Inside Steve Jobs' tear-down mansion

I can't believe how simple this is, Let the man do what he wishes with his property. He bought it and has the Legal right to tear and build if he so wishes. Who should say what you can or can't do to something you own? All the folks who want to save this building need to move it, that simple. Don't attack Mr Jobbs, for wanting to change something he owns, sounds like he is willing for compromise. Just don't expect him to give you the land as that is what he wants. You know its funny if the government wants property for a shopping mall to be built, they take the property by eminent domain reguardless of the homes values. So those who are whining about an individual making a choice for there own property should shut up. Get a job and buy a place of your own…

I love old homes but that place is just ugly. Is that really the foyer as in the main entrance? It looks like the servants' stair with one more flight down to reach the root cellar just out of the picture. Its a shame it wasn't gutted and razed years ago. That would at least have removed much of what preservationists feel is so wonderful before it was damaged.

I think this would be a GREAT project for "This Old House."

I am currently seeking a grant that would begin a business putting some 250+ disabled & 50 & older people to work; people who otherwise can't secure work due to their disability &/or age. Part of their job can be to restore the place to suit our purpose, then continue to their new type of job on the premises. It would be a great gift to these people if Mr. Jobs would donate the house & grounds to us for this purpose. We wouldn't mind if apple then donated, as a grant the funds need to fix it up & then get the business going. We're only looking for 10 million. Chump change for Apple. The change it would make in these people lives however, would be ever lasting. Moreover the business itself would bring a great deal of joy to the thousands who come to visit for a few days. At the price being so reasonable, most everyone could afford it. Can't you see it now. 250+ disable people, persons over 50, homeless people who can't get the SSDI or SSI because they have no place to live, some are Veterans. I should think that a BIG outfit like Apple could help & someone with a property such as this that they don't want, & solvent not to need the money from a sale, a man who can live anywhere he wants, could find it in their/his heart to help. I can be reached via email at vleonica@vleonica.com I'm the ONLY vleonica there is. I'm also Bartholomew Roberts' Champion, so I'm rather easy to track down.

the quicker you bowl this dump over and put up some condos, the better. bring in the dozers and start swinging that wreckin' ball.

For the record Mr. Michael in Miami, I am a conservative always, an Episcopalian frequently and a Republican sometimes. You are an ignorant individual – begone thou tottering rough-hewn flirt-gill.

Mr. Jobs impresses me as someone who would gleefully tear down Montpelier, Monticello and Mount Vernon on the pretext that the plumbing is old and inefficient; they are just too costly to restore or maintain. His lack of taste and creative vision is outdone by his fickle nature. He loves the home enough purchase it, then not enough to maintain it as habitable even with his more than adequate financial resources? Perhaps it's my lack of that uniquely Californian gullibility, but this granny doesn't buy his specious argument. Neither should anyone else. I live on the East Coast. We still respect some traditions – especially the preservation of historic architecture. And most especially when we have knowingly commited ourselves to its preservation through a purely voluntary purchase. Certainly Jobs was on notice that the home had some historical significance and may even, if he decided to suddenly be honest about it, have contributed to his decision to purchase the home. I would appreciate his honesty and a little integrity in dealing with this situation. He hasn't demonstrated any.

I do not assert the Jackling House is on a par with Mount Vernon or any other structure connected to this nation's founding. Some things are worth preserving merely because they are connected to people and events long past, or in this case, a noted architect, not because of any intrinsic stylistic value.

He claims the home is dreary and run-down and therefore ought to be replaced by a home constructed of recycled tin foil and sheep dip. Oh yes, I’m sure that will be absolutely lovely! No eyesore there! Which brings me to a final confession as a conservative sometime Republican – anything that causes inconvenience, cost and suffering to a man who helped elect our current communist-in-chief is worth my full, unyielding and most generous pecuniary support. To those so passionate about preserving his private property rights: How passionately would this individual defend yours?

Long live Schadenfreude.

Steve Jobs can contact me who would love to have this mansion and some land for it and the move which will be about the same as pulling it down.
Plus I will give Steve Jobs a % in my fundraiser which would be more then what he will give me in the mansion, buying the land and fixing the mansion like new with the organ fixed . We could make a deal I need a home and he wants to get it off his land and the fund raiser people love Steve Jobs so people will buy tickets for it and help cancer patients MDA patients
Ms Margaret Cabral,
14 Elmcrest Terrace, Apt 8
Norwalk, CT 06850-3928
Steve Jobs can contact me on this mansion he wants to get off his land.

Steve Jobs wants to tear-down this mansion. Why not donate this mansion and buy land somewhere close and give it to someone like me whos a M.S. cripple with a wheelchair who will gladly take it to be fixed on another property .
I am trying to start a business to help disabled people have opportunity to make money plus start a fund raiser for charity for disabled children, and cancer patiets. I will gladly give Steve Jobs a % in my fund raiser if he gives me the mansion, buys the land and fixed the mansion like new which will allow me to start my fund raiser.

LET THE GUY TEAR DOWN THIS PLACE! It's run down and dirty and who really cares about "Jackling". Nobody!

Hello to All,

I love this house. If we could get a tour going I'd be there and pay an admission fee.

Just looking at the organ makes me weep. I remember a man from town that came in "without pay" just to tune it.

Please let me know if a tour is possible because I think this is a great house!

Its his house…like what was pointed out, some folks care for a house, some dont. In its current state, it does not look like a restore project. I think though, to make the local "historical" folks happy, do a salvage job on it. Sell off the cabinets, door knobs, organ, etc… Demo what is left and life goes on. Is it sad that it came to this, yes…Is it too late, yes (sigh)

To all that would like to save this monster:

Open you eyes people this home is nothing more then an eye sore, the great pictures taken are proof of poor workmanship poor design, I've seen 1 star hotels in mexico with more workmanship then this home, These preservationists are tring to preserve whats not there "beauty" there is nothing beautiful about this home worth preserving. (and there's not much history in an 85 year old home bottom line) example: Take a look at the the "grand" staircase they took branches and twigs off of a tree and set them as rails and spindles (firewood). I wish I had the money to buy this home and "PRESERVE" jobs with it think about all the jobs that can be "PRESEVERVED" with a new home:

1. FIREFIGHTERS (to control the burning to the ground)

2. INVESTIGATORS (so someone can figure out what was the accelerant was used to bring it down)

3.DEMOLISHERS (so they can clean up the ashes that an 85 year old house leaves behind nothing that wind couldn't carry away)

4. ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS (who can create more histroy in a new home then that house could ever have)

5. CARPENTERS (who will use tools designed and made by people JOBS "preserved" to build another eyesore in 85 years to only start the process all over again for the firefighters)

6. Not to forget about the cars that all these workers are driving to and from this jobsite purchasing gas and lunch everyday helping the waitress pay her bills and the gas attendant working a third job only to be able to put food on the table.

