=?windows-1252?Q?=93Extreme_Makeover=3A_Home_Edition=94_?= =?windows-1252?Q?will_be_in_Buffalo=2C_NY_Nov=2E_7_to_No?= =?windows-1252?Q?v=2E_14=2C_2009?=

Nova <[email protected]> wrote in news:009d9540$0$32363$c3e8da3
@news.astraweb.com:

> It's been announced the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” will be
> building a house in Buffalo on Nov. 7 through Nov. 14, 2009. My church
> is one of the organizing groups. I've been asked to volunteer and I'm
> considering doing so.
>
> Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
> what are you feelings about the experience?
>

I've got a buddy who's helped with one of the houses. Still haven't seen
it on to see if he got on camera. If you help, make sure you find out
the air date of the show so you can tape it.

Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

[email protected] wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:50:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
>>these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.
>
>
> Aren't you leaving out one important fact? That fact is the needy
> family that gets the house.

That's what concerns me. A google search for "Extreme Makeover Home
Edition Foreclosure" brings up quite a number of hits.

I don't want to end up volunteering my time for the benifit of a bank.

>
> Yup, all the businesses involved are profiting in some way. No
> argument about that. But, someone who needs it is also benefiting. The
> volunteers get a feeling of doing something good and everybody is
> happy. Compare that to those 'profiting' businesses just paying some
> corporate advertising agency and you're left with two outfits that
> profit and everybody else gets nothing. You tell me which is
> preferable? If it helps you, the Home Makeover show is less
> hypocritical than just two companies doing some advertising business.


--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:07:23 -0400, the infamous Nova
> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>
>
>>It's been announced the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” will be
>>building a house in Buffalo on Nov. 7 through Nov. 14, 2009. My church
>>is one of the organizing groups. I've been asked to volunteer and I'm
>>considering doing so.
>>
>>Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
>>what are you feelings about the experience?
>
>
> I was tapped to be the handyman for a salon makeover program last
> year. I declined once I saw the waiver docs. If they got mad at me on
> the show, they could totally destroy my business without any recourse.
> Please be -very- careful what you sign for the goddamned TV companies,
> Yack.
>

Although no one is at liberty to tell me who or exactly where the build
will take place I have been told that it will be in the inner-city and
that more than one house will be built. I've heard rumors of eight home
being consturcted, although I don't know how accurate that is.

I've seen a number of homes built by "Habitate For Humanity" that were
built about three years ago already boarded up as they have been
destroyed. I've seen a couple of government built homes for low income
buyer's with a H1 Hummer and a BMW Z4 Roadster parked in the driveway daily?

At this point I'm pretty sure I'll pass on the invitation to assist.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:50:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
>these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.

Aren't you leaving out one important fact? That fact is the needy
family that gets the house.

Yup, all the businesses involved are profiting in some way. No
argument about that. But, someone who needs it is also benefiting. The
volunteers get a feeling of doing something good and everybody is
happy. Compare that to those 'profiting' businesses just paying some
corporate advertising agency and you're left with two outfits that
profit and everybody else gets nothing. You tell me which is
preferable? If it helps you, the Home Makeover show is less
hypocritical than just two companies doing some advertising business.

J. Clarke wrote:

>> I'd like to see them all succeed; I agree that most I saw had serious
>> problems and were trying to do good. We participate in aiding
>> situations like that in the area thru other less dramatic
>> mechanisms...
>
> It's all based in the same notion as Welfare--the way to make a poor
> person rich is to give him stuff.
>
> Poverty for the most part comes from doing the wrong things in your
> life, not from simply not having money--give someone with the wrong
> attitude a million dollars and he'll spend it all and end up back
> where he started from. Change the attitude and even if he's working
> at McDonalds eventually he'll start getting ahead.

That strikes me as a simplistic explanation for poverty. Some people have
the odds against them from the get-go. If you grow up in a broken home in a
crime-ridden neighborhood with crappy schools and little in the way of
economic opportunity then the deck is stacked against you. That isn't to
say some people don't become successful despite being born on the wrong side
of town, but the percentage who make it has got to be a lot lower than among
people who grew up in safe neighborhoods with good schools etc. IMO welfare
should always be accompanied by job training or something like that so
people can eventually stand on their own feet. But I sure wouldn't assume
that someone who needs welfare is only in that situation because they made
bad choices, there might have been no choices to make.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:11:24 -0400, the infamous Nova
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:07:23 -0400, the infamous Nova
>> <[email protected]> scrawled the following:
>>
>>
>>>It's been announced the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” will be
>>>building a house in Buffalo on Nov. 7 through Nov. 14, 2009. My church
>>>is one of the organizing groups. I've been asked to volunteer and I'm
>>>considering doing so.
>>>
>>>Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
>>>what are you feelings about the experience?
>>
>>
>> I was tapped to be the handyman for a salon makeover program last
>> year. I declined once I saw the waiver docs. If they got mad at me on
>> the show, they could totally destroy my business without any recourse.
>> Please be -very- careful what you sign for the goddamned TV companies,
>> Yack.
>>
>
>Although no one is at liberty to tell me who or exactly where the build
>will take place I have been told that it will be in the inner-city and
>that more than one house will be built. I've heard rumors of eight home
>being consturcted, although I don't know how accurate that is.
>
>I've seen a number of homes built by "Habitate For Humanity" that were
>built about three years ago already boarded up as they have been
>destroyed. I've seen a couple of government built homes for low income
>buyer's with a H1 Hummer and a BMW Z4 Roadster parked in the driveway daily?

Sickening, isn't it?


>At this point I'm pretty sure I'll pass on the invitation to assist.

That's most likely the very smartest move you can make.

