|
BACKGROUND
We are a group of preservationists from around the country who went to court and won -- stopping Steve Jobs from tearing down the architecturally significant and historic Jackling House in Woodside, California. The Jackling House was purchased in 1984 by Mr Jobs, who lived there for about ten years and posed in front of the House for Newsweek (see PHOTO GALLERY) but in recent years he has called it an "abomination" and sought to demolish it. By applying for demolition Mr Jobs set in motion several MANDATORY procedures to be carried out by the Town under California law. The Town was obliged to follow procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act, first to determine whether the threatened building is "historic", and then to determine what impacts its loss would have on California heritage. The resulting Environmental Impact Report concluded the Jackling House IS "historic" and that demolishing it could NOT be mitigated ( i.e that salvaging some vestiges would NOT compensate for its loss.) Sadly, the Woodside Town Council ignored the advice of the Town's own lawyers who recommended denying demolition. Even worse, one Council member prefaced his remarks by making fun of this very law before voting for demolition. The Council set one "condition" -- that Jobs TRY to find someone to relocate the house off-site. This requirement was hollow, as the Judge later noted. Because the Town's decision clearly flouted California law we formed a non-profit group Uphold our Heritage for the purpose of preserving the House and upholding California preservation law. We retained a respected Santa Monica-based law firm, Chatten-Brown & Carstens, specializing in environmental and preservation cases. (see http://www.cbcearthlaw.com) On September 23rd, 2005 our case was heard before the Superior Court of the State of California in San Mateo County. The Judge asked Jobs' lawyer why baseline evidence was lacking to justify destruction of heritage. She asked if his client was basically unwilling to spend even $1 to mitigate for this loss to State heritage. Judge Weiner reiterated the need for evidence, noted that doors had been removed, and that the Town CAN penalize demolition by neglect. In January 2006 we won the case. Judge Weiner issued a 21-page drubbing to the Town for not holding Jobs to the legal standard. "Such findings simply demonstrate the Town Council's exaggerated efforts to find a means to the end that Jobs seeks" the Judge concluded. The Judge reiterates that if alternatives to demolition exist such as relocation, or selling a parcel of the property at a huge profit, or donating it as a philanthropic tax write-off, those alternatives must be exhausted before demolition can be considered. The ruling is also highly critical of the lack of transparency and fairness under which Jobs has been allowed to reject offers to relocate the House. The ruling was upheld unanimously in Appeal Court, one year later. The ruling is so well argued that the following year the State Supreme Court refused to rehear the case. Court rulings can be read, below. The Jackling House is currently boarded up. As recently as July 2007 good faith offers to relocate the House were proffered. |
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
|