This list goes on and on: Bottom line is if a millionaire wants to spend his money in helping the middle and lower class so be it I"ll be there in the food chain waiting for my turn and my bowl of soup.

HONGKONG mentioned we have all these nukes and an idea popped in my head, we could use one on this house and maybe even create and "PRESERVE" more jobs.

RE: Randy in PA (Apr 29): "He could do something amazing with this building if he wanted to. If he didn’t want the building, he shouldn’t have bought it."

He probably didn't buy 'the building', he bought a piece of land on which this building was situated. I own a number of properties and none of the deeds mention the buildings. The transfer documents list assets transferring with the property which can be as diverse as tractors, sheds, timber, wells and houses.

I live in a house which is considered by some to have historical significance. Suggestion from a highly regarded historical architect: 'tear it down, its just an old farmhouse'.

Just about any property will be considered by some to have historical significance, maybe their grandmother was born there. Just because some feel that it has historical significance does not mean that it is truely significant to the wider community.

With regard to Steve Jobs purchase. If Mr Jobs bought the land with it in mind that one day he would remove the existing building and build a new house, why should he consider maintaining the existing building. If he intends demolishing the building, why spend money on it?

If it wasn't registered on a protected register when he bought the property why shouldn't he do as he pleases.

Have any of his critics here proof that he didn't investigate the historical significance of the property, that he didn't find out if the organ had any intrinsic value or that he didn't in anyway consider other implications of his purchase.

Just because some rich man in the past paid an architect to 'design' his home doesn't mean that this particular building is a signal piece of architectural design. Architects, like anyone else, have to earn a living and that includes giving a rich man what he wants. Who knows, possibly someone from the friendsofdeadend society can enlighten us, did the architect look at that house and shudder.

I suppose he has the right to tear down the house but to describe his plans to replace it with a 17,000 square foot "eco-friendly" home is nonsense. The most ecological solution here is to rehabilitate the home, not to replace it with an equally disproportionate monstrosity.

Lauren in VA, you need to get out of your liberal fantasy land and look around. There are no requirements for people to maintain their homes in a specific state of repair. They either do or they don't (unless they are in an association).

What this man does with his personal property is his business and none of ours.

Personally, I think the house looks horrendous and if some people think it is worth saving, they should pay to save it. How much are you willing to pay?

I think we should take up a collection from all the people who posted and think it needs to be "saved" since they seem so intent on telling another private citizen what they need to do with their property.

All the odd misspellings which abound in such comments aside, I am spell-bound myself by how many of the commentaries are directed negatively against 'hippies'. I had no idea so many people considered successful millionaires to be hippies, nor considered historic conservationists to be hippies. Are house-huggers confused with tree-huggers? These things are self evident (to quote a phrase);

1) It's a shame about the house

2) S. Jobs has the right to build a new house

3) people are always going to hate those with more money and influence than they themselves have, and people with more money and influence than brains are always going to choose scapegoats like 'hippies' to hate.

To 'Robert in Hong Kong'; wow, you must have had to work really hard to find a relationship between a wealthy American pulling down an historic building and China trying to control the country next door (Tibet). I read your rant several times and can still see absolutely no relation between the two.

In any case, while I do think it's unfortunate that Steve Jobs did not think twice before buying a house which clearly should have been renovated rather than sadly neglected, it is his land and house, and he has the right of it to suit himself. I grew up in the Bay Area and I do wish there had been more care taken in the past forty years to hold onto some of the more spectacular architectural beauties, from the Deco movie theaters in Los Altos and Palo Alto (Varsity; but cheers to David Packard for saving the Stanford!) to all the wonderful train stations along the SF to Santa Cruz route, to individual houses which were on the old estates. Life is change, though.

I love the fact that a vocal minority of sacntimounious ass*holes feel they can tell a individual what to do with private property. They should put there money where their mouth is or shut their pie holes! Just because he has a boatload of money, THAT has no direct relevance to his INDIVIUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. California is truly the land of "fruits and nuts." Uphold Our Heritage president Clotilda Luce gave an ambiguous answer. “We already sued, and we won,” she said. “I wish (the council) had paid attention to the law.” Reality is that they failed to realize that old adage of "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" still holds true. Common sense seems to have abandoned these folks. Wake up nimrods, Mr Jobs can outwit you and already has!

how pathetic. if you want to save it pay to move it, if you don't want to pay to move it, then STEVE: JUST BURN IT.

Its so sad to see such a beautiful home go to disrepair. I hope Jobs makes an effort to refurbish it; he certainly has the money. – JB

Steve Jobs is no more or less a villain than other wealthy individuals. Money doesn't make a jerk, but it does allow a jerk to get his/her way more often than not.

Every jurisdiction in the U.S. restricts property use. Zoning and restrictive covenants aren't new concepts. I am curious as to why Mr. Jobs didn't research any restrictive covenants or related issues prior to making an offer for this property? Though he may not have had the intention of demolishing the home at the time of purchase, it seems remiss not to have investigated these issues then as well as any real property laws affecting the home?

I personally do not think the home is so dreary, it's at least unique, and I love the Spanish tile, but its present condition and the intentional neglect (which appears almost vicious on his part) in my view begs for a big, fat fine levied on Mr. Jobs for neglect during his possession of the property – which neglect may put it beyond repair or restoration. I'm sure this presents a very attractive nuisance in the neighborhood. I cannot think of anywhere in this country where a homeowner – whether of a 300 s.f. hovel, or a 17K s.f. mansion isn't responsible to maintain his/her property. Why should Mr. Jobs escape accountability for that at least?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd love to see him donate the beautiful Aeolian organ as well as the pool table to someone or to a worthy organization just as gesture of goodwill and a demonstration of his generosity. I'm not holding my breath.

Sorry about my earlier rant. I am short and insecure. I lash out because God has shortchanged me with respect to penis size. I have spent way too much time worrying about what other people do and it has worked me into a frenzy of vile and hatred. Since I am unemployed (probably fired by an American company)I troll the internet spewing my ill thought out opinions to make myself feel better.

