Joanne Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 You can google, but here is one link: http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272621800.shtml Granted, I don't know the details, but I'm disgusted and furious. It seems to me that any family ought to be able to move on productively after a paid for mansion home, generous amounts of cash and copious amounts of community support. I stopped watching Extreme Home Makeover after Ty got a DUI, but I always felt inspired and touched by the show when we watched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIN Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 They had such an opportunity and lost it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharon H in IL Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 From the news I read, the owners 'commited an act of capitalism' as George Will puts it. They took out a loan secured by the house in order to invest in a construction business. The business didn't go, and they defaulted on the loan. Ah well. The probability is that someone is eventually going to have such things happen, if you build enough of these donated houses. You can find similar stories at Habitat for Humanity I daresay, though they require a lot of their family recipients and do training in home maintenance and finances. (That was my general impression, anyway.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuff Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Oh thing I've learned, it doesn't matter how much money you have. Most people will always spend what they have, whether it's a little or a lot. I know that has been true of us. You have to actively change that cycle or it doesn't matter the wealth you've been given. Their mistake was in morgaging a paid for house. They took a risk and lost. But it could have easily been most of us. They may have foolishly squandered their much, but we also foolishly squander our little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clementine Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 This is one of those issues that just irks me! As we hear more & more about the housing crisis and about how the government is going to help those people (and mortgage companies) refinance to more stable loans & such....I just wish they would give the opportunities to save to those of us who have worked hard at paying our house payments each month and on time. Not all, but many of the people in trouble just kept taking out loans, eventually more than their house is worth now. They took advantage of the system, without thinking ahead at the consequences. We have 4 houses on my street that are empty right now & a couple of them were families where we'd often think "What are we doing wrong?" "How do they afford all of that stuff?" Now I guess we know. How I wouldn't love a lower interest rate w/o the refinancing fees.... Okay, my rant is over - I hope I didn't offend anyone - this hits me hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadiegirl Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 It's sad and I think that this is sometimes a similar outcome with those who win the lottery. I have seen a show before that showed how it caused them so many problems. If I were the show's producer, I think that I would require these families to have financial counseling and planning classes. That is a waste and there are plenty out there that would use it wisely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milovany Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Someone on another board made us repeat after her (well, not really) ... "Your home is not a bank." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdWTMer Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I think that definitely it is a very unfortunate turn of events. I just couldn't imagine losing a house that I completely owned. Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in AL Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I agree with Clementine. We see the same thing in our subdivision. I don't think you can blame Extreme Home Makeover by any means. I'm surprised this hasn't happened more often to tell you the truth. Maybe they (Home Makeover) should've had a clause that the homes couldn't be sold within a certain amount of time or mortgaged. It really boils down to people's principles and how that affects their decision making. Home Makeover or Gov't laws can't fix their poor choices. It also doesn't upset me too much that Ty got a DUI. Yeah, it was an extremely poor choice. Yes, it doesn't reflect well on the show, but it also doesn't null and void all the good work they've done, hopefully with good intentions. We all sin and grace is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Virginia Dawn Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I'm not surprised. Someone I'm very close to is getting ready to file bankruptcy because they started a business and put *their house (with a second mortgage), investment property, and their truck, all down as collateral for a loan that is truly frightening for the average family. I don't know how they managed to get the loan. And their business was one that was inevitably hit hard by the down turn in the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue G in PA Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Oh thing I've learned, it doesn't matter how much money you have. Most people will always spend what they have, whether it's a little or a lot. I know that has been true of us. You