photos of Moffet Field (NUQ)

Steve Hix ) wrote:
: In article ,
: (miso) wrote:

: Few remember that it was Diane Feinstine that started San Francisco's
: Fleet Week and took huge criticism for it. The GOP picked the bases to
: close since they were in charge. Geez, even Boxer tried to stop the
: base closures.

: Follow the money.

You can't win...if you are in favor of military bases and Fleet
Week you are a greedy money-grubber, if you are against them you are
a doctrinaire left-winger.

In article ,
Merlin Dorfman wrote:

Steve Hix ) wrote:
: In article ,
: (miso) wrote:

: Few remember that it was Diane Feinstine that started San Francisco's
: Fleet Week and took huge criticism for it. The GOP picked the bases to
: close since they were in charge. Geez, even Boxer tried to stop the
: base closures.

: Follow the money.

You can't win...if you are in favor of military bases and Fleet
Week you are a greedy money-grubber,

Says who?

if you are against them you are a doctrinaire left-winger.

Maybe real life is more complex than either-or, too.

You missed the point at what was happening at the time melvin, thats
why you are amazed. It's not that Dellums and Feinstein wanted the
military out of the Bay Area, they wanted them there, but at what
political cost? The point was that; Dellums and Feinstein did nothing
but **** off their counterparts on the hill for years, about ALL
issues!!! Therefore, when it came time for BRAC, the commission said,
"**** on you", here's what you get!!! I believe you are totally wrong
about the cost of living as the reason for getting the boot in the Bay
Area, maybe you don't understand military pay. I lived there for 8
years, right in Mounain View, and had hundreds of friends around the
whole Bay,(Moffett, Alameda, T.I., Concord, etc.). Housing was the
only thing that was more expensive for the member, than other areas,
but then we had VHA at the time to compensate, you ended up paying
anywhere from 0- 15% out of pocket expenses, depending on what
neighborhood or size of house you rented. Now, buying a house was
kinda out of the question, unless you were an 'O' or senior enlisted,
(which is the way it should be anyway). It is the same thing now,
anywhere you live, the only cost of living thing that affects you is
housing, and if you live on base, or live within your means it doesn't
even affect you. If we use your reasoning, then we would have to close
all the bases in high cost areas, (D.C., Hawaii, overseas, etc.)
Besides that, the Navy personnel that got booted out of Moffett, (
they didn't close the base, just operate it out of a different pot of
federal money, wheres the real savings? more like smoke and mirrors),
those people including myself all got moved to Whidbey or Barbers
Point, where you ended up paying on average 20-30% out of pocket
because of inadequate BAQ/VHA rates, it took about 6 years to catch
up.


On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:26:36 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
wrote:

user ) wrote:
: Awesome photos! Brings back a lot of memories. They never should have
: kicked the Navy out of Moffett, I did 8 years there. You can thank
: dellums and feinstein for that!

I'm amazed nobody has jumped on this. It's remotely possible
that you can thank Dellums and Feinstein for making the Navy want to
leave the Bay Area (Hunters Point, Mare Island, Alameda, etc.), but
the fact is that by the time he retired Dellums and the military
actually got along very well--some change on the military's part but
mostly Dellums understanding that the military is not a bunch of baby
killers. Feinstein actually has gotten along well with the military,
starting when she was mayor of San Francisco and continuing during
her time in the Senate. She tried hard to get the Missouri home-
ported in San Francisco when it was still in service.
Ultimately, though, it's the cost of living in the Bay Area
that makes it unwise to to ask military personnel to try to live
there on their pay. The Navy was happy to accept closing of all Bay
Area facilities as part of BRAC.

fudog50 ) wrote:
: You missed the point at what was happening at the time melvin, thats
: why you are amazed. It's not that Dellums and Feinstein wanted the
: military out of the Bay Area, they wanted them there, but at what
: political cost?

I don't know, enlighten me--what political cost?
There are/were plenty of people in the Bay Area who want the
military out, and they are very noisy. That noise is often confused
with the local congresscritters wanting the military out, or being
anti-military, which often leads to statements like yours, i.e., it
was Dellums and Feinstein who are responsible for the base closings,
both of which are untrue. So if you reached your conclusions through
a different chain of reasoning, I apologize.

: The point was that; Dellums and Feinstein did nothing
: but **** off their counterparts on the hill for years, about ALL
: issues!!! Therefore, when it came time for BRAC, the commission said,
: "**** on you", here's what you get!!!

BRAC was deliberately quite independent of Congress. It was
the military, and in particular the Navy, which had the most bases
here, that wanted them closed, in favor of bases in less crowded and
cheaper areas--cheaper for the Navy as well as the individual service
members. It began around 1960 when the combat aircraft were moved
from Moffett to Lemoore; it was just getting too crowded in the South
Bay area to safely fly high-performance fighters.

: I believe you are totally wrong
: about the cost of living as the reason for getting the boot in the Bay
: Area, maybe you don't understand military pay.

I know that senior noncoms in the Bay Area are eligible for food
stamps based on their pay vs. the cost of living...and that grocery
clerks with seven years of experience make more than those senior
noncoms.

: I lived there for 8
: years, right in Mounain View, and had hundreds of friends around the
: whole Bay,(Moffett, Alameda, T.I., Concord, etc.). Housing was the
: only thing that was more expensive for the member, than other areas,
: but then we had VHA at the time to compensate, you ended up paying
: anywhere from 0- 15% out of pocket expenses, depending on what
: neighborhood or size of house you rented. Now, buying a house was
: kinda out of the question, unless you were an 'O' or senior enlisted,
: (which is the way it should be anyway). It is the same thing now,
: anywhere you live, the only cost of living thing that affects you is
: housing, and if you live on base, or live within your means it doesn't
: even affect you. If we use your reasoning, then we would have to close
: all the bases in high cost areas, (D.C., Hawaii, overseas, etc.)

DC is really considerably cheaper, and more to the point there are
commutes from reasonable distances where you can live much cheaper...
not to mention the practical consideration that you really can't leave
the national capital. Bases have been closed in Hawaii, and I believe
on-base housing is much more available in Hawaii...there was almost
none on (or near) Moffett.
Besides, there is a cost to the Government to provide the housing
subsidy, even if it doesn't come out of the individual's pocket, and
that cost goes away in areas of cheaper housing.

: Besides that, the Navy personnel that got booted out of Moffett, (
: they didn't close the base, just operate it out of a different pot of
: federal money, wheres the real savings? more like smoke and mirrors),

The Navy owned the land, bought it for $1 in 1938 after locals
bought up the land so the Navy would build a dirigible base there.
The cost is in operating, not paying rent, and that has gone to 0
as far as the Navy is concerned, what operating costs remain are being
paid by NASA and...whoever operates "Moffett Federal Airfield," I don't
even know who it is.

: those people including myself all got moved to Whidbey or Barbers
: Point, where you ended up paying on average 20-30% out of pocket
: because of inadequate BAQ/VHA rates, it took about 6 years to catch
: up.

I thought Barbers Point was being closed.

Melvin,
Thanks for responding, you might be right about the politics
behind the base closings, I think my points were more based on the
feelings and the sentiments of us active duty Navy people at the time,
which was about 10-12 years ago. The sentiment is still there, about
Feinstein and Dellums, sorry if you disagree....In response to your
statements, some of them are way out to lunch, don't take it
personally, I'm not saying you are out to lunch, but some of your
statements are certainly not true.,,,,I see you have a bit of history
about Moffett, were you stationed there?
First off, Barbers and Whidbey aren't low cost, out in the
sticks areas like Lemoore was back in 1960. Sure they were cheaper,
back in 1994 than the south bay was, but only by about 15-20%, I know
from personal experience, I moved to Whidbey with VP-40 when they made
their homeport change from Moffett to Whidbey in 1993-1994. There was
NO savings to the servicemember (remember we have BAH which pays
between 85-100% of the average housing costs per area) and maybe only
a slight savings in housing costs to the Navy overall, did this
justify or make up for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on
moving the equipment, the people and the whole P-3 infrastructure and
support facilities, (which has never fully recovered)??? Not even
close, where is the savings? Just one example,,,,,It cost 12 million
dollars to move the NAMTRA from Moffett to Whidbey,,,thats a LOT of
housing payments for YEARS for Thousands of servicemembers,,,and that
is just ONE unit that moved out of the dozens. I would estimate the
entire move to Whidbey and Barbers as being in the 100's of millions
of dollars....not even close to the difference in cost of living
expenses,,,wheres the savings???
I do agree with the overcrowding of air in the South Bay, One
sight I'll always remember is that anytime you come up over the Santa
Cruz mountains from the west (or inbound from any direction) you would
see 6 beacons, only one was green/white (Moffett) we would man both
observer windows and watch for traffic, especially form the 5 GA
airports close by. Departures/Approaches were pretty hairy at times!
Your statement about senior Noncoms getting foodstamps is
ridiculous!!! Where in the heck did you get that??? To me a senior NCO
(not a navy term, we call them petty officers and Chief petty
officers), is like a 2-3 tour E-5 at the least, up to E-9. A married
E5 with 6 years service makes over 50,000 dollars in the Bay area!!!
(base pay = 25,000, BAH=25,000 and BAS= 3,000)
How in the heck does that qualify you for foodstamps??? An E9 makes
close to $90,000 with all 3 allowances...Maybe you are talking about
media stories that don't tell the whole truth? Like maybe an E4 or
below with 9 kids??? They'd be on foodstamps wherever they worked at
with no college educaton at 20-24 years old. (just like the recent
media stories about injured Iraq War vets having money "taken away"
for being in the hospital, I'll explain that BS and show you how spun
up that one is if you have time someday and are buying the beer).
I'm happy you keep thinking a grocery clerk makes more than a
senior NCO, it certainly is false but, it can only help their cause to
get paid what they are worth and what they deserve, (I was an
underpaid NCO for 18 years). Go to this link and you might be
surprised at what an enlisted guy/gal really makes.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/.../pay/blpay.htm