Poor Steve…. I hope he makes a recovery. http://tinyurl.com/dyflwl

Ah, the hypocrisy that is America! On the one hand, you claim that unlike China, you are a 'free' country. Then you guys prevent a hard-working man from rebuilding on his own property yet you are too cheap to move the building away. Like the cowards you are, you gather together like the mob in Huck Finn wanting to lynch a real man just because you are jealous of his wealth and use your collective pettiness to make life difficult when you didn't even know or care about this so-called 'historic' Jackoff House in the first place- and chances are if it were bought by a middle class no-name you wouldn't have missed it. Yet you guys claim you are a free country… yes, free for the majority, but not equal for the minority- all equal: For white heterosexual males at least. And then you apply your same perverted sense of self-righteousness to China, and meddle in Tibet, when you've never travelled there, and know nothing of the place other than your racist view of the 'mystical' Orient and its Shangri-La where dwell the 200 year old fair Chinese princess that never ages and where monks levitate! Alas, you don't care to find out that Tibet was a feudal state where the nobility anointed themselves as gods and priests- or 'lamas' and use this psychological subjugation to reinforce their physical subjugation- essentially Tibetans were slaves to their nobility. The Communists, for better or worse, persecuted all the wealthy capitalists, and this included the lamas. Had I been a Tibetan serf I would have welcomed this- If I were the 'god' of these people- not so much! So while you sit on the land you stole from the indigenous peoples of North America (upon whom you committed genocide and corralled into ghettos you euphemistically call 'reservations') not more than three hundred years ago and tell a hard working man what he can and cannot do with his land, you turn around with a pretentious self-righteous air to the Chinese and scorn them for freeing the Tibetan majority from enslavement, in a land that has been contested by China for millennia- basically, telling others what to do with your typical holier-than-thou American attitude, which you in turn ironically apply to one of your fellow Americans simply because you are jealous of his wealth and feel some sort of vindictive pleasure in ganging up together against this real man to lynch him like a group of cowards, when this "heritage" house as you call it, is worth nothing compared to the castles of your motherland which is Europe, which in turn are worth nothing compared to the ancient civilization that is China. You are but a speck of dust in human history. Your "culture", if you may call it that is a mere fabrication of your own self-righteous mind. That you should call this piece of imitation garbage (or "revival" as you might want to dub it to increase its relevance in your own minds) historic is truly an accurate reflection of your lack of history, and in this case, taste. And as if that were not enough, only in the U.S. will you find people pompous enough with their nouveau-riche behavior to give their children suffixes like 'Junior', or "III", as if simply by naming yourselves you will make yourselves more important, and applying this pathetic concept to your ridiculous attempt to preserve this piece of garbage, the 'Jackoff House'. Why, I could just call the homeless man's cardboard box the 'Villefort Estate' and thereby request the city that it should not be cleared off the sidewalk because in 80 years it will become a heritage house! Your pathetic little civilization is but a mere speck in human history- yes you have a lot of nukes, yes you can nuke the World over 100 times and destroy all life as you've destroyed the environment, but like all destroyers, whether Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, or Hitler, you do nothing to advance human civilization, which at its height is epitomized by peace and development of the arts and philosophy. And I mean real art, not your Andy Warhole and Jackoff House.

From an Englishman: This house is hardly historic. It resembles a carbuncle and I do find the way Americans get worked up about buildings that here in the UK would not be worthy of saving is just ludicrous.

The BAD PR is going to cost Jobs and Apple more than the house is WORTH!

Hey fool, just donate the house to the historical society and write the mess off!

Think of this…Most likely this house will outlive YOU. You are a arrogant fool to fight over this property in your condition. Stress is the last thing your cancer ridden body needs! Live and learn, or in your cause get sicker and fight for what??? Money…you can buy ANYTHING you want. But you can't buy good health.

I guess you need a hobby?

Why did he even buy this house? He knew it was historic!

To all the people that say tear it down, it is his property…

While we are at it, lets tear down all the Frank Lyold Wright houses in private hands, and ANYTHING ELSE HISTORIC we don't like.

Just what the state needs is another greedy rich person doing a tear-down and the shake and bake McMansion with granite counters. Lets be as trendy and generic as possible!

Just burn it down.

In response to these comments: too many people, not enough life to go around

It sounds like after living there he decided he wanted to tear it down he got pissy that he couldn't do it since it was a historical site. Why buy a property with a older home with the intention of tearing it down? I would have checked when I bought it if it was a historical site.

In it's day I'm sure it was magnificent estate, but with Jobs leaving it to fall into disrepair over the past 10 years.

Sounds like a child having a tantrum.

If the house is of such a significant historical value then why didn't the "presrvation" group take Jobs up on his offer to give away the house if they moved it?

Irregardless of the current condition this house (as mentiond previously) has no significant historical value.I have relatives older than this house.

Maybe we should just hold on to every thing ever made and build storage buildings to house it all…just in case someone wants to look at it in 80 years.

Take a picture.

It is his house. How about we go to your house and tell you what to fix and clean up, you guys need to remember, just because you dont have it and can't you shouldn't use your collective voice to tell a minority what to do, the minority is the rich guy, leave him alone, you wouldn't know the house was there unless some bunch of hippies told you about it. If they like it so much, the coucil and hippies can pay to have it moved—otherwise, bring on the demo ball !

Tear it down… What "history" are they afraid of losing… The history of over excessive people who wasted huge amounts of money and materials and resources on extravagant homes to prove their wealth? One of the reasons we(the world)are in the mess we are is because of the improvidence of the last century…There is plenty of materials in that home to recycle and build another eco-friendly house for Jobs that may actually be an inspiration to people rather than an icon of greed and waste… Lets show the world that Americans can have wealth, class, and still be eco-conscious.. This would be a perfect example. Perhaps we can start a new trend that will help to allow our children's children to live in a world (if there is any livable world left) where the thought of environmental consciousness takes precedence over the ideals of excessive extravagance…

Grey Gardens all over again…..such a waste.

He has the money. why not do it up and turn it into a homeless shelter. I'm sure that would appease his interfearing neighbours

That 17,250 square foot "building" needs to go. 14 Bedrooms most of which can only be accessed by going outside? That is NO historic home. It's ridiculous excess devoid of beauty/interest.

This opposition is predominately driven by people who have lived in the house at one time or another. They didn't love it enough to keep it did they?

Let him build his small eco-friendly home and turn that lawn into native plants as he desires. It'll be beautiful and lasting.

I was just looking at a display in Cambridge, Mass. showing the development of the city. It showed where the first house once stood– built in 1630. The house was torn down in 1802 and I wondered…what were the people thinking who tore down one of the first dwellings in the US? Perhaps this particular property doesn't have the same significance but my point is that to us the home is "only" so many years old if one forgets that future generations may want to physically see how we lived–and then that home will be very old! If we keep tearing everything down we'll be living in an unanchored perpetual present. Preservation of historic properties benefits everyone.

Well….his dime. Surely the new residence will be modern, energy efficient, up to all codes/ regulations, and increase the amount of property taxes collected by the revenue authorities. Those that oppose should buy Jobs out and then restore it using their own THIN dimes.

