Steve Can't Tear Down House

[agreenster]

No, this isn't how it works, sorry.

Actually, it is how it works. The problem here is that is hasnt yet been labeled a historic landmark. For all practical purposes, it's just a house. A group is TRYING to get it historically recognized.

This isnt a 2006 problem, this is a 1984 problem (when Steve bought it). The person or group that believes this is a historic landmark should have interviened back then. You cant buy or sell historic landmarks without a ton of paperwork. They screwed the pooch. NOW that are trying to make up for it when this IS private property

Steve bought a house and property where he knew he couldn't demolish the house.

I dont see that in the article, so how do you know?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Actually, it is how it works. The problem here is that is hasnt yet been labeled a historic landmark. For all practical purposes, it's just a house. A group is TRYING to get it historically recognized.

This isnt a 2006 problem, this is a 1984 problem (when Steve bought it). The person or group that believes this is a historic landmark should have interviened back then. You cant buy or sell historic landmarks without a ton of paperwork. They screwed the pooch. NOW that are trying to make up for it when this IS private property

Again, this is not at all how it works. Local governments can make changes to zoning regulations at any time. A property owner is in no way, shape or form entitled to rights to the use of their property that existed when they bought it. If this was the case, then zoning and other forms of land use regulation would become effectively impossible. You can believe otherwise if it gives you some sort of satisfaction, but you will believe wrongly.

In fact, under California state environmental law, local governments are required to consider the impacts of their permitted actions on historic properties. To avoid doing so would be to violate state law. So basically, you've got it exactly backwards. The city could not lawfully have failed to take the historical importance of this property into consideration in issuing the permits for the demolition and new construction.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, my apologies if you have taken anything I have said as a personal insult. Didn't intend for them to be that way. However, in this thread, you have not addressed my, or anyone else's comments, on the fact that the public should be paying for this thing, The legal status of the property is important as well. That's why mpw kept asking about things like protected status when Steve bought the thing.

Maybe because I am not someone who has made it their life's work, and someone who has an uninformed opinion, but your passion for your work is causing people's comments get to you personally. I admire your passion, but your passion shouldn't translate into blind defense of what you love.

This has nothing to do with "passion." I am simply responding to those who believe that their uninformed opinion is more valid than the opinion of a professional expert. I'm getting pretty tired of hearing how the professional opinion is "arbitrary," no matter how much effort is put into explaining why it is not.

You could have, at the very least, taken the extra 30 seconds and quoted Abstract as an explanation of why prior protections are present. The article as linked in the first post doesn't explain this. And your comments don't either, unless I missed something.

I didn't explain the significance of prior protections because this is not relevant. I did attempt to explain the obligations that local governments in California have to consider the impacts of their decisions on historic properties; that in doing so, they are complying with state law. At this point, I don't understand what part of this is misunderstood.

Sorry for getting a little testy here, but I've been forced to repeat myself to an annoying extent. The exact same questions are being asked and the exact same erroneous statements are being made repeatedly.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Well, there is a point when the restrictions eliminate all economically viable use of the land. When this happens, you have a taking (even in today's screwed up jurisprudence).

You are very correct in describing the current state of taking law in the US (sad but true).

My objection is that a select few end up paying the vast majority of the cost so that the many can, one day, drive by the house and remark how important it is or how pretty it is. If it is that important and that pretty, then let the public pay for the preservation.

I am describing the doctrine of takings as it has been for a century or more, by virtue of numerous Supreme Court decisions. I don't know how far back you'd turn the clock if it were up to you, but if you're advocating for a system that requires property owner compensation whenever government restricts the use of property, then you are advocating for the destruction of all land use controls.

 

[thedude110]

IJ -- two things.

1. I think one of the reasons everyone is talking past each other here is that you're approaching this from a legal perspective while others are approaching this from a common sense perspective. Not to say that law is not common sense (it often is), but to suggest that in this case, law is clearly conflicting with people's sense of common sense.

