[mwachs]

Nomination is interesting, but what if the person nominated doesn't want the house? Then we (I'm the person who runs 150house) have gone through potentially thousands of essays for nothing.

I guess it doesn't really matter, but I don't believe this is a scam and it's not preying on poor people: We (middle class) submitted an offer under similar terms for a bed and breakfast in Maine. There is only one house, so only one person/family/entity can eventually own it.

Also, if we don't sell the home via this process (which looks likely), we're refunding money. But sure, call it a scam--although it's the very worst scam considering I've told everyone where I live with my family, my phone number in a large font, my email, and potentially making no money. Quite sinister, indeed.

[cmdrfred]

If the person doesn't want the house, maybe go to the next person on the list? If you vote by committee (maybe let the internet vote) you have a line of succession. I don't think its a scam, but lotteries are bad news for families living in poverty. It's great for the one that wins, its a kick down deeper for the rest.

[mwachs]

Well, we were going to grade all of them on a modified AP scale and then bring the top 20-40 to a panel (journalists, teachers, etc.) and then take the highest "scoring" offer/essay from that. Still subjective, but it would add some distance. Ultimately, though, this is still a house sale and the criteria is subjective--the baking contest below was a nice metaphor.

My brother just put in an offer that was accepted on a house in California that was thousands of dollars below multiple other offers according to the listing agent. Why? Because the owners liked his letter. Having a letter accompany an offer is fairly standard in real estate and as long as we're not violating any fair housing laws (essays were to be stripped of identifying information), I don't see how this is different. In hacker parlance, it's just at scale. I am, admittedly, a bit defensive about all of this.

RE: Poverty--I can't control what people are spending their money on. I know that sounds like a "not my problem" answer, but it would be pretty condescending for me to tell someone they were not adult enough not to make their own decisions (we made them check a box that they're 18). For a person who would become the new owner, it would change their life dramatically—I've read some realllllly horrible stories about poverty now.

Maybe it's not the best use of money. On the other hand, if you wrote an amazing offer and competed against--max--3,000 people to own a home, would that put you at better odds to dramatically change your life than solely working a minimum wage job in an unsafe environment?

(That said, it wasn't our intent to find the poorest/any specific person to sell the house to—I'm just using that as an example.)