Respectfully Congresswoman Anna Eshoo & others with influence on Defense Appropriations should spend their energies in looking for ways to cut the current levels of government spending, this as long as the spending is not critical to the Nations defense.

Clearly this landmark to US Naval Aviation of history is important, but as close neighbor for 25 or so years I now consider Hanger One as nothing more than just another toxic superfund site that was gifted or left to this and future generations to clean up.

Just what “productive use” such a restoration would guarantee isn’t clear to me. Maybe Hollywood could use it as a movie set. If so they should consider picking up the tab as even at a cost of $100 million it shouldn’t be difficult amount for an industry that regularly takes in such profit for the avg. forgetful kiddy movie these days.

Being a non- supporter of Congresswoman Eshoo in the past, I would strongly consider supporting her or anyone running for Congress that makes fiscal discipline with the people’s money their #1 concern. Exhibiting just such leadership may very well be the difference that keeps her and many others from both sides of the political tracks in their current elected offices.

But if it comes down to just spending money on something {noting of the Congresswoman's positive past stewardship on environmental issues [even though I can't say I agree with all her methods or there outcomes]... why not suggest spending any monies on ensuring that the local watershed which a portion of ends up in my drinking glass every day is protected from further trauma.

I just want to get this straight. There was an article here just a couple of days ago saying that Moffett needs $7 million a year to run their airport, but are struggling to figure out where it will come from. But now there $10 million from some other pot of money to fix up the hangar? The hangar is cool and all, but keeping the airport it is a part of operating seems like a higher priority. Isn't it?