2. I think that most people in this thread consider historical importance and aesthetic value as something that's up for individual judgement. That's not to validate or invalidate that perspective, but it is to argue that westerners, in their endless pursuit of individualism, tend to resist the judgements of experts toward canonization (and feel excluded by them).

I guess what I mean to say is that one reason your audience isn't changing its mind (and one reason you're feeling forced to repeat yourself) is that your rhetoric is appealing to authorities (law and experts) and not the audience itself.

Dunno if you noticed this in replying to me, but two pages ago I was agreeing with you. But an objective look at your argument still tells me two things: 1. You're relying on an assumption that historical architecture has value and 2. You're relying on an assumption that this work of George Washington Smith's has value. I think you need to persuade people of these two assumptions before you can persuade them to want to save this house (and certainly before you can persuade them of the legality of land use controls).

 

[Blackheart]

I wonder what the fine is for demolishing it anyway.

SJ could just pay it off if it's reasonable.

 

[mpw]

All of this is either factually wrong on not relevant to the situation. The reasons why, in most cases, are explained in previous posts...

What have I posted that's factually wrong? That you find it irrelevant maybe true but I'm only offering opinion making comparison to local laws here and asking questions to help clarify the matter in hand. I don't see where any of my questions were answered in earlier posts so I can only assume you mean my opinions aren't relevant. As for why I guess you mean by "as explained in previous posts" where you've claimed to be an authority in this area. This may be true but your attitude is very seems very condescending to me, especially as you trying to say that us 'lay-persons' don't know what we're talking about and that as a profession you seem to consider yourselves above reproach.

 

[IJ Reilly]

What have I posted that's factually wrong? That you find it irrelevant maybe true but I'm only offering opinion making comparison to local laws here and asking questions to help clarify the matter in hand. I don't see where any of my questions were answered in earlier posts so I can only assume you mean my opinions aren't relevant. As for why I guess you mean by "as explained in previous posts" where you've claimed to be an authority in this area. This may be true but your attitude is very seems very condescending to me, especially as you trying to say that us 'lay-persons' don't know what we're talking about and that as a profession you seem to consider yourselves above reproach.

This has got nothing to do with being "above reproach," and I really don't understand why you think your questions haven't been answered, given the number and length of my posts in this thread. Perhaps you should try being specific, if you have questions you don't think have been addressed.

As for where you've been wrong -- for one, you continue to insist that a property can't be protected by from demolition by an historical designation after someone purchases the property. This is not correct. Also, you insist that the determination that this house was designed by an important architect is an "arbitrary" way of determining it to be significant. This is could hardly be more incorrect.

I don't mean to be condescending. What you are taking as condescension is really just me showing my weariness from answering the same questions and correcting the same misinformation over and over -- not to mention, annoyance at insults directed at my profession generally. I'm fairly certain you'd feel the same way, placed in the same position.

I realize that most people don't know these issues like I do, nor should they. That is why I have attempted to explain them, to describe how this process works, the relevant laws, and how standards of analysis are utilized by people in my profession. I'm getting the impression that some people just don't want to know -- that they'd rather rely on their "gut" instinct on these matters than on the opinion of an experienced professional. So what can a person do about that? Not much, in the end, but throw one's hands up in frustration.

 

[maestro55]

Reading through the three pages I have come to the conclusion that those fighting to keep this home are doing so out of spite. That may not be the case, but lets think about this for a second.

Steve Jobs bought the house in 1984, in which apparently he hasn't lived in since the mid 90's, the house has gone unattended by Steve Jobs and has been treated poorly by mother nature, and I suppose possibly looters, too. I would think that if someone cared about the house they would try to make an effort to restore the house rather the making Steve Jobs keep it now. Has anyone offered to BUY the house from Steve Jobs? I am not saying that the property was up for sell, I am saying that no one offered to take it, and I am unaware of any offers to buy the house on the land? I don't think Steve Jobs would turn down all offers. It seems to me like he will be stuck with a house (regardless of its historical value) that he doesn't want on his property (that he paid for).

