Posted on 03/24/2005 9:19:19 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
A front page Wall Street Journal article attacked radio host Don Imus, accusing him of mis-spending some of the funds donated to support his charity ranch in New Mexico. Today, today Imus fired back: "There's no more transparent charity on the planet than this one."
The 4,000-acre "Imus Ranch," located in northern New Mexico, plays host to many sick children annually. "Dubbed the 'Cowboy Taj Mahal' by locals, the complex has a 14,000-square-foot adobe mansion, swimming pool, billiard hall, herds of longhorn cattle, buffalo and sheep, and a replica of an 1880s mining town," said the paper.
But the WSJ also wondered why the ranch spent $2.6 million in 2004, "while it hosted only about 100 kids … an unusually high dollar-to-child ratio," according to "charity experts" interviewed for the article. That, and the "personal stays" there by Imus and his wife Dierdre, "are drawing scrutiny from tax officials and regulators."
Imus said on the air, "We didn't spend $2.6 million." He said about $800,000 of that figure was "an accounting technique allowing for depreciation of the buildings and the equipment."
The I-man, as he’s known, told the paper he and his family stay at the ranch throughout the summer months, and drop in for holidays and other special occasions. And the radio host, whose show draws more than 3 million listeners a week and is simulcast on MSNBC, says he likes to manage the ranch himself, instead of hiring someone to do it.
However, for the $27,000 spent per child, or just under $3,000 per night for their typical nine-day stays, the Journal says Imus could have put the kids up a the ritzy Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York, or gotten each a cabin on the cruise ship Queen Mary 2.
Additionally, the paper noted that at the Imus Ranch, about 10 kids each show up for nine-day sessions 10 times a year. Other charity camps – such as Camp Starfish and Paul Newman's Hole in the Wall Gang Fund – support more children for longer times.
All of this may be problematic under the law, says the WSJ.
Imus says that's bunk.
"Why would misrepresent and suggest we spent $2.6 million, when we did not spend" that amount?
"I've said for who knows how long it costs around one-point-seven, one-point-eight, one-point-nine million dollars to run the place? Is that a lot for a hundred kids? Yes, it is.”
Imus then ripped the motives of the WSJ: "My point is, they're not going into this with any good intentions.”
Also, Imus pointed out that the WSJ reporter, Robert Frank, never even visited the ranch. "Wouldn't you think if you were going to do a story about the Imus Ranch, you come out and see it?” Imus said.
As to his holiday visits, he said, "I broadcast from here on Thanksgiving," said Imus. "I'm really trying to hide that," he quipped. Besides, he added, "I run the ranch, my wife and I run it. I could live out here every day if I felt like it."
The Journal also reported that New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer questioned Imus about his "personal use of the ranch," and "the charity's financial controls" – issues Imus said he raised with Frank on his own, without prompting. The paper also said Spitzer questioned the host about the charity's late financial statement filings.
Imus addressed that on the air today as well.
"[Spitzer's office] asked questions, I answered the questions, they're pretty much done with it," he explained. "They said they want us to file our taxes on time. Well, what the attorney general's office does not know is that we do file them on time. We get an extension, like everybody else does. So, if you get an extension, you file your taxes on time.
"Why do we get an extension?" he continued. "Well, because all the information's not available the first 90 days of the year, or the people who do the taxes are overwhelmed, whatever."
Frank has "an agenda," said Imus, adding "The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed" of the article.
I'm suprised there were not any replies on this one. Imus went off on WSJ piece this morning, pointing out that 800k of
the expense was depreciation. Even so, the place is very inefficient as a charity.
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.