have to actively change that cycle or it doesn't matter the wealth you've been given. Their mistake was in morgaging a paid for house. They took a risk and lost. But it could have easily been most of us. They may have foolishly squandered their much, but we also foolishly squander our little. :iagree: I've heard that many people who win the lottery lose it w/in the year. They just go on a spending binge or lose it in unwise investments, etc. I'm reading a Dave Ramsey book and am loving it. It is so true that you can give people expensive homes, cars, lots of money, etc. but if you don't teach them how to KEEP that money and invest it properly...they'll lose it before you can blink. Sad, but true. We've btdt and we're learning. Very sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I think it's hard on the people who donated time and money out of a sense of compassion, and now feel "taken." It's a shame there was not good management advice given --or received. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 From the news I read, the owners 'commited an act of capitalism' as George Will puts it. They took out a loan secured by the house in order to invest in a construction business. The business didn't go, and they defaulted on the loan. But this was a family that was *gifted* with time, energy, resources, cash, labor and concern of companies and a community. Legally, they owned their home and were free to mortgage it. Morally and ethically and, IMO, in a practical sense mortgaging that home/security for a venture was 1) not wise and 2) an insult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaine Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 But this was a family that was *gifted* with time, energy, resources, cash, labor and concern of companies and a community. Legally, they owned their home and were free to mortgage it. Morally and ethically and, IMO, in a practical sense mortgaging that home/security for a venture was 1) not wise and 2) an insult. I disagree. Why was it insulting? They were attempting to make a living. Life can hit you pretty hard sometimes and who is to say that someone else made the wrong decision. No one mortgages thier home with the intention of being foreclosed on. I find the tone of this whole thread incredibly jugdmental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 I disagree. Why was it insulting? They were attempting to make a living. It's insulting precisely because of the reasons I listed: the care, concern, resources including money from community and compaies. There are thousands of ways to make a living - particularly when you don't have to pay a mortgage or rent - that do not involve mortgaging/going into debt with a home that was *gifted* to you. And, yes, the tone of my posts in this thread are very judgemental. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scuff Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I will also add that this has seriously caused me to think hard before accepting a gift from someone. Once you take a handout, people want to dictate your lives. Not sure it's worth it IMO. I wouldn't want the spotlight and judgement. Especially the kicking while down. I think I'm glad, for once, *not* to have a home makeover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I think the show is stupid. It plays on people's heartstrings in a way that is not healthy. It sets up the recipients to be humiliated on TV to gain an over the top gift. It does not surprise me in the least that the recipients lose their homes--I'm surprised it does not happen more often. Most people who win the lottery are broke in five years. It is the nature of a large, abrupt change in circumstances. This is not a fresh start for most of these people. It is more like fairyland--it would be extreme for ANY of us to get a tailored, large house like these. It's like those sweepstakes homes--most winners cannot afford to keep them. Those who try often go bankrupt. I agree that they have misused their good fortune, and I agree that that is wrong, but the whole thing seems like a set up to me. Habitat, by contrast, has a whole nother model. Habitat homes are modest but new and very decent. Recipients of Habitat homes must work for at least 500 hours--at least 250 hours of which must be from the immediate family who is actually moving in. The last time I attended a Habitat dedication, no recipient family had less than 1000 hours in, and they all said that they were going to continue to volunteer on other people's homes. Recipients must have good credit and be able to make the payments. The payment structure is often that the land is donated and the materials are below retail, so the amount of money needed to build these homes is pretty low indeed, especially since there is very little hired labor. And Habitat's policy is to write zero interest rate mortgages, so the monthly payments are very low. But the recipients can't profit from the sale of the property unless and until 30 years go by. Before that, if they sell the home, they only get back what they have paid so far (with no interest or appreciation) and the home goes back to Habitat for another family's use. This is a much better and more helpful model. These recipients have truly been given a hand, not a hand out. Their success is their own. They have worked very hard for what they have, and they value it highly. Their dignity is preserved. My DH and DD love Extremely Makeover, Home Edition. I can't stand to watch the whole thing. Every time I try, I think about