Military Housing: Did Beto Turn a Blind Eye to Subpar Work of a Major Campaign Donor?
Hunt Companies object of Military Family Complaints
by Carman Jones and George Billings
In February 2019, news outlets published several stories
of military families complaining of rats, toxins, mold, and more at military
housing built by Hunt Companies and other similar military housing
contractors.(1)
Hunt Companies is
listed as O'Rourke's ninth highest campaign donor during O'Rourke's time in
Congress.
As a US House
Representative, Beto O'Rourke served on the House Armed Services Committee.
This committee is responsible for oversight over military family housing
construction. (2)
Additionally, during
O'Rourke's time in Congress, his wife, Amy O’Rourke, became employed by a
non-profit in which Hunt Company CEO, Woody Hunt, serves as a Board Member. (3)
Families Decry Conditions of Hunt Housing in Senate
Hearing Testimony
At a recent Senate hearing (4) on conditions of housing
units built by Hunt and other contractors, residents’ testimony included:
"
... mice eating through pacifiers and their baby's cribs and electrical outlets
catching fire due to wiring issues."
"...
she held her new baby and sobbed while we stood under a collapsing moldy
ceiling in her home "
Conditions in Hunt housing got so bad that in 2018,
several families sued Hunt Corporation. These families say they were “driven
from their house by toxic mold.” (5)
O’Rourke was on the committee whose work was dedicated to
oversight of these type of issues.
Why did O’Rourke ignore these terrible
housing conditions for military families?
Hunt
Companies and Privatized Military Housing
“Today, we are the largest
military housing owner in the country,
with approximately 52,000 existing homes on 49 military installations
on Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Army installations throughout the
country.
In total, we have built more than 70,000 military homes, totaling more than
$9 billion in construction and development.
 |
| https://www.huntcompanies.com/what-we-do/military-communities |
The
Military Housing Slums
The military put many families into privatized housing,
which had turned out to be subpar, some of this housing still using lead paint.
Fifty-six percent of those surveyed found living conditions in military base
housing was "negative" or "very negative." Many described
their housing as “slum-like.”
The privatization of military housing came as a result of
the bad conditions of military housing previously built directly by the
government. In the 1990s, an effort to privatize housing was begun.
A statement issued by Secretary of the Army Mark T. Esper,
and Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, stated they were “deeply
troubled” to learn about the conditions of some of the homes.
In the survey, the respondents repeatedly mentioned six
private contractors. They included Lincoln, Balfour Beatty, Hunt, Corvias, Winn
and Michael's Military Housing. The Hunt company mentioned is the El Paso-based
Hunt Companies led by Woody Hunt. (7)
A Reuters
report pointed to military housing in Mississippi. We compared this with the Hunt
Companies' website as to where they have military housing built and it corresponds with the Reuter report.
The Reuters report said: “Another
big player is Hunt Companies, which owns 50,000 homes on 49 bases and
bills itself as the ‘largest military housing owner in the country.’”
At Mississippi’s Keesler Air Force base, thirteen
military families are suing Hunt Companies over endemic mold infestations they say sprouted from faulty construction and poor
maintenance of their homes, which were among 1,000 built from 2007 to 2010 for
$287 million.(8)
“In court filings,
Texas-based Hunt denied allegations of poor maintenance, mold
outbreaks or any harm to tenants. However, an internal memo from a
Hunt affiliate to Air Force officials in 2008 shows the company knew
its new homes were prone to mold. The company and Air Force confirmed to
Reuters this month that 1,000 have needed 'moisture remediation' in
the past two years – including those of DeLack and Yarbrough.”
Air Force spokeswoman
McAndrews said some homes have required "extensive repairs," so the
service and Hunt agreed to complete the work in phases. The Air Force is
monitoring progress “to ensure project milestones were met," she said.”
Hunt said it’s committed to
addressing the problem. “Hunt Military Communities takes pride in providing the
best possible housing for our Service Members and their families,” the company
said in a written statement.
Hunt
Contributions to Beto O’Rourke
According to Open Secrets.org, in 2018 alone, Hunt Companies
contributed close to 2 million dollars to members of congress. A side note, in
2018, close ally of O’Rourke, Rep. Veronica Escobar was ranked third in
receiving the most contributions from Hunt Companies. (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000061745&cycle=2018).
Escobar was barely elected to congress in November 2018.
 |
| 2018 Hunt Contribution: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000061745&cycle=2018 |
In 2018, then Congressman Beto O’Rourke was in the top
ten of recipients of contributions from Hunt Companies. From Balfour Beatty, another
company accused of subpar housing, in 2018, Beto O’Rourke was the top recipient
of contributions this company.
Not only in 2018, but in previous years, O’Rourke was at the top of recipients
of Hunt Companies' contributions.
In 2016, only Marco Rubio received more contributions
from Hunt Companies than O’Rourke. In the 2016 cycle listing, of the top 20 recipients to
receive contributions from Hunt Companies, all are Republicans -- except for O’Rourke. (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000061745&cycle=2016).
 |
| 2016 Hunt Contribution: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000061745&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2016 |
In 2014, O’Rourke was the top recipient of Hunt Companies contributions. That year, O’Rourke was the only Democrat in the top 20 recipients
of Hunt Companies' contributions.