Most important thing is did he agree not to re-build at the time of original purchase . If there was no such clause in the purchase agreement then he is within his rights to demolish . The new structure will of course have to be approved by local bodies.

Some people do relish the opportunity to live in historic properties. The chance to do so becomes less and less as these buildings are lost. If Mr Jobs doesn't want to live this way, he should sell up and make room for someone that does. America has modern homes and land for building in abundance, there was no need for such wilful destruction.

He hasn't inherited some run down morgue that will ruin him financially. He has deliberatly caused this damage in order to get his own way. The value of the property would now be much reduced, but it serves him right. He took a risk and shouldn't be rewarded for it.

i would love to make a horror film here

He is tearing it down. Look at the pictures. It's just taking a long time.

He *owns*, so he should be able to set it on fire if he wants.

I guess only in California is an 80 yr. old house considered "old". Not every random 17K sq. ft. monstrosity is "historic". We're not talking about one of the Greene and Greene Ultimate Bunglows, or a FLW house. When was the last time you heard an architect say their life's work was inspired by the "Jackling House"?

Every time I hear someone say "It's the law", or "This is a nation of laws", I remember seeing a Chinese official saying that his country was a nation of laws, and that they were only following the law.

America used to be a free country.

Now we're a nation of laws.

That means a nation run by politicians who become corrupt because they have so much power.

Humans can't handle power over others on a grand scale (and maybe not even on a small scale).

So, while a free country that has property rights may not be perfect, a nation overrun by laws and politicians is far worse, as the few in charge and their friends will replace the middle class as the only ones living comfortably.

If you want to preserve a piece of property, create a free, wealthy nation and buy that property with honestly earned dollars.

If you want to control others, you might as well try to control the tides of the sea.

"Utopia is not one of the options"

– Libertarianism in one lesson

by David Bergland

**sigh** It would be really nice if some folks, before commenting, would actually read the article. Several have said if he didn't want the house he shouldn't have bought it or something to that effect. Folks, he bought the house in 1983 — he was 29. That was, umm, 26 years ago. Tastes change as we get older.

I do agree that if the preservationists want it protected, they need to buy it. I don't believe that an individual privately owned property can be deemed of historical significance and essentially taken away from its owner simply because some odd-ball group wants to preserve it. It is, after all, private property. And, while he can't do anything he wants with it (e.g. toxic waste dump?) he does have the right to manage the property as he sees fit, so long as it doesn't provide a public nuisance or endanger others.

Would you want someone coming up and telling you that you can't paint your house blue because they don't like it?

There are several reasons why this is an issue.

1. Steve Jobs has a HUGE ego. He digs his heels here because HE wants what he wants and is the type to fight.

2. Steve Jobs is a hypocrite. He courts the leftist elite of California and the rest of the country, then he gets mad when their rules are applied to him.

3. Most leftists in power assume the rules don't apply to them. And usually they don't. Steve still thumbs his nose at the Dept. of Transportation (no license plate), and thinks cripples should walk from the back of the lot (he consistently parks in handicapped spaces).

4. There are mechanisms, tax credits, bargain sales, charitable gifts that can be made to make the disposal of this property a "win" for Steve. Yet, #1 gets in the way of that.

geez. Why'd he leave the pool table behind? Kind of makes you wonder. It might not have much value now after sitting and rotting, but would have been nice for him to give it away if he didn't want it. It still looks good in the picture.

Nobody ever restored a historic building and lived to regret it. It's almost always the other way around. Jobs has the money.

He could do something amazing with this building if he wanted to. If he didn't want the building, he shouldn't have bought it.

The problem is that Steve Jobs is a hipocrite. He's usually the hippie that wants to control what others can and cannot do with their property. But he dont follow his own rules. He's supposed to be the conservationist and preservationist. But not when it comes to his own property. Its situations like this that prove that environmentalists, hippies, and Steve Jobs are a bunch of fraudsters that are full of crap. They are just as much a hippocrit as a Catholic priest that screws kids.

Tear it down, Steve. It's your property. This is still America, isn't it!

Please, if you hate it that much, give the home away to someone who will move it from the property and restore it to its former glory. If you don't like a dog, do you kill it? Give it to someone who loves it!

Go for it Mr. Jobs. Do what ever you want with your property. Are they going to tell you also which furniture or colors to paint it too? C'on!!

Was this the house used to produce the 1940's film Double Indemnity?

"No, he does not have the right to burn down his house if he wanted to; that’s a crime called arson. "

Surely that is not right?

I thought a crucial element of arson was that the burning had to be another person's house?

Blackstone says the definition of the common law crime of arson is "the malicious burning of the dwelling of another".

Anyway, I am not going to fight about this issue. For all I know, insisting on the common law being consistent is a crime in California, and a group of outraged hippies might have me extradited to face charges of some kind.

But the issue is curious. The law in the USA has devolved to such a point where people don't even look at the harm done to another before seeking a criminal law or civil action to enforce their own opinion of what should got to be done about the matter. I suppose you have the war on drugs and terror, and so on. Go figure.

This article is fascinating. If you tried to explain the core of the dispute to a Swiss person, I think their brain would explode.

Here we have a PRIVATE PROPERTY. In other words, NOT a property owned by the state. And the building is less than 100 years old. And it was owned by a metal merchant. No, the owner was not a historical figure.

And the state has declined to purchase the property and make it into a heritage trust asset.

And yet…… the owner can be forced to follow the directives of a tiny group of random people. Third parties can circumvent the government, and use the courts to force the owner to do as they say.

That is amazing. That is a whole new way of doing legal business, as far as I am concerned. Nevermind lobbying your government to get them to pass laws that force private people to do public duty, you can simply go to court for the same result!

Astounding. And this is America, home of the free market?

You guys have lost it. You've become worse than Europeans. Every crank with too much to say and too little to do has become a source of law.

No wonder the Big O has sent all your children to the debtors prison. You probably begged him to do it.

I hear the argument that Stev-o is a liberal, too. I wonder if he still is a liberal?

Personally, I think he must have the worst lawyers in the world. No way would I have ever let that get to court. The very first time I saw problems emerging, WAY before it ever got to court, I would have had the thing burned down to ground, or bulldozed.

Then let the freaks and the busy bodies fight over a pile of ash, see how long they can keep up a united front. A court might be inclined to issue a directive to stay demolition, but they are never in a million years going to order a person to rebuild a house to a given design.

Steve must have totally useless lawyers. They must all sit around in a circle, rubbing beads and chanting to Krishna for a new whipple.

