Homeless angry after not getting $300 after free lunch

[realibrad]

Then all those homeless people who expected $300 are not telling the truth.

Here is what happened.

On Sunday he met with officials from the New York City Rescue Mission and asked them to supply the homeless people as guests. They said they would participate in the event as long as he did not hand out any cash, said Craig Mayes, the group’s executive director. Mr. Mayes said he was concerned that some of the clients might use the cash to buy alcohol and drugs. In return, Mr. Chen agreed to donate $90,000 to the organization, and the two parties signed a contract.

Then this happened.

Mr. Chen addressed the audience and then uncorked the news the crowd had been waiting for: “I will give $300 for every participant today.”

The homeless men and women shot to their feet, whooping and applauding.

“No he won’t,” Michelle Tolson, the mission’s director of public relations, said. “The police will shut him down.”

So then this happened.

Grabbing a microphone, Mr. Chen said he would still fulfill his promise and would head to the mission later in the day and personally distribute the cash to all the participants. “I look forward to seeing you at the mission shortly!” he exclaimed.

Mr. Mayes suddenly appeared at his shoulder. “That’s a violation of the contract,” he said.

The men met privately to figure out a solution. Boat House personnel and staff members from the mission ushered out the luncheon guests. The temperature in the room began to drop.

Soon, Mr. Mayes was heading toward the door. “It’s a whole lot of miscommunication,” he said. Asked what would happen next, he replied dryly: “I don’t know.”

The guy wanted to give out cash directly, but he was not allowed. So why is he the bad guy?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Here is what happened.



Then this happened.



So then this happened.



The guy wanted to give out cash directly, but he was not allowed. So why is he the bad guy?

Did you not read those? He signed a contract that he would not give out money, then stood in front of everyone and said he would. He tried to be slick, and it blew up in his face. Grade A douchebag headline grabber.

 

[CitizenKain]

Here is what happened.

Then this happened.

So then this happened.

The guy wanted to give out cash directly, but he was not allowed. So why is he the bad guy?

Because he was told he couldn't in advance, then tried to do it anyway to look like a hero.

Why are you defending this person beyond the fact he's rich and the people he deceived aren't?

 

[SheHateMe]

Next time, don't promise money to people who are living on the streets and would eat toe jam on a Ritz cracker just to get $5.

 

[waggy]

Because he was told he couldn't in advance, then tried to do it anyway to look like a hero.

Why are you defending this person beyond the fact he's rich and the people he deceived aren't?

So what did did rich people learn? don't try to help the homeless directly.

 

[Oldgamer]

So what did did rich people learn? don't try to help the homeless directly.

No this guy learned he shouldn't tell people one thing knowing that he couldn't deliver. He basically lied and got photo ops with these folks, and got into the news.. maybe out of vanity, more than a real desire to help the homeless. Seriously the guy is a retarded rich guy.

He doesn't get to the position in life with all that money by being dumb, ok? He knew what he was doing, and he got slammed for it.

 

[CitizenKain]

So what did did rich people learn? don't try to help the homeless directly.

Or you know, don't promise what you can't do.

Also they already don't help them now, so its not things are going to be different.

 

[Cozarkian]

If this quote from the NY times article is correct:

“I will give $300 for every participant today.”

Then he didn't say he would give the money to the homeless, he said for each participant. In other words, he was giving $300 to the shelter for each participant.

 

[zanejohnson]

you guys act like this wasn't originally nothing more than a publicity stunt, perpetrated by the person "donating" the money to the "person who runs the shelter."


you're a fool if you believe there was good intentions ever involved.. it was probably about a tax write off, or some other funny money business.... the meal probably costed like 100 bucks........total, for everyone... where'd the other hundreds of dollars end up???

i bet some of it ended up involved in a bet on a golf course between the two after the whole "charity event," and then probably after that the bar, and the strip club.

 

[zanejohnson]

If this quote from the NY times article is correct: Then he didn't say he would give the money to the homeless, he said for each participant. In other words, he was giving $300 to the shelter for each participant.

yup but i bet that's not what the homeless/defenseless prey was told.

 

[Sonikku]

Probably for the best. Give them $300 and half of them will drink themselves to death in a week and the other half will be broke again another.

 

[realibrad]

Did you not read those? He signed a contract that he would not give out money, then stood in front of everyone and said he would. He tried to be slick, and it blew up in his face. Grade A douchebag headline grabber.

