2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift

[2sisters]

How do you know any of this? I.e., how do you know what the recipients "planned all along"? How do you know they thought it "wasn't enough"? How is their use of this gift different than your use of gifts you have no use for?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

I do not know for a fact. I never said any of my post was factual, I thought that was clear. I am familar with things like this b/c I live down here and have seen it every day since Katrina.

 

[Nova]

I do not know for a fact. I never said any of my post was factual, I thought that was clear. I am familar with things like this b/c I live down here and have seen it every day since Katrina.

2, I understood that you were drawing conclusions based on reports. I was just wondering what where the bases for those conclusions.

I doubt that "most" recipients of post-Katrina aid are ungrateful, but of course some are and those are considered "news."

 

[czechmate7]

I don't think you were unclear, Czech. I knew you were expressing an opinion, I was just trying to understand how you formed that opinion.

I've formed my opinion on the facts supplied through the newspaper and TV video I've seen.

If this is indeed a case of fundamental misrepresentation (as your examples suggest), then sign me up for the "these folks are scum" position

You said it, not me!!

What was interesting to me was whether the recipients were ethically obligated to live up to the donors' expectations. I'm still not sure that exchanging this house for another is fundamentally different from exchanging a sweater that doesn't fit.

I enjoy your sweater scenerios...they make me chuckle.
Anyway here is my take on it:

Your Aunt wants to buy you a sweater as a gift because you have NO clothes on your back. You go to the store and pick out the very sweater you want:dance: . Your Aunt buys you the sweater you have picked out (because she loves you and she's a great person:blowkiss: ). If she bought you the sweater YOU have chosen, why would you bring it back? Especially if you don't have a stitch of clothes on your back?

 

[windovervocalcords]

I've formed my opinion on the facts supplied through the newspaper and TV video I've seen.

You said it, not me!!

I enjoy your sweater scenerios...they make me chuckle.
Anyway here is my take on it:

Your Aunt wants to buy you a sweater as a gift because you have NO clothes on your back. You go to the store and pick out the very sweater you want:dance: . Your Aunt buys you the sweater you have picked out (because she loves you and she's a great person:blowkiss: ). If she bought you the sweater YOU have chosen, why would you bring it back? Especially if you don't have a stitch of clothes on your back?

Because you had the opportunity to get a sweater that met your needs even better, maybe it fits over your whole naked body.

 

[czechmate7]

Because you had the opportunity to get a sweater that met your needs even better, maybe it fits over your whole naked body.

So you would keep the sweater for 7 months w/o putting it on (you would not have a stitch of clothes on for 7 months...so you claim) before you decide it doesn't meet your needs??...This is where my common sense kicks in!! What are you doing for that 7 months that you aren't wearing a sweater before you decide you need a better one then the one you aren't even wearing?

 

[windovervocalcords]

So you would keep the sweater for 7 months w/o putting it on (you would not have a stitch of clothes on for 7 months...so you claim) then decide it doesn't meet your needs and get a better one that suited your needs better??

Hey, is it my sweater or not?

 

[czechmate7]

Hey, is it my sweater or not?

Yes, it is...but you claim to really, really need it and you aren't even wearing it....what up?
Now, 20 others who would have benefited from the sweater are still walking around w/o clothes on their backs, while you have the sweater sitting in your car trunk.

 

[tybee204]

IMO this is no different then the panhandlers that tell you they need money for diapers and formula and when you get suckered into helping them they go buy booze and cigerettes instead.

The sad part is that its likely alot of families sacrificed their own needs to help these folks and got taken by the grifters.

 

[windovervocalcords]

IMO this is no different then the panhandlers that tell you they need money for diapers and formula and when you get suckered into helping them they go buy booze and cigerettes instead.

The sad part is that its likely alot of families sacrificed their own needs to help these folks and got taken by the grifters.

If it turns out they spend the money on dope you are right. If they buy a house in NO what is the problem?

 

[czechmate7]

If it turns out they spend the money on dope you are right. If they buy a house in NO what is the problem?

Do we know if they actually bought a house in NO w/the money??? Not that it matters...but what if they are a bunch of drug addicts and are spending the proceeds on drugs, designer clothes and fancy cars?? Does that change your outlook?

 

[tybee204]

Because those sacrificing and donating didnt offer a cash gift to buy a house in New Orleans. If the recipients didnt want the gift offered they should have passed on the gift and left it for a family that did want it.
IMO they ran a scam.

 

[windovervocalcords]

Do we know if they actually bought a house in NO w/the money??? Not that it matters...but what if they are a bunch of drug addicts and are spending the proceeds on drugs, designer clothes and fancy cars?? Does that change your outlook?

Yes it does. There is not enough information yet.

 

[Montana]

One of the articles posted stated that the family is currently living in an apartment. (Sorry, I don't have time right now to search for the article but will try later.) The fact that they never lived in the house is very telling. I seriously doubt that they decided to reside in a FEMA trailor instead of moving into the house. They probably had adequate housing of some sort. Combine the above with their behavior on the video and it certainly appears that they were running a scam. If they were, that is despicable.

Regards,

Montana

 

[Nova]

I've formed my opinion on the facts supplied through the newspaper and TV video I've seen.

Same as the rest of us, czech, of course. I meant which facts did you find relevant, but you've answered that as well. Thanks.

Your Aunt wants to buy you a sweater as a gift because you have NO clothes on your back. You go to the store and pick out the very sweater you want:dance: . Your Aunt buys you the sweater you have picked out (because she loves you and she's a great person:blowkiss: ). If she bought you the sweater YOU have chosen, why would you bring it back? Especially if you don't have a stitch of clothes on your back?

