Sandy Hook: Adam Lanza's home demolished following complaints

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Sandy Hook: Adam Lanza's home demolished following complaints

Associated Press
Tuesday 24 March 2015 21.45 GMT

The Connecticut home of the man who carried out the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school has been demolished, Newtown officials said on Tuesday.

The two-acre lot where the 3,100-sq ft house once stood in a leafy, suburban neighborhood will be left as open space under a plan approved by town officials.

Several neighbors had asked for the building to be taken down, describing it as a constant reminder of the tragedy. Among them, Dave Ackart said in a letter: “Not only is the property a constant reminder of the evil that resided there – those of us who walk, run, drive, ride or otherwise must pass it multiple times a day, are having a hard time moving on.”

Adam Lanza killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, inside the house on the morning of 14 December 2012, then drove to the school where he gunned down 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/24/adam-lanza-sandy-hook-home-demolished

[tularetom]

1. I'm pretty sure that the house didn't shoot any kids

I didn't read the article but I don't believe that the town has the authority to tear down a building because the owner (or her son in this case) did something horrendous.

Somebody, probably Ms. Lanza's estate, owns that property and even if the town is able to establish that tearing it down is in the public's best interest (eminent domain haas been stretched to some awesome limits), they still have to make fair compensation to the owner. And that money has to come from public funds which means, the taxpayers.

Talk is cheap. People may want the house torn down because it somehow makes them feel icky, but I wonder how many of them would vote to take the money from the road fund, or the fire department budget to do it.

[Cerridwen]

2. The last line of the article:

"The property was given to the town in December by a bank that acquired it from the Lanza family. Since the shooting more than two years ago, the house stood vacant."

I would think a vacant house would be an issue for many concerned and for many reasons.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. The town has the authority and did tear down the house.

Which you would know had you read the article.

The property was given to the town in December by a bank that acquired it from the Lanza family. Since the shooting more than two years ago, the house stood vacant.

[callous taoboy]

21. ^^^^This^^^^

[onenote]

12. You took the time to write a 3 paragraph response.

But not the time to read the article you were responding to.

You might want to rethink that approach in the future.

[tularetom]

17. Actually I wasn't responding to any "article", I was responding to a post that linked to an article.

You might want to be a bit more precise with your critiques in the future.

Perhaps the OP should have included that fact.

Does seem sort of pertinent that the city had actually been given the building that they tore down.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

20. Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose.

The sad thing is, there remains a niche market for ghoulish tragedy tourism, and I'm guessing the neighbors wouldn't be too fond of all the drive by attention the neighborhood might be getting.

It's not uncommon to see places associated with notorious, high profile crimes demolished. They tore down the house in Cleveland where Ariel Castro kept those three women. I believed they demolished the Sandy Hook School in its entirety. They didn't demolish all of Columbine, but they did tear down the library where most of the shootings took place. The person who bought OJ Simpson's old house leveled it and rebuilt anew.

Yeah, it's a bit superstitious, but I guess people would rather not attract all that negative attention to places associated in some way or another with infamy.

[hunter]

4. Open space is good.

This is a reasonable solution. I'm not superstitious, but I have trouble imagining the sort of person who might choose to live in a house with a history like that.

Likely it would be a venal person thinking they got a great deal and sitting on the property hoping to profit when the memories fade, or someone really, really, Dick Cheney or Charles Manson creepy.

[wheniwasincongress]

14. Or someone

who is not simply superstitious. I think people coming to check out the house like they do with the Amityville or house would be more troublesome, and like, teenage Satanists. When does a house become "okay" to live in? How many decades must past, what's the number of people that had to be killed? Are the people who have bought the Jon Benet and Amityville homes Manson-creepy?

Would I want to live where Adam Lanza lived, and killed his mother, before leaving to the school? No matter how gorgeous the house was (and it's not), NO! I've spent most my life believing in ghosts and that stuff so the willies are fairly well ingrained in me (I don't believe in any of that anymore; but I think it's like Catholic guilt that hangs around many ex-Catholics.) Also it being a recent tragedy would be weird. I suppose it's different for everyone, and I think for a lot of us it takes time. I also wouldn't want to deal with onlookers and people constantly saying, "You live in the LANZA HOUSE?!" and thinking you're creepy, being known as the person who lives in the Lanza house.

I hope other people find this an interesting topic, and I hope I don't come across as insensitive or Manson-creepy. (I'm not mocking you with "Manson-creepy," it's an appropriate term for people who have too much of an interest in true crime and serial killers. Like the women who want to marry serial killers.) I'm passionate about house preservation (I've seen too many beautiful Victorians torn down) and frustrated by how many people don't want to live in a home where someone died, even natural, "old" deaths.

[Ms. Toad]

5. I hope they used it for fire-fighting training.

As long as was being demolished, it would be good to make the demolition useful.

[Archae]

6. Only two people lived in that house?

No wonder the kid went nuts.

Most of that house was empty before the shootings.

[Jenoch]

9. Before the divorce, the entire Lanza family lived there.

[JaneyVee]

7. Good.

[wheniwasincongress]

8. It would be nice if they turned the lot into a beautiful park

However I'm not sure about the idea of tearing down a building solely because it makes people uneasy? Especially if the building is old and of beauty - preserving these locations are important for America's culture. There have been lots of murders committed in beautiful, old courthouses and homes. Houses whose homeowners owned slaves... I suppose I'm just making a "slippery slope" type comment.

*edit: I know the Lanza house was built in 1998 and I don't care that it was demolished. I'm just unsure that every tragic location must be destroyed (and this is not the case, but it could seems like it could become such.)

[Jenoch]

11. The Lanza's were the first to live in the

newly constructed house. They bought it in 1998.

[onenote]

13. What is it with this thread and commenters who didn't bother to read the article?

"If the building is old and of beauty"? The article says it was bought new in 1998.

[wheniwasincongress]

15. I read it

I wasn't referring to the Lanza house, but other houses that are old. Broad-brush type of comment.

[dissentient]

10. This is common, for sites of massacres or related places to be demolished

I have read about this many times before, they even tore down that San Ysidro McDonalds a long time ago when that crazy guy killed all those people there. I think they turned it into a park or something.

[IcyPeas]

16. Sharon Tate's house before and after

It wasn't torn down right away, the actual owner moved into the house 3 weeks after the crime and lived there for 20 years. Trent Reznor lived there too. Now it's a mega mansion with a new address number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10050_Cielo_Drive

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]


[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[anne neville]

19. That's one horrible mcmansion!

These buildings are destroying the landscape of Southern California. The original house was quite beautiful and in human scope.

[Nye Bevan]

18. Good. Nobody would want to live there and it would become a shrine for creeps (nt)