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