If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTKR)   Contractor who ran mold-infested housing for Navy families promises to work with those who got sick. And by that they mean try to have the lawsuits moved to federal court where they can claim sovereign immunity   (wtkr.com) divider line 41
    More: Asinine, navy, sovereign immunity, Hampton Roads, families  
•       •       •

5555 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2012 at 10:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-02-28 10:07:52 AM
I bet he's Sporey.
 
2012-02-28 10:10:33 AM
"Because they work on behalf of the Navy, they would be considered an extension of the federal government, so no one could sue them based on performance."

...what the fark? Seriously?
 
2012-02-28 10:10:58 AM
I've never lived in Army housing that didn't have mold. They just paint over it. Then it bubbles up and you have fun little sacs of mold you can push on and hear it squish.
 
2012-02-28 10:20:26 AM
This entire thing is fabricated. You know it's a fake story because it was reported on "NewsChannel 3". There is no such thing as "NewsChannel 3" . There isn't anything on "Channel 3". It's what you click to when you want to play Atari. I'm getting madder and madder just thinking about it.
 
2012-02-28 10:20:42 AM
Wow that was a ridiculously stupid and one sided article.

"that's right, they can't be sued."

Uh, dumbfark? They have been sued. The fact that the plaintiffs are gonna lose is not their fault.

Type exclusive moar, crappy local media.
 
2012-02-28 10:23:51 AM

qorkfiend: "Because they work on behalf of the Navy, they would be considered an extension of the federal government, so no one could sue them based on performance."

...what the fark? Seriously?


Feres Doctrine, FTW!
 
2012-02-28 10:25:02 AM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: This entire thing is fabricated. You know it's a fake story because it was reported on "NewsChannel 3". There is no such thing as "NewsChannel 3" . There isn't anything on "Channel 3". It's what you click to when you want to play Atari. I'm getting madder and madder just thinking about it.


I use channel for my Betamax.
 
2012-02-28 10:25:49 AM
What's the point of sovereign immunity? Why shouldn't a citizen be able to prove to a judge that the government should be dissolved and the plaintiff should be installed as absolute ruler? I'm sure there are cases when that would be an entirely appropriate remedy.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-02-28 10:26:21 AM
Because they work on behalf of the Navy, they would be considered an extension of the federal government, so no one could sue them based on performance.

The Navy can sue them for delivering substandard products.

For contractor immunity, see Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. 487 U.S. 500 (1988), but that was a case about alleged design flaws rather than shoddy construction.
 
2012-02-28 10:30:35 AM
This type of shoddy construction and lack of care has been a problem since the late 40's.

I mean, didn't you guys even play L.A. Noire?
 
2012-02-28 10:31:50 AM
Link (new window)


The Navy guy is having his benefits reduced.......kind of sucks if you are gonna be having mold related respiratory probems caused by the contractor....but the contractors benefits go untouched if hes in a union.

thanks Obama.
 
2012-02-28 10:31:58 AM
Not your fault, Subby, but the journalist is an idiot:
Court documents show on February 10, Lincoln filed a notice for removal - an attempt to move their lawsuits to federal court.

If a judge rules in their favor, the company plans on using their status as a government contractor for a defense, making them eligible for sovereign immunity.


Removal is the right of the defendant under 28 USC 1441, if the case could have been filed in Federal court... and it has nothing to do with sovereign immunity.

But even more so, Lincoln isn't playing some trick or using a loophole to argue immunity. From page 2:
We also went to the Navy, since the company they created in partnership with Lincoln is named in the lawsuit, but they told us they do not comment on pending litigation.

If you sue the Navy or a Navy subsidized company, you bet they're going to argue sovereign immunity.
 
2012-02-28 10:32:58 AM
From their site (new window)
Our mission is to provide premier homes and outstanding management and maintenance services to military families, who deserve nothing less.

The entire Lincoln Military Housing team is honored to serve those who protect America. We know "Every Mission Begins at Home" and will work tirelessly to be sure that we exceed our resident's and our partner's expectations.


FAIL!

