NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure some of you have heard this one. But a Katrina family was given a home free and clear by a church. Apparently 9 months later they sold it. Moved back to New Orleans and started over. So is there a problem with this in your mind?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/katrina/main2204939.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2204939

I'm sure some of you have heard this one. But a Katrina family was given a home free and clear by a church. Apparently 9 months later they sold it. Moved back to New Orleans and started over. So is there a problem with this in your mind?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/katrina/main2204939.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2204939

It's things like this that reduce people's willingness to donate or to assist others in need.


Sad...

Does this really surprise you or anybody else? People, not all, have a tendency of turning the Good of others into their self interests and profits.

To be honest I am not suprised at all. In my view the church screwed up. They should have kept title and let them live rent free for a period of time. So part of the blame if any needs to be given is on the church.

I'm sure some of you have heard this one. But a Katrina family was given a home free and clear by a church. Apparently 9 months later they sold it. Moved back to New Orleans and started over. So is there a problem with this in your mind?
Of course not. On so many levels.

They were given a gift. Once it's theirs, it's theirs to do with as they please.

The church tried to help them. The family, having sold the house, was helped tremendously by the church. Everyone got what they wanted.

I can't fathom why anyone would disagree with this.

Considering the time of year this is, I feel this is a pretty good example.....Has anyone been giving a Christmas gift and later returned it for money? I think a lot of people do this sort of stuff.

Of course not. On so many levels.

They were given a gift. Once it's theirs, it's theirs to do with as they please.

The church tried to help them. The family, having sold the house, was helped tremendously by the church. Everyone got what they wanted.

I can't fathom why anyone would disagree with this.

because now the family has to file for Captial Gains for the profit (100%) they got with the sale of the home on top of paying for repairs/Reconstruction of their original home in NO.

Considering the time of year this is, I feel this is a pretty good example.....Has anyone been giving a Christmas gift and later returned it for money? I think a lot of people do this sort of stuff.

I am sure most are guilty of it. I think the shock by anyone that is suprised is by the amount of money. I think there is a big difference to most if one returns a sweater for $30 then a home for more then $80k.

Considering the time of year this is, I feel this is a pretty good example.....Has anyone been giving a Christmas gift and later returned it for money? I think a lot of people do this sort of stuff.

I haven't, and I don't. I try to find some use for anything and everything I've been given.



but then again... i am a packrat... :p

whatever
let them do whatever they like, I say.

I haven't, and I don't. I try to find some use for anything and everything I've been given.



but then again... i am a packrat... :p

You know, I can't recall ever doing something like that either. I like Gifts and most people who know me are pretty good at knowing my tastes. :)

Of course not. On so many levels.

They were given a gift. Once it's theirs, it's theirs to do with as they please.

The church tried to help them. The family, having sold the house, was helped tremendously by the church. Everyone got what they wanted.

I can't fathom why anyone would disagree with this.

I think it just seems a little bit like someone giving you a very expensive and thoughtful gift and you exchaning it for gift vouchers from the shop they got it from.

But I do see where you're comming from

no problem there. they were given something to do with what they will. if they want to go back to their home city once all the shits been cleared up that's their prerogative.

Why would anyone disagree with this?
They aren't doing anything to the church:
The church gave them a home worth 80k.
They sold the 80k home for 80k.
The church has paid whatever money it paid already. There is nothing you can do to make the church pay more after it paid for the house already.

also they didn't sell it for profit. they sold it for more than it was bought for by the church but that's not profit, that's just what they're now able to use to get a new house back home. i'd say they are making the most out of their gift and the church should be extra happy for them.

It's smart. It's not wrong. Also, did the church realistically expect them to live in the house forever? They were going to sell it at some point, surely.

They should have kept the house under church possession, but the people could not be kicked out unless they were somehow abusing the house.