Don't forget to add in the nontaxable housing allowance (BAH) and
subsistance allowance (BAS), and any other special pays (flight pay,
medical pay, dive pay, sea pay, hazardous duty pay, etc), oh yeah and
bonuses, (ACIP, SRB's, etc).
I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???
Yeah Barbers is long gone, all the P-3's moved up the Island
to MCAS Kanehoe a couple years ago, but they originally did move from
Moffett to Barbers in 1993-1994.
Again, thanks for responding, I'll look into the political
stuff about Dellums and Feinstein again, but I don't think it will
change my mind about them,,,have a Happy Holiday!






On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:17:58 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
wrote:

fudog50 ) wrote:
: You missed the point at what was happening at the time melvin, thats
: why you are amazed. It's not that Dellums and Feinstein wanted the
: military out of the Bay Area, they wanted them there, but at what
: political cost?

I don't know, enlighten me--what political cost?
There are/were plenty of people in the Bay Area who want the
military out, and they are very noisy. That noise is often confused
with the local congresscritters wanting the military out, or being
anti-military, which often leads to statements like yours, i.e., it
was Dellums and Feinstein who are responsible for the base closings,
both of which are untrue. So if you reached your conclusions through
a different chain of reasoning, I apologize.

: The point was that; Dellums and Feinstein did nothing
: but **** off their counterparts on the hill for years, about ALL
: issues!!! Therefore, when it came time for BRAC, the commission said,
: "**** on you", here's what you get!!!

BRAC was deliberately quite independent of Congress. It was
the military, and in particular the Navy, which had the most bases
here, that wanted them closed, in favor of bases in less crowded and
cheaper areas--cheaper for the Navy as well as the individual service
members. It began around 1960 when the combat aircraft were moved
from Moffett to Lemoore; it was just getting too crowded in the South
Bay area to safely fly high-performance fighters.

: I believe you are totally wrong
: about the cost of living as the reason for getting the boot in the Bay
: Area, maybe you don't understand military pay.

I know that senior noncoms in the Bay Area are eligible for food
stamps based on their pay vs. the cost of living...and that grocery
clerks with seven years of experience make more than those senior
noncoms.

: I lived there for 8
: years, right in Mounain View, and had hundreds of friends around the
: whole Bay,(Moffett, Alameda, T.I., Concord, etc.). Housing was the
: only thing that was more expensive for the member, than other areas,
: but then we had VHA at the time to compensate, you ended up paying
: anywhere from 0- 15% out of pocket expenses, depending on what
: neighborhood or size of house you rented. Now, buying a house was
: kinda out of the question, unless you were an 'O' or senior enlisted,
: (which is the way it should be anyway). It is the same thing now,
: anywhere you live, the only cost of living thing that affects you is
: housing, and if you live on base, or live within your means it doesn't
: even affect you. If we use your reasoning, then we would have to close
: all the bases in high cost areas, (D.C., Hawaii, overseas, etc.)

DC is really considerably cheaper, and more to the point there are
commutes from reasonable distances where you can live much cheaper...
not to mention the practical consideration that you really can't leave
the national capital. Bases have been closed in Hawaii, and I believe
on-base housing is much more available in Hawaii...there was almost
none on (or near) Moffett.
Besides, there is a cost to the Government to provide the housing
subsidy, even if it doesn't come out of the individual's pocket, and
that cost goes away in areas of cheaper housing.

