Fund, improve housing for military
Gen. Curtis Lemay, the commander of Strategic Air Command, or SAC, was famous for his handson inspections of military bases. Senior officers serving under him would often regale their subordinates with stories of his visits.
Lemay had a process for firsttime visits to each base. When a wing commander drove him to a specified location, he expected his subordinate to personally know each shop’s senior noncommissioned officers.
When a new SAC wing commander was assigned to a base after World War II, Lemay would grant him a 90-day grace period to allow sufficient time to become acquainted with base personnel and facilities by way of “management by walking around” leadership. Failure to meet the general’s expectations during an inspection would result in swift replacement.
As a third-generation veteran and real estate investor, I often wonder what Lemay would think of the state of housing at some of our military installations. Based on his high expectations for his wing commanders, I believe he would take issue with the way both contractors and the military management have mishandled it.
Military housing has undergone considerable changes since the outbreak of World War II. When my grandfather, John “Red” Morgan, joined the Army Air Corp, family housing was covered by the Lanham Act, designed to meet the military’s growing needs. Unfortunately, the quality of housing was often subpar. Military personnel and their families could find themselves living in renovated garages or plywood huts. Some lacked running water or electricity. At most stateside bases, only the most senior of officers lived on post. The families of junior officers were often forced to find housing elsewhere, usually with relatives.
In Lemay’s era, the Cold War required a larger standing military, particularly to maintain intricate weapon systems. The Wherry Act provided the necessary housing while addressing the faults of the Lanham Act. The U.S. military would lease land to developers, guaranteeing rent for homes built on-site. Consequently, housing costs were kept low to ensure the tenant’s ability to pay.
When congressional investigations discovered fraud within the Wherry program, it enacted the Capehart Housing Act in 1955. Under this program, the military would assume direct control of housing, with tenants surrendering their basic allowance for quarters, or BAQ. Commanders like Lemay would conduct routine inspections of military homes, making sure residents cut their grass and shoveled their driveways to specific standards.
Military housing programs changed under the Reagan administration with the 1983 Military Construction Authorization Act introducing Section 801 and 802 housing. Each took a different approach to solving the housing issue, but both ultimately failed due to high maintenance costs or inability to draw potential investors due to BAQ limitations.
The Military Housing Privatization Initiative changed the management focus. New homes were built with a 50-year lease with private contractors hired to manage maintenance. On many installations, commanders no longer held ongoing home evaluations.
If you were to look up “base military housing issues” online, you would find stories from Fort Bragg, Fort Hood, Camp Lejeune and Joint Base San Antonio about tenants suing contractors for negligence. In a recent case, two senior housing contract executives with Balfour Beatty Communities falsified maintenance reports in order to receive a $2.5 million incentive.
Military housing needs funding for quality maintenance and repairs programs, with military leadership and oversight. I can only imagine what my grandfather, John “Red” Morgan, an Air Force World War II Medal of Honor recipient, would think if he had gotten a letter from his wife informing him about substandard housing conditions before he flew a mission into Berlin.