Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.huntmilitarycommunities.com/ ... sstg?id=56

And I'm serious about this: This link describes a recent contract awarded by the US Government to Hunt Building Company. In the article, it states:

Hunt Building Company, Ltd. has begun development on three separate projects with two different branches of the Armed Services for military housing privatization contracts that when complete will include 3,662 new and renovated military housing units for total project costs valued at over $650 million.

When I do the math, that comes to an AVERAGE of $177,498/UNIT. Instead of building MORE houses when there's hundreds of thousands of FORECLOSURES out there, why not buy up foreclosures and use them as military housing?

Now, this article is from 2006, but I'm SURE there are new/existing/recently awarded contracts for this exact purpose.

Here in Phoenix, a very significant portion of the foreclosures have happened in the far west valley, very near Luke Air Force Base. The government could come in, buy up literally BLOCKS of houses, and turn them into officer/enlisted housing in a snap, while at the same time getting foreclosures off the market. And I GUARANTEE they could pick up half the town of Tolleson for less than $177K per unit.

Here's a second article, dateline July 24, 2008 concerning another company that just landed a contract for $410 million to construct/manage 2,435 housing units. This is an average of $168,378/UNIT.

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=3119032

I'm sure there's much more to be considered, but is there any possibility to this? Why haven't people in our brilliant government thought of something like this?

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.huntmilitarycommunities.com/ ... sstg?id=56

And I'm serious about this: This link describes a recent contract awarded by the US Government to Hunt Building Company. In the article, it states:

Hunt Building Company, Ltd. has begun development on three separate projects with two different branches of the Armed Services for military housing privatization contracts that when complete will include 3,662 new and renovated military housing units for total project costs valued at over $650 million.

When I do the math, that comes to an AVERAGE of $177,498/UNIT. Instead of building MORE houses when there's hundreds of thousands of FORECLOSURES out there, why not buy up foreclosures and use them as military housing?

Now, this article is from 2006, but I'm SURE there are new/existing/recently awarded contracts for this exact purpose.

Here in Phoenix, a very significant portion of the foreclosures have happened in the far west valley, very near Luke Air Force Base. The government could come in, buy up literally BLOCKS of houses, and turn them into officer/enlisted housing in a snap, while at the same time getting foreclosures off the market. And I GUARANTEE they could pick up half the town of Tolleson for less than $177K per unit.

Here's a second article, dateline July 24, 2008 concerning another company that just landed a contract for $410 million to construct/manage 2,435 housing units. This is an average of $168,378/UNIT.

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=3119032

I'm sure there's much more to be considered, but is there any possibility to this? Why haven't people in our brilliant government thought of something like this?

Several points...

Those contracts also include the demolition cost of the old housing that is being replaced...and since 9/11, building/buying outside of a secure facility is near impossible...DoD is getting out of leased facilities and building on near-by bases...housing facilities are being secured...

Most people have almost forgotten (or want to forget) about the attacks, and want security relaxed...DoD continues to upgrade security, even around its military housing facilities...so, while your raw numbers are most likely correct, there are other considerations that would negate an otherwise good idea...

On the flip side, military families are finally getting some really nice housing...Hunt also had the contract at near-by Fort Belvoir, and everyone in the new houses rave about the quality...

Col Hogan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:http://www.huntmilitarycommunities.com/ ... sstg?id=56

And I'm serious about this: This link describes a recent contract awarded by the US Government to Hunt Building Company. In the article, it states:



When I do the math, that comes to an AVERAGE of $177,498/UNIT. Instead of building MORE houses when there's hundreds of thousands of FORECLOSURES out there, why not buy up foreclosures and use them as military housing?

Now, this article is from 2006, but I'm SURE there are new/existing/recently awarded contracts for this exact purpose.

Here in Phoenix, a very significant portion of the foreclosures have happened in the far west valley, very near Luke Air Force Base. The government could come in, buy up literally BLOCKS of houses, and turn them into officer/enlisted housing in a snap, while at the same time getting foreclosures off the market. And I GUARANTEE they could pick up half the town of Tolleson for less than $177K per unit.

Here's a second article, dateline July 24, 2008 concerning another company that just landed a contract for $410 million to construct/manage 2,435 housing units. This is an average of $168,378/UNIT.

http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=3119032

I'm sure there's much more to be considered, but is there any possibility to this? Why haven't people in our brilliant government thought of something like this?