---
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
--John Wayne (1907 - 1979)

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> DGDevin wrote:
> ...
>
>> That sounds like the typical family on the show was raised by wolves in
>> the north woods and can just barely dress themselves and eat with
>> utensils. Come on, they've built houses for disabled cops and
>> firefighters and Iraq war veterans, and middle-class families that either
>> had some bad luck or made a choice to take on needy relatives or
>> handicapped kids or whoever at the cost of their own comfort. ...
>
> That first pretty-much describes the intro scenes I've seen (admittedly
> probably not a dozen in toto). The cases I've seen the principals
> obviously were trying to do far more than they had resources to handle--my
> point wasn't against them at all--only that providing a humongously huge
> and expensive-to-maintain residence still doesn't appear to be the most
> likely way to benefit them in the most in the long run.
>
> A modest increase in size and the necessary accoutrements for the
> handicaps/whatever were the special requirements, sure; but the
> "over-the-top McMansion" on which to pay future property taxes and upkeep
> just seems like more financial burden than most are going to be able to
> maintain (again, unless there's also provided some way to solve the
> underlying basic problem that got them to that point to begin with which
> was the premise of the above question).
>
> If some have survived afterwards that's good (and certainly it's the bad
> news that gets reported which also probably distorts the picture one
> receives). It would be interesting to know just what the 5-year-after
> picture would look like over the population of participants.
>
>


Google says that there are PLENTY of them that lost everything. Seems like
the increased tax burden was a major cause.

Vic

"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> But ABC/Disney should be ashamed of not paying you and the other workers.
> They will make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the episode, if not
> over a million.
>

That would cause more problems that it solves. How much do you pay? Do you
pay the unskilled volunteer as much as the pro? Who keeps track of all the
people and time and expense of it all? All the materials are donated as is
the labor, the builder's time etc. If not for ABC/Disney, it would not be
possible at all to do this in the first place. There may be some legal
entanglements also.

If you pay one volunteer $5, then you start a nasty chain reaction. Why
should I donate material if they can pay the workers?
What is wrong with giving some time anyway?

Sears and CVS seem to be two of the biggest donors and I commend them for
it.

"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> Scale for the television/screen actors' guild.

They are not actors, they are not usually on the "set" aside for a few.
Paying them scale would put the project out of reach.


>
> The same people who are doing it now. It's a television production, they
> already have people keeping track of all that for everyone else involved
> in the production... who are getting paid for their services.

I don't know the actual number, but the volunteers are about 10X in numbers.
More added burden. Ty mentioned tonight they have given 50,000 T shirts to
date. Tha tis a lot of people to track and pay. Could easily at $10,000,000
total cost, maybe more.

>
>
>> All the materials are donated as is the labor, the builder's time etc.
>
> The material is hardly "donated." No, there isn't an invoice marked
> "paid," but they wouldn't give any of it anonymously.

Actually it is. I happen to be doing some business with one of the builders
that did a house last season. The builde ris not paid, they donate. As the
builder, he had to solicit materials from the suppliers or pay out of his
pocket. He told me that he went to people like Pella and asked for a
donation and the only info he could give at that time was the project was in
thier sales territory. The actual location was not yet disclosed. I also
know the company that did the paving in last weeks house in CT and Vinnie
donated everything. My workman's comp insurance carrier is the same as used
on the job sites also. They donate their time at the job site.


>
> The show is a mini infomercial with all the product placement and
> company logos and the mentioning of those companies having donated their
> stuff.

For the most part, yes. There is a lot of stuff donated and not given
credit. See the above about the paving at the CT house. Vinnie's company
was not mentioned at all, nor did they show his trucks, crew, or equiipment.
I did not stop the final credits to see if there was a mention in the fine
print, but the viewer did not see it just watching the show.



>
>
>> If not for ABC/Disney, it would not be possible at all to do this in the
>> first place.
>
> That's another debate, but not why I'm taking issue.

Sure it may be "possible" but have you seen it done? Neither have I.



>> Sears and CVS seem to be two of the biggest donors and I commend them for
>> it.
>>
> The fact that you know this and are mentioning it, shows that they
> have been paid in full. NO corporation does anything charitable without
> showing their shareholders it will be profitable to do so.
> And I don't have a problem with that.

The fact that I mention it means nothing. It is obvious to anyone watching
hte show two times that they are heavily involved. That does not mean they
are paid. Yes, there may be some promotional consideration, but I'm not
privy to that, nor do I care.
>
>
> > What is wrong with giving some time anyway?
> >
> Ask ABC/Disney that question. They're not exactly a 501c.

I have no idea what they give or do not give. Do you have evidence of
payment?


>
> Like Sears and CVS...
> they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing
> it for profit. I'm not against profit... quite the opposite. I'm not
> against helping the downtrodden... quite the opposite.
>
> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.

I bet if they said "here comes the well paid workers" the ratings would
actually go down. Volunteering makes people feel good and people like to
watch it.

Yes, but it appears to be 4 homes out of 100 they have built to date.
http://realitytvmagazine.sheknows.com/blog/2009/02/19/extreme-makeover-home-edition-another-home-in-foreclosure/
I think that is allot better than what the average is for the people
out there.

And it sounds like the some of the people made bad business decisions in
using the homes as collateral!?

Mike in Ohio

Nova wrote:
<snip>
>
> That's what concerns me. A google search for "Extreme Makeover Home
> Edition Foreclosure" brings up quite a number of hits.
>
> I don't want to end up volunteering my time for the benifit of a bank.

On Oct 25, 12:07=A0pm, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's been announced the =93Extreme Makeover: Home Edition=94 will be
> building a house in Buffalo on Nov. 7 through Nov. 14, 2009. =A0My church
> is one of the organizing groups. I've been asked to volunteer and I'm
> considering doing so.
>
> Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
> what are you feelings about the experience?

They were in Rose Hill, Kansas, just south of Wichita 3-4 years ago to
build a home for a family that lost theirs in a storm. They had been
living in a RV for some time and trying to maintain their small farm
operation and jobs. I didn't work the project but the Makeover crew
does put on a circus. They did use local talent and several business
got a good sale and advertising. One smaller decorating firm really
got a start from their involvement. As I recall, in addition to the
house, they also got a car and some scholarship money for their kids.

