This is purely your opinion, and you are welcome to it. As I've already said, we know some people don't care about such things, and can never be persuaded to care -- but that does not mean they don't matter.
My entire purpose in posting here was to add a few pertinent facts to a discussion that seemed to lack them. Over & out.
yes, there's a big difference betwenn <i>rights</i> and, <i>responsibilities</i>. Like when you turn 18, you have the right to tell your parents to eff off, but you have the responsibility not too. If you buy a piece of history, you also buy the responsibilities to that history.
I don't want to get into a big discussion about California environmental regulations or historic preservation (or land use regulations) unless somebody wants me to, but in fact "property rights" really isn't an issue here, at least not legally. A preservation order would not be considered a "taking." The Supreme Court decided this issue long ago, so it's not a subject up for debate.
You are correct that Penn Central makes it very hard to win "regulatory takings" cases (and in my opinion unfairly so).
But, it is pure ignorance to suggest that issues of private property are not involved or that there is no room for debate.
In the end, the local planning commission ruled correctly. If this had gone to trail, I suspect Jobs would have lost.
The Penn Central case is only one of many the Supreme Court has decided on "takings" and land use regulations. It happened to involve an historic preservation regulation, but what the Court did in fact was to decide that historic preservation was just another goal that governments may choose to pursue, and not somehow separate and apart from every other health, safety and general welfare objective. It really could not have been decided any other way and still made sense within the context of all of the other takings cases the Court has decided over the last eight decades.
Of course private property is "involved," but that's a meaningless statement in this context. Whether local governments have the regulatory authority to require the preservation of historic properties is not up for debate. They do, without any question.
The suggestion that Jobs was stupid to buy that property instead of some parcel in the hinterland is disingenuous. I don't know anyone for whom location isn't a primary consideration when buying property. Certainly, property values tend to reflect that. Why buy something off in the sticks if that's not what you want?
The location he wanted just happened to have this sprawling, ill-treated old house on it.
Now, granting the historical value of the property, and granting the ability of the government and the community to preserve that value, I still don't see the objection against what Steve's trying to do. It's hardly news that a lot of people leave historical buildings to fall apart, or make disastrous renovations to them, out of ignorance or indifference to their provenance. At least Steve has been willing to accommodate people who want to preserve the house by giving it to them. The cost of disassembling the house will of course be non-trivial, but that's not a criticism either. That's a huge house, in considerable disrepair. Doing anything with it will cost a great deal of money — certainly, restoring it to its original glory and bringing it up to modern code will cost a fortune, even if it never budged. So it's a given that any effort to do anything with this house — even to demolish it and cart the ruins away — will involve a great deal of money. Steve's just minimizing the cost, given that he wants the thing gone.
And, as I said originally, if he's made to keep the thing where it is and restore it, no big deal. He's got the money, and there's enough land around the house for the more modest structure he had in mind, a Zen garden, and a big wall of trees so that he doesn't have to look at the mansion. He'll live.
The Penn Central case is only one of many the Supreme Court has decided on "takings" and land use regulations. It happened to involve an historic preservation regulation, but what the Court did in fact was to decide that historic preservation was just another goal that governments may choose to pursue, and not somehow separate and apart from every other health, safety and general welfare objective. It really could not have been decided any other way and still made sense within the context of all of the other takings cases the Court has decided over the last eight decades.
Of course private property is "involved," but that's a meaningless statement in this context. Whether local governments have the regulatory authority to require the preservation of historic properties is not up for debate. They do, without any question.
Gee, really? There has been more than one takings case? Thanks for the breaking news.
Penn Central is important because it set out the "Penn Central test" which has been used ever since in cases that do not involve a complete taking (e.g. Lucas). In fact the nature of the public interest is part of the test. So, to suggest that all police powers are treated equally is again ignorant. It is true that historic preservation is a valid state interest (and therefore on equal footing with other regulatory motives), but it is not accurate to suggest that all valid regulations are equally important. Like a first-year law school student, you seem to know the holding of the case without appreciating the nuance of the decisions.
If you read Penn Central and more recently Palazzolo, you will understand that the Supreme Court created a quazi-due process analysis where the importance of the public interest is weighed against the scope and degree of the infringement on the property owner's "bundle of sticks". See: Agins, Goldblatt, Pennsylvania Coal, Armstrong and Palazzolo.
Again, your dismissal of private property rights ignores the central question in all "takings" cases. The degree of interference in the right to private property is the key element in takings analysis.
As for this being a debatable question, the debate is not whether regulatory agencies can declare private property as historic and thereby restrict the use of private property. The debate is where the limits of this regulatory power extend. All of the above cases state that there is a limit but have to varying degrees (intentionally) failed to specifically state what the limits are.
