Should Veterans be allowed to stay in base housing?

2015-09-24T01:13:11-04:00

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 1:44 AM

2015-09-24T01:44:15-04:00

As a veteran, that would be nice, but as a taxpayer, I vote no. What would the justification be to allow this?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Sep 24 at 2015 2:15 AM

2015-09-24T02:15:03-04:00

If space is available.

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Sep 24 at 2015 2:27 AM

2015-09-24T02:27:32-04:00

Space A is for that purpose, right?

Response by SSG Jerry Eidson made Sep 24 at 2015 2:54 AM

2015-09-24T02:54:43-04:00

I say yes provided there is available housing. Housing should go to the active troops first!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 3:24 AM

2015-09-24T03:24:35-04:00

I have to say no on this one. Limit money and housing for active duty as it currently stands. It would be ideal if it were affordable or feasible.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Sep 24 at 2015 4:34 AM

2015-09-24T04:34:20-04:00

I would hate to deny any Vet any help. When I was in there was always a long waiting list for Base housing. If there were homes not in use, I'd see no problem with it. Sadly though most homes are taken as fast as they are vacated or used to be. Been awhile since I been in. You can't deny Active Servers to house Vets.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 24 at 2015 6:50 AM

2015-09-24T06:50:19-04:00

This is a resource issue.

Most bases don't have enough housing already for their permanent personnel, and work under the assumption that a specific % will be living in the community. I live outside Quantico, and they have a force of about 11,000, but only enough housing for 1100.

Response by SFC Nikhil Kumra made Sep 24 at 2015 6:53 AM

2015-09-24T06:53:51-04:00

Huh that's interesting. Why would the veteran have left the service if they wanted to stay on base?

If they were retired out, perhaps a transition package if they don't already get one as well as advice on moving would help. But living on base housing? That's wayyyy too expensive.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Sep 24 at 2015 7:44 AM

2015-09-24T07:44:26-04:00

Unless it is overseas (OCONUS) and a few select quarters, there is no such thing as base housing anymore, even if it is "on post". NOTE item number 6 in the answer below.

Who is permitted to live in MHPI housing?
Priority to occupy homes is given to Service members assigned to the installation. However, if there is not enough demand for housing from military personnel and, as a result, occupancy rates drop below a certain level for a defined period of time, the developer can rent to other personnel. The developer must follow a priority list of other possible tenants as defined by the tenant waterfall. For example, the waterfall could be: (1) other military members not assigned to the installation or unaccompanied service members, (2) federal civil service employees, (3) retired military, (4) guard and reserve military, (5) retired federal civil service employees, (6) DoD contractors/permanent employees and then the (6) general public.

Straight from the horses mouth, as the old saying goes, at http://www.acq.osd.mil/housing/index.htm .

DoD Military Housing Privatization

Congress established the Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) in 1996 as a tool to help the military improve the quality of life for its service members by improving the condition of their housing. The MHPI was designed and developed to attract private sector financing, expertise and innovation to provide necessary housing faster and more efficiently than traditional Military Construction processes would allow. The Office of the...

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 24 at 2015 8:00 AM

2015-09-24T08:00:39-04:00

No. But the military should do something about our homeless vets.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Sep 24 at 2015 8:00 AM

2015-09-24T08:00:44-04:00

I have previously made a comment on this subject. I then went on to read the other comments made previous to my original statement. I then went back and re-read the original question. After re-reading the question realized that it could be interpreted in a number of different ways. With this in mind, I would like SN Jeff Powell to restate his question. The way the question is currently stated, makes it appear that the Veterans are not allowed to stay in "base housing", when in fact, they are allowed to stay in "base housing."

Response by SGT David T. made Sep 24 at 2015 8:26 AM

2015-09-24T08:26:28-04:00

Assuming the vet didn't retire, there is no point as we cannot use any of the on post services. Civilian employee in many places can but the rents are far too high compared to the local area (at least here). I have the option but the rent and the restrictions on privately owned weapons were what turned me off to it. Sadly my mortgage on a house double the size of the housing units is cheaper than if I stayed on post.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Sep 24 at 2015 8:49 AM

2015-09-24T08:49:28-04:00

When you make your decision to separate from the service it has a meaning. You are separating from the service. Housing is there for serving members not veterans. The issue with space availability is when it gets tight again you would have to throw veterans out or put service members off base adding to the cost of housing for the DoD.

When you leave the service you should be ready to go on your own or you should stay in. Base housing is not a "benefit" of having served.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 9:02 AM

2015-09-24T09:02:50-04:00

No. Other housing could/should be made available, but opening up base housing has a huge set of consequences related to it. Suffice to say it would change the dynamic of life for all of the service members, as well as the Veterans (and I don't mean in a positive way).

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 10:25 AM

2015-09-24T10:25:20-04:00

It is already permissible as SSG Robert Webster has pointed out. At least on bases where it has already been privatized. In priority order:
(1) other military members not assigned to the installation or unaccompanied service members, (2) federal civil service employees, (3) retired military, (4) guard and reserve military, (5) retired federal civil service employees, (6) DoD contractors/permanent employees and then the (6) general public.

I could see an argument that #6 should be Veterans and bump General Public to #7