[I am surprised that "Housing" is not an available category for comments to the Town Square!]
It seems to me the crux of this issue is inadequate compensation for federal employees living in the Bay Area. By preventing the development of housing for all their constituents, the elected representatives seem to favor a few. Please, Members of Congress and Senators, fix the compensation problem and let Mountain View get on with building more housing for all.

I really like how the current buildings look. Too bad the army thinks that 30 years is "end of life" and that the they need to be demolished. I would much rather see the current structures remodeled and updated. The council thought that 7-story apartments (5 stories of wood on top of 2 stories of concrete, similar to Carmel Village at San Antonio) would be okay! Why is the city council turning our city into a place which is less and less desirable to live in? How is all this building helping the current residents of Mountain View?

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

As usual, the council is only thinking how they can line their pockets. There are already more and more rental units going on the market and they haven't even finished building all the mega complexes they've approved. I've never seen city government who hates their city so much they are doing their best to destroy it as fast as possible. They're not even shy about it having the developers come over and give them gifts yearly like a corrupt nativity scene. Stop building.

NO MORE RENTAL UNITS! We need a community with a sense of OWNERSHIP. If this land is sold, it should be mandated for actual homes or condos owned by residents, NOT built for the sole benefit of yet another corporate landlord.

@ Alex M of Willowgate. Soon to be installed Councilwoman Lisa Matichak has been strongly in favor of new housing that is RESIDENT OWNED. This is one reason that I was a strong supporter of her in the recent election. There are many reasons why this is desirable (in MV, we are the 2nd largest precent-renter-city in the Bay Area).

For city (and school district) tax support - residential ownership changes hand and gets reassessed, at current market rate - much more often that large cooperate ownership rental properties.

Our Congresswoman is badly out-of-touch with the housing problems of this district. Constituents? Inform her through constituent snail-mail to her local office. Hon. Representative Anna Eshoo, 698 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301

The simple solution to the displacement concerns (and @Albert's concern, to some extent) is to phase the project. Developing the vacant lot on the corner as phase 1 is straightforward. Then, if phase 2 is deemed necessary, the military tenants can be housed in phase 1 while the older area is rebuilt.

@Jes:
"Traffic in that area is already well and truly screwed."
This is on Moffett Blvd, where commute traffic is blissfully light.

@Alex M:
"If this land is sold, it should be mandated for actual homes or condos owned by residents..."
That doesn't really work. If you build more "ownership units" than the market will support, the owners will just rent them out.

Again, cities follow a path of development. If they are successful they go high density. To allow present tenants to dictate the future is bad. If you want high rates of private ownership go to less successful areas. Silicon Valley is the new Manhattan. Celebrate, there will be greater wealth for those who can afford the higher rental rates. Remember there is no such thing as "affordable housing", just subsidized housing.
George Drysdale a social studies teacher

So let me get this straight: On the one hand, we implement rent control provisions because supply/demand imbalance has caused skyrocketing rents, then on the other hand our genius elected officials oppose a plan that would add significant supply to the market and partially offset some of that imbalance? The site is close to many major Mountain View employers and is perfect to reduce commute times and "carbon footprint" for many tenants. I'm indifferent to whether these would be rentals, or owner occupied condos, but the notion that this should be stalled because of ~100 renters currently on the site is ridiculous. There are ways to mitigate the impact on current tenants without stalling or killing the whole deal.

Thank you for explaining the history of this unincorporated exclave. I always wondered why there was a hole in the middle of Mountain View.

I am concerned with the follwowing information:

That idea hit a wall of opposition last week as city officials began studying whether to pursue a precise plan for the Shenandoah site. About a dozen California members of Congress signed a letter outlining concerns over the prospective sale. In a separate letter, Rep. Anna Eshoo took the criticism further, blasting the plan as a ploy to reap a handsome sum from the sale to pay off a $460 million debt accrued from a "misguided" and "unprofitable" housing project at Fort Irwin in San Bernardino County. She asked the city to hold off in order to help retain Shenandoah as federal property.

It looks like this business cannot actually develop property correctly. They have a half a billion dollar debt.

I would not do any business with such an outfit. I would seek out an alternative. If that is not possible. Then no business is better than bad business.

When the developer proposal is made by a smart and not in debt firm, I would consider it.

Contrary to what ivg says, the Shenandoah property actually fronts partially on Middlefield and partially on Moffett. The main access driveway is likely to be on Middlefield. It is a half block from one of the most miserable intersections in MV, the intersection of Shoreline and Middlefield. A new 700-unit development has been approved right across the street, at 777 W. Middlefield, and I don't think that was a smart decision. The Council (or the Army) should have some caution in developing Shenandaoh. There isn't adequate road capacity for more high density at this location.

If it's going to be developed, at least part of this property should be ownership units. I like Lenny Siegel's idea of a "Community Land Trust" that could provide ownership units at a reduced price, in return for the owner giving up part of the increase in value when the unit is later sold. The "market" will absolutely support ownership units - right now home sales are down because of a lack of inventory, not because people necessarily prefer to rent.