BTW, as it turned out, this couple wasn't quite as down-and-out as
some that are featured. A local new team pointed out a month or two
later that, in addition to the small farm, the couple owned an old
building in Wichita's "Old Town" district. As I recall, one of their
parents had bought it years earlier when the Old Town development was
just getting under way and it valued in the $200K -$300K range. It
made a juicy, short news story but I didn't begrudge them. They were
still struggling to keep daily life going and other folks who knew
them better nominated them. Might have been better picks tough.

Nova wrote:
> It's been announced the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” will be
> building a house in Buffalo on Nov. 7 through Nov. 14, 2009. My church
> is one of the organizing groups. I've been asked to volunteer and I'm
> considering doing so.
>
> Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
> what are you feelings about the experience?
>

It's honorable to volunteer to help a family in need and I commend you
for it.

But ABC/Disney should be ashamed of not paying you and the other workers.
They will make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the episode, if not
over a million.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>> It's been announced the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” will be
>> building a house in Buffalo on Nov. 7 through Nov. 14, 2009. My
>> church is one of the organizing groups. I've been asked to volunteer
>> and I'm considering doing so.
>>
>> Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
>> what are you feelings about the experience?
>>
>
> It's honorable to volunteer to help a family in need and I commend you
> for it.
>
> But ABC/Disney should be ashamed of not paying you and the other
> workers. They will make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the
> episode, if not over a million.

The trouble is that the minuted they pay someone they run afoul of union
rules and fair hiring practices and the like and it turns into a minefield.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> But ABC/Disney should be ashamed of not paying you and the other workers.
>> They will make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the episode, if not
>> over a million.
>>
>
> That would cause more problems that it solves. How much do you pay?

Scale for the television/screen actors' guild.

> Do you
> pay the unskilled volunteer as much as the pro? Who keeps track of all the
> people and time and expense of it all?

The same people who are doing it now. It's a television production, they
already have people keeping track of all that for everyone else involved
in the production... who are getting paid for their services.


> All the materials are donated as is
> the labor, the builder's time etc.

The material is hardly "donated." No, there isn't an invoice marked
"paid," but they wouldn't give any of it anonymously.

The show is a mini infomercial with all the product placement and
company logos and the mentioning of those companies having donated their
stuff.
Just like when you watch Nascar and BillyBob wears a Valvoline
hat and mentioned their name in every interview. They pay BillyBob for
every second the hat is shown on TV and for every mention of the company
name. The bean counters know that equates to sales... they have it down
to a science.


> If not for ABC/Disney, it would not be
> possible at all to do this in the first place.

That's another debate, but not why I'm taking issue.


> There may be some legal
> entanglements also.
>
> If you pay one volunteer $5, then you start a nasty chain reaction. Why
> should I donate material if they can pay the workers?

They would get paid as cast members or extras, using the screen actors
guild rates.

> Sears and CVS seem to be two of the biggest donors and I commend them for
> it.
>
The fact that you know this and are mentioning it, shows that they
have been paid in full. NO corporation does anything charitable without
showing their shareholders it will be profitable to do so.
And I don't have a problem with that.


> What is wrong with giving some time anyway?
>
Ask ABC/Disney that question. They're not exactly a 501c.

Like Sears and CVS...
they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing
it for profit. I'm not against profit... quite the opposite. I'm not
against helping the downtrodden... quite the opposite.

The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:50:03 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
>> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.
>
> Aren't you leaving out one important fact? That fact is the needy
> family that gets the house.
>

Nope. I covered that and said I'm all for it.


> Yup, all the businesses involved are profiting in some way. No
> argument about that. But, someone who needs it is also benefiting. The
> volunteers get a feeling of doing something good and everybody is
> happy. Compare that to those 'profiting' businesses just paying some
> corporate advertising agency and you're left with two outfits that
> profit and everybody else gets nothing. You tell me which is
> preferable? If it helps you, the Home Makeover show is less
> hypocritical than just two companies doing some advertising business.

You act like I'm advocating dumping the whole thing because I think they
should butch up and pay all the "cast members" (which is what they are
and should be treated and paid as such).

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so please don't
infer that I do.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> Scale for the television/screen actors' guild.
>
> They are not actors, they are not usually on the "set" aside for a few.
> Paying them scale would put the project out of reach.
>

I never said they were actors, I said they are cast members.
Do you work in TV? Scale for bit parts and extras isn't much.


>
>> The same people who are doing it now. It's a television production, they
>> already have people keeping track of all that for everyone else involved
>> in the production... who are getting paid for their services.
>
> I don't know the actual number, but the volunteers are about 10X in numbers.
> More added burden. Ty mentioned tonight they have given 50,000 T shirts to
> date. Tha tis a lot of people to track and pay. Could easily at $10,000,000
> total cost, maybe more.
>

Have you ever seen a movie which has a scene at a baseball or football
stadium?
All those people are accounted for. They all have to sign a release.
The producers have record of each and every one of them.


>>
>>> All the materials are donated as is the labor, the builder's time etc.
>> The material is hardly "donated." No, there isn't an invoice marked
>> "paid," but they wouldn't give any of it anonymously.
>
> Actually it is. I happen to be doing some business with one of the builders
> that did a house last season. The builde ris not paid, they donate. As the
> builder, he had to solicit materials from the suppliers or pay out of his
> pocket. He told me that he went to people like Pella and asked for a
> donation and the only info he could give at that time was the project was in
> thier sales territory. The actual location was not yet disclosed. I also
> know the company that did the paving in last weeks house in CT and Vinnie
> donated everything. My workman's comp insurance carrier is the same as used
> on the job sites also. They donate their time at the job site.
>
>
>> The show is a mini infomercial with all the product placement and
>> company logos and the mentioning of those companies having donated their
>> stuff.
>
> For the most part, yes. There is a lot of stuff donated and not given
> credit. See the above about the paving at the CT house. Vinnie's company
> was not mentioned at all, nor did they show his trucks, crew, or equiipment.
> I did not stop the final credits to see if there was a mention in the fine
> print, but the viewer did not see it just watching the show.
>

Those local guys who donate their time without recognition are to be
commended.
My guess is they have no shareholders to answer to. :-)
Maybe Sears and CVS should try that.


