View Full Version : Rommey Bulldozing his 12 million dollar home.
Mit Rommey is bulldozing his 12 million dollar 3000 sq foot home in California because it is not big enough. He is replacing it with an 11,000 sq foot monster.
What does someone with money to burn know about the needs of the average middle class American. I think he can kiss his presidential hopes goodbye.
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/08/22/mitt-romney-my-3-000-square-foot-house-isnt-big-enough/
Greedy bastard!! For some people they just have higher standards than others - there is a lot of pressure to present a "certain image" to friends and family. I think most would like to earn just the property tax on such a place!
Peace
Sounds like he's personally boosting California's employment figures in the Construction trade. Well Done Mit!!
I thought the idea was that your kids would grow up have families and then you could downsize so there would be no excuse for your kids families to move back in with you. Just the thought of 26 people coming to visit (5 grown children with spouses and 16 grandkids) for a weekend or extended stay is a little too much for me.
I think is shows great foresight to ready the western White House at this early juncture. It will probably take right up to the inauguration to get the new place ready. Mitt is plenty sharp enough to know that you can't host the Sarkozys, or God forbid the Windsors, in a mere 3,000 sq.ft. track shack.
He sounds like someone who would well know what it's like to be working class in this country. Not.
When he has a housewarming party in his new place, I wonder how many of the people he invites will be corporations?
Wow, you all are pretty hard on ole Mitt. The last time I checked I have never been employed by a poor person!
He is spending money, employing construction workers - so he has a larger home for his kids to come home with their grandchildren! Who I am sure will love coming over to grandpa/mas who live on the beach.
Yes, he is rich, so what. He also is a very generous man, with a good family - why would we diss him for his success.
I just read an interview with a family friend who also speaks of Mitt's frugality. He does his own yardwork and housework!
treehugger
8-22-11, 6:02pm
I just read an interview with a family friend who also speaks of Mitt's frugality. He does his own yardwork and housework!
That's horrible! He should be employing someone to do house and yard work; he's cheating decent Americans out of jobs!
OK, I am kidding. Presidential candidates are in trouble no matter what they do. Goodness knows why someone would want to run. You can't win even if you win!
Kara
Mitt must be one heck of a housekeeper -- I have trouble keeping up with just under 2,000 sq. feet!
Mitt must be one heck of a housekeeper -- I have trouble keeping up with just under 2,000 sq. feet! ...I imagine it is a family affair! From what I have read, he is sort of like Reagan/Bush who liked to unwind by working around the property.
It was something that was taught to him while he was young -- even though his dad was the President of American Motors, Mitt had to work for his spending $$. Good work ethic from a young age.
Hey, maybe that is what he can use all the grandkids for. "okay kids before we head to the beach, lets [fill in the blank] for we all know many hands make light work!"
I can't imagine they will be able to keep up with a 12,000 sq ft home on their own, with him on the road and his wife has MS. One reason they have decided to stay in CA, the warmer weather feels better for her MS...so I have read.
Wow, you all are pretty hard on ole Mitt. The last time I checked I have never been employed by a poor person!
He is spending money, employing construction workers - so he has a larger home for his kids to come home with their grandchildren! Who I am sure will love coming over to grandpa/mas who live on the beach.
Yes, he is rich, so what. He also is a very generous man, with a good family - why would we diss him for his success.
I just read an interview with a family friend who also speaks of Mitt's frugality. He does his own yardwork and housework!
But he's a Republican!! And a rich Republican at that!
Ergo, he's a greedy, materialistic, pampered, "bastard".
Circular reasoning I know, but there ya go.
But he's a Mormon!! Republicans think that if Mormons didn’t want to be confused with Muslims, they would have named themselves something else, like maybe … I dunno, Presbyterians. :laff:
I guess the simple logic is that "if he is a Republican then he will probably get my vote" now that is scary - imagine the present possibilities.
Come on, most Americans are somewhat suspicious of someone that bulldozes a perfectly good mansion in favor of a bigger mansion - it is just not our culture.
I will admit that of all the GOP candidates committed so far and even those thinking about it (Palin) I find " Brother Mitt" the least objectionable. I wonder if he inhaled or exhaled?
Peace
I don't have a problem with it, but the timing seems pretty clueless.
