'Extreme Makeover' house faces foreclosure
 

I'm not sure how I feel about this one - I would initially have been glad that they tried to do something with their new home, but then to risk it all on a construction/contracting business? That would seem like a slap in the face.

Prefacing this by saying all I know is what I just read here, I have a real problem with this.

I watch this show. They build the most amazing homes. They pay off the old mortgages. They buy these people cars, give them living money so they never have to worry about bills, they tailor each home to that family's needs, which are often special.

But that wasn't enough? You need more? Under the guise of wanting to start a business, yes, they have slapped hundreds of volunteers and contributors in the face. Yeah, thanks for making my life a thousand times easier than it ever was before...but I'm going to risk all YOUR investment on my OTHER dream.

Grrrrrrrr...build me a little one bedroom in the woods somewhere...I'll appreciate it.

"Bus driver, move that bus!...and hit that stupid family with it for bitch-slapping the gift horse."

Extreme Makeover is a horrible show and probably does society more harm than good. Extreme Makeover is entertainment. It's not about helping anyone.

They slap together poor quality houses in an extreme rush, but try to make them look like masterpieces by decorating them in a fancy way. Many corners are cut as these houses are built. I wouldn't want one. They are crap under the wet paint. You can't build a nice house in a week, even if you have 1000 volunteers. In fact, having 1000 volunteers building a house in a week is probably the best way to assure it will be crap.

They find families that have some problems and instead of trying to help them find solutions to their problems, they throw money and housing at them. They don't involve the family in the construction of the new home, so the family doesn't feel any pride of ownership in it.

Habitat for Humanity is a much much much better approach. The new homeowner has to work for hundreds of hours on their own house and on others' houses as part of the deal in getting their house. That means they actually care about their house. They also have to pay a (low) mortgage.

But the impact on the owners is only a small part of how Extreme Makeover is bad for society. Millions of people watch this show and are taught by it that you ought to have a nice fancy house with the wide screen tv. That just because you have it a little hard, somebody should come by and give you a mansion. And you shouldn't be expected to lift a finger in making it happen. In fact, you should be sent off to Disney World while your new house is being built. It's all about the keeping up with the Joneses. The blatant consumerism. The viewer watching it is taught to think: "If these guys have the big house, I should too. I'm going to get a mortgage I can't afford and buy that big house because I deserve it."

Nice. [/sarcasm] You know, at least that other nanny show teaches clueless parents how to deal with their own children. They don't send them a nanny for a year. They make the parents do the work.

Extreme Makeover is entertainment. It's not about helping anyone.

Well, yeah. All "reality" shows are about entertainment.

Regardless of all those things you say, this does not excuse what they did. The blatant consumerism, the keeping up with the joneses, the "we should have all nice things" approach is always something that bothers me, whether it's my cow orker across the hall, or some family on television. New car? New house? What does Bob have? I need better than Bob...gimme gimme gimme, entitlement, entitlement entitlement. Still, they were given a gift. Whether or not it was the right way to gift them is irrelevant.

They disrespected some people who were actually trying to help.

It's true. They did. But it's because they don't know anything about money management, and didn't have any pride or feeling of ownership in the house they were handed on a silver platter.

Those volunteers had the best of intentions, and I applaud them. But they were used by the producers of the show. They would have helped much more if they had volunteered for Habitat for Humanity.

Yep. "If you give a mouse a cookie..."

I absolutely agree with you there. Neither the fault nor the betrayal lies with the misguided givers, however.

...he sez: I can haz cookie?

:)

When I first read this I felt people were being too harsh.
I mean you put the work and effort in for someone according to their circumstances at the time. As long as you weren't lied to, what they do after the event is their own business - it is not up to you to "own" something given freely.

Having read what Shawnee wrote about how much the show actually does for people however, I can see why they would feel aggrieved. Had the family simply continued on in a sensible fashion they would not be in this situation now.

Speaking as one who is always in and out of financial ruin through my own poor financial management, I think it's always better to leave people with something to work for. They might still screw it up, but at least they haven't been rescued by a deus ex machina, and therefore won't expect it again.

