Neighbors had been pleading with town officials to tear down the house of the mass murderer, with one resident saying it's "a constant reminder of the evil that resided there." [More]Blaming an inanimate object ... why that's certainly never been done before.
I can understand a decision to raze the place based on marketing factors that acknowledge feelings among many buyers no doubt make it unlikely the property will sell, or now that the city "owns" it, using the land in some other productive manner consistent with zoning ordinances others in the neighborhood are compelled to comply with. But this sentiment that the house itself is evil -- that smacks of government by superstition, which I suppose is as good a definition of "progressivism" as any.
[Via Jess]
3 comments:
Like when a stone fell from the castle wall and killed someone, the peasants would petition the King. The king would order the stone to be obliterated. Even if they turn the place into a park, it will remain a "reminder."
Nuts.
The bank 'gave' it to the city? WTF kind of money managers are they? Damned pants pissing weenies from bottom to top.
Hey, when you're a "good corporate citizen" and "giving back to the community," stakeholder needs come before greedy stockholders.
Post a Comment