OK, Steve Jobs…. I am with you man. I would not want anyone coming in and telling me how to run my property which I paid for, maintained and pay taxes on. It's just wrong. But on the other hand, I live in a house which the community fought the school district (who owned it at the time) on tearing it down. The house has a famous and tragic past and is a landmark in the community. My husband lovingly restored the house and brought it back from the grips of death to a beautiful home in all its historic glory. I understand to one degree what is happening, but noone should be trying to force you into keeping a house you HATE! You absolutely should have the right to tear it down. If the groups fighting you on it want it so much, force them to buy your property. We purposely did not register our home on the national registry of historic places (which we were asked to do) because they want to know every little thing you do, right down to replacing light fixtures. This is a bit much. National registry or not, you still own the property and some decisions should just be yours (within reason of course)! Good luck Steve and I hope you overcome this battle and will be able to build what you want. Be happy and don't let anyone try to bully you!!! You pay the mortgage, you pay the taxes, and until someone else starts paying the bills, I believe it is safe to say you have the upper hand!

Those shots look totally staged.

To whomever thinks the house is livable, it is far from it. Mold, rat, racoons, skunk – holes in the walls, etc….this place would be condemned if it was still lived in.

The house is his to do with as he pleases. Would it have been better to have it be preserved? Sure. But now, it's a terrible house, and salvaging it is probably not ever going to happen.

Thanks for the beautiful pictures.

I just did a few minutes of research (something that many of you don't seem capable of doing)and it appears as though the house is eligible for the California Register (http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org). As I stated previously, there are historic preservation laws. Jobs, like the rest of us, is required to abide by those laws. Unless the house is part of a historic district, which does not appear to be the case, he will be able to tear it down eventually.

P.S. If the house is moved from its original location, it no longer has its original integrity, rendering it ineligible for the California Register. Therefore, if the preservation society buys it and moves it, they are just buying a house. A crappy, falling down house

Folks, I've looked at the pipe organ and all the other photos. I'm sorry, but there's nothing interesting about the design or contents of this home. Just because a rich guy had it built and an 'architect' was involved does not make it good or worth saving.

Steve Jobs is right, the place is an 'abomination'.

This is not a lost cause for Jobs. There are historic preservation laws. First he must hire an architectural historian to determine whether the house is historically significant (just because some preservation society say it is does not make it so; there are very specific criteria for determining significance). Then the house has to be very well documented by some sort of historic preservation specialist (i.e., the architectural historian). There has to be consultation with the state historic preservation officer (ohp.parks.ca.gov), who will either concur with the determination of the architectural historian, or not concur. It can be a long and arduous process, but in the end, after the proper documentation,and even with a determination of significance, he will be able to tear it down. Really, he just needs to familiarize himself with the cultural resources section of CEQA. And hopefully repay me for this advise by giving me some of those kitchen cabinets.

Ok first of which Steve Jobs isn't a jerk! So what if he has all of that money doesn't mean he has to spend it on something he doesn't want too. Ever think maybe like others have said he bought it for the land not the house on it? I say he bought it he should be able to do with it what he wishes with no one to tell him different. You people need to stop complaining it isn't your decision to make neither is it the Country's or California's, it is his and only his!

The argument that he should be able to tear it down because he owns it has no weight. If we allow that argument, then we have to allow that if you have enough money, you can buy any piece of property you like, no matter how historic and important, and tear it down. Unless you built it you will never completely own it. I could go and throw billions of dollars to purchase something like the Colliseum or the Parthenon and then tear it down, but that would never be allowed because some things belong to everyone, no matter how much money someone else throws at them. If Steve Jobs wants to build a new house so bad I'm sure theres land somewhere else without an historic building standing on it that he can use. If we allow him to tear this house down because its too expensive to rehabilitate (a condition he himself is responsible for) than we're giving a seal of approval to this demolition by neglect garbage that people think they can get away with.

This house reminds me of the movie Grey Gardens! Perhaps we need to refer to him when visiting this house as "Little Stevie!!!!"

Some day everything in the Bay Area will be considered a historical piece and by this mentality we can't upgrade to more efficient homes etc. This home is no different than many other very old and out dated homes around the Bay Area which does not grow land. If the historical society wants it so bad they need to get their dump trucks and haul it away. Old houses need to go new green – efficient homes need to be built in their place. Wasting limited resources ie land to keep junk around is just stupidity. Especially when your not willing or able to pay to keep such things your self.

Ever See Grey Gardens?

Property rights, like all rights, are not unlimited. No, he does not have the right to burn down his house if he wanted to; that's a crime called arson. No, he cannot just build a toxic dump on his land because he wants to; that sort of use is regulated to protect people. Rules for what you can and cannot do with your property are necessary to make sure all our rights are respected. It's not as simple as, "it's his, he can do what he wants".

I notice that Mr JOBS maintains a beautiful lawn at the residence, but he won't put a piece of wooden board over the organ to protect it from falling debris; to allow that organ to be damaged for the sake of proving a point is appauling. That in itself seems to sum up this man.

Hey boy, I don't like this Spanish House, better a new building… when you finish the "iHOUSE" call us for a beer

My late grandparent's house is in a historic district. If it burns to the ground, we are required by state law to restore it to its former appearance. My mother got flack when she wanted to add a wheelchair ramp because it would "change the exterior of the house." This is an 80 year old, 1500 square foot bungalow in amongst 200 year old, 4000 square foot Victorian mansions.

Steve doesn't have any choice but to get permission to tear it down. He's forced to maintain it in perpetuity. These historic districts basically steal your property and make you pay for it.

It is his house, his property, he should do with it as he wants as long as he complies with building and demolition codes. The fact that he has gobs of money is not relevant.

He's a liberal, therefore put all of the weapons of his chosen party in his path. I think an environmental impact study needs to be done, as surely with the water ingress, that outflow damage has occured to the surrounding area.

Do as I say and not as I do? Indeed not.

Maybe so, but miss the point of Jobs: It's private property, his property. What the hell have hapenned whit this country?

If it's really that much of a treasure – they should have come up with some way to move everything and save it.

It all comes down to money – it would be expensive to move it, expensive to restore it and Jobs has offered to simply give it to anyone willing to put the work into taking it.

I think leaving it to fall to pieces is the only option left considering Jobs doesn't like it and doesn't want to sink the money into restoring it.

Once is a total pile of rubble, no one can have any problem with him carting the rubble off his land. It won't be much of a treasure then.

Seems a good deal of you are missing the point. He wants the land, he doesn't want to sell the place for someone to fix it. He is getting find for not maintaining and he is paying the fines as he can. Buyer beware, he should looked into tearing the place down prior to buying it, he would have found out that it wasn't going to fly before getting to this point. Rather the put the house up for sale and let someone buy it that would have cared for it, he chose to let it rot and pay the fines. The place wasn't a garbage heap when he bought it, this has been brought on by years of neglect. Steve is the spoiled kid that picks up his ball and walks off the field when he doesn't get his way.

i agree with the notion that if this is such a historical treasure, then the county or the preservation society should pay to restore it.