how many homes Habitat would build with the same resources, and how much better the outcomes would be for all concerned. I think that the recipients are pretty much exploited for show. I'm surprised that they can even afford the property taxes and utilities. Well, let the bad rep fly. I have told you how I really feel, no holding back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 Carol, I don't know if that's "another view" so much. I completly agree with you. Thank you for that additional info on HFH's structure and premise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Carol, I don't know if that's "another view" so much. I completly agree with you. Thank you for that additional info on HFH's structure and premise. I was just feeling like my views were out of step with the general quotes in the thread, not any quote in particular. And, thanks.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom2GirlsTX Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I do not think that they should have leveraged the house for a business. There is a risk to doing that, and the risk was realized as a foreclosure. I just don't think a gift (the house was a gift from many people,etc) should be used in that way, its intended use was as a protection for this family, not to start a business. It reminds me of the business advisor on CNN who talked about no matter how likeable Ed McMann is,for he is very likeable, he still used his house as a virtual ATM machine, and when you do that, financial problems happen. I am just totally against using your home to finance anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathy in MD Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I think the show is stupid. It plays on people's heartstrings in a way that is not healthy. It sets up the recipients to be humiliated on TV to gain an over the top gift. It does not surprise me in the least that the recipients lose their homes--I'm surprised it does not happen more often. Most people who win the lottery are broke in five years. It is the nature of a large, abrupt change in circumstances. This is not a fresh start for most of these people. It is more like fairyland--it would be extreme for ANY of us to get a tailored, large house like these. It's like those sweepstakes homes--most winners cannot afford to keep them. Those who try often go bankrupt. I agree that they have misused their good fortune, and I agree that that is wrong, but the whole thing seems like a set up to me. Habitat, by contrast, has a whole nother model. Habitat homes are modest but new and very decent. Recipients of Habitat homes must work for at least 500 hours--at least 250 hours of which must be from the immediate family who is actually moving in. The last time I attended a Habitat dedication, no recipient family had less than 1000 hours in, and they all said that they were going to continue to volunteer on other people's homes. Recipients must have good credit and be able to make the payments. The payment structure is often that the land is donated and the materials are below retail, so the amount of money needed to build these homes is pretty low indeed, especially since there is very little hired labor. And Habitat's policy is to write zero interest rate mortgages, so the monthly payments are very low. But the recipients can't profit from the sale of the property unless and until 30 years go by. Before that, if they sell the home, they only get back what they have paid so far (with no interest or appreciation) and the home goes back to Habitat for another family's use. This is a much better and more helpful model. These recipients have truly been given a hand, not a hand out. Their success is their own. They have worked very hard for what they have, and they value it highly. Their dignity is preserved. My DH and DD love Extremely Makeover, Home Edition. I can't stand to watch the whole thing. Every time I try, I think about how many homes Habitat would build with the same resources, and how much better the outcomes would be for all concerned. I think that the recipients are pretty much exploited for show. I'm surprised that they can even afford the property taxes and utilities. Well, let the bad rep fly. I have told you how I really feel, no holding back. How can I give you a bad rep? I've felt this way from the first time I've heard of Extreme Makeover. I feel that the producers are doing it for the money and ratings. IMO, if they were truly into providing housing for the needy, they would be supporting Habitat or at least following a model similar to Habitat. And how did I learn about Habitat? I learned about it from home building and remodeling programs on PBS. And the reason to feature Habitat on these shows was to bring a good charity to the public's attention, not to make $$$$$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 This is one of those issues that just irks me! As we hear more & more about the housing crisis and about how the government is going to help those people (and mortgage companies) refinance to more stable loans & such....I just wish they would give the opportunities to save to those of us who have worked hard at paying our house payments each month and on time. Not all, but many of the people in trouble just kept taking out loans, eventually more than their house is worth now. They took advantage of the system, without thinking ahead at the consequences. We have 4 houses on my street that are empty right now & a couple of them were families where we'd often think "What are we