>>> If not for ABC/Disney, it would not be possible at all to do this in the
>>> first place.
>> That's another debate, but not why I'm taking issue.
>
> Sure it may be "possible" but have you seen it done? Neither have I.
>

Yes, I have. Not important to this discussion though, as I am not taking
issue with them helping people, as I've said in every post in this thread.


>>> Sears and CVS seem to be two of the biggest donors and I commend them for
>>> it.
>>>
>> The fact that you know this and are mentioning it, shows that they
>> have been paid in full. NO corporation does anything charitable without
>> showing their shareholders it will be profitable to do so.
>> And I don't have a problem with that.
>
> The fact that I mention it means nothing. It is obvious to anyone watching
> hte show two times that they are heavily involved. That does not mean they
> are paid. Yes, there may be some promotional consideration, but I'm not
> privy to that, nor do I care.

It's advertising. They either pay for advertising to place their ads
during the commercial or, in this case, they donate stuff and get their
ads IN the SHOW. They are guaranteed people will see the ads and not
flip the channel during the commercials. Those are the best kinds of ads.


>>
>>> What is wrong with giving some time anyway?
>>>
>> Ask ABC/Disney that question. They're not exactly a 501c.
>
> I have no idea what they give or do not give. Do you have evidence of
> payment?
>

I'm not clear what you are referring to. My point is that Disney is not
in this to help people.... or help people and *not* make millions of
dollars in the process. Again, I will say clearly... I don't have a
problem with that. I am a fan of capitalism. I try to practice a little
of it every day. :-)

My ONLY point is that Disney shouldn't expect everyone else to volunteer
their time to help Disney make a million dollars.


>> Like Sears and CVS...
>> they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, they are doing
>> it for profit. I'm not against profit... quite the opposite. I'm not
>> against helping the downtrodden... quite the opposite.
>>
>> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
>> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.
>
> I bet if they said "here comes the well paid workers" the ratings would
> actually go down. Volunteering makes people feel good and people like to
> watch it.
>

Yeah, that's called ratings. High ones mean they can charge more for
advertising.... and charge more to Sears for the privileged of donating
their stuff.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

DGDevin wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>
>>> That would cause more problems that it solves. How much do you pay?
>> Scale for the television/screen actors' guild.
>
> They often have hundreds of volunteers on those jobs and SAG extras get
> $115/day, you're talking a lot of money. There is also the initiation fee
> for SAG which can run well over $2,000 for some locals, plus dues, plus
> adherence to a big fat union rulebook which covers a zillion things like
> travel and insurance and dressing rooms and meal breaks and on and on. And
> then there would be residual payments every time the EMHE episode was
> re-broadcast--all things considered making thousands of volunteers SAG
> members would be problematic, and if they're being paid then they would have
> to join the union.
>

That doesn't really change anything.


>>> All the materials are donated as is
>>> the labor, the builder's time etc.
>> The material is hardly "donated." No, there isn't an invoice marked
>> "paid," but they wouldn't give any of it anonymously.
>
> Of course it's donated, that the major sponsors get plenty of on-air mention
> of their support doesn't alter the fact that nobody writes a check for the
> materials or whatever they contribute.
>

I said that.


>> The show is a mini infomercial with all the product placement and
>> company logos and the mentioning of those companies having donated
>> their stuff.
>
> Yes, but so what? If you donate to a charity it's still a donation despite
> you being able to claim it on your taxes. That the donor gets some benefit
> doesn't mean it isn't a donation.
>

I don't get millions of dollars in sales from my tax deductible
donation.....
but that's not my issue, anyway.


>> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
>> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.
>
> If it weren't such a public exercise they wouldn't attract the support they
> do. Sure, companies are getting publicity in exchange for their sponsorship
> and donations, but if that weren't happening then they wouldn't be making
> those donations and those houses for deserving families wouldn't be built.

I said that, too. I don't have any problem with that, like I said about
five times. :-)


> The bottom line for me is they're helping people who often deserve help,
> i.e. who have taken in handicapped kids or who are fighting to improve their
> community or whatever. So Sears and Ford and so on get some advertising
> value out of it, I'd rather have them sponsor this show than some idiot
> series about teen vampires or celebrities in rehab.
>

I don't know who you're arguing with... not me. :-)


> I have other problems with the show, like the excessive scale of many of the
> homes they build which has apparently led to some folks being unable to
> handle the greatly increased property taxes. I also preferred when they did
> some rebuilds rather than tear-downs, and they show so little construction
> these days that the house might as well have been rolled off the back of a
> truck already finished.
>
> I also don't care for the totally phony premise that the family doesn't know
> they've been chosen until they hear their names being called over Ty's
> bullhorn--hogwash. If you pay attention you can occasionally see wireless
> mic packs on some family members as they run out of their old house
> screaming, obviously they already knew what was up. The audition tapes that
> went from being amateur to professional in quality are also suspicious.
> It's also clear that if the family is being sent outside the country on
> vacation while the house is being built then somebody had to make sure they
> had passports, they had to get time off work, demo and building permits
> needed to be pulled, materials ordered, professionals lined up, inspectors
> arranged, neighbors alerted in some cases--in whole the notion that the
> family is surprised to see that bus outside is not tenable. Still, I enjoy
> the show, it's nice to see a popular program that doesn't glorify
> unrestrained greed for a change.
>

Except Disney's greed that causes them to expect people to work for free
to help them make money. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> I'm not quite sure what you're hung up on Mike, but it's your choice
> to feel that way. I'm just confused as to why you sound so angry about
> it.

Oh, I feel angry about it, do I? You can tell that from reading text,
huh?

Show me where I used a single exclamation point or "caps" to express
this anger.