Have to agree with Gregg that he probably is getting the Western White House ready. Sounds like "measuring the drapes" to me.
"Come on, most Americans are somewhat suspicious of someone that bulldozes a perfectly good mansion in favor of a bigger mansion - it is just not our culture."
I wouldn't call 3,000 sq ft a mansion...but I think he got took if he paid 12 mil. It would have to be a great location. I have some friends who just sold their deceased father's home in Beverly Hills* for 3.5 mil. And the new owners were going to do the same thing. It was prime location, but old plumbing, old wiring, and leaking natural gas lines!
*They kept the ones in Sun Valley ID, and Palm Springs -- I guess just for memory sakes!! *sigh*
iris lily
8-22-11, 10:16pm
AGreed, I don't like the timing at all. But the event itself, not a big deal. 3,000 sq ft isn't exactly a mansion.
Zigzagman
8-22-11, 10:58pm
I wouldn't call 3,000 sq ft a mansionAre you guys home schooled?
The point was that Mr. Magic Underwear was tearing down a perfectly good beach front property and replacing it with the "Biltmore". Who really cares if it was 4000, 10,000, or ever 50,000 sq. ft. The point of the OP was that one of the leading GOP candidates is in a "totally nuther world" from most of us peons and that makes him a gumba!!Splat!
Peace
wow! The hypocrisy is running pretty rampant now! So, if this were, say, Al Gore, you all wouldn't have a bit of problem with it? Wouldn't be going on and on and on about his pampered life and rich lifestyle? How about the President wanting to take, oh say, 9 days vacation with his family. No problem there huh? Sorry, the credibility of some is kind of thin here.
Personally I have no problem with it. He is a rich man and we all know that. I certainly don't expect him to wear sack cloth and live in a cardboard box! I do expect him to pay his fair share in taxes, including capitol gains tax, which is a large part of his income. If anyone changes their vote because of this, well, one, they are stupid, and two, they weren't going to vote for him anyway.
My only question is, if a 3000 sq. ft. home costs 12 mil, then what is he paying for an 11,000 sq ft home? Wow, if only I had the privilege of paying taxes on that sum.....!
wow! The hypocrisy is running pretty rampant now! So, if this were, say, Al Gore, you all wouldn't have a bit of problem with it? Wouldn't be going on and on and on about his pampered life and rich lifestyle?
No, we all had fun at Al Gore's expense when he bought the $9M house in California a couple of years ago, but that was mostly because of the environmental impact of his homes. Secondarily, it was particularly sweet when it turned out to be a necessary expenditure since Tipper kicked him out a short time later.
How about the President wanting to take, oh say, 9 days vacation with his family. No problem there huh? Sorry, the credibility of some is kind of thin here.
I'm not sure there's been any discussion about the president's vacation on these forums. Did I miss something that strains someone's credulity?
My only question is, if a 3000 sq. ft. home costs 12 mil, then what is he paying for an 11,000 sq ft home?
The house had little value of it's own. It's the property that brought the big bucks.
Zigzagman
8-22-11, 11:21pm
I love it when we defend the rich and famous as if we will ever be there!! Ya gotta love us "white folks"!
Peace
I wouldn't call 3,000 sq ft a mansion...
Neither would I. My house is closer to 4,000 sq ft, if you count the finished lower level, and it's certainly not a mansion. Just your standard variety brick ranch, sort of like the one in the photos in the OP's link, only newer.
I love it when we defend the rich and famous as if we will ever be there!! Ya gotta love us "white folks"!
Peace
What do "white folks" have to do with it?
HappyHiker
8-22-11, 11:57pm
Do you think it's rue, that only the uber-rich can get elected to the Presidency because it takes the big bucks to get elected?
Mangano's Gold
8-23-11, 12:00am
Dang, these Republican candidates have a lot of kids!
I'm not going to criticize Mr. Romney over this. Now the John Edwards mansion? That was worthy of scorn.
HappyHiker
8-23-11, 12:03am
This is so far from my frame of reference that it makes no sense to apply any energy to it...
Zigzagman
8-23-11, 12:08am
Do you think it's rue, that only the uber-rich can get elected to the Presidency because it takes the big bucks to get elected?
