____________
I usually leave the more controversial issues in DPD’s capable hands, and instead try to provide informative topics of interest on the subject of the elderly and disabled. However, senior housing seems to be a current hot button issue in this community, so I will dare to launch into troubled waters. In so doing, on occasion I will risk giving my opinion on the subject. A previous column I wrote for this blog discussed senior housing, but in a more informative format.
Recently I was invited by Tandem Properties to attend a “focus group”, ostensibly to obtain my view on what senior housing should look like in Davis. Because I am a member of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, I was very reluctant to attend. My feeling was that as a commission member, I did not want to give any appearance of impropriety in my actions. To attend a developer’s focus group might be construed the wrong way if I was not careful.
Unfortunately, I felt it imperative to go – once fellow commission members urged me to do so, after they had attended some of these focus groups. I began to realize it was necessary to find out what was going on. In the end, I am actually glad I chose to be present. It gave me a heads up on what is in the works for proposal by developers, and an opportunity for me to impart my views to them. As a commission member, it can be a fine line to walk.
It should be understood from the outset that I was the only member of the “focus group” I attended, which felt very uncomfortable. But it also gave me the opportunity to ask lots of questions, and I had many. Here is the gist of what I was told:
- Tandem Properties wants to propose a senior housing development on the former Covell Village site.
- The first phase would include 800 units. There is a second and third phase in the planning stages as well.
- All levels of affordability will be included.
- The developers are willing to kick in the costs of an AMR station, but not a fourth fire station. They feel to fund another fire station would be cost prohibitive.
- Many wonderful amenities are contemplated for this senior housing development, including the concept of “telemedicine” – doctor visits via the computer. Their vision is a veritable wonderland chock full of enticing goodies.
- Tandem Properties has formed a Healthy Aging group, that has put out a newsletter promoting good health for seniors. Naturally, Tandem believes their housing proposal will enhance the good health of any older adult who chose to live in their envisioned senior community.
- According to the developers, the “internal need” of Davisites should include elderly parents who wish to reside near their adult children already residing here.
- Downsizing is the common mantra of the developers, who insist –
- This is what seniors want;
- It will be for the good of the community because:
- It will free up more stock for workforce housing;
- It will bring in more young families to help do away with the declining enrollment problem in the schools.
Since that time, I have also talked with some members of the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC). One piece of information I have gleaned from them is as follows:
- They are projecting an “internal need” for somewhere between 200 to 400 units of senior housing between now and the year 2013;
- The members I talked with and a person on city staff are indicating there is very little justification for the numbers arrived at, ostensibly because it is a difficult figure to quantify.
At my strong urging, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission has elected to take up the issue of senior housing. The plan is to come up with some guidelines for the City Council to follow as it deliberates on any housing proposal. (City staff would prefer the creation of guidelines be done in coordination with the Social Services Commission, which could be problematic – since the constituencies they answer to are vastly different. The Senior Citizens Commission addresses the issues of all seniors, whereas the Social Services Commission concerns itself with the needs of low income and disabled.) This is so that whatever is built will not be “developer driven”, but rather have sufficient community input prior to its proposal being introduced for consideration. The hope is sufficient guidelines will preclude any future Covell Village debacle, as has happened in the past, where the City Council is not in sync with the community at large.
During the “focus group” I attended at Tandem Properties, my input was solicited. In general I remained fairly noncommittal, but did offer the following advice:
- It is important for any developer to first offer up proposed housing development plans for feedback at various city commissions, such as the Planning Commission, Senior Citizens Commission and other appropriate venues – before making a formal proposal to the City Council. In so far as Covell Village is concerned, there was a perception that developers were attempting to make an end run around process by going directly to the City Council majority for approval. With Measure J in place, that gambit will not be very effective.
- Necessary to the process will be for developers to consider “internal” community needs rather than “external” needs of those who live outside Davis. (This is not an elitist attitude, by the way, but a recognition that the efforts of the City Council need to be directed toward addressing community problems first and foremost, if at all possible. This is the charge of the City Council.)
To date, I am trying to keep an open mind on the subject of senior housing. I am not anti-developer by any stretch of the imagination. However, as things have unfolded, certain concerns have taken root. The ensuing discussion may help frame the issue of how much senior housing should the city of Davis build for the future.
Up until now, I strongly believe our community housing needs have been largely ignored in favor of a housing policy that is “developer driven”. It has resulted in some unfortunate byproducts, not the least of which is the present public school disaster. Home builders are promising new construction of schools as an enticement to homebuyers – without adequate assurance the school system will have enough in the way of operating expenses to run the new facilities. In consequence, too many schools were built in Davis, which resulted in the closure of Valley Oak Elementary and the threatened closure of Emerson Junior High.
Another unfortunate derivative of new housing is an increase in taxes – brought on by additional city services it inevitably brings. In this day and age of tough budget cuts, and the resulting decrease in state revenue to our city, the escalating tax burden factor becomes critical for our citizens on moderate or fixed incomes. It should be noted the City Council is proposing a new public safety tax. The School Board is proposing another parcel tax on top of the one we already are paying. Water and sewer rates are increasing at an astronomical rate.
Developers are in the business of making money for themselves, and there is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it must be remembered they are in the building industry first and foremost to maximize their profits. Thus if their proposals are not in the best interests of the city, it is incumbent upon the City Council to raise red flags where appropriate, and get the developers to rethink and revise their proposal. This did not happen with the original Covell Village project.
Instead, it felt as if some on the City Council had already had their minds made up by developers, and merely wanted the commissions to rubber stamp approval. This was an unfortunate position to take, especially in light of the impending Measure J vote. Because some on the City Council failed to first obtain sufficient community and commission input, the entire Covell Village matter ended in an embarrassing defeat at the polls.
Which brings up the issue of Measure J, which will be a thorn in the sides to developers unless it is somehow weakened with amendments. I am a strong supporter of Measure J in its present form, as a check on the abuses of process that often take place in local politics. It ensures that the City Council truly listens to the electorate when weighing in on the important issue of how much we should grow as a city, and in what direction. Any City Council member that tries to monkey with it does so at their political peril.
