Less high profile are my obsessions with 228 Clara Street (an SF home in which its owner’s head was found in a fish tank, sold for $1.5 million last summer, and since occupied by squatters and tenants) and the building Best Evidence subscriber Brock Keeling lives in, which according to long-gone SF message-board posts was the site of a crime in which “a guy chained a magician to the fireplace, assaulted him for days, then killed him,” Keeling says.
Sarah notes that in many cases, the sellers try to muddy the waters a bit by (as in the case of the Cielo Drive home where Sharon Tate was killed) changing the address, while other owners demolish the property (O.J. Simpson’s Brentwood mansion).
The real-estate term for all these places, from Brock’s apartment building to another of my obsessions, Fox Hollow Farm, is “stigmatized property,” and laws vary from state to state about how much a real estate agent must disclose. (And if you’re just a renter, forget it, in most places they don’t have to tell you jack.)
So, here’s the question: Would hearing that a home you were looking at was the site of a crime make you more or less interested in moving in? If less, how much renovation has to go down to make it feel more palatable? Are there some crimes you’d let slide, and others where the only solution is to burn the place down and plant some nice trees? — EB
Although I'm not particularly squeamish and don't believe in bad vibes or have spiritual beliefs, for me, buying a crime property would depend on a few things:
1. How long ago were the crimes? If they were in the last decade or two, I don't think I'd be able to put it out of my mind, especially if there are nearby neighbors who knew what happened and knew the victims/perpetrators.
2. How infamous was this crime? I don't think there would ever be a time that I could handle living in the LaBianca house, because the Manson family murders are way too famous and will always invite tourists. In fact, the first place I went after LAX, before even making it to my hotel in West Hollywood, was Cielo Drive, even with the changed address and torn-down house.
3. Exactly how gruesome was the crime? I don't know if I could ever get past child abuse/murder, or someone kept as a sex slave, like Jaycee Dugard.
I agree that living there would be conditional. 1. Crime cannot be of such significance that said house now is a tourist attraction and has a gift shop, bathroom or no. 2. Crime must be so distant in memory that even locals don't know much about it or care. 3. No children shall have suffered or perished during said crimes. Absolutely not. Then again, considering how pricey real estate is in Southern California, a good exorcising and Buddhist priest coming in to ask the spirits to leave couldn't hurt either.
1) how notorious was the crime (AKA "tourist" attraction or like the Sharon Tate site for example) 2) Is the building gone? That might be ok, especially in a competitive place. 3) what really happened there? Ok - maybe the building really needs to be gone.
I've told the story before of how the Dennis Nielsen flat was up for rent in London and a friend of mine considered it - she and I agreed that, as good a deal as it might be for a one bedroom in Muswell Hill (which, to be clear, I'd cheerfully sell my grandmother down the river for), having had actual body parts under the floorboards was a no-go.
The idea of people driving by my house in a constant flow because it was the site of something famously gruesome is much more of a turnoff to me. One of the previous inhabitants of a childhood home had tried to kill herself in my room, and I got zero vibe from that at all. I'm sure BE provided me with the link to that story about the house in upstate NY where the family saw ghosts regularly, and enjoyed them (the ghosts helped to wake one of the children up for school and then had to be told it was vacation so the child didn't need to wake up at the crack of dawn).The mother even wrote regular stories for a local paper about these visitors. When the family wanted to sell the house, no one disclosed the presence of the ghosts and that caused a huge furor with the young family who bought the house not knowing it was haunted. Big brouhaha. If they were nice ghosts, and happy coexisting with humans, I'd be all right with it. For any kind of an amazingly grotesque crime, sure, tear the house down - or take it to the studs. I can bring my own sage or palo santo. Or shaman.
These questions pop in my head when I see that the Peterson house in Durham, NC (see The Staircase) is on the market. Which I feel like has been at least twice since it was a crime scene. I’m pretty familiar with the neighborhood it’s in and it’s absolutely lovely (although the house, with its grounds and swimming pool seem a bit ostentatious for the locale). But as others mentioned, it is the crime tourism aspect of this that would bother me the most. I’ve done drive-bys of some famous sights (Ramsey house in Boulder for example), but I regret it and feel extremely gross about it in retrospect.