: Besides that, the Navy personnel that got booted out of Moffett, (
: they didn't close the base, just operate it out of a different pot of
: federal money, wheres the real savings? more like smoke and mirrors),

The Navy owned the land, bought it for $1 in 1938 after locals
bought up the land so the Navy would build a dirigible base there.
The cost is in operating, not paying rent, and that has gone to 0
as far as the Navy is concerned, what operating costs remain are being
paid by NASA and...whoever operates "Moffett Federal Airfield," I don't
even know who it is.

: those people including myself all got moved to Whidbey or Barbers
: Point, where you ended up paying on average 20-30% out of pocket
: because of inadequate BAQ/VHA rates, it took about 6 years to catch
: up.

I thought Barbers Point was being closed.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 wrote:


I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???

From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.

The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
infrastructure costs.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

In article , Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 wrote:


I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???

From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.

The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
infrastructure costs.

Mary

Mary,
Did the Navy have to do the toxic waste clean-up or is it on-going or
is it something that can be extended since the base is still under
federal control?
Not accusing the Navy of anything nefarious, if you've inhabited a base
that long there's inevitable spills and such and we weren't as
concerned about cleaning it up 50 yrs ago.
Pugs

uhhhhh Mary,,,all those NEX things are still open at Moffett, the Navy
is still paying for them, including what you call the BX, and the
PX,,(us in the Navy call them the Exchange and the Commissary) you are
totally wrong ,,sorry....oh yeah and BTW , back in about 1990, the
Navy mandated all MWR facilities be totally self-supportive or they
would get shut down,,,this is true,,,so there is no cost to anybody
with MWR facilities. Again, you're totally wrong about the
administrative (non ops) and nonadministrative (i'm assuming you mean
ops) costs of supporting an entire P-3 wing and it's support
infrastructure going away and miracuously just disapearing and being
absorbed by an existing base. They just get shifted and added from one
base to another base, they don't just go away as you suggest...Again,
it cost hundreds of millions of dollars to transfer the Supply (ASD),
IMA (AIMD), FASO, NAMTRA, NATEC, **** there are so many functions that
had to be transferred. I don't get what you are trying to say in your
last post,,,please clarify? And no **** it costs less at Moffett to
let NASA play,,,but it costs more at Whidbey and Kanehoe to keep the
operational P-3's flying,,I still don't see the savings overall.

7:41 -0800, Mary Shafer wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 wrote:


I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???

From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.

The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
infrastructure costs.

Mary

Moffett has been under the "superfund " list for decades, since it's
inception. Most of the Navy's contribution was from an underground
100,000 gallon fuel tank that leaked continuosly from the 70's until
they finally removed the ******* in the 80's, and has been cleaned up.
The biggest offender of toxic waste in that particular area is an
underground plume of flourocarbons that migrates from Mt View and
Sunnyvale areas right under the ground table and Moffett Field, then
empties into the south bay, and it comes from the civilian chip and
semiconductor manufacturing industry from the 80's and 90's. . Easy
to blame the Navy for the truly uninformed.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 20:57:02 -0500, Allen Epps
wrote:

In article , Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:39:42 GMT, fudog50 wrote:


I still maintain that the operational costs of Moffett Field
are still being paid with your taxdollars, doesn't matter to your
wallet which pot of money that it goes to (Navy, DoD, F.A.A., Federal
Airfield, whatever, ) Its still government run and paid for. While I
agree the Navy saved money, where's the savings to the taxpayer???

From what I've heard from the Ames guys, NASA is spending a lot less
on Moffett field than the Navy did. It's not as if NASA replaced any
of the Navy usage, because it was there all along.

The taxpayer isn't paying for the infrastructure necessary to populate
and run an entire base. NASA doesn't have MWR or a barber shop or
housing or a housing office or the Q or SATO or the clubs or the BX or
commissary or Navy personnel or Navy logistics or Navy shipping and
receiving or P-3 support or all the people it takes to make these
things happen. By closing down a base with all its administrative
overhead and sending the non-administrative functions to an existing
base, the taxpayer saves one entire set of administrative
infrastructure costs.

Mary

Mary,
Did the Navy have to do the toxic waste clean-up or is it on-going or
is it something that can be extended since the base is still under
federal control?
Not accusing the Navy of anything nefarious, if you've inhabited a base
that long there's inevitable spills and such and we weren't as
concerned about cleaning it up 50 yrs ago.
Pugs

What happened to the proposal to turn it into a freight-only
airport, to relieve SFO/Oakland?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433