Pennhurst Asylum attraction gives fear a bad name

Published: Sunday, September 26, 2010

The attraction at the former Pennhurst Center has opened to the delight of haunted-house fans and to the chagrin of many others.

On Friday a Chester County judge denied the request for a preliminary injunction to halt the opening. The injunction was sought by neighbors of the East Vincent business who argued developers Richard Chakejian and Randy Bates failed to follow proper zoning procedures.

In denying the injunction request, Judge Robert Shenkin said he was not ruling on the merits of the lawsuit filed by Saul Rivkin and his wife Linda Fulton-Rivkin, but on the criteria of "irreparable harm" that would demand stopping the attraction from opening as planned.

The Rivkins' claim that the noise and the traffic might disrupt their rural neighborhood is certainly legitimate, but the judge was correct that it did not rise to the level of an emergency.

The suit, however, makes valid points about the cracks in township approval that preceded the attraction's opening.

And, the fact that the Pennhurst Asylum is now up and running does not make it less troublesome in the overarching battle for the rights of mentally challenged individuals and their families.

Chakejian and Bates and their attorney Ryan Costello, who is the former chairman of East Vincent Board of Supervisors and is the elected recorder of deeds for Chester County, insist the project had all the necessary approvals.

But, the property development did not go through a township zoning hearing process, which it seems should have occurred for a public attraction in an area zoned residential. The failure of township officials to enforce that hearing process denied residents the right to question the potential for noise, traffic and late-night activity.

Bates has estimated the Pennhurst Asylum will bring hundreds of people -- paying $25 a piece -- to this quiet corner at the edge of Spring City every weekend night from now until early November. This is a business that depends on crowds night after night -- don't compare it to a church dinner.

There is an upside to the crowds expected -- area businesses, particularly restaurants and hotels may benefit from the influx of people. But, a thorough vetting of the project in the zoning process could have allowed the crowds to come without leaving residents leery about what's to be expected in their neighborhoods after dark.

And, despite the insistence of the attraction's supporters to the contrary, the Pennhurst Asylum is offensive. Brochures promoting the attraction describe it as a "once notorious mental institution" ... "a world class haunted attraction guaranteed to drive you crazy" where "the fear is real."

The theme of fear in the attraction's promotions reverses the victories of all those who fought to prove that the mentally challenged are not to be pushed aside as repulsive or frightening.

This attraction has brought to the fore all the old debate about whether Pennhurst was a place of abuse or shelter, whether mentally challenged people should live independently or with supervision. Those debates will continue.

But, what happened or didn't at Pennhurst is not the issue here. The issue with Pennhurst Asylum is that it capitalizes on the sadness of institutionalizing mentally challenged people for a Halloween attraction. It takes a failure of society and celebrates it as fun.

This attraction could have been developed with the focus on old buildings and tunnels without the emphasis on what the buildings once housed. It could have been a well-planned attraction that benefited businesses without leaving neighbors in doubt as to crowd control and traffic.

But, that isn't what occurred. What is truly frightening is that more people appear to be interested in a good time than in following zoning laws and honoring a legacy of human rights.