From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> |
Date: | Fri, 23 Aug 1996 02:15:09 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | MOFFETT FIELD REUSE |
From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org> MOFFETT FIELD REUSE (This is a long file.) For about six years I have touted the Navy's collaborative approach to cleanup at Moffett Field, here in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, California as a model for working with the community, as well as regulators, in environmental restoration. To a large degree, the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee modeled its recommendations for the formation of Site-Specific Advisory Boards (known as Restoration Advisory Boards at most Department of Defense installations) after Moffett. However, the "conversion" of Moffett from a Naval Air Station, over the same period of time, has been anything but a model. Early on, local officials met secretly with government agencies and defense industry representatives. Base closure was a sham, as NASA's adjacent Ames Research Center took over operation of the airfield for its own use and the operations of the Navy Reserve and the Air National Guard. A number of us protested, arguing that the new airfield would never be cost effective; it wasted valuable resources; and the level of activity required to pay for the airfield's federal operations would degrade - largely through aircraft noise - the local quality of life. However, we had no direct impact upon any land use decisions at Moffett. Still, we worked to ensure that cleanup would proceed as expeditiously and completely as possible so other uses would be feasible when the government got around to considering them. This year, however, things began to change. Unable to attract more federal tenants to the airfield, NASA reported that it was losing $3.5 million a year on Moffett Field operations. Furthermore, NASA headquarters proposed to moved Ames Research Center's fleet of research aircraft to Southern California. To make up a large fraction of its deficit, NASA proposed to allow commercial air cargo flights in and out of Moffett under a special provision of the Air Force's Civil Reserve Air Fleet program. NASA lined up support from the same local government and industry interests that backed the sham closure. Local officials argued (without much basis, in my opinion) that without NASA-controlled air operations San Jose, the 800-pound gorilla in our county, would take over the airfield and bring in much more frequent, more objectionable air traffic. However, the NASA scheme had two major problems: 1) NASA, as a non-military agency, was not authorized by statute to take part in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program; 2) The air cargo companies, such as Fedex, UPS, and DHL, were only interested in Moffett because the nearby San Jose International airport has a curfew preventing early morning flights. At least a small percentage of the flights would come over neighbors' homes before the dawn's early light. A group of us formed the Alliance for New Moffett Field to call for an examination of other future use alternatives and to oppose the air cargo proposal. We attended city and NASA-sponsored meetings on the air cargo plan, and we distributed thousands of fliers and pre-printed postcards door-to-door. Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, we formed an Internet newsgroup that now has over 125 participants. The Alliance and its supporters quickly built support among communities in the Moffett flight path. Living in one of the world's most educated and technologically most sophisticated areas, we started with an empowered base of people who expected to be heard, were willing and able to contribute funds to a fledgling organization, and had more expertise than the government officials trying to run a decide-announce-defend show. More than a few unaffiliated residents showed up at public meetings, having read NASA's entire Environmental Assessment and having written detailed, technical critiques. Our Congressional representative, Democrat Anna Eshoo, has promised not to carry or support the legislation necessary to authorize air cargo at the NASA facility unless the local community supports it. So our organization asked the city councils of Sunnyvale and Mountain View to put an advisory measure on the ballot. (Both cities have had similar ballot measures twice in the past.) Though both city councils appeared to favor the NASA proposal, Mountain View voted 4-3 to put a measure on the November ballot. Sunnyvale voted 4-2 (would have been 4-3 without an absence) against a ballot measure at this time. We expect Mountain View voters to reject, by a large margin, commercial air operations at Moffett Field. On the eve of the decision to put the measure on the Mountain View ballot - and after months of opposing any study of alternative uses - NASA proposed that the two cities set up a future use study committee as an alternative to the vote. Both cities accepted that proposal, but Mountain View found the vote could take place, too. The Alliance has simply asked that the committee include opponents of the air cargo plan and that it be empowered to study alternatives for Moffett other than airfield operations. Subsequently, NASA has "shelved" plans for commercial air cargo flights, pending the outcome of the committee's study. Personally, I predict that NASA will abandon Moffett Field, and that no other federal agency will want to pay for its operations. The study committee will evolve into a full-fledged reuse authority. Since Moffett is located in the heart of Silicon Valley - with the non-wetlands portion of the property probably worth $1 million an acre - it won't be hard to find potential users and buyers. The difficulty will be weighing the desirability of numerous potential uses. By the time Moffett Field is closed for real, the cleanup efforts - of both the federal (Navy and NASA) and private (electronics industry) PRPs will be far enough along that toxic contamination should have a minimal impact on future uses. Moffett, I expect, will become a model for not only involving the public in cleanup, but for actual cleanup and conversion of closing military bases. Lenny Siegel Mountain View resident | |
Prev by Date: FOREIGN BASE CLEANUP DATA Next by Date: GAO ON RELATIVE RISK | |
Prev by Thread: FOREIGN BASE CLEANUP DATA Next by Thread: GAO ON RELATIVE RISK |