LAKE CITY, Ga. ”“ More than 1,800 people showed up to help ABC’s “Extreme Makeover” team demolish a family’s decrepit home and replace it with a sparkling, four-bedroom mini-mansion in 2005. Three years later, the reality TV show’s most ambitious project at the time has become the latest victim of the foreclosure crisis. After the Harper family used the two-story home as collateral for a $450,000 loan, it’s set to go to auction on the steps of the Clayton County Courthouse on Aug. 5. The couple told WSB-TV they received the loan for a construction business that failed.
Sad? Try outraged.
Wasn’t it Herbert Spencer who said, “The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of their folly is to populate the world with fools�
I don’t pay outrageous taxes to subsidize idiocy. Or maybe I do. I mean, I’m beginning to think I’m the real idiot here:
* I live in a house that is smaller and less luxurious than I can possibly afford, so I’ll never be eligible for Uncle Sam’s bailout largesse
* I drive less car than I can afford, so chicks don’t oooh and ahhh at my choice of German steel
* I save money every month, guaranteeing I’ll have to pay taxes on the meager interest I’ll earn
* I put money aside for my kids’ college expenses, assuring that I’ll never see a dime in grants or need-based scholarships
* I pay my credit cards off every month, so I’ll never get to stiff the credit card companies for pennies on the dollar while still enjoying all the stuff they bought me.
No, it would seem that the fool is your humble Jeffersonian, who pay his debts and lives in a way he doesn’t burden others with his lifestyle. And for my foolishness, I’ll now get to pay for all those smart folks who don’t live this way. Thanks, Congress! Thanks, Dubya!
I’m with Jeffersonian. This is no more than a sign of an entitlement society running decent society into the ground.
FDR meant well, but even he couldn’t have imagined this.
[url=http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/12/please-dont-des.html]Please Don’t Destroy My American Dream[/url]
I’m a little baffled at the above comments. ABC’s “Extreme Makeover” has nothing to do with Congress, taxes, or FDR. It is purely a product of free enterprise capitalism and the entertainment industry. In a “Reality TV” update of the old “Queen for a Day,” the program finds a needy family whose life has been touched by tragedy–death of a parent, high medical expenses, etc. Usually these families are also contributing in some meaningful way to society–using their home to run a community shelter, a pastor whose church is making a difference, etc.
This is not a government handout. The program gives the family a new home in exchange for–advertising dollars and viewers. ABC did what it did freely in hopes of making a profit, which they made. The recipients cooperated freely with ABC by appearing on television in exchange for goods and services–a new home. The on-screen hosts of the show are all actors who are paid handsomely.
Apparently, one of the recipients of the program’s largesse used their newly-found good fortune to pursue the American dream in the most capitalist manner imaginable, by using it as collateral to take out a loan to become entrepreneurs. As often happens, the business failed. The government did not bail them out. They lost their collateral. Love or hate it, that’s called free enterprise.
As I recall, most of the families helped on Extreme Makeover Home edition usually has their mortgages on the old home paid off by someone working on the project.
That they would then turn around and take out a 450,000 loan is, indeed, as Jeffersoinian said, outrageous and also incredibly stupid!
It was their own fault. They were handed a house on a silver platter, practically free and clear, and then they do this. 🙄
Jim Elliott
I’m admittedly way off topic, but what Jeffersonian writes: “I put money aside for my kids’ college expenses, assuring that I’ll never see a dime in grants or need-based scholarships” is so true. When my wife and I filled out the [url=http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/]FAFSA[/url] for our first kid to reach college age, we were dumbfounded – you get penalized for having saved for college. It’s crazy.
[blockquote]I’m a little baffled at the above comments. ABC’s “Extreme Makeover†has nothing to do with Congress, taxes, or FDR. [/blockquote]
True, and my post was largely a vent only marginally related to the specific case mentioned. But there are [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/housing_bill]400,000 other reasons[/url] to be upset.
#7
Amen, brother!
I’m surprised this hasn’t happened sooner. I’ve often wondered why on Earth they build huge, over-the-top homes for families of limited means — how do they afford the taxes, the utilities, the upkeep, in the long-term? I’m sure they would have been delighted with more modest homes if the program hadn’t kept raising the bar and building more and more lavish McMansions.
Perhaps Ty should throw in free debt counselling sessons with Dave Ramsey and the family before turning over the keys to them.
Jim Elliott
Sometimes a house should just be a place to live. Too many folks today look at their house as a bank or a pile of money to be used. My wife and I own our modest home and plan to live here until we die. Whether it drops in value or goes up in value is of no matter. It is simply the secure and humble abode where we live. Isn’t that what a house is supposed to be?
It’s a little hard to feel sorry for folks who were given a huge break, one that many people have to work very hard for, and instead of looking at that as a permanent place of refuge and home, they say it as an opportunity to break the bank. Unfortunately, the bank broke them. Too bad and yes, sad, but the fault lies where the fault lies, with the folks who put it up for collateral.
I’ll pray that they find a new home and learn a big lesson.
I really can’t understand if and when a family gets a house free and clear (it also sounded roomy enough) the first thing they want to do is get a $450,000 mortgage and really “live it up”?? Sounds like the 7 quart crankcase of the car was running two quarts low. Nuff said!!
To be fair, #12 Harvey, they didn’t get the loan to “live it up.” They got the loan to finance a business venture, which failed. Whether the business was a reasonable risk that went down because of bad luck (plenty of business starts do) or a foolish risk that was likely to fail from the beginning, we have no way of knowing. But — as #4 comments above — in general, taking out a loan to start a business is a perfectly respectable thing to do.
Taking out a loan to start a business is a perfectly respectable thing to do, but securing it with a home that was given to you at the labor of others when you were down and out is not. Don’t put anything behind your venture you are not prepared to lose, and losing one’s home is inexcusible.
It’s pretty clear this poor family’s original predicament wasn’t the result of bad luck. As a project manager I was chatting with today remarked, it just reinforces the idea that if you divvied up all the wealth in America equally, the people who have the money today would have it again in ten years.
There was a news article today that stated that most people who get money “the easy way” end up without it in a very short time, something like 70% of lottery winners are bankrupt by the end of one or two years after winning it… but those who save their money, or work for it tend to hang on to it and save or invest most of it.
i’m not a ‘home makeover’ expert, but this is what i know from the handful of episodes i’ve watched…i’m pretty sure that the family doesn’t have much to do with the decisions made concerning the building of the house…that is done by the show and volunteers based on the needs that they have seen and reasons that the show and volunteers have chosen that particular family…what i have seen are families who have adopted special-needs kids…so the show/volunteers have built a home suitable to those living there…and homes with accommodations are always more expensive to build, aren’t they…families who run horse programs for handicapped kids and need the space both inside and out…not inexpensive, is it…i’ve seen shows where families have lived in particular towns all their lives and their homes have been passed down through generations and family is important to them…so the show and volunteers have worked with old structures that need to be rewired, reworked and renewed so families can remain, pricey but worth every penny…those are the kinds of shows and families i’ve seen…people living and loving in ways that i couldn’t even begin to live up to the easy way? living it up? the shows that you saw and are commenting about must have been very different than the ones than i saw…
writingmom,
The show features both: renovation AND demolition construction of a new building on the old site. Often times the homes are quite expansive — 5,000 sq ft is not unusual. But then, often times the family has to deal with children of extended family living with the primary home-owners due to death, extended illness, etc. Or, as you have pointed out, there is dire need for dust free environments; handicapped accessibility; mental/physical disabilities; etc, which requires special needs considerations.
I wish they would do follow up shows on these families, too.
Hopper, I enjoy the program, and don’t find it tawdry at all. It is one of the few reality shows that actually HELPS people, rather than pits them against one another for cash.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><