Several points...

Those contracts also include the demolition cost of the old housing that is being replaced...and since 9/11, building/buying outside of a secure facility is near impossible...DoD is getting out of leased facilities and building on near-by bases...housing facilities are being secured...

Most people have almost forgotten (or want to forget) about the attacks, and want security relaxed...DoD continues to upgrade security, even around its military housing facilities...so, while your raw numbers are most likely correct, there are other considerations that would negate an otherwise good idea...

On the flip side, military families are finally getting some really nice housing...Hunt also had the contract at near-by Fort Belvoir, and everyone in the new houses rave about the quality...

Col., I understand your issues, and as I said in my original post there's obviously other issues to consider. But hundreds of thousands of military members live off base. Why should THESE be any different? And I guarantee you they could secure houses in Phoenix for a LOT less than $178K per unit. Ultimately the numbers may not work out, but it sure looks to me on the surface like something with a lot more inside knowledge of the situation should at least look into before we build MORE housing that ultimately will be left empty when the democrats gut the military even further.

Something AZ would never consider is that when people are evicted from their homes, they need some place else to live. They do not just magically evaporate because they no longer own a home.

The "housing problem" is not the problem of repo'ed structures, it is the problem of homelessness of millions of people.

Of course that is from my point of view, and I am not a banker.

Pay em more and make em secure their own housing. It's no wonder that veterans make up a huge percentage of the homeless population.

D1B wrote:Pay em more and make em secure their own housing. It's no wonder that veterans make up a huge percentage of the homeless population.

First, you are mixing apples and oranges...

Az is talking about active duty military housing, not veterans...

And regarding more money, Congress sets spending limits, not the services...if Congress wants to give more Basic Housing Allowance money so the services can pay members more to live off base rather in base housing, Congress can do that...

But Congress has a love affair with on-base housing and this new contract system that Az discussed in the first post...it's private industry taking over running on-base services...while still meeting the mandated security requirements...

Wedgebuster wrote:Something AZ would never consider is that when people are evicted from their homes, they need some place else to live. They do not just magically evaporate because they no longer own a home.

The "housing problem" is not the problem of repo'ed structures, it is the problem of homelessness of millions of people.

Of course that is from my point of view, and I am not a banker.

There is this thing called an "apartment", Wedgie. Perhaps you've heard of them? It isn't a god given right to own a home.

AZ isn't the dick you make him out to be. Even if he IS a banker. AZ is just trying to figure out a BETTER way to spend the government's money, stimulate the economy, get hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes off the "for sale" roles, help assist communities with getting back on their feet by stabilizing home values, while at the same time not spending the "stimulus" money on things such as:

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations

But what the fcuk do I know, huh?

Is this the real solution to the housing problem that a lot of people have? I doubt if it really solves the problem.






--------------------------------------
diet critics

Hoovervilles.


That's the solution, Hoovervilles.

MarkCCU wrote:Hoovervilles.


That's the solution, Hoovervilles.

A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Something AZ would never consider is that when people are evicted from their homes, they need some place else to live. They do not just magically evaporate because they no longer own a home.

The "housing problem" is not the problem of repo'ed structures, it is the problem of homelessness of millions of people.

Of course that is from my point of view, and I am not a banker.

There is this thing called an "apartment", Wedgie. Perhaps you've heard of them? It isn't a god given right to own a home.

AZ isn't the dick you make him out to be. Even if he IS a banker. AZ is just trying to figure out a BETTER way to spend the government's money, stimulate the economy, get hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes off the "for sale" roles, help assist communities with getting back on their feet by stabilizing home values, while at the same time not spending the "stimulus" money on things such as:

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.
• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).
• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.
• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.
• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.
• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.
• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
• $500 million for state and local fire stations.
• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.
• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.
• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.
• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
• $850 million for Amtrak.
• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.
• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations

But what the fcuk do I know, huh?

This post proves that AZ and Tman are the same person.

Col Hogan wrote:

D1B wrote:Pay em more and make em secure their own housing. It's no wonder that veterans make up a huge percentage of the homeless population.

First, you are mixing apples and oranges...

Az is talking about active duty military housing, not veterans...