I am very confused, the news article stated:

The high value of the Shenandoah site has basically been subsidizing CMC's other less-profitable housing ventures, according to Eshoo's office. After building hundreds of homes at Fort Irwin, CMC officials reportedly learned the Department of Defense allotted the base a smaller housing allowance than they anticipated, resulting in a $1 million to $2 million annual loss.

But that site is not developed at all yet. The only value of the Shenandoah site has is "speculative" at best. And if you follow the Graham V Bank of America case law, that states:

"Statements regarding the appraised value of the property are not actionable fraudulent misrepresentations.   Representations of opinion, particularly involving matters of value, are ordinarily not actionable representations of fact.  (Neu–Visions Sports Inc. v. Soren/McAdam/Bartells (2000) 86 Cal.App.4th 303, 308 (Neu–Visions ) [accountant's opinion of the value of a building not actionable misrepresentation of fact];  Padgett v. Phariss (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1284 [opinion of fair market value of property not actionable misrepresentation].)   A representation is an opinion “ ‘if it expresses only (a) the belief of the maker, without certainty, as to the existence of a fact;  or (b) his judgment as to quality, value ․ or other matters of judgment.’  “ (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.   2005) Torts, § 774, p. 1123.)

Appraisals are “an opinion as to the market value” of a property prepared by a qualified independent appraiser.  (12 C.F.R. §§ 34.42(a), 34.45 (2014);  12 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed.   2005) Real Property, § 498, p. 576.)   It is an estimate of the price a buyer would be willing to pay and a seller would be willing to accept at a given time based upon market conditions.

An appraisal is performed in the usual course and scope of the loan process to protect the lender's interest to determine if the property provides adequate security for the loan.   Since the appraisal is a value opinion performed for the benefit of the lender, there is no representation of fact upon which a buyer may reasonably rely.  “While it [is] foreseeable the appraisal might be considered by plaintiff in completing the loan transaction, the foreseeabilty of harm [is] remote.  
Plaintiff [is] in as good a position as ․ defendant to know the value and condition of the property.   One who seeks financing to purchase real property has many means available to assess the property's value and condition, including comparable sales, advice from a realtor, independent appraisal, contractors' inspections, personal observation and opinion and the like․  

Stated another way, the borrower should be expected to know that the appraisal is intended for the lender's benefit to assist it in determining whether to make the loan, and not for the purpose of ensuring that the borrower has made a good bargain, i.e., not to insure the success of the investment.”   (Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1099.)"

So the court states that in fact there is no such thing as a fair market value because it is not scientifically determined at all. It is a negotiated concept that is speculative at best, and cannot be relied upon by any party considering a land investment. So if the California Military Communities (CMC) has used accounting trickery to offset the enormous half a billion dollar debt, by claiming it has another property not developed claiming it is worth $1 Billion, this is a fraudulent practice. You cannot monetize the undeveloped property at all, and the practice in doing so is the same as mark to market values used in the Enron debacle.

A reminder of what Enron did:

"THE ROLE OF MARK-TO-MARKET ACCOUNTING

Enron incorporated “mark-to-market accounting” for the energy trading business in the mid-1990s and used it on an unprecedented scale for its trading transactions. Under mark-to-market rules, whenever companies have outstanding energy-related or other derivative contracts (either assets or liabilities) on their balance sheets at the end of a particular quarter, they must adjust them to fair market value, booking unrealized gains or losses to the income statement of the period. A difficulty with application of these rules in accounting for long-term futures contracts in commodities such as gas is that there are often no quoted prices upon which to base valuations. Companies having these types of derivative instruments are free to develop and use discretionary valuation models based on their own assumptions and methods.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) emerging issues task force has debated the subject of how to value and disclose energy-related contracts for several years. It has been able to conclude only that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work and that to require companies to disclose all of the assumptions and estimates underlying earnings would produce disclosures that were so voluminous they would be of little value. For a company such as Enron, under continuous pressure to beat earnings estimates, it is possible that valuation estimates might have considerably overstated earnings. Furthermore, unrealized trading gains accounted for slightly more than half of the company’s $1.41 billion reported pretax profit for 2000 and about one-third of its reported pretax profit for 1999.

- See more at: Web Link

This is the problem with the nature of apartment development in California right now. Everyone is making baseless claims of value that are simply unrealistic. And this is over inflating the balloon or bubble and it is bursting.

And as a result a lot of investors are expecting to make profits on property investments that are not as valuable as they are told. And at the same time the same investors are passing the cost onto the persons who are renting or buying the properties that are developed. This has been a standard operating business practice for more than 2 decades in California. But it is falling apart.

It is a variation of the pyramid scheme, where the last buyer or investor pays the cost of the investment and profit to the last seller, which was the second to last buyer who paid the cost and profit to the second to last seller and so on.

It eventually implodes on itself.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Looks like someone is on Santa's Naughty list.

I live at Shenandoah Square. I invite the reader to drive by and take a look at the property. It is at the intersection of W. Middlefield Rd. and Moffett Blvd.

You will see what looks - at first glance - like a park north of the intersection. Look closer, and you will see side streets and parking areas -- but no buildings. Here is wide open ground that was never developed, in the midst of a housing shortage! What's wrong with this picture?

Perhaps CMC should consider building apartments on the property that was obviously part on the original plan, instead of threatening to tear down housing that is currently occupied.