The fact that Steve Jobs has so much money is irrelevant. you can not ask him to restore a home that he does not like.

Also, it is unnecessary to bring up his illness.

This house must be the new Turner Prize of Contemporary Art. It seems to be a temporary installation in one of the bests museums of the world.

It matters little what we think Jobs owns this trash/treasure. Remember people, if ya own it ya can do what you like with it. If you have a problem with how he is treating this stuff, then stop buying Macs then Jobs’ won’t have the money to buy more stuff.

He should consulted with Bill Gates on this. He probably could have provided some much needed advice on PR….how to have money, get what you want and appear to get along with your community.

The win/win situation is to find a way to donate it to the preservationists/state, reap the tax benefits and let the taxpayers front the bill for the rest of eternity on rebuilding history from a garbage heap.

The fact that he has handled it in such a poor manner shows that he is really not one of the "elite".

My opinion is let it him do what he wants, he owns it. It would be kind of him to donate any artifacts, and let a photographer in before it is demolished but the bottom line is that We ALL have bigger problems than fighting to preserve another "richmans" former residence.

After this recession, this mansion will be just another number in a long line of "palaces" that have been abandoned. Start counting, they are springing up all over the country, especially California and Florida.

That pipe organ is magnificent. And to allow it to be rained on through holes in the roof is a travesty.

The house may not have been salvageable, but there's no excuse for Jobs not having taken simple steps to protect the interior furnishings and appointments that could have been individually protected and salvaged.

If these preservationists want to save the house so bad, move the house. Mr. Jobs is giving the damned thing away. The bottom line is that he owns the house and can set it on fire if he wishes. Uh, i don't know, maybe because he purchased with his own money? I hope Ross Perot does light his original copy of the Magna Carta on fire and urinates on the ashes just to piss you off. People like you are attempting to ruin this country. YOU AS A PERSON OR GROUP HAVE NO SAY IN SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IS FINANCIALLY VESTED IN. Cry your river, climb down from your tree top, get a real job and move on with your lives.

Jobs is going to be dead of pancreatic cancer before any of this is resolved, so what difference does it make?

Whomever he leaves his property to will probably tear it down.

I am into historical preservation in a big way, including movie palaces. So, I believe in saving all that you can. The home, prior to its decay was a beautiful example of Spanish Architecture.

But, like George Burdell of Atlanta said, further down in the comments, if the house means so much why doesn't someone buy it and restore it?…including the county????

You can't force someone to spend money, now matter how much they have, because YOU believe they should do something they don't have to.

If I were him, I would skip the bureaucracy and just burn the place down.

What an A$$. If he wanted a different home he shouldn't have purchased this one. All that money and no class.

Kelt, what the heck are you babbling about?

Is it Steve Jobs fault that a family lives without running water and a single bathroom.

Is America the land of economic opportunity or the land of forced economic equality where all must suffer?

What is it about Steve Jobs and his hard work, dedication and effort in his career that makes him dishonest and egomaniacal?

Do you prefer a world with no iPods and no shoes? It is out there for you if you want to find it. Feel free to drop out and live off your sweat all day long.

This country rewards hard work and focus and motivation and drive. The current mindset wants to strip any of these factors from our existence and leads to this delusional "hate the rich and successful" sickness.

The history of this country is one of people overcoming challenges and obstacles and building something for themselves and their families. And it happens across every single race, ethnicity and gender.

You say he owns the land and can do what he wants with it. The fact that he wants to tear down the house though makes him a jerk? Why?

What happened to property rights in this country?

Things are going downhill fast.

"He must really like the location. Otherwise, why not sell it?"

Finding another 6-acre parcel in Woodside, even for a man of seemingly limitless means, would not be easy.

This is called 'demolition by neglect' and should have earned him prosecution. We don't see pictures of the primary spaces; one wonders if they're good.

So this place has been sitting dormant for 15 years? Even though it's Job's land and he can do whatever he wants with the land, doesn't make him any less of a jerk.

I know families who would live in the house even in it's current state. Families that don't have running water and a single bathroom. At least this house would keep them dry.

One day, you might have to live an honest, humble life. A life with no iPods and no shoes; just the dirt between your toes mingled with sweat dripping down your face.

Shame on you, rich snobs.

He must really like the location. Otherwise, why not sell it?

Jason if Ross Perot wants to destroy his copy of the Magna Carta then yes he can! What's your point?

The same individuals who are stopping him from razing this architectural abomination are the same group of “High and Mighties” that will scream the loudest when it eventually becomes a vermin ranch through neglect. The fact that the city cannot force Jobs to maintain the property proves the fact that rightfully they cannot impose their collective personal will on the property.

If he had any less money or was less of a public figure, he could just tear it down and pay a fine. He's playing nice so that he doesn't get raped with a hefty fine from the county or town. These preservationists should either put up or shut up. If you want to maintain the house and move it, do so. Otherwise I'm sure he'll let it rot til it falls. If you want to win the place take it.

If the state of California wanted it so bad, they should have outbid Jobs for the home before he bought it. He should be allowed to do whatever he wants with it.

boy, he lived like a pig

Do you think Steve would Cry if the last Apple II was thrown in the garbage pit? Maybe he would want it preserved….

gads, what an ugly house. tear it down, build one that is green, fits the environs, and is build to last. Then in 84 years our great grand children can petition to preserve it as a national treasure.

Ross Perot owns an original Magna Carte (there is more than one). Can he destroy it sense he owns it?

I get tired of sentences that start out, "With his money…."

It's his money alone. That should have nothing to do with the issue. He should be allowed to level the house and build something decent.

comment 47, you do realize if you purchase a house that is considered an antique you cannot just tear it down. you have to preserve the house and keep it as much to its originality.

Hello, he owns the house, he owns the property, what is the problem. Even if you all think he has too much money the fact is he owns the house and whether he lets it decay or wants to tear it down should be his decision, and nobody else's to make.

You all forget that Jobs is a business man. It's a fact that he does not care about the house itself, but by building a newer modern house on top of the land, he will raise the property value by quite a bit. It it one of the wealthiest small towns, as the article says. It is just another business idea to him

What is the country coming to when one man can tell another what he can and cannot do with his own property.

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). " Ayn Rand

The existing building looks like S**t.

Steve: Hope you can hurry up and build a (zero carbon) house that is representative of all that's possible at the end of the first decade of C21. You've already commisioned the 28th most photographed landmark on earth … keep up the good work, and get well soon.

fact that he just let it decay proves he has too much money and shouldn't be allowed to tear it down.

Its as if he went "Well I'm steve jobs and I don't have to care." Um yes you do.

