Rank and on-post housing conditions: Your thoughts?

2015-05-07T13:17:46-04:00

I have driven through a couple of posts and bases, only to find that there is a trend: On-post areas designated for seniors recieve better care. One can argue that higher rank should indeed recieve better living quarters based on work put in by the individual to gain that benefit; I am not arguing that. One can also argue that if lower rank wants nice facilities, they should either 1. Get promoted, or 2. Take care of their own area. My question is, do the last two arguements hold any truth.

Response by CPT Bob Moore made May 7 at 2015 1:33 PM

2015-05-07T13:33:53-04:00

When I lived on post in the mid 90s, All areas were taken care of. The lower enlisted housing was smaller, but I didn't really see much of a difference in the care of the surrounding areas.

Of course, we did have pride in our own areas and kept up the areas we were responsible for. But the common areas were also well cared for and maintained. We had an engineer unit as the sponsor of our housing area, but I thought every area was well cared for, regardless of the unit that sponsored it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 7 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-05-07T13:49:47-04:00

Let's approach this from a different angle.

Rank does not entitle someone to "better" living areas. It entitles them to "larger" living areas.

That said, the base is required to maintain ALL areas on a set schedule. Most "grounds" are on a 15/year (once a month, twice a month in the summer) type schedule. If someone is reallocating "funds" or "resources" so that higher ranks are receiving a disproportionate amount of those resources, then there is a problem.

However, since there will be more troops in the same "square footage" in lower ranked areas, "wear & tear" as well as turn over will be higher in lower ranked areas. This means they become disproportionately worn down in comparison to higher ranked areas. If you reverse the resources to account for that, the same problem exists.

You can't allocate more resources, even though you know the area is getting worn down faster. It creates an auditing issue of "why?" which is obvious to anyone who has ever done any kind of facility management, but not anyone looking at raw data.

But back to the question of "get promoted" and "take care of their own area."

Neither hold any truth. Troops are not responsible for the own promotion on the macro level. Troops at each rank area promoted on average over X amount of time. The house area has Y amount of turnover, and even if you do get promoted, that doesn't mean you will swap housing. As for taking care of your own housing, you get what they give you, and anything outside of your postage stamp is outside of your control and part of the "roads & grounds." It's victim blaming at its finest.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 1:59 PM

2015-05-07T13:59:44-04:00

Most installations privatize their housing and is open to all ranks.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 2:04 PM

2015-05-07T14:04:22-04:00

Getting promoted doesn't equate to a better house or taking care of their immediate area, not including the common areas, the park in the foreground for example. Everything within the fence of the housing unit is the tenants responsibility (in most cases).

In Ft Stewart, there's 9 housing areas run by Balfour Beatty Communities. But high rank doesn't necessarily mean better quarters or better area. Before the military let privatization takeover housing, it wasn't uncommon for E1-E7 living next to one another. Everyone had a responsibility to take care of their housing unit. Officer row was always pristine, the more senior enlisted(E8-E9) areas were also well kept.

Before privatization, back in the day, as an MP, I could give you a citation, for your grass over a certain height and not being mowed, leaving your garbage cans out for 24 hrs or more after they been picked up, inoperable vehicle in your driveway/carport for more than 15 days and the list goes on. Balfour in this case, deems what you're were responsible for, usually a couple of notices and then a letter gets sent to your Commander or higher.

Higher ranking, their areas are a bit more taken care of in my experience living in quarters but I think that's for obvious reasons. There was an issue I recall when I lived on air force base that there wasn't funding for contractors to come out and do landscaping maintenance for awhile.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 7 at 2015 3:34 PM

2015-05-07T15:34:35-04:00

When I served with Lt Custer (that's a joke) we maintained the area (lawn) around our quarters and it had to meet standards.

The quarters were maintained by CES for maintenance, but cleanliness was the occupants responsibility.

All common areas of the base were maintained by the government (sometimes with members pulling detail)

What I now see in many common areas receiving little or no care.

It saddens me to see the shape of the base near me.

Response by SSgt Mary Kelly Anderson made May 7 at 2015 5:26 PM

2015-05-07T17:26:04-04:00

We lived in "premium housing" on Hurlburt Field, FL, and ended up putting in our own yard and back deck. Ours was no better than our TSgt friends down the block.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made May 8 at 2015 10:35 AM

2015-05-08T10:35:47-04:00

All personnel, regardless of rank or position, deserve suitable housing.

Maintenance of housing areas is a shared responsibility between the residents and the garrison command. If residents think they are not being treated fairly, they and their "mayors" should voice their concerns with the garrison command and the chain of command.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Dec 3 at 2017 9:05 PM

2017-12-03T21:05:38-05:00

The disappointment is that """Leaders""" abandon their troops and the families of those troops to fend for themselves.