Town Square

Post a New Topic

No takers yet for Hangar One

Original post made on Sep 5, 2013

While officials with NASA and the U.S. General Services Administration continue their search for someone willing to lease and restore Hangar One, the bones of the hulking structure on Moffett Field are at risk of being damaged by weather and leaving a trail of pollution in the process, according to environmentalists.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, August 30, 2013, 12:00 AM

Comments (1)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill Hough
a resident of another community
on Sep 5, 2013 at 10:48 am

Is anyone really surprised that there are no takers on this? An offer by the H211 to step up to preserve the hangar should have removed the cost argument from the discussion. You'd think that NASA would jump at the chance at free money to make this PR nightmare go away but you would be wrong.

NASA's behavior sums up what's wrong with government. An offer was made for private funding to re-skin the hangar. Paying for the re-skinning was the sticking point in the discussions Then money comes along, and what does NASA do? Stall, diddle and procrastinate. This is why people hate government.

Since the summer of 2005, the Navy's position concerning Hangar One was made clear at many public meetings in the Mountain View area. For the past eight years, the reaction from the public continues to be strongly in favor of restoring the Hangar. Despite overwhelming public support for the hangar, a federal buck-passing exercise has been going on for almost a decade. Both the Navy and NASA have been metaphorically tossing the restoration of the hangar around like a hot potato. Everyone gives lip service to restoring the hangar but nobody wants to pay for it. It's a national disgrace that NASA and the Navy have been blowing off fixing Hangar One.

A proper Restoration Alternative would involved re-skining Hangar One in addition to all of the environmental work described in Alternative 2-Implementation of Institutional Controls. As described in the July 2013 newsletter, the Navy's Alternative 2 is fundamentally flawed. It justifies an already-reached conclusion by ignoring the community's strong desire to see the hangar preserved as stated at numerous public forums since 2005. It's time to discard Alternative 2 and prepare an Alternative 3 that meets the joint goals of protecting the environment and preserving history. These goals need not be mutually exclusive.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sneak peek: Bradley's Fine Diner in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,373 views

Marriage Underachievers
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,668 views

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,262 views