Charity Begins at Home

I've been following an interesting story over in Montgomery County (the rich county in Maryland). It started with an article in the Post about an estate purchased by the county which included a large house and some acres of land. The locals were told that the land would be used to extend an adjacent park. Then the county council proposed that the house should be used as a shelter for large homeless families. Outrage ensued. Details came out gradually, and it became known that a specific family was being considered for the house. There were 14 children and one parent. The usual ugliness was said and written, but it was hard not to sympathize a little with the locals. Who wants 14 kids living next to them, poor, perhaps unruly? Without doubt, having a county-owned homeless shelter next door can only hurt the property value. So they fussed enough that the county decided not to use the house for the homeless. Let's not forget that this was a house already purchased by the county, and sitting empty...

The remaining details became clear today. The single parent is a former corrections officer who adopted her sister's 10 children. She had 4 of her own with her husband, and when her sister died of cervical cancer, she was determined to keep the family together. At some expense, she adopted the 10 nieces and nephews. Her husband divorced her, she lost her job and house, and because she adopted the kids, their father (fathers?) can not be held responsible for child support. She works at night as a security guard, which makes it easier for friends and family to help out. At this point, her guardian angel stepped in, and she has been given a new house by Extreme Makeover.

So I'm thinking that I'm glad she has a happy ending (well, beginning really), and that this is not a very controversial story. Woman does her duty to her family at some hardship to herself, and gets help from her community to enable her to do so. Yay. But there seems to be a certain amount of ill-feeling about this that I don't quite get.

1. Complaints about the size of the house (4800 sq. ft): anonymous internet goblins commenting on this story have noted that it is not fair that this family of 15 should be given such a large home, when so many normal families in the country are struggling to maintain their 1500 sq. ft houses. I don't think it is a virtue to envy someone else's good fortune, or to want to limit the amount of good just because other people are having trouble too. Besides that, a "normal" family of four (just guessing) would have 375 sq. ft per person, while this clan has been given 320. Considering how much space is always wasted in hallways, odd bathroom corners and foyers (ie, that space that you can stand around in, but not do anything useful with), I imagine that the actual space they have to lay their heads and store their clothes is not over-generous. I could easily live in 4800 sq. ft with my family of 4, and not feel particularly overwhelmed with space. Adding 10 more people would force me to run away.

1b. Muttering about the ability of homeless people to maintain a large house: this sort of complaint has not been diffused by the information that the parent has a long history of respectable employment and home ownership. Apparently, it is quite difficult for people to believe that bad things can happen to good people.

2. The family is taking tax money from the good citizens of the county: this is true. The county is paying taxes and utilities for the house as long as the family qualifies. There is a rumor that the county also holds the mortgage, so the family didn't actually get a free house, just a free place to live. This still doesn't bother me, because at the very least the 10 orphans would have been supported entirely by the county in any case, at far greater expense. Because they are adopted, their mother does not receive foster care payments for these kids. They do receive medical benefits. (I'm not sure about this mortgage business, because EM: Home asked the builder to donate the house and build it in a week. I hope it doesn't fall down.)

3. People shouldn't have 10 children if they can support them: Well, of course not. However, this seems irrelevant to me. The woman who had 10 children and didn't provide for them is dead. Witholding community support at this point does not punish her for her irresponsibility. It might be said that the aunt shouldn't have adopted the 10 if she couldn't afford them, but how many people could afford to help that many relatives? If the kids had been separated and sent to different foster homes, the cost to the county would have been more. This way, they are together, with a relative who cares enough about them to suffer on their behalf. Anyone who can learn from a situation like that, will.

So anyway, I find the whole thing simultaneously uplifting and depressing. I'm glad that self-sacrifice and family devotion still exist, but it's sad that some people went to great effort to keep these 15 people from getting help, and then many others had nothing better to do than to offer insult and blame. That's a lot of negative energy.