Steve Jobs Hates This House

jroe52 said:
i just think this is a nother notch in the tard belt.

if you didnt like the house, why did you buy it? hmm... lol
Click to expand...

It was the only way to get the large piece of land the house was on?

Apple and Jobs do a lot of stupid things, however it's still his damn house on his property. He didn't sign a EULA when he bought the property so he should be able to do it as he wishes. If one of the groups wanted to maintain the old house, perhaps they should have big against him.
 
It really depends. I know where I live if you buy a historic site you are under an obligation to maintain it and if it's restored there are strict rules on what you can do with it. As far as I know these rules vary city to city so I'm sure none of us really know what he was supposed to do with it.....if anything.
 
its his house, he is a dumbass but its his house to destroy.

***
in my hometown sussex wisconsin....

lol our historical buildings we could never mess with. then they sold the building under the commie law george bush passed where a big business can request to govt to take over other business. so a great 1800's civil war hotel turned into best resteraunt in town was sold for "market value" of 700k which barrily even covered the guy's costs..

actual value, is probably in several millions.

so much for history. if we wanted to bulldoze it, or even the former owner he would be arrested. but if a large corp wants to do it, under commie law they can now. (i can't spell the law, emenant domain?) basically government can now kick you out of your house if htey see fit and give you "market value"... so is that at foreclosure rates or ... ? lol
 
vengence said:
It was the only way to get the large piece of land the house was on?

Apple and Jobs do a lot of stupid things, however it's still his damn house on his property. He didn't sign a EULA when he bought the property so he should be able to do it as he wishes. If one of the groups wanted to maintain the old house, perhaps they should have big against him.
Click to expand...

LOL - EULA :D

Good for him. I wish him many happy years in his new house. I love Windows, and my BlackBerry. I also plan to buy a Zune, but I'm no Jobs hater. I live in an area where, many times, land is purchase for the land, not the buildings on it. I've seen many houses, hospitals, etc. demolished for use of the land. That's life.
 
jroe52 said:
its his house, he is a dumbass but its his house to destroy.

***
in my hometown sussex wisconsin....

lol our historical buildings we could never mess with. then they sold the building under the commie law george bush passed where a big business can request to govt to take over other business. so a great 1800's civil war hotel turned into best resteraunt in town was sold for "market value" of 700k which barrily even covered the guy's costs..

actual value, is probably in several millions.

so much for history. if we wanted to bulldoze it, or even the former owner he would be arrested. but if a large corp wants to do it, under commie law they can now. (i can't spell the law, emenant domain?) basically government can now kick you out of your house if htey see fit and give you "market value"... so is that at foreclosure rates or ... ? lol
Click to expand...


Do some research. You don't seem to fully understand Eminent Domain.
 
jroe52 said:
its his house, he is a dumbass but its his house to destroy.

***
in my hometown sussex wisconsin....

lol our historical buildings we could never mess with. then they sold the building under the commie law george bush passed where a big business can request to govt to take over other business. so a great 1800's civil war hotel turned into best resteraunt in town was sold for "market value" of 700k which barrily even covered the guy's costs..

actual value, is probably in several millions.

so much for history. if we wanted to bulldoze it, or even the former owner he would be arrested. but if a large corp wants to do it, under commie law they can now. (i can't spell the law, emenant domain?) basically government can now kick you out of your house if htey see fit and give you "market value"... so is that at foreclosure rates or ... ? lol
Click to expand...

If it's a piece of junk, I'm all for scraping it off the face of the earth. And if you own the land, you can torch it, paint it, bulldoze it, shoot it, blow it up, or whatever the hell you want.

You need to read up about eminent domain a little, it doesn't work for just corporations, besides, the argument does not hold when it's not a corporation but rather a billionaire.
 
vengence said:
It was the only way to get the large piece of land the house was on?

Apple and Jobs do a lot of stupid things, however it's still his damn house on his property. He didn't sign a EULA when he bought the property so he should be able to do it as he wishes. If one of the groups wanted to maintain the old house, perhaps they should have big against him.
Click to expand...

Actually did it state somewhere if he did or did not sign anything about leaving the house intact and in good condition when he bought it?

Some areas to make you sign things that like. Here in Indiana is a town called Santa Claus. So of course Christmas is their big thing in that town. There is a assument park named Holiday World. You have Lake Rudolph.... To move into that city you have to sign a waiver stating that you will put up your christmas lights in the middle of Oct and leave them up till the middle of Feb or something like that. Nov - Jan is a big time of the year for people to come to see the lights. You also have to agree to put up a certain number of lights and decorations.

