I saw this article earlier today and I had assumed that the Chen Guangbiao (the Chinese Millionaire) had backed out of the promise (which confused me, he had to have known how much it would have costed to so going in).
The first article never explained that he was blocked by the charity that helped in the first place.
I'm saddened that the charity didn't go as planned. In most cases people know what they need best, rich or poor.
The charity outstepped it's bounds here, if the article is accurate. Organising an event for someone where that person expects a substantial sum to be used in a certain way and then keeping it for yourselves seems pretty terrible.
In the case of homeless people in the US they often don't know what's best for them. Many are schizophrenic or otherwise mentally ill. Many are veterans. Even if they know they need treatment, who could give it to them? $300 might not be enough for even the first doctor's visit.
You really need to better qualify what you mean by "often" and "many." If 90% of homeless people would be able to make meaningful use of direct cash donations, would the remaining 10% be reason not to take that action?
I mean, I'm just making numbers up, but you aren't even doing that.
Mentally ill means stuff like PTSD, schizophrenia, addiction, bipolar disorder or dementia. Not "mentally retarded" or "vegetables". There's nothing wrong with most of their thought processes.
The first article never explained that he was blocked by the charity that helped in the first place.
I'm saddened that the charity didn't go as planned. In most cases people know what they need best, rich or poor.