"The issue before you is not to preserve and rehabilitate a work of marginal
importance; it is to assure the protection and survival of a work of great
significance."
"Anthea Hartig, Ph.d, Chairperson, State Historical Resources Commission
Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California
"When I saw the Jackling house and what Jobs' neglect had done to it, it
brought tears to my eyes... I would be very happy to join and support your
organization.
I, too, believe you have a very strong case to stop this demolition. I had
feared that no one would have the guts and money to go up against Steve
Jobs. Thank you so much."
"Barbara Wood, Woodside Resident
Background on our group and court case
|
Summer reading 2008! NEW BOOK features Jackling House case
* "THE PIXAR TOUCH" just published by business writer David Price, delves into unpublicized episodes in the history of Apple, Pixar, and Disney.
David Price has written for the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Forbes, the Washington Post. His previous book was " Love and Hate in Jamestown."
Price contacted our group while doing research on Jobs' less public persona - a leitmotif throughout the book. Price ends the book with Jobs' handling of the Woodside house case.
See page 162, "The Pixar Touch" ( Alfred A Knopf, New York, 2008 )
There are other references in the book to the House and to the lawsuit.
* Another book, by Consuelo Sanz, Professor of Public Law in Spain, gives the Jackling House case a very prominent place.
* And Timothy LeCain, Ph.D, who has written extensively on technology and
the environment, is finishing up his book about Daniel Jackling's
contribution to modern mining. LeCain had no prior relations with UOH when
he contacted us about Jackling's celebrated house. In his first email to us
LeCain wrote :
"I believe the evidence shows that Jackling was in many ways just as significant to the creation of modern America as Henry Ford .... Would Jobs have proposed tearing down Henry Ford's historic home? The irony is all the greater since Jobs has made his own fortune through machines that depend on electricity supplied, by and large, via wires made of copper. ... so in a very real sense Jobs' entire career has depended on Jackling's innovations. That Jobs repays this historic debt by attempting to tear down Jackling's house strikes me as a particularly egregious case of historical amnesia."
* And Diane Keaton's book "CALIFORNIA ROMANTICA" (published by Rizzoli, 2007) offers the most artistic photos of George Washington Smith's Southern California homes to appear anywhere. Photos and texts highlight Smith's signature talent for achieving modernist abstraction along with unforgettable atmosphere in houses he designed for sophisticated clients.
Photos of Smith's Ogilvy House, seen gutted and undergoing renovation, will be particularly poignant to those who made repeated attempts to negotiate with Jobs to restore the Jackling House.
* Also, UOH's court win is cited in a Federal case in which the State of Connecticut has sued the Bush Administration Environmental Protection Agency.
Previous update, December 2007
From December 2006 to December 2007, UOH's court win was upheld twice, unanimously in Appeals and again when the California Supreme Court denied Steve Jobs' request to re-hear the case. Congratulations and thanks to Doug Carstens and all at Chatten-Brown & Carstens in Santa Monica for great legal work.
And as recently as July 2007 several realistic options that would preserve the historic Jackling residence were being offered to Mr. Jobs by highly qualified and motivated parties. Our group, along with the California Preservation Foundation and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, see no reason preventing a genuine preservation solution.
August 2007 Read article "Chutzpah of Preservationists vs. Hubris of CEO"
Article provides more background on the Jackling case, and rebuts common misconceptions about preservationists. Home Miami Article
May 4, 2007: UOH goes to Hollywood
Note Oscar statue! (Oscar is not yet a member of UOH) We were honored
to speak at a very lively California Preservation Foundation event held
recently in Hollywood's Kodak Theater. The CPF along with the National Trust
have stood with us in Court as Jobs battled earlier decisions under preservation law. It was a pleasure to finally thank them in person over
drinks before the show. The crowd then cheered and lol'd during our short
presentation asking the question: Should billionaires be fighting malaria - or preservationists ?!? The next day we got to visit the Casa del Herrero and other Smith-designed buildings in Santa Barbara
April 24, 2007: California Supreme Court rebuffs Jobs and Town
The State Supreme Court has denied Jobs' and the Town's request that the Court reconsider earlier court decisions in our favor.
See: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=462349
The latest batch of arguments failed to persuade the Court to even hear a challenge to previous rulings on the Jackling House. (See previous rulings 01/06, 01/07, again 01/07, below)
Their attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that the "intention" of the law (California Environmental Quality Act - CEQA) was that it be "voluntary."
Read UOH attorney Doug Carstens' very succinct rebuttal: Answer for petition for Review.doc
Since some reporters and bloggers misrepresent what the law requires of Jobs, it is worth reading Carstens' words carefully:
"the implication that an obligation to restore and preserve a residence has been imposed is a red herring. The Court of Appeal's decision means the Town may not approve a permit for demolition so long as there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that alternatives to demolition are infeasible, but no one has imposed an obligation on Appellant Jobs to restore the House."
However the courts have made it clear that an owner of such a building must show that demolition is the only option. The Supreme Court has now rejected that this law is intended to be merely "voluntary".
Congratulations to Doug Carstens and to Chatten-Brown & Carstens. Huge thanks to the National Trust's Dr. Anthea Hartig in San Francisco and to their attorney for filing a brief in court with us and to the California Preservation Foundation.
Sample of press coverage:
http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=614
February, 2007: After losing Appeal, Jobs and Town try to get California Supreme Court to rehear the case [rejected by Court.]
January 25, 2007:
Unanimous Appeals Court rejects Jobs' request for a re-hearing and that the Jackling House case be "de-published". Read Appeal Court Decision PDF
January 11, 2007: PRESERVATIONISTS WIN IN APPEAL
A California Appeals Court unanimously upheld our win. The New York Times called UOH's court win "a major legal victory."
The significance of the Jackling House is reflected by that fact that Uphold our Heritage includes members in California, Washington, Florida, Virginia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, France, and Portugal. Among them are several architects and authors on architecture.
The feasibility of preserving this historic resource is evidenced by the fact that serious proposals have been made to relocate and rebuild it, and that the Town's own consultants have shown that relocation and preservation are eminently feasible.
Press Points to Exit Strategy
|
HELP WITH A TAX DEDUCTIBLE DONATION TO THE NATIONAL TRUST
Donations are tax-deductible!
National Trust for Historic Preservation
The Hearst Building, 5 Third Street, Suite 707
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415.947.0692
FAX: 415.947.0699
Specify "for the Jackling house."
|