Well put. You've done a good job of demonstrating the limits of my sweater analogy. But...

What if you realized you could get two shirts for the price of one sweater and your kid was naked as well? Wouldn't we applaud you for giving up a comfy sweater so your kid could have a shirt?

What if your kids had clothes, but when you got home with your sweater you realized you had made a terrible fashion mistake? Do you have to wear the sweater you now realize is hideous, or can you exchange it for another one?

I certainly understand it is possible the recipients of the house perpetrated a scam and I realize they made a terrible impression in the video. But are still more facts we don't know than facts we do.

 

[czechmate7]

Same as the rest of us, czech, of course. I meant which facts did you find relevant, but you've answered that as well. Thanks.



Well put. You've done a good job of demonstrating the limits of my sweater analogy. But...

What if you realized you could get two shirts for the price of one sweater and your kid was naked as well? Wouldn't we applaud you for giving up a comfy sweater so your kid could have a shirt?

What if your kids had clothes, but when you got home with your sweater you realized you had made a terrible fashion mistake? Do you have to wear the sweater you now realize is hideous, or can you exchange it for another one?

I certainly understand it is possible the recipients of the house perpetrated a scam and I realize they made a terrible impression in the video. But are still more facts we don't know than facts we do.

Oh no, must I now incorporate "shirts" in as well???? LOL....
To answer your question, IMO (<~i've learned I MUST throw this in every post!!) the sweater may be hideous to you...but someone else would love to own it....The fact is you never even wore the comfy sweater to begin with...it sat in your car trunk for 7 months...Does this mean you and your kids went naked that whole time?:waitasec:

And as Tybee nicely put it....the church was not offering cash to buy a house in NO.

 

[Details]

To me, it all depends what was being given. Were they giving a homeless Katrina family a place to live? Or were they offering a Katrina family a chance to join their community? If they're just giving a place to live, it shouldn't matter that they exchange one house for another (if they do that - or if they use the profits from selling the house to finance an apartment for a few decades). If they were really offering a place in their community, then leaving is refusing the gift.


For another analogy - let's say I know you need a place to stay, for a month, so I offer you a hotel room. And, you sell it, and go somewhere else. How I feel about that depends on whether I just paid a hotel for a room for you, or I cleaned up my guest room, and was offering you entry into my house. If I'm expecting to bring you into my home, and instead you send a stranger, then I'm pretty upset. But if I didn't make that plain, and only said that I had a place for you to stay - then I can see it being the unfashionable sweater.


But - these people do seem like scam artists, like they presented themselves as something other than what they were.

 

[czechmate7]

I read in an article that this couple lived in a hotel room courtesy of FEMA until FEMA cut off funds then sold the home (7 months later) and moved back to NO. Doesn't look like they ever had the intention of moving into the home.

Also, there were 50 other families that were seeking this offer from the church.

 

[windovervocalcords]

I read in an article that this couple lived in a hotel room courtesy of FEMA until FEMA cut off funds then sold the home (7 months later) and moved back to NO. Doesn't look like they ever had the intention of moving into the home.

Also, there were 50 other families that were seeking this offer from the church.

Even if it turns out this couple ran a scam what is of most benefit? The Church members concentrating on being ripped off victims? Would it be of greater benefit to to examine their assumptions about generosity and use the experience to get clearer on what they intend to do in the future?

Was the house offered with or without strings? It appears to have been offered with strings. The community regrets their generosity and that is most unfortunate.

The Church screened this couple over the 50 other families that applied. Why? That in itself is worth a look at. What was it this couple appeared to have over the other 49 families?

I heard it said they presented themselves as "humble". Why were the other families rejected?

All I am saying is there is a way to take this loss and turn it on its head and really grow stronger by examining it from the basis of all the assumptions that went into the charity.

It is a wonderful project this Church sponsored. I only wish for them that their generosity be increased tenfold--even a hundredfold. That can happen more by taking the higher road with this loss IMO.

By having positive wishes for this couple's happiness even if they are so negative as to have run a ripoff scam will only increase the Church members positive qualities.

If this couple ran a scam due to being negative they do so because they are deluded into thinking they can only be happy by ripping someone off. They would not be ripping people off (and I am still not convinced completely that this is what happened) then if they were truly happy there would be no need to steal.

 

[Melisinde]

Again, not sure what the particular law is where this house is. (Man, that's a terrible sentence but I'm way tired so I hope everyone can understand it.) Something interesting came up in my real estate class last night though. We were reviewing mortgages and deeds. I don't remember what part of the mortgage or note it is (I can look it up later) but somewhere, you make a declaration that YOU WILL BE INHABITING THE PROPERTY. I wonder if, when she signed the promissory note/mortgage, there was a clause stating they had to live in it.

Regardless of how this turns out, they lied about something. In the interview, they show the deed shows Ms. X (forget her name, too lazy to look), A SINGLE UNMARRIED WOMAN. The camera crew asks the guy why his "wife" would list herself as an unmarried woman and he has no answer. Either they're married or they're not. To the best of my knowledge, you cannot change your marital status on your real estate just because you want to do so.

 

[czechmate7]

Was the house offered with or without strings? It appears to have been offered with strings. The community regrets their generosity and that is most unfortunate.

I don't think the community regrets their generosity; they regret their generosity was wasted on these ungrateful, IMO scam artist.

Also, I believe what this couple had that the other 49 didn't was a pack of deceitful lies IMO, of course!