doing wrong?" "How do they afford all of that stuff?" Now I guess we know. How I wouldn't love a lower interest rate w/o the refinancing fees.... Okay, my rant is over - I hope I didn't offend anyone - this hits me hard. I agree. We've worked hard to achieve what we have...and it's not paid for yet. We made conservative, responsible choices. I can't believe how the real estate industry pushes you to get bigger, better, and more expensive. (You'll get a promotion in a few months, right?) I wish someone would give us a thank you bonus for making our payments on time every month...even when dh was unemployed for 15 MONTHS. Have I mentioned we are a single income family? Yep, there went the emergency fund and most of a college stash...but we didn't default on ANYTHING. In fact, one of the keys was not having any debt but the house and a small car loan. How about a bonus (or tax credit) for every year we've been married, too? Stability is good for the nation.;) The bailout bugs me because the banks and loan companies knew they were taking risks. Stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 They took a loan for 450,000 to start a construction biz? My dh is in construction and we have never taken out a loan of that amount, plus we could run the biz really badly for years before it all went to pot on that amount of money. I wonder about the thinking of the person who gave them the loan in the first place. Dh's big question was why do you want to start a construction business in this economy anyway? Okay, he just got home from work, that colors his perspective. I remember watching that episode, beautiful home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebeccaC Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 This is one of those issues that just irks me! As we hear more & more about the housing crisis and about how the government is going to help those people (and mortgage companies) refinance to more stable loans & such....I just wish they would give the opportunities to save to those of us who have worked hard at paying our house payments each month and on time. Not all, but many of the people in trouble just kept taking out loans, eventually more than their house is worth now. They took advantage of the system, without thinking ahead at the consequences. We have 4 houses on my street that are empty right now & a couple of them were families where we'd often think "What are we doing wrong?" "How do they afford all of that stuff?" Now I guess we know. How I wouldn't love a lower interest rate w/o the refinancing fees.... Okay, my rant is over - I hope I didn't offend anyone - this hits me hard. You know you are getting a round about break. If just one house on your street does not go into foreclosure because of the new bill you win. If that house forecloses your house value goes down. If 4 or 5 additional houses on your street foreclose the value of your house will fall and fall hard, and probably below the amount of mortgage you always paid on time. This bail out is not some much for the folks who may or may not have made bad choices as it is to keep the whole housing economy from tanking. I just think that your rant is a little short sighted and I am not offended and do not mean to offend by what I am writing. Just trying to broaden your vision of the so called bail out only for the foolish. It is a bail out that helps you as and the folks, who for whatever reason are in trouble. They might seem to be getting more help but with out that help your house and the house of every American is in precarious position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebeccaC Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I agree. We've worked hard to achieve what we have...and it's not paid for yet. We made conservative, responsible choices. I can't believe how the real estate industry pushes you to get bigger, better, and more expensive. (You'll get a promotion in a few months, right?) I wish someone would give us a thank you bonus for making our payments on time every month...even when dh was unemployed for 15 MONTHS. Have I mentioned we are a single income family? Yep, there went the emergency fund and most of a college stash...but we didn't default on ANYTHING. In fact, one of the keys was not having any debt but the house and a small car loan. How about a bonus (or tax credit) for every year we've been married, too? Stability is good for the nation.;) The bailout bugs me because the banks and loan companies knew they were taking risks. Stupid. Yes they knew they were making risky loans however the bail out helps you by keeping home in your area from foreclosing. Every home near yours that forecloses lowers the value of your house. Too many near you foreclose and you house could end up worth less then the mortgage you took out on it. So the bonus you get is stability in the market that hopefully will keep your house from loosing it value. Just another view of what is happening :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebeccaC Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I think they should have sold the house and then used the money to build a business, but what I think is really not important. I never watched the show because I always thought the premise of it and similar shows were faulty. That is just my opinion :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margo out of lurking Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 You know you are getting a round about break. If just one house on your street does not go