Steve Jobs is a whining, crybaby JERK. That place was beautiful, he should have maintained it. JERK!

RT

http://www.anonymity.ru.tc

The only history this building seems to represent is how bad american architecture used to be. Melting pot of styles with no cohesion. However just because Mr Jobs has a great taste in product design it doesn’t mean he has a good taste in architecture. He did buy the house in the first place.

"Surely Jobs can find another property on which to build his dream house and leave this landmark alone. With his money, he ought to be able to refurbish and donate the Smith house to the state of California for posterity."

With all Jobs's money, surely he can give me a few million and donate to me his shares of Apple stock for my posterity….

Sounds pretty ridiculous right, well the demands of Mr. Jones, et al are just as absurd!

If this house was so valuable, why did someone else not buy it in 1984? I image that if someone offered Mr. Jobs a high enough price, he would sell, or maybe someone should just ask him nicely. Either way, it is sad that just because Mr. Jobs is wealthy that some people believe he has so sort of an obligation to preserve something that obviously not enough people care about. Thank God the courts have stepped in and rectified this situation!

Mr. Jobs bought the property; it is his to do with what he wants (even if that means putting in an Apple Store). Mr. Jones, et al, need to either put up enough money to buy the house at whatever price Mr. Jobs requests, or shut up.

I'll take it. Maybe I can get some cash out of it for my student loans.

WELL NOW, WOULD YOU LIKE THIS EYESORE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD?, UNLIKLY I BELIEVE, LET THE NEIGHBORS VOTE ON THIS ISSUE, I SEE NO HISTORIC BENEFIT FOR SAVING THIS HEEP OF RUBBLE UNLESS ITS TO REMIND FUTURE BUILDERS HOW NOT TO CREATE A PILE OF NOTHING SO FAR FROM A ARCHITECTURE STYLE IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND. I BELIVE IN HISTORIC SAVINGS OF SOMETHING OF IMPORTANCE OR BEAUTY WE OWE THIS TO OUR FUTURE OFFSPRING FOR DECADES DOWN THE ROAD, SO COME ON AND LEVEL THIS ONE ONCE AND FOR ALL……..AMEN

If this were a real Spanish mansion it would not fall apart so fast. It has more the trappings of a Hollywood set. I have see 400 year old houses in Spain in better shape that that. Some of the bits and pieces may be nice, cannot say valuable necessarily, and could be taken out. Let the guy do what he wants. It is obviously not worth saving despite the image it gives.

Let the historic ninnies and nannies come and take what they want to preserve and then let SJ do whatever he wants.

The outside is really quite unspectacular.

I agree that Mr. Jobs should be able to tear down this property should he wish to do so. Jackling's legacy will live on locally whether or not his old house still stands. I liken this to Firestone Tire Company Harvey Firestone's original house in Akron, OH. He stipulated that upon his death, the mansion be torn down so no one else would live in there. The house was torn down in 1959 and is now the site of a retirement home. Certainly Firestone's legacy is not affected one bit by the tearing down of his home. As a history buff, I'd have liked to have seen it, but maintenance of such properties costs money. It's Steve Job's business if he chooses to maintain or not maintain his property. He's not going to build an Apple Store on the property! Anything that replaces the present deteriorating house I'm sure will be tastefully done, blending in with the local architecture.

Quite disappointed in Steve Jobs for letting the property decay further. Regardless of what he wants to do with it, he should feel some responsibility for keeping it in decent shape.

I would be willing to bet that Steve Jobs — a far more intriguing and historically memorable personality than Jackling — would hire an architect capable of producing a truly timeless, revolutionary, and unmistakably superior work of genius that will replace this subpar, forgettable eyesore that will likely never be restored.

Historic? So what, it's falling apart.

When the preservationalists are willing to foot the bill for restoration and maintenance, then they can talk. But it's his property, he should get to tear it down if he wants.

(linkback) Interesting or Boring? Steve Jobs wants to tear down this old mansion to build a new one [VOTE] – http://www.pikk.com/a7151

I usually would agree that houses are the property of the owners, and I would also stand up for notable or historical commercial property to be restored and reused.

but just looking at the outside of this house makes me unwilling to go inside. I shiver with a chill just looking at it. There are no windows of note, no grand patios, an awkward looking kitchen.

If anything, salvaging some of the beams and other notable architectural detail should be about the extent of salvage and preservation. Nothing else in there looks notable enough to keep. And no, not even the organ unless the pipes are in working condition. It's not like it's an irreplaceable theatre organ.

The style of entertaining has changed drastically since that place was built. I doubt if anyone would ever find it accommodating today. Even the people who insist on preserving it would probably hate to live there.

Preserve this eyesore? Just because something was once interesting and is now old does not make it more important than the rights of property owners! If you don't own it, you don't have a say.

And in no way is this interesting history. Just one old rich dudes house giving way to a new rich guys house. Hardly akin to the Civil War or French history etc etc.

Hopefully the city council will rectify this travesty and let Mr. Jobs do as he pleases with HIS property.

Yes, @Nathan. Could not have said it better. Thanks for the articulate response. Maybe Jobs will hire you.

How has no one started squatting this yet? As long as it has been abandoned, you would think someone would have gained entry

Haefner and Haeber's photos are stealing the show. Beautiful! Otherwise, this looks like a horror movie set. While it's most likely too unsafe for a similar use, I see no other option than to scrap it. I'm a history buff, but some things are simply too far gone and it's happening all over the country. I see no issue here: who owns the house (and since 1984)? Donate some of the salvageable items to the future Jackling exhibit and call it a day.

A few sticks of dynamite in a late night action would put the issue to rest.

What is the fine for destruction of a property that is considered protected?

The lawsuit cost less than a million. To move the "free" house you need to prove you have 7+ million to invest. This battle proves even smart guys can act not so smart sometimes. Steve's neglect of the house seems childish. For all those who say this isn't a 300 year old house… How could it get to that age if it is torn down now? Age makes it more of a curiosity, not more architecturally valuable.

I'd love to know what Jobs was thinking when he purchased it in 1984. Did he admire the location, the architecture, the old industrialist who had owned it?

George Washington Smith's wikipedia entry says he is credited with Spanish-Colonial Revival Style Architecture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Colonial_Revival_Style_architecture

I am but a lay person, but the Jackling home owned by Mr. Jobs seems to be far from that kind of style. If anything, the Jackling home seems significantly un-befitting of the neighboring Woodside estates that exist.

I would like my name protected. From this moment forward, no child shall be named "Brian".