I believe you will only see caps used when I'm replying to someone, like
you, who is inferring something in my writing which isn't there.

You're confused, alright. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:33:26 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Show me where I used a single exclamation point or "caps" to express
>> this anger.
>
>>> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
>>> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks
>

That falls under the category which you deleted from your reply.


> Considering the limitations of this medium, I'll concede the fact that
> you might not be angry and I'm mistaken. BUT, your use of the word
> hypocrisy and milking it for ratings certainly doesn't mean you're
> dancing a jig of happiness. I think I can say without too much chance
> of error, that you've been very critical of the whole show, Disney in
> particular.
>

No, I honestly don't.
Since they own about a third of the entertainment industry, they're an
easy (and big) target. :-)


> I think you'll agree that there's nothing new about companies making
> money, many times on the back of volunteers. With all the thousands
> of such instances happening daily in capitalist America, you appear to
> be selecting this instance out for singular criticism. That being
> said, I'll ask why one more time.
>
> Please don't shout at me or berate me. I'm on the verge of tears again
> and I'm tired of crying. :)

Maybe it's a fine line or a big, fat, fuzzy line, I don't know. Maybe
it's because I'm a musician and used to people feeling they have a right
to take advantage of others' work ("file sharing") that makes me sensitive
to it.

I don't have a problem with companies donating stuff to
charity/benevolent activities for the benefits they receive from such
"donations."

It's certainly subjective and opinions are like buttholes, right?

I just don't want anyone thinking Disney is some sort of Habitat For
Humanity, acting as a non-profit charity that *needs* volunteers to
survive and continue its existence.

When the fact is, Disney could pay for everything themselves and still
make a nice profit from the show. I just think, since they are in it for
profit, they should pay their workers.... that's all. But as someone
else wrote, that would pull nearly as many heart strings. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
...
> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.

Well, they don't _have_ to volunteer unless they want to. The one
filmed close to here was a feeding frenzy of folks trying to get their
15 minutes of fame; I've no doubt it's that way everywhere they go.

As somebody else noted, _my_ problem w/ the show is taking a bunch of
folks that obviously either have insufficient income or acumen to handle
the income they have and then leave them with a house there's no way in
the world they can afford even the monthly utilities to heat/cool it,
what more the taxes and upkeep.

In the long run I doubt the fundamental problems are solved for long
irregardless of how well-meaning some of the family principals seem to
be; unless they are also provided a continued enhanced income stream
they're going to be even worse off on cash flow in a big house.

--

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...
> According to my source, ...
> ... They have to meet certain guidlines in awarding the prize to be a
> charitable setup for the show.

Does your "source" have the skinny on how taxes on the value of the
prize and other details of ownership transfer, etc., are handled? It
would seem unless the show either pays them up front or somehow else
finds a loophole most of these folks would go bankrupt trying to come up
w/ the IRS assessment on the value of the prize right off the bat.

After that, property taxes, higher utility bills, upkeep, etc., would
seem to be beyond the reach of most as well. I think it's too hokey to
be enjoyable to watch so have never seen an episode to completion but
have wondered some about the more practical and mundane aspects of what
happens after the bus leaves for good...

--

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> ...
>> According to my source, ...
>> ... They have to meet certain guidlines in awarding the prize to be a
>> charitable setup for the show.
>
> Does your "source" have the skinny on how taxes on the value of the prize
> and other details of ownership transfer, etc., are handled? It would seem
> unless the show either pays them up front or somehow else finds a loophole
> most of these folks would go bankrupt trying to come up w/ the IRS
> assessment on the value of the prize right off the bat.
>
> After that, property taxes, higher utility bills, upkeep, etc., would seem
> to be beyond the reach of most as well. I think it's too hokey to be
> enjoyable to watch so have never seen an episode to completion but have
> wondered some about the more practical and mundane aspects of what happens
> after the bus leaves for good...
>
> --

they pay the taxes and such for the first year. they also give them access
to accountants, lifestyle coaches, etc and attempt to teach them how to deal
with the good fortune as well as the mundane things (paying for utilities,
upkeep, maintenance, etc). they've said that they keep a good eye on things
for that first year, but after that....

there was a couple with a bunch of kids who had this done in gilbert az had
a couple brushes with foreclosure, but finally went under a few months ago.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/08/29/20090829extremehome29.html

regards,
charlie
cave creek, az

charlie wrote:
...
> they pay the taxes and such for the first year. they also give them access
> to accountants, lifestyle coaches, etc and attempt to teach them how to deal
> with the good fortune as well as the mundane things (paying for utilities,
> upkeep, maintenance, etc). they've said that they keep a good eye on things
> for that first year, but after that....
...

Yeah, and the chances of that lesson being learned to the point of
making a lasting-enough difference in that time frame to let them carry
on indefinitely w/ a housing cost burden that surely must at a minimum
be several multiples of what they previously didn't have the resources
(either purely financial or management skills or both) to handle would
be vanishingly small I'd think.

Almost inevitably they're likely to leave them in worse shape than they
were before would be my guess in virtually every case long term.

You'd hope for better result but it's a case where they didn't really
"teach to fish" but "gave a whale". The net benefit would probably be
far greater but less suitable for TV if the network simply donated the
monies to Habitat or the Salvation Army or a local United Way.

--

DGDevin wrote:
...

> That sounds like the typical family on the show was raised by wolves in the
> north woods and can just barely dress themselves and eat with utensils.
> Come on, they've built houses for disabled cops and firefighters and Iraq
> war veterans, and middle-class families that either had some bad luck or
> made a choice to take on needy relatives or handicapped kids or whoever at
> the cost of their own comfort. ...

That first pretty-much describes the intro scenes I've seen (admittedly
probably not a dozen in toto). The cases I've seen the principals
obviously were trying to do far more than they had resources to
handle--my point wasn't against them at all--only that providing a
humongously huge and expensive-to-maintain residence still doesn't
appear to be the most likely way to benefit them in the most in the long
run.