I am not saying that people who pay for land can do what they want with it, I am saying that I have seen nowhere of any real attempts to restore the house, buy it from Steve Jobs, or do anything other then complain and stop Jobs from tearing the house down.

Correct me someone if I am not seeing the whole story correctly, but I believe that if someone wanted the house restored or wanted it standing they need to make an effort, and that hasn't happened. I don't believe it is Steve Jobs job to do so, but I may be wrong about that.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Dunno if you noticed this in replying to me, but two pages ago I was agreeing with you. But an objective look at your argument still tells me two things: 1. You're relying on an assumption that historical architecture has value and 2. You're relying on an assumption that this work of George Washington Smith's has value. I think you need to persuade people of these two assumptions before you can persuade them to want to save this house (and certainly before you can persuade them of the legality of land use controls).

This is not my "assumption." It is the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Properties may qualify for NRHP listing if they:

A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

As far as the importance of Smith, there is no question of it. But if you simply can't take my word for it, then google his name.

It's also quite pointless to debate the "legality" of land use controls. You might as well debate whether water is wet.

 

[hmmfe]

I am describing the doctrine of takings as it has been for a century or more, by virtue of numerous Supreme Court decisions. I don't know how far back you'd turn the clock if it were up to you, but if you're advocating for a system that requires property owner compensation whenever government restricts the use of property, then you are advocating for the destruction of all land use controls.

Well, not quite a century. This area of takings jurisprudence started with Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922). Penn Central is probably the case most on point here (and subsequent cases) - circa 1978.

You seem like an informed person but the hyperbole in the rest of your post is just plain vacuous. It can be an effective debating technique though - you are definitely an advocate. I do find it interesting that you accuse me of wanting to go back, when you are relying on case law that is a "century or more" old. It seems like it is you that has a vested interest in the past.

I am not concerned about all regulatory takings. I am concerned about situations where the government's exercise of it's police power is not for the advancement of public health or safety. Specifically, I just don't see the fairness or justice in restricting a citizens property rights (albeit not completely) so that the public may enjoy viewing from a distance a marginally important structure free of charge.

In the end, I believe that if the public is deriving a benefit (which must be the case under substantive due process analysis), then it should pay for that benefit. If the benefit is not worth paying for, then it probably isn't worth pursing in the first place. I understand your argument that it would have a chilling effect on future "land use controls". Indeed, that is partially the point.

Land use regulations are a good thing, in general. It does not follow, however, that all of them must be good. I would hope we are smart enough to be able to distinguish between the two rather than resorting to hyperbolic "all or nothing" assertions.

 

[Counterfit]

This is not my "assumption." It is the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places. Properties may qualify for NRHP listing if they:

A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

As far as the importance of Smith, there is no question of it. But if you simply can't take my word for it, then google his name.

It's also quite pointless to debate the "legality" of land use controls. You might as well debate whether water is wet.

A and D obviously don't apply, B depends on who lived there before, so C would be the most likely way for it to get on the register. I did take your suggestion, and came up with this and this, as far as his architectural work goes, I also found info on his paintings, and other men named "George Washington Smith".
Some work of his (like the Crocker Fagan house mentioned in the article) obviously suit C. Something else that stood out to me, was that 54 of his designs were built. Assuming all of them still exist (probably not), even demolishing this one would leave 53 examples of his work. Of course, not all of them are the same style as Steve's, but I would gather that there are more, and better, examples of the Spanish-colonial revival. Something that hasn't been mentioned, I think, was the condition of the house when Steve bought it. Was it already beginning to show its age? If it was in rough shape before, why would anyone want to spent a load of money trying to fix up a house they were planning (or hoping) to demolish? One should also wonder why it's taken so long for Steve to decide that he wanted to get rid of it and build something else.

Now, would Taco Bells be considered a revival of the Spanish-colonial revival style?

