Friends of the Jackling House.org
FEBRUARY 2006: JOBS FILES APPEAL

The Court decision had sensibly concluded that Mr Jobs' simply "not wanting to" choose among options available to him does not make them infeasible.

Jobs files an Appeal claiming that simply "not wanting to" renders them "legally infeasible." Meaning if California law requires a feasible alternative to demolition be adopted, an owner "not wanting to" makes them all infeasible !

In the Appeal Jobs attorney disputes the State-mandated Environmental Impact Report completed two years ago, because the Report's conclusions do not suit his client. And though the attorney is on record stating his office continued to receive offers on the house, this Appeal claims there were no serious offers. Yet we learned of at least two last year.

ACTION TO SAVE THIS HOUSE AND HOW YOU CAN GET INVOLVED

HELP WITH A DONATION TOWARDS OUR LEGAL COSTS

ABOUT THE ARCHITECT AND THIS HOUSE

PRESS ON THE JACKLING HOUSE

PHOTO GALLERY: THE HOUSE THEN & NOW

MORE ON THE JACKLING HOUSE

ACROSS THE COUNTRY PEOPLE THINK IT MATTERS TO SAVE THIS HOUSE

FROM THE PUBLIC RECORD: LETTERS OF SUPPORT

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

Help us thanks to the National Trust

Help us with a Donation


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jackling House


© 2005 Uphold our Heritage
Inquiries: Upholdheritage@bellsouth.net