Well, it depends. If they sold it for a profit and then redonated the money with the purpose of increasing the amount of money going to the area, I'd have no problem. But if someone gives you a house that they saved up and worked to build while thousands of others have none and you go and sell it for a profit, that's wrong.

I have no problem with selling such a house and relocating. If however, (as the church appears to believe) the people intentionally misrepresented themselves to a significant degree, in order to obtain the donation, I would have concerns with that.

Well, it depends. If they sold it for a profit and then redonated the money with the purpose of increasing the amount of money going to the area, I'd have no problem. But if someone gives you a house that they saved up and worked to build while thousands of others have none and you go and sell it for a profit, that's wrong.
But why? Why did you give it to me if you didn't want me to own it?

I'm sure some of you have heard this one. But a Katrina family was given a home free and clear by a church. Apparently 9 months later they sold it. Moved back to New Orleans and started over. So is there a problem with this in your mind?


Nope, no problem. Once you give a gift, you turn over possession. We don't want people being able to dictate the lives of others because they gave them a gift.

I feel the same way about this as I do about assholes who think they should tell homeless people what to do with the change they toss them.

Does this really surprise you or anybody else? People, not all, have a tendency of turning the Good of others into their self interests and profits.

Yes, because one should interact with a gift in a selfless manner. Don't you dare wear that tie your aunt bought you, that's selfish. She meant for you to use it in a deadly act of auto-eroticism. And that crappy blender your mom bought you that you were thinking about exchanging for something that suits you better...you'd better not!

Someone wrote about this on my forum site this morning. This is what I replied to that:

Well, even though the action was very distastful, it was THEIR house. So I guess it was "alright" in a sense to sell it, or something.

If instead of a house the Church just gave them $80k, would you expect them to never spend that money?

I don't see where distasteful plays into this. They didn't want to live in a place they were complete strangers in, they preferred to go back to New Orleans...which is good for NO since they'll be helping the economy recover there. It was a GIFT. Had they lived there for two years, hated it and THEN moved...would that have made it better?

Sounds like the church is just mad it lost part of its assumed congregation.

Somehow they were 'less needy' because they used the help to move home?

Please.

But why? Why did you give it to me if you didn't want me to own it?

Because you were homeless and it was meant to be a home for you, not for profit?

It's like giving someone a gift and then having them turn around and sell it, for a profit no less...it's just rude.

Because you were homeless and it was meant to be a home for you, not for profit?

It's like giving someone a gift and then having them turn around and sell it, for a profit no less...it's just rude.

Really.

At what point does a gift actually become a possession that you are free to do with as you will?

Don't give gifts if you think they entitle you to dictate exactly what shall be done with them.

At what point does a gift actually become a possession that you are free to do with as you will?

Don't give gifts if you think they entitle you to dictate exactly what shall be done with them.

I guess, but I would feel kind of insulted if I worked hard to get someone something and then they turned around and sold it for a profit while other people in the same area are going homeless.

Another fact is that the Gulf Coast housing market is so tight due to the devastation that flipping housing is easy; not only are they selling that gift for a profit, but they're taking advantage of a bad situation to make a profit.

I guess, but I would feel kind of insulted if I worked hard to get someone something and then they turned around and sold it for a profit while other people in the same area are going homeless.

They aren't getting rich off this. The 'profit' isn't going to go far, and they will still have a home, which was the original intent. If anything, the donees should be happy that their gift went further than they thought it would. There is no evidence to date that they were any less needy than any other family, and this action does not suddenly MAKE them less needy.

End of story.

Was it wrong for them to sale the house, no. However it was rude. I mean a church worked very hard to raise the money to buy this house free and clear, and they thought they were helping a family get a new start in a new place. I mean it's like you worked on your gift, you worked hard on it and put love and care into the gift. Then you give it to someone and that someone turns around and just exchange your gift for money, like the gift didn't really mean anything. It wasn't wrong for them to sell the house, but it was rude.

They were given a house so that they could have a fresh start, and that's what they're doing.