Also

but because he died young

The article lists his birthdate as February 22, 1876, and says he died in 1930 (I tried to verify this with Wikipedia, but the only George Smith that was an architect that's there worked around 19th century London. You'd figure someone of his stature would merit a listing there, considering they have some completely useless info. ), which would put him at 53-54 years old at the time of his death. I don't think that was considered "young" then, but that's just semantics.


And thus ends my most disjointed post ever.

 

[0490043]

-

 

[0490043]

-

 

[thedude110]

I don't see how it is common sense to let someone destroy an important piece of architecture.

Not quite what I meant --maybe I should have been more clear?

I think some people see it as common sense that "if one owns a property, one should be able to do what they want with that property" even if that flies in the face of legality.

For clarity's sake, I'm not advocating that position.

 

[Blackheart]

To those arguing that this is a "work of art" or a "historical landmark":

There are many works of art and historical landmarks in the world. To say that it is illegal to deprive anyone the "joy" of having seen/experienced them, I find absurd. Whoever owns the art has rights over who sees it. Why? Because they paid X million dollars for that right. If I bought the Mona Lisa for a bagillion dollars and stuck it in my house, why should you have the right to come into my house and see it? Because it's of "historical value"? Furthermore, if I want to destroy it, isn't that within my right for having spent that bagillion dollars?

I am aware that what the law IS and what it SHOULD be are two different things. What I'm concerned with, is the overwhelming acceptance of laws, by society, as true gospel of what is most just. What is law, isn't always what is right.

 

[Counterfit]

Something that hasn't been mentioned, I think, was the condition of the house when Steve bought it. Was it already beginning to show its age? If it was in rough shape before, why would anyone want to spent a load of money trying to fix up a house they were planning (or hoping) to demolish?

Silly me, I remembered earlier that he had lived in the house, so it would have been in good condition when he bought it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I am concerned about situations where the government's exercise of it's police power is not for the advancement of public health or safety.

You left out "general welfare." Exercises of police power that don't serve to advance of the public health, safety or general welfare are inherently unconstitutional. Your (deliberate?) omission of the general welfare is a very significant one, as this is the reasoning the Supreme Court has used to support local land use controls, including zoning, development standards, and quite specifically, historic preservation.

But I think I can see the problem here now. Some seem to be convinced that I'm trying to prove something here. I'm not. It just happens that I've been doing this exact thing for nearly 30 years. So I understand the law, local government rights and responsibilities under the law (especially in California), and how these determinations are made. I am simply attempting to impart information to those who might be interested in knowing more about how this works.

I'm not the least bit interested in debating the value of historic preservation in general, or the historical value of any given house specifically. If someone believes in their heart of hearts that historic preservation is not a worthy value for their own community to pursue, then fine -- petition your local government officials to not require the preservation of any historic buildings, and see how far you get. But please don't try to advance the argument that local governments don't have the authority to legislate historic preservation, or that they aren't required (in California, at least) to consider the impacts of their decisions historic buildings, or that determinations of historical significance are inherently arbitrary. All of these ideas are completely false.

 

[IJ Reilly]

A and D obviously don't apply, B depends on who lived there before, so C would be the most likely way for it to get on the register.

Yes, you got the right criterion -- C. The key to Criterion C of the National Register (and the California Register, which is very similar) in this case is "the work of a master." You also picked a good article to read on the subject (Gebhard). Why is Smith regarded as a master? His influence on the course of California architecture is well-documented through many articles, books, and retrospectives, as is the especially high artistic quality of his work (which I think can be appreciated by anyone who sees one of his buildings). His homes are particularly prized in the Santa Barbara area today, and fetch significant premiums for this reason.

You're right, he didn't die particularly young by the standards of the day, but since he began his practice relatively late in life, he produced a fairly small number of commissions. But the National Register isn't a score-card. Once an architect is regarded as a master, any of his or her works can be considered eligible on that basis alone -- assuming that they haven't been substantially altered.

