@Sundog Maybe the Uni should not have accepted the donation. IDK.
"Memorializing" Sites of Tragic Deaths.
Just a few thoughts about tragic deaths generally and not speaking to or criticizing any specific posts or posters here on WS or any others involved in the case.
Seems in aftermath of some homicides, some ppl say --- the prop. owner should DONATE the land & building, where crime occurred, to [uni, city, county, charity, who-ever]. A donation, i.e, as a gift, free, gratis, on-the-house, no charge.
As if any ol' prop owner is in financial position to transfer a major asset to another entity, w no thought as to whether there is a mortgage on the place, or whether the owner depends on rental income to pay the mortgage, ins, prop taxes, repairs, etc., or other considerations.
And some say the prop. should or MUST be transformed into a MEMORIAL, e.g. healing garden, a playground, etc. for the crime vic(s).
AS IF that's the only and universally the BEST WAY to honor the dead, the way that all victims, surviving fam & friends want.
When there are multiple deaths, who is to say what the deceased may have preferred, or if their families would all agree.
Seems some --- w no real life or even digital/ soc media connection like FB, to the victim, fam, friends or community (other than following news on the case, like in MSM on or a forum) --- see these situations as if they are voting online for a People's Choice Award at a talent show and are entitled to determine the outcome.
And there's the issue of what a donee-entity will/can do w the property. Is the donee-entity (uni/city/county, who-ev) in a position to spend $$$ to design, create, build, maintain a memorial, to carry liability & casualty ins., provide LE or private security patrols, etc?
Sometimes a prop. transferred as a gift can be a WHITE ELEPHANT to the donor. After receiving the prop. as a gift w no legally imposed conditions, if a public entity was to sell it, I can imagine loud, prolonged negative response from some quarters.
Again, this post is not directed to any posts or posters here specifically.
Holding my breath, but ready to dodge the rotten tomatoes. Hope they're not in cans.
Snipped for focus @TL4S
Indeed, you are right. In an earlier post of mine about the house, I did try to equate E's siblings into the equation. I do not personally feel the siblings should have gone to another school unless they themselves decided that they wanted to, and I completely respect their desire to want the house gone, but they did decide to stay, and that was their choice. None of the family members had a choice about being in this horrible situation.
Actually Ethan's parents were for tearing the house down. Their remaining 2 children (of the triplets) still attend school there. Not arguing if it makes it less or more 'right'. It's a terrible situation BK created by his evil actions.
Of course, and what a terrible decision to have to make. I wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes, including the university. Does the university have a greater obligation towards its students than the parents of the victims? Maybe. Again, IDK. The university didn't even own that property at the time of the murders, which adds a level of difficulty, imo. But in the end, for one more year, was there really nothing else they could have done but tear it down now? I guess I'm in the minority here who isn't firmly planted on the demolition side. I'm honestly not firmly planted in the keep it up side, either. I find it completely impossible to navigate. And, it's all insignificant now, because the house is no longer.
I understand and respect your thoughts TL. I promise I do. There is no right or wrong here IMO.
Costs $700 A day to guard this now empty lot. They will grade it then take off the security. Money comes from a million dollars that was set aside by State Government.
www.wnep.com
Donation of the property is deductable. It will be deductable for the owners at its previous market value.
Good observation as the owner at the time of the Murders, needed to get out from under it so a donation was in order. If the owner had not done that they could be liable for accidents, and of course all the "upkeep" costs associated with the property not limited to taxes, security etc. If I had been the owner, that is exactly what I would have done, donate!! JMO
@Cool Cats My post title pretty much says it.The What attorney lets their clients believe misinformation? who is suppose to talk to the families is the person they hired....Their Attorney.
What attorney lets their clients believe misinformation? Your points are misinformation that their attorney is allowing them to believe......It seems like to me....2Cents
Their attorney is suppose to help them navigate the court system. Gag order brought silence. Not Mr G
..........2 Cents
____________________________________________________ Shannon Gray
View attachment 471528
Yes. But its good to remember it is shifted to the citizens of Idaho to pay.
snipped for focus @Boxer Your post takes me back to reading fed. inc. tax materials in my pre-retirement years. Ah, good old IRS Publication 926 "Charitable Contributions."*