A bit off topic but, I was always asked about hauntings when I worked in the museum world and if i felt safe when alone in them (answer was always no hauntings but would be happy to add any ghosts to our visitorship numbers and that i felt safest when alone). And every time ground was broken for new construction (when projects involved public funds) archeology teams always found and relocated human remains. That convinced me that there are bones all over this country. The U.S. just expanded so quickly that we build right over that past and moved on. That is very different from when crimes happen but i do think the avaiability of housing plays a role. San Francisco certainly needs the housing space in the story EB mentioned. In that case it seems that the neighborhood is traumatized by what happened to one of its members and perhaps a momument like a park bench in honor of the victim or a blessing/cleansing ceremony by new owners would help to a small degree. It is why we as humans have created these rituals. And i admit to having driven down the street of the Ramsey address in Boulder once but could not recognize or locate the home. External rennovations maybe? That mix of acknowledging the past but also moving on from it (especially if housing is tight) is a delicate one
After 10+ years of renting in Boston, the only thing that would bother me is if there were still body parts in the place.
And even then, if they threw in free utilities...eh, I can throw out an arm or two.
Although I'm not particularly squeamish and don't believe in bad vibes or have spiritual beliefs, for me, buying a crime property would depend on a few things:
1. How long ago were the crimes? If they were in the last decade or two, I don't think I'd be able to put it out of my mind, especially if there are nearby neighbors who knew what happened and knew the victims/perpetrators.
2. How infamous was this crime? I don't think there would ever be a time that I could handle living in the LaBianca house, because the Manson family murders are way too famous and will always invite tourists. In fact, the first place I went after LAX, before even making it to my hotel in West Hollywood, was Cielo Drive, even with the changed address and torn-down house.
3. Exactly how gruesome was the crime? I don't know if I could ever get past child abuse/murder, or someone kept as a sex slave, like Jaycee Dugard.
I agree that living there would be conditional. 1. Crime cannot be of such significance that said house now is a tourist attraction and has a gift shop, bathroom or no. 2. Crime must be so distant in memory that even locals don't know much about it or care. 3. No children shall have suffered or perished during said crimes. Absolutely not. Then again, considering how pricey real estate is in Southern California, a good exorcising and Buddhist priest coming in to ask the spirits to leave couldn't hurt either.
Ice water runs in my veins when it comes to things like this. I’d be happy to get what would probably be a great deal if most people are squeamish.
1) how notorious was the crime (AKA "tourist" attraction or like the Sharon Tate site for example) 2) Is the building gone? That might be ok, especially in a competitive place. 3) what really happened there? Ok - maybe the building really needs to be gone.
I've told the story before of how the Dennis Nielsen flat was up for rent in London and a friend of mine considered it - she and I agreed that, as good a deal as it might be for a one bedroom in Muswell Hill (which, to be clear, I'd cheerfully sell my grandmother down the river for), having had actual body parts under the floorboards was a no-go.
The idea of people driving by my house in a constant flow because it was the site of something famously gruesome is much more of a turnoff to me. One of the previous inhabitants of a childhood home had tried to kill herself in my room, and I got zero vibe from that at all. I'm sure BE provided me with the link to that story about the house in upstate NY where the family saw ghosts regularly, and enjoyed them (the ghosts helped to wake one of the children up for school and then had to be told it was vacation so the child didn't need to wake up at the crack of dawn).The mother even wrote regular stories for a local paper about these visitors. When the family wanted to sell the house, no one disclosed the presence of the ghosts and that caused a huge furor with the young family who bought the house not knowing it was haunted. Big brouhaha. If they were nice ghosts, and happy coexisting with humans, I'd be all right with it. For any kind of an amazingly grotesque crime, sure, tear the house down - or take it to the studs. I can bring my own sage or palo santo. Or shaman.
These questions pop in my head when I see that the Peterson house in Durham, NC (see The Staircase) is on the market. Which I feel like has been at least twice since it was a crime scene. I’m pretty familiar with the neighborhood it’s in and it’s absolutely lovely (although the house, with its grounds and swimming pool seem a bit ostentatious for the locale). But as others mentioned, it is the crime tourism aspect of this that would bother me the most. I’ve done drive-bys of some famous sights (Ramsey house in Boulder for example), but I regret it and feel extremely gross about it in retrospect.
A bit off topic but, I was always asked about hauntings when I worked in the museum world and if i felt safe when alone in them (answer was always no hauntings but would be happy to add any ghosts to our visitorship numbers and that i felt safest when alone). And every time ground was broken for new construction (when projects involved public funds) archeology teams always found and relocated human remains. That convinced me that there are bones all over this country. The U.S. just expanded so quickly that we build right over that past and moved on. That is very different from when crimes happen but i do think the avaiability of housing plays a role. San Francisco certainly needs the housing space in the story EB mentioned. In that case it seems that the neighborhood is traumatized by what happened to one of its members and perhaps a momument like a park bench in honor of the victim or a blessing/cleansing ceremony by new owners would help to a small degree. It is why we as humans have created these rituals. And i admit to having driven down the street of the Ramsey address in Boulder once but could not recognize or locate the home. External rennovations maybe? That mix of acknowledging the past but also moving on from it (especially if housing is tight) is a delicate one