I don't think so - just looking t the last few Presidents, Bush II , Clinton, Bush I, Ronald Reagon, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Tricky Dicky Nixon - none of these people were what I would call uber-rich. It takes a lot of money to be elected President but in most cases it comes from the kindness of strangers. In the case of the big donors they usually get special privileges and appointments.
Peace
iris lily
8-23-11, 12:41am
Most of the houses in my Victorian neighborhood are at least 3,000 sq ft. Now, that is more house than I want, but that's just me.
What is Rommey doing about reducing the over population of the earth besides building an 11,000 sq foot house for his extra large family.
Come on, most Americans are somewhat suspicious of someone that bulldozes a perfectly good mansion in favor of a bigger mansion - it is just not our culture.
But it is coastal California culture. This is what happens in almost every high-end community here. These ocean front lots were some of the first areas developed decades ago, and when the super rich buy them (the only people who can afford them), it is standard to simply bulldoze them and rebuild what you want. In other words, they are buying the land/location, not the house that happens to be on it. Most of the prime lots in cities over-looking the ocean have houses on them already.
I saw a picture of the house and would not describe it as a mansion, but rather a nice early California house built next to the beach. And out here 3,000 feet is not that large in high-end areas. I would guess anyone who had the $12mill to purchase it would have dozed it. That's just what happens to old houses on prime lots out here.
The guy is rich. He's just doing what rich people do. His timing may not be the best however.
Disclaimer: I am not a Romney supporter. ;)
It also shows the big difference in the so called income gap. Most people can hardly afford a home let alone buy a 11 million dollar house/lot to tear it down and build a new house. Many money managers who's income primarily comes from capital gains pay federal taxes at a 15% rate that is less than many working stiffs who pay at a 20 or 25% rate and they sure can not afford an 11 million dollar house.
As far as I know Mitt never made any bones about being rich. Good for him. On to something that matters...
poetry_writer
8-23-11, 12:24pm
Who the hell cares. I dont care if he pushes his house in the ocean. It is HIS house. I care about our economy, jobs, healthcare and hopefully we can get a president next time around who cares about such things. What he does with his house is his business. What he does with his house doesnt indicate what he would do with our country, if elected. So much nonsense gets tossed around at election time.
poetry_writer
8-23-11, 12:25pm
I love it when we defend the rich and famous as if we will ever be there!! Ya gotta love us "white folks"!
Peace
What white folks? Your comment is weird
Who the hell cares. I dont care if he pushes his house in the ocean. It is HIS house. I care about our economy, jobs, healthcare and hopefully we can get a president next time around who cares about such things. What he does with his house is his business. What he does with his house doesnt indicate what he would do with our country, if elected. So much nonsense gets tossed around at election time.
Well said.
I don't think so - just looking t the last few Presidents, Bush II , Clinton, Bush I, Ronald Reagon, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Tricky Dicky Nixon - none of these people were what I would call uber-rich. It takes a lot of money to be elected President but in most cases it comes from the kindness of strangers. In the case of the big donors they usually get special privileges and appointments.
Peace
They're not strangers when they donate the money. At that time their BFF's like Kenny-Boy Lay was to Bush. It's only after they get caught breaking the law that they become strangers.
Sounds like he's personally boosting California's employment figures in the Construction trade.
9/11 did the same thing for NYC. That's the problem with the current system of GDP measurement. Destruction in the form of activities such as this, as well as wars, serial killers, car accidents, suicides, etc., are counted on the plus side of the economic equation. It's a pretty crude way to measure.
9/11 did the same thing for NYC. That's the problem with the current system of GDP measurement. Destruction in the form of activities such as this, as well as wars, serial killers, car accidents, suicides, etc., are counted on the plus side of the economic equation. It's a pretty crude way to measure.
By that reasoning, I guess you could also say that updating things such as critical infrastructure and technology, replacing old with new, would be the same thing. But somehow I think we'd be hard pressed getting people to think of that as 'destruction".
I get your meaning though. Paul Krugman recently said that we could use an alien invasion (http://moneyland.time.com/2011/08/16/paul-krugman-an-alien-invasion-could-fix-the-economy/)to improve the economy. Now that would be destructive.
There are other measures of well-being, and of positive economic growth.
There are other measures of well-being, and of positive economic growth.
One of the great features of capitalism and the free market is the voluntary transfer of wealth from one entity to another. Governor Romney will single handedly hand over millions of dollars from his personal fortune to various suppliers, tradesmen and laborers in California, and unlike the governmental "spread the wealth" programs that everyone seems to be so enamored with, in this case, it's voluntary and everyone gets something of value on both sides of the equation.
Frankly, I can't see the down side to that.
Mangano's Gold
8-28-11, 11:02pm
One of the great features of capitalism and the free market is the voluntary transfer of wealth from one entity to another. Governor Romney will single handedly hand over millions of dollars from his personal fortune to various suppliers, tradesmen and laborers in California, and unlike the governmental "spread the wealth" programs that everyone seems to be so enamored with, in this case, it's voluntary and everyone gets something of value on both sides of the equation.
Frankly, I can't see the down side to that.
I almost hate to comingle threads, but since we are talking construction: Should Governor Romney be able to enter into voluntary transactions with the suppliers, tradesmen, and laborers of his choice? For example, ones who live an hour south in Mexico? Or does he need Big Government telling him who he can and cannot hire?
I almost hate to comingle threads, but since we are talking construction: Should Governor Romney be able to enter into voluntary transactions with the suppliers, tradesmen, and laborers of his choice? For example, ones who live an hour south in Mexico? Or does he need Big Government telling him who he can and cannot hire?
I think he should be able to hire anyone he wants, regardless of their country of origin. But of course, just as the work will fall under existing locality building codes, OSHA regulations, etc., the workers should also be required to meet eligibility requirements to work in the country.
Mangano's Gold
8-29-11, 12:26am
I think he should be able to hire anyone he wants...... the workers should also be required to meet eligibility requirements to work in the country.
Long live free enterprise! Death to free enterprise!
Long live free enterprise! Death to free enterprise!
So, are you in favor of no regulatory environment, or simply a very one sided regulatory environment? Perhaps one that benefits a favored group over another?
Mangano's Gold
8-29-11, 1:07am
So, are you in favor of no regulatory environment, or simply a very one sided regulatory environment? Perhaps one that benefits a favored group over another?
Restrictions on immigration are one of the most significant regulations that the government imposes on free enterprise. Anti-immigration advocates, who also hold disdain for government intrusion into markets, should keep this in mind.
Restrictions on immigration are one of the most significant regulations that the government imposes on free enterprise. Anti-immigration advocates, who also hold disdain for government intrusion into markets, should keep this in mind.
Whenever walls to keep out the immigrants are talked about, my first thought is to ask whether they are really intended to keep me in.
Ask a Chinese or Roman historian how well walls work. There are plenty of Mongols left in the world today.
Mangano's Gold
8-31-11, 12:34am
Whenever walls to keep out the immigrants are talked about, my first thought is to ask whether they are really intended to keep me in.
In this case, I think it's safe to say it is about keeping the Mexicans out. :-)
Modern ideals like "liberty" and "free enterprise" are no match for our more basic tribal yearnings.
Sounds like he's personally boosting California's employment figures in the Construction trade. Well Done Mit!!
AND as a Californian myself, he'll also have to pay more property tax, as his tax basis will get changed for doing major work.
So, yay, more money for the schools! My husband pays our property tax in person, and he always gets behind someone who can pay their property tax with a few $100 bills.
In this case, I think it's safe to say it is about keeping the Mexicans out. :-)
Modern ideals like "liberty" and "free enterprise" are no match for our more basic tribal yearnings.
Of course it might be even safer to say that it's about funnelling people through managable customs and immigration points, sort of like at the airport. Is it a "tribal yearning" when done at JFK?
But why say that when it’s so much easier to simply impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with you? You don’t really want to control who crosses our borders, you’re crippled by unreasoning fear and hatred. If all human relations can be deconstructed into race/class/gender issues, why attempt to argue in any other terms? Just point a finger and cry bigot.
I think Charles Krauthammer had it right in a column he wrote before the last election:
“It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, “just downright mean”?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
I'm not sure I've ever ran into a "pitchfork wielding mob brimming with antipathy" toward anyone and as a general statement I think Mrs. Obama got it wrong. This nation is (in my experience) far more tolerant overall than it was 50 years ago. There are significant issues still on the table. Human nature, and in fact animal instincts even more basic than humans, causes us all to gravitate toward beings most similar to ourselves. I like some diversity, its boring as hell to eat Norwegian food every night, but overall I think we'll be fine if we get to the "live and let live" point. I think most people would be fine with that. Its the media and a few select politicians that aren't.
Mangano's Gold
8-31-11, 9:48pm
But why say that when it’s so much easier to simply impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with you? You don’t really want to control who crosses our borders, you’re crippled by unreasoning fear and hatred. If all human relations can be deconstructed into race/class/gender issues, why attempt to argue in any other terms? Just point a finger and cry bigot.
I see you are upset. The Racial/Cultural elements of the immigration debates aren't of some tertiary concern to ordinary (white) Americans. They aren't the only concern. Indeed there are a whole host of legitimate issues. Generally speaking, though, tribalism is what drives it. This is just acknowledging reality.
I'm not even casting judgment. I personally support restricting immigration like virtually everyone does.
By the way, if someone notes that blacks vote 90% for Democrats, is that "deconstructing" things into a race/class/gender issue?
Mangano's Gold
8-31-11, 9:53pm
I'm not sure I've ever ran into a "pitchfork wielding mob brimming with antipathy" toward anyone and as a general statement I think Mrs. Obama got it wrong. This nation is (in my experience) far more tolerant overall than it was 50 years ago. There are significant issues still on the table. Human nature, and in fact animal instincts even more basic than humans, causes us all to gravitate toward beings most similar to ourselves. I like some diversity, its boring as hell to eat Norwegian food every night, but overall I think we'll be fine if we get to the "live and let live" point. I think most people would be fine with that. Its the media and a few select politicians that aren't.
I'd go even further than you "more tolerant than 50 years ago". In my experience, Americans are far more tolerant than most (if not all) other nations, at least when it comes to race.
As for diversity, when I was looking for a pre-school I was looking for one with a diverse set of kids. Here, that meant looking for one where there were white kids. I love the idea of my kids playing with white children!
To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
To a man enamored with identity politics, every problem looks like bigotry.
And so it goes...
Mangano's Gold
8-31-11, 10:37pm
To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
To a man enamored with identity politics, every problem looks like bigotry.
And so it goes...
That's a nice post-post-post-post modern view of the world.
I wouldn't even call it bigotry. That implies malice. Blacks (predictably) vote Democratic, and a southern whites (predictably) vote Republican. In a post-post-post-post modern view of the world, you may say that both are the result of a dispassionate analysis of the issues and circumstances of the day [by each individual voter].
Or maybe there is something more at play?
I see you are upset. The Racial/Cultural elements of the immigration debates aren't of some tertiary concern to ordinary (white) Americans. They aren't the only concern. Indeed there are a whole host of legitimate issues. Generally speaking, though, tribalism is what drives it. This is just acknowledging reality.
I'm not even casting judgment. I personally support restricting immigration like virtually everyone does.
By the way, if someone notes that blacks vote 90% for Democrats, is that "deconstructing" things into a race/class/gender issue?
Not so much upset as disappointed. When you you insist that your accusation of "tribalism" is "just acknowledging reality", you're asking us to accept a premise that the mass of Americans are motivated primarily by base motives that your own more highly evolved self has risen above. That strikes me as more ideology than insight, and does little to advance the discussion. Its just the same, overused hammer pounding every nail in sight.
Mangano's Gold
9-1-11, 11:25am
Not so much upset as disappointed. When you you insist that your accusation of "tribalism" is "just acknowledging reality", you're asking us to accept a premise that the mass of Americans are motivated primarily by base motives that your own more highly evolved self has risen above. That strikes me as more ideology than insight, and does little to advance the discussion. Its just the same, overused hammer pounding every nail in sight.
Whoa, small correction. I don't claim to have risen above the more base of human emotions. There is a distinction between acknowledging and overcoming. And given that these "tribal yearnings" as I'll call them, developed over thousands of generations I think we would be wise to not dismiss them as universally bad. The most likely scenario is that they are a double-edge sword.
I see it is controversial to suggest that race/cultue plays a role in thinking about immigration. That's kind of head shaker since it seems so obvious to me that it does.
Bu what really brought me into this discussion was the liberty/free enterprise aspect.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.