How can they be an extension of the military if they are privatized? (new window)

The DoD has mandated that all Military Housing will be privatized before the end of this decade. The reason behind this mandate is that private partners are able to more efficiently build, renovate, and manage housing, and at less expense than the government. The private partners are also incentivized to provide quality products, management and services. The success of these partnerships is tied to the number of service members who choose to live in installation housing, and therefore, the private partner has incentives to keep the homes and surrounding grounds well maintained and the residents pleased



Why has the DoD decided to privatize housing?
 
2012-02-28 10:34:12 AM

nyseattitude: From their site (new window)
Our mission is to provide premier homes and outstanding management and maintenance services to military families, who deserve nothing less.

The entire Lincoln Military Housing team is honored to serve those who protect America. We know "Every Mission Begins at Home" and will work tirelessly to be sure that we exceed our resident's and our partner's expectations.

FAIL!

How can they be an extension of the military if they are privatized? (new window)

The DoD has mandated that all Military Housing will be privatized before the end of this decade. The reason behind this mandate is that private partners are able to more efficiently build, renovate, and manage housing, and at less expense than the government. The private partners are also incentivized to provide quality products, management and services. The success of these partnerships is tied to the number of service members who choose to live in installation housing, and therefore, the private partner has incentives to keep the homes and surrounding grounds well maintained and the residents pleased

Why has the DoD decided to privatize housing?


Freedom
 
2012-02-28 10:34:38 AM
As someone who is married to a Navy guy in Virginia Beach, I hear about this story on the news a lot.

/we don't live in military housing. I think that when you do, ALL of your housing allowance is taken, which kinda sucks. We rent and still have a bit left over, even though we live in a not-so-inexpensive place. However, if you have kids and all, it may be more cost effective.
 
2012-02-28 10:36:53 AM
Well it's not like they are serving a large group of people who have easy access to firearms...
 
2012-02-28 10:40:16 AM

nyseattitude: From their site (new window)
Our mission is to provide premier homes and outstanding management and maintenance services to military families, who deserve nothing less.

The entire Lincoln Military Housing team is honored to serve those who protect America. We know "Every Mission Begins at Home" and will work tirelessly to be sure that we exceed our resident's and our partner's expectations.

FAIL!

How can they be an extension of the military if they are privatized? (new window)

The DoD has mandated that all Military Housing will be privatized before the end of this decade. The reason behind this mandate is that private partners are able to more efficiently build, renovate, and manage housing, and at less expense than the government. The private partners are also incentivized to provide quality products, management and services. The success of these partnerships is tied to the number of service members who choose to live in installation housing, and therefore, the private partner has incentives to keep the homes and surrounding grounds well maintained and the residents pleased

Why has the DoD decided to privatize housing?


Why don't you read the unbolded portion of the paragraph you pasted in? The part that starts "The reason behind this mandate is..."

Don't get me wrong -- I think it's a shiatty decision, but you asked why they did it. That's why.
 
2012-02-28 10:52:35 AM

Minerva8918: I think that when you do, ALL of your housing allowance is taken


Yes. They give you either money for a house, or a house (if available).
 
2012-02-28 10:58:12 AM
Correct, active duty military members cannot sue, but their family members who live in government quarters sure as hell can.
 
2012-02-28 10:59:32 AM
Leaving housing up to the military is a bad idea, IMO.

Let people who's business it is to build houses do it, and don't leave it up to the people who's business it is to build and maintain instruments of war.

e.g. Don't go to a gun store for quality furniture (I realize that's an extreme simplification of the situation)
 
2012-02-28 11:01:01 AM

Bryntryst: Correct, active duty military members cannot sue, but their family members who live in government quarters sure as hell can.


I see you sport a Fark GED in Law and Associated Industries.

Good for you.
 
2012-02-28 11:01:04 AM
fark. Orders in hand for Portsmouth, VA this summer. Don't really want to go. Not even going to touch GOV housing.
 
2012-02-28 11:01:50 AM

Razorbladedog: Leaving housing up to the military is a bad idea, IMO.

Let people who's business it is to build houses do it, and don't leave it up to the people who's business it is to build and maintain instruments of war.

e.g. Don't go to a gun store for quality furniture (I realize that's an extreme simplification of the situation)


Yeah. The military has never shown the ability to construct, only destruct.

www.auburnpost.org
 
2012-02-28 11:13:23 AM

Wellon Dowd: Razorbladedog: Leaving housing up to the military is a bad idea, IMO.