into foreclosure because of the new bill you win. If that house forecloses your house value goes down. It's not that I don't agree with this possibility, but I find your post to be shortsighted. That quite possibly might happen in my neighborhood, but on the flip side of that (no pun intended), there are certainly investment opportunities that can be made, because others made bad choices. That might sound insensitive, but that's the way the economy works. Government bail out for irresponsible homebuyers frankly lessens the opportunity for others who have bought responsibly, and who are able to stimulate the economy by purchasing foreclosure homes or those about to be foreclosed upon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebeccaC Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 It's not that I don't agree with this possibility, but I find your post to be shortsighted. That quite possibly might happen in my neighborhood, but on the flip side of that (no pun intended), there are certainly investment opportunities that can be made, because others made bad choices. That might sound insensitive, but that's the way the economy works. Government bail out for irresponsible homebuyers frankly lessens the opportunity for others who have bought responsibly, and who are able to stimulate the economy by purchasing foreclosure homes or those about to be foreclosed upon. Yep there are investment opportunities but few folks will be able to take advantage of them if the whole market collapses. The Macks own about half of all the mortgages in the country if they fail half the house go down. Pretty scary stuff is it not. There will be no money for responsible buyers to take advantage of foreclosures. If they fail a whole lot of responsible homebuyers lose their homes. I don't think my post is short sighted I think this whole situation is bigger than any of us think. There have been plenty of foreclosed homes in the market for over a year and the responsible buyers sure have stimulated the economy buying them up. There are homes on my street that have sat empty for 2+ years. No one has bought them even at the lower rates. See Freddie and Fannie fall and I doubt they will be bought by any one other than the government. Many of the responsible buyers will be paddling as hard as they can to save what they have. What makes me uneasier about the bail out is the fact that it will make it easier for cities, etc... to buy up foreclosed properties and take nearby properties thro imminent domain. That I find more unsettling than helping a bunch of mom and pops keep their houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margo out of lurking Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Yep there are investment opportunities but few folks will be able to take advantage of them if the whole market collapses. That's a pretty extreme example, and it's very different from your original statement, "If just one house on your street does not go into foreclosure because of the new bill you win." I don't buy that I'm somehow winning under socialism, as your newest post seems to indicate, but I will agree that we definitely have opposing opinions. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I agree with Carol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phred Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I think these houses should be given to them in a trust so that they can live in them but not be able to mortgage them like this. If they have to move the trustee will decide what to do about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom2GirlsTX Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 They took a loan for 450,000 to start a construction biz? My dh is in construction and we have never taken out a loan of that amount, plus we could run the biz really badly for years before it all went to pot on that amount of money. I wonder about the thinking of the person who gave them the loan in the first place. Dh's big question was why do you want to start a construction business in this economy anyway? Okay, he just got home from work, that colors his perspective. I remember watching that episode, beautiful home. :iagree: I have to wonder what they were thinking, taking out a $450,000 loan for a construction business? Absolutely unbelievable. :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebeccaC Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 That's a pretty extreme example, and it's very different from your original statement, "If just one house on your street does not go into foreclosure because of the new bill you win." I don't buy that I'm somehow winning under socialism, as your newest post seems to indicate, but I will agree that we definitely have opposing opinions. :) I don't think I wrote a word about socialism. You do understand that with even one foreclosure on your block the value of your house goes down. More than one and you lose even more on the value of your house and it does not matter if those foreclosed houses are bought up by responsible folks who move into them or rent them. It does not matter if you were responsible with your finances the value of your property drops. The responsible home owner living on a street or block with foreclosed houses looses. The responsible home owner living 3 blocks from a foreclosed home loses value on their property. That is one reason why property values have been dropping. So yes if just one house does not foreclose you win because the value of your property does not go down. You most