Real Property

[FW]

^Try working with the state director.  Some of them are pretty good in getting the ground work done (pun intended) for space at military/guard facilities.

[RiverAux]

Some random reminders from the CAP Real Estate Reg (87-1)

Sec 4.  All real estate belongs to CAP the corporation and not the local squadron, group. wing, or region.  So, you do all the fundraising and the building goes to NHQ and the National Board can do what they want with it.  As has been discussed in other fundraising/money threads, this can be a little bit of a drag to getting money from folks if they know the local unit doesn't have final control over the facility.  I'm not saying that this is actually a bad thing, but does factor in. 

Sec. 5.  Property coming to CAP has to be environmentally cleared ($$$) for hazordous waste issues.

It would be very interesting to get a listing of all real estate owned by CAP, but as with all CAP financial issues, unless you're a corporate officer you don't have any right to know anything about how CAP spends or gets its money. 

I didn't see anything limiting use to just CAP. 

[Eclipse]

As has been discussed in other fundraising/money threads, this can be a little bit of a drag to getting money from folks if they know the local unit doesn't have final control over the facility. 

Why anyone would bring this up in a fundraising pitch is beyond me.  It is a legal reality of the corporation, not a practical problem that ever actually comes up.

(now you can all trip over each other to regale me with the tale of the "one time" this "alpha-hotel" Wing CC "stole" all your money, vehicles, property, cadets, candy bars.....)

[RiverAux]

As a general rule, I'm with you on that, however, if you're trying to get somebody to give you thousands of dollars (as with a building) I'm fairly confident they're going to be asking more questions than the guys buying hotdogs at the airshow. 

[FW]

River, everything you stated is true.  However, the reality is everything that comes into CAP belongs to CAP, inc.  The responsible party (PIC) for all wing, group and squadron facilities is the Wing/CC.  It is the wing/cc who controls the real property.  This control is usually deligated to the corresponding unit/cc.  

I don't remember the NB or NEC ever taking control of a local facility.  I only remember the authorization of paying the debts off.  This is why we have "corporate ownership".

There is a master list of all the property we own.  I wouldn't mind seeing it either.  I guess I'll do some extra "homework" to get it.  I'm going to ask for overtime . As to the second part of the statement, any member can find out where we get our funds and how we spend it.  But, this has been discussed in another thread.  We'll just agree to disagree on this.

There is nothing limiting the use of CAP owned property  for CAP business.  It can be leased out to anyone; provided the proper precautions, etc. are followed.  I would encourage outside use.  It promotes CAP (friend raising) and gives the unit needed funds for O&M.  

[Eclipse]

Obviously you answer any direct questions with factual answers, but most corporate sponsors just want to see some quantifiable evidence that what they donated for actually got purchased / built / used, etc.

This is akin to the people shooting themselves in the foot regarding the WBP and telling their sponsors that now "wing can take 'your' money", which is a gross mis-characterization, completely counterproductive, and actually nothing has changed.

It always was corporate money and always will be.

Any donations over the $5k unit CC threshold are going to involve Wing anyway...

[afgeo4]

I think the point is to convince the Senate to appropriate funds to CAP for purchase/lease and maintenance of facilities.

Why should they do that? Because CAP will be a much more effective agency for the DoD and DHS. Because our level of training will go up. Because real estate, if handled properly will give a positive return on the investment. Because we need space to meet in just as much as we need airplanes to fly and vehicles to drive.

[FW]

George, your idea is a good one.  However, I think our first priority would be to find adequate facilities for a wing/hq in every wing.  Once that is accomplished, we can focus on units below.  

Now that the CAP Foundation is established, we can start finding major corporate donors for programs we currently use our own(corporate) funds for.  We can use our money to help establish local meeting places (maybe as matching funds).

I doubt if congress will appropriate more money for us at this time.  Things are pretty tight and unless a senator wants to earmark some "pocket money" to us, we're out of luck.  Then again, the NB can put "local meeting facilities" on the "wish list".  With AF permission and available (appropriated) funds, it could be done.

[RiverAux]

I do think we're missing some facts that could illuminate our conversation here...

We need to know how many units meet in totally free facilities, facilities where they pay for utililities and other small incidentals, facilities where we pay a real rent (not just token), and how many meet in buildings owned by CAP.  And, we need to know the trends in all those numbers. 

The real question though is whether or not it is really to a unit's advantage for CAP to own the property considering that CAP National is not going to support you for repairs, etc. for that property.  I think it would not at the squadron and probably the group levels. 