To think that Supreme Court decisions are fixed in time and are never again questioned or altered is a dangerous notion and plainly false.
Your "points" have almost nothing to do with anything I've actually said. You might as well debate yourself, because you're not debating me. Flame-bate not taken. Sorry.
Just so you know, I've been in the planning, historic preservation and environmental consulting biz for over 25 years. So I know from where I speak.
Your "points" have almost nothing to do with anything I've actually said. You might as well debate yourself, because you're not debating me. Flame-bate not taken. Sorry.
Almost a graceful exit from a losing position...almost.
Quote:
Just so you know, I've been in the planning, historic preservation and environmental consulting biz for over 25 years. So I know from where I speak.
LOL. Incapable? Try not interested, and not especially with somebody with such a confrontational attitude. I made the legal points I intended to make here long ago. You couldn't come within miles of refuting them, so you attempted to draw me into a side argument that you think you can win. No thanks. Nice try, anyway!
LOL. Incapable? Try not interested, and not especially with somebody with such a confrontational attitude. I made the legal points I intended to make here long ago. You couldn't come within miles of refuting them, so you attempted to draw me into a side argument that you think you can win. No thanks. Nice try, anyway!
All bluster, no substance. To quote the master, "nice try".
Okay, we've got a classic case here of uninformed opinions.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
Where were the city and preservationist when the past owners we bastardizing the architect's original design?
Jackling House is hardly George Washington Smith's most memorable or iconic work. And it is not that surprising that Jobs had not heard of him, GWS's career as an architect was just barely over a decade in length and he primarily designed estates for the ultra rich and famous. This is not a house (it is more properly known as the Jackling Estate but that does not inspire sympathy for the preservationists' cause), it is a 16 bedroom monster in poor repair. It is the sort of place that ends up being the darling of the country-club set and getting purchased and restored with donations or tax dollars so the city of Woodside can say they have "the only Spanish-Colonial Revival style estate designed by George Washington Smith North of Santa Barbara" and charge the public $10.00 for the privilege to walk the grounds for an hour.
Reading the letters of support for the preservation at the "Friends of the Jackling House" website http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org it is clear this fight is as much an anti-Jobs crusade as it is about saving the estate. The quote from a fellow Woodside resident "When I saw the Jackling house and what Jobs' neglect had done to it it brought tears to my eyes..." is just so sanctimonious.
Comments
My entire purpose in posting here was to add a few pertinent facts to a discussion that seemed to lack them. Over & out.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I don't want to get into a big discussion about California environmental regulations or historic preservation (or land use regulations) unless somebody wants me to, but in fact "property rights" really isn't an issue here, at least not legally. A preservation order would not be considered a "taking." The Supreme Court decided this issue long ago, so it's not a subject up for debate.
You are correct that Penn Central makes it very hard to win "regulatory takings" cases (and in my opinion unfairly so).
But, it is pure ignorance to suggest that issues of private property are not involved or that there is no room for debate.
In the end, the local planning commission ruled correctly. If this had gone to trail, I suspect Jobs would have lost.
Of course private property is "involved," but that's a meaningless statement in this context. Whether local governments have the regulatory authority to require the preservation of historic properties is not up for debate. They do, without any question.
The location he wanted just happened to have this sprawling, ill-treated old house on it.
Now, granting the historical value of the property, and granting the ability of the government and the community to preserve that value, I still don't see the objection against what Steve's trying to do. It's hardly news that a lot of people leave historical buildings to fall apart, or make disastrous renovations to them, out of ignorance or indifference to their provenance. At least Steve has been willing to accommodate people who want to preserve the house by giving it to them. The cost of disassembling the house will of course be non-trivial, but that's not a criticism either. That's a huge house, in considerable disrepair. Doing anything with it will cost a great deal of money — certainly, restoring it to its original glory and bringing it up to modern code will cost a fortune, even if it never budged. So it's a given that any effort to do anything with this house — even to demolish it and cart the ruins away — will involve a great deal of money. Steve's just minimizing the cost, given that he wants the thing gone.
And, as I said originally, if he's made to keep the thing where it is and restore it, no big deal. He's got the money, and there's enough land around the house for the more modest structure he had in mind, a Zen garden, and a big wall of trees so that he doesn't have to look at the mansion. He'll live.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Penn Central case is only one of many the Supreme Court has decided on "takings" and land use regulations. It happened to involve an historic preservation regulation, but what the Court did in fact was to decide that historic preservation was just another goal that governments may choose to pursue, and not somehow separate and apart from every other health, safety and general welfare objective. It really could not have been decided any other way and still made sense within the context of all of the other takings cases the Court has decided over the last eight decades.
