And many people who helped build it are furious, and rightly so.

Not at the banks, or anythng like that-but at the homeowners.

http://www.walletpop.com/mortgages/a...id=200100397x1206593772x1200351904

So, this family was GIVEN a house worth almost a half mil, and instead of enjoying it, they tried to start a business-by taking a loan out on the entire value of the house-and squandered everything they were given.

THIS is the kind of irresponsibility that a few on here have talked about, and in this case they're right.

How can anyone throw such a gift down the toilet like that? Incredible.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): How can anyone throw such a gift down the toilet like that?

the same mentality that put them in "help" in the first place.

You would think there would be a clause in the TV contract that would prohibit a mortgage on the place.

Extreme Makeover did a house about a mile from mine, a couple of years ago. The family went from a small house to a mansion complete with a merry go round in the back yard. Now the family can't afford the utilities bills, and property tax and are looking to sell. The yard looks like a dump to boot.

Ultimately, that is the chance that all charity takes. It raises the question of what is the best way to help people. In this case, throwing money (or housing) at the problem was probably not the right answer. While I admire the aim of the show, the decadence turns me off.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 1): the same mentality that put them in "help" in the first place.

Maybe. Some of the houses they do were damaged, or in some cases, a parent has suffered a catastrophic illness or injury (there was a LAPD officer who was paralyzed for life when she was shot point-blank in the back by a criminal, and all their money went to her care). And it doesn't give the details of why they were picked.

But to squander everything they were given? That's obscene.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2): You would think there would be a clause in the TV contract that would prohibit a mortgage on the place.

that would put a number of parties ... ABC, Endemol, the local builders, charity givers, etc. under a lot of possible legal obligations, etc.

once it's done, the hands are washed clean.

I saw that episode.

I have mixed feelings about this situation, first they took out a loan to open a construction business, fair enough. At least showing some ambition and trying to change their situation for the long term. Business fails, again not uncommon at all.

But squandering the $250,000 that was supposed to be for their kids education etc? Hmmm...

I wonder if they squandered it on material crap or if they blew it on more stuff for the construction business.

Sometimes there is a reason people are poor.

In this case, it is because they are people who make dumb decisions. At the beginning we can question "are these people just unlucky?" No, they are people who create poverty, out of virtually any situation.

Even with $1 billion, it is possible to go bankrupt real fast if you make bad choices.

This site has a picture of the home that is now trashed.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nix/6932651/

Quoting Flighty (Reply 8): Sometimes there is a reason people are poor. In this case, it is because they are people who make dumb decisions. At the beginning we can question "are these people just unlucky?" No, they are people who create poverty, out of virtually any situation.

Let's face it, 50% of people have below average intelligence  

I assume that when appearing on the show that the recipients have to sign some kind of contract with the network, so i can't imagine it'd be too difficult to add a rider to the effect "homeowner agress in accepting such property as a gift that they will not sell/mortgage/or otherwise capitalize on the value of the home for a minimum of X number of years, or the recieving party shall be liable for double the difference between the unimproved and improved value of the property plus the cost of all donated goods, services and labor not to exceed 1 million dollars in total."

really it should be no different than any other reality show (Survivor for instance has a clause in their participant contract that if you talk about the results of the show before it airs, you have to fork over 10million dollars.)

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): THIS is the kind of irresponsibility that a few on here have talked about, and in this case they're right.

Don't worry, the US government is about to bail them out. No fear.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter): THIS is the kind of irresponsibility that a few on here have talked about, and in this case they're right.

Why? If they were given the windfall gratuitously, they can do whatever they please with it. I would say if there is blame to be placed, it's with the producers of the show.

Kind of reminds me of the AOPA airplane giveaway every year. For quite a number of years they've been refurbishing aircraft to better-than-new condition and giving it away to an AOPA member (can you believe they still haven't picked me????). They did a survey last year and I think out of all the aircraft they had given away, only one was retained by the original winner. All the other winners had sold their planes within a very short period after getting the keys. These types of giveaway are a financial windfall and sometimes it's hard not to take advantage of them.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 2): You would think there would be a clause in the TV contract that would prohibit a mortgage on the place.

  

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 12): Don't worry, the US government is about to bail them out. No fear.

