I would like to take this opportunity to thank all that read my columns and all those who tuned into The O’Reilly Factor Tuesday night, should you have chosen to do so. In the limited amount of time that the segment was afforded only a few of the reasons why I am critical of the Habitat for Humanities Global Village exhibition could be espoused. Again I have to preface my criticism by saying that I applaud their organization for all the good that they do. They epitomize the kind of volunteer spirit that President Bush asked us all to embrace in his first State of the Union Address, to help your neighbor, your fellow American, whenever and wherever you can.

That being said, there are many reasons why I believe this idea wasn’t thought out to the fullest extent possible and why I believe that unexpected pitfalls lay ahead for this singular speculative venture:

1) Companies that are in the business of managing and maintaining theme parks are having an incredibly tough time staying afloat in this economic age. Disney is taking a beating as well as Six Flags, Universal and the rest. The combination of 9/11 and the economy have affected them greatly. As Habitat for Humanity isn't in the business of theme parks what makes them think they can do it when "professionals" can't? It makes one think back to Heritage USA and the Bakers. Although the Habitat for Humanity’s cause is so much more legitimate than Jim and Tammy Baker's, the Bakers following, as large as it was, couldn’t affectively help their theme park to survive. Simply put, theme parks, educationally slated or not, are a venture left to companies versed in their nature, not charities.

2) They have been operating in the red for the last two years ($152 million in assets coming in 2002 with $164 million in liabilities being spent and $171 million coming in during 2001 with $172 being spent – according to their website). Taking money away from the primary mission that this Ecumenical Christian Ministry has established to do this, with little hope of a "grand return" is not fiscally responsible. They are venturing into a speculative venture that has no "big payoff" even if their numbers are as Mr. Fuller claims they will be. It would be a shame to have such a good and compassionate organization fall by the wayside because of its involvement in ventures speculative. They should stick to the winning formula they have established and tend to its needs rather than expanding into the unsure.

3) The money that they have used so far to build this park (an estimated $5 million at this point not including cost overruns) is enough to affect 1% of the total population of Guatemala, to use as an example. My point being that the money could be used so much more efficiently to further their primary mission. Instead they are choosing to move into a venture that sidebars the mission at hand. These model houses the Global Village will feature are dwellings that shall never house those who need them, let’s not forget that.

4) No one has factored in the overall cost of this venture. There are reoccurring debts that come with establishing an offering for the public such as the Global Village, the list includes utilities, insurance for the employees, insurance for the visitors, maintenance, payroll, etc. It isn't a one-time shot; it is an ongoing cost-manufacturing machine that needs to be fed. This again, takes away from the primary mission. Believe me, the first time a visitor is injured at the exhibits within the Global Village depicting third world poverty, a first world lawyer will be addressing the issue. Situations like that are liabilities that the Habitat for Humanity need not open themselves up to.

5) The volunteer man-hours taken to build this park, in an effort to keep the cost of building it down, are man-hours taken away from the primary mission statement. Simply, they are man-hours used to create something that will, in the long run, have little impact on the mission at hand for the amount of effort required.

6) Whether the pundits want to admit it or not, the American public would rather give their change at the supermarket counter rather than take time from their vacations (two weeks a year for most families) to be guilted into giving more money. Habitat for Humanity would be better off using that money to enlist the help of those who are still idealistically in their youth. They could put together a multimedia virtual program they could offer in ever high school, on every college campus and for every youth group facility in the nation. A campaign such as this would touch many more lives and attract many more future volunteers than what will be produced by the pseudo-monument in Americus, Georgia. Dick Kugeman said that they don't want to be THE destination but the fact is that many more people fly to Orlando than drive and the ones that fly are arguably the ones who will most likely have the disposable income to donate. Common sense dictates this.

7) Who do they want to educate about poverty? Families that visit may be touched by the plight of the many but they are going to get a scant number of future volunteers. Dads and Moms are not going to up and leave their jobs for the good of humanity. They have families and although they may be able to help in their own neighborhoods on the weekends and after work the opportunity for them to help truly depends on their ability to travel to where the project is. People are more likely to give what they can and that means that those who go to Americus are not inclined to be recruited as volunteers.

8) The suggestion that the Global Village will afford mainstream America with a first hand experience into the world of poverty is arguable at best. All one needs to do is to venture into some of the places in our own communities that society deems mired in poverty to get a first hand experience, no theme park or education facility needed. One can experience first hand the grit, the lack of opportunity, the poverty and most often the terror that exists in these corners of our communities by just looking into our own backyards. In this respect we need to tend to our own just as much as to those from around the world.

The Habitat for Humanity would be better to go into a consortium of non-profits to make this venture a hands-on training ground for missionaries but that is not what they have proposed at this juncture. Even the most skeptical among us, me included, would embrace that idea. To use the facility as an attraction, taking admission and harboring a gift shop, is a very limited and misguided use for a facility such as the Global Village.

As I said in my preface on the show, I applaud what the Habitat for Humanity is doing, I always have. I just don't think that the idea was completely thought out. I believe that there are a lot of pitfalls that will arise that the public hasn’t thought about either. Either way, it is a speculative venture with no guarantee of return and a high rate of failure in the industry. I hope I am wrong, I truly do, but I fear that I am not.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us. He is a contributing writer for The Washington Dispatch, GOPUSA, OpinionEditorials, Men’s News Daily, Canada Free Press & AmericanDaily. His pieces are regularly featured in Townhall.com. He has appeared as a guest on The O’Reilly Factor, The Kevin Matthews Radio Show (Chicago) and The Brad Messer Radio Show (San Antonio). His pieces have been recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention and are occasionally featured in The Washington Times and The London Morning Paper as well as other national and international publications.