A modest increase in size and the necessary accoutrements for the
handicaps/whatever were the special requirements, sure; but the
"over-the-top McMansion" on which to pay future property taxes and
upkeep just seems like more financial burden than most are going to be
able to maintain (again, unless there's also provided some way to solve
the underlying basic problem that got them to that point to begin with
which was the premise of the above question).

If some have survived afterwards that's good (and certainly it's the bad
news that gets reported which also probably distorts the picture one
receives). It would be interesting to know just what the 5-year-after
picture would look like over the population of participants.

--

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...
> I've not asked him about that. He was the construction manager for the
> builder on the job. I did read a while back that the house is leased to the
> homeowner to get around the tax, but I don't know that for fact.

That would imply the property is then owned by somebody else who's
paying property taxes, etc. Seems unlikely unless there's a quiet
foundation or something similar behind the scenes as the "sugar daddy".
Can't imagine the production taking on that obligation for the
duration being a likely cost model.

> Do you think if you cannot afford to repair your 1000 sq. ft. house you can
> easily afford the utilities on a 4000 sq. ft. palace? And the taxes that go
> with it? Depending on where you live, I can see some of these places
> costing $1000+ a month just in real estate taxes and astronomical heating
> costs.

That was precisely the point I was making. These families apparently
are hand-to-mouth already in many cases in a hovel, where's the
wherewithal going to come from when the new wears off?

> Some of the recipients certainly need help and are in trouble through no
> fault of their own. A few though, seemed so intent on doing some other
> charitable work that they just neglected to take care of the property they
> own. Of course, we never know all the details .

Again, my question/concern/complaint isn't with the principals so much
as it is w/ the premise or model of the aid. Whatever got them to the
position they're in, a good many seem to be without adequate resources
to take care of what they already had. Whether that's a lack of income
or attention to the routine doesn't really matter--is this "drop a new
mansion out of the sky" thing really going to change the root cause of
the problem whether it is financial or behavioral? It only seems likely
to do so imo if the case is one where there was a catastrophic event
that caused a problem that a one-time infusion can obviate and they have
the wherewithal to go on once the situation is set of on a new
zero-point. If, otoh, there still isn't enough current income to meet
expenses or the underlying behaviors change (and it surely is hard to
get people to change long-term behavior voluntarily), it seems almost
inevitable that the situation will just revert to that found previously.

If there is some longer-term support, that would be good--but, as you
say, there's no way to know overall; all one hears about is the ones
that do go bad, of course.

I'd like to see them all succeed; I agree that most I saw had serious
problems and were trying to do good. We participate in aiding
situations like that in the area thru other less dramatic mechanisms...

--

dpb wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> ...
>> I've not asked him about that. He was the construction manager for
>> the builder on the job. I did read a while back that the house is
>> leased to the homeowner to get around the tax, but I don't know that
>> for fact.
>
> That would imply the property is then owned by somebody else who's
> paying property taxes, etc. Seems unlikely unless there's a quiet
> foundation or something similar behind the scenes as the "sugar
> daddy". Can't imagine the production taking on that obligation for
> the
> duration being a likely cost model.
>
>> Do you think if you cannot afford to repair your 1000 sq. ft. house
>> you can easily afford the utilities on a 4000 sq. ft. palace? And
>> the taxes that go with it? Depending on where you live, I can see
>> some of these places costing $1000+ a month just in real estate
>> taxes and astronomical heating costs.
>
> That was precisely the point I was making. These families apparently
> are hand-to-mouth already in many cases in a hovel, where's the
> wherewithal going to come from when the new wears off?
>
>> Some of the recipients certainly need help and are in trouble
>> through no fault of their own. A few though, seemed so intent on
>> doing some other charitable work that they just neglected to take
>> care of the property they own. Of course, we never know all the
>> details .
>
> Again, my question/concern/complaint isn't with the principals so much
> as it is w/ the premise or model of the aid. Whatever got them to the
> position they're in, a good many seem to be without adequate resources
> to take care of what they already had. Whether that's a lack of
> income or attention to the routine doesn't really matter--is this
> "drop a new mansion out of the sky" thing really going to change the
> root cause of the problem whether it is financial or behavioral? It
> only seems likely to do so imo if the case is one where there was a
> catastrophic event that caused a problem that a one-time infusion can
> obviate and they have the wherewithal to go on once the situation is
> set of on a new zero-point. If, otoh, there still isn't enough
> current income to meet expenses or the underlying behaviors change
> (and it surely is hard to get people to change long-term behavior
> voluntarily), it seems almost inevitable that the situation will just
> revert to that found previously.
>
> If there is some longer-term support, that would be good--but, as you
> say, there's no way to know overall; all one hears about is the ones
> that do go bad, of course.
>
> I'd like to see them all succeed; I agree that most I saw had serious
> problems and were trying to do good. We participate in aiding
> situations like that in the area thru other less dramatic
> mechanisms...

It's all based in the same notion as Welfare--the way to make a poor person
rich is to give him stuff.

Poverty for the most part comes from doing the wrong things in your life,
not from simply not having money--give someone with the wrong attitude a
million dollars and he'll spend it all and end up back where he started
from. Change the attitude and even if he's working at McDonalds eventually
he'll start getting ahead.

Nova wrote:
...
> Although no one is at liberty to tell me who or exactly where the build
> will take place ...

That "feature" would be enough I'd decline on that basis alone...I'm
also sure I'd not fit into the manufactured drama inherent in the
premise. :)

The other problems described are inherent risks of the bidness of trying
to help. It has always amazed me at the lack of appreciation one can
find in some cases even when the effort is gratis and, for example,
repairing severe storm damage after FEMA and other short-term agencies
are done (our particular organization is the one most responsible for
the longer-term cases after all other resources available have either
been exhausted or aren't applicable). OTOH, one occasionally meets some
really outstanding folks that makes up for a hundred or two of the
not-so-nice, thankfully!

--

Vic Baron wrote:
...
> Google says that there are PLENTY of them that lost everything. Seems
> like the increased tax burden was a major cause.

