You are buying the location, not the house. Folks who can afford to live there, can afford to build the house they want.
Is she a candy bar heiress?
It’s almost a lifetime since she had any significance in the eyes of the public. Old Hollywood is pretty old, even to those of us who are middle-aged and older.
They should be able to demolish her home, I think.
They bought the house so they can tear it down and extend their own house next door?
Does that perhaps violate zoning regulations , if you have two properties, each one is supposed to have an individual house on it?
I’m sure Marilyn won’t mind.
And therein lies the reason why they bought it to demolish it. The ruling class doesn't like peasants cruising their neighborhood.
Tear it down. Then apologize...................
There’s nothing special about the house, except that she spent a few years there.
In fact, there’s nothing special about her either, so there’s no overriding public interest in denying this couple their property rights.
I thought Marilyn was passed. Why does she still have a house?
Time moves on and the world is not a museum. If they wanted it to be preserved, they should have declared it a historic landmark.
I doubt it has much historical value
If the city says no, the owners should be fully reimbursed for the land and all legal fees. Hookers with hearts of gold might describe most Hollywood actresses but that’s no reason for landmark status.
If the city wanted to preserve it than they should have bought it. Do we have property rights or not?
A bank was built on a tiny lot in downtown Tallahassee. There were two “heritage oaks” which were obviously blocking what would be the only possible ingress to the parking lot. If you follow all the ordinances and setbacks there was no other possible place. All the while the building was being constructed and the parking lot paved, the builder went through insane lengths to protect the trees. The weekend before the property was supposed to be turned over. The builder razed the trees and vacuumed the debris so on Monday there was pavement where the trees had stood. This subterfuge was to prevent the ever-present protestors who had all been assured the trees were indeed sacred, so don’t worry. The builder paid the two fines and turned over the property to the new owners. This is what they should have done with the mansion. Get the permit in the late afternoon of a long holiday weekend. Then, do it all on that holiday weekend when the government offices are closed. A bulldozer and forty-five minutes were all that was needed.
Why don’t they jack up Marilyn’s house, put it on the back of a truck, and move it elsewhere? That’s what they do with historic houses (or even run of the mill homes) here in Iowa. If they are big, they cut them up in sections and reassemble at the new lot.
It’s not a historical landmark, let the owners do as they wish.
Filthy LA people.
“Since then, the Cultural Heritage Commission and the city council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee “
Call it what you want, “cultural” or “historic” “preservation, it’s a government land grab - a taking - of private property without just compensation.
Such moves should require (1) an up or down vote by all the voters in the jurisdiction (a bollot measure) because (2) if the “preservationists” get the voters approval, then the taxpayers vote is one where the taxpayers acknoledge they are telling the local government to buy the property.
If the taxpayers don’t want to get behind the idea, the “preservationists” should lose.
They should let the woman Rest In Peace. The new owners should be able to do as they please with the property. If someone else wanted to save it, they should have bought it.