  

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3): Extreme Makeover did a house about a mile from mine, a couple of years ago. The family went from a small house to a mansion complete with a merry go round in the back yard. Now the family can't afford the utilities bills, and property tax and are looking to sell. The yard looks like a dump to boot.

I have to admit that I am annoyed at what ABC does end up giving to the families. Generally they go from a destitute or neara destitute situation living in a few hundred square feet to a house that is in excess of 3000 square feet with lights and TV's everywhere, and kitchen with huge new fridges, dishwashers, microwaves, and such, and to top it the house invariably has God's own bathroom in the master bedroom.

It's like each show must beat the last and do more. And I don't the show can go back to a more modest home. In fact it would be kind of funny to watch a crowd of people and the family shouting "move that bus" to reveal a nice single story

I can't imagine that the families are in most cases able to handle the continuing expenses after the "gift" money runs out. I keep thinking that if I was given one of these homes, I'd live it for a while then sell it and move into a house i could afford and was used to.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4): Ultimately, that is the chance that all charity takes. It raises the question of what is the best way to help people. In this case, throwing money (or housing) at the problem was probably not the right answer. While I admire the aim of the show, the decadence turns me off.

As I said above I too feel the house are way overboard.That said, the houses are gifts, and as with any gift it must be given freely and you must let the receiver do what they want to with it. Doesn't mean you have to give them anything else ever again but I hate it when people "give" things to people and with out any prior agreement expect something in return. And almost always the giver and ends up complaining to everyone ab out how irresponsible or how ungracious the receiver is.

Tugg

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 4): Ultimately, that is the chance that all charity takes. It raises the question of what is the best way to help people. In this case, throwing money (or housing) at the problem was probably not the right answer. While I admire the aim of the show, the decadence turns me off.

Agreed - why not build "basic" homes for several families instead of one McMansion style home, completed with Michael Jackson inspired merry-go-rounds?   

And Extreme Makeover: Home Edition needs a more grounded, sincere host - Ty Pennington is a patronizing no-talent drunk. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270548,00.html

Quoting STLGph (Reply 1): the same mentality that put them in "help" in the first place.

   That is rediculous. Good God. Your statement is correct, LOL. They should bring out the demolition team and tear down that house, and rebuild another one for someone who can learn to appreciate a fuckin free HOUSE!

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 7): But squandering the $250,000 that was supposed to be for their kids education etc? Hmmm...

Doubt it. they'll blow it on pot.

I would also like to see an investigation to see if 1) illegal workers were used in the construction, and 2) how they paid off local politicians and construction inspectors to get the needed permits and inspections done in such amazingly short time for these 'extreme' projects.

Still, I would believe that few of those that get these homes are going to be like this family was and will be far more responsible.

There should have been better character investigations of the beneficiaries as well as agreements in place to limit the ability to mortgage on or sell these homes. The money to maintain them for a set time should have been better regulated. They should have been limited from benefiting from any sale within lets say 10 years unless death of a principal owner. I also agree that they should be less 'extreme' in their projects and make more moderate renovations, not create energy hog 'mansions', without the fancy flat screen TV's and furniture or making the property taxes go to unaffordable levels.

I agree that a gift is a gift, and the people should be able to do with the house as they please. The problem is the character of some of the people, they are not sure how to handle something so extravagant being laid in their laps.

Ultimately, what something like this does, is make people doubt the need to donate to a show like this. This could prevent a family that has a real need, and that would be truly grateful, and would find a way to pay it forward, from getting a house.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 3): Extreme Makeover did a house about a mile from mine, a couple of years ago. The family went from a small house to a mansion complete with a merry go round in the back yard. Now the family can't afford the utilities bills, and property tax and are looking to sell. The yard looks like a dump to boot.

You know this is what I wondered about this show. It's nice they get a new house, but most if all of these people were on shaky financial ground to begin with. What about property taxes and things like that?

As much as we like to say everyone is equal, the reality is that we aren't..Some are born rich, some poor, and some in between. Some people just have the worst of luck while some have just breezed through life as if it were nothing.

I have friends who are ungodly rich, buy Louis Vuitton purses like candy and then I have a friend who drives a tow truck and has had the worst luck I've ever seen.

You only get a few breaks in life, and this was one of them..It's sad they didn't take full advantage of it.

It's always a nice thing to help someone out who's in need, but what I've found from helping out friends is that sometimes you are really enabling them.

