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

[captloadie]

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

Here is where I have to disagree. A MSC at Cpls Spec pay are making more than a Maj's salary. Why should they be entitled to a Q over them? Or 3 single Ptes are sharing a Q qualify, but an MWO with three kids in high school and on her second family might need the access to a Q as well. I don't think tying access to salary or rank is fair.

The time for BComd being allowed to control their own infrastructure has passed. Now that ADM(IE) is (will be) the landlord for all real property, BComds have become just another tennant.

I would suggest the following. Get rid of the majority of PMQ's. Then do the following: make PLD an actual flexible and responsive benefit which has three tiers. Tier 1 is for members who have a home and prove they have a mortgage. Tier 2 is members who decide to rent accomodations and have proof of a lease. Tier 3 are members who do not either have a mortgage or rent. I would also bring in a system for renters similar to what outcan members get. You pay a base amount for rent, and anything over and above that, up to a ceiling, is paid as a taxable benefit. This would be dependant on family size, but not salary. In my mind, this would do what everyone wants, equaling the playing field across ranks and across locations, but giving members the choice to manage their own housing and financial needs. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is where I have to disagree. A MSC at Cpls Spec pay are making more than a Maj's salary. Why should they be entitled to a Q over them? Or 3 single Ptes are sharing a Q qualify, but an MWO with three kids in high school and on her second family might need the access to a Q as well. I don't think tying access to salary or rank is fair.

The time for BComd being allowed to control their own infrastructure has passed. Now that ADM(IE) is (will be) the landlord for all real property, BComds have become just another tennant.

I would suggest the following. Get rid of the majority of PMQ's. Then do the following: make PLD an actual flexible and responsive benefit which has three tiers. Tier 1 is for members who have a home and prove they have a mortgage. Tier 2 is members who decide to rent accomodations and have proof of a lease. Tier 3 are members who do not either have a mortgage or rent. I would also bring in a system for renters similar to what outcan members get. You pay a base amount for rent, and anything over and above that, up to a ceiling, is paid as a taxable benefit. This would be dependant on family size, but not salary. In my mind, this would do what everyone wants, equaling the playing field across ranks and across locations, but giving members the choice to manage their own housing and financial needs.

Then why have BComds at all?

              ... And, by the way, I'm serious.

If staff weenies in remote HQs are going to manage things then why do we need "garrison" commanders?

We still need unit COs and formation commanders (MOGs, brigades, wings, etc) but the BComd is redundant, isn't (s)he?

    Or, maybe, high ranking "commanders" in remote HQs are the problem and we need to send them all to early retirement, along with the dozens of junior generals and and legions of Navy captains and Army/RCAF
    colonels that attend them all ... I'm happy to have someone in NDHQ responsible for works and quarters: it's a great job for a colonel, but, given that this is the CF where overranking is almost a sexual fetish, I guess a one star is
    required ... anything else is feather-bedding by GOFOs and is indicative of misplaced priorities, perhaps even weak leadership, at the highest levels.

 

[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?

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

Okay.  I precieve what you are saying and your meaning are different things.

You object to PMQ prices being based on a total square footage comparison against the local economy while neglecting other less quantifiable qualities that are considered when people are not dealing with a monopoly organization (things like comfort, aesthetics, layout, level of maintenance, etc).  Fair market value, as you see it, is below the level of rent that DND charges.  I believe a case could be made that many locations (maybe all locations) do charge above fair market value.

But, if you do propose charging below market value, then you are providing subsidised housing to some service members while denying others.  Everyone who does not live in the shacks or who does not get into a PMQ does pay market value.

 

[Brasidas]

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
Okay.  I precieve what you are saying and your meaning are different things.

You object to PMQ prices being based on a total square footage comparison against the local economy while neglecting other less quantifiable qualities that are considered when people are not dealing with a monopoly organization (things like comfort, aesthetics, layout, level of maintenance, etc).  Fair market value, as you see it, is below the level of rent that DND charges.  I believe a case could be made that many locations (maybe all locations) do charge above fair market value.

But, if you do propose charging below market value, then you are providing subsidised housing to some service members while denying others.  Everyone who does not live in the shacks or who does not get into a PMQ does pay market value.

The general population in Victoria chooses to live there. A supply tech Cpl IPC1 in Winnipeg, who's got two kids gets posted to Victoria. His wife has a specialized job and/or credentials that make her less employable in Victoria. I've got no problem with him being first IR'd there, put on a waiting list, and being higher on the queue for base housing than a PO1 with greater means to live on the local economy.

That seems more "fair" to me than both first come, first serve and avoiding anyone having equal access to subsidised housing or a lack thereof.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

A MSC at Cpls Spec pay are making more than a Maj's salary.

I am not quite sure what you meant in this statement.  GSO Major starts at 8386/month, Spec 2 IPC 4 Cpl is 6037/month.

I think I am missing something in context related to what MSC is?

 

[exgunnertdo]

I am not quite sure what you meant in this statement.  GSO Major starts at 8386/month, Spec 2 IPC 4 Cpl is 6037/month.

I think I am missing something in context related to what MSC is?

Married Service Couple? - meaning two Cpls (a MSC) make more than a Major, but the proposal of tying it to rank would mean the Maj wouldn't be entitled to a PMQ but the Cpls would.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Thanks!  I could not for the life of me make my brain come up with what MSC was...

 

[DonaldMcL]

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 sure as heck don't. Why should I have less income because I've just left Greenwood (PMQs around ~$500 median) and because someone thought it best for my career, I'm now paying $1300/mth for the same place in Cold Lake? Because local economy? pfft.

