Up to 1,500 military housing units sit empty, auditor general says

[Humphrey Bogart]

To recap: housing provided by the CAF is horrid.  I propose the CAF get out of the business of providing horrid housing wherever feasible.  Where's the issue?

Feasibility, as far as the government is concerned, is a synonym for political expediency.  Your thesis probably looks great on a powerpoint slide in Ottawa but doesn't pass the test when it's confronted by the real world. 

We aren't a for-profit organization, PMQs, CANEX, SISP, PSP, etc... are all services that we provide our military members to help improve quality of life so they are READY to fulfill obligations required by the CAF when called upon.  The fact that PMQs are in such a sorrid state is a testament to the fact that we haven't been doing a good job with the highlighted part above.

That's not on the CAF though, CFHA is an SOA and the uniformed members of the military have ZERO influence over the organization.  It's sort of like the shoddy service given to veterans by the VAC, it's all smoke and mirrors with numerous departments pointing fingers at each other.  The government has successfully, with the help of the civil service, divided and conquered.

YOU'RE part of the problem and you're definitely not providing any actual solutions! 

 

[Flavus101]

I think EITS is bang on as far as paying for parking is concerned.

The issue I have with sending things to the private sector is that it will always be for profit. (Even some not for profits seem to be for profit, the recent WoundedWarrior expose comes to mind)

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Would a private company not also want to do it in a 'for profit' mindset, though?

If changing it over to a 'privately managed' company would result in more pro's than con's, I think most people would be all for it.  I think what is missing are the basic details of what those pro's and con's might be.  I personally think CFHA couldn't organize a fart in a bean factory, so despite all the back-patting language in their annual reports, the AG report doesn't surprise me.

What concerns me is that the Pte's and Cpl's in that 15-20% of CAF members who use military accn's" who can't afford decent housing on the economy will get lost in the shuffle.  If we stop caring about them, regardless of everything else we've done, we have at least partially failed as a military IMO.  I am an NCO; I care about the mission and the men.  I don't really give a shit about CRA policy and policy that makes charging 'fair market value' for a PMQ built before I was even alive seem 'okay' to some tight-ass bean counter and all that other  :blah: bullshit.

 

[dapaterson]

Humphrey: read the history of CFHA to see why it is what it is.  Hint: because uniformed leaders let it wither.

As for CANEX, why is it a necessary service? What does it bring to the fight? If all CANEX outlets were replaced by Giant Tiger how would things change? Why an imperative for a DND/CAF/NPF store chain?

Because we have always been this way is not a valid explanation.

Flavus: what is wrong with companies making a profit?  Seems like private sector landlords make money and provide better service than CFHA, so why not emulate them?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Local ownership knows the local market and will say "These houses have bedrooms so small even Gary Coleman would say no, so we'll price them at a discount".

No, they won't say that, and you know it. They will say: "I have a captive audience. These guys can't get a mortgage approved on their salary and if they want to rent something with this number of room that they can afford, they'll have to live 45 minutes out of town - 1h30 minutes in snow storm, so I'll bill them about 90% of the price of a real house of that many (proper and modern) rooms around here, which is the maximum I can get away with."

I tend to agree with Humphrey Bogart here: Give the responsibility for quarter, and the funding that goes with it, back to the Base Commanders (I seem to recall some Base Commanders complaining when the whole CFHA thing was created that they needed to control their own housing to be able to discharge their duty towards their sailors properly). No "profit" will cut into the revenues and the welfare of the uniformed personnel will be taken into proper account.

As for the CANEX, Dataperson, I don't know what you have against them. You like buying your widescreen TV at BestBuy? Fine, you are in Ottawa and it's your call. It may not be an option for the family posted at Cold Lake or Goose Bay. Having a store that holds such item is not a bad thing in those location. And if no CANEX, where doe we go for things like CF paraphernalia, like T-shirts with logos and unit crests, military uniform items of a different grade or authorized additional such as the windbreaker jacket (for seamen like me, that is the only place we can get CF short sleeve shirts made of cotton instead of the crappy polyester ones, for instance). 

 

[dapaterson]

Cold Lake has a Walmart.  And if cheap tshirts and subsidized tvs is the only reason for CANEX...

As for PMQs, BComds had them, ran them into the ground, then handed them to CFHA.  That model failed.  This model apparently is failing too.  I am suggesting we do not repeat past failed methods.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Can't we put the Syrian refugees in them? 8)

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can't we put the Syrian refugees in them? 8)

They'd rather go back to Syria then stay in PMQs.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They'd rather go back to Syria then stay in PMQs.

Is there a downside?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is there a downside?

Only if you count the abject shame of failing to make them happy; which we can fix by paying for them to fly to a country of their choosing and pay their rent for a year  ;D

 

[FSTO]

I'm buddies with a former comptroller at Esquimalt. He had put fwd a plan for the "Q's" for their upkeep, dispersal to the pers in need of them and a ongoing recapitalization plan to replace the oldest one. I don't know how far it went but I heard that TB rejected it because the rents were going into an internal fund (for the upkeep and eventual recapitalization) and not into general revenue.

Another thing that I cannot wrap my head around, "fair market value and no undercutting of the local civilian rental properties". Why should that be an issue? The "Qs" have been paid for several times over and so what if DND charges a low rate for accomodations. If Joe Public is pissed that Jack Tar is getting a deal on his living arrangements then Joe Public can bloody well join up to get the deal!
Lets see how many of the civilian complainers take that deal!!!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If Joe Public is pissed that Jack Tar is getting a deal on his living arrangements then Joe Public can bloody well join up to get the deal!
Lets see how many of the civilian complainers take that deal!!!

Thing is, FSTO, that Joe Public doesn't even know who Jack Tar is, nor care about what his living arrangements are. A bunch of inside K1A politico-accountants anti-military types (mostly disguised as civil servants  ) do and their greatest wish is to turn the uniformed military into just another part of the civil service.

 

[FSTO]

Thing is, FSTO, that Joe Public doesn't even know who Jack Tar is, nor care about what his living arrangements are. A bunch of inside K1A politico-accountants anti-military types (mostly disguised as civil servants  ) do and their greatest wish is to turn the uniformed military into just another part of the civil service.

Isn't that the truth.

 

[McG]

Another thing that I cannot wrap my head around, "fair market value and no undercutting of the local civilian rental properties". Why should that be an issue? The "Qs" have been paid for several times over and so what if DND charges a low rate for accomodations. If Joe Public is pissed that Jack Tar is getting a deal on his living arrangements then Joe Public can bloody well join up to get the deal!

Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?

 

[DonaldMcL]

Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?

I believe he's saying that all service members will get subsidized housing... regardless of the fair market value civi-side. So no, it's not the same thing at all.

 

[FSTO]

Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?

I'm not saying that at all.
The Qs should be available for jr rates and their families at a reasonable price, not at the price for brand new house with a modern kitchen, bathrooms and bedrooms. The Qs have been paid off for years and by gouging military members for substandard housing, the Gov of Canada is just giving military people one more reason to say screw this and leave

 

[c_canuk]

I think it's fair that we are being made to pay market value for services and shelter. Quite honestly everyone else does.

Well... almost everyone else.

I think it's time the Federal Gov starts paying market rates for labour from uniformed members. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right?

DND should drop it's unfair non market value same pay across the board pay scheme that is impacting the local economy in full violation of CRA and TB direction, and pay market rates just like every other organization in Canada.

A quick look online at what PMCs charge is quite revealing.

I bet that would shut down this fetish for market rates down right quick.

 

[George Wallace]

I think it's fair that we are being made to pay market value for services and shelter. Quite honestly everyone else does.

Yes, that thought is just fine, if the services and shelter matched what the local market provided.  If the shelter and services do not match the local market, then charging the same rates for sub-standard service and shelter is outright criminal.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Would you advocate paying some service members differently based on a lottery draw?
Is that any different that giving some service members subsidised housing and not to others in the same location?

We do that... it's called PLD/LDA/Flight Crew/etc....

Realistically, the housing should be reserved for the lower ranks because they're the ones whose salary indicates they need it the most. After that, it should be situation by situation. With rank comes responsibility.

 

[Lumber]

I think it's fair that we are being made to pay market value for services and shelter. Quite honestly everyone else does.

Yes, that thought is just fine, if the services and shelter matched what the local market provided.  If the shelter and services do not match the local market, then charging the same rates for sub-standard service and shelter is outright criminal.

I can at least understand the argument that it's not fair to civilian industry to subsidize military housing/parking/whatever, because that could negatively impact the ability of those industries to compete. This is especially true in areas with large populations of military members.

However, while I understand the argument, I don't agree with it for two reasons.

First, we're not taking away from civilian industry. Everyone who parked at Dockyard in Halifax is still parking at Dockyard in Halifax despite the new parking costs. Therefore, civilian parking lots didn't have any military parking at their establishments before, and they still aren't parking at them now. Is there a city in Canada somewhere, where some civilian landlord of an apartment building, or a subdivision developper, is crying foul because "I can't rent out/sell any of my places because the base is unfailry offering cheaper rates!"?

Second, whatever happened to competition being the cost of doing business? Why is the government not allowed to be competitive? We were there first! Dockyard was there long before parking garages in downtown Halifax started charging $175 a month. There were PMQs in Shearwater long before there were new subdivisions gobeing built in Eastern passage or Morris Lake. Shouldn't these business have asked themselves "will I still be competitive if the military is providing housing to it's members at half the rate that I can afford?". The answer must have been yes, because these people went and built these things anyhow!

F***ing TB...