Yes, definitely smaller homes. And maybe recycle/reuse some of the oder home materials rather than completely demolish and trash? Or (gasp) renovate? It's nice to see the happy faces at the end of the show, but sometimes watching the whole hour makes me frustrated at the amount of wastefulness and extravagance.

I think part of the reason that Extreme Makeover is so successful - is because of the EXTREME part, the amazement of these families that are so deserving is what gives viewers that warm fuzzy feeling. Maybe it would be another opportunity for yet another endorsement of a financial advisor to help in the planning process and help figure out how much they currently pay, and how much they can pay, and help the family get on track.

While it is great to see the extreme homes I think it is insane to demolish and not re-use materials in the new home. Puttin families in a position that they can no longer afford their homes is actually a dis-service. Financial planning should absolutely be part of the deal.

I find this information very disturbing. I think the root of the answer lies in what ABC's actual purpose of the show is. It certainly seems to sell itself as a show that helps out family's in need, but if that were actually the case they would obviously assess what type of house the family could financially afford to sustain. The fact that there is a controversy at all seems to indicate to me that ABC's interest is inevitably for $$$ and that us viewers are being strung along under a guise of altruism.

The good news is that the viewers largely control the profit in the long run, so if people use their viewing power to demand Extreme Home Makeover actually practices what it preaches, it will be profitable for them to make the change.

when the show first started out they actual did just remodel the home & add on to it. i thought it was ridiculous the first time they totally demolished a home and rebuilt it. there's no reason for that unless the house is completely unsalvageable.

bethie wisely wrote:

"It. . .sell(s) itself as a show that helps out families in need, but. . .they (should). . .assess what type of house the family could financially afford to sustain."

Here, here! I agree.

It's nice when they pay off the mortgages, but they need some system in place to account for increased taxes and fees.

The show does provide assistance including financial planners who council the homeowners on good financial stewardship. The homeowners who had their house foreclosed on did meet with a financial planner provided free of charge by the show, they also received $$ for maintenance/taxes and had their mortgage paid off too (not by the show, by a third party). It's not the responsibility of the show if later down the road, the homeowners make poor financial decisions that put their home in danger.

The show does provide assistance including financial planners who council the homeowners on good financial stewardship. The homeowners who had their house foreclosed on did meet with a financial planner provided free of charge by the show, they also received $$ for maintenance/taxes and had their mortgage paid off too (not by the show, by a third party). It's not the responsibility of the show if later down the road, the homeowners make poor financial decisions that put their home in danger.

The show obviously tries to make every house they makeover a spectacle. Having smaller houses would be less grand and attract less viewers which is exactly what ABC and it's advertisers do not want. Like they'll ever change for the good of the people who actually need help.

"...ABC's interest is inevitably for $$$ and... viewers are being strung along under a guise of altruism."

Exactly. The primary purpose here is to make money and come off looking warm and fuzzy while doing so. They don't want to do anything practical that would actually solve serious problems. Because that's hard, and there's no instant gratification. I can think of a few other "charities" that's the same way. (*cough* make a wish *cough cough*)

I enjoyed this show so much more when they would just remodel or add onto the families' existing homes. Every time I watch the show now, I ask my husband how the family is going to afford that brand new huge house when they couldn't afford their tiny one before. It bothers me all the time.

i don't think that this is a black & white situation. i feel like part of what extreme home makeover does is give these families the space that they need to live comfortably - however i do think that they need to think and plan ahead to understand what the costs are. a lot of the new houses are being fully paid for by the builders so at least that's something nice that they are doing - paying off the mortgage, but if you have limited income and resources, the utilities etc are still costly and that's a hard thing. it's a double edged sword - and almost a no win.....

It's reasons like this that I don't watch these shows. Why give the network the ratings and reviews just so they can make some money of off other people?

Whenever I watch EM:HE I am always puzzled not by the size of the home itself, but rather the size and style of the home in comparison to the its current neighborhood. From one side you can look at these homes and say it doesn't fit - here's this really big, gorgeous home in the middle of the ghetto. Does that make sense? For some no, but in reality this one big home automatically increases the property value of all the other homes in the neighborhood ... you then could say EM:HD is making a difference not just for one particular family, but for the neighboring community as a whole. It's all perspective.

As for the family in Atlanta - well I'm from Atlanta and this family's story quite simply, irks me. This family is not losing their home as a result of financial hardship associated with owning a home that is ten times bigger than their old home; this family is losing there home as a result of poor financial decisions. Like many EM homes, their mortgage was paid off and this is the biggest expense that any of us face when owning a home. So, the bottom line is that they shouldn't owe any money to the bank, they shouldn't be in this situation. Unfortunately, they chose to use that home as collateral for a home equity loan of $400,000 to open a construction company; and $400,000 is certainly above their means. Why did they think that simply owning a home would float them in the boat of someone who is able to afford the amount of money it takes to sustain a $400,000 loan? Do they know that starting a construction company should cost nowhere near $400,000 (unless your big time and he wanted to be residential small)? Do they know that the real estate market is um shaky today?

Okay, tangent over. I feel the pain of the family, I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing, but maybe they should've hired a consultant with that money. I'm just saying.

As for the other families, why should EM have to reevaluate? I believe EM gives these families great homes that they raise their families, be happy and healthy in. Why lose site of their intentions? I just think it all goes back to being smart about what you are given. If you aren't able to manage the costs associated with the upkeep of your new home, then sell - take the money you make off the sale of that home to downsize - buy a nice, affordable home that you can manage and use the remaining equity to put your kids into college, pay off your own student loans, pay your medical bills or take a vacation.

