# 131 Is 'World Housing' a marketing scam designed to provide Scott Neeson with free houses he can then rent to impoverished Cambodian families?

Graham Brewster

Managing Director

World Housing

7th August 2015

Dear Graham Brewster

Peter Dupuis

Sid Landolt

Melissa Orozco

Bruce MacDonald

Kate de Wolf

Hal Devine

Harry Wang

Jeffrey Stone

Robert Foord

Tony Allard

I am writing to you regarding “the gifting and construction of garbage dump homes” in Cambodia by ‘World Housing’, in partnership with Scott Neeson and the Cambodian Children’s Fund.

The following is to be found on the World Housing website. The italics are mine.

World Housing CCC Inc’s community purpose, as outlined in our founding corporate articles, is to provide homes and other forms of shelter to disadvantaged families, and promote community development.  Specifically the homes we provide are for “dump-dweller” families living around Third World garbage dumps and often deriving their income from garbage picking.

World Housing is the world’s first “one-for-one” real estate gifting model. For every home sold at one of our certified World Housing condominium projects, the developer partner provides the funding for the construction of a home in a Third World garbage dump community overseen by one of our NGO-Builder Partners; this home is then gifted to a qualified deserving family living in a Third World garbage dump community. We connect people and organizations: developers, real estate buyers, NGOs, builders and qualified home recipients….

sincerely

Graham Brewster

Managing Director

June 30, 2014

The word ‘gifted’ is significant here.

On the World Housing website is to be found the following question and answer. (italics mine)

Question: How do buyers contribute to the gifting and construction of garbage dump homes ?

Answer: Buyers play the most important role: they “vote with their wallets.” By purchasing a home at a World Housing project, they make a statement about their desire to help.

This reads well. World Housing’s objectives seem to be noble but it is difficult to understanding precisely what the word ‘gifting’ means in a Cambodian context.

Questions:

Are developers who purchase “a home at a World Housing project” ‘gifting’ a house to a family whose members work in (or used to work in) the Phnom Penh rubbish dump?

Or:

Are companies “purchasing a home at a World Housing project” merely expressing ‘their desire to help.”

Expressing a desire to help put a poor family into a house of their own and actually ‘gifting’ them a house are two quite different things.

The answer to the question of what ‘gifting’ actually means, in practice, seems to be found on the Cambodian Children’s Fund website. Dated 12^th Nov 2013, the headline reads:

“World Housing Gifts New Home to CCF Families”

This seems clear. A gift is something given. A gift is not something rented. Homes are being given to CCF families by World Housng. This impression is borne out by what follows. The italics are mine:

“Five families received brand-new homes this week. Soon, hundreds of people in the Steung Meanchey community will have similar places to call their own. The sturdily built homes come with a downstairs kitchen, access to a restroom and provides a secure, healthy place for families to live. Such things were once unattainable.

The life-changing homes were made possible by World Housing, a social venture inspired by the TOMS Shoes one-for-one model. For every condominium sold by a real estate partner of Canada-based World Housing, they’ll provide a home for an impoverished family at their project sites in the Philippines, Mexico and Cambodia. As production ramps up in Cambodia, more than 20 homes will be constructed monthly for families at Cambodian Children’s Fund”

The full story is to be found at:

https://www.cambodianchildrensfund.org/recent-news-list/381-world-housing-gifts-new-homes-to-ccf-families.html

I think that most readers of both the CCF and World Housing websites could be forgiven for believing that World Housing was giving homes to “hundreds of people in the Steung Meanchey community”; homes that these impoverished families can “call their own.”

There is a problem here, however.

Whilst World Housing is ‘gifting’ homes to the Cambodian Children’s Fund, Scott Neeson is not ‘gifting’ them to “hundreds of people in the Steung Meanchey community”. No, he is renting the ‘gifted’ houses to families on land owned by CCF.

Another Q & A to be found on the World Housing website reads:

Question: Is World Housing a charity or non-profit organization ?

Answer: World Housing is Canada’s first Community Contribution Company, a registered social enterprise that enables sustainable social change through a for-profit enterprise.

Questions:

Is World Housing aware that Scott Neeson is renting the homes ‘gifted’ by World Housing to CCF to impoverished families living in Steung Meanchey?

If World Housing is aware that CCF is renting these houses, built on CCF-owned land, in what way does World Housing believe that the ‘gifting’ of these houses is creating “a legacy of sustainable change in the communities”?

I am referring here to the following description of World Housing’s aims and objectives is to be found on your website. The italics are mine.

“Making a worldwide social venture come to life takes a team of leaders committed to social change. World Housing has assembled a team of international business and thought leaders who have made a personal investment to ensure that World Housing creates a legacy of sustainable change in the communities it touches.”

‘Sustainable change in communities’ may well be what many of you ‘thought leaders’ believe to be taking place, but is it?