 

[hmmfe]

You left out "general welfare." Exercises of police power that don't serve to advance of the public health, safety or general welfare are inherently unconstitutional. Your (deliberate?) omission of the general welfare is a very significant one, as this is the reasoning the Supreme Court has used to support local land use controls, including zoning, development standards, and quite specifically, historic preservation.

But I think I can see the problem here now. Some seem to be convinced that I'm trying to prove something here. I'm not. It just happens that I've been doing this exact thing for nearly 30 years. So I understand the law, local government rights and responsibilities under the law (especially in California), and how these determinations are made. I am simply attempting to impart information to those who might be interested in knowing more about how this works.

I'm not the least bit interested in debating the value of historic preservation in general, or the historical value of any given house specifically. If someone believes in their heart of hearts that historic preservation is not a worthy value for their own community to pursue, then fine -- petition your local government officials to not require the preservation of any historic buildings, and see how far you get. But please don't try to advance the argument that local governments don't have the authority to legislate historic preservation, or that they aren't required (in California, at least) to consider the impacts of their decisions historic buildings, or that determinations of historical significance are inherently arbitrary. All of these ideas are completely false.

You do like to misrepresent arguments. I see this is your favorite debating technique. It was a deliberate ommission exactly because this is where I think the exercise of governmental power starts to become problematic in this area. I've read all of the cases and understand them well - hence the deliberate ommission. This is not to suggest that I believe the general welfare is not a legitimate state police power. Considering how expansive case law has defined "general welfare", however, I am worried by just how much power have been transferred from the people to the government.

To be clear, I am not suggesting in the least that historic preservation is not a worthy public value. In fact, I think is of such value that it is worth having all of us pay for rather than have individuals bear most of the public burden. The SC has given lip service to this notion (see: Armstrong v. US, 1960). Sadly, that is all it really is - lip service.

I have not tried to argue that the current state of the law does not allow for the deminishment of private property rights for "historic preservation". Penn Central and other cases have been very clear about this.

Thanks for point out all of these falsehoods - none of which have come from me. Hey, is that a straw man I see standing there?

 

[IJ Reilly]

You do like to misrepresent arguments. I see this is your favorite debating technique. It was a deliberate ommission exactly because this is where I think the exercise of governmental power starts to become problematic in this area. I've read all of the cases and understand them well - hence the deliberate ommission. This is not to suggest that I believe the general welfare is not a legitimate state police power. Considering how expansive case law has defined "general welfare", however, I am worried by just how much power have been transferred from the people to the government.

To be clear, I am not suggesting in the least that historic preservation is not a worthy public value. In fact, I think is of such value that it is worth having all of us pay for rather than have individuals bear most of the public burden. The SC has given lip service to this notion (see: Armstrong v. US, 1960). Sadly, that is all it really is - lip service.

I have not tried to argue that the current state of the law does not allow for the deminishment of private property rights for "historic preservation". Penn Central and other cases have been very clear about this.

Thanks for point out all of these falsehoods - none of which have come from me. Hey, is that a straw man I see standing there?

I haven't misrepresented any arguments, as nearly as I can tell. This is especially difficult to know in your case, since what you are arguing for or against, I'm still not really certain. Possibly not you, but several people in this thread have questioned the authority of local governments to require the preservation of historic buildings. I have pointed out that not only are they permitted to do so, but that in California, they are obligated by law to at least consider it. These are facts, not opinions.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, so to make it totally clear (once and for all, I hope), I have tried and I think managed to avoid engaging in any philosophical discussion about whether historic preservation is a good thing or any wider debate about land use controls beyond their legal legitimacy, which is well established. I am simply describing how this system works for the benefit of those who might care to know.

 

[Photorun]

People who understand and study these things professionally make these judgments. The standards of evaluation aren't arbitrary, they are well established. But I've said that already. Local governments are allowed to regulate land use, so the Supreme Court has ruled time and again. In California, local governments are obligated by law to consider these issues and to avoid environmental impacts where feasible. And so on.

