I'm a proud, unapologetic "PC" and defender of the Microsoft faith, but I completely side with Steve Jobs in this case.

Steve Jobs has owned this property for 25 years. As a property owner, he has every right to make improvements to it as he sees fit. The only restriction is that he meets zoning regulations, which he has done.

There is nothing about this house that makes it remarkable, other than an old rich guy lived there. There are a 100 other mansions from that time period in the US that look just like this one and are in much better condition. This house is not Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water".

Even so, I think it's absolutely wrong for a government to interfere for 25 years with a property owner's rights without some type of compensation to the owner.

This is why businesses are leaving California; you never know when the wonderful government there is going regulate you to the point where a few loud activists can bring your business dealings to a screeching halt for 25 years.

Building a new, energy efficient house to replace this piece of ugly, roaring 1920's over-consumption is something that should be encouraged. In the long run, Steve Jobs is going to create jobs for Californians and save energy. I'm also sure he's going to make this house a technology showcase for Apple products just as Bill Gates did with Microsoft products at his house in Seattle. This will create even more jobs for Californians and, possibly, better energy management solutions.

Let him do what he wants with the property.

That way, there wouldn't be any waste, and in return for the snack, the aliens could give Steve some more technology.

If they want it to be preserved, raise the money, buy the property and end this tired battle. Jobs has a right as a property owner to do what is necessary. The supreme court was right to overturn the original decision, but as the home has continued to decline, a new case was presented, and the board could reach a decision, in favor of Jobs wishes, that still meets the aims of the city.

My only wish is that rather than a wrecking ball, dismantle the structure, sell it, recycle, or reuse it to build a better, more efficient structure for the future. If the preservationist can only afford a portion of the property, they can preserve that part of history.

Also, while the Smith homes are great designs of architecture and shaped those California communities, from a historic stand point, they come no where near the works of Frank Lloyd Wright. Which is completely evident as his works are preserved by historic preservation and societies will to pay for the properties and their up keep. If you or someone won't pay for it, why should you expect someone who is not passionate about it to care for it. Think of a Monet or Renior painting. If I don't like one that I own, I won't destroy it, but I will sell it and some one will buy it. If I have a no-name painting by a largely unknown friends cousin, you are not likely to pay anything to preserve it. Unfortunately, Smith's work is largely unknown and little support is available to preserve it.

Rather than do that, maybe Jobs could consider deconstruction as an alternative? He could have a crew disassemble his house and donate the old materials to Habitat for Humanity. There's a site for that here: http://www.reusenetwork.org/

I think it was the correct result.

The place is gorgeous from the outside and could have its inside restored.

Yes, Jobs offered it for sale or for the cost of relocation"

Someone from the preservationist should have considered that offer.

Think about this house relocated in some type of vineyard or a farm.

It would make a good "hacienda". Its design is better suited for that.

The real issue, is to have the preservationists moving their a____ to find funding to meet that goal.

Individual rights have to be tempered by the greater concerns of the community, and if some people object to the demolition of the house, they should have a voice. If the balance seems to fall in the favor of the property owner, fine. I just worry in this case that Jobs' money and celebrity status trumped historic interest. The house looks crappy now, but it's not hard to find pictures that show how beautiful it once was:

http://www.friendsofthejacklinghouse.org/gallery.html

We are too eager in this country to pave over our past in the interest of "efficiency". Our heritage is an important part of our future, and we've already lost so much.

And it's blasphemy comparing that monstrosity to the Sistine Chapel. Give me a break.