CAP has somewhat locked itself into the mindset that we need to meet on or near the airport.  If you drop that preconception, there are lots of facilities that can potentially be used for meeting that probably won't cost CAP anything.  Sure, they probably won't have some things that would be nice to have.  But, should the squadron be focusing on raising money to do fun activities or raising money to pay rent, a building fund, etc?  And yes, having a facility at the airport raises your profile among the pilots in the area, but isn't a necessity. 

Wings on the other hand probably could benefit from having a CAP-owned building though any of the cheap or free semi-permanent lease options can work as well.  If it is also a good site for training, that is a bonus. 

[afgeo4]

George, your idea is a good one.  However, I think our first priority would be to find adequate facilities for a wing/hq in every wing.  Once that is accomplished, we can focus on units below.  

Now that the CAP Foundation is established, we can start finding major corporate donors for programs we currently use our own(corporate) funds for.  We can use our money to help establish local meeting places (maybe as matching funds).

I doubt if congress will appropriate more money for us at this time.  Things are pretty tight and unless a senator wants to earmark some "pocket money" to us, we're out of luck.  Then again, the NB can put "local meeting facilities" on the "wish list".  With AF permission and available (appropriated) funds, it could be done.

Explain to me please why Wing HQ needs real estate more than an operational squadron? Most wing HQ members live in opposite parts of the states and don't even come to meetings. Composite squadrons use their facilities probably more than one day per week on average and do most of the actual work anyway. CAP works from the ground up and should be equipped as such.

Yes, it would be difficult to convince the senate to give us money for that, but the point is to keep asking. One day there will be money and they will give it to us. What senator wouldn't like to say he authorized money for homeland security, education, and community enrichment?

[RiverAux]

Although I'm not sure CAP ownership is absolutely necessary, each Wing does need a permanent place to call its home whether it is under a long-term lease or under CAP ownership.  At a minimum we need a place for our paid employee(s) to work, central place for supplies, records storage and retention, etc. 

[NavLT]

I have put a lot of consideration into the Wing HQ question and I think a facility that could either support an encampment or host one would be the priority, or at least a location to hold CLC/UCC/TLC,   at that point the wing could HQ there......

I have seen too many $$$ spent on an office that is not used for the main purpose of storage (records, radio Equipment, etc)  if that is the case then deploy the equipment and scan the records to digital media. 

As far a congress goes both the national and state level they spend money many more foolish initiatives than Operating costs for CAP so keep asking, ask louder, ask with more political leverage, and ask with more corporate fund raising to show we are serious.

V/R
Lt J.

[afgeo4]

I have put a lot of consideration into the Wing HQ question and I think a facility that could either support an encampment or host one would be the priority, or at least a location to hold CLC/UCC/TLC,   at that point the wing could HQ there......

I have seen too many $$$ spent on an office that is not used for the main purpose of storage (records, radio Equipment, etc)  if that is the case then deploy the equipment and scan the records to digital media. 

As far a congress goes both the national and state level they spend money many more foolish initiatives than Operating costs for CAP so keep asking, ask louder, ask with more political leverage, and ask with more corporate fund raising to show we are serious.

V/R
Lt J.

Wouldn't an agreement with a military base/camp/station fulfill these requirements?

CAP doesn't need to own these facilities, just have access to them for encampment (once or twice a year) and for courses (computerized classroom access).

We don't need to pay rent and utilities for that. Just a smoother way of requesting use of military facilities across the country.

We do need space to store vehicles, aircraft, supplies. We need space for squadrons to meet and train. We need space to have permanent, well-equipped mission bases. We need space for CAC meetings. We need buildings with classrooms and rooms to be used for ES, attached to hangars at airports, hopefully with parking lot and garage for squadrons to do all of the above.

[RiverAux]

While I could get on board with CAP owning Wing HQ, I certainly couldn't justify the cost of a facility big enough to hold an encampment.  An ideal wing hq would be adequate for holding classroom training, but spending the money on building/maintaining barracks and full kitchen and dining facilities would be a bit too much. 

[NavLT]

The Problem I see occuring is the shrinking # of bases eliminates this option from some wings all together and the wings that still have bases find them packed and unavailible due to the military neeed with shrinking bases. 

In NY they are having a ANG Base with Tents for encampment and trust me when the severe weather hit it made encampment interesting.

