The final home of Marilyn Monroe – and the only residence she ever owned independently – will remain standing for now after Los Angeles officials intervened to block the property’s demolition.

The news that the new owners of 12305 Fifth Helena Drive, where Monroe died at age 36, filed for demolition permits had attracted widespread outrage. Los Angeles city councilwoman Traci Park said she received hundreds of calls urging her to save the Spanish colonial-style house in the city’s Brentwood neighborhood.

“Unfortunately, the department of building and safety issued a demolition permit before my team and I could fully intervene and get this issue resolved,” Park said at a news conference last week, adding that there was a need for “urgent action”.

  • dan1101@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve never heard anybody talk about where Marilyn Monroe lived in my life. If the property was important for preservation why didn’t the city already own it? Was there just supposed to be some general understanding that it wasn’t allowed to be demolished? I would think it’s just an empty shell at this point.

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s pretty common to still allow private ownership of historic places, but with additional rules associated with them.

      The silly part is if this mattered, why wasn’t this already part of that? I suppose it’s a social inertia of a kind, and this will likely resolve by getting it recognized as a historic building.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The silly part is that anyone considers a this a historic place. What happened in Marilyn Monroe’s mansion that makes it worthy of keeping? She’s historic, the house she happened to own is not.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If there is a bunch of people who care so much about the house that they would put in effort to stop the demolition then they should purchase it.

      • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You say that as though a house that isn’t presently listed for sale can be forcibly purchased for such a thing, which just isn’t how it works unless it’s the government doing the forcing.

        Besides which, they have to stop the demolition before they could even offer to purchase it, assuming the owners want to sell at all, so even if that does end up being a valid option, it’s going to take time.

        So either way they need to stop the demolition to do what you suggest…? I’m confused as to how you expect that to work.

        • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m a bit confused on your confusion. I just stated that if they want to keep the house then they should purchase it. If the current owners don’t want to sell then too bad for them.

          • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So your stance is “if the land owners want to fuck up a potential historical landmark for everyone else, they can, regardless of what society as a whole wants; private property is king, and rich people rule the rest of us.”?

            Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with that mindset. As does most of society, and the government, hence historical districting, which is mostly privately owned.

            • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And that is where you are wrong. The government cannot agree with you because, by the US Constitution, the government cannot just seize land without offering equal value. So it cannot be made a historic monument, something the government would have to designate, unless the government owned the property, which they do not.

              Also you have no right to speak on what most of society wants. The best you can do is speak on your world view. I could also argue that most people wouldn’t care if it is demolished.

              Finally, my stance is not what you stated. I don’t know why you think you know everything. My stance is “If the want to preserve the property the do it right. Legally obtain ownership and go through the proper channels.” Stop making assumptions.

      • jopepa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of them are very liquid right now, they have most of their savings invested in a box under their bed labeled “homework”