It seems to me, but please correct me if I am wrong, that the reality of the World Housing program, at least as far as it relates to Cambodia, is this:

- Developers in Canada and elsewhere want to appear to be concerned about the plight of poor people in 3^rd world countries and are prepared to pay $50,000 to World Housing to become a member.

- Real estate agents Peter Dupuis and Sid Landolt benefit, via their commissions, from every condo built under the World Housing umbrella. Neither Peter nor Sid has to contribute $1 to the construction of World Housing homes in Cambodia but benefit from having their reputations as being benevolent and caring enhanced.

Scott Neeson does not have to pay $1 to construct the World Housing homes in Steung Meanchey. World Housing has ‘gifted’ them to CCF and the houses are erected on land owned by the Cambodian Children’s Fund.

CCF then rents these ‘gifted houses’ to impoverished Cambodian families and makes a profit. It is not a huge profit but it is a profit.

Given that the ‘gifted’ World Housing houses have been built on land owned by CCF (‘gifted’ to CCF by sponsors and donors) the families that rent these houses can never own them (call them their own.) They will forever be dependent on the good will of Scott Neeson and obliged to abide by his rules and regulations. These rules and regulations are strict. They include the prohibition of members of the family visiting or staying in the houses.

Do you, the recipients of this letter, believe that this the best, or most appropriate way, to generate ‘sustainable change’ within impoverished Cambodian communities? Or has World Housing, in conjunction with the sponsors and donors who bought the land for CCF, given Scott Neeson carte blanche to create a community that is totally dependent on him?

Have any of you ‘thought leaders’ seen a copy of the contract that CCF enters into with families who rent the gifted World Housing homes?

Are you aware that the World Housing homes ‘gifted’ to Scott Neeson re only available to be rented by families that have children taking part in one of CCF’s ‘programs’?

Are you aware that each of these CCF children generates $4,000 in income each year for the Cambodian Children’s Fund – in a country in which the per capita income is a little more than $1,000 a year. This is not a groundless assertion, as would become apparent if you were to look back through some old blog entries. The following may be a good place to start:

http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/02/96-message-for-heather-graham-re.html

Is World Housing assisting in the development of a strong and self-sufficient Cambodian community in Steung Meanchey or is it giving Scott Neeson both free housing and philanthropic credibility in an experiment in social engineering in which he calls all of the shots?

Are developers who pay their $50,000 to join World Housing being beguiled into believing that they are buying homes for poor people when in fact they are buying homes to very rich individuals like Scott Neeson, who then rents these ‘gifted’ homes to very poor people and locks them out if they get behind in their rent? Yes, CCF locks out tenants who get as little as $12.50 behind in their rent. Visit:

http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/

And view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve280RWEV5w

Now, let’s look again at the Q & A quoted earlier:

Question: How do buyers contribute to the gifting and construction of garbage dump homes ?

Answer: Buyers play the most important role: they “vote with their wallets.” By purchasing a home at a World Housing project, they make a statement about their desire to help.

Has the word ‘gifting’ been used in a deliberately vague way so as to deceive readers (and more particularly developers) into believing that homes are being ‘gifted’ to poor families when in fact they are being ‘gifted’ to Scott Neeson’s Cambodian Children’s? Or is this an honest mistake made by whoever wrote the text for the World Housing website?

If the latter be the case, can we expect that World Housing will, on its website, make it clear that it is not ‘gifting’ homes to impoverished families but  ‘gifting’ them to organizations such as Neeson’s CCF – NGOs which remain free to rent these ‘gifted’ homes to impoverished Cambodians?

In an age in which so much information can be accessed online in a matter of seconds, are you ‘thought leaders’ – collectively and individually – sure that World Housing’s association with Scott Neeson is not one that you will, in time, regret. If you have even a shadow of a doubt, you need to ask Scott Neeson a few questions and bear in mind that Scott’s skill lies in marketing and that his instinct will be to provide you with the answers that he believes you want/need to hear.

The questions contained in the following blog entry are ones that all of you might like to ask of Scott Neeson:

http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/08/130-questions-for-cambodian-childrens.html

best wishes

James Ricketson

# 130 Questions World Housing might like to ask the Cambodian Children's Fund Board

Does ‘World Housing’ realize that the homes it donates to the Cambodian Children’s Fund are not ‘gifted’ to poor Cambodian families but rented to them by CCF at $15 a month?

Is ‘World Housing’ aware that because the houses are erected on land owned by the Cambodian Children’s Fund that the impoverished families to whom they are rented have no hope of ever owning their homes?

Is ‘World Housing’ aware that CCF imposes very strict rules and regulations on the families renting the donated ‘World Housing’ homes – including a ban on members of the extended family visiting (or staying in) these homes?

Members of the Cambodian Children’s Fund board

Dear Bob Tufts,
 Warren Share,
  Kevin Schoeler,
 Paul Saunders, 
David Ryan,
 Seane Corn,
 Muffy Disabatino, 
Lily Kanter and
 Heather Graham

As you are well aware, and have been for a long time, Scott Neeson does not answer questions put to him by journalists regarding the Cambodian Children’s Fund.

