What do you do with a house whose former owner is a former pediatrician charged with molesting more than 100 juvenile patients? If no one is willing to live in that building, the logical step might be to tear it down. Unfortunately, the local historic preservation committee won’t let you.
This is the situation facing the Delaware city of Lewes, where the home of notorious child rapist Earl Bradley stands vacant following his 2011 conviction on multiple counts of rape, assault, and sexual exploitation of a child.
In early 2014, an anonymous donor gifted the property to a local church, along with money for improvements. However, the church says it has been unable to sell the house because of its connection to Bradley.
However, the church says it has been unable to sell the house and — because the property lies within the city’s Historic District — sought permission to demolish the existing structure.
“The house is in the Lewes Historic District, but it is not historic except for its notoriety as the residence of the worst child predator in American history,” explained the church in one of its 14 arguments in favor of demolition.
Supporters of the demolition idea say that there is nothing of interest — architecturally or aesthetically — about the house; that leaving the house standing could do more damage to the city than keeping it intact; and that its destruction could be an important step in helping the community move on from the horrific crimes committed by Bradley.
“We need to put people ahead of property,” argued the church.
But last night, the Lewes Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing, after which they took a vote and denied the request for demolition.
The commission’s chairperson told WBOC-TV that the panel understands the arguments for demolition, didn’t really have a choice.
“We’re bound very tightly by the regulations of the town,” she explained.
However, the city’s ordinance regarding demolition of historic buildings only seems to require that the commission have a public meeting on the matter, and gives the commission additional time to consider the matter before denying or approving a demolition request.
As WBOC notes, residents in the area are divided over the issue, with some saying the house should go because of its negative connections to Bradley, while others wondering how far is too far.
One resident explained that if you’re going to tear down Bradley’s home, then why shouldn’t you also rip up the hospital where he practiced or the streets that he walked on?
Thanks to Michael for the tip!
by Chris Morran via Consumerist
No comments:
Post a Comment