Anyway, that's my two cents (or three or four).

I used to watch this show always thinking that they could build atleast 10 modest homes for the amount they put into the 1 mega-home of the week. It would be a much more sensible way to use the idea, although it may not make as good of a TV show.

This is something that always concerned me about the show. Imean it's great to see them build these majestic homes for needy families but most of these people are not making big bucks that's why they were in their situations to begin with. SO you give them ahuge house with all these gadgets and there is such an increase in maintenence costs that they can't afford it. It seems like they could be given really nice affordable homes without all the super duper bells and whistles that they could actually afford to keep up

I've always thought that the EXTREME homes they build for people may be too EXTREME for their budgets.

I think you should qualify your candidates according to their likely or unlikely ability to prolonged homeowner success. I would love to get the opportunity to be recipient of your wonderful work. However, I would definitely prefer a smaller home I could feel confident I could continue meeting the financial challenges on a long term basis. Therefore, your chosen recipient's past and present financial situation and his/her future financial potential should be thoroughly assessed prior to your service commitment and the size of the home should be adjusted according to the result of the assessment. This would be in the best interest of the recipient, as well as your wonderful program.
I would be qualified and and interested to assist you in this task.
E-mail me if you would like to further discuss how I could contribute to your great program.

Since a lot of the problem with people losing their home is due to budgetary mismanagement, largely due to simply a lack of knowledge, your services should come with a financial management class and a consultant available for future financial choices. This could become another part of your programming, which in turn can be interesting and educational for many of your audience.

I've always thought that...why build a house in the ghetto. I wonder is it going to get broken into or something, because they show every single detail and the floor plan. And the mortgage sometimes gets paid off, but hardly ever. I know the taxes are raised because the insurance has to be raised and the reassessment will increase the value = higher taxes...the payment goes even higher than it was before. I don't know how they stay in it. Not to mention, who are they going to sell it to in mostly bad neighborhoods. They mean well, but a more modest house should be built. At least then they could help more people.

I meant a *mansion...in the ghetto.

I LOVE this show...the concept has helped create a new way for us to start looking at ways to pay it forward for those in need/heroes who have helped others/us.

I think ABC has the right idea, AND has to look at each situation. I know they provide financial counseling and some are palaces, some are nice upgrades and some are high tech medical assistance houses. NO ONE does this without saying YES to the help from the show. And if what the team/ABC wants to do is of concern, unaffordable, etc it should be dealt with first. Yes, there are times where the mortgage being paid off is mentioned on the show...figuring the costs to run a new grander house has to be dealt with on the chosen families incomes. So ABC/families chosen do have to work out what they do and can afford for projects. Remember, some of these also include businesses that do incredible work.

You should do some fact checking before you sour on ABC/EXHM. Any company PAYS to have their name on the show, not the families. Donations are made by so many parties in these scenarios, from the towns, to the builders, contractors, furniture companies. A luxury home doesn't just pop up-there are donations and kindness and financial contributions every step of the way....don't trash the concept...I saw the couple who were foreclosing and the husband admitted his refinancing the house several times over and helping his children were his values he made emotional financial decisions on that cost them the house. The wife and he were not in agreement and had to decide how to fix their situation. Anyone who cannot afford their house has to find their own solutions that are available. Whether they got their house through EHM or on their own, they chose to use the huge amount of equity in the house (just like regular folks do who can't afford it who didn't have ABC build them a house). People make these decisions. Not ABC

We have had pretty tough times. Laid off and had to sell our dream house at a loss to avoid foreclosure. We all have to tighten our belts and stop whining and looking for someone else to "blame". We have to watch those who are "in charge" of our money and WE need to be in charge of our own money better! Yes, there are some things not our "faults", but fixing it is and asking for help from and with each other is better for our country. The Depression taught that generation how to do with little, make do, and HELP OTHERS! No, I won't trash EHM/ABC because times are hard....

We can't suddenly go looking for bad situations in these times-how cynical!!! We need to do more of this idea-I do now. If you are aware of someone losing their job, house, etc....what are YOU doing to help? Everyone can do alittle something to alot of something (if you'll give up your massive new mansions, luxury vehicles and high luxury lifestyles...)

What about the woman who just bought a foreclosed house and is giving it back to the owner-a stranger to her, just because it's the right thing to do...

So, don't trash ABC/Extreme Home Makeover in these times...they started a GOOD thing and we just want to go sour on anything good right now because things are tough right now...

I know that this show will continue to be "socially responsible" and should continue the show in whatever format/level fits the times and families. You may as well go on to lottery winners who go south and lose everything-any prize winners...taking it is always a choice.

Maybe we should look AGAIN at how our country tries to make a profit in any way it can....case in point, these EHM homes and upping the taxes, insurances, utility bills so that you all can say, see-helping people doesn't work! It doesn't work because we're GREEDY!!

And THAT is why we all are in the shape we are right now-the profits on credit/mortgages/investing are just the beginning of greed gone amuck-SO VOTE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that what they do is great. but I do think that they should design homes that are affordable and allow costs to remain low especially since a lot of the families seem to be cash straped.

The concept is a great one but it doesn't provide the means or income to face the economic obligations. Also, many of these homes were supposed to be energy efficient but are ending up being energy gluttons. Others have serious construction related problems. I think ABC needs to assure all that is taken care of. More information on the Navajo, Yazzie home: http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/makeover-house-needs-makeover.html

"Something Else" - sometimes these families actually need a bigger house. BUT the finances of the family should be taken into consideration and a finance/size appropriate home should be the goal...one the family can afford to maintain long after the trailers and cheering neighbors get off the front lawn.