If you move in there you better be ready to follow their rules.

Same as in some of the older cities. When you buy property you have to get permission to do certain things to it.

So it wouldn't be that unheard of that buying an house that is old / historic that he might have had to sign certain forms saying what he could and couldn't do with that house / land.
 
It would be a real shame if this turned into a case of arson. ((wink-wink));)

Raze it. Put up a nice Jetsons-style condo-plex complete with apple shaped robots.
 
Exavior said:
Actually did it state somewhere if he did or did not sign anything about leaving the house intact and in good condition when he bought it?

Some areas to make you sign things that like. Here in Indiana is a town called Santa Claus. So of course Christmas is their big thing in that town. There is a assument park named Holiday World. You have Lake Rudolph.... To move into that city you have to sign a waiver stating that you will put up your christmas lights in the middle of Oct and leave them up till the middle of Feb or something like that. Nov - Jan is a big time of the year for people to come to see the lights. You also have to agree to put up a certain number of lights and decorations.

If you move in there you better be ready to follow their rules.

Same as in some of the older cities. When you buy property you have to get permission to do certain things to it.

So it wouldn't be that unheard of that buying an house that is old / historic that he might have had to sign certain forms saying what he could and couldn't do with that house / land.
Click to expand...


My understanding, (I don't have the time to do dedicated research on something that doesn't affect me) was there was no deed restrictions on the house when he bought it, it's been all political hoop-la. I could be 100% wrong and I wouldn't care (it's not my house and I don't care about old houses). If there were deed restrictions then he's an idiot.
 
Jobs is a tool. But I can understand buying a house and wanting to tear it down.

I love where I live. The location is unbeatable. There is no vacant land where I live to build a new house, all the lots were built on 30 years ago.

If money were no problem, I would tear my house down and build a new one with all the modern niceties and conveniences.

Instead I have high utility bills because the windows suck, the insulation sucks, and a lot of other things about it suck because it was built cheaply 30 years ago with what was "cheap of the art" instead of "state of the art" at the time.

Jobs house is 80+ years old. It might be historic, and have old world charm, bla bla bla, but you can renovate it till you are blue in the face and spend more money doing it and still not end up with as nice of a house as you would get from building a new one.
 
vengence said:
My understanding, (I don't have the time to do dedicated research on something that doesn't affect me) was there was no deed restrictions on the house when he bought it, it's been all political hoop-la. I could be 100% wrong and I wouldn't care (it's not my house and I don't care about old houses). If there were deed restrictions then he's an idiot.
Click to expand...

If i recall correctly (been a while since I read the article) he bought the house FROM the historical society, and there were obvious implied restrictions given the home had obviously been deemed "historical" previous to his purchase. Don't get me wrong, I think it sucks too, but the bottom line is he assumed he could just say "GFY A-holes" after the purchase. He was wrong, and is a dumbass for assuming so.

Just to give an example for those who insist "omfg it's his damn property". Lets say you manage to talk your way into buying Wright's falling water house (currently owned by a preservation/historic society). Sorry, but you will have all kinds of people / government up your ass if you tried to tear it down. And yes, you'd be a retard if you thought you could do it without a HUGE fight.
 
supaspoon said:
Just to give an example for those who insist "omfg it's his damn property". Lets say you manage to talk your way into buying Wright's falling water house (currently owned by a preservation/historic society). Sorry, but you will have all kinds of people / government up your ass if you tried to tear it down. And yes, you'd be a retard if you thought you could do it without a HUGE fight.
Click to expand...

but comparing a Wright house to this piece of shit is apples and oranges.
 
Good, I think too many places are classified as "historical" for the wrong reasons... if it really was that important the local government should have owned the place.

Seriously what is the history in it?? Oooh a really rich person lived here one time!!!

Give me a fucking break.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Good, I think too many places are classified as "historical" for the wrong reasons... if it really was that important the local government should have owned the place.

Seriously what is the history in it?? Oooh a really rich person lived here one time!!!

Give me a fucking break.
Click to expand...

We have the problem here. As you can imagine, Detroit is old and was revolutionary back in time, so naturally, just about every damn place is a historical artifact.

I can't tell you how many homes I see with historical signs and protected status, it's a great way for the government to finance/sustain your property.
 