Let people who's business it is to build houses do it, and don't leave it up to the people who's business it is to build and maintain instruments of war.

e.g. Don't go to a gun store for quality furniture (I realize that's an extreme simplification of the situation)

Yeah. The military has never shown the ability to construct, only destruct.

[www.auburnpost.org image 336x490]


The Seabees are responsible for constructing bases, building roads and helping with disaster relief, not building substandard military housing. The subcontractors in question operate with little to no oversight and get off without being held to the same standards as the Seabees. What was your point again?
 
2012-02-28 11:31:19 AM
As with many non combat roles, this is a result of downsizing the military. Whatever active duty guys that were in charge of housing maintenance have been replaced with outside contractors.
Not saying military guys would be better or worse, but there would have been a little more oversight.

But hey...we reduced the size of the military, right?
 
2012-02-28 11:36:25 AM
Will Phoenix Wright mash the Rooker-Feldman button?
 
2012-02-28 11:36:40 AM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: As with many non combat roles, this is a result of downsizing the military. Whatever active duty guys that were in charge of housing maintenance have been replaced with outside contractors.
Not saying military guys would be better or worse, but there would have been a little more oversight.

But hey...we reduced the size of the military, right?


Where in Tidewater are you from?
 
2012-02-28 11:51:26 AM

Theaetetus: Not your fault, Subby, but the journalist is an idiot:
Court documents show on February 10, Lincoln filed a notice for removal - an attempt to move their lawsuits to federal court.

If a judge rules in their favor, the company plans on using their status as a government contractor for a defense, making them eligible for sovereign immunity.

Removal is the right of the defendant under 28 USC 1441, if the case could have been filed in Federal court... and it has nothing to do with sovereign immunity.

But even more so, Lincoln isn't playing some trick or using a loophole to argue immunity. From page 2:
We also went to the Navy, since the company they created in partnership with Lincoln is named in the lawsuit, but they told us they do not comment on pending litigation.

If you sue the Navy or a Navy subsidized company, you bet they're going to argue sovereign immunity.


Shouldn't the Navy be suing them for destruction of government property? -Not just the buildings, the servicemen who experienced health problems as a result of this. As I was to understand servicemen are considered "government property" while under contract.
 
2012-02-28 11:57:52 AM
This calls for Flaming Turds on some ones front porch.

and perhaps a grenade threw a window.
 
2012-02-28 12:00:29 PM

Minerva8918: Where in Tidewater are you from?


Newport News. Work at Langley.
 
2012-02-28 12:05:08 PM

Razorbladedog: Wellon Dowd: Razorbladedog: Leaving housing up to the military is a bad idea, IMO.

Let people who's business it is to build houses do it, and don't leave it up to the people who's business it is to build and maintain instruments of war.

e.g. Don't go to a gun store for quality furniture (I realize that's an extreme simplification of the situation)

Yeah. The military has never shown the ability to construct, only destruct.

[www.auburnpost.org image 336x490]

The Seabees are responsible for constructing bases, building roads and helping with disaster relief, not building substandard military housing. The subcontractors in question operate with little to no oversight and get off without being held to the same standards as the Seabees. What was your point again?


His point was that the military would probably build BETTER houses for itself than they are getting by subcontracting.

I agree.
 
2012-02-28 12:21:47 PM
Giltric:
The Navy guy is having his benefits reduced.......kind of sucks if you are gonna be having mold related respiratory probems caused by the contractor....but the contractors benefits go untouched if hes in a union.

thanks Obama.


Troll, of course. But obviously, (possibly) union constuction workers are not to blame here, the company employing them is.
 
2012-02-28 12:27:46 PM
take some claritin already
 
2012-02-28 12:35:02 PM
As someone who lived in air force housing for five years in the same area, I would be more surprised if there were houses that did not have mold. While I did not experience any ill effects, I knew of people, mostly young children, that were not fully well often.
 
2012-02-28 01:06:12 PM

jagec: Razorbladedog: Wellon Dowd: Razorbladedog: Leaving housing up to the military is a bad idea, IMO.