That same year, Hunt Companies' contributions to Senator Ted Cruz
surpassed Beto O’Rourke, but the contributions were massive to recipients that
year, with $25,500 going to Cruz and $15,000 to O’Rourke. O’Rourke was fourth
in line of top recipients of contributions from Hunt Companies, only surpassed by Mitt
Romney, Cruz, and David Dewhursts. Others in the top ten of recipients included
former Texas Governor Rick Perry.
 |
| 2014 Hunt Contribution: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000061745&type=P&sort=A&cycle=2014 |
For 2014, in the top 15 recipients of Hunt Companies' money, O’Rourke
was the only Democrat recipient.
Lack of oversight
It is clear
that Beto O’Rourke was lax in his responsibilities to give oversite over
military housing, Hunt Companies, Balfour Beatty, and other military housing contractors.
However, it is also indicative that he did know (he was on the committee
that was supposed to give oversight on this)
O’Rourke turn a blind eye
because the perpetrator was his biggest donor, but went further to protect the entire industry perpetrating abuses on our military families.
With children
getting cancer, O’Rourke’s lack of oversight is astonishing.
One oncologist
wrote regarding Balfour Beatty Communities, that ‘death rates
are unfortunately high’ when pediatric cancer patients contract infections from
mold and fungus. He urged the company to remove the fungi and mold.”
Nevertheless, 2018 proved a good year for O’Rourke as he
was Balfour Beatty’s biggest recipient of contributions.
Notes:
2. Legislative
jurisdiction and oversight. Subcommittee on Readiness has
(a) Jurisdiction
(1) The Committee retains jurisdiction
of all subjects listed in clause 1(c) and
clause 3(b) of rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and retains
exclusive jurisdiction for: defense
policy generally, ongoing military
operations, the organization and reform
of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy, counter-drug
programs, security cooperation and
humanitarian assistance activities
(except special operations-related
activities) of the Department of
Defense, acquisition and industrial base
policy, technology transfer and export
controls, joint interoperability,
detainee affairs and policy, force
protection policy, and inter-agency reform as
it pertains to the Department of Defense
and the nuclear weapons programs of the
Department of Energy. While
subcommittees are provided jurisdictional
responsibilities in subparagraph (a)(2)
and are required to conduct oversight in
their respective jurisdictions, pursuant
to clause 2(b)(2) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee retains the right to
exercise oversight and legislative
jurisdiction over all subjects within its
purview under rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee shall be organized to
consist of six standing subcommittees
with the following jurisdictions:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces: Army programs and accounts related
to aircraft, ground equipment, missiles,
ammunition, and other procurement;
Marine Corps programs and accounts
related to ground and amphibious equipment,
fighter aircraft, helicopters,
air-launched weapons, and ammunition; Air Force
programs and accounts related to
fighter, training, reconnaissance and
surveillance, and electronic warfare
aircraft, helicopters, air-launched
weapons, ground equipment, and
ammunition; Navy programs and accounts related to
fighter, training, and electronic
warfare aircraft, helicopters, and
air-launched weapons; tactical air and
missile defense programs and accounts;
chemical agent and munition destruction
programs and accounts; and National
Guard and Reserve equipment programs and
accounts.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel:
Department of Defense policy and programs
and accounts related to military
personnel and their families, Reserve Component
integration and employment, military
health care, military education, dependent
schools, POW/MIA issues, Morale, Welfare
and Recreation, commissaries,
cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Defense, the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, and military
retirement issues.
Subcommittee on Readiness: Department of
Defense policy and programs and
accounts related to military readiness,
training, logistics and maintenance,
military construction, organic
industrial base, the civilian and contract
workforce, environment, military
installations and real property management,
family housing, base realignments and
closures, and energy.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces: Navy and Marine Corps
acquisition programs and accounts
related to shipbuilding and conversion,
reconnaissance and surveillance, tanker,
and airlift aircraft, ship and
submarine-launched weapons, ammunition,
and other procurements; Air Force
programs and accounts related to bomber,
tanker, and airlift aircraft; Army
programs and accounts related to
waterborne vessels; and Maritime policy and
programs and accounts under the
jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated in
paragraphs 5 and 9 of clause 1(c) of
rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Department
of Defense and Department of Energy
policy related to strategic deterrence,
strategic stability, nuclear weapons,
strategic and nuclear arms control,
nonproliferation, nuclear safety, missile
defense, and space; Department of
Defense programs and accounts related to
nuclear weapons, strategic missiles,
nuclear command and control systems,
Department of Defense intelligence
space, space systems and services of the
military departments, and intermediate
and long-range missile defense systems;
and Department of Energy national
security programs and accounts.
Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities: Department
of Defense policy and programs and
accounts related to military intelligence,
national intelligence, countering
weapons of mass destruction,
counter-proliferation, counterterrorism,
other sensitive military operations,
special operations forces, cyber
security, cyber operations, cyber forces,
information technology, information
operations, and science and technology
(including defense-wide programs and
accounts related to research, development,
testing, and evaluation, except for
those defense-wide programs and accounts
related to research, development,
testing, and evaluation of missile defense
systems).
5.
See
Nash.
7.
See Griffin, Jennifer.
8. Ibid.