Seems like would stand to reason...there was a problem before or
wouldn't have made the cut; hard to see how this would be the ultimate
solution for most. Sad and unfortunate (and, undoubtedly, not anything
the producers are worrying much over which is even more regrettable... :( )

--

DGDevin wrote:
...
> ... there might have been no choices to make.

There are _always_ choices to be made; unfortunately, often those making
them take the choice of "no decision" instead of selecting the positive
action.

That's not to say it's not more difficult given certain circumstances
but that the path is still a result of choices (the road not taken).

--

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:07:23 -0400, the infamous Nova
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>It's been announced the “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” will be
>building a house in Buffalo on Nov. 7 through Nov. 14, 2009. My church
>is one of the organizing groups. I've been asked to volunteer and I'm
>considering doing so.
>
>Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
>what are you feelings about the experience?

I was tapped to be the handyman for a salon makeover program last
year. I declined once I saw the waiver docs. If they got mad at me on
the show, they could totally destroy my business without any recourse.
Please be -very- careful what you sign for the goddamned TV companies,
Yack.

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:07:23 -0400, Nova <[email protected]> wrote:
>Has anyone on the group participated in any of their builds and if so
>what are you feelings about the experience?

I'm sure they build up the entire process and publicize it to hell,
but it still comes down to a family in dire need. And very possibly,
you might finish up with feeling great in the end. I can't envision
any real problem.

dpb wrote:

> A modest increase in size and the necessary accoutrements for the
> handicaps/whatever were the special requirements, sure; but the
> "over-the-top McMansion" on which to pay future property taxes and
> upkeep just seems like more financial burden than most are going to be
> able to maintain (again, unless there's also provided some way to
> solve the underlying basic problem that got them to that point to
> begin with which was the premise of the above question).
>
> If some have survived afterwards that's good (and certainly it's the
> bad news that gets reported which also probably distorts the picture
> one receives). It would be interesting to know just what the
> 5-year-after picture would look like over the population of
> participants.

I agree, they go way over the top all too often, that's one way in which I
feel the show has gone downhill. I assume that's driven by sponsors who
want their products featured in the most striking settings possible. But I
feel that approach has distorted the nature of the show. I also miss them
showing how the houses are built, that is almost an afterthought now. It
would be interesting to see what's become of all the new homeowners over the
years....

-MIKE- wrote:

>> That would cause more problems that it solves. How much do you pay?
>
> Scale for the television/screen actors' guild.

They often have hundreds of volunteers on those jobs and SAG extras get
$115/day, you're talking a lot of money. There is also the initiation fee
for SAG which can run well over $2,000 for some locals, plus dues, plus
adherence to a big fat union rulebook which covers a zillion things like
travel and insurance and dressing rooms and meal breaks and on and on. And
then there would be residual payments every time the EMHE episode was
re-broadcast--all things considered making thousands of volunteers SAG
members would be problematic, and if they're being paid then they would have
to join the union.

>> All the materials are donated as is
>> the labor, the builder's time etc.
>
> The material is hardly "donated." No, there isn't an invoice marked
> "paid," but they wouldn't give any of it anonymously.

Of course it's donated, that the major sponsors get plenty of on-air mention
of their support doesn't alter the fact that nobody writes a check for the
materials or whatever they contribute.

> The show is a mini infomercial with all the product placement and
> company logos and the mentioning of those companies having donated
> their stuff.

Yes, but so what? If you donate to a charity it's still a donation despite
you being able to claim it on your taxes. That the donor gets some benefit
doesn't mean it isn't a donation.

> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks.

If it weren't such a public exercise they wouldn't attract the support they
do. Sure, companies are getting publicity in exchange for their sponsorship
and donations, but if that weren't happening then they wouldn't be making
those donations and those houses for deserving families wouldn't be built.
The bottom line for me is they're helping people who often deserve help,
i.e. who have taken in handicapped kids or who are fighting to improve their
community or whatever. So Sears and Ford and so on get some advertising
value out of it, I'd rather have them sponsor this show than some idiot
series about teen vampires or celebrities in rehab.

I have other problems with the show, like the excessive scale of many of the
homes they build which has apparently led to some folks being unable to
handle the greatly increased property taxes. I also preferred when they did
some rebuilds rather than tear-downs, and they show so little construction
these days that the house might as well have been rolled off the back of a
truck already finished.

I also don't care for the totally phony premise that the family doesn't know
they've been chosen until they hear their names being called over Ty's
bullhorn--hogwash. If you pay attention you can occasionally see wireless
mic packs on some family members as they run out of their old house
screaming, obviously they already knew what was up. The audition tapes that
went from being amateur to professional in quality are also suspicious.
It's also clear that if the family is being sent outside the country on
vacation while the house is being built then somebody had to make sure they
had passports, they had to get time off work, demo and building permits
needed to be pulled, materials ordered, professionals lined up, inspectors
arranged, neighbors alerted in some cases--in whole the notion that the
family is surprised to see that bus outside is not tenable. Still, I enjoy
the show, it's nice to see a popular program that doesn't glorify
unrestrained greed for a change.

dpb wrote:

> Yeah, and the chances of that lesson being learned to the point of
> making a lasting-enough difference in that time frame to let them
> carry on indefinitely w/ a housing cost burden that surely must at a
> minimum be several multiples of what they previously didn't have the
> resources (either purely financial or management skills or both) to
> handle would be vanishingly small I'd think.
>
> Almost inevitably they're likely to leave them in worse shape than
> they were before would be my guess in virtually every case long term.
>
> You'd hope for better result but it's a case where they didn't really
> "teach to fish" but "gave a whale". The net benefit would probably be
> far greater but less suitable for TV if the network simply donated the
> monies to Habitat or the Salvation Army or a local United Way.