Let people who's business it is to build houses do it, and don't leave it up to the people who's business it is to build and maintain instruments of war.

e.g. Don't go to a gun store for quality furniture (I realize that's an extreme simplification of the situation)

Yeah. The military has never shown the ability to construct, only destruct.

[www.auburnpost.org image 336x490]

The Seabees are responsible for constructing bases, building roads and helping with disaster relief, not building substandard military housing. The subcontractors in question operate with little to no oversight and get off without being held to the same standards as the Seabees. What was your point again?

His point was that the military would probably build BETTER houses for itself than they are getting by subcontracting.

I agree.


Better, almost certainly. Cheaper, or even for the same cost? Definitely not. If you expanded the responsibility of constructing housing to the military the money required would eat up their budget even faster than it already is. There's a reason the government pays $300 for a hammer, and that reason is the ridiculously detailed specs that need to be met so that equipment doesn't fail. Military grade housing costs would be insanely higher than civilian. Lincoln Military Housing is responsible for the crappy houses, and they have a massive contract with the government. There are plenty of other companies (who probably don't have as many friends in high places) that could do the job right, but that's not what's happening.
 
2012-02-28 01:23:04 PM
Ah, lawyers.

Good Lawyer: my lawyer.

Bad Asshole Lawyer: your lawyer.
 
2012-02-28 02:04:11 PM

nyseattitude: Why has the DoD decided to privatize housing?


Back in the old days, construction of new military family housing was a bureaucratic NIGHTMARE! Congress would first have to approve the purchase (or re-appropriation) of the site for the new housing. Then the local base leadership would have to solicit contractors to build the housing. Then after giving a year or two to allow all the contractors to submit their contracts, they'd have to get Congressional approval for the new construction. Because virtually every single step had to go through Congress, it was a nightmare! With the privatization, Congress has decided that this particular parcel of land will be allocated to the management of this particular military housing company. Then that company (in this case, LMH) can simply say, "We're getting a lot of soldiers moving to the base with 3 or more children. We should build some new 4-bedroom homes to accommodate that," and they can simply start building.

Unfortunately, there are disadvantages. But for all the complaining about LMH and these privatization companies, it's not all that different from the way it was before. When we lived in base housing in Kansas, we had a CONSTANT mold problem in our basement, and our housing office just told us to throw down bleach once a week because repairing the cracks in our basement walls would've been too expensive. And in that case, we had NO real recourse, because you can't sue the government. So this isn't really all that different from before; now we just have somebody else to blame.
 
2012-02-28 02:55:20 PM

qorkfiend: "Because they work on behalf of the Navy, they would be considered an extension of the federal government, so no one could sue them based on performance."

...what the fark? Seriously?


Seriously. I've seen similar "treated as federal employee" provisions in other DoD contracts, which means the remedy is filing under FTCA if it applies.
 
2012-02-28 03:12:24 PM
Soooo happy my husband is leaving the Navy at the end of his enlistment. Every time you turn around they're making being in the Navy a worse and worse deal. The pay is terrible for how much you work and how often you're gone, and the benefits are all set to be eroded.

And, Seacop, Olde Towne Portsmouth is beautiful, Churchland, Portsmouth is pretty nice too. Don't live anywhere in between. (Living In Olde Towne now because it's better than the pit that is Virginia Beach.)
 
2012-02-28 05:52:00 PM

Kali-Ma: Soooo happy my husband is leaving the Navy at the end of his enlistment. Every time you turn around they're making being in the Navy a worse and worse deal. The pay is terrible for how much you work and how often you're gone, and the benefits are all set to be eroded.

And, Seacop, Olde Towne Portsmouth is beautiful, Churchland, Portsmouth is pretty nice too. Don't live anywhere in between. (Living In Olde Towne now because it's better than the pit that is Virginia Beach.)


Womp womp, of course there are shiatty places in VB, but Portsmouth certainly doesn't leave much to be desired either...

Churchland does have some lovely places though.
/stay away from Port Norfolk area!!

Sorry things are so crappy, Kali-Ma, I can certainly relate to that situation!!!
 
2012-02-28 08:42:27 PM

Bryntryst: Correct, active duty military members cannot sue, but their family members who live in government quarters sure as hell can.


This. Wanted to post Morbo "Feres doctrine does not work that way", but I'm tired.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report