Was it wrong for them to sale the house, no. However it was rude. I mean a church worked very hard to raise the money to buy this house free and clear, and they thought they were helping a family get a new start in a new place. I mean it's like you worked on your gift, you worked hard on it and put love and care into the gift. Then you give it to someone and that someone turns around and just exchange your gift for money, like the gift didn't really mean anything. It wasn't wrong for them to sell the house, but it was rude.

it would be rude if they used the money to buy a fleet of cars or a cellar full of champagne, but they're using it to set up life back in new orleans. which is better than what the church hoped for them. so they should be happy.

Was it wrong for them to sale the house, no. However it was rude. I mean a church worked very hard to raise the money to buy this house free and clear, and they thought they were helping a family get a new start in a new place.
They DID help the family! It's not like they turned around and bought crack with the proceeds! They freakin' bought a house in their OWN community...so what? I don't see it as rude...perhaps the church is simply out the opportunity to bask in the glory of giving, or rubbing the noses of the family in it...

I guess, but I would feel kind of insulted if I worked hard to get someone something and then they turned around and sold it for a profit while other people in the same area are going homeless.
They have to use their 'profit' to build their new life anyway, otherwise they'll be just as homeless as everyone else.
Another fact is that the Gulf Coast housing market is so tight due to the devastation that flipping housing is easy; not only are they selling that gift for a profit, but they're taking advantage of a bad situation to make a profit.
So now profiting on real estate is bad? Fine, we'll just charge you 100% capital gains taxes.

People are sure making a lot of the 'for a profit' thing. It was a gift, so any money you make off selling it is money you didn't spend, so the 'for a profit' thing seems ridiculously unnecessary. Like it's somehow worse that the sale was for more than what the purchaser paid for it? Isn't that real estate-pretty much happens?

I'll echo other responses-church wanted to give them a place to stay, they're doing that-but back in their own community. Being upset about where they go with that belies the true intentions of the churches 'altruism.' If they wanted to help the family get on their feet, then they did. It seems they wanted to do something else.

Kind of greedy of them i'd say.

Kind of greedy of them i'd say.

Why is it greedy to want to move back to New Orleans?

Why is it greedy to want to move back to New Orleans?

The church then can not get anything back for the investment they made. They want the people to become a contributor to the church. Financially and in spirit. Churchs cannot exist if they do not keep membership. So I think this is why some from the church are upset about what happened. Again the church should have held title and just let those people live there free of rent.

The church then can not get anything back for the investment they made. They want the people to become a contributor to the church. Financially and in spirit. Churchs cannot exist if they do not keep membership. So I think this is why some from the church are upset about what happened. Again the church should have held title and just let those people live there free of rent.

Was it charity or an investment? It seems that it is then the church that misrepresented things and not the family. The church was investing in weekly coin, not in charity. I'm not a religious guy, but I don't remember the part where Jesus says "Give to the poor when you can get good returns."

Spiritually, unless they went back to New Orleans and started worshiping Vishnu, it pretty much goes into the same bank now, doesn't it?

They DID help the family! It's not like they turned around and bought crack with the proceeds! They freakin' bought a house in their OWN community...so what? I don't see it as rude...perhaps the church is simply out the opportunity to bask in the glory of giving, or rubbing the noses of the family in it...

"I've always wanted a dog.... my kids would love to play with it and it would be their companion...."

*Two weeks later*

"How's Sparky?"
"He was delicious."


What? It was a gift, wasn't it?

"I've always wanted a dog.... my kids would love to play with it and it would be their companion...."

*Two weeks later*

"How's Sparky?"
"He was delicious."


What? It was a gift, wasn't it?
But they didn't eat the house or buy a Ferrari with the money-they bought a house with the money from the house. And not just a random house, one in the community they where dislocated from. It would be closer to, "How's Sparky?" "This is Rufus, he gets along with the kids better. We traded Sparky for him."

