Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Los Altos Designates Steve Jobs' Childhood Home a 'Historic Resource'

Smith288 said:
I understand. I own a house. I just don't believe a house should be deemed "historical" because a guy born not 56 yrs ago lived here who happened to make a computer in the garage tossing my rights as a property owner go out the window. I understand they want to prevent bulldozing it down... that I get. But I doubt they can't even so much as put a lawn ornament without having to go through the red tape and long painstaking practice of getting approval.
Click to expand...

What a rant. Not that anyone really cares, but the city of Los Altos did not designate the property a landmark, though clearly it qualifies for any number of historical designations. What they did actually (again, not that anyone really cares) is essentially officially note that the historical associations of the property are documented and known.

----------
Smith288 said:
I was speaking strictly on the topic of Job's house. I have owned homes since 1999 and know plenty about the topic. HOA is agreed upon at the sale of the house. Some local government coming in and telling me my house is historical because a famous guy lived there wouldn't be something I'd take too nicely if it meant I couldn't remodel my house as I saw fit according to local HOA regulations and building requirements.
Click to expand...

Sorry if you don't like it, but then, you don't have to like it.
 
IJ Reilly said:
What a rant. Not that anyone really cares, but the city of Los Altos did not designate the property a landmark, though clearly it qualifies for any number of historical designations. What they did actually (again, not that any really cares) is essentially officially note that the historical associations of the property are documented and known.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion... But some of us out here still like the idea of personal property.

The article clearly stated it puts heavy restrictions on what the homeowner could do with the property. Nobody is talking about putting cars on blocks or painting the house pink as i'm sure it's, again, local HOA.

Let me be clear since it's becoming painfully obvious that people are missing my point... A homeowner now has restrictions placed on them by a local government simply because of the historical significance of who used to live there. They didn't buy the house with said restrictions but it has been bestowed on them without any due process that I can tell. I understand it's Job's sister.

Perhaps they were afforded a process to decline the declaration placed on the house and decided to forgo because of the relation of said historical figure but if I was the home owner and these restrictions were placed on me, I'd be livid. Not because I want to crap on history but because the property belongs to me.

I shouldn't have to face more restrictions as anyone else in the neighborhood unless I agreed to them upon purchase of the property or requested the declaration myself.

You can have your opinion if you like, as I'm due mine.
 
Smith288 said:
I understand. I own a house. I just don't believe a house should be deemed "historical" because a guy born not 56 yrs ago lived here who happened to make a computer in the garage tossing my rights as a property owner go out the window. I understand they want to prevent bulldozing it down... that I get. But I doubt they can't even so much as put a lawn ornament without having to go through the red tape and long painstaking practice of getting approval.
Click to expand...

He did a little more then just make a computer....
 
furi0usbee said:
Apple should just buy this property. What, it would cost maybe what they make in a second or two? Buy it, then move it to a computer museum, or move it to the new Apple campus as a museum. Put pictures and hardware in every room, and let people walk down memory lane.

This could be cool as a museum, but not in it's current location. Neighbors wouldn't like that much.

Bryan
Click to expand...

I like your suggestion that Apple should buy the property! I think the company should buy the property and keep it where it is. They can feature a replica of the house at their corporate campus and let people walk through the rooms to experience it, but leave the original as it stands, to keep this important piece of history protected. The property should also be be submitted to the National Park Service so it might be added to the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/NR/about.htm). This would protect and preserve it so that generations to come can see how one of the greatest technology companies ever founded was built.
 
Smith288 said:
I understand they want to prevent bulldozing it down... that I get. But I doubt they can't even so much as put a lawn ornament without having to go through the red tape and long painstaking practice of getting approval.
Click to expand...

I have friends that own a 4,000+ square foot 3-story building built in the 1800s by some no-name doctor. The town put all buildings built in the 1800s on the historical registry.

Their house is in such rough shape. They bought it for about $20,000 and are trying to fix the house. They can't do anything external to the house without getting approval. It's ridiculous. They want to repair the shingles on the roof - must use the same old style which costs thousands more. They want to repair the windows and the shutters. Must use the same style shutters which they can only find when old houses are demolished. They can do what they want on the inside within reason. They can't tear down walls or staircases, but they can paint the walls and put in new faucets.

