Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TWS: Jimmy Carter's Favorite Charity - An expensive way to help small numbers of the non-poor.
Weekly Standard ^ | 06/13/2005 | Philip Chalk

Posted on 06/13/2005 5:53:24 AM PDT by OESY

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Philip Chalk is The Weekly Standard's production director.
1 posted on 06/13/2005 5:53:25 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY

When we first got married we were poor and NO ONE built a home for US! We worked and saved and did without extras and bought our own little tiny first house back in 1975.


2 posted on 06/13/2005 6:02:03 AM PDT by buffyt ("If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?" Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Wow!
This was an eye opener for me.
Even I thought Communist Carter was at least occasionally building houses for the truely poor........guess not.
3 posted on 06/13/2005 6:03:57 AM PDT by Politically Correct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

How many mainline Protestant denominations support H for H? I know the largest Methodist Church in the Columbus, Georgia area pours in plenty of dollars and volunteers both for projects in Columbus and in Nicaragua.

One Habitat house got some publicity because there was a $40,000 SUV parked out in front. But the homeowner explained it was not her car, it was just her boyfriend's.

In the case of Nicaragua, the Habitat projects export Gringo labor to a country that has a labor surplus. Meanwhile the Church yields all the religious talk to other denominations like the Jehovah's Witness and let them establish the new congregations.


4 posted on 06/13/2005 6:07:50 AM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (Technology advances. Human nature is dependably stagnant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Nothing is what it seems.


5 posted on 06/13/2005 6:08:08 AM PDT by basil (Exercise your Second Amendment--buy another gun today!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

In 1975, we borrowed $2000 from my husband's father and purchased both sides of a little duplex for $18,000.00. We rehabbed it, at one point scrapping cat poop out of corners replacing flooring where it was too bad. We painted everything and put down new carpet, etc. etc.

We rented out the other side for enough to pay our mortgage and paid off my father in law in one year. From that and then a second duplex purchased with the GI bill, and another with FHA, we lived in and rehabbed property until today we own several rental properties. It's still a modest portfolio but will help us retire. We figure we can downsize through each property, two years in each, and avoid capital gains as we sell them off but we'll probably end up giving two or three of them to our children, or more likely, like our father in law did, we'll sell them to us and they'll pay us back.


6 posted on 06/13/2005 6:09:58 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

In some places, it's almost impossible to buy a house though. That's why my wife and I bought an existing one that had all the things we needed. The time and extra money it would have taken to build a new one weren't worth it to us.


7 posted on 06/13/2005 6:16:22 AM PDT by moog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OESY
The real draw isn't the eventual homeowner--it's the fleeting intimacy of a 21st-century barn raising in which volunteers can "rub shoulders and swing hammers and have a sense of community," as he puts it. "Feeling good and feeling right--and that's more valuable to a lot of Americans than the work they're actually volunteering to do."

There's a great deal of truth in this. Habitat is a favorite charity of leftists because of the "feel good" aspect. Not long ago, for instance, the Atlanta newspaper printed three separate stories about the same Habitat homeowner, a woman who was marrying one of the carpenters who worked on her Habitat build. The overkill on that story reminded me of Howard Dean's exortation to the Democrats to brag about their own values.

I don't think that the big problem with Habitat here is that its clients are less than destitute. I am more concerned about the way the Habitat homeowner selection process serves to reinforce dysfunctional behavior in inner-city communities. The typical homeowner I have met at Habitat builds is a single mother who shacks up with a guy, usually the father of some of her children. The guy often helps with the Habitat build, and he will live in the house with the woman. But she will be the homeowner, and he will remain a "guest." You might think that if he actually married the woman, he could get his name on the deed. But then there would be no deed--because then the official family income (the real household income) would be too high for the couple to quality for a Habitat home. Result: whole communities of single-mom Habitat families, almost all of them living in "shack-up" households with small kids. Doesn't seem to me that an organization with Christian pretensions should be encouraging this.

8 posted on 06/13/2005 6:17:22 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: basil

Truer words were noever spoken!

Our church worked on two Habitat houses as mission projects a few years ago. I went on the first trip that summer and, from a spiritual standpoint, it was one of the best experiences of my life.

However, having been in and out of construction for the better part of my adult life, I can tell you it was an absolute joke from that standpoint. First off, We took a group of folks who know a LOT about construction, and we had almost 25 people go with us. When we went on the site, there were NO materials as the construction supervisor failed to call and order anything, so our guys got on the phone and ended up ordering what we needed to do what we were asked to do for the week. Well, one job we had was to hang a door going to a deck that was to be built the next week. When we set the door in place, we noticed the whole outside wall moved when we pushed on it because the team who did the framing had NO ONE with construction experience and failed to tie the walls or rafters together to stabilize it. We spent the better part of two days firming it all up.

