Tiger Woods

[Karrit]

Jan 6, 2012 9:04:22 GMT -4 Brookie said:

It's her house, and hers to do whatever she likes with it. It's not unheard of for someone to purchase an expensive home FOR the land, and get rid of the home on it and have one they actually like built. She can afford it.

I think the key thing here is that she can afford it. And it means she is going to employ people to build her house, which in this economy is a good thing. Not to get all trickle-downy (because this is not the voodoo economics thread) but if people who have money want to spend it, and local people or businesses will benefit then I keep my eye-rolling to the envious/wish-I-had-the-money-for-my-dream-house.

[OnyxRose]

Jan 6, 2012 9:04:22 GMT -4 Brookie said:

It's her house, and hers to do whatever she likes with it. It's not unheard of for someone to purchase an expensive home FOR the land, and get rid of the home on it and have one they actually like built. She can afford it.

Agreed. I don't get all the outrage. This happens all the time; it's only news because her ex-husband is famous. Some people love the location of a house but hate the actual house. Who knows what they did what the material? We'll never know but to act like she's the most horrible human being ever just because she bulldozed a house. One comment on that site asked why she didn't just donate the house...uh, probably because she still wants to live on the lot. I don't understand the problem here.

[domo-kun]

A friend of mine did that in New Jersey so he could get the house he wanted in a better school district. He bought a crappy older home in an expensive neighborhood. Tore it down and built a new, energy efficient house that fits his family's needs. As someone said, a lot of the value of the property might be in the land/location. And the new home might be much more environmentally friendly.

[Freelance Exorcist]

I'm not going to give her any crap for this. Like others have said, she probably preferred the land and location over the house itself. It might even be cheaper to build a new house from scratch than it would be to completely renovate the old one. There are so many other examples of tacky and wasteful spending by the super rich ($11,000 for a single bottle of wine? Seriously?), this just seems like a good investment.

[Spinderella]

Of course, I don't know the condition of the house on the inside so there may have been issue there. I guess I would just think that she could have done something to share the resource beyond just bulldozing it completely.

Ah, to have 9-figures in your bank account. Must be nice!

[margojata]

Has she gotten her degree yet (I forgot what she was going for)? A job? How much time does she spend in Sweden? Hey, I'm just thrilled that she said she was going to stay out of the public eye and she did. Unlike Rachel F'ing Uchitel who can't stop shoving herself in our faces.

[ennui]

Jan 6, 2012 12:15:34 GMT -4 Spinderella said:

Of course, I don't know the condition of the house on the inside so there may have been issue there.

The article I read said the house was built in 1932, so I'm thinking asbestos or something like that.

[tabby]

The article I read said the house was built in 1932, so I'm thinking asbestos or something like that.

Asbestos, lead paint, crappy wiring, not many electrical outlets in rooms, old plumbing, inefficient heating/cooling systems - the list can be endless with an old house. I can't criticize her, I've seen too many houses of that age that needed to be gutted.

[margojata]

I think a 1930's house sounds incredibly cool, but if she got advice about how much it would cost to restore, that's fine. I've never heard anything about her being this batshit crazy over-spender. In fact we hear very little about it.

[eclair]

If she personally bulldozed the house, or smashed it up with a golf club, I'd be interested in this event.