That said, there are a few disturbing arguments being bandied about by the pro-developer contingent, that I find quite disturbing. The notion that all seniors want to downsize is fallacious. An AARP survey indicates otherwise. Actually 83% of those 45 and older would prefer to stay in their existing home, and not downsize. If that statistic is applied to:
- Tandem Properties’ alleged “internal need” of 800 units by year 2013, the “internal need” shrinks to 136 units;
- HESC’s estimated “internal need” of 200-400 units by year 2013, the “internal need shrivels to between 34-68 units.
In fact, the current wait list for Shasta Point and Eleanor Roosevelt, both essentially low-income senior facilities, is virtually zero. As is the wait-list at Atria Covell Gardens, an assisted living facility for the elderly.
It is also completely inappropriate to argue seniors should downsize for the good of the community, to free up housing for the workforce and help end the problem of declining enrollment in our schools. Seniors have a constitutionally protected right to remain in their homes for as long as they want. Furthermore, seniors often use extra bedrooms for visiting relatives, live-in caregivers, and to rent for supplemental income. The elderly often have an emotional attachment to their home as well. Moreover, to sell to a stranger would eliminate the possible transfer of tax advantages of Prop 13 to the senior homeowner’s children.
Nor can one argue, with a straight face, that parents of adult Davisites represent part of the “internal need” of Davis. This line of misleading reasoning is as follows: parents who live outside the city will eventually want to move to Davis, to live where their adult children reside. But logic tells us that just as many elderly parents who live in Davis will want to move outside the city to be with adult children who live elsewhere. Not to mention those elderly in Davis who want to move AWAY from their adult children!
Be it good, bad or indifferent, here are a set of proposed guidelines I would like to see the City Council follow any time they are thinking of approving new housing, along with a checklist. I welcome any and all comments, constructive criticisms and new ideas.
General Housing Principles
A. General Housing Principles
- COMMUNITY PLANNED – Determination of housing requirements should not be “developer driven”, but accomplished in response to the expressed desires of the community.
- INDEPENDENT MARKET ANALYSIS – Market analysis of the true community need for housing should be done by an independent consultant who has no ties to the developer/city staff/city council members. The analysis should speak to:
- Affordability – in which the term is used in its broadest sense to include those of moderate income within the city of Davis.
- Marketability – determination if there is a true demand for specific types of housing proposed.
- BUILD IN SMALLER INCREMENTS – Build housing developments encompassing all housing types when practicable in smaller increments (phases), to better ascertain if it is meeting the true ongoing community needs of the city.
- INDEPENDENT MARKET ANALYSIS – Market analysis of the true community need for housing should be done by an independent consultant who has no ties to the developer/city staff/city council members. The analysis should speak to:
- COST TO TAXPAYERS FOR CITY SERVICES – An examination of cost in city services (additional tax burden) to all citizens, of a new development, should be mandatory as part of any application to build.
- City services to be investigated would include but is not limited to fire protection, law enforcement, parks maintenance, increase in water/sewer rate increases and the like.
- Developers should be required to pay mitigation fees in full, to decrease the cost of city services to residents of Davis.
- SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES – Implement sound planning principles that take into account what is best for the entire community, including but not limited to:
- Avoidance of development in larger flood plains or next to toxic sites;
- Air quality considerations;
- Good traffic management.
- ACCESSABILITY/VISITABILITY – The principles of accessibility/visitability should be incorporated into all new housing.
B. Senior Housing Guidelines
In determining the need for senior housing in Davis for its citizens, the following factors need to be taken into account in any market analysis:
- AGE DEFINITIONS – Age definitions or restrictions must be well defined, e.g. age 65 and over.
- PREFERENCE TO REMAIN HOME – Preference of 87% of seniors to remain in their homes, according to AARP survey.
- DOWNSIZING – A need to downsize – because either a) there is a medical crisis that requires it; b) the owner of a larger home recognizes s/he can no longer manage its upkeep; c) or there is simply a desire to be among peers.
- HOUSING OPTIONS – A need for different housing types for seniors, who cannot/do not wish to remain in their homes, should be considered.
- HOUSING SUITABLE FOR SENIORS – Many seniors are not in favor of living in age-restricted housing, preferring housing suitable for seniors. Creative options should be explored, such as cooperative housing or shared housing alternatives.
- AGE-RESTRICTED SENIOR HOUSING – Age-restricted senior housing types to be contemplated are as follows:
-
-
-
- Independent living: cottage, townhouse, mobile home, independent living facility;
- Assisted living facility (residential care facility for the elderly – RCFE);
- Skilled nursing facility (skilled nursing facility – SNF);
- Continuum of care facility.
-
-
- SUPPORT SERVICES – Nearby or accompanying support services should be taken into account for any senior housing built:
- Transit;
- Social services
- The impact of importing seniors from outside the county and the attendant drain on existing city/county social services should be assessed, in determining the overall “internal” need for senior housing.
- The wait-lists of current city facilities should be factored into the overall picture as to true community need.
- LOCATION – Because seniors often no longer drive a car, the preferred location for any proposed senior housing should be close to:
-
-
-
- public transit if there is no on-site shuttle;
- shopping (especially grocery store and pharmacy);
- a medical facility.
-
-
Lesson to be learned: Planning ahead and getting true community input about housing needs can head off a lot of potential problems in the future. It will also result in projects that are designed for the best interests of the community. While Tandem Properties’ proposal sounds like a veritable Disneyland for the elderly, it will bring with it high costs in additional city services. Without additional commercial development instituted to raise more tax revenue, current citizens in Davis may not be able to handle the greater tax burden required.
(Please note the opinions expressed are solely my own, and not stated as a reflection of the view of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission.)
Fraud Alert: An ad appeared in the Davis Enterprise some weeks ago entitled “The Disturbing Truth About Reverse Mortgages!!!”, touting a free report on the subject. I called the number given, only to connect with a recording that wanted me to leave my name and address. Not a single bit of information was imparted to make me aware of what I might be receiving or give some indication if I would even be interested.. I hung up immediately, since I did not want to take the chance of being placed on some mailing list (sometimes known as a ‘sucker list’), which could then be sold to who knows what unsavory financial predator. What is important here is to note the tiny print in the left hand corner which reads “Paid Advertisement”. If there is a product or service for sale, the retailer should be up front about it.