I'm not necessarily in charge of my career, as much as the CoC likes to say it, and shouldn't be penalized because of that.

 

[YZT580]

Just a thought: Is there really a excess of housing or is it simply a result of not being up to strength?  It is easy for an auditor to comment on 1500 vacancies but if that is compared to the 7 or 8 thousand below strength than addressing the housing issue is no longer the issue  Instead he should be asking why we are unable to fill the roster.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I would suggest the following. Get rid of the majority of PMQ's. Then do the following: make PLD an actual flexible and responsive benefit which has three tiers. Tier 1 is for members who have a home and prove they have a mortgage. Tier 2 is members who decide to rent accomodations and have proof of a lease. Tier 3 are members who do not either have a mortgage or rent. I would also bring in a system for renters similar to what outcan members get. You pay a base amount for rent, and anything over and above that, up to a ceiling, is paid as a taxable benefit. This would be dependant on family size, but not salary. In my mind, this would do what everyone wants, equaling the playing field across ranks and across locations, but giving members the choice to manage their own housing and financial needs.

I complete agree.  I do not deny that we need a system to compensate for the often frequent geographic moves - but I also do not think that a bricks and mortar solution is the answer.  We are lousy landlords - so get rid of Qs completely, but devise a system that fairly compensates members.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I complete agree.  I do not deny that we need a system to compensate for the often frequent geographic moves - but I also do not think that a bricks and mortar solution is the answer.  We are lousy landlords - so get rid of Qs completely, but devise a system that fairly compensates members.

Do you have any confidence though that such a system would be able to properly implemented by the department? 

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Do you have any confidence though that such a system would be able to properly implemented by the department?

I have zero confidence in our ability to efficiently and effectively manage a stock of 8000 rental homes.  I am willing to look for another way to deliver the support to members....

 

[PuckChaser]

I complete agree.  I do not deny that we need a system to compensate for the often frequent geographic moves - but I also do not think that a bricks and mortar solution is the answer.  We are lousy landlords - so get rid of Qs completely, but devise a system that fairly compensates members.

PLD, but completely out of the hands of TB and automatically updated annually using national averages as a baseline instead of the NCR.

 

[Edward Campbell]

PLD, but completely out of the hands of TB and automatically updated annually using national averages as a baseline instead of the NCR.

But you cannot and should not even want to do that. Control of the sovereign's purse is quite fundamental to our system of democracy and it is firmly rooted in 800 years of British history, since the minority of King Henry III.

There is an obvious perception that our Treasury Board is, somehow, unfair or biased, but, in my opinion, it is simply enforcing the will of parliament in a fair and equitable manner.

In my experience, outdated though it is, TB is, generally, staffed with high quality people who really want to do things right. Certainly, my personal experience again/still, when we, DND/NDHQ, got into pissing contests with the TB Secretariat we most often lost because, normally, there were smarter than us and, sometimes, had a better grasp of our business than we did.

Maybe we should look, first, at ourselves ~ in what we have proposed and how we have proposed it and what we might do to make a better case for a system that meets our needs and those of the taxpayer, too.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have to agree on certain points
1. We should upgrade or modernize old PMQs;
2. We should not just focus on "profit" and "fair market value" (dapaterson, seriously?), our soldiers are not resort guest to exploit for everything they have and snag their last dollar; and
3. What are most of the reg force troopies looking for these days in terms of a PMQ? Anybody?

The volatile housing market, service before self principle and frequent postings all have to be considered before we just decide to make troops pay for parking/housing/etc. Once you start down the "money making" road (as private businesses seek to do) it will be near impossible to reverse the decision in ten years time or whenever. Sources of income/revenue are like an addictive drug to government agencies.

dapaterson, our soldiers and sailors deserve better than your attitude. 

 

[ModlrMike]

My own questions on the subject:

1. does PMQ rent stay within CFHA or does it go into some other central fund?
2. if the answer to 1 is some other central fund, then why?
3. is it wrong to charge PMQ rents that are consistent with the local market?
4. should the quality of the home be taken into consideration (perhaps a sliding scale)?
5. should the allocation of PMQs be means tested?
6. should the CF be encouraging home ownership?
7. should the CF be in the business of rental administration, or should that fall to a wholly separate entity?

My own response to 3-6 is yes. Question 7 I'm not so certain on.

 

[PuckChaser]

The answer to 7 would lie with someone who has had experience in the old system with CE providing repairs (and I believe the CF administering) to the new CFHA regime that is run solely by civilians.

 

[ArmyRick]

As far as CF encouraging home ownership, what happens when a situation arises were a member is posted to X and told for 3-5 yeras and then a year later, unexpectedly they are posted again and lose huge chunk of money on forcing them to re-sell so soon?

This has happened not that long ago.

If we get rid of the PMQs, it has to be for the right reasons (such as troops do not want or need them, far too costly to maintain, etc) not for a revenue generating/profiting reason. IMO.

 

[PuckChaser]

Goes hand in hand with fixing the HEA program (only government lawsuit the Liberals haven't dropped yet). There should be safeguards to protect equity when the member is forced to move for service reasons.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

As far as CF encouraging home ownership, what happens when a situation arises were a member is posted to X and told for 3-5 yeras and then a year later, unexpectedly they are posted again and lose huge chunk of money on forcing them to re-sell so soon?

This has happened not that long ago.

If we get rid of the PMQs, it has to be for the right reasons (such as troops do not want or need them, far too costly to maintain, etc) not for a revenue generating/profiting reason. IMO.

I agree. We've seen how well Home Equity Assistance has worked out for some people.