The implication of course is that Imus is doing this somehow for his personal gain. The man can afford to build a huge ranch and live like Heinz Kerry's. He doesn't need to set up any phony charity.
-------------------------------------------
Exactly. The hole here though is that he did not pay for the building of the ranch. Corporate and HNWI donations did. The cost per child is on-going, until such time as Imus decides to stop or limit the activity. The multi-millions to build the ranch (to a level of quality that earned an article in AD) came not from Imus' pocket but it is he and his wife who own it and will benefit for the rest of their lives from it.
He's doing some good, no doubt but the benefit to him personally is significant and indisputable. One wonders what cancer research could have been funded with the millions used to build the ranch.
". The man can afford to build a huge ranch and live like Heinz Kerry's. He doesn't need to set up any phony charity."
- I seem to recall basically the same argument used to defend Martha Stewart when she tried to save about $50,000. bucks in a stock sale. With these people, it isn't always the money, it's just the idea that they can do it which attracts them.
As for Imus's claim that most of the expense "was just depreciation on the buildings", I believe that depreciation rates on wooden buildings (I don't think they'd have brick and steel ones on a ranch) is about 10% per year. Even if the buildings were constructed new in 2003, this would put their cost at something in excess of $20 million dollars in order to get a depreciation expense of $2 million.
Pretty high for a bunk house and barn.