A notice appeared in the June 26th Davis Enterprise, advising the public that a seminar on trusts had been conducted at the Davis Chamber of Commerce office. It wanted to make sure the public did not construe this as a Chamber of Commerce endorsement of whoever rented their facilities for this seminar. My terse comment would be such a notice was nothing more than “too little, too late”. The disclaimer would have been far more appropriate if stated directly before the seminar, on site. A 1.5 in. x 1.5 in. disclaimer buried among huge ads in a newspaper is hardly sufficient. As an attorney, I have dealt with several cases involving these trust mills, and the results have not always been what they should be. Trust mills tend to be a one size fits all operation, where most seniors have no idea what they purchased or whether it is suitable for their particular circumstances.
Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who concentrates her efforts on elder law and aging issues, especially in regard to consumer affairs. If you have a remark or particular question or topic you would like to see addressed in this column, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.
Elaine this is an excellent analysis and fine set of guidelines. Thank you for your continued efforts on Senior Housing needs for the Davis area.
Dick Livingston
Elaine this is an excellent analysis and fine set of guidelines. Thank you for your continued efforts on Senior Housing needs for the Davis area.
Dick Livingston
Elaine this is an excellent analysis and fine set of guidelines. Thank you for your continued efforts on Senior Housing needs for the Davis area.
Dick Livingston
Elaine this is an excellent analysis and fine set of guidelines. Thank you for your continued efforts on Senior Housing needs for the Davis area.
Dick Livingston
To Dick Livingston: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will need it as we go into discussions on the proposed housing guidelines!
To Dick Livingston: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will need it as we go into discussions on the proposed housing guidelines!
To Dick Livingston: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will need it as we go into discussions on the proposed housing guidelines!
To Dick Livingston: Thanks for the vote of confidence. I will need it as we go into discussions on the proposed housing guidelines!
Excellent article Elaine. I too have participated in one of the Tandem focus groups about a year ago … in my case with two other couples whom I did not know. The information sharing followed pretty much the same format.
There are a couple of erroneous statements in your article regarding the size of the demand. I will attempt to frame those errors; however, it is important to note that neither Davis as a community nor Davis as a governmental entity has devoted resources to studying Senior demand. My personal opinion is that until and unless we complete such a thorough study, then narrow efforts like what tandem is doing are at best anecdotal, and at worst simply marketing studies.
With all that said, here is what I know. The number of Davis residents over 55 in 2006 was 9,635. The BAE study provided to the HESC is the source of that number. BAE did not provide a number of households for that population over 55, but lets conservatively say it is somewhere around 4,800 (with multi-person facilities reducing the number and one-person households increasing it). Then the “85% of households over 55” AARP figure results in a 720 households rough calculation of the internal demand. Your assessment of the offset of the parents of existing Davis residents by the current residents who want to move to another location near their non-Davis children is an interesting one, but I do think AARP’s 85% figure already takes that into account. So for argument’s sake lets say that a demand between 700 and 1,000 is possible.
Regardless, those numbers 1) are educated guesses, and 2) global representations of the demand across all income group. Before we act on any Senior Housing we need to conduct a thorough study that involves as many Davis seniors and as many Davis residents with parents as possible. The bi-monthly mailings of the Water and Sewer bills could outreach to the vast majority of seniors to solicit their participation. Your Commission would be a very appropriate leader of such an initiative. I personally would be willing to work on the effort, even though I don’t live within the City Limits. There are quite a few of us “over 55’s” who live in the Davis “suburbs.”
Excellent article Elaine. I too have participated in one of the Tandem focus groups about a year ago … in my case with two other couples whom I did not know. The information sharing followed pretty much the same format.
There are a couple of erroneous statements in your article regarding the size of the demand. I will attempt to frame those errors; however, it is important to note that neither Davis as a community nor Davis as a governmental entity has devoted resources to studying Senior demand. My personal opinion is that until and unless we complete such a thorough study, then narrow efforts like what tandem is doing are at best anecdotal, and at worst simply marketing studies.
With all that said, here is what I know. The number of Davis residents over 55 in 2006 was 9,635. The BAE study provided to the HESC is the source of that number. BAE did not provide a number of households for that population over 55, but lets conservatively say it is somewhere around 4,800 (with multi-person facilities reducing the number and one-person households increasing it). Then the “85% of households over 55” AARP figure results in a 720 households rough calculation of the internal demand. Your assessment of the offset of the parents of existing Davis residents by the current residents who want to move to another location near their non-Davis children is an interesting one, but I do think AARP’s 85% figure already takes that into account. So for argument’s sake lets say that a demand between 700 and 1,000 is possible.
Regardless, those numbers 1) are educated guesses, and 2) global representations of the demand across all income group. Before we act on any Senior Housing we need to conduct a thorough study that involves as many Davis seniors and as many Davis residents with parents as possible. The bi-monthly mailings of the Water and Sewer bills could outreach to the vast majority of seniors to solicit their participation. Your Commission would be a very appropriate leader of such an initiative. I personally would be willing to work on the effort, even though I don’t live within the City Limits. There are quite a few of us “over 55’s” who live in the Davis “suburbs.”
Excellent article Elaine. I too have participated in one of the Tandem focus groups about a year ago … in my case with two other couples whom I did not know. The information sharing followed pretty much the same format.
There are a couple of erroneous statements in your article regarding the size of the demand. I will attempt to frame those errors; however, it is important to note that neither Davis as a community nor Davis as a governmental entity has devoted resources to studying Senior demand. My personal opinion is that until and unless we complete such a thorough study, then narrow efforts like what tandem is doing are at best anecdotal, and at worst simply marketing studies.
With all that said, here is what I know. The number of Davis residents over 55 in 2006 was 9,635. The BAE study provided to the HESC is the source of that number. BAE did not provide a number of households for that population over 55, but lets conservatively say it is somewhere around 4,800 (with multi-person facilities reducing the number and one-person households increasing it). Then the “85% of households over 55” AARP figure results in a 720 households rough calculation of the internal demand. Your assessment of the offset of the parents of existing Davis residents by the current residents who want to move to another location near their non-Davis children is an interesting one, but I do think AARP’s 85% figure already takes that into account. So for argument’s sake lets say that a demand between 700 and 1,000 is possible.
