Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Lease of NASA Airfield Criticized By Consumer Group

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-sir-I-don't-like-it dept.

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.”

30 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Jealous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like this so-called consumer group is jealous... They may not be a "consumer" group, probably more like an astro-turf group pretending to be for the lowly "consumer". Hard to tell these days.

    1. Re:Jealous? by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The complaint is literally "they got cheaper gas" probably because they were big customers & looking for a place to live long term.

      It's exactly like typical business negotiations.

      Oh, and the cheaper gas was roughly 1% of this deal.

      In other words, Consumer Watchdog is a whiny fucking bitch.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Jealous? by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Funny

      to me its like the sibling syndrome. Where there is 1 toy no one cares about for years, but as soon as 1 of them picks it up, the other one HAS to have it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  2. what? by DoomSprinkles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NASA doesn't need this place and Google has some cool ideas they want to lease it for and this is unethical? What?

    1. Re:what? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:what? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      well I just hope in the future NASA does the ethical thing with its excess jet fuel and dumps it into the water table rather than selling at discount to large corporations

    3. Re:what? by Matheus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Consumer Watchdog wants to complain about something... trying to make a name for themselves? (Naming themselves after what they consider themselves to be wasn't good enough?)

      The primary complaint they have against Google: Google got cheap gas from the US Gov't while leasing hangar space at this airfield. Boo Freaking Hoo. It is specifically mentioned that no loss of money occurred so they weren't even selling the gas below cost they were just selling the gas at below retail which they are more than entitled to do (When there are $5M of *savings I can only guess what the total bill was anyway!)

      Reality of the world: When you have a lot of money you pay very little per unit than everyone else because you can afford to buy a LOT of whatever "it" is. Simple economics (Economy of Scale).

      As far as this deal going forward: NASA gets a lot of money they need and gets to take a not insignificant amount of maintenance cost of their balance sheet at a time when their budgets are not exactly glamorous. If the $1.16B is even spread over time that's $19.4 M per year income plus $6.3M in savings = $25.7M net gain per year for giving up use of something they are not using. (Oh yeah and $200M in renovations of property they'd still own too)

      I really don't like organizations that make noise for no reason when there are plenty of worthy causes in the world.

    4. Re:what? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If as other posters claim, the government was paid more for the fuel then they paid for it, I would can it win-win.

    5. Re:what? by AcidPenguin9873 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Discounting the jet fuel so it could remain on-site and not have to be moved seems reasonable to me. If NASA sold it to someone else, they surely would have had to sell it at a discount anyway because it was located at an otherwise-unused airfield and would have to be transported somewhere else. Transporting jet fuel isn't free.

    6. Re:what? by Chas · · Score: 2

      All you have to do is get your plane down to a NASA facility. Legally.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:what? by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think this was "excess jet fuel".

      Google was previously located out of Moffett. The private company which operates Google's planes got the benefit of buying discounted fuel which NASA had purchased.

      In other words, the taxpayer subsidized the fuel price Google was paying for its private aircraft.

      So, are you OK with a multi-billion dollar corporation, owned by multi-billionaires, getting cut rate jet fuel from the government because they fly their aircraft out of a federal facility?

      Because that sounds kind of insane to me. Even if it is only a "few million", why is Google being given this gift?

      There was no gift at all. RTFA puts it this way: "While this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy, it did result in considerable savings for H211 and engendered a sense of unfairness and a perception of favoritism toward H211 and its owners."

      So, they are pissed that a perfectly legal "arrangement" between Google and NASA where the latter sold the former some jet fuel for *what they paid for it*, is now an official one that apparently will save NASA about $6 million a year. I wonder if anyone else actually tried to ask NASA to sell them fuel and got turned down? Or, is this "consumer protection" group just pissed that Google had the balls and they didn't? We may never know.

    8. Re:what? by Drathos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google got that fuel at discounted prices by using those planes to do work for NASA. It's not like they just showed up and said 'fill 'er up!' out of the blue.

      --
      End of line..
    9. Re:what? by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    10. Re:what? by Trongy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

  3. Two links by just_another_sean · · Score: 3

    I very rarely complain about the editors and stay out of the beta discussions (but beta does suck) but I am getting as tired as everyone else with some of the submissions these days. If there are two articles that link to the exact same content but on different sites jut pick one and use it. Having two links just wastes the time of the users that actually RTFA...

    * Yes, I occasionally RTFA, I'll turn in my /. ID on my way out now...

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    1. Re:Two links by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  4. Stick to your field by duck_rifted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A NASA airfield is not a consumer product or service. Google's leasing it has no immediate impact upon anything related to consumers directly. A "consumer watchdog" chiming in on this is like Gordon Ramsey engaging Stephen Hawking in a debate about black holes.

    1. Re:Stick to your field by chemicaldave · · Score: 2, Informative
      From consumerwatchdog.com's "Who We Are" section of the website:

      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.