This family has been in the news a lot over here, and a lot of people are making fun of their situation. It costs money to pay for the upkeep of a larger house. Lawn care, utilities, taxes, and higher insurance costs mean you need a high income to afford the house even if you don't have to pay for the house.

The show should give people houses that are affordable. It isn't their fault; they have exceeded the call of duty (whatever that may be)...but c'mon. They need to be a bit realistic.

What's everyone really complaining about? If the construction business they started with the mortgage was successful then we'd be talking about what an amazing rags to riches story this was. You know what? This is a perfect illustration of entreprenurial risk. Success in life is never guaranteed. These people assumed tremendous risk (some might argue an irresponsible level of risk). But, by doing so, they stood to reap a huge reward.

So their risk didn't pay off and now they lose the house. Well that's exactly the sort of risks hundreds of thousands of small business owners face every day.

The founder of our company mortgaged his house 27 years ago to get the seed capital to start our company. He had a wife and child and all his net worth was in his house. Additionally, he personally guaranteed all the company's debt until about 8 years ago. He now pulls in a couple million bucks a year and works very little. His gamble paid off because but for the grace of God, every entrepreneurial venture could easily fail. During start ups there are hundreds of decisions big and small - any of which could result in the founder losing EVERYTHING.

So the next time some of the same people who on other threads have criticized the rich for being rich and said that they don't pay their fair share of taxes - think back upon this family who risked everything and lost. For every Microsoft or Dell, for every Starbuck or Apple, for every Home Depot or Walmart that makes it, there are literally hundreds of thousands of small business and small business owners that don't. Yet they drive the economic engine of our country.

Entrepreneurship needs to be rewarded disproportionally because the risk they take is so high. And when they fail they need to be left to fail. No government bail out, no special treatment. Allow the markets to function and you get better answers for all.

Instead, many on this forum seek to punish financial success and demonize it.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 17): I how they paid off local politicians and construction inspectors to get the needed permits and inspections done in such amazingly short time for these 'extreme' projects.

From what I have read about Extreme Makeover, all building permits and any other necessary permits are all secured before any construction starts and all the necessary intermediate inspections are also arranged beforehand.

With national TV crews on the site 24/7 no building inspector or other municipal officials would have their hands out looking for a payoff by stopping construction, that would be the end of their careers, let alone face criminal charges.

Quoting Jetstar (Reply 22): Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 17): I how they paid off local politicians and construction inspectors to get the needed permits and inspections done in such amazingly short time for these 'extreme' projects. From what I have read about Extreme Makeover, all building permits and any other necessary permits are all secured before any construction starts and all the necessary intermediate inspections are also arranged beforehand.

I've been to two of these EM sites while they were building...one in Tampa and one in Gulfport/St Pete...spent about 4-5 hrs watching from sidelines...talked to various EM staff who worked the crowd line...they say about this:
The staff make arrangements with town/city about 2 months beforehand to get permits and such, and to set up needed logistics like police, fire & EMS, etc.
They have building/elec/plumb/etc inspectors on site 24/7 during build, so there is no delay.
It's a constant monitoring so it's likely these homes are better inspected than the normal.

Also, AFAIK, all the workers are volunteers to EM and if paid, are paid by their normal employers as part of donation in return for credits on show.

BTW, a lot of the construction takes place off-site like in nearby parking lots and such and panels/walls/trusses are just put in place so that's part of reason it goes quickly...and the plans for house are developed months in advance...the design team also has most all plans in place so when you see them saying "we could do such and such", it's mostly a recreation of what they did before.

Quoting Pope (Reply 21): If the construction business they started with the mortgage was successful then we'd be talking about what an amazing rags to riches story this was.

In case you have not noticed, construction is not a real hot business right now. Thats an over the top risk that these folks took. Smart person would get someone else to put up the capital for such a venture. If no one wanted to put up the money.... there is a chance there was a reason!! No money for new small construction companies right now!!!

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 11): "homeowner agress in accepting such property as a gift that they will not sell/mortgage/or otherwise capitalize on the value of the home for a minimum of X number of years

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 17): They should have been limited from benefiting from any sale within lets say 10 years unless death of a principal owner.