certainly win if 4 or 5 around your house stay out of foreclosure and of course you win even more if Fannie and Freddie stay afloat. The Congress should never have set Fannie and Freddie up like they did.... but they did and now they have to act. There are places in this nation that are like ghost towns because so many houses have been foreclosed on. I lived for several years in Stockton CA think the responsible home owner there likes what is happening to the value of their homes? Think they want even more foreclosures so that they can capitalize on those foreclosures. Hmmm.... where are all the bargain hunters in Stockton rallying the economy there by snapping up foreclosed houses. Unfortunately it is places like Stockton that helped put in the most troubling part of this whole mess, the new ease of city and county governments to buy up foreclosed homes so that sections of the city and county do not become ghost towns. Just so ya know I am not a liberal. I am a republican however I don't think that just letting the market implode is good for capitalism :001_smile: So lets see, keep the value of your home up with the bail out or let the value drop because folks around you lose their homes.......... or worst yet the country goes into a depression because lots of banks go bust due to stupid lending and the largest holders of mortgages in the nation Fan and Fred go bust and every one with a mortgaged house has a house that is worth less than their mortgage..... Hmmmmm where is Solomon when we need him......... :001_huh: There might be shades of socialism in the bail out but where are the ideas without those shades that will help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RebeccaC Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I think these houses should be given to them in a trust so that they can live in them but not be able to mortgage them like this. If they have to move the trustee will decide what to do about that. That is one good idea or if they want sell the house out right after living there for a period of time but no mortgaging of said house before the time period. Kind of like the old homestead laws that went something like live there x amount of time and its yours. Wow I find a point I agree with Phred on :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom2GirlsTX Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I think these houses should be given to them in a trust so that they can live in them but not be able to mortgage them like this. If they have to move the trustee will decide what to do about that. :iagree: I think that is probably the best idea, is to protect them from themselves :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I think the show is stupid. It plays on people's heartstrings in a way that is not healthy. It sets up the recipients to be humiliated on TV to gain an over the top gift. It does not surprise me in the least that the recipients lose their homes--I'm surprised it does not happen more often. Most people who win the lottery are broke in five years. It is the nature of a large, abrupt change in circumstances. This is not a fresh start for most of these people. It is more like fairyland--it would be extreme for ANY of us to get a tailored, large house like these. It's like those sweepstakes homes--most winners cannot afford to keep them. Those who try often go bankrupt. I agree that they have misused their good fortune, and I agree that that is wrong, but the whole thing seems like a set up to me. Habitat, by contrast, has a whole nother model. Habitat homes are modest but new and very decent. Recipients of Habitat homes must work for at least 500 hours--at least 250 hours of which must be from the immediate family who is actually moving in. The last time I attended a Habitat dedication, no recipient family had less than 1000 hours in, and they all said that they were going to continue to volunteer on other people's homes. Recipients must have good credit and be able to make the payments. The payment structure is often that the land is donated and the materials are below retail, so the amount of money needed to build these homes is pretty low indeed, especially since there is very little hired labor. And Habitat's policy is to write zero interest rate mortgages, so the monthly payments are very low. But the recipients can't profit from the sale of the property unless and until 30 years go by. Before that, if they sell the home, they only get back what they have paid so far (with no interest or appreciation) and the home goes back to Habitat for another family's use. This is a much better and more helpful model. These recipients have truly been given a hand, not a hand out. Their success is their own. They have worked very hard for what they have, and they value it highly. Their dignity is preserved. My DH and DD love Extremely Makeover, Home Edition. I can't stand to watch the whole thing. Every time I try, I think about how many homes Habitat would build with the same resources, and how much better the outcomes would be for all concerned. I think that the recipients are pretty much exploited for show. I'm surprised that they can even afford the property taxes and utilities. Well, let the bad rep fly. I have told you how I really feel, no holding back. :iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:: Bad rep you? I'd like to aplude you :hurray: Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retired Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I agree with Carol. I don't watch the show. The