tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post8683687428565698341..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: Salvage OperationGeorge Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-11312779097749959022007-11-05T15:19:00.000-05:002007-11-05T15:19:00.000-05:00Encouraging people to buy homes off-base doesn't n...Encouraging people to buy homes off-base doesn't necessarily build unit morale and cohesion; it does, however, encourage them to invest in the American Dream. <BR/><BR/>The concerns about privatized housing, which Gen Dunlap outlined in his op-ed, focus on bringing non-military renters into a military housing project. Let's assume that the typical military renter is paying less than he would in a wholly commercial development. Then, the developer of the military project can't charge more to his civilian tenets than he can to his military clients, without inviting lots of lawsuits and litigation. So, who does he wind up with--people looking for a bargain, and those who can't afford something nicer. And with that demographic comes increased crime, drug use, and other factors that would impact unit morale and cohesion. <BR/><BR/>Also, I think we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg with these developments and their financial problems. In addition to its four AF projects, American Eagle also had at least one Navy contract. Why has it been successful when the AF developments have failed? Is the Navy project in financial trouble as well? It's hard to imagine the developer could run one project successfully, while the others are up for sale. <BR/><BR/>I think we'll see more reports of these developments in trouble in the coming months. If you'll notice, the services are saying little about them, other than the residents are "happy" and occupancy rates are satisfactory. How about quantifying that. Also, how many "civilian" renters have been brought in to sustain these occupancy rates? <BR/><BR/>As the Air Force JAG, I believe that Dunlap has reviewed these "deals" and believes they are flawed, to say the least. Along with concerns about "defining" the community, you've also got contracts that are long (50 years in some cases). Additionally, I'm concerned about who might wind up owning these companies. DoD was embarassed to learn that the ChiComs are buying a chunk of L3 Communications, a major defense contractor. What's to keep a Chinese holding firm from buying up these developers and (possibly) putting DoD over a barrel, in terms of providing base housing. <BR/><BR/>I think that the privatized housing is symbolic of the entire A-76/Outsourcing process. A lot of savings were promised, but the results have been less-than-impressive. Privatized housing is probably a good idea in high cost of living areas, but in places where homes are affordable, the service would be better off by encouraging home ownership. <BR/><BR/>The privatization concept makes sense in Boston, Washington, D.C. SoCal, and other areas where rent and mortgage payments have hit the stratosphere. But using that approach in an area where the average home costs $117,000 was just plain dumb. Even dumber was awarding $3 billion in contracts to a firm with a history of financial problems.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-70934903726443447372007-11-02T21:53:00.000-04:002007-11-02T21:53:00.000-04:00"We still wonder if a program encouraging home own..."We still wonder if a program encouraging home ownership could have prevented the privatization debacles at Moody, Patrick, Hanscom and Little Rock.<BR/><BR/>While some privatized developments have been successful, that success has come at a price, allowing developers to "define" military communities, and putting corporate profits ahead of unit morale and cohesion." <BR/><BR/>'splain something. How does encouraging people to buy homes off base, scattered among the civilian community contribute more to "unit morale and cohesion" than having a contractor build base housing that concentrates the military community, even if it apparently might also have some civlian renters among it?<BR/><BR/>Also 'splain: I believe the privatized development contains at least 38 projects, with some projects covering as many as five bases. And only four are in trouble? Why does it work at the others and not these four? These four are essentially one problem -- called "American Eagle." Why is this then a problem with the privatization concept? <BR/><BR/>Also, is the JAG general (and you) willing to build housing on all bases and require everybody to live on base so as to promote "unit morale and cohesion?" Remember that the reason this was done in the first place was to get some private $$ flowing into it, since it was not likely the government was going to fund all that housing itself.<BR/><BR/>I suspect the root problem was picking a contractor that didn't have the right stuff, and putting four eggs into that basket. At least in the case of private contractor companies, when they fail you can fire them and find some new guys.<BR/><BR/>Given there is apparently only one problem (American Eagle) affecting four bases out of 38 projects, I smell a hidden agenda of some sort behind the complaints about "privatization." <BR/><BR/>elbErichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13764469470772631997noreply@blogger.com