I agree that local facilities are needed but purchasing/building at every unit is probably not a practical line item.  But HQ for 2% is not a good expendature either.  If we purchased /constructed a training facility that was usable year round and we populated the training calandar that would be of greater use.  I also wanted to add that CLC, SLS, UCC are the CAP classes but what about hosting ICS 300/400 (the new requirement) as well.

V/R
LT J.

Wouldn't an agreement with a military base/camp/station fulfill these requirements?

CAP doesn't need to own these facilities, just have access to them for encampment (once or twice a year) and for courses (computerized classroom access).

We don't need to pay rent and utilities for that. Just a smoother way of requesting use of military facilities across the country.

[Galahad]

Although I'm not sure CAP ownership is absolutely necessary, each Wing does need a permanent place to call its home whether it is under a long-term lease or under CAP ownership.  At a minimum we need a place for our paid employee(s) to work, central place for supplies, records storage and retention, etc. 

I agree!  My wing for example could use a building the size of Wal-Mart to store all the gear, vehicles, and equipment that somehow never gets distributed out to the squadrons.  It's a good thing they don't have access to a big hangar. If they did we'd have the best small aircraft museum in all of CAP.    

[afgeo4]

The Problem I see occuring is the shrinking # of bases eliminates this option from some wings all together and the wings that still have bases find them packed and unavailible due to the military neeed with shrinking bases. 

In NY they are having a ANG Base with Tents for encampment and trust me when the severe weather hit it made encampment interesting.

I agree that local facilities are needed but purchasing/building at every unit is probably not a practical line item.  But HQ for 2% is not a good expendature either.  If we purchased /constructed a training facility that was usable year round and we populated the training calandar that would be of greater use.  I also wanted to add that CLC, SLS, UCC are the CAP classes but what about hosting ICS 300/400 (the new requirement) as well.

V/R
LT J.

NY Wing has never had an issue of not having a military base to hold its encampment. Your not liking or not being satisfied with tents (although they do get blown over and flooded EVERY year) is just your personal feeling.

The truth is, we've had encampments at Ft. Drum, Plattsburgh AFB and Camp Smith. We still could use Camp Smith and Ft. Drum once the war is over. The base doesn't have to be Air Force and it doesn't have to be active. Many Reserve/Guard bases are just fine for what we need.

UCC, SLS, and CLC can and are being held at various locations throughout the state and they are so rare that they don't justify real estate purchase expenses.

IS 300/400 has to be done by FEMA or State designated instructors at their location and cannot be instructed by CAP, so no reason for that either.

[arajca]

Any organization can host ICS 300/400. You need to coordinate with your state for instructor requirements.

[NavLT]

NY Wing has never had an issue of not having a military base to hold its encampment. Your not liking or not being satisfied with tents (although they do get blown over and flooded EVERY year) is just your personal feeling.

The truth is, we've had encampments at Ft. Drum, Plattsburgh AFB and Camp Smith. We still could use Camp Smith and Ft. Drum once the war is over. The base doesn't have to be Air Force and it doesn't have to be active. Many Reserve/Guard bases are just fine for what we need.

UCC, SLS, and CLC can and are being held at various locations throughout the state and they are so rare that they don't justify real estate purchase expenses.

IS 300/400 has to be done by FEMA or State designated instructors at their location and cannot be instructed by CAP, so no reason for that either.

I guess I would say that the tents being blown over and flooded every year indicates a problem that a better facility would resolve.  As to the other facilities (Drum and Perry) being availible after the war I would guess that they have been unavailible for greater than 5 years so their reliability also would be a problem a facility would resolve.

I did not want to sound as though getting a wing property to host training meant that training could not be held elswhere. What I was indicating is that if you are looking to purchase anything of value it needs to be functional, and utilized.  If you ever have to hold training in an inappropriate facility or delay training until you can get one it is an indicator (not a absolute pre-requisite) for a faciltiy that meets the needs. 

As to the ICS course it is a multi-agency course which CAP attends.  As a State Instructor in other fields where it gets hosted (Venue) is often determined by those requesting the course.  If CAP wants to put a significant portion of our AOBD, GOBD, ICs through the program it would be good manners to occasionally support the class in our facility. 

V/R
LT J.  Tags - MIKE

[RiverAux]

FYI, the capwatch database has a "Property" table which has the address of sites where CAP meets along with the conditions under which CAP uses the property.  For example, "lease", "verbal agreement' etc. and presumbably "CAP owned".