fairy land kids bedrooms are just plain not practical and a complete waste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 I think these houses should be given to them in a trust so that they can live in them but not be able to mortgage them like this. If they have to move the trustee will decide what to do about that. Why? This house wasn't a *gift* from the Sisters of Charity, it was the lucre from one of the most exploitive shows in the history of television. They *earned* the house by allowing the producers to shamelessly exploit their story and playing their "parts". Companies aren't "donating" products from the goodness of their hearts, they get commercial exposure, and that's all this show is about. Cynical? Yes, but I work in television. It's too bad they lost their homes, but let's not confuse Extreme Makeover with "charity". Bill (who loathes this show) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umarider Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 There have been plenty of foreclosed homes in the market for over a year and the responsible buyers sure have stimulated the economy buying them up. There are homes on my street that have sat empty for 2+ years. No one has bought them even at the lower rates. See Freddie and Fannie fall and I doubt they will be bought by any one other than the government. Many of the responsible buyers will be paddling as hard as they can to save what they have. . Personally, we are planning to buy a house, but are waiting until the market hits bottom. Why would we buy now and see our value continue to drop? We will most likely buy in about 12-18months. Judging from what I've seen on other boards, we are not alone in our thinking. As far as mortgage availability goes... well thank goodness for our credit unions who do not re-sell mortgages and have stricter lending practices, and therefore are less impacted by the mortgage crisis. The $ we deposit there is used to help other families like ours get mortgages, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 We made conservative, responsible choices. I can't believe how the real estate industry pushes you to get bigger, better, and more expensive. (You'll get a promotion in a few months, right?) The lady we were working with actually made mention of the stipend we'd receive adopting a sibling group. I told her we weren't going to bank on money that wasn't there, even if it would be there! We have a house half the payment that that house would have been. I'm so glad we went this route instead! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela H in Texas Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 The fairy land kids bedrooms are just plain not practical and a complete waste. I agree...they make it where you almost HAVE to remodel after a few years because that 3yo isn't going to be crazy about Pooh, at least not to THAT extent, at 7! That 9yo is going to have preteen interests soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretchen in NJ Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 This is one of those issues that just irks me! As we hear more & more about the housing crisis and about how the government is going to help those people (and mortgage companies) refinance to more stable loans & such....I just wish they would give the opportunities to save to those of us who have worked hard at paying our house payments each month and on time. Not all, but many of the people in trouble just kept taking out loans, eventually more than their house is worth now. They took advantage of the system, without thinking ahead at the consequences. We have 4 houses on my street that are empty right now & a couple of them were families where we'd often think "What are we doing wrong?" "How do they afford all of that stuff?" Now I guess we know. How I wouldn't love a lower interest rate w/o the refinancing fees.... Okay, my rant is over - I hope I didn't offend anyone - this hits me hard. :iagree::iagree: I follow the rules and now they can take my tax money and give it to people who didn't. Some how that doesn't seem right. I guess that old saying is correct. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. We were not loud enough in our opposition to this bill. I agree. We've worked hard to achieve what we have...and it's not paid for yet. We made conservative, responsible choices. I can't believe how the real estate industry pushes you to get bigger, better, and more expensive. (You'll get a promotion in a few months, right?) I wish someone would give us a thank you bonus for making our payments on time every month...even when dh was unemployed for 15 MONTHS. Have I mentioned we are a single income family? Yep, there went the emergency fund and most of a college stash...but we didn't default on ANYTHING. In fact, one of the keys was not having any debt but the house and a small car loan. How about a bonus (or tax credit) for every year we've been married, too? Stability is good for the nation.;) The bailout bugs me because the banks and loan companies knew they were taking risks. Stupid. :iagree:Working hard and making conservative, responsible choices doesn't seem to get rewarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renee in NC Posted August 1, 2008 Share Posted August 1, 2008 Is there a provision in the housing bailout to actually give money to people who are in danger of foreclosure? I thought it had to do with getting people out of sub-prime mortgages and into regular ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.