Here we go again...

If the preservationists feel SO strongly about it, then feel free to step up and pay for its preservation yourself. Otherwise, you need to be quiet.

Maybe all the preservationists haven't heard, but there is a awful recession going on and there isn't enough money to go around to ALL the worthy projects that want funding.

Enough. Figure out how to pay for it yourself or stop whining.

I would like to see the Hanger preserved, so I guess that makes me a preservationist, even though I do not belong to any formal organization concerned with preserving the hanger.

I think it is the duty of the government, and specifically the Navy, to maintain the Hanger in good condition--and that certainly includes cleaning off the toxic chemicals and returning the Hanger to a condition reasonably like original.

I also think the preservationists need to pay for some of the museum pieces they want to keep and I'm willing to contribute my tiny part of that cost--a few hundred dollars.

John... if we go down that road, many communities will not have schools, parks, libraries, etc... after all, if the parents, outdoor enthusiast and bookworms feel SO strongly about it then they should stand up and pay for the schools, parks and books themselves. There are certain things that enrich a community... historical preservation is one of them (as are schools, parks and libraries). The question is not should taxpayer monies go to historical preservation, but rather does preservation of the hangar enrich the community. I'm in the camp that thinks it does... by linking us to a forgotten past of the area. Then again, I'm an aviation nut that grew up fascinated by anything that moved overhead, spent 6 years studying aeronautics and could probably give speeches on the history of local aviation. A bit biased :) So tell me, John, what do you enjoy, and do any tax dollars fund it?

If you want to save it, pay for it yourself. End of story.

make you a deal John, you save Social Security, I'll save the hangar. Seriously though, I understand what you are saying... with the current budget realities, few if any 'nice-to-haves' should be funded.