Of course private property is "involved," but that's a meaningless statement in this context. Whether local governments have the regulatory authority to require the preservation of historic properties is not up for debate. They do, without any question.
Gee, really? There has been more than one takings case? Thanks for the breaking news.
Penn Central is important because it set out the "Penn Central test" which has been used ever since in cases that do not involve a complete taking (e.g. Lucas). In fact the nature of the public interest is part of the test. So, to suggest that all police powers are treated equally is again ignorant. It is true that historic preservation is a valid state interest (and therefore on equal footing with other regulatory motives), but it is not accurate to suggest that all valid regulations are equally important. Like a first-year law school student, you seem to know the holding of the case without appreciating the nuance of the decisions.
If you read Penn Central and more recently Palazzolo, you will understand that the Supreme Court created a quazi-due process analysis where the importance of the public interest is weighed against the scope and degree of the infringement on the property owner's "bundle of sticks". See: Agins, Goldblatt, Pennsylvania Coal, Armstrong and Palazzolo.
Again, your dismissal of private property rights ignores the central question in all "takings" cases. The degree of interference in the right to private property is the key element in takings analysis.
As for this being a debatable question, the debate is not whether regulatory agencies can declare private property as historic and thereby restrict the use of private property. The debate is where the limits of this regulatory power extend. All of the above cases state that there is a limit but have to varying degrees (intentionally) failed to specifically state what the limits are.
To think that Supreme Court decisions are fixed in time and are never again questioned or altered is a dangerous notion and plainly false.
Just so you know, I've been in the planning, historic preservation and environmental consulting biz for over 25 years. So I know from where I speak.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Your "points" have almost nothing to do with anything I've actually said. You might as well debate yourself, because you're not debating me. Flame-bate not taken. Sorry.
Almost a graceful exit from a losing position...almost.
Just so you know, I've been in the planning, historic preservation and environmental consulting biz for over 25 years. So I know from where I speak.
I am in awe. No, really I am.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I am so sorry you can't manage to pick a fight with me. It must be terribly disappointing.
I'll just leave this alone since you are incapable of discussing the legal issues. No need to reply, I'll just be more disappointed that I already am.
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
LOL. Incapable? Try not interested, and not especially with somebody with such a confrontational attitude. I made the legal points I intended to make here long ago. You couldn't come within miles of refuting them, so you attempted to draw me into a side argument that you think you can win. No thanks. Nice try, anyway!
All bluster, no substance. To quote the master, "nice try".
Originally posted by Mike Peel
the only picture I can find of the mansion, and
a few people seem to be interested paying the shipping...
See every known web-published pictures + satellite photos of Jobs Woodside house.
PS. Is this pic from when Steve was living there?
Okay, we've got a classic case here of uninformed opinions.
I don't plan on explaining all of historic preservation or California environmental law, but suffice to say, nobody can render a judgment about the significance of a property based on one photo. This is a task completed by a professional and based on detailed information and actual knowledge of the subject matter.
Also, for the record, George Washington Smith is one of California's finest and most important architects, and the demolition of one of his buildings is no trivial matter. It's not unlike someone wanting to tear down a Frank Lloyd Wright house just because they don't like it. As someone said above, if Steve didn't like the house, maybe he should have bought a different one.
I remember reading in a previous article a very disappointing quote from Uncle Steve saying that because he'd never heard of Smith, that he could not be important. I just hope he doesn't run Apple with that attitude.
Where were the city and preservationist when the past owners we bastardizing the architect's original design?
Jackling House is hardly George Washington Smith's most memorable or iconic work. And it is not that surprising that Jobs had not heard of him, GWS's career as an architect was just barely over a decade in length and he primarily designed estates for the ultra rich and famous. This is not a house (it is more properly known as the Jackling Estate but that does not inspire sympathy for the preservationists' cause), it is a 16 bedroom monster in poor repair. It is the sort of place that ends up being the darling of the country-club set and getting purchased and restored with donations or tax dollars so the city of Woodside can say they have "the only Spanish-Colonial Revival style estate designed by George Washington Smith North of Santa Barbara" and charge the public $10.00 for the privilege to walk the grounds for an hour.
Reading the letters of support for the preservation at the "Friends of the Jackling House" website http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org it is clear this fight is as much an anti-Jobs crusade as it is about saving the estate. The quote from a fellow Woodside resident "When I saw the Jackling house and what Jobs' neglect had done to it it brought tears to my eyes..." is just so sanctimonious.