Eh, that wouldn't be a good idea. Courts frown upon alienation restrictions--such conditions call into question the true ownership of the property. If ABC can put such conditions on the property, is it an actual transfer of a gift or has ABC retained some interest? Does the owner truly own the property if they aren't allowed to sell it? That could potentially leave ABC or whomever on the legal hook for taxes, etc.

These people took a huge risk with taking out that mortgage (no one can accuse them of having much foresight getting into the construction business right now), and they are paying the price. The problem with EM as others have pointed out is that these families, who couldn't afford a liveable house in the first place, are then given a much more expensive house with still no ability to pay for it. When you win a prize like that, you almost have to sell it right away just to cover the taxes, unless you've won cash. I don't think any of the families that have won HGTV's "Dream Home Giveaway" have been able to keep the house either. There have been legal and tax problems with that, too.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 13): They did a survey last year and I think out of all the aircraft they had given away, only one was retained by the original winner. All the other winners had sold their planes within a very short period after getting the keys. These types of giveaway are a financial windfall and sometimes it's hard not to take advantage of them.

I'd do the same thing if I won - sure, it'd be nice to have a newly refurbished single to fly around at my whim, but the fees to store, operate, fuel and pay taxes would likely eat up about half my yearly salary.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 24): In case you have not noticed, construction is not a real hot business right now. Thats an over the top risk that these folks took. Smart person would get someone else to put up the capital for such a venture. If no one wanted to put up the money.... there is a chance there was a reason!! No money for new small construction companies right now!!!

In case you haven't noticed, the greatest historical returns are generated when someone buys into a down cycle industry and reaps the benefits of the recovery. I'm not saying what they did was smart, I'm saying what they did was VERY RISKY but our economy is based upon risk taking.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14): I have to admit that I am annoyed at what ABC does end up giving to the families.

That's been my question ever since I saw the one and only episode I ever watched. It's one thing to give, another to bestow.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14): I can't imagine that the families are in most cases able to handle the continuing expenses after the "gift" money runs out. I keep thinking that if I was given one of these homes, I'd live it for a while then sell it and move into a house i could afford and was used to.

Again, my thoughts exactly. When you look at the places in which these people lived, and then where they were moved too, how they were going to be able to afford the difference just in up keep was a real question. Why can't ABC just fix up the home they are in and make it more lavish? At least the owner would know they could continue to afford the property.


I suppose in the end it is no different than if they had sold the house and then invested the money in a losing business venture. We probably wouldn't have heard about it then.

Quoting Pope (Reply 21): Instead, many on this forum seek to punish financial success and demonize it

Much of your post is spot-on. But there is something wrong with taking inappropriate risks with charity-gotten money. There is some conceit in that.

It sounds like your boss was extremely capable. The point is, he was destined for success, even though he apparently started with very little. The money you have matters little; it's your performance that counts. I know rich people who had $50 in their pocket when they arrived in the USA 20 years ago. But they got rich. And I know poor people whose parents have huge fortunes. But they got poor anyway.

I think we are dismayed at this story because by taking unusual risks, a person stakes a claim they are unusually talented and/or lucky. But they were neither. Irrational optimism is not only a dangerous thing, it is slightly conceited. We see this in video games. A great player can start at the bottom and win. A poor player is probably going to lose.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 29): But there is something wrong with taking inappropriate risks with charity-gotten money. There is some conceit in that.

Absolutely. But if the risk had paid off, don't you think many of the same people criticizing this family would be holding them out as someone to be admired?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 29): Irrational optimism is not only a dangerous thing, it is slightly conceited.

I agree. I just think that the best cure for irrational optimism is failure.

I dunno....it's no different than if these folks scored 450 large on a lucky lottery ticket and pissed the proceeds away. It's their good luck and it's their bad luck, and they're entitled to piss the proceeds away. It's not at all as if the home was built by H4H-there are restrictions on what you can do with the place.

So they seem improvident and ungrateful and incapable of making good decisions with their windfall. So what?

It just goes to show that people do not treat gifts with the same care that they do things that they have had to break a sweat for.

So what's new?

Quoting Pope (Reply 27): the greatest historical returns are generated when someone buys into a down cycle industry and reaps the benefits of the recovery.

Exactly, and the people who made the investments had the ability to weather the down cycle. If you are putting your house up for collateral, you do not have the ability to survive the down cycle. It is all about risk assesment, and they failed at it, and are now going to be out of a house.