92 Second St.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:28 pm

After the Borden's funeral I know Lizzie sold the house & moved to Maplecroft. I can't imagine what they had to do to sell that house. The thing I thought of was they must have had to replace the floors that must have been saturated with blood. Because of waht happened in that house was it empty for a long time before someone bought it? There must be a town real estate records, how many people have owned it up until now? One question seems to lead to another----how did people sell houses back in 1892? I don't think there were real estate agents.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:23 am

There, were, in fact, people who acted as real estate agents. Houses and farms are often seen advertised for sale in newspapers. Many of them list a contact person who was not the owner of the property.

There were also auctions that were advertised, but I don't know if they were foreclosures or if that was simply another method of selling. In those cases, as today, the auctioneer was the person listed in the advertisement.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:39 am

Lorraine, the Borden sisters did not sell the house until 1918, some 26 years after the tragedy. It was sold to John W. Dunn. After that it was sold 3 or 4 more times until the present owners.

It's in good hands now!

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:29 am

Harry @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:39 am wrote:Lorraine, the Borden sisters did not sell the house until 1918, some 26 years after the tragedy. It was sold to John W. Dunn. After that it was sold 3 or 4 more times until the present owners.

It's in good hands now!

I was just talking to my Dad today about this. We had another long bus ride to visit Mum in the hospital, several towns away. I explained how the Borden house is run as a B&B & how it was lucky to survive when so much of the 2nd Street neighborhood has gone. The print shop was probably what saved it (& the fact the owners lived in the house). I said the house had really good owners now who have torn down the print shop and restored the house back as close as possible to 1892.

On the flipside, I also spoke of Maplecroft & how its future is a bit of a concern to Bordenites. Apparently, if Maplecroft were in England, it would be subject to strict laws as an historical home...even tho it's infamous rather than famous...& the owner would have to comply with a certain level of respect for the historical integrity of the property. In other words, if you own a property that has historical significance, you are required to respect that---the house may belong to you by law, but you are in the larger scheme of things, more like a custodian of the property. The property belongs to everyone...or to history...not just to you.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:10 pm

I didn't realize that they kept the property that long. Did they rent the house or was it vacant? I totally agree Harry, the house is in great hands. Is there anyway to get Second St., and Maplecroft on the historical register? (Or are they already)

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:24 pm

A listing on the National Register in no way guarantees a property will remain unchanged or even remain standing. It is simply a designation.

It can have a bit of impact on a Federally funded project, which requires that special consideration be given to National Register properties when plans are designed. But even then, if they wanted to run a US highway through Maplecroft, they might see if anyone was willing to move the place out of the path of the bulldozers, but if not, it would be gone.

Even a house in a Massachusetts Historical District is not completely protected. Plans must be reviewed and approved by the local Historical District Commission, but enforcement is only as good as the local commission.

Shelley · Post by **Shelley** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:34 pm

The Borden house is not protected only that it is in a recognized historically designated section of the city, namely Corky's Row. It's scary that the house has so little protection. Maplecroft is in the same situation- being located in the Historic Highlands, but not protected as an individual edifice. I have done grant writing for historical properties - the Federal grants are super tough to get unless a site is of huge historical significance to the country, or of extreme architectural merit. Religious building seldom get a federal grant -Touro Synagogue in Newport is one of the few as it was the first in America.

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:37 am

Rules re historic property are very similar in Canada. I supose it has a lot to do with the fact that we are "young" countries & respect for the past is not so ingrained. It's a shame. Actually, I found Fall River more respecting of its history than my home town...altho things seem to be getting better as people learn to appreciate historical architecture. It's awful, tho, how much is lost.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:08 am

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:16 am

True, but we're better than other cultures. It's my understanding that in Japan most things have to be brand new. New is Best!

When a group of people in Japan banded together to buy the Captain William Whitfield house in Fairhaven, one of their questions was, "How long can a wooden house built in the 1830s last?" We told them that many of the neighbors are very happily living in houses 70 years older than that.

Of course it is far different in Europe where some people live in houses that have been in their families since the Normans and Saxons and Hobbits were around.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:40 pm

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri May 02, 2008 7:15 pm

In answer to Nadzieja, if you have The Hatchet issue June/July 2005, I have listed from census quite a few of the owners and residents of #92 Second Street.
BTW: The number changed thru the years: #1231 & 1230 (1850), #1 & #400 (1860), #262 & #263 (1870), #92 & #94 in 1872, #44 in 1920, and #230 in 1930. Technically the house address is #230 Second Street now, but was given special privilege to accept #92 as a street address due to mail.

Nadzieja @ Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:28 pm wrote:After the Borden's funeral I know Lizzie sold the house & moved to Maplecroft. I can't imagine what they had to do to sell that house. The thing I thought of was they must have had to replace the floors that must have been saturated with blood. Because of waht happened in that house was it empty for a long time before someone bought it? There must be a town real estate records, how many people have owned it up until now? One question seems to lead to another----how did people sell houses back in 1892? I don't think there were real estate agents.

Nadzieja · Post by **Nadzieja** » Fri May 02, 2008 8:07 pm

Kat, Thank you for the answer & reference. I don't have that issue yet. I've been ordering back copies slow but surely so I can have the whole collection. Each one has so much information, they are really great reference materials. The writing is exceptional, and I can't imagine the research that goes into those articles. I have to say it is now my favorite periodical.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat May 03, 2008 1:02 am

I believe I posted the info (or some of it?) here lately, because the issue was 3 years ago.
If someone is good at searching this Forum, they might find it and provide a link?

There also is info on owners in Rebello, page 34-35.

mbhenty · Post by **mbhenty** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:39 pm

Lizzie Borden Society Forum

92 Second St.

92 Second St.

Re: 92 Second St.