If by "givers" you mean the local volunteers, then I agree with you. But if you mean the well paid stars of the show or the producers of the show, then I strongly disagree. Ty Pennington is an insincere camera whore and the producers of the show are using the good intentions of the volunteers and of the viewers to line their pockets. I really dislike Extreme Makeover.

What...they turned down your family's application?

Just kidding you, glatt.

I meant the community, the friends.

Sure, there are people with ulterior motives, all the more reason for the family not to dive into the needy greedy whoredom all around them.

Mostly it's Ty. I've watched the show maybe 5 times, and he's so phony I want to see him get punched in the nose. That's where my emotional reaction comes from. The rest of my complaints are true though too.

Do you like Ty? I understand a lot of women think he's hot.

Nah, he really does nothing for me. I liked him when he was more of a sidekick on Trading Spaces (the darling Paige Davis made that show) but yeah, I don't think he's Mr Sincere or anything. If I were to go on just looks (which is very difficult for me) I guess he's cute but even then he's not like my dreamboat or anything. :p

I was just thinking, at the time I watch EHM there really isn't anything else to choose from on my limited network TV. I bet I wouldn't even have seen the show if not for the lack of choice. Same with the other very few reality shows I watch.

I think one of the things that bothers me about the show is the fact that at any given moment they could walk into any homeless shelter in the US and find a family that would love to have even the worst falling apart house from the show. The homeless families don't even have the video cam to make a tape to send in to even TRY to get on the show.

But the vibe I often get in the Cellar is that money spent on the destitute is money spent on slackers who haven't worked as hard as those who are now comfortably off. So I assume helping those with moderate income is a halfway measure. It's - Look! These people really tried, but they still need help! Help them because they're not slackers, they're just unlucky!

Dunno, haven't seen the show. But I do feel that the American in general shies away from helping those with nothing. Not saying Brits would be any different (just try reading the Mail), but we don't have this kind of show so I can't compare.

That's about right, SG.

The show is based on some sort of "heart tug." A child with autism, a single father returned from Iraq, minus a leg...that sort of thing.

There are some families who I felt joyful for, knowing how much better their lives will be...but sometimes I do see what I would construe as "gimme." Some "single mom" with "fibromyalgia" for example, would make me shoot the television.

Usually I just let myself be carried away on the neat designs, for the kids' rooms mostly.

I've never seen more than a moment of the show while surfing by. But about two years ago they did a house in my neighborhood, about three blocks from me. I only knew what was going on because the local elementary school marquee said "Welcome Extreme Makeover Congratulations [Family Name]." I think theirs was a family with like 3 autistic kids or something, I don't know. I had the urge to drive by and see the house after it was done (I was sure I'd be able to pick it out on the street,) but I never managed to actually bother.

I couldn't disagree more. America gives more to everyone else than any other country on the planet. I have not the time nor energy to provide hard facts, but I'm sure they are available. (Hope I'm right)
If not, then this is just national pride talking.

I'm not talking internationally.

That wasn't what she was saying--it's who we tend to give it to. Would you rather give money to a homeless person with no job, or a single mom with two minimum-wage jobs who is just barely able to buy groceries every week? Technically speaking, the single mom is scraping by and the homeless man has no dinner, but Americans tend to reward people who are seen as working to help themselves.

I'll rephrase for you - I think America is a very generous nation, if not the most... To the mom with two kids struggling to get by, and also to the woman on welfare who keeps popping out kids just to get a larger check so she doesn't have to work.
The homeless guy - I dunno I have very mixed feelings on that situation - there are plenty of programs in place for him, but he has to take the initiative to go and get help.

I'm not a fan, but Lil Lookout loves to watch that show. He fell for it the first time he saw them do a Star Wars bedroom for a kid. I guess I don't really see a problem here.

I can understand your dislike of the show if you are looking at it like a waste of charitable money. Habitat for Humanity is much better. They have to work for what they get. They get good quality, comfortable housing with help from the community around them. Yay!

The show isn't a charity. I'm willing to bet that every company and individual involved with the show has a separate charitable donations budget that has absolutely nothing to do with the show. The houses may not be top quality under the paint and they may be extravagant on the surgace but think about it. The network wants a show that people will watch. That is how they get advertisers to pay them. The advertisers require a show with a steady following, that is how they get customers. The customers want to see new, cool things they can ooh and ah over and as an extra bonus they can see a story that tugs at the heart strings.