A quote from "The Almanac by Andrea Gemmet, Wednesday, February 27, 2002"

"To make up for the loss of the house, Mr. Jobs is willing to make certain concessions, said Mr. Aikins (Jobs' lawyer). Possibilities include a thorough photo documentation of the mansion, salvaging some of its interesting elements such as the wrought-iron light fixtures and the mailbox, and restoring and relocating the property's aviary, built in the same style as the house, he said. A Bay Area home has already been found for the organ, he said."

Hello Philip. Why don't you check my new blog when I track Apple. I am a Polish blogger and I have just launched an English version of my blog here: http://www.spidersapple.com/2009/04/appstore-billions.html

I'm an architect who both practices contemporary modern design, and serves on a historical review board.

From what I can tell (and I've read mro ethan just this article), this building may have been built by a noteworthy architect, but it has little special merit in and of itself. Not even the preservationists seem able to articulate what makes this particular house exemplary other than history. The rich hire prominent architects to design their homes: always have and always will. That's not noteworthy and certainly not worth impeding progress or the important social value of property rights.

While we must value our history, we must also make choices to avoid being buried under a mausoleum of our own heritage.

Not knowing the status of the house prior to Job's purchase, I'd go one of 2 ways:

1) If he bought it knowingly that it was a "restore" only and he was not able to tear down a "heritage" property, then I would say he is behind the 8 ball here and there is some justification in the actions taken against him.

2) However, as I suspect that wasn't the case, he should not be asked to give up his property at all unless it is replace with a piece of property more acceptable to him. In other words, he cannot be forced out. The only option is for someone to move the house. If people are unable or unwilling to do so, then he should be free to level it. He has even been willing to allow them time to move the house at no cost. Regardless, he should be able to level that place.

Other comments:

a) Heart wrenching seeing some of those antiques rotting. (Organ/Table etc)

b) I could use the kitchen cupboards myself.

c) Surprised that the Whitehouse wasn't torn down and replaced with a ranch during the past 8 years.

d) If Steve Job's is allowed to level the house, he should be legally ordered to gift wrap one of the "antique" toilets and gift it to Steve Balmer.

Seriously now. If the architectural preservation group wants what appears to be a horribly deteriorated, empty, abandoned eyesore, they should pool their money together within 60 days, get a few trucks, chop the sucker up, and move it wherever they have available land.

Oh, you mean you don't have the money? Or a place to put it? Too bad. It's private property, not a public trust. Jobs can (or should) be able to do whatever he wants.

He should give it to Steve Ballmer. Ballmer's great at destroying "once [arguably] proud pieces of architecture." He could destroy that house in a minute w/out even trying.

I really wish that groups like this would use their money to make an offer on the property rather than hiring lawyers to tell the owner he can't do what he wants with it.

J. Jones: "George Washington Smith was one of the founding fathers of classic California architecture, and no opportunity should be missed to preserve his legacy."

Classic California architecture? Are we so desperate? or tasteless? Travel around the world a little bit. You will better understand what is worth keeping and what should be thrown away as soon as possible.

If groups like Friends of the Jackling House had their way, no one in Beverly Hills would be allowed to make any changes to their properties, because they are all rich and famous and eventually the houses will be 84 years old.

Hey Guy from Ontario, did it ever occur to you that the reason this guy in an uparalleled creative genius is that he doesn't sit around pining away for old Macs and he goes on to create something new. That house looks like a piece of crap. Not all history was good.

Whatever happened to PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! Do people own their property or do they not? Do we live in a society where the government owns everything and can tell you what to do with your own property? Is that really how we want to live.

The property is OWNED by Steve Jobs… he therefore has a right to do whatever he wants to with it. If the government doesn't like it – let them buy it for him – IF he agrees.

He offered to give it away to anyone who would pay to have it moved. Jobs understands the house's history, he just wants the land. It is his land. If the house is so important, move it, restore it and get over it. And to the person who made the comment linking Job's thoughts on the tech business to this situation, you might want to rethink that thought. In the tech business if you are not thinking 10 years in the future, you are 10 years behind. The tech business and this old house have nothing in common.

It was 60 years old when he bought it. It is less than 100 years old today. I don't see how anyone has the right to prevent this run down place, from being torn down. People who want to save this place should be willing then to buy it. We are not talking about a 300 year old dwelling here people!

Mr. Smith may have been a great architect but if this wasn't one of his best (or even very good) projects, then maybe it should be something for the hjistory books. I agree with historical laws because some things are bigger than their current owner and should be preserved. But art for art's sake is no reason.

George Washington Smith was one of the founding fathers of classic California architecture, and no opportunity should be missed to preserve his legacy. Surely Jobs can find another property on which to build his dream house and leave this landmark alone. With his money, he ought to be able to refurbish and donate the Smith house to the state of California for posterity.

He paid the money, his house. He should be able to do anything with it.

The commentator talking about heritage- you seem so bothered about it; have you even visited it?

As a professional in the rehabbing business I have seen hundreds of houses that need repairs. At least in this case, there is a willing and able owner who wants to build something better. If the Town of Woodside wants to save it, they should purchase the property from Mr Jobs or exchange it for a comparable property, so he can build a property he wants.

Mr Jobs will create jobs (pun intended) that will benefit the community – architect, attorney, project manager, tradespeople. He will have to pay permit fees and inspection fees which will also benefit the community.

Mr Jobs is more of a celebrity than the previous owner and the current house. Whatever he builds will be more of a tourist attraction than the current vacant structure.

It never ceases to amaze me how far municipal workers are willing to exceed their power, all to the detriment of the construction industries. By adopting exceedingly oversecure and oversized regulations that make construction more expensive and further out of reach of working people, they only benefit themselves by increasing the size of government (more patronage jobs to dole out) and by accepting kickbacks from contractors to avoid these strict regulations.

Why doesn't the town or a local historic society move the house to a new location?

That's been done with a number of old homes in my town in order to preserve them.

Good idea AK, if the preservationists want to preserve it, then let them buy it and preserve it. I can't see why Jobs should have to look after it – it's his house to do with as he pleases.

If it's such a treasure, why doesn't the city/state buy it back and restore it themselves or pay to have it moved. I mean come on!

"it will cost more to restore than to replace."

Like antiques, this house is of course more expensive to maintain. But it's worthwile.

It tells history. No one should tear it down. It is an heritage.

But, we have to understand that Steve Jobs is not a nostalgic.

Asked if the 25th anniversary of the Mac made him emotional, he said:

"I don't think about that. When I got back here in 1997,

I was looking for more room, and I found an archive of old Macs and other stuff.

I said, 'Get it away!' and I shipped all that shit off to Stanford.

If you look backward in this business, you'll be crushed. You have to look forward."

That's the guy's mentality, and I guess it is about everything, not just business.

If the guy could say that about old Macs… so one shouldn't be surpised about this house issue.

Conclusion: Preservationists should buy this mansion from Steve Jobs before he destroys it!