It really irks me when people 'give' gifts, then think they have some kind of say in the recipient's life for the next umpteen years. If the church had not meant it to be a gift, then they should have just let the people live there rent free until they got back on their feet or whatever.

I don't know what they expected. The family was bound to sell it eventually anyway.

Also, had they wanted someone to move in a become a permanent member of the community, they probably should have screened the applicants a little more closely.

It's really all on the church here.

It really irks me when people 'give' gifts, then think they have some kind of say in the recipient's life for the next umpteen years. My sentiments exactly.

I may not like that the homeless woman I bought a meal for, and gave $20 in cash went out and bought listerine with it (I can verify that she bought the listerine as I ran into her later that day, but it's possible she didn't do it with my money), but it's really not my place to dictate what she does with what I freely gave her.

I dunno, the church did GIVE it to them, so they could do with it what they wished. Ever returned a christmas gift you didn't like, then bought something you did? It's the same principle.

But they didn't eat the house or buy a Ferrari with the money-they bought a house with the money from the house. And not just a random house, one in the community they where dislocated from. It would be closer to, "How's Sparky?" "This is Rufus, he gets along with the kids better. We traded Sparky for him."

No, if "it's a gift and they can do anything they want with it," then eating the dog should be just the same as trading it.

So why is the situation so different you felt you needed to change my scenario?

I'm sure some of you have heard this one. But a Katrina family was given a home free and clear by a church. Apparently 9 months later they sold it. Moved back to New Orleans and started over. So is there a problem with this in your mind?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/katrina/main2204939.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2204939

Why does it matter either way, if they still bought a house in New Orleans? That's still pumping much-needed money into the economy there and if they did sell the house that was given to them, thats one more family that will have a home in Nawlins.

Don't get me wrong, there is an element of self interest in their purchasing of a new house, but isn't the goal of charity to make the situation as a whole better for New Orleans? Seems like thats what happened here...

No, if "it's a gift and they can do anything they want with it," then eating the dog should be just the same as trading it.

So why is the situation so different you felt you needed to change my scenario?

Because they didn't use the house for an alternate purpose, such as being given a dog as a pet and then using it as life stock.

This is getting a house, and exchanging it for another house. Thus, like getting a dog and exchanging it for another dog.

In all honestly, this isn't all that different than getting a shirt that doesn't fit as a gift and exchanging it for one that does-no one seems outraged at that process.

I'm sure some of you have heard this one. But a Katrina family was given a home free and clear by a church. Apparently 9 months later they sold it. Moved back to New Orleans and started over. So is there a problem with this in your mind?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/22/katrina/main2204939.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2204939

The church people said they wanted to give the couple "a new start." That's what they did. A family that had been driven out of their home town by a combination of natural disaster and governmental incompotence got to go home. Once you give a gift, you don't retain a right to see that it is used the way you wanted it to be.

The church thought that they were creating new loyal parishoners that would stick around and make them money as poster children?

The church did a wonderful thing by letting these people go home. They are showing their own selfishness by complaining about the fact that these people wanted to go home instead of stick around in an unfamiliar town.

The church then can not get anything back for the investment they made. They want the people to become a contributor to the church. Financially and in spirit. Churchs cannot exist if they do not keep membership. So I think this is why some from the church are upset about what happened. Again the church should have held title and just let those people live there free of rent.

Then it was disingenuous of them to pretend that this was charity. It wasn't. It was advertising. They should have put that in the contract. One house in exchange for 5 years service as spokesmodel charity cases. If you think that's God's work then you shouldn't feel embarrassed about putting it in print.

If you think that it looks bad to exploit disaster victims this way, you're right, and it's the Church that's running a scam. Not the New Orleanians.

No, if "it's a gift and they can do anything they want with it," then eating the dog should be just the same as trading it.

So why is the situation so different you felt you needed to change my scenario?
I don't feel the need to change your scenario.

Sparky was a gift.

