I am watching the show now. Tonight’s episode features a family that is living well below the poverty level as is common for the show. Their old house was around 900 sq ft and falling apart around them.
Thanks to Ty and Co., they now have a huge house (around 4500 sq ft) with all the amenities you could ask for - including their own football field.
All this is great on the surface. Dig a little deeper and you have loads of new expenses that quite possibly far exceed the expenses associated with their old home. Insane property taxes, maintenance fees, and a possible security system (especially for higher crime neighborhoods), are all new issues for the family to deal with.
What do these families do to deal with all this? I’ve seen episodes where the construction company pays off the mortgage or sets up scholarship funds for the kids, but what about the new day-to-day or even month-to-month expenses associated with keeping up a new comparatively huge house?
I’ve read your OP, and for right now I’m comfortable with it in General Questions, even though it involves a TV show. Your basic questions are just fine for this forum.
If we don’t get enough responses by tomorrow I’ll move it.
And, there’s always the possibility that another GQ mod may decide to move it. We’re actually individuals, not robots. (But our jackboots all come from the same factory, are the same color, and have identical surface areas for quashing descension. )
I’ve wondered this myself, to include those who had physical makeovers. Perhaps the producers are anticipating a new round of reality shows based on “where are they now”. I think all reality show suck.
Thanks for popping in, samclem. I wasn’t quite sure where this would fit best.
Personally, I am a total sucker for most realty shows, especially these warm and fuzzy types.
The original Extreme Makeover where they did loads of plastic surgery had mini updates each week on the previous week’s patients. I would love to see that sort of update on this show.
Apparently newsweek covered this back in 2004. I saw reference to it on another site. They reported that ABC helps the family get around the taxes on “winnings” by treating the site as a short-term rental, just like they’d pay you if they rented your property for a movie shoot. The tax code exempts rental income for rentals of less than 15 days, so that “income” is tax free. Any improvements made by tenants are not considered income to the landlord. The items that are just goods (not improvements) which might be considered “winnings” (such as the furniture, home electronics, etc) are treated as part of the rent and their value subtracted from the amount named. Presumably there are some leftover funds that can go towards property taxes.
Whether this is holding up to scrutiny from the IRS is one question.
The homeowners have the thing free and clear at the end of the show, as I understand it. Even with low income and poor credit, would the value of the home smooth the way towards getting a mortgage on it?
I’ve also seen at least one family where part of the deal was that the show picked up the property taxes for X years and some other expenses. However, I’m pretty sure I read a newspaper story a year or two ago about some family that had exactly the kinds of issues mentioned in the OP - higher taxes, higher electrical bills, etc. I also wonder if they have to sign a contract that says they won’t sell the house for a certain period of time.
What I really wonder about is what state of repair some of those houses are in, now that the families have lived in them for a few years. Because often when I watch the show it strikes me that the awful conditions the people are living in are often of their own making - the houses are wrecks because they lack even rudimentary care and maintenance. Holes kicked in walls, basic plumbing that doesn’t work, filth everywhere… You can take those people and put them in a beautiful mansion, but once the cameras are gone they just have that much more space to have to take care of. If they didn’t properly care for the old smaller home, how are they possibly going to care for the new, larger, more complex one?
I think that the discounted sociological “Broken Windows” theory may have some application among individuals. I’ve experienced a phenomenon along those lines myself.
Back when my husband and I fist married, we lived in a workplace-provided house. It was sort of dingy, small and uncomfortable. I never liked that house and I sort of neglected it. We never lived in filth, but I was a bit lax with the way the place looked.
Later, we bought a lovely home of our own. I take much better care of the place because it’s pretty and I want it to look nice. I almost feel like I “owe” it to the house to keep it neat and well-maintained.
I think what happens to a lot of people is that they get a little depressed by their surroundings and overwhelmed by all that needs done. They really don’t feel like doing anything because they know that at the end of all of their efforts, they’re still not going to like where they live.
You’ve also got to realize that home repairs, even minor ones are daunting to a lot of people. Filling a hole in the wall or repainting a room is a breeze to me-- I’ve done it many times. But a lot of people are intimidated by the very notion. They don’t realize how simple it really is and may imagine it taking lots of time, specialized knowledge and supplies they can’t afford. When you add that to the depressive learned-helplessness, many people don’t even want to investigate it.
I also just think some people are bad stewards of their posessions. I have a friend who always manages to completely trash his vehicle within a couple of years of buying it. Somehow, it gets dented up, pieces fall off it, it’s filthy, starts to rust, etc. He never does any scheduled maintenance or service, so the engine winds up running on dirty oil or too little oil, the tires get wrecked because they aren’t properly inflated, the interior is always full of junk and winds up getting stained… Within five years the thing’s a piece of junk and almost has to be scrapped. I don’t know if he realizes how much his lazy car-care costs him, but it’s a lot. Thousands per year, probably.
I think there are a lot of people like this - they simply don’t care for the things they own.
True. You also have to consider that it’s hard to keep a small space clean. If you have no closet space, it is hard to put things away and stay organized. Our tiny apartment was much more difficult to keep clean than our 2300 sf house, and we don’t have kids adding to the equation. I think if I lived in a run-down house and had kids, I would not especially care whether they had their rooms cleaned or whatnot, but it might matter to me living somewhere nice.
As for the OP, one show I watched build the new house with solar energy, super insulation, etc, and claimed that the energy costs would actually be lower in the new house than the old (the old house in that episode was pretty well kept, btw, just too small). But I do think it’s kind of silly to build a small mansion in the middle of a ghetto. It would make a lot more sense to just build the new house in a better neighborhood and donate the old one to whoever can use it rather than tearing it down. Or, if it can’t be saved, tear it down and put in some sort of community park or whatever. On the other hand, a mansion in the ghetto has pretty low market value, so maybe it discourages people trying to sell the house after it’s built.
Another thing I’ve wondered about is why be so “extreme”? It seems so jarring for one family to go from abject poverty to fabulous home. I realize that’s the whole premise of the show, but I’d be happier to see them build five families solid, but modest houses instead of one family getting some monstrosity.
Monstrosities give great TV ratings. Besides, if the homeowners end up neglecting the house, the resulting decay will make a great story for a network news magazine. The key is to think long term and milk the story in both directions.
Not exactly on topic for the show, but very close: the winners of HGTV’s Dream Homes tend to sell them rather than pay the property taxes. The article says that 8 of 10 winners have sold the houses (which are worth in the millions of bucks) rather than live in them.
)