That sounds like the typical family on the show was raised by wolves in the
north woods and can just barely dress themselves and eat with utensils.
Come on, they've built houses for disabled cops and firefighters and Iraq
war veterans, and middle-class families that either had some bad luck or
made a choice to take on needy relatives or handicapped kids or whoever at
the cost of their own comfort. I'm sure *some* of the folks who've been
given mini-mansions on EMHE have found themselves in over their heads (I've
read of a few cases), but that hardly applies to them all. No offense, but
the phrase "sour grapes" comes to mind when I hear this sort of speculation
about how those poor dumb slobs on EMHE almost inevitably couldn't handle
having an exceptionally nice house.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Most of the families need help. A few though, just seemed to negegted
> their own house and let it fall apart around them. I agree on the
> size too. The go from tiny to something huge to take care of.

I like it when they help families that have sacrificed their own comfort to
help others. On the other hand the family that had ended up with a pile of
kids because two divorced people got married and brought all their rug-rats
with them--not so much.

>> I also don't care for the totally phony premise that the family
>> doesn't know they've been chosen until they hear their names being
>> called over Ty's bullhorn--hogwash. If you pay attention you can
>> occasionally see wireless mic packs on some family members as they
>> run out of their old house screaming, obviously they already knew
>> what was up.
>
> According to my source, the family is told they are a finalist, one
> of three in the area that may be chosen. This allows the planning
> crew to have access. They may know before the bus pulls up, but only
> by a very short time. They have to meet certain guidlines in
> awarding the prize to be a charitable setup for the show.

Interesting, I hadn't heard that. I read an article about the show where Ty
and the rest tried to stick to the story that it's all a surprise, and
clearly it couldn't be. However they did explain those in-ear monitors Ty
wears are so the producer can coach him on things to say while they're
taping, helps keeps the emotions spontaneous and cuts costs so they don't
have to re-shoot scenes.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:33:26 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Show me where I used a single exclamation point or "caps" to express
>this anger.

>> The ONLY problem I have with all this is the hypocrisy of asking all
>> these people to volunteer so they can milk it for ratings = big bucks

Considering the limitations of this medium, I'll concede the fact that
you might not be angry and I'm mistaken. BUT, your use of the word
hypocrisy and milking it for ratings certainly doesn't mean you're
dancing a jig of happiness. I think I can say without too much chance
of error, that you've been very critical of the whole show, Disney in
particular.

I think you'll agree that there's nothing new about companies making
money, many times on the back of volunteers. With all the thousands
of such instances happening daily in capitalist America, you appear to
be selecting this instance out for singular criticism. That being
said, I'll ask why one more time.

Please don't shout at me or berate me. I'm on the verge of tears again
and I'm tired of crying. :)

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:47:05 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I'm not clear what you are referring to. My point is that Disney is not
>in this to help people.... or help people and *not* make millions of
>dollars in the process. Again, I will say clearly... I don't have a
>problem with that. I am a fan of capitalism. I try to practice a little
>of it every day. :-)

>My ONLY point is that Disney shouldn't expect everyone else to volunteer
>their time to help Disney make a million dollars.

Why not? You're not against capitalism, you're against extreme
examples of capitalism? Volunteering or not, there's always somebody
or some company that profits, usually big profits. Absolutely nothing
new there. It happens all the time.

Taking an extreme example, a 'run for cancer'. Whether they're visible
or not, there's always a dozen companies in the background who profit.
At least with volunteering, the volunteers leave happy and feel like
they've made a contribution. Ok, they're living under an illusion.
Whatever you want to call it, *That's* their payment. Would you have
all the volunteers instead be paid subsistence wages like the
employees at a Walmart? Then they *would* feel used because they know
when it comes to absolute value, their work is worth much more than
Walmart wages.

I'm not quite sure what you're hung up on Mike, but it's your choice
to feel that way. I'm just confused as to why you sound so angry about
it.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> ...
>> According to my source, ...
>> ... They have to meet certain guidlines in awarding the prize to be a
>> charitable setup for the show.
>
> Does your "source" have the skinny on how taxes on the value of the prize
> and other details of ownership transfer, etc., are handled? It would seem
> unless the show either pays them up front or somehow else finds a loophole
> most of these folks would go bankrupt trying to come up w/ the IRS
> assessment on the value of the prize right off the bat.
>
> After that, property taxes, higher utility bills, upkeep, etc., would seem
> to be beyond the reach of most as well. I think it's too hokey to be
> enjoyable to watch so have never seen an episode to completion but have
> wondered some about the more practical and mundane aspects of what happens
> after the bus leaves for good...

I've not asked him about that. He was the construction manager for the
builder on the job. I did read a while back that the house is leased to the
homeowner to get around the tax, but I don't know that for fact.

Do you think if you cannot afford to repair your 1000 sq. ft. house you can
easily afford the utilities on a 4000 sq. ft. palace? And the taxes that go
with it? Depending on where you live, I can see some of these places
costing $1000+ a month just in real estate taxes and astronomical heating
costs.

Some of the recipients certainly need help and are in trouble through no
fault of their own. A few though, seemed so intent on doing some other
charitable work that they just neglected to take care of the property they
own. Of course, we never know all the details .

"DGDevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> I have other problems with the show, like the excessive scale of many of
> the homes they build which has apparently led to some folks being unable
> to handle the greatly increased property taxes. I also preferred when
> they did some rebuilds rather than tear-downs, and they show so little
> construction these days that the house might as well have been rolled off
> the back of a truck already finished.

Most of the families need help. A few though, just seemed to negegted their
own house and let it fall apart around them. I agree on the size too. The
go from tiny to something huge to take care of.


>
> I also don't care for the totally phony premise that the family doesn't
> know they've been chosen until they hear their names being called over
> Ty's bullhorn--hogwash. If you pay attention you can occasionally see
> wireless mic packs on some family members as they run out of their old
> house screaming, obviously they already knew what was up.

According to my source, the family is told they are a finalist, one of three
in the area that may be chosen. This allows the planning crew to have
access. They may know before the bus pulls up, but only by a very short
time. They have to meet certain guidlines in awarding the prize to be a
charitable setup for the show.