How many ranches have 14,000sf MANSIONS with swimming pools, high end interiors and TELEVISION broadcast studios?
Does THIS look like a typical working ranch to you?
Posted on 03/24/2005 3:25:36 AM PST by billorites
Every weekday morning, listeners across the country tune in to radio host Don Imus to hear his trademark rants about politics, Hollywood, sports and Iraq.
Mr. Imus and his wife, Deirdre, opened the 4,000-acre ranch, nestled in the mesa country of northern New Mexico, in 1999 to help sick children. Its stated mission is to give "children with severe illnesses an opportunity to experience the life of an American cowboy."
The ranch has also burnished Mr. Imus's image. With his signature scowl, gruff voice, 10-gallon hats and tendency to refer to some public figures as "creeps," "thugs" and "fascists," Mr. Imus, 64 years old, has built a top-10 national radio show with 3.25 million listeners a week. It is also simulcast on MSNBC television. The ranch has helped shine a spotlight on his softer side, transforming Mr. Imus and his wife into two of the country's best-known philanthropists. They've donated more than $1 million to the ranch over the past four years and raised $20 million for its start-up and operations. Celebrity donors, including TV-news star Barbara Walters, former New York Stock Exchange Chief Richard Grasso and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, receive praise on Mr. Imus's show.
Yet the charity's large budget, and the Imus family's personal stays at the ranch, are drawing scrutiny from tax officials and regulators. The ranch's expenses totaled $2.6 million last year, while it hosted only about 100 kids -- an unusually high dollar-to-child ratio, charity experts say. The Imus family stays at the ranch all summer with the children, but they also visit for weeks at a time during holidays as well as dropping in for occasional weekends, Mr. Imus says...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Well ministers and priests don't exaclty live in shacks. Likewise I've seen some pretty nice housing at colleges and universities (also a non-profit). So the bottom line in all this is "who decides?". I make those decisions everytime I donate money and I expect others contemplating giving to the ranch can also make those decisions. Maybe we can trash his salsa too.
He lives in CT. He spends time at the Ranch. Envy is not a becoming trait.
Theresa Heinz Kerry has some pretty nice digs too... it's easy to question her charity as well.
So only a 100 kids got to live at Imus's palace and use his golden bidets. At least that's 100 who WERE helped. Ain't there bigger fish to fry out there? I thought many wanted to get rid of the IRS, not find more excuses to use them.
That said, I trust the article. What does the article say, however? Basically, it comes down on Imus for being sloppy, unknowledgeable about running a charity, and for having a board of himself, his wife and their two personal accountants. Tax errors, sloppy accounting work, and his penchant for hyping himself weave their way through the article.
My final opinion is that the article was geared more to readers who engage in charity work, showing them what can happen to a sloppily run, high-profile charity.
So, therefore, we oughta let the IRS and the State of NY mess him up real bad, regardless of whether it's fair or not. Is that the idea?
He spends a LOT of time at the ranch, he has been broadcasting from the ranch all week. I would too if I had a 4000 acre ranch with a 14,000sf home that I get tremendous tax breaks on.
I'd put more currency in your remark about how great it is to live there if I thought you'd ever run a cattle ranch while simultaneously taking responsibility for groups of terminally ill kids.
I never claimed that. All I'm saying is the reporter was dead on correct, and Imus can't take the same heat he normally dispenses on other public figures.
"A reporter doesn't get his article on the WSJ front page left column without having his every last duck in a row."
Why then does the news section of the WSJ have such a notorious left leaning reputation (in contrast to its editorial page)? Apparently, this reporter was invited to visit the Imus ranch and Imus even offered to pay his way. He refused.
If this is "getting your ducks in a row," I'll stick to cattle ranching!
But it sounds as if he's taking the heat just fine. If you had your own radio program, one where your audience expected you to rant about things going on in your life, would you respond any differently?
And speaking of "taking the heat," how long will it be before we start to hear, "how dare he attack a reporter like this!?"
LOL....well, I guess if you compare the Editorial page to the Front page, you might consider it to the left. (and I totally enjoy the editorial page). But the front page has no political agenda. Can't answer to the visit question, though. Perhaps the Journal will address that.
I've been following this whole thing pretty closely. Reading through all the posts, most sort themselves out to be a black and white take on the issue - either it's a scam or it's a witchhunt.
I think in this case, it's probably not all one or the other. I think Imus has essentially done well by doing good. He's benefitted and he's probably helped some kids along the way. I think he will end up having to pay rent while he's there (and pay back rent as well).
People will continue to give to the charity not because they think their dollars are going far (you can make a good argument that they're not) but because of Imus's clout.
In other words, life will pretty much go on as before.
I think people are too quick to jump to a conclusion that something or someone are all good or all bad, when the truth is much more likely to be somewhere in between.
How many ranches have 14,000sf MANSIONS with swimming pools, high end interiors and TELEVISION broadcast studios?
Does THIS look like a typical working ranch to you?
Normally reporters are not allowed to accept 'vacations'.
"Normally reporters are not allowed to accept 'vacations'."
Apparently, at least in this case, they aren't allowed to gather facts either.
What facts did the reporter get wrong in his article?
That Imus does in fact run this ranch and that it is not a life of luxury to do so. He could have investigated the kinds of work Imus actually does at the ranch. But he apparently had little interest in reporting that side of the story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.