Slashdot Mirror
Google's Lease of NASA Airfield Criticized By Consumer Group
Spy Handler writes Yesterday's announcement that Google will lease Moffett Field from NASA for 60 years drew criticism from a group called Consumer Watchdog, which stated "This is like giving the keys to your car to the guy who has been siphoning gas from your tank. It is unfairly rewarding unethical and wrongful behavior. These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it – and, sadly, it looks like that is true.”
They allege, and I don't know how rightly, that all of the following are true:
1. Google has received a discounted rate on jet fuel from NASA.
2. This means that Google is underpaying on the lease since they'll get their jet fuel cheap???????
The problem with that logic, which the group acknowledges and, in spite of that, persists is that NASA doesn't actually take a loss on the fuel they sell Google.
Submitter here. I only linked one article (the parabolicarc.com one). The editor added the second CNBC article (which I didn't know about). To be honest, the CNBC article has more info so it wasn't a bad call. Maybe what they should've done is replace my link with the CNBC link, or just reject my submission and write a new one.
Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics.
Criticizing a company for getting steep discounts worth millions of dollars on jet fuel from the government and then getting a large lease from that same government seems in line with their mission.
The group clearly has a bee in their bonnet about Google. Pretty much every month, they put out a big press release attacking something the company does.
http://insidegoogle.com/
The Moffat authority has to be the worst landlord in Silicon Valley. I was involved in trying to find space for an educational non-profit (I am on the board). We looked at some space the Moffat authority had -- what they offered and the prices and terms they put forth were pure, unadultrated lifetime-government-employee unhingedness. It didn't even pass the giggle test. We snorted and moved on. Also... I have some friends at the Carnegie-Melon Silicon Valley campus, which rents from the Moffat authority. What they have to go through is goofy -- the rents are high, it takes forever to get permission to do anything, in part because Moffat has historic status. Hanger 1, in particular, is listed separately on the national register of historic buildings. So not only do you have to find a tennant who actually wants that behemouth space, you need to find a tennant that finds doing business with a capricious, narcissictic, and unhinged landlord entertaining. Good luck.
Citation? I didn't notice any mention of "steep discounts".
"Getting a large lease"? Is that the same thing as "paying the government a lot of money"?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
NASA isn't losing any money so there is no subsidy.
NASA uses a lot of jet fuel, thus gets a cheaper rate.
NASA sells the cheaper fuel at a profit to Google.
Google gets it cheaper than they could if they bought it directly.
Its just smart business, not ripping off the tax payer at all.
Google didn't steal. NASA didn't sell the fuel
NASA is a government agency and doesn't have to pay taxes and levies that the private sector does.
The fuel was supplied by DLA-Energy (Defense Logistics Agency), not NASA. The fuel was purchased by H211, a company owned by the top Google people.
DLA-Energy can sell the fuel, but they should collect the tax when they do.
There was confusion because H211 was flying some missions on behalf of NASA, for which they were entitled to tax free fuel.
[The inspector general] 'Martin attributed the discount to a “misunderstanding” between personnel at the airfield and the fuel supplier “rather than intentional misconduct. DLA-Energy misunderstood that H211 was drawing fuel for both private and NASA-related missions.'
Balanced article about the situation:
http://www.businessweek.com/ar...