    2. Re:Stick to your field by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Criticizing a company for getting steep discounts worth millions of dollars on jet fuel from the government

      Citation? I didn't notice any mention of "steep discounts".

      and then getting a large lease from that same government seems in line with their mission.

      "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"
    3. Re:Stick to your field by pipedwho · · Score: 2

      A brief history of thyme?

  5. Re:Obama is a Traitor by gcnaddict · · Score: 2

    Well, the canadians apparently want him after his time's up here.

    Glad to see someone can appreciate all he's done for us. :)

    --
    Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
  6. Wrong analogy by AaronLS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Their gripe is based on a previous case of Google being given discounts on fuel purchases, which the watchdog group themselves admits did not negatively impact the government or NASA. Google didn't steal this fuel or commit fraud to get these discounts. Their opinion is simply that it was unfair preference shown to Google(which, if anything, is misconduct on the part of NASA). So comparing this to stealing gas is unfair on the part of the watchdog group.

    "These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it"

    So because Google was given got some fuel at a discount, "these Google guys" shouldn't be allowed to do anything at all anymore? What are they getting away with? Oh god they've leased some land and given the government some money for something that would have otherwise depreciated in value unused! The atrocity!

    1. Re:Wrong analogy by Matheus · · Score: 2

      No.

      The term of the lease is a bit excessive, yes BUT the U.S. Gov't really doesn't like selling ANY of their land. "What's our is ours forever" so the Google getting a "seemingly forever" lease on the land if about as close as the Gov't is going to go. I'll add that the specific use case for a big chunk of it (starting a space program it seems) requires a LOT of time especially if they go commercial with it so this is appropriate. That use case also falls in line with NASA's purvey these days "Get the easy stuff in corporate hands that have money so we can spend our less and less money on cool stuff"

      Google wants to enter the space race and NASA is A-O-K with that.

      As far as the gas? I guarantee if you were leasing space from NASA and buying 1.2 Million Gallons of fuel a year you'd get a discount too. Business not favoritism.

    2. Re:Wrong analogy by Eristone · · Score: 2

      Yes, but it would cost NASA a fortune to clean up the site before it could be auctioned off. El Toro Marine Base was just taken off the Superfund list after 24 years and $165 million dollars to clean up the land after the base closed. Considering Moffet Field has been an experimental site as well as a military base, you can use the El Toro cleanup as a baseline - so instead of leasing the land to Google, making NASA money on the deal and also getting maintenance paid for, the suggestion is to spend $200 million and leave the land useless for the next 20 years or so while the cleanup takes place.

  7. Don't Understand the Complaint by crmanriq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "While this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy, it did result in considerable savings for H211 and engendered a sense of unfairness and a perception of favoritism toward H211 and its owners. "

    So nobody lost money. It sounds like Google found a way to save money (thus being good stewards of corporate cash).

    In 2011 Google offered to pay a big chunk of restoration costs for the hanger, and NASA instead decided to sell or lease it. It was used for Star Trek in 2009, but other than that it seems to have sat empty.

    So instead of an empty unused hanger, NASA is getting 6.3 million per year for the next 60 years.

    I really don't see who is losing anything here.

    --
    If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
  8. Not for free by jamesl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not for free is Google getting Moffett.

    "In fact the lease gives Google unprecedented control of a federal facility to use as its own playground," said John M. Simpson, director of Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project.

    In fact the lease gives Google control of a federal white elephant in exchange for $19.3 million per year plus taxpayer savings of $6.3 million per year. Total $25.6 million to the good for taxpayers.

  9. Eric Schmidt walks by Chas · · Score: 2

    No he doesn't! Haven't you been paying attention to the articles about planes, rockets and self-driving cars?

    In a couple years, Eric Schmidt is going to forget what his legs are for...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  10. Consumer Watchdog by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/

  11. And who else would rent it? by dbc · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:It's not about taking a loss... by Teancum · · Score: 2

    How much should they have paid for the property in your opinion? How did you arrive at that figure?

    Keep in mind Google needs to maintain the capacity of the field as an air strip, maintain Hanger One as a historical building, and other factors that make this more than just ordinary commercial real estate. In the end, Google still doesn't own the property and when that lease comes up in 60 years a whole lot of things could change with regards to Silicon Valley and the state of industry there. Either it will turn into the next armpit of America and resemble Detroit or perhaps the land will become even more valuable.

    Anybody else could have also put a bid for the air field, even though you can legitimately argue perhaps that notification of such a lease opportunity may not have been as widely advertised as you might like. If it really was such a steal of a deal, it sounds more like you missed a golden opportunity yourself by not starting a Kickstarter campaign to raise the funds and flip the property to make some money or make a huge windfall to a charity of your choice. I really doubt you could have made much money by trying to outbid Google and in turn offering the land to other companies instead.