It's ridiculous. I can imagine a home lived in by Albert Einstein, or Thomas Edison or something. You'd not want to own those homes.
 
spazzcat said:
He did a little more then just make a computer....
Click to expand...

You are right! This house is culturally significant. The property should be added to the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/NR/about.htm), to make sure that it stands as an important part of U.S. History. After all, houses can be preserved, the home of Thomas Edison was preserved, and now stands as part of our nation's history.
 
danielsutton said:
You are right! This house is culturally significant. The property should be added to the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/NR/about.htm), to make sure that it stands as an important part of U.S. History. After all, houses can be preserved, the home of Thomas Edison was preserved, and now stands as part of our nation's history.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I have no interest in walking through Edison's house. It's an inanimate object... But I also don't hold great value in "things" either.
 
Smith288 said:
Thanks for your opinion... But some of us out here still like the idea of personal property.

The article clearly stated it puts heavy restrictions on what the homeowner could do with the property. Nobody is talking about putting cars on blocks or painting the house pink as i'm sure it's, again, local HOA.

Let me be clear since it's becoming painfully obvious that people are missing my point... A homeowner now has restrictions placed on them by a local government simply because of the historical significance of who used to live there. They didn't buy the house with said restrictions but it has been bestowed on them without any due process that I can tell. I understand it's Job's sister.

Perhaps they were afforded a process to decline the declaration placed on the house and decided to forgo because of the relation of said historical figure but if I was the home owner and these restrictions were placed on me, I'd be livid. Not because I want to crap on history but because the property belongs to me.

I shouldn't have to face more restrictions as anyone else in the neighborhood unless I agreed to them upon purchase of the property or requested the declaration myself.

You can have your opinion if you like, as I'm due mine.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion, but some of us live in the real world. Some of us also know about this stuff.

So actually, if you tried to understand what the article said instead of using it as an excuse to rant, the restrictions are not "heavy." Simply, it requires that the city take the historical significance of the property into account when making discretionary decisions. Most building permits would not be covered by these requirements. Essentially it means that they can't claim to not know who lived there or what happened there.

You are not required to like any of this.
 
danielsutton said:
You are right! This house is culturally significant. The property should be added to the National Register of Historic Places (http://www.nps.gov/NR/about.htm), to make sure that it stands as an important part of U.S. History. After all, houses can be preserved, the home of Thomas Edison was preserved, and now stands as part of our nation's history.
Click to expand...

The property would be a slam dunk for National Register listing. But it should be understood that NO protections are conferred by this listing. All of that comes from local governments under their own landmarking ordinances. Los Altos hasn't gone that far. Essentially they just noted that it exists.
 
Justan00b said:
Or....... they could (WAY more respectfully), let the Jobs family, who currently own it decide what they would like to do with the property they own.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if Apple offers to buy it that doesn't mean the Jobs family have to sell it to them if they don't want to. No harm in Apple offering.
 
Smith288 said:
Thanks for your opinion... But some of us out here still like the idea of personal property.

The article clearly stated it puts heavy restrictions on what the homeowner could do with the property. Nobody is talking about putting cars on blocks or painting the house pink as i'm sure it's, again, local HOA.

Let me be clear since it's becoming painfully obvious that people are missing my point... A homeowner now has restrictions placed on them by a local government simply because of the historical significance of who used to live there. They didn't buy the house with said restrictions but it has been bestowed on them without any due process that I can tell. I understand it's Job's sister.

Perhaps they were afforded a process to decline the declaration placed on the house and decided to forgo because of the relation of said historical figure but if I was the home owner and these restrictions were placed on me, I'd be livid. Not because I want to crap on history but because the property belongs to me.

I shouldn't have to face more restrictions as anyone else in the neighborhood unless I agreed to them upon purchase of the property or requested the declaration myself.

You can have your opinion if you like, as I'm due mine.
Click to expand...

I am amazed at the movement and that some people even agree that private property rights should be diminished. Have those people thought about the end game to that?