I dont even know why he would bother. I dont think he will be around to enjoy whatever he builds in its place.
 
sdotbrucato said:
but comparing a Wright house to this piece of shit is apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but it's the same sort of situation, which is the point i was illustrating. Doesn't change the fact that he's a dumbass for thinking said circumstances somehow wouldn't apply to him. All of these circumstances would most certainly have been made perfectly clear to him considering he bought the house from the fucking historical society.

Sure the situation is stupid and the house is a piece of shit, but that's reality, and sorry but ignoring reality (what he essentially did here) is just retarded. He has no one to blame but himself.
 
supaspoon said:
No doubt, but it's the same sort of situation, which is the point i was illustrating. Doesn't change the fact that he's a dumbass for thinking said circumstances somehow wouldn't apply to him. All of these circumstances would most certainly have been made perfectly clear to him considering he bought the house from the fucking historical society.

Sure the situation is stupid and the house is a piece of shit, but that's reality, and sorry but ignoring reality (what he essentially did here) is just retarded. He has no one to blame but himself.
Click to expand...

I would think the joke is on the historical society thinking that a tech billionaire would maintain and keep an old junker.... and to even think of not having him sign contracts or agreements.
 
supaspoon said:
If i recall correctly (been a while since I read the article) he bought the house FROM the historical society, and there were obvious implied restrictions given the home had obviously been deemed "historical" previous to his purchase. Don't get me wrong, I think it sucks too, but the bottom line is he assumed he could just say "GFY A-holes" after the purchase. He was wrong, and is a dumbass for assuming so.

Just to give an example for those who insist "omfg it's his damn property". Lets say you manage to talk your way into buying Wright's falling water house (currently owned by a preservation/historic society). Sorry, but you will have all kinds of people / government up your ass if you tried to tear it down. And yes, you'd be a retard if you thought you could do it without a HUGE fight.
Click to expand...


If he bought it from the historical society, and now he just got approved to tear it down, I think it's clear they didn't have it in writting. Or he has better lawyers. :D
 
Poor decision. Would have been a lot easier to either buy land that doesn't have a house on it, or buy a house that fits your needs...

sear said:
Who wants to bet Apple stock just went up over this news?
Click to expand...

Of course it did. This demolish will replenish their stock of bricks to sell as Macbook Pros. :D Now we know how he's paying for the new house.
 
Ockie said:
I would think the joke is on the historical society thinking that a tech billionaire would maintain and keep an old junker.... and to even think of not having him sign contracts or agreements.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the state supreme court supposedly denied his request to tear it down at least once, I'm not sure how the jokes on them.

vengence said:
If he bought it from the historical society, and now he just got approved to tear it down, I think it's clear they didn't have it in writting. Or he has better lawyers. :D
Click to expand...

It's not the historical society itself that is directly responsible for the legal shenanigans. It's local ordinances & crap that defines what is/isn't "historic" and what you can/can't do with said properties. If he got approved to demo. it, good for him.

All I'm saying is that having to go through all the BS to get it done should not have been any surprise to him. I still say, if he didn't see it coming then he's just retarded or extremely naive.
 
All I'm saying is that having to go through all the BS to get it done should not have been any surprise to him. I still say, if he didn't see it coming then he's just retarded or extremely naive.
Click to expand...

Who said it was a suprise to him?
 
supaspoon said:
Troll much? Perhaps i can rephrase for you.

He has little to no room to complain/whine about it. Better?
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with the current state of affairs, but he has every right to complain about it. It's his F'ing property and he should be able to do what he wants with it.

Obviously I'm not saying people can do things like store toxic waste in their yards, but if he legally removes everything he tears down, he should be able to do what he wants.

American....mostly great, sometimes asinine (getting more and more asinine with every passing day).
 
28 noobs later said:
I'm not disagreeing with the current state of affairs, but he has every right to complain about it. It's his F'ing property and he should be able to do what he wants with it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that he SHOULD be able to do what he wants. But that is not the reality, nobody ever said it was fair.

If he knew full well what the circumstances were before he made the purchase, and then did it anyway......then no, he does not have room to whine about it.

Would you not find it douchbaggery of me if i ran around whining about how expensive & unfair my car payment is, given that I understood the terms when I bought it?

Same difference. Yeah it's not fair, but knowingly buying a property labeled as "historic" and expecting to be able to do whatever you want to it (at least without a big fight) is just stupid.
 
Would have been poetic justice if it had been deemed a "contributing" historical landmark, then he wouldn't be able to demo it, and any work done to it would have to be preservation, and restoration. Any changes must fit the period/era and blend in with the rest of the house's style, and contractors who specialize in historic restoration do not come cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top