation who have ANY appreciation for pre-modern art or architecture, and I cn assure you that ALMOST NOBODY and CERTAINLY not the majority of my generation cares about preserving "some old building" for historical purposes. While it is sad, our generation's view is that history is in the past, and we should just move on already.

I just took a poll of people who are currently online on my buddy list. I received seventeen answers from people all between the ages of 15 and 27. Most of them are about 17. The count was 15 No, 2 Yes. While this is not very scientific, it would indicate that 88% of people in my generation whom I associate with and consider to be fairly intelligent (I associate with them... I am a picky bitch) think that historic buildings have no value. Therefore, I doubt your idealistic view would prevail by any means. Should prevail... well...

I personally believe that private property is private property. While I'm all for things that enhance public safety like gun control, and things that prevent major out-of-place eyesores like zoning laws, I think that property that a private citizen owns should not be governed by whether or not it is historic. If I buy a 230-year-old house that George Washington took a leak in, it's MY 230-year-old house REGARDLESS of whether George Washington took a leak in it or not. Therefore, if I want to tear it down, it's not the government's business to tell me otherwise. If they care that much, they should have bought it themselves.

Actually, it is you who are living in a version of the 1950s then, because that's the period of time when hardly anybody in the U.S. cared about historic buildings or older neighborhoods. During the 1940s through the 1970s, virtually anything old was regarded as inherently obsolete. Those national attitudes didn't start changing until the 1980s when it finally became apparent that vast urban clearance projects didn't produce cities as livable as the ones being replaced. The other major turning points were the major acts of senseless architectural vandalism such as the destruction of Penn Station in New York and Stock Exchange in Chicago.

I plead with you, do not buy any old buildings. Despite what you or your friends believe, many many people do care. You will also find, much to your chagrin, that you don't have the right to destroy them.

 

[IJ Reilly]

This thread and its previous incarnation are like a car wreck. As much as I want to stop reading the posts, I can't help but click on the link every freaking time I see it pop up in New Posts. I can certainly see both sides of the issue, but just when it seems like it's been beaten to death, there's more! Keep up the good work.

I know, I know -- I should quit. But I suppose I feel like a Mac user locked in a room full of rabid Windows-heads. It's hard to curb the impulse to correct all of the woefully misinformed opinions you're hearing, even when it's the same ones over and over, and the volume doesn't seems to let up no matter what you say, or how often you say it. I'm sure we've all been there.

 

[Abstract]

Personally, I am. I'm thinking of changing my moniker to mad jsw. But then I'd need to post much more often and change my 'tar to something that looks like a Windows desktop, and also, apparently, post lots of pictures of myself shirtless.

Wrong guy. The Jew just goes in there to take a look at a particular shirtless boy.

why would you purchase a house that you technically can't own/change the way you want it?

I don't know, but some people choose to buy homes like that, and if they buy it knowing full well that they can't change it, then they shouldn't buy it and whine about it later like a 'lil baby.

While I don't care about historical building preservation because most people don't even know that they're historical if it weren't for the big plaque on or in front of those buildings. However, I AM a bit glad that when I lived in London as a 19-20 year old, I would walk past past the house of George Orwell, which seemed so cool at the time that it actually gave me the shivers .

Also, Steve isn't stupid, and unless he can prove that he had no idea that his house was built by one of the biggest architects in Cali, then he should suck it up and not break it down.

If you don't like the land and building preservation laws, then don't buy a historical house.