Originally Posted by thrang
May not be the truth in terms of current laws, but these laws are nonsense and are just another example of government interference in private affairs.
That house could sit there another 100 years and it will have no impact in any aspect of anyone's life. Document the hell out if it, take a million pictures, a 100 hours of video, and make it the subject of a course in architectural school if it's so important and see if it drives or inspires contemporaneous version of it.
I am sick of government intervention into personal matters. If the states wants to dictate something historic, they should buy it for full market value plus any costs inconvenience to the current property owner for relocation to a similarly value property. Let the state pay for it, which, of course is really the taxpayers, which of course, would quickly be met with outrage. Thus, they instead burden the individual with maintaining something they don't wish to with no recourse or financial.
Nothing lasts forever, this building has no historical significance other than in the self-serving minds of these preservation groups, and in the grand scheme of the world is meaningless! Property owners have the right to live in a home that serves their needs in a contemporaneous structure, not a museum. Yes, general local ordinances are generally reasonable - footprint of house as a percentage of property, height, setbacks for privacy, etc. If this house blew up tonight, no one would notice or care in year, if not a few weeks, other than a rarified group of radical preservationist who are severely deluded that these are important issues.
My sense is that we need to take the good Dr. Millmoss to task for talking about this as if it involves legalities
. So far as I can see, this house is not deemed by the state of California to be a historic property. If it were, there would be no question about this issue at all. However, that does not appear to be the case here. Linking long PDF documents that detail the many interesting elements of the house and its history doesn't establish a 'fact' that it is a protected structure, despite all statements to the contrary. I skimmed the PDF in question, and so far as I can tell, it sums up to a recommendation from one evaluator that the house 'should' be eligible for a protected status. Oddly enough, however, despite the fact that the house supposedly 'should' be eligible for a protected status, it does not have one
What has happened in this case is that a group of concerned local
preservationists have been actively campaigning with the local
municipality to deny Mr. Jobs' permits
. That is all there is to this
. Talking about this like what Jobs wants to do is some sort of legal infraction is just hyperbole. Asserting that the house is factually
protected or that it is a recognized historic property is also not true. Rather, this house is a structure which some
is of historic interest, and because the think this they also believe it should
be protected. They have to this end interfered with the permitting process such that the permits required for demolition have been denied by the local city council. That's it - there is nothing more to this story.