This week it was a family with a ten year old daughter that will literally die if she is in conditions about 62 degrees. For ten years they've made it but the medical bills just keep piling up. They were at a point where they were going to lose their house because of the bills. I don't know them or anything else about them. Simply that here is a family with a need for a home with special conditions. The show steps in and builds them a 4200 ft home. Simple but nice upstairs, downstairs a home school set up, movie area, an ice cream bar, and a one lane bowling alley. Over the top? Yep. But the family can't take the girl out of the house for recreational purposes, so kind of neat ideas.

What was accomplished? A family with special needs had a life changing experience. (hopefully they will choose wisely in the future, but that's their decision) Several companies got good advertising bang for the buck. Sears, the home builder, the TV company, and so on spend money they would have spent anyway, but they get to help someone along the way. The people at home got to watch a show that made them grateful for their healthy family. They got to see some really cool ideas for things to do in their homes if they have the money. They got to watch a show with their families without worry over content.

Who lost? No one. I find Ty and some of the other characters pretty annoying, but if they are annoying me too badly I can shut it off or just focus on whatever I'm doing with the kids. I guess see it as a win/win/win for the companies, the family, and the audience.

We tend to forget what I like to call "The Forgotten Population" (I swear I'm going to do a My Turn for Newsweek out of this someday) meaning those who have not procreated but who are trying to make it on their own...and don't possess the skills or education to obtain jobs which give them even a modicum of financial security. This forgetfullness encompasses our tax system, our social help systems, and yes...federal and state educational financial aid. I see examples of this every day. The forgotten population of which I speak has a tax liability greater than zero (as opposed to tax liabilities of - $5000 which you receive in a handy dandy check), often cannot get help in cases of medical calamity, and you would be surprised at how very little you can make as a single and only qualify for federal stafford loans.

This is my (long time) soapbox, and I'm sticking to it.

but they still qualify for something. and as inconvenient and annoying as it is, if they want to improve their living conditions enough, they will.

No it isn't. And that's my problem with it. It SELLS itself as a charity. It is phony and insincere and is really just a big commercial to get us to want more.

And that's what I tell them: I don't counsel anyone to go into debt, but if that's the difference between them going to school or not then that might be what they have to do. Inconvenient and annoying are hardly what I'd call it: we're talking real actual debt. When Joe Schmo makes 14 grand a year and lives on his own and gets not one dime of grant money, while Rho Slow makes 19 grand, gets about 5 grand in EIC (and tax credit), gets 3 grand a year from her boyfriend for their child, has subsidized housing and some food stamps, and medi-whateveritispoorpeopleget, and is an auto-zero EFC (meaning full pell, probably full state grant...plus they often get the max loan) you gotta wonder what Joe thinks about that. Meanwhile, Flo Glow decides to pop out a kid because she'll get plenty of help that way. Yes, I've seen it.

I'll tell you what he thinks about it. It sucks. It is complete and utter bullshit. At least that is what I thought just before I dragged the financial aid officer over his desk 13 years ago. It was a stupid, immature, foolish response to him telling me I should have saved more money in the military if I wanted to go to school. (a lot more led up to it, but in the end it was my stupidity that led to me pulling him over the desk) The kid that sat next to me got a bunch of grants and qualified for a big loan because of his "situation". his real situation is that mom and dad supported him while he lived in an apartment over grandma's garage.

I got $1500 in loans and a load of attitude because I made $10,000 the year before. I worked three jobs and took 21 semester hours until I got my degree. I wanted that piece of paper and knew it was up to me to get it done regardless of outside help.

I'm not special. Anyone can do it if they decide that is what they are going to do.

I agree. We're not arguing here, being on the same side, right?

And again, that is what I tell those students who fall into those cracks...and if it's what they really want, and they are not just looking for a free ride, they WILL do it. But it has to suck, no, to watch garage kid? I see garage kid every day, as well as Flo Glow.

And I see you. I commisserate with you, I urge you to write to your congressman, I try to help you look for scholarships, I explain the loan process in painstaking terms. I exhaust all possibilities with you because I am unable to change the system...though I do get the rare opportunity to make my voice heard.

