Bolden's Plan To Excess Moffett Federal Airfield Fails – Again
Congresswoman Eshoo Announces Plan for Hangar One and Moffett Federal Airfield
“Following a meeting with Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-Palo Alto), GSA, NASA, and the White House at the Capitol on Tuesday, February 26, the General Services Administration will issue a Notice of Intent regarding Hangar One and Moffett Federal Airfield, which reflects the following: 1. Moffett Federal Airfield will NOT be excessed. It will remain a restricted Federal Airfield and NASA will remain its custodian. 2. The Notice of Intent outlines a competitive bid process and the Request for Proposal (RFP) will be released this spring seeking a qualified lessee to provide for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic Hangar One.”
Notice of Intent – Leasing Opportunity – Hangar One and Moffett Federal Airfield
“While the primary objective is to facilitate the expeditious re-siding of Hangar One, the Government will also consider proposals to manage the Moffett Federal Airfield.”
Keith’s note: Charlie Bolden has been relentlessly trying to shut this airstrip down and/or get rid of it for years.
This could be very exciting for NASA’s Silicon Valley stakeholders who seek to preserve and reuse Hangar One. It’s time for folks to step up to the table (or not) and get this iconic building off America’s Most Threatened Historic Properties list. Plus, there may be some very creative, only-in-Silicon-Valley proposals for this structure.
I wish they’d do what Irvine is doing with El Toro. Hanger One and the Airfield could be developed into an awesome mixed use space, Museum, Living, Working, Park, etc.
http://www.ocgp.org/learn/d…
I was stationed at El Toro many years ago and took avionics classes at MCAS Tustin (the old Navy Blimp hangers). To think that is all shut down now is incredible. I look at El Toro using Google and it looks like it has pretty near been bulldozed clean. At one time I hoped to be stationed at Moffet but it never happened. The government has a lot of surplus facilities left over from WWII.
Amazingly the Tustin blimp hangers are still standing and even more incredibly they are currently being used as the development facility for hybrid airships
http://www.ocregister.com/a…
If he’s not allowed to take Moffett off his books, he might as well go back to Google and take them up on their offer to restore Hangar One in exchange for using it as their Gulfstream garage.
Can you blame him? Space Systems/Loral and Lockheed Martin are the only ones who use it on a regular basis to shuttling their satellites with the big Antonov cargo aircraft
NASA accepted Moffett Field from the Navy in 1994 to operate it as a limited federal airfield with a variety of government and non-government users and tenants. Space Systems/Loral and Lockheed Martin are not the only users. The California Air National Guard is a major tenant and user and it supports airfield operations. The Google executive fleet pays over $1.2M for hangar space annually. Lost in all the debates about Moffett is the factoid that the airfield operates already at breakeven and is not a financial burden on NASA. Bigger agendas are at work when Washington folks attempt to jettison the airfield.
Moffett field and Hanger One attract conflicted ideas. Local govt wants the hanger preserved but doesn’t want the ARC to use the airfield for commercial flights which could generate enough revenue to preserve both. Moffett Field could be repurposed as an important transportation link for Silicon Valley, if the local politicians would let it happen. Do we really need another 1,000 homes built below sea level?
The airstrip is above sea level.
When Dan Goldin re-organized NASA around 1995 by what he determined to be each field center’s “center of excellence” he openly stated he didn’t know what Ames was. He ultimately chose information technology, but he was sure he knew airplanes are something that belongs at Dryden. therefore NASA airborne missions was designated for relocation to Dryden. with no airplanes for Ames to operate it suddenly became a dogmatically accepted principle at HQ that Moffett AF was a financial albatross around Ames neck. Never mind the fact that it has always been revenue neutral even without more tenants. this will constantly re-appear every time budgets are tightened. Moffett should long ago have been opened up for usage as a cargo hub and general aviation center. in the mid 90’s several plans were offered up to do that and none planned even half of the just over 100K takeoffs and landings the Navy had in their last year at Moffett. and general Av could operate within the fence lines causing no significant impact to the neighbors.
as usual the neighbors don’t want air traffic there. they also don’t want hangar 1, or 2 and 3 torn down. and they also don’t want more housing there.
Considering the amount of history associated with Moffett by quite a few government agencies over so many years, I’m surprised that the heritage people aren’t publicly involving themselves in a major way with this issue, especially considering that Hangar One is already a a Naval Historical Monument and is one of the largest freestanding structures in existence. Quite a bit of what’s happened at Moffett or through Moffett was unique.
I would have thought that the university facilities alone would have been enough reason to keep it a going concern, whichever government agencies are paying for it. Alternative facilities providing comparable opportunities don’t exist, except in smaller facilities spread out over the country, where they would be at a low priority compared to ongoing commercial and government operations. I would think that employing alternatives to Moffett would be incredibly expensive for these universities, and indirectly for the tax-payers and students.
Given that Moffett tends to pay its own way, I don’t understand why Bolden would want to unload it from NASA’s holdings. It gives him a possible bargaining chip with lots of other groups and it could be come a valuable NASA asset down the road for programs/projects not yet foreseen. The only thing I can think of is: Is NASA getting tagged for restoration costs? Even if they are, I would think it must be a clearly budgeted line item.
I understand that restoration costs of the Moffett tenant space is being passed along to the renters, thus driving the costs much, much higher. Why would tenants pay for 50+ year old building space at a cost that is higher than at the new buildings on the other side of the airfield? In other words, NASA is asking tenants to pay for Class C office space at Class A prices.