Property owners should be looked at like sovereign nations in my opinion. You own it, it's yours. The only exception being imminent domain of which that should only be reserved for allowing roads and access to prevent land locking and such. Not how it's being abused today to claim land for economic growth for companies which to total utter. . . you know what. :mad:
 
bbeagle said:
I have friends that own a 4,000+ square foot 3-story building built in the 1800s by some no-name doctor. The town put all buildings built in the 1800s on the historical registry.

Their house is in such rough shape. They bought it for about $20,000 and are trying to fix the house. They can't do anything external to the house without getting approval. It's ridiculous. They want to repair the shingles on the roof - must use the same old style which costs thousands more. They want to repair the windows and the shutters. Must use the same style shutters which they can only find when old houses are demolished. They can do what they want on the inside within reason. They can't tear down walls or staircases, but they can paint the walls and put in new faucets.

It's ridiculous. I can imagine a home lived in by Albert Einstein, or Thomas Edison or something. You'd not want to own those homes.
Click to expand...

We can change this stuff. We just need to fight back and stand up and be heard.
 
ptb42 said:
Yes. It is a designated California Historical Landmark and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Garage
Click to expand...

As previously mentioned, not just the garage, but the entire property, including the house, garage and shed. For the truly interested, the nomination can be downloaded.

http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/07000307.pdf

----------
phillipduran said:
I am amazed at the movement and that some people even agree that private property rights should be diminished. Have those people thought about the end game to that?

Property owners should be looked at like sovereign nations in my opinion. You own it, it's yours. The only exception being imminent domain of which that should only be reserved for allowing roads and access to prevent land locking and such. Not how it's being abused today to claim land for economic growth for companies which to total utter. . . you know what. :mad:
Click to expand...

What "end game" do you mean? Speaking of amazement, I take it you are totally unfamiliar with the history of land use regulation. Probably you think it just started the week before last, or something like that.
 
Looks familiar

Oh, yeah, it could have been any of my friends in the suburbs in the '50s and '60s. There was a genius who lived there, that's historic. When you see "George Washington slept here", it's the same effect. (Not comparing Jobs and Washington, just comparing them in fame and accomplishment.) Somebody who actually achieved his childhood dreams lived here. He changed the world, whether you like it or not.
 
Smith288 said:
I was speaking strictly on the topic of Job's house. I have owned homes since 1999 and know plenty about the topic. HOA is agreed upon at the sale of the house. Some local government coming in and telling me my house is historical because a famous guy lived there wouldn't be something I'd take too nicely if it meant I couldn't remodel my house as I saw fit according to local HOA regulations and building requirements.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is the principle of "Imminent Domain" where if the government decides undermining your personal property rights serves a greater public good then they can do whatever they want, including seizing your property (with due process of course).

I agree with you, it would suck if it happened to me, but I also agree with the principle as generally applied.
 
IJ Reilly said:
Thanks for your opinion, but some of us live in the real world. Some of us also know about this stuff.

So actually, if you tried to understand what the article said instead of using it as an excuse to rant, the restrictions are not "heavy." Simply, it requires that the city take the historical significance of the property into account when making discretionary decisions. Most building permits would not be covered by these requirements. Essentially it means that they can't claim to not know who lived there or what happened there.

You are not required to like any of this.
Click to expand...

I get it. It's a societal OCD property hoarding thing. Can't wait to witness the severely dated house in 20 yrs.

----------
Nunyabinez said:
Unfortunately, there is the principle of "Imminent Domain" where if the government decides undermining your personal property rights serves a greater public good then they can do whatever they want, including seizing your property (with due process of course).

I agree with you, it would suck if it happened to me, but I also agree with the principle as generally applied.
Click to expand...

General application would be Edison's home or Tesla's factory...those are significant. Unless a historical society purchased Job's old house or Job's sister herself pushed for the declaration, it's seems heavy handed. That's what i'm saying. But others can feel free to take what i'm saying off on another completely off subject tangent.
 
Smith288 said:
I get it. It's a societal OCD property hoarding thing. Can't wait to witness the severely dated house in 20 yrs.

General application would be Edison's home or Tesla's factory...those are significant. Unless a historical society purchased Job's old house or Job's sister herself pushed for the declaration, it's seems heavy handed. That's what i'm saying. But others can feel free to take what i'm saying off on another completely off subject tangent.
Click to expand...

Your version of "getting it" seems to be lecturing on subjects you know nothing about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back