When we left that week, the supervisor told us we had done more than any group he had ever had work on a house (well, DUH!) and was amazed how efficient we were. We worked out butts off, but the part about the prospective homeowner required to do a part of the work is misleading as well. Our "homeowner" was "handicapped" (read severely overweight with heart problems) and barely showed up at all. She did make a poster for all of us to sign that she said she would hang in the new house when done, but that was essentially it.

The next year, we had a group go up to work on a house being built next to the one we worked on the previous year. We had 8 people sign up to go and they got almost nothing accomplished as (again!) the supervisor failed to order materials.

We have not done another Habitat house since. I am NOT surprised at this article's revalations. It is, to me, a way for rich liberals to feel good about helping the "poor" when in fact they are doing very little to nothing to help the "poor" and it is a money pit. Typical liberal operation with the Grand Poobah of liberal inefficiency as it's main spokesman - Jimmah Cahtuh


9 posted on 06/13/2005 6:20:00 AM PDT by Littlejon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OESY

I've got friends who LOVE Jimmah Cartah and who will not brook hearing a single discouraging word about the man. Personally I think the guy is a real nasty piece of work and an outright traitor and America hater.

I've always thought most do goodism and altruism is only occassionally about really helping the "poor" or "the children" amd more about "feeling good" or superior or smug about oneself. A lot of hype, condescension and hypocrisy.

But then, I'm a cynic about people's motives. Especially Democrats and hippie dregs.


10 posted on 06/13/2005 6:26:58 AM PDT by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Ping for later.


11 posted on 06/13/2005 6:27:20 AM PDT by Rocket1968 (Free Janice Rogers-Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: garyhope

When I was in the Army in the mid-1970's, my roommate was a Georgian who had worked with the Georgia state police through his Georgia Tech connections. He knew Carter pretty well, and had been involved in his gubenatorial campaign. He had come to despise Carter and supported Ford in '76. He said Carter was a hypocrite (my roommate was also an evangelical Christian), mean-spirited, and self-righteous based on two years working with him on a weekly basis.


12 posted on 06/13/2005 6:37:44 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OESY
The Habitat affiliates' right of first refusal, for example, which allows it to buy a house offered for sale during the lifespan of the mortgage for no more than its original cost, can be used to prevent homeowners from realizing gains until their mortgage is fully paid. But if a house does rise in value, the homeowner is on the hook for the higher property taxes, which quickly can surpass the modest mortgage payment. Not surprisingly, a number of Habitat homeowners each year chafe at the restrictions, deed their houses back to affiliates, and walk away.

All of this could be rememdied if Habitat quit holding the mortgages and allowed the buyers to obtain conventional financing. This is indeed "paternalism" and keeps the low-income buyer exactly where they are. If the buyer has the wherewithal to want a house and maintain it, they're going to want to profit from it the same as anyone else.

The builders could still contribute as they do know. Just Habitat won't have a large real estate portfolio.

13 posted on 06/13/2005 6:41:11 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
One Habitat house got some publicity because there was a $40,000 SUV parked out in front. But the homeowner explained it was not her car, it was just her boyfriend's.

Check out the vehicles at the "food pantries". It's disgusting. Some people have their priorities a little confused.

14 posted on 06/13/2005 6:46:55 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OESY

I'd be interested in knowing how the beneficiaries treat the homes that are essentially given to them (aside from token payments).

How do they fare years later in terms of depreciation and resale value, or does the buy-back plan obscure this?


15 posted on 06/13/2005 6:47:45 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
this story is an example of how many Great charities become victims of "The World." By this I mean - a partner (Big name Store or Bank) wants results and they want "fairness" so the Christian chairity must cover up how God works through them and they become secular. Then they must be more effective every year. You can bet that Mr. Fillmore did not create those rules, I flew beside him once and we had this talk - about hijacked charities - the new rules come from a board.

The Touching stuff may or may not be true, the world is too sick to make book on who cheats and who does not, but some people are so PC they don't allow anyone to touch them or compliment them.

16 posted on 06/13/2005 7:14:48 AM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

Well in Houston they are trying to confiscate a public park (in poor er area) to build a couple of these shanties.


17 posted on 06/13/2005 7:40:52 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marty60

Why do these types of "charities" think that they have some special RIGHT to things that aren't theirs?


18 posted on 06/13/2005 7:44:27 AM PDT by bannie (The government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bannie

It's in the DUMs genes. Take from people and give it to the Dums chosen few.


19 posted on 06/13/2005 9:10:21 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Habitat never sold itself on providing housing for the abject poor, but for the poor who showed some initiative and who were likely to be able to work at the building site. That requires effort and ambition--the idea was to provide a hand-up for those who had enough character to be climbing the ladder. It think HH served its niche adequately as far as I have seen it working locally.

What I always got frosted about was that JC donated a few day's work every year...the media made it sound like he swung a hammer from dawn til dusk every day...

20 posted on 06/13/2005 9:56:17 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson