Would you buy a house where babies had died?
Yes, I would (if I was otherwise interested in purchasing). I don't think that past activity has any impact. I'd happily live in a house where some had been murdered, where somebody had committed suicide, that had formerly been a vet surgery where animals were euthanased, that used to be a funeral parlour... any of those. I don't think those activities have any lasting effect on the property.
I think if people want to be superstitious, then that's their prerogative, and I'm not criticising that. What I have a big issue with is when superstition becomes enshrined in law, because it's so subjective. Whose superstitions do we acknowledge as being "standard"? Where are they codified? Do we take into account "lucky" and "unlucky" numbers?
Do we have to declare:
* that Aboriginal people consider the area cursed?
* that the person who registered the title back in the 1920s was suspect of being a pedophile?
* that people of a particular religion previously lived in the property?
* that a pet's ashes were scattered in the garden?
* that your marriage went through problems whilst living in the house?
Whose superstitions are the legally accepted ones? What if there are other people who have a belief that if nothing bad has ever happened in the property and everybody who's ever lived there has been happy and prosperous, then it must be overdue for some bad karma? Do we have to declare the unusual happiness that's previously surrounded the property?
What steps do we have to take to find out the history, if we have no idea? If the property's very old, do we have to engage private investigators and genealogists to research all the previous occupants? What about rumour? What if it's rumoured that there was a murder in the house 100 years ago, but searching the newspapers etc can find no record to substantiate the rumour? Do you still have to declare it if it can't be established?
I just think this ridiculous decision has opened up Pandora's Box.