Homesteading

We've stayed at over 50 FamCamps in the past 15 years - and in that 15 years we've seen a great improvement in availability and accommodations. We've also noted a trend toward more and more homesteading, contrary to DOD regs. This winter we've stayed at NAS Jacksonville, NAS Pensacola, Fort Sam Houston, West Fort Hood, Goodfellow AFB and are now in Dyess AFB. NAS Pensacola and Fort Sam seem to be adhering to the regs. NAS Jax is suspect. Hood, Goodfellow and Dyess are guilty until proven innocent. I suggest we collectively make a lot of noise to bring this to the attention of authorities who might care and do something about it. There is the obvious selfish reason to complain - us vagabond retirees would like to find a site open when we pass by - but there is also the appearance factor. Let's face it, homesteading sites can become quite messy looking and can detract from the overall appearance and image of the base or post. Here is a note I sent to ICE regarding West Fort Hood:
The older back-in section of the campground is very congested
and unsightly. Two problems: First, the campsites are too
close together and renovation is long overdue. Second, contrary
to AR215-1 Section 8-25 subpara d there are many obvious
homesteaders. The AR specifies a max stay of 90 days, giving
commanders the authority to grant extensions IF, I repeat IF,
existing reservation requests or waiting lists will be
accommodated by future departures. This homesteading clause is
being ignored. A call for a reservation may or may not result
in a site assignment and there is no waiting list. (We were
lucky to call on a day when one of the back-in sites was going
to be vacant.) Extensions for troops departing or returning
from war zones should be given some slack, no complaints from
me. The same for retired folks with medical problems requiring
treatment at local facilities. However, it is obvious that
extensions at this facility go far beyond special circumstances.
It has been turned into a residential "mobile home park." Some
have been "camping" for over a year and some appear to be
retired or DOD civilians that have full time employment on-base
or nearby.

we have noticed it on the west coast also. looking into it what we are finding is the navy for one, is allowing folks transfered to the base to live in the rv park until housing becomes available, so it ain't mwr's doing, its the navy transferring folks onto bases that don't have housing for them. in calif. the nat. guard bases show preference to the nat. guard members (as it should be) so you never know if you have a reservation or not till you get there. when I was active duty I appreciated being treated "special" and getting first choice. guess I can't bitch about it now, huh ?

At one USAF FamCamp I stayed at this winter, the manager stated their campground isn't operated by MWR anymore. It's operated by what was called the "Family Services Squadron", but is now the "Force Support Squadron". They feel their main mission is to "support the forces". To this end, they will allow active duty to "live" at the FamCamp, even if base housing is available. Since base housing is now operated by contractors, it's cheaper to live at the FamCamp and collect housing allowances. However, they do make the active duty obey the stay limits like anyone else. Which means they may have to rotate every 60 days from a FHU site to overflow, or temporarily be out of the campground until a site is available if there is a waiting list. The manager stated the campground isn't for recreation anymore. :huh:

I'm all for giving active duty priority on reservations, etc. But I don't agree with turning a recreation area into a housing area.

Why wouldn't you mention where the campground was? It seems to me that the base commander gets the last say in how or who manages the base campgrounds. Every base I have been on has a base instruction dictating how the campgrounds operate.

Larry - you are partially correct about MWR. On AF bases, MWR has been turned over to NAF (Non Appropriated Funds), which is a part of FSS (Force Support Sqdn). It is my experience that most FSS organizations have both a military and civilian in charge (Commander and Vice-Commander), and typically, the NAF organization, as well as the MWR section are either all civilians, or have but a token military presence. NAF/MWR operates all the base value stream organizations: FamCamp, Golf Course, Bowling Alley, Pools, shooting ranges, clubs, auto shop, etc. NAF Civilian job performance is tracked, based on annually assigned goals and objectives. Income from each and every income-generating organization becomes a part of each responsible individual's annual performance review. Most military clubs are not profitable, and are usually kept open only due to the base/wing commander's need for someplace to hold his/her functions. Although some bowling alleys are profitable, most are not. Without beating a dead horse, I think you get the picture - FamCamps ARE profitable, more-so as those in charge continue to increase prices. Another way to insure profitability is to maintain at or near full occupancy. Laughlin AFB (Del Rio, TX) has (or did have the last two times we visited) the local Exchange director, an assigned E-9, and two instructor pilots living in the FamCamp. Ellsworth AFB (Rapid City, SD) had several assigned personnel (a Major, and four enlisted) living for extended periods. One sold his home too soon, and remained onsite for about four months. One newly retired, was building a home and was there for at least eight months, another had a military spouse and was looking for a house; the problem was, he would not commit without her approval, and she had to fly down from Alaska. That member was there for over six months. These are but two example I can site here.

Regardless of what the regs say, most bases will continue to abuse the FamCamps because it IS a cash cow, and DOES make those responsible look good to the higher-ups. I hope I am wrong, but it will only get worse!

JMHO - John

We have been staying on Military Installations in the campgrounds for about 14 years and over the past 4 or 5 years there has been a noticeable change about who is using the campgrounds. I expect we will see more and more sites occupied by non-travelling RVers and it is all about the bottom line, not happy about this but understand the driving force for allowing it.