Recently, I have tried putting these same questions to Alan Lemon. He too refuses to answer questions or even acknowledge that they have been asked.

A few days ago I asked these questions of Lily Kanter, whose online profile suggested to me that she is the kind of person who would understand the importance of an NGO like CCF being both transparent and accountable to sponsors, donors and the media. I have received no response.

I am now asking the board these same questions. They can be found at:

http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/07/129-perhaps-ccf-board-member-lily.html

# 129 Perhaps CCF board member Lily Kanter will answer the questions Scott Neeson and Alan Lemon refuse to answer?

http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/07/128-perhaps-alan-lemon-will-answer.html

# 128 Perhaps Alan Lemon will answer the questions Scott Neeson refuses to answer!

And

http://cambodia440.blogspot.com/2015/07/127-cambodian-childrens-funds-2014-irs.html

# 127 The Cambodian Children's Fund's 2014 IRS Tax Return. A few questions

Is the CCF Board committed to the precepts of transparency and accountability? If not, what are sponsors and donors to make of this fact? Given how much of what is to be found on the CCF website is either untrue or misleading, how can sponsors and donors be sure that their money is being spent effectively and not in a way that is damaging to the very families it is meant to assist?

I have some more questions, regarding CCF’s World Housing project.

(1) Who has bought, and continues to buy, the land on which the World Housing houses are being built?

(2) How many homes has World Housing donated to the Cambodian Children’s Fund to date?

(3) How many of the homes are occupied by families now?

(4) How many people were the houses designed to have living in them?

(5) How many people do the home actually have living in them?

(6) How much rent must the occupants pay per month? $15 a month is the amount most often mentioned by those who rent the homes. Is this correct?

(7) Is it true that these donated World Housing homes are only available to be rented by families who have children who are in residential care with CCF?

(8) What are the rules and regulations that families must agree to before they are allowed to rent the homes that have cost CCF not one cent?

(9) Are the families renting houses from CCF allowed to retain a copy of the contract they have entered into with CCF?

(10) How many families have been evicted as a result of their not being able to afford the $15 a month, if this figure is correct?

(11) How many families have not been able to abide by (or have been unwilling to abide by) the rules and regulations laid down by CCF and have been evicted as a result?

On the basis of CCF’s 2013 tax return, and with the application of a little maths, it is clear that CCF claims to be spending $4,000 per CCF child per annum. Is this still the case in 2015? It is difficult to make any mathematical calculations based  CCF’s 2014 tax return, as it has been laid out in such a way as to obscure what money is spent on which programs.

If CCF still claims to be spending $4,000 per child per annum, do you board members believe it to be necessary need to charge poor families $180 a year to live in homes that have cost CCF nothing? $180 is a lot of money for a family that may earn as little as $1000 a year working in the rubbish dump or, indeed, in any job available to them. Has the board considered an alternative that would enable these families to buy the homes that have been donated to CCF?

My concern (and please correct me if I am making incorrect assumptions here) is that CCF is using donor and sponsor money to buy land upon which it then constructs houses donated by World Housing. Rather than using donor and sponsor money to help make families self-sufficient, CCF is using these monies to make families totally dependent on CCF. Not only does CCF have the children of these families as part of its ‘program’, (generating $4,000 a year in income per child for CCF), it also has the families totally dependent on CCF and with no choice but to follow CCF rules.  

If the assumptions I am making here are correct (and there is a mass of anecdotal evidence to suggest that they are) Scott Neeson, with the blessing of the CCF board, is creating a feudal estate with other people’s money and donated homes.  Rather than empowering impoverished families, CCF is turning them into 21^st century serfs who can be turfed out onto the street if they do not obey CCF rules and regulations or if they even question them.

With CCF owning these family’s homes, and with the family’s children in CCF care, how can they work towards self-sufficiency and be able to make decisions for themselves? Is it the intention of the board to infantilize these Cambodians? Make them totally dependent on CCF?

If I do not receive any response to this email I will write to all of CCF’s major sponsors and ask them if they have asked any of the questions I have asked of Scott Neeson, Alan Lemon, Lily Kanter and now the CCF board. If these sponsors and donors have not asked the right questions they will not, at any point  in thr future, be able to say, “Oh, we had no idea what was going on at CCF. We were kept in the dark. We feel let down.”

If you are paying attention, as you should be as members of the board, it should be abundantly clear to you that CCF is a house of cards and that it will collapse one day. It took around five years from the time Somaly Mam’s house of cards was public knowledge in Cambodia before she was exposed as a liar and her card house came tumbling down. Perhaps the same will apply with CCF. I hope not.

The Cambodian Children’s Fund board, on which you all sit, has a duty of care to a few thousand Cambodians and I fear that CCF is failing in its duty of care.

best wishes

James Ricketson