Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Wasn't that Steve's building in the first place to do anything he wanted with?

If he didn't take the last available such space or actually cut off some handicapped Apple employee wanting to park there, then it's more about "playing by the rules" than actually hurting anyone...

View on HN

No, because handicap laws are for the benefit of society. Rich men shouldn't get to skip out on them because they're rich.

Well the parent comment doesn't say how many handicap spots were open. Giving Jobs the benefit of the doubt, he may have seen a pattern where there were always multiple spots available. And the spot locations don't come down from God either. They are decided (at least in the state where I live and have worked on this subject (a work parking lot)) in an arbitrary fashion in order to meet certain requirements. It's (once again where I am) a loose specification for placement. And you can always exceed the number required. For all we know Apple could have put in more spaces than required and Steve was simply taking advantage of that knowing that nothing would happen. And that he further didn't care about any fine he received assuming the Police even had normal access to that part of the parking lot when they were on patrol.

Edit: Further to my point it's easy to assume "arrogant big shot rich guy" just hearing a story like this.

No. It's not legal to park in handicapped spaces in California unless you're handicapped. California doesn't make an exception for rich assholes.

SJ had many admirable qualities. This was not one of them.

Is there anything in particular that makes handicap laws any different than, say, speeding or breaking any other law that won't land you in jail? People break speeding laws every day because a) they can and b) they feel they have a reason to and c) they don't feel the speed limit is just.

Have you noticed how many "not really handicapped" people use handicap spaces after getting a note from their Doctor? You seem to be indicating that there is something rare and special about handicapped spaces and that the entire idea of allocating them is fair to begin with. You know that's not the case, right? Also why the need to call Jobs "a rich asshole"?

My neighbor worked for Apple's real estate (facilities?) organization during this time. His only Steve Jobs story is that one day Steve came into the real-estate office extremely angry. Apparently SJ had received a parking ticket for parking in the handicapped space. He barreled into the office and slammed a stack of tickets on the desk and screamed at them that they needed to fix these tickets and stormed out.

That makes a pretty interesting personality triumverate of 1. Auto laws are for little people, 2. Manufacturing jobs are for sweat shops, and 3. Collusion is okay when I do it. All the makings of hubris.

>2. Manufacturing jobs are for sweat shops

You mean like any other tech company in the US and worldwide? Because this Taiwanese company called Foxconn builds stuff for nearly all of them, and in the same facilities in China, Taiwan and elsewhere...

Foxconn doesn't build Moog hardware, and that's a more exclusive tech company than most.

It wasn't Steve's building. It was Apple's, or more likely Apple was leasing someone else's building.

Also, disabled parking spaces are regulated by local, state, and federal agencies; not Steve Jobs' whims.

>It wasn't Steve's building. It was Apple's, or more likely Apple was leasing someone else's building.

Not that different, since he created Apple and Apple leased that building.

I'm more annoyed by public companies throwing out their original founders than by this.

>Also, disabled parking spaces are regulated by local, state, and federal agencies; not Steve Jobs' whims.

Even ones belonging to a company? Can't they arrange their parking however they like?

Yes, even parking spaces belonging to a company.

Americans with Disabilities Act: https://adata.org/learn-about-ada

> I'm more annoyed by public companies throwing out their original founders than by this.

Apple's board had fairly decent reasons to through Jobs out. Look at his track record at the time. It was good for both parties.

If founders want to control their company they shouldn't sell their equity. It's 100% in their control.

Not if they sell equity!

If it was his building, he should just put up a "Reserved for Steve Jobs" sign in one of the normal parking spots, not take one of the spots that are legally required to be reserved for handicapped people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com