The Title Says it All

Last week, I mentioned a couple of cable reality shows that use housing and remodeling as their premise. There is another program that raises questions and has since its debut.

The idea for the show is to provide a deserving family a brand new house filled with everything any person could want. Often these people are in financial difficulty because they are underemployed and/or face debilitating medical expenses. In order to survive, the family let housing fall to the bottom of their needs list.

In earlier days, the builder often paid off any existing mortgage that burdened the family. Builders even provided college funds or paid off medical bills. That type of donation is noticeably missing from the series this year. Add higher insurance, utility and property tax bills for the new structure and one must wonder how the family will pay for the on-going costs of maintaining the huge house they win. Are any of these homes now in foreclosure? The answer, sadly, is yes.

Since the beginning, the program has provided more house than most of these people need or can maintain. The series ignores the adage “It’s not the cost – it’s the upkeep.” By flagrantly disregarding the future, what does this show communicate to those who watch it?

I do not begrudge these deserving people a new house but it would be nice to see this program cut back a bit. It can show us an amazing makeover each week and still provide the families with housing they can handle.

Responsible ownership plus concern for one’s neighbors and community is exactly what we need to survive today’s struggling economy and move into a future based on something other than greed. This show has two of these elements already. Add the third and it would be communicating a trio of values that will keep it a winner.

Part III next week.

Reality Missing in Real Estate Reality Shows

Television advertising feeds our desire for more of everything from cell phones to drugs. We expect that from commercials. It is the real estate reality shows found on cable television that currently confuse me most. In them, we are repeatedly exposed to houses and home improvements most of us cannot afford and do not really need.

Not long ago, I watched a program about first-time home buyers. A couple with no savings and one child fell in love with new construction that was the largest of the three houses that viewers saw them tour. It had everything – nearly three thousand square feet, four bedrooms, wood floors throughout, a high-end kitchen. The only thing missing was landscaping. There was none.

I looked forward to hearing their realtor explain to them the financial facts of life, helping them select a house they could afford. Instead, the realtor and the builder showed them how to finance 110% of the value of the house so they would have cash to pay for the move with a bit left over to buy a tree or two.

That program was followed by one that featured extensive kitchen and bath remodeling. Only top-of-the-line product was used and the family went into considerable debt to make their “dream” come true. Once again, the opportunity to educate was lost. Simple alternatives that would have saved the couple thousands of dollars were never mentioned. Instead, viewers repeatedly heard how creative financing made all this possible.

Hello! Buying what we cannot afford and creatively financing it in hopes that our property appreciates substantially or we never lose our jobs? Isn’t this a significant part of how we got ourselves into our current economic mess?

If there were follow-up programs, would these couples still own their homes? We’ll never know because bad endings are rarely shared with viewers. I assume sad endings are bad for ratings.

In general, these programs communicate a lot – including a total lack of responsibility on the part of the networks and the producers about the message they send to viewers. I realize these shows were taped months before they aired (or they were repeats), but televising them now without a disclaimer seems irresponsible.

Our current economy proves that we can’t have it all – contrary to what real estate-based programming is still trying to tell us.

Part II next week.