Posted by Dave, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 12:31 pm
If Mr. Jobs wants the house gone he has enough money to have it moved where someone else might want it relocated. It is such a crime not to try and preserve some of our heritage as young as it might be. Too bad everyone can't work together on this!
Posted by Dan, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Apr 24, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Mr. Jobs has the right as the owner do do with his property as he pleases.
He has offered to not sell, but pay a million dollars to someone to take the structure away. No takers.
Seems the preservationist movement wants him to sell his lot with the building at an under market price so the architecture fans can have a like minded person restore and live in this place. I don't see the fairness in that. Just because Jobs is rich doesn't mean he's not entitled to fairness.
Furthermore, there is no obligation by Jobs or any new owner to actually show the house, nor should there be. And my understanding is that it is not visible to the public from public property. So we are debating things we cannot even see. I see little difference between this, and mandating the art people need to keep hanging on their bedrooms.
Hardly the open minded democratic freedom I'd like to see.
Architecture is a part of every society's heritage, civilized ones anyway. Sad that Jobs wants to tear it down. One can't tear historic buildings down without good reason-it's unethical to destroy the creative work of a previous generation based on fad and fashion.
Posted by Matt, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2009 at 9:01 am
I am in favor of saving and preserving property that has architecture value – this house has none. None. Anyone who comments on saying this house should be saved – I can guarantee they have not seen the house. Please use common sense when enforcing subjective regulation.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Apr 26, 2009 at 11:55 am
I love how these neo-socialists think they have the duty to vacate other people's property rights. They just don't believe in individual property rights. They believe that far left organizations' interests should supersede those of the property owner. If they love Job's house so much let them buy it and move it or "Move-On". It's his land and unless he is building a nuclear power plant in Woodside I think the neosocialists should quit harrassing him.
Jobs should thank his lucky stars he doesn't live in Menlo Park where we have 3 city council members so far to the left that they make Nancy Pelosi look like a member of the John Birch Society by comparison.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Apr 27, 2009 at 3:25 pm
My argument is with neo-socialists who make the specious argument that run-down old properties are historically significant. Its all about the far left wanting to control people's lives. After all they know what is best and we are so fortunate to have them to make all these terribly difficult decisions for us.
Posted by Delia Ehrlich, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on May 1, 2009 at 10:04 am
I agree that this so called "Jackling House" is an inferior example of George Washington's Smith's style and has deteriorated well beyond any useful function. Furthermore, Mr. Jobs should have the right to build a home which he likes on his own property and it will probably be smaller, contemporary, and much more appropriate to the lot size and Woodside community. As the owner of an Historically Registered Greene and Greene house in Woodside, I cherish preservation of significant structures but not at the expense of good taste, functionality or usability. What use is it to keep a crumbling old mansion which no one can see or visit just to say it is there? Let Mr. Jobs get on with demolition and construction of a usable and attractive contemporary home for himself and his family.
Posted by Don D'Anthony, a resident of another community, on Oct 12, 2009 at 8:14 pm
First of all the people who implied I am a socialist or don't respect property rights should reconsider. I despise socialism-it's truly ever and always a mask for tyranny, and property rights are sacrosanct in my worldview.
I made an argument for the case of the buildings worth-and Architecture is an art form, Citizen A, high art at that and every civilized advanced society has building codes and laws regarding such matters. It is never an arbitrary process.
I haven't seen the house per se, and neither am I structural engineer. But the broad demonization of anyone making an argument for historic preservation and Architecture as an Art form as "socialist" and "not repsecting property rights is dubious.
As for you Hank, you strike me as an internet bully. Calling me a "neo-socialist" is about as insulting as one can get. If you want to insult me, please do it to my face like a man.
Socialist...might as well call me a murderous thief.