They DID help the family! It's not like they turned around and bought crack with the proceeds! They freakin' bought a house in their OWN community...so what? I don't see it as rude...perhaps the church is simply out the opportunity to bask in the glory of giving, or rubbing the noses of the family in it...

I have to agree with this. And if they had went out and bought a Cadillac Escalade and a bunch of other material crap instead of putting the money to use on their home it would be a different matter. But..also I would either give something back to the church when I could or better yet 'pay it forward' so to speak and help someone else out who is really needing it remembering that the kindness was shown to me and my family.

I thought that you really couldn't blame the family for going back to their original city, but then I saw this:
The family said it wanted to resettle in Memphis.

After the church settled on Thompson, real estate agent Phillips helped her pick out the house she wanted, and it was bought in Thompson's name.
They picked the house themselves, too. Selling then doesn't seem particularly appreciative...

I thought that you really couldn't blame the family for going back to their original city, but then I saw this:
The family said it wanted to resettle in Memphis.

After the church settled on Thompson, real estate agent Phillips helped her pick out the house she wanted, and it was bought in Thompson's name.

They picked the house themselves, too. Selling then doesn't seem particularly appreciative...

eh, people change their minds. i know i wouldn't want to live in memphis.

Because they didn't use the house for an alternate purpose, such as being given a dog as a pet and then using it as life stock.

This is getting a house, and exchanging it for another house. Thus, like getting a dog and exchanging it for another dog.

In all honestly, this isn't all that different than getting a shirt that doesn't fit as a gift and exchanging it for one that does-no one seems outraged at that process.

Sure it was an alternate purpose.

"Would you like to live in this house?"
"Would I! Thanks!"

So long suckers.

I thought that you really couldn't blame the family for going back to their original city, but then I saw this:

They picked the house themselves, too. Selling then doesn't seem particularly appreciative...

Exactly. Morally, it's fraud.

Sure it was an alternate purpose.

"Would you like to live in this house?"
"Would I! Thanks!"

So long suckers.

I guess I'm just not seeing where the 'suckers' part comes in.

"We wanted them to have a house, and they got a house. Man, we got hosed."

I guess I'm just not seeing where the 'suckers' part comes in.

"We wanted them to have a house, and they got a house. Man, we got hosed."

hell, they can't even say that they wanted them to have this particular house, and only this particular house.

Sort of like Britney Spears.

Immoral? Not necessarily so.
Tacky? Absolutely.

Of course not. On so many levels.

They were given a gift. Once it's theirs, it's theirs to do with as they please.

The church tried to help them. The family, having sold the house, was helped tremendously by the church. Everyone got what they wanted.

I can't fathom why anyone would disagree with this.

That is what I would have basically said. ;)

I would say that the tackiness of it depends on how they notified the church. If they told the church up front that they didn't like the house and wanted to sell it and move, that would be fine. If they were rude about telling the church, or didn't tell them at all, then that's tacky.
I would liken this to the new shirt analogy that was mentioned earlier. If the recipient of the shirt said "Thank you, but it doesn't fit, so I need to exchange it" that would be fine. If the recipient said "It's ugly and not even fit to be used as toilet paper", it's tacky.

They're moving back to their old home and rebuilding their old lives. The act of charity was what eventually allowed them to do so and provided them with shelter in the meantime. I fail to see what's wrong with that. The church should be happy that their donation proved to have a positive effect on the lives of these people.

It would be good of the family, if they had money left over after moving back to their old home, to give some money back to the church, but they're not obligated to.

I would say that the tackiness of it depends on how they notified the church. If they told the church up front that they didn't like the house and wanted to sell it and move, that would be fine. If they were rude about telling the church, or didn't tell them at all, then that's tacky.
I would liken this to the new shirt analogy that was mentioned earlier. If the recipient of the shirt said "Thank you, but it doesn't fit, so I need to exchange it" that would be fine. If the recipient said "It's ugly and not even fit to be used as toilet paper", it's tacky.

I agree with this.