So who set you up as god, judge, and jury? To determine what is art, is arbitrary, "taste" is a sense of one a (one) person considers to be of worth. Get a group of snobs together and you have nothing more than forced groupthinnk extending their powers over others for their own ego or authority kick. One person's elephant dung jesus is another person's Mona Lisa. Worth being nothing really more than a arbitrary marker made by someone who makes up their own criteria and then forces their view on others. Thanks for reaffirming my belief in how broken the system is. If you think his old heap is worth something, buy it, if not, Jobs should bulldoze it and put up something potentially better. It's his property, not yours, and not your place to make decisions for somebody else no matter how much better you think you are with your tastes and hypocritic oath.

 

[maestro55]

Most people don't have millions of dollars to throw around.

..and so Steve (or anyone else) should suffer because they bought property that no one wants, other than to keep Steve from taking down the house that is falling apart? It doesn't make sense to me. And if you are saying Steve should restore his money to fix the house, that isn't right. I am not saying there is no importance to art, I am saying that this particular house is apparently not wanted by anyone, other than some organization(s) that want(s) to keep it standing. It won't stand forever if the money isn't used to restore it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So who set you up as god, judge, and jury? To determine what is art, is arbitrary, "taste" is a sense of one a (one) person considers to be of worth. Get a group of snobs together and you have nothing more than forced groupthinnk extending their powers over others for their own ego or authority kick. One person's elephant dung jesus is another person's Mona Lisa. Worth being nothing really more than a arbitrary marker made by someone who makes up their own criteria and then forces their view on others. Thanks for reaffirming my belief in how broken the system is. If you think his old heap is worth something, buy it, if not, Jobs should bulldoze it and put up something potentially better. It's his property, not yours, and not your place to make decisions for somebody else no matter how much better you think you are with your tastes and hypocritic oath.

Sigh. I'm out.

 

[After G]

I think it would help everyone who reads this thread to know what the full story is on this house. At first I thought that the government was trying to step in last minute and take away Steve's right to demolish the house.

Then I learned later that historical homes, such as this one, have protection to ensure their preservation, and Steve Jobs probably purchased the house knowing full well this, and so he shouldn't be able to just knock it down. But it seems to me that the local authorities just can't bring together the resources to preserve the house.

Please do tell me if I have misunderstood anything. I think someone else sees it the way I do (quoted below).

Reading through the three pages I have come to the conclusion that those fighting to keep this home are doing so out of spite. That may not be the case, but lets think about this for a second.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. I don't think people who fight for preservation do it out of spite. History is important, and keeping the house is keeping an important part of our history. Differentiating between architectural and other kinds of history is rather petty.

Steve Jobs bought the house in 1984, in which apparently he hasn't lived in since the mid 90's, the house has gone unattended by Steve Jobs and has been treated poorly by mother nature, and I suppose possibly looters, too. I would think that if someone cared about the house they would try to make an effort to restore the house rather the making Steve Jobs keep it now. Has anyone offered to BUY the house from Steve Jobs? I am not saying that the property was up for sell, I am saying that no one offered to take it, and I am unaware of any offers to buy the house on the land? I don't think Steve Jobs would turn down all offers. It seems to me like he will be stuck with a house (regardless of its historical value) that he doesn't want on his property (that he paid for).

I think people do care about the house, but not everyone is a millionaire. And not everyone has a massive plot of land near Woodside where they can just move the house to. And moving a house is a massive effort.

I am not saying that people who pay for land can do what they want with it, I am saying that I have seen nowhere of any real attempts to restore the house, buy it from Steve Jobs, or do anything other then complain and stop Jobs from tearing the house down.

If those people had an extra (estimated) 7.5 million laying around, they might do what you have mentioned.

I think the issue is what should happen to the house when it is protected, but the public can't do enough to preserve it? I don't think it should just stand there and rot. I don't know if it should be just torn down by the Steve either. What laws cover this situation?