When he tried to be slick, who was he trying to help? He is speaking through a translator so there could have been something lost. It sure seems like he wanted to give money directly to the people, and he was stopped. Its probably for the best that he was, but to attack the guy as some rich douchebag is surprising to me. Because it means that if you tell someone you will improve their life by 50%, but it turns out you only improved it by 25%, then people should be mad. In this case, nobody else was helping the poor, so its not like they choose his help over another that could have done more. He cost the city nothing, and this all came from his wallet.

If my life improves because of something, and if that something had not been do, I would have not had improvement, why would I be mad that it did not improve more?

 

[realibrad]

yup but i bet that's not what the homeless/defenseless prey was told.

If "they" were "prey" what did the rich guy get from the homeless? As far as I can tell, the homeless got free food, and the shelter they stayed at got money so they could help more homeless. So what did the homeless lose, that they had before.

Its not opportunity cost simply because it was expected.

 

[Veliko]

Its probably for the best that he was, but to attack the guy as some rich douchebag is surprising to me. Because it means that if you tell someone you will improve their life by 50%, but it turns out you only improved it by 25%, then people should be mad. In this case, nobody else was helping the poor, so its not like they choose his help over another that could have done more. He cost the city nothing, and this all came from his wallet.

If my life improves because of something, and if that something had not been do, I would have not had improvement, why would I be mad that it did not improve more?

The issues have already been explained to you yet you persist with the same nonsense.

You've attacked a bunch of homeless people, many of whom would be desperate, mentally ill, have drink and drug problems, as being greedy, and you're still clinging to it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

When he tried to be slick, who was he trying to help? He is speaking through a translator so there could have been something lost. It sure seems like he wanted to give money directly to the people, and he was stopped.

Yes, he did...but when he signed the contract with the organization supplying the guests, he was not supposed to.

And don't even get this confused. He knows he gets publicity out of his stunts.

Its probably for the best that he was, but to attack the guy as some rich douchebag is surprising to me. Because it means that if you tell someone you will improve their life by 50%, but it turns out you only improved it by 25%, then people should be mad. In this case, nobody else was helping the poor, so its not like they choose his help over another that could have done more. He cost the city nothing, and this all came from his wallet.

Giving a homeless person $300 is not improving their lives long term. I'm not saying he shouldn't, I'm saying that it's something that makes the giver sleep better at night, while $300 in NYC is chump change. But hey, maybe they can buy a bus ticket out of the city.

If my life improves because of something, and if that something had not been do, I would have not had improvement, why would I be mad that it did not improve more?

I think I interpret this the way you intended. If you are promised something, then it does not come to fruition, then you will be disappointed, let down, angry, etc...

I'm assuming you have a job, so let's say you're promised a 4% raise, but when the time comes you only get a 1% raise, would you not be upset? You never had that money to begin with, so based on what you're saying....your answer should be "no, i'd take my 1% and stfu"

 

[realibrad]

Yes, he did...but when he signed the contract with the organization supplying the guests, he was not supposed to.

And don't even get this confused. He knows he gets publicity out of his stunts.



Giving a homeless person $300 is not improving their lives long term. I'm not saying he shouldn't, I'm saying that it's something that makes the giver sleep better at night, while $300 in NYC is chump change. But hey, maybe they can buy a bus ticket out of the city.



I think I interpret this the way you intended. If you are promised something, then it does not come to fruition, then you will be disappointed, let down, angry, etc...

I'm assuming you have a job, so let's say you're promised a 4% raise, but when the time comes you only get a 1% raise, would you not be upset? You never had that money to begin with, so based on what you're saying....your answer should be "no, i'd take my 1% and stfu"

I don't think the job analogy works here, and this is why. If I am working for someone, then its because I feel that the job offered me the most I could get. I don't work for that job out of charity, and they do not pay me out of charity. If they are offering me a raise, its because they think its required to keep me in that position. If I feel that I deserve the raise, and I dont get it, then I would leave. I actually did this in my last position, where I felt they were dragging their feet so I left. There is an opportunity cost because I could have made more money somewhere else.

The only opportunity cost for the homeless here, is if they had something better to do. The homeless were not angry because it turned out the thing they gave up was worth more than what they got. The homeless were upset because they thought they were being taken advantage of. The anger does not seem equal to what happened.

If I'm promised something and don't get it, my feelings in response are relative to the situation. If I'm promised a soda from my GF, and I don't get one, slightly annoyed if it was for my lunch. It would only be let down if I just wanted a soda. If I was promised something that would save my leg from amputation and it turns out the person bring it died, I would be sad, but not angry. If I did not get the thing because someone wanted to watch a movie instead, I might be angry, depending on what the context of the promise was.

My point is that the homeless here were not "screwed" by the rich guy. If they were, it was by the homeless shelter that would not allow him to give out money directly.