And regarding more money, Congress sets spending limits, not the services...if Congress wants to give more Basic Housing Allowance money so the services can pay members more to live off base rather in base housing, Congress can do that...

But Congress has a love affair with on-base housing and this new contract system that Az discussed in the first post...it's private industry taking over running on-base services...while still meeting the mandated security requirements...

I understood. After basic, send em on their own to secure housing. They get used to the government taking care of their needs, when they do get out, they're helpless.

Military = Largest welfare program

D1B wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
First, you are mixing apples and oranges...

Az is talking about active duty military housing, not veterans...

And regarding more money, Congress sets spending limits, not the services...if Congress wants to give more Basic Housing Allowance money so the services can pay members more to live off base rather in base housing, Congress can do that...

But Congress has a love affair with on-base housing and this new contract system that Az discussed in the first post...it's private industry taking over running on-base services...while still meeting the mandated security requirements...

I understood. After basic, send em on their own to secure housing. They get used to the government taking care of their needs, when they do get out, they're helpless.

Military = Largest welfare program

Gross over-generalization...kinda like if I say all football players are woman beating druggies...(wait, that may not be a generalization...)

When I was enlisted, most of us wanted to get off-base housing...the money (CONGRESS) wasn't there...

Col Hogan wrote:

D1B wrote:
I understood. After basic, send em on their own to secure housing. They get used to the government taking care of their needs, when they do get out, they're helpless.

Military = Largest welfare program

Gross over-generalization...kinda like if I say all football players are woman beating druggies...(wait, that may not be a generalization...)

When I was enlisted, most of us wanted to get off-base housing...the money (CONGRESS) wasn't there...

So I'm right - give the soldiers more money so they can secure their own housing?

Might be a gross over-generalization, but practically every military person I know has a ridiculous sense of entitlement and because they peeled potatos for a few years, they feel they're entitled to healthcare, housing and income for the rest of thier lives.

Look at homeless statistics. Veterans make up disproportionate percentage. They are also the biggest assholes in a homeless shelter and have the worst drug and alcohol problems.

D1B wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

Gross over-generalization...kinda like if I say all football players are woman beating druggies...(wait, that may not be a generalization...)

When I was enlisted, most of us wanted to get off-base housing...the money (CONGRESS) wasn't there...

So I'm right - give the soldiers more money so they can secure their own housing?

Might be a gross over-generalization, but practically every military person I know has a ridiculous sense of entitlement and because they peeled potatos for a few years, they feel they're entitled to healthcare, housing and income for the rest of thier lives.

Look at homeless statistics. Veterans make up disproportionate percentage. They are also the biggest assholes in a homeless shelter and have the worst drug and alcohol problems.

Everyone who joins the military knows up-front they are not entitled to health care or anything else unless they retire...serve at least twenty years...then retirement is about 35% of their totaln paycheck from their last day on active duty...no housing is included, you're on your own...so again, gross over-generalization and just pure misinformation from D1B

No one peels potatos...or digs ditches...you really need to get your information on the military from a source other than Beetle Bailey...

Regarding the homeless stats...I'll check, and get back to you...homelessness is not my forte...

Col Hogan wrote:

D1B wrote:
So I'm right - give the soldiers more money so they can secure their own housing?

Might be a gross over-generalization, but practically every military person I know has a ridiculous sense of entitlement and because they peeled potatos for a few years, they feel they're entitled to healthcare, housing and income for the rest of thier lives.

Look at homeless statistics. Veterans make up disproportionate percentage. They are also the biggest assholes in a homeless shelter and have the worst drug and alcohol problems.

Everyone who joins the military knows up-front they are not entitled to health care or anything else unless they retire...serve at least twenty years...then retirement is about 35% of their totaln paycheck from their last day on active duty...no housing is included, you're on your own...so again, gross over-generalization and just pure misinformation from D1B

No one peels potatos...or digs ditches...you really need to get your information on the military from a source other than Beetle Bailey...

Regarding the homeless stats...I'll check, and get back to you...homelessness is not my forte...

Sure they know this, but that doesn't mean they don't have an entitlement mentality, or at least annoyingly mention their service in every conversation and use it to gain advantage or preferrential treatment.

Don't bother with homeless stats. They're accurate, but it's a different argument. IMO, that's a garbage in - garbage out issue. Just jerkin your chain with that one.