[quote=jpinpb]I am in favor of property rights, of course. But if you didn’t like the house, is that the only house in that area that he could buy? No one in that area would sell their house to Jobs (probably money no object) Is that location one of a kind? No other homes in the vicinity? It had to be that home and now he has to tear it down? It’s a shame. Why buy a home if you don’t like it and want to tear it down? If it is the only location, okay. If it’s the only thing you can afford, I guess. My guess, that’s not a problem for Jobs.[/quote]
Yes, jp, the “location” is “one-of-a-kind” which spells “private” around there. It may not be easy to find an unimproved lot today in that area. When the property rights litigation began, Jobs may have thought that he would be around long enough to improve the property to he and his family’s liking. Three other locations come to mind in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties that spell “private” to me are Hillsborough (SM) and Los Altos and parts of Saratoga (SC). It is not easy or cheap to find land to build on these areas. Thus, one has to find something to buy to knock down.
Jobs bought a $1M+ property in 2009 in TN (quick cash sale) to live in for four months JUST to recuperate from his liver transplant without public glare, when a 22 yo TN accident-victim donor was found for him. (He was not allowed to leave his doctors during that time.) Out of desperation, he went thru many grueling procedures in ’08 and ’09 to register in several states to open up his chances for a donor, repaying the many fees in all of them. With a net worth of approx $6B, he cannot now buy any more time. That’s the way life is.
I am also for property rights. Job’s property, although of Historic calibur, was not on public display. It was hidden in a woodsy estate on a private road.
