kEiThZ
Superstar
I was told Canada doesn't need to worry about any military threat.... Things keep moving closer and closer:
And most of their inventory dates from the 1950s.
If you join the CAF I assumed they had a bunk for you someplace on your home base. Otherwise where do they expect you to go?
If you join the CAF I assumed they had a bunk for you someplace on your home base. Otherwise where do they expect you to go?
I always assumed that if you were unmarried you lived in a barracks. Married personnel and those with children would reside in on-base housing.A cot in the corner of an armoury?
If you join the CAF I assumed they had a bunk for you someplace on your home base. Otherwise where do they expect you to go?
I always assumed that if you were unmarried you lived in a barracks. Married personnel and those with children would reside in on-base housing.
I wonder what percentage of the 4,500 noted above are in those 2 markets vs others.
Beyond the fact that I think the government is and would remain a lousy landlord, in many if not most cases, the walkability would be limited to work, which is not a bad thing. Obviously, employment sites would be located on-base, but access 'to the economy' would still be limited. Not many bases have much in the way of grocery or dry goods shopping beyond the Canex and the proximity to commercial establishments would be more by chance. Schools seem to be a decision of the local board. Transit seems dependent on whether the adjacent community has it and is willing to extend it.One of the ideas I advocate for is for the federal government to use military housing to build model communities. Make them high density, net zero and walkable. This accomplishes a number of goals:
1) It helps military members.
2) It reduces pressure on the local housing markets around bases.
3) It can be built quickly and can bypass provincial and local building and zoning codes. For example, they could build point access blocks.
4) It could provide fantastic examples of quality of life in denser communities. And it would do so, in areas that almost never have examples of such.
I would have thought the LPC under pressure to spend more on defence would pursue a win-win like this. Alas.....
Historically, the military (essentially the army) was kept separate and apart from the broader society, likely both as a means to control the soldiers but also to keep the uncouth away from polite society. The spin-off on that was they became a self-contained community unto themselves.
Once pay started getting improved, the government retreated or reduced a lot of the available services and amenities. I don't know if the military is treated differently but, generally, anything the employer provides that is deemed a subsidy is considered a taxable benefit by the CRA.
Beyond the fact that I think the government is and would remain a lousy landlord, in many if not most cases, the walkability would be limited to work, which is not a bad thing. Obviously, employment sites would be located on-base, but access 'to the economy' would still be limited. Not many bases have much in the way of grocery or dry goods shopping beyond the Canex and the proximity to commercial establishments would be more by chance. Schools seem to be a decision of the local board. Transit seems dependent on whether the adjacent community has it and is willing to extend it.
I know in the past you have advocated for consolidating our military establishments to larger centres, which might have a positive impact on recruiting, but factors such as land costs and housing cots for those who choose to live on the economy would likely be elevated. Constantly shuttling both personnel and equipment out to training areas where they can do boom-boom stuff would be an added cost..
“These threats have the potential to wreak large-scale havoc on Canadians’ daily lives,” the report said. “The impacts include mass layoffs caused by the theft of intellectual property, disruptions to Canadians’ ability to heat and power their homes due to paralyzing cyberattacks, and skyrocketing cost of everyday household products because of weaponized supply chains.”