{"id":65453,"date":"2019-09-11T20:36:03","date_gmt":"2019-09-11T20:36:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/armytimes\/uncategorized\/2019\/09\/11\/new-association-of-privatized-housing-companies-pushing-back-on-some-reforms\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T11:46:00","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T11:46:00","slug":"new-association-of-privatized-housing-companies-pushing-back-on-some-reforms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/armytimes\/management\/pay-benefits\/2019\/09\/11\/new-association-of-privatized-housing-companies-pushing-back-on-some-reforms\/","title":{"rendered":"New association of privatized housing companies pushing back on some reforms"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In the wake of withering criticism about how they have maintained the military base housing they run, five companies have formed a new coalition to represent their interests. And some have ramped up how much they spend to lobby Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of their first actions of this coalition, called the Military Housing Association, has been to meet with and send a letter to congressional staff members voicing objections to some of the proposals for military housing reform<\/a>. That\u2019s raised the concern of some advocates, who are already alarmed by the Trump administration\u2019s objections to the changes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration \u201cstrongly objects\u201d to significant changes outlined in the Senate bill, according to their Sept. 4 letter to the armed services committees. It specifically notes issues with altering the terms of existing legal agreements with the privatized companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lawmakers heard testimony of military families<\/a> earlier this year about mold, lead-based paint, water leakage and damage, vermin and host of other problems with their military housing; their frustration in getting their privatized housing company to fix them; and the lack of assistance from the military in getting their problems fixed. In a survey<\/a> earlier this year conducted by the Military Family Advisory Network, more than half of the 14,558 privatized residents who responded reported having a negative experience with their housing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Military Housing Association, formed this year, includes the larger privatized housing companies — Balfour Beatty Communities, Corvias, Hunt Military Communities, Lendlease Communities and Lincoln Military Housing, according to a spokeswoman for the organization, who declined to be named. The companies contacted referred questions to S-3 Public Affairs, which is an arm of S-3 Group, also a lobbying firm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The new association\u2019s core goal \u201cis to provide high quality housing, community amenities, and responsive property management to improve the quality of life of service members and their families who live in privatized military housing communities,\u201d the spokeswoman said, in response to questions about the association\u2019s purpose and focus, and actions taken.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the problems with housing came to light, defense and service officials have been working with privatized housing companies to immediately address issues. The housing companies have taken a number of steps to improve services, including hiring more personnel, adding more subcontractors, finding more transparent and efficient ways to process work orders and listening directly to tenants\u2019 concerns with town halls and informal forums, the spokeswoman stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Committee staff members contacted by Military Times declined to comment, citing the ongoing negotiations process as House and Senate lawmakers reconcile differences in their proposals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who has been vocal about his concern regarding military families\u2019 housing problems, said the bottom line is fixing the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaine \u201cappreciates feedback from anyone affected by the proposed changes,” said Sarah Peck, a Kaine spokeswoman. “However, his number one priority is ensuring military families no longer have to endure dangerous conditions in their own homes, and that\u2019s what will determine which policies he supports.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of the proposals would be \u201clegally and practically impossible to implement,\u201d stated the Trump administration\u2019s letter, from the Office of Management and Budget.<\/b> The proposals would also create unfunded requirements; and, to the extent that the measures could even be implemented, would be \u201coverly prescriptive and burdensome,\u201d officials stated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe provisions erroneously assume that privatized housing project entities operate as DoD contractors and that legislation can alter the terms and conditions of previously executed legal agreements.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That statement from the administration is of particular concern, if in fact legislation wouldn\u2019t be able to change legal agreements made with the housing companies, said Eryn Wagnon, director of government relations for the Military Officers Association of America. \u201cAs the [Army Inspector General] put it, these deal structures present unique challenges to the Army and all the services, and highly favor the companies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wagnon also expressed concern that the administration\u2019s position may make some lawmakers apprehensive about pushing key and important provisions, and that the housing companies\u2019 positions on key parts of the bills might also present a barrier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Wagnon said, \u201cWe\u2019re pretty confident the armed services committees are taking into consideration what they heard from families through the hearings, and through statements for the record, and that they\u2019re looking out for families\u2019 best interests.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t