Aside from it being deliberately "Christian" and a heavily faith-based community, I have to admit that the overall idea isn't bad. (I can't believe I'm saying anything that agrees at all with DeLay.) Signifigantly subsidizing people that can then dedicate themselves to offering foster care to children is a good thing. Plus it's an environment in which foster children wouldn't feel intrusive or singled out. Requiring that only one parent works is also good thing. With that many children to care for and look after, it would literally be a full time job for one person -- and that's being acknowledged.

Along with stricter regulations (like I said, except for the religion thing), it's not bad. Too many foster children are thrown into environments without enough oversight.

Just my two cents!

Kristi,

I agree with you that the physical and practical considerations sound great. Like you, I am bothered by the enforced religious uniformity (imagine a community with NO outlet for kids who are "different")...but beyond that, I am bothered by the fact that it is DeLay, and I'm pretty sure that having him raise the money for this adventure is equivilant putting the unrepentant crack addict in charge of the evidence locker.

I can't belive that he's really out for the well-being of the kids, and that his own interests (and love of leisure) won't take precident.

I think that the insufficient over-sight of foster care could be better addressed by fully funding social services, rather than starving them on a shoe-string budget in favor of corporate wellfare. Also, it would be good if foster families actually got enough money to support the foster kids, so that one parent could stay home and care for them without the need for privately funded gated communities (whose funds could dry up when the fickle giving practices of private individuals turn elsewhere)

Private charities will never be able to sufficiently replace the social safety-net...because the charities are fickle, emotional, and tend to base their actions on ideology rather than sound public policy.

I'm not saying that the government doesn't make mistakes (especially when it is underfunded and under political pressure to accomidate the cause du jour, I'm just saying that it does a better job than a hodge-podge of private charities based on an unrealistic and inflexible ideology.

Trees

I'd also like to mention that even though I am completely aware that the foster care system isn't perfect, and that many foster homes can be destructive and kids are often placed in homes that are inappropriate...
...every last foster kid I've ever known throughout my life (and that would be dozens) were in a better situation in foster care than the one they were removed from. Yep, that even includes the abusive foster homes, and the foster homes where the foster parents were unprepared or under prepared to handle a troubled child.

This effort to demonize public services, and the public saftey-net, and glorify private charity is dishnest, and ideological. It should be mistrusted.

Private charity has it's place, but it is as a suppliment to an orderly, well-run, and fully-funded public effort based on sound public policy.

We should focus on achieving that, rather than further run down our public institutions, destroying them and relying on the capricious giving of the rich (and corrupt) for the well-being of our society and it's more vulnerable members.