 

[ch33zw1z]

My point is that the homeless here were not "screwed" by the rich guy. If they were, it was by the homeless shelter that would not allow him to give out money directly.

No one is being "screwed". You speak about context, yet you're not realizing the context of this situation.

The homeless shelter and Chen had an agreement. Chen decided to break that agreement and it backfired on him.

You typed an awful lot and it was tldr for me. Job analogy does apply, if you're promised something, and then it's not delivered, you'll be upset...bottom line.

If Chen was hell bent on giving that money to people, he should've done it in a different way.

 

[soulcougher73]

He's worth 750million and he couldnt afford to drop another 75k ($300x250people)Cheap ass

 

[realibrad]

No one is being "screwed". You speak about context, yet you're not realizing the context of this situation.

The homeless shelter and Chen had an agreement. Chen decided to break that agreement and it backfired on him.

You typed an awful lot and it was tldr for me. Job analogy does apply, if you're promised something, and then it's not delivered, you'll be upset...bottom line.

If Chen was hell bent on giving that money to people, he should've done it in a different way.

If you are not going to read what I wrote, then how can you claim I'm wrong? That seems pretty arrogant to tell me I'm wrong, without seeing my argument.

But, if that is what you would like then so be it.

He's worth 750million and he couldnt afford to drop another 75k ($300x250people)Cheap ass

He actually offered to do that, but was threatened by the shelter that if he did that, he would be sued.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If you are not going to read what I wrote, then how can you claim I'm wrong? That seems pretty arrogant to tell me I'm wrong, without seeing my argument.

But, if that is what you would like then so be it.

You're promised something, you don't get it == unhappy. There's no arguement for that, it's the way it is. Frankly, you are trying to spin something for who knows why.

You want arrogance? Look at Chen, he signed the agreement to NOT do what he tried to do, and it backfired on him.

Context matters, right? So see the context of this situation, and get over it.

 

[realibrad]

You're promised something, you don't get it == unhappy. There's no arguement for that, it's the way it is. Frankly, you are trying to spin something for who knows why.

You want arrogance? Look at Chen, he signed the agreement to NOT do what he tried to do, and it backfired on him.

Context matters, right? So see the context of this situation, and get over it.

The level of unhappy is what I don't understand.

As for trying to spin something, I'm not sure how to respond. I can't possibly see a way that I gain something from "spinning". Do you have a reason to believe I have an agenda other than not understanding the feeling of the homeless and others views that they agree? I don't mean that sarcastically either. Is my disagreement leading you to the conspiracy idea, or did I do something else?

 

[ch33zw1z]

The level of unhappy is what I don't understand.

As for trying to spin something, I'm not sure how to respond. I can't possibly see a way that I gain something from "spinning". Do you have a reason to believe I have an agenda other than not understanding the feeling of the homeless and others views that they agree? I don't mean that sarcastically either. Is my disagreement leading you to the conspiracy idea, or did I do something else?

People on here explain where the "unhappy" comes from, and you just ignore them. So, that leads me to believe you have an agenda. It's quite simple.

You want to know where the homeless "unhappy" comes from. Go work with them. They live a life you can't comprehend until you see it for yourself. Better yet...spend a day, and single day in their shoes(if you're the lucky homless guy who has shoes)

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Let me update the headline. Mentally ill homeless man upset that charity lunch did not include $300.00

From working in big cities, everyone who is homeless (long term not a night or two) is mentally ill. Think about it you are too damaged of a person to have anyone who cares for your or even knows you offer to help. Yes a large part of this is because of drinking and/or drugs but being so preoccupied with them to a point that you choose to be homeless, skip meals, sleep in the street is an illness. We need better mental health care.

 

[realibrad]

People on here explain where the "unhappy" comes from, and you just ignore them. So, that leads me to believe you have an agenda. It's quite simple.

You want to know where the homeless "unhappy" comes from. Go work with them. They live a life you can't comprehend until you see it for yourself. Better yet...spend a day, and single day in their shoes(if you're the lucky homless guy who has shoes)

I don't think its fair to say I'm ignoring. I have commented quite a bit on this thread and have tried to understand people. I disagree with others conclusions, and try to explain my own reasoning. To say I'm ignoring seem to be completely incorrect.

Also, the idea that you can only understand something if you have gone through it is a common argument for thing that I still don't. Doctors don't need to have had cancer to treat it, and a psychologist does not need suffer from mental instabilities to treat the mentally unstable.

Like I said before, I can understand being unhappy, but only slightly because they received a net benefit far greater than what they invested. I don't see any argument for the idea that these people were abused because of the aforementioned.

 

[Engineer]

Looks like a textbook in here....:hmm: