House committee kills Hangar One funding Other Issues, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Jul 13, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Hopes for federal money to save Moffett Field's historic Hangar One were dashed on Tuesday when it was announced that the House Appropriations Committee removed $32.8 million for new Hangar One siding from NASA's 2012 budget.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, July 13, 2011, 5:54 PM
Posted by Alex M, a resident of the Willowgate neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2011 at 4:57 pm
I'll miss it if it gets demolished. Aside from indoor stadiums that are expensive to rent, there aren't many buildings in the world with a large open space of still air suitable for experiments and events that need it, especially with those huge doors to admit huge projects.
Still $32.8 million is a lot if the only requirement for now is to paint it to prevent corrosion and rot. I could do some awesome renovation to my home if I had that kind of money to spend.
Posted by Roxie, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Too bad. We can spend more than a trillion dollars fighting a war in the middle east that we shouldn't even be fighting but we can't spend 32 million to preserve a registered naval historic monument. Go figure.
Posted by ComeOnAnna!, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Really. Blaming this on the Republicans?! NASA used to have an IG that failed to act on any investigative findings... he resigned and Obama nominated the current IG. The GOP claimed the House in the most recent elections, in part due to perceived lack of fiscal responsibility from the prior Congress. If the Obama-nominated, Democratic Congress-confirmed NASA IG calls out an earmark as wasteful, can you really blame the Republicans?! I'm a big fan of the Hangar, but I admit it probably does not rise to the level of NATIONAL historical significance required for renovation in these economic times.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2011 at 8:07 am
I think it's cool, but we could demolish it and that's okay with me. But if we want to save it, I agree that it doesn't rise to the level of a "national treasure" that taxpayers in Arkansas and Iowa should pay for.
If we want to save it, we should do it locally. Borrowing 32.4M at 3% means payments of around 1.6M/year for 30 years. Mountain View can't afford that on its own. If it's split among several cities, perhaps it could work.
Given the tough economic times, this probably won't fly now since the hangar is not that useful to any city. A plan like this might have been affordable and workable in 2006-2007. Oh well. Timing is everything. Goodbye, Hangar 1.
Posted by PH, a resident of another community, on Jul 15, 2011 at 9:07 am
Isn't it ironic that we want to gid rid of a symbol of the reason to fight the wars in the middle east. We took on the role of world NATO power long ago and now it is choking our economy at a cost of billions a day. The world was a simpler place before we became a global ecenomy and the plain truth is that everyone is out to profit and seems to care less about any other country. The sad fact is that the cost of one day of war would save this historic structure, yet we really can't afford it. There should be a west coast air museum here on the scale of the Smithsonian or the Navy's in Pensacola. Love the military or not, they are the reason we get to have an opinion and have been a huge part of our local history and economy for as long as people have lived here. I still think we can save the hanger and Nasa should try to find the money from large corporate donors who have benefitted from them in the past. I don't know how many companies have use of a government facility the way Google does, but maybe they could make a commitment that will get the hanger saved as well as improve their current public image. I have no problem with Google, but if they want the priveleges, then maybe we could get their help. They want bridges, I don't want the Steven's Creek Trail altered. Lockheed has benfitted as well I'd think, as well as others around Moffett. Maybe we could all win if we work together.
Posted by Rodger, a resident of the Sylvan Park neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2011 at 11:40 am
I like the idea of a Smithsonian west coast air museum in a restored Hanger one. NASA Ames has been a research leader in aviation for decades and this meuseum would be a fitting use for Hanager one. Funding should be avaiible over a several year time frame for this use. We need local firms to provide seed money to get this effort started and to make sure that the frame work is protected from the weather.
Posted by jane, a resident of the North Whisman neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2011 at 3:32 pm
One missing part of the piece is that whatever happens to this historic (yes it is historic) building ther eis a cost associated with it. To the person who says demolish it...how much do you think that will cost? To the person who says put it in the landfill...how much do you think it will cost?
There is global interest in this unique structure - it is beautiful and shows design and workmanship that is worth preserving.
So before you say it is not worth saving because of the cost involved, have you researched how much it cost to NOT reskin it and to leave it there for environmental degradation or to demolish it in an environmentally responsible way? Demolition or environmental degradation of a historic building are not options.
Smithsonian West, Global Rescue, Convention Center - and how about the hope for the Worlds Fair in 2020? Let's think bigger than this year and this economy at the moment.
Posted by SadButTrue, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2011 at 10:28 pm
The NAVY limited their financial responsibility to the cost of demolition and disposal... NASA argued for restoration and the agreement was the NAVY would remove and dispose of all toxics while leaving the structure intact and NASA would assume responsibility for restoration or new use. The NAVY's cost of careful removal of toxins without disturbing the structure likely cost more than demolition and disposal would have, and now we will add the cost of demolition and disposal to that tab anyway. Talk about a waste of money!
Posted by Bobby, a resident of another community, on Jul 20, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Moffett Field should be a reliever airport for San Jose. Just think of all the landing fees and office rental income that would accrue if it was to be made into an airport. Then the place would be flush with $$$ and Hangar One could be saved, not to mention all the jobs that would be created.