No system is completely fair. All I am saying is we have a definite population in this country which gets shit on from ALL sides.

(And I worked and borrowed my way through college as well.)

Just jumping on the hijacked bandwagon, can I point out that the good guys aren't always the success stories, and they don't always have to be?

I hear a lot in this country (via the Conservative media) about pensioners, poor old pensioners, served their country, don't get what's due them, might as well have sat on their arses all their lives, not rewarded for their work ethic etc etc etc.

My Grandad worked hard all his life. He did a number of jobs, all reasonably low paid, all effectively in the service industry, all necessary to the industry he worked in. I'm not claiming being a stagehand at the Royal Opera House is the same as being a policeman, but it is essential to the Opera House and a man of little education will do it for a price they can afford. He lived in council housing all his life (home ownership was not an option for the owkring class until the late 20th century here - far too late for my Grandparents) and put money away in a pension scheme which collapsed in the 80s. By all accounts he didn't lose much, but then he believed the Welfare State would look after him - as many of his generation believed - he paid into it all his life.

Anyway, he ended up his days as a hospital porter (cross between a bell boy and a janitor, but in a public hospital). He retired when he was 67.

At 86, he lives in council housing still. No property to leave. He gets a visit twice daily to help him wash and dress. He has a cleaner 3 times a week. he has a day out at a social club once a week - door-to-door service and they have a dentist, barber and optician visit. Oh - all prescriptions free, same with dentist & optician. He gets a heating allowance, TV licence reduction and I have a feeling he doesn't pay council tax, or gets another healthy reduction. He technically pays for some of the above out of a Social Services allowance, to give him more freedom on what he needs. My Mum picks up all the slack i.e. washing, ironing, shopping, taking him to the Doctors etc.

All of the above is just to say - so many people here have an ant and grasshopper thing going on. Grandad was never a grasshopper. He was a decent, poorly educated man doing mundane jobs at the bottom of the pile and never complaining. My Dad is a similar man. Don't assume that "bettering yourself" works for everyone, or is indeed necessary. Someone has to mop Ward 17 when there's shit on the floor.

Sad. Those people at Extreme Makeover (I believe) , really try to do good work for people in need. I have seen few shows that I did not hold back a tear or have to let them go. I chaulk this up as another sign of the times.....

We get this show on cable over here and I've watched it once or twice. I haven't had the same impression you've had glatt. I look at it more as lookout does.

Sure the tv company is earning a buck. Why bother with the show if they don't? What makes this show any worse than all the other crap we all watch on tv from time to time? What's the outcome of watching the Simpsons for example? You get entertained. The production company makes money. The tv station makes money. The advertisers make money. No one else gets any benefit though, but it's still a program which consistently rates in every country it's shown.

TV shows are for entertainment as far as the viewer is concerned. The people involved in producing the show want to make money. If they can make money by helping someone else, then why is it so wrong?

As far as the people who are going to lose their new home...well, I guess it's their own problem and no one elses. To the volunteers it probably does suck dogs balls, but I guess lots of people who volunteer for things end up seeing their efforts go down the tubes anyway. Does anyone feel sorry for political volunteers when their candidate is not successful? My guess is probably not.

That's fine as far as it goes, but the difference is for this they actively solicit donations and volunteers.

I understand that. But the people/businesses who donate are getting some pretty good advertising for their effort, and the volunteers are just that. They're volunteering, probably because they want to help the family in part, and also because it makes them feel good about doing something for someone else. Also they might get their noggin on tv! yehaaa!

Well yeah but when you make a donation of time or money you expect it to be put to the advertised use. If my employer convinced somebody to make a donation to make a classroom all high-tech and up-to-date, and we ended up spending the money on carpet for a hallway.. well, I guarantee you, no matter how badly that carpet needed replacing, the donor is not going to just shrug and say, "Oh well, at least we got us a tax deduction."
Precisely why they have a right to be miffed when the family essentially wastes what they've volunteered to provide. When I donate food, time, or money to my congregation's efforts to serve meals at a local homeless shelter, I expect that the food will actually be eaten by people at the shelter, and not thrown out.

I absolutely agree with you Steve, the volunteers have every right to be pissed at this family who is a part of their community. I just don't get the animosity directed at Extreme home makeover.