Regardless, those numbers 1) are educated guesses, and 2) global representations of the demand across all income group. Before we act on any Senior Housing we need to conduct a thorough study that involves as many Davis seniors and as many Davis residents with parents as possible. The bi-monthly mailings of the Water and Sewer bills could outreach to the vast majority of seniors to solicit their participation. Your Commission would be a very appropriate leader of such an initiative. I personally would be willing to work on the effort, even though I don’t live within the City Limits. There are quite a few of us “over 55’s” who live in the Davis “suburbs.”
Excellent article Elaine. I too have participated in one of the Tandem focus groups about a year ago … in my case with two other couples whom I did not know. The information sharing followed pretty much the same format.
There are a couple of erroneous statements in your article regarding the size of the demand. I will attempt to frame those errors; however, it is important to note that neither Davis as a community nor Davis as a governmental entity has devoted resources to studying Senior demand. My personal opinion is that until and unless we complete such a thorough study, then narrow efforts like what tandem is doing are at best anecdotal, and at worst simply marketing studies.
With all that said, here is what I know. The number of Davis residents over 55 in 2006 was 9,635. The BAE study provided to the HESC is the source of that number. BAE did not provide a number of households for that population over 55, but lets conservatively say it is somewhere around 4,800 (with multi-person facilities reducing the number and one-person households increasing it). Then the “85% of households over 55” AARP figure results in a 720 households rough calculation of the internal demand. Your assessment of the offset of the parents of existing Davis residents by the current residents who want to move to another location near their non-Davis children is an interesting one, but I do think AARP’s 85% figure already takes that into account. So for argument’s sake lets say that a demand between 700 and 1,000 is possible.
Regardless, those numbers 1) are educated guesses, and 2) global representations of the demand across all income group. Before we act on any Senior Housing we need to conduct a thorough study that involves as many Davis seniors and as many Davis residents with parents as possible. The bi-monthly mailings of the Water and Sewer bills could outreach to the vast majority of seniors to solicit their participation. Your Commission would be a very appropriate leader of such an initiative. I personally would be willing to work on the effort, even though I don’t live within the City Limits. There are quite a few of us “over 55’s” who live in the Davis “suburbs.”
Elaine, your piece is excellent in presenting facts and policy questions.
I always like to read your posts.
Elaine, your piece is excellent in presenting facts and policy questions.
I always like to read your posts.
Elaine, your piece is excellent in presenting facts and policy questions.
I always like to read your posts.
Elaine, your piece is excellent in presenting facts and policy questions.
I always like to read your posts.
Matt,
With all due respect (and I have great respect for your knowledge of Davis housing), I cannot agree with the figure you give of 720 “households” as the internal demand for “senior housing”. Here are the reasons why –
(Parenthetically, I am not certain we are even talking about the same thing when we refer to senior housing needs. You refer to “households”; I refer to housing “units”. I am using the terminology as defined by the developers and city staff members. A housing “unit” can be a bed, apartment, cottage, or house, as I understand it. The developer indicated to me that a bed within a skilled nursing facility would be considered a housing “unit”.)
One of the troubling aspects to assessing the need for senior housing is to determine what age group we are talking about. 55 years of age is probably too low an age ceiling to determine the internal need for senior housing. It seems much more reasonable to start at age 65 – approximately retirement age. This is when it will be more likely that seniors will want to move from their present home, and thus need new housing.
Furthermore, senior housing must also be looked at from an age bracket perspective. The needs of age 65 – 75 will probably be much different than for those 75 – 85 years old, or 85 – 95 years old. This is where assisted living and skilled nursing facilities come into play.
In so far as HESC is concerned, I have no idea how they came up with the internal need for Davisites as 200-400 units. What I was told by both a city staff member and a member of HESC, is there is really no definitive justification for those numbers – it is merely a guess. However, assuming that number to be correct, it did not take into account the FACT that the majority of seniors do not want to move from their current homes – and thus would not be in need of any new housing.
Except there is yet another complication – what if a medical crisis occurs, and there is a sudden need for assisted living or a skilled nursing facility, even if only temporarily? Those sorts of needs are not taken into account in AARP’s analysis.
So if I were to make a best guess on what the internal needs are for senior housing in Davis, here would be my assessment:
1) The developer projects an internal need of approximately 800senior housing units between now and 2013. HESC projects an internal need of only 200 – 400 senior housing units between now and 2013. Let’s take the middle ground of an internal need of 400 senior housing units as a happy medium.
2) Neither figure takes into account that 85% of seniors do not want to move from their current residences. Applying that to our internal need estimate of 400 senior housing units, that reduces it to an internal need of only 60 units.
3) 60 units represents a facility approximately the size of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle.
4) Atria Covell Gardens is essentially the only assisted living facility in Davis, with no competition. Only the wealthy can afford it. It does not have much of a waiting list. I believe there are two skilled nursing facilities in Davis (someone correct me if I am wrong). There is only one continuum of care facility in Davis (independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facility, Alzheimer’s unit), University Retirement Commons (URC), which has a waiting list of about 25. Only the wealthy can afford to live there. There is adequate low income senior housing in Davis, if the wait lists are any indication. They are currently virtually zero.
So my conclusion of internal needs for more senior housing is another continuum of care facility that supports middle income seniors, which would add another approximately 250 units of senior housing (about the size of URC). Some additional development of senior cottages might be nice, say about 50, for middle income seniors. In my estimation, a grand total of 300 senior housing units for middle income seniors would more than satisfy any internal demand in Davis.
However, I will be the first to admit this is a best guess, and nothing more. My analysis is based on a number from HESC that is admittedly without justification; and a sampling from an AARP survey, that does not take into account medical emergencies.
I agree that more outreach to Davis seniors needs to happen, BEFORE proposals are brought to the City Council. It is imperative that suggested numbers for more senior housing reflect internal rather than external needs. The 800 + (first phase) suggested by Tandem Properties seems way out of kilter with internal needs in Davis.
So ultimately, Matt, we are in agreement as to what needs to be done – more analysis of internal needs for senior housing. The only thing we might not agree on at the moment is our best guess as to what that number is!
Matt,
With all due respect (and I have great respect for your knowledge of Davis housing), I cannot agree with the figure you give of 720 “households” as the internal demand for “senior housing”. Here are the reasons why –
(Parenthetically, I am not certain we are even talking about the same thing when we refer to senior housing needs. You refer to “households”; I refer to housing “units”. I am using the terminology as defined by the developers and city staff members. A housing “unit” can be a bed, apartment, cottage, or house, as I understand it. The developer indicated to me that a bed within a skilled nursing facility would be considered a housing “unit”.)
One of the troubling aspects to assessing the need for senior housing is to determine what age group we are talking about. 55 years of age is probably too low an age ceiling to determine the internal need for senior housing. It seems much more reasonable to start at age 65 – approximately retirement age. This is when it will be more likely that seniors will want to move from their present home, and thus need new housing.
Furthermore, senior housing must also be looked at from an age bracket perspective. The needs of age 65 – 75 will probably be much different than for those 75 – 85 years old, or 85 – 95 years old. This is where assisted living and skilled nursing facilities come into play.
In so far as HESC is concerned, I have no idea how they came up with the internal need for Davisites as 200-400 units. What I was told by both a city staff member and a member of HESC, is there is really no definitive justification for those numbers – it is merely a guess. However, assuming that number to be correct, it did not take into account the FACT that the majority of seniors do not want to move from their current homes – and thus would not be in need of any new housing.
Except there is yet another complication – what if a medical crisis occurs, and there is a sudden need for assisted living or a skilled nursing facility, even if only temporarily? Those sorts of needs are not taken into account in AARP’s analysis.
So if I were to make a best guess on what the internal needs are for senior housing in Davis, here would be my assessment:
1) The developer projects an internal need of approximately 800senior housing units between now and 2013. HESC projects an internal need of only 200 – 400 senior housing units between now and 2013. Let’s take the middle ground of an internal need of 400 senior housing units as a happy medium.
2) Neither figure takes into account that 85% of seniors do not want to move from their current residences. Applying that to our internal need estimate of 400 senior housing units, that reduces it to an internal need of only 60 units.
3) 60 units represents a facility approximately the size of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle.
4) Atria Covell Gardens is essentially the only assisted living facility in Davis, with no competition. Only the wealthy can afford it. It does not have much of a waiting list. I believe there are two skilled nursing facilities in Davis (someone correct me if I am wrong). There is only one continuum of care facility in Davis (independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facility, Alzheimer’s unit), University Retirement Commons (URC), which has a waiting list of about 25. Only the wealthy can afford to live there. There is adequate low income senior housing in Davis, if the wait lists are any indication. They are currently virtually zero.
So my conclusion of internal needs for more senior housing is another continuum of care facility that supports middle income seniors, which would add another approximately 250 units of senior housing (about the size of URC). Some additional development of senior cottages might be nice, say about 50, for middle income seniors. In my estimation, a grand total of 300 senior housing units for middle income seniors would more than satisfy any internal demand in Davis.
However, I will be the first to admit this is a best guess, and nothing more. My analysis is based on a number from HESC that is admittedly without justification; and a sampling from an AARP survey, that does not take into account medical emergencies.
I agree that more outreach to Davis seniors needs to happen, BEFORE proposals are brought to the City Council. It is imperative that suggested numbers for more senior housing reflect internal rather than external needs. The 800 + (first phase) suggested by Tandem Properties seems way out of kilter with internal needs in Davis.
So ultimately, Matt, we are in agreement as to what needs to be done – more analysis of internal needs for senior housing. The only thing we might not agree on at the moment is our best guess as to what that number is!
Matt,
With all due respect (and I have great respect for your knowledge of Davis housing), I cannot agree with the figure you give of 720 “households” as the internal demand for “senior housing”. Here are the reasons why –
(Parenthetically, I am not certain we are even talking about the same thing when we refer to senior housing needs. You refer to “households”; I refer to housing “units”. I am using the terminology as defined by the developers and city staff members. A housing “unit” can be a bed, apartment, cottage, or house, as I understand it. The developer indicated to me that a bed within a skilled nursing facility would be considered a housing “unit”.)
One of the troubling aspects to assessing the need for senior housing is to determine what age group we are talking about. 55 years of age is probably too low an age ceiling to determine the internal need for senior housing. It seems much more reasonable to start at age 65 – approximately retirement age. This is when it will be more likely that seniors will want to move from their present home, and thus need new housing.
Furthermore, senior housing must also be looked at from an age bracket perspective. The needs of age 65 – 75 will probably be much different than for those 75 – 85 years old, or 85 – 95 years old. This is where assisted living and skilled nursing facilities come into play.
In so far as HESC is concerned, I have no idea how they came up with the internal need for Davisites as 200-400 units. What I was told by both a city staff member and a member of HESC, is there is really no definitive justification for those numbers – it is merely a guess. However, assuming that number to be correct, it did not take into account the FACT that the majority of seniors do not want to move from their current homes – and thus would not be in need of any new housing.
Except there is yet another complication – what if a medical crisis occurs, and there is a sudden need for assisted living or a skilled nursing facility, even if only temporarily? Those sorts of needs are not taken into account in AARP’s analysis.
So if I were to make a best guess on what the internal needs are for senior housing in Davis, here would be my assessment:
1) The developer projects an internal need of approximately 800senior housing units between now and 2013. HESC projects an internal need of only 200 – 400 senior housing units between now and 2013. Let’s take the middle ground of an internal need of 400 senior housing units as a happy medium.
2) Neither figure takes into account that 85% of seniors do not want to move from their current residences. Applying that to our internal need estimate of 400 senior housing units, that reduces it to an internal need of only 60 units.
3) 60 units represents a facility approximately the size of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle.
4) Atria Covell Gardens is essentially the only assisted living facility in Davis, with no competition. Only the wealthy can afford it. It does not have much of a waiting list. I believe there are two skilled nursing facilities in Davis (someone correct me if I am wrong). There is only one continuum of care facility in Davis (independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facility, Alzheimer’s unit), University Retirement Commons (URC), which has a waiting list of about 25. Only the wealthy can afford to live there. There is adequate low income senior housing in Davis, if the wait lists are any indication. They are currently virtually zero.
So my conclusion of internal needs for more senior housing is another continuum of care facility that supports middle income seniors, which would add another approximately 250 units of senior housing (about the size of URC). Some additional development of senior cottages might be nice, say about 50, for middle income seniors. In my estimation, a grand total of 300 senior housing units for middle income seniors would more than satisfy any internal demand in Davis.
However, I will be the first to admit this is a best guess, and nothing more. My analysis is based on a number from HESC that is admittedly without justification; and a sampling from an AARP survey, that does not take into account medical emergencies.
I agree that more outreach to Davis seniors needs to happen, BEFORE proposals are brought to the City Council. It is imperative that suggested numbers for more senior housing reflect internal rather than external needs. The 800 + (first phase) suggested by Tandem Properties seems way out of kilter with internal needs in Davis.
So ultimately, Matt, we are in agreement as to what needs to be done – more analysis of internal needs for senior housing. The only thing we might not agree on at the moment is our best guess as to what that number is!
Matt,
With all due respect (and I have great respect for your knowledge of Davis housing), I cannot agree with the figure you give of 720 “households” as the internal demand for “senior housing”. Here are the reasons why –
(Parenthetically, I am not certain we are even talking about the same thing when we refer to senior housing needs. You refer to “households”; I refer to housing “units”. I am using the terminology as defined by the developers and city staff members. A housing “unit” can be a bed, apartment, cottage, or house, as I understand it. The developer indicated to me that a bed within a skilled nursing facility would be considered a housing “unit”.)
One of the troubling aspects to assessing the need for senior housing is to determine what age group we are talking about. 55 years of age is probably too low an age ceiling to determine the internal need for senior housing. It seems much more reasonable to start at age 65 – approximately retirement age. This is when it will be more likely that seniors will want to move from their present home, and thus need new housing.
Furthermore, senior housing must also be looked at from an age bracket perspective. The needs of age 65 – 75 will probably be much different than for those 75 – 85 years old, or 85 – 95 years old. This is where assisted living and skilled nursing facilities come into play.
In so far as HESC is concerned, I have no idea how they came up with the internal need for Davisites as 200-400 units. What I was told by both a city staff member and a member of HESC, is there is really no definitive justification for those numbers – it is merely a guess. However, assuming that number to be correct, it did not take into account the FACT that the majority of seniors do not want to move from their current homes – and thus would not be in need of any new housing.
Except there is yet another complication – what if a medical crisis occurs, and there is a sudden need for assisted living or a skilled nursing facility, even if only temporarily? Those sorts of needs are not taken into account in AARP’s analysis.
So if I were to make a best guess on what the internal needs are for senior housing in Davis, here would be my assessment:
1) The developer projects an internal need of approximately 800senior housing units between now and 2013. HESC projects an internal need of only 200 – 400 senior housing units between now and 2013. Let’s take the middle ground of an internal need of 400 senior housing units as a happy medium.
2) Neither figure takes into account that 85% of seniors do not want to move from their current residences. Applying that to our internal need estimate of 400 senior housing units, that reduces it to an internal need of only 60 units.
3) 60 units represents a facility approximately the size of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle.
4) Atria Covell Gardens is essentially the only assisted living facility in Davis, with no competition. Only the wealthy can afford it. It does not have much of a waiting list. I believe there are two skilled nursing facilities in Davis (someone correct me if I am wrong). There is only one continuum of care facility in Davis (independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facility, Alzheimer’s unit), University Retirement Commons (URC), which has a waiting list of about 25. Only the wealthy can afford to live there. There is adequate low income senior housing in Davis, if the wait lists are any indication. They are currently virtually zero.
So my conclusion of internal needs for more senior housing is another continuum of care facility that supports middle income seniors, which would add another approximately 250 units of senior housing (about the size of URC). Some additional development of senior cottages might be nice, say about 50, for middle income seniors. In my estimation, a grand total of 300 senior housing units for middle income seniors would more than satisfy any internal demand in Davis.
However, I will be the first to admit this is a best guess, and nothing more. My analysis is based on a number from HESC that is admittedly without justification; and a sampling from an AARP survey, that does not take into account medical emergencies.
I agree that more outreach to Davis seniors needs to happen, BEFORE proposals are brought to the City Council. It is imperative that suggested numbers for more senior housing reflect internal rather than external needs. The 800 + (first phase) suggested by Tandem Properties seems way out of kilter with internal needs in Davis.
So ultimately, Matt, we are in agreement as to what needs to be done – more analysis of internal needs for senior housing. The only thing we might not agree on at the moment is our best guess as to what that number is!
To Mike Harrington: Thank you for your kind words.
To Mike Harrington: Thank you for your kind words.
To Mike Harrington: Thank you for your kind words.
To Mike Harrington: Thank you for your kind words.
It’s interesting, Sue G gets in a stupid fight with Ruth A, and there are +70 comments in short order.
here, Elaine writes one of the best pieces ever on housing and what is coming up with Halloween (4?) (what I call CV), and there are almost no comments.
Folks, Elaine is writing about what is coming. All of us should thoroughly study the issue of how CV is using “seniors” to get their huge project back on the table. Disgusting manipulation of people.
It’s interesting, Sue G gets in a stupid fight with Ruth A, and there are +70 comments in short order.
here, Elaine writes one of the best pieces ever on housing and what is coming up with Halloween (4?) (what I call CV), and there are almost no comments.
Folks, Elaine is writing about what is coming. All of us should thoroughly study the issue of how CV is using “seniors” to get their huge project back on the table. Disgusting manipulation of people.
It’s interesting, Sue G gets in a stupid fight with Ruth A, and there are +70 comments in short order.
here, Elaine writes one of the best pieces ever on housing and what is coming up with Halloween (4?) (what I call CV), and there are almost no comments.
Folks, Elaine is writing about what is coming. All of us should thoroughly study the issue of how CV is using “seniors” to get their huge project back on the table. Disgusting manipulation of people.
It’s interesting, Sue G gets in a stupid fight with Ruth A, and there are +70 comments in short order.
here, Elaine writes one of the best pieces ever on housing and what is coming up with Halloween (4?) (what I call CV), and there are almost no comments.
Folks, Elaine is writing about what is coming. All of us should thoroughly study the issue of how CV is using “seniors” to get their huge project back on the table. Disgusting manipulation of people.
About senior housing demands and folks moving to be closer to their adult children: Sue Greenwald has more than once brought up the issue of seniors with no children and the extra social supoort needs we folks will have. She has been brushed off every time she has brought it up so far. How about we try to make it a part of the discussion now? There are a lot of us middle-agers with no children, for a variety of very private reasons, and we–like everyone else–are not getting any younger. . . .
About senior housing demands and folks moving to be closer to their adult children: Sue Greenwald has more than once brought up the issue of seniors with no children and the extra social supoort needs we folks will have. She has been brushed off every time she has brought it up so far. How about we try to make it a part of the discussion now? There are a lot of us middle-agers with no children, for a variety of very private reasons, and we–like everyone else–are not getting any younger. . . .
About senior housing demands and folks moving to be closer to their adult children: Sue Greenwald has more than once brought up the issue of seniors with no children and the extra social supoort needs we folks will have. She has been brushed off every time she has brought it up so far. How about we try to make it a part of the discussion now? There are a lot of us middle-agers with no children, for a variety of very private reasons, and we–like everyone else–are not getting any younger. . . .
About senior housing demands and folks moving to be closer to their adult children: Sue Greenwald has more than once brought up the issue of seniors with no children and the extra social supoort needs we folks will have. She has been brushed off every time she has brought it up so far. How about we try to make it a part of the discussion now? There are a lot of us middle-agers with no children, for a variety of very private reasons, and we–like everyone else–are not getting any younger. . . .
Elaine, since we strongly agree that the necessary next step is to conduct a study before entertaining ANY Senior proposals, I thought about not clarifying the demand numbers further. However, as Mike has pointed out this is an extremely important subject that deserves full discusssion, so if our continued discussion of the components of Senior demand helps the readers of this blog, then that is a good thing.
Your description of the use of the term “units” is illuminating. Take my wife and I as an example. We are both over 60 and so far (wood knocking)we have no specialized care needs, so a “unit” for us, if we were to consider moving from our current home would handle 2 of the 9,635 residents over 55. If one of us ended up with specialized needs we could be 2 “units” of demand. However, the home we moved from (if we were to move) would always be one “household” of housing supply. I like your concept of “units” better than the “households” concept, because it allows the analysis to be more specific.
With that said, we fit into the 85% of the over 55’s who don’t want to change our living accomodations. However, we are finding that the responsibility of our garden is more challenging than it used to be, and as a result I can be empathetic to the people who fall into the 15%.
Lets talk about the AARP study for a moment. The 55-year age cutoff is theirs, and the 15% is a national number. I believe that here in California where the weather is favorable and many more houses are built on one story (and are therefore wheelchair ready), that the 15% number is lower, while in states where weather is more challenging and houses are often multi-story that 15% figure is probably low. The reality is that as long as anyone is relying on national numbers 55 and over is the norm. When Davis conducts its own study, that age cutoff can be set anywhere.
Now lets look further at the 200-400 number from the HESC (and I am intimately familiar with the process whereby that range was set), and the 800 number from Tandem. Both those numbers are “end product” numbers. To the best of my knowledge, neither number has started from the top down and then “filtered” out from the 9,635 total those Davis residents whose life conditions cause them to not want to change their living situation between now and 2013. Instead both the HESC and Tandem numbers have been developed with two different “bottom up” approaches. Tandem simply wants to identify enough market demand for their specific project 1) to justify its moving forward, and 2) to know they will be able to sell the units when built. HESC’s site orientation created a number of potential housing sites, and in the process knew their report wouldn’t be complete without addressing (at a very high level) what proportion of those sites might be needed for seniors. Given that some HESC members believed (and still believe) that Davis shouldn’t grow at a rate that exceeds the 498 unit RHNA allocation. Therefire, by definition any number of senior demand over 498 would have been controversial, and in the end based on very general information they settled on the 200-400 range.
Taking into account your “units” and the probability that the AARP number of 15% is too high, if every single senior is considered to be a “unit” the largest known total number of units would be 9,635. 15% of that number is 1,446. 10% of that number is 964. 5% is 482. If you assume further that some seniors will not be “units of one” but rather “units of two” then the 1,446, 964 and 482 numbers will come down substantially.
None of the above numbers take into consideration any of the many different ways those “gross” demand values need to be segmented to be sure that any senior housing initiative leaves no Davis residents behind.
Bottom-line, we need a thorough inclusive study. Sooner rather than later.
Elaine, since we strongly agree that the necessary next step is to conduct a study before entertaining ANY Senior proposals, I thought about not clarifying the demand numbers further. However, as Mike has pointed out this is an extremely important subject that deserves full discusssion, so if our continued discussion of the components of Senior demand helps the readers of this blog, then that is a good thing.
Your description of the use of the term “units” is illuminating. Take my wife and I as an example. We are both over 60 and so far (wood knocking)we have no specialized care needs, so a “unit” for us, if we were to consider moving from our current home would handle 2 of the 9,635 residents over 55. If one of us ended up with specialized needs we could be 2 “units” of demand. However, the home we moved from (if we were to move) would always be one “household” of housing supply. I like your concept of “units” better than the “households” concept, because it allows the analysis to be more specific.
With that said, we fit into the 85% of the over 55’s who don’t want to change our living accomodations. However, we are finding that the responsibility of our garden is more challenging than it used to be, and as a result I can be empathetic to the people who fall into the 15%.
Lets talk about the AARP study for a moment. The 55-year age cutoff is theirs, and the 15% is a national number. I believe that here in California where the weather is favorable and many more houses are built on one story (and are therefore wheelchair ready), that the 15% number is lower, while in states where weather is more challenging and houses are often multi-story that 15% figure is probably low. The reality is that as long as anyone is relying on national numbers 55 and over is the norm. When Davis conducts its own study, that age cutoff can be set anywhere.
Now lets look further at the 200-400 number from the HESC (and I am intimately familiar with the process whereby that range was set), and the 800 number from Tandem. Both those numbers are “end product” numbers. To the best of my knowledge, neither number has started from the top down and then “filtered” out from the 9,635 total those Davis residents whose life conditions cause them to not want to change their living situation between now and 2013. Instead both the HESC and Tandem numbers have been developed with two different “bottom up” approaches. Tandem simply wants to identify enough market demand for their specific project 1) to justify its moving forward, and 2) to know they will be able to sell the units when built. HESC’s site orientation created a number of potential housing sites, and in the process knew their report wouldn’t be complete without addressing (at a very high level) what proportion of those sites might be needed for seniors. Given that some HESC members believed (and still believe) that Davis shouldn’t grow at a rate that exceeds the 498 unit RHNA allocation. Therefire, by definition any number of senior demand over 498 would have been controversial, and in the end based on very general information they settled on the 200-400 range.
Taking into account your “units” and the probability that the AARP number of 15% is too high, if every single senior is considered to be a “unit” the largest known total number of units would be 9,635. 15% of that number is 1,446. 10% of that number is 964. 5% is 482. If you assume further that some seniors will not be “units of one” but rather “units of two” then the 1,446, 964 and 482 numbers will come down substantially.
None of the above numbers take into consideration any of the many different ways those “gross” demand values need to be segmented to be sure that any senior housing initiative leaves no Davis residents behind.
Bottom-line, we need a thorough inclusive study. Sooner rather than later.
Elaine, since we strongly agree that the necessary next step is to conduct a study before entertaining ANY Senior proposals, I thought about not clarifying the demand numbers further. However, as Mike has pointed out this is an extremely important subject that deserves full discusssion, so if our continued discussion of the components of Senior demand helps the readers of this blog, then that is a good thing.
Your description of the use of the term “units” is illuminating. Take my wife and I as an example. We are both over 60 and so far (wood knocking)we have no specialized care needs, so a “unit” for us, if we were to consider moving from our current home would handle 2 of the 9,635 residents over 55. If one of us ended up with specialized needs we could be 2 “units” of demand. However, the home we moved from (if we were to move) would always be one “household” of housing supply. I like your concept of “units” better than the “households” concept, because it allows the analysis to be more specific.
With that said, we fit into the 85% of the over 55’s who don’t want to change our living accomodations. However, we are finding that the responsibility of our garden is more challenging than it used to be, and as a result I can be empathetic to the people who fall into the 15%.
Lets talk about the AARP study for a moment. The 55-year age cutoff is theirs, and the 15% is a national number. I believe that here in California where the weather is favorable and many more houses are built on one story (and are therefore wheelchair ready), that the 15% number is lower, while in states where weather is more challenging and houses are often multi-story that 15% figure is probably low. The reality is that as long as anyone is relying on national numbers 55 and over is the norm. When Davis conducts its own study, that age cutoff can be set anywhere.
Now lets look further at the 200-400 number from the HESC (and I am intimately familiar with the process whereby that range was set), and the 800 number from Tandem. Both those numbers are “end product” numbers. To the best of my knowledge, neither number has started from the top down and then “filtered” out from the 9,635 total those Davis residents whose life conditions cause them to not want to change their living situation between now and 2013. Instead both the HESC and Tandem numbers have been developed with two different “bottom up” approaches. Tandem simply wants to identify enough market demand for their specific project 1) to justify its moving forward, and 2) to know they will be able to sell the units when built. HESC’s site orientation created a number of potential housing sites, and in the process knew their report wouldn’t be complete without addressing (at a very high level) what proportion of those sites might be needed for seniors. Given that some HESC members believed (and still believe) that Davis shouldn’t grow at a rate that exceeds the 498 unit RHNA allocation. Therefire, by definition any number of senior demand over 498 would have been controversial, and in the end based on very general information they settled on the 200-400 range.
Taking into account your “units” and the probability that the AARP number of 15% is too high, if every single senior is considered to be a “unit” the largest known total number of units would be 9,635. 15% of that number is 1,446. 10% of that number is 964. 5% is 482. If you assume further that some seniors will not be “units of one” but rather “units of two” then the 1,446, 964 and 482 numbers will come down substantially.
None of the above numbers take into consideration any of the many different ways those “gross” demand values need to be segmented to be sure that any senior housing initiative leaves no Davis residents behind.
Bottom-line, we need a thorough inclusive study. Sooner rather than later.
Elaine, since we strongly agree that the necessary next step is to conduct a study before entertaining ANY Senior proposals, I thought about not clarifying the demand numbers further. However, as Mike has pointed out this is an extremely important subject that deserves full discusssion, so if our continued discussion of the components of Senior demand helps the readers of this blog, then that is a good thing.
Your description of the use of the term “units” is illuminating. Take my wife and I as an example. We are both over 60 and so far (wood knocking)we have no specialized care needs, so a “unit” for us, if we were to consider moving from our current home would handle 2 of the 9,635 residents over 55. If one of us ended up with specialized needs we could be 2 “units” of demand. However, the home we moved from (if we were to move) would always be one “household” of housing supply. I like your concept of “units” better than the “households” concept, because it allows the analysis to be more specific.
With that said, we fit into the 85% of the over 55’s who don’t want to change our living accomodations. However, we are finding that the responsibility of our garden is more challenging than it used to be, and as a result I can be empathetic to the people who fall into the 15%.
Lets talk about the AARP study for a moment. The 55-year age cutoff is theirs, and the 15% is a national number. I believe that here in California where the weather is favorable and many more houses are built on one story (and are therefore wheelchair ready), that the 15% number is lower, while in states where weather is more challenging and houses are often multi-story that 15% figure is probably low. The reality is that as long as anyone is relying on national numbers 55 and over is the norm. When Davis conducts its own study, that age cutoff can be set anywhere.
Now lets look further at the 200-400 number from the HESC (and I am intimately familiar with the process whereby that range was set), and the 800 number from Tandem. Both those numbers are “end product” numbers. To the best of my knowledge, neither number has started from the top down and then “filtered” out from the 9,635 total those Davis residents whose life conditions cause them to not want to change their living situation between now and 2013. Instead both the HESC and Tandem numbers have been developed with two different “bottom up” approaches. Tandem simply wants to identify enough market demand for their specific project 1) to justify its moving forward, and 2) to know they will be able to sell the units when built. HESC’s site orientation created a number of potential housing sites, and in the process knew their report wouldn’t be complete without addressing (at a very high level) what proportion of those sites might be needed for seniors. Given that some HESC members believed (and still believe) that Davis shouldn’t grow at a rate that exceeds the 498 unit RHNA allocation. Therefire, by definition any number of senior demand over 498 would have been controversial, and in the end based on very general information they settled on the 200-400 range.
Taking into account your “units” and the probability that the AARP number of 15% is too high, if every single senior is considered to be a “unit” the largest known total number of units would be 9,635. 15% of that number is 1,446. 10% of that number is 964. 5% is 482. If you assume further that some seniors will not be “units of one” but rather “units of two” then the 1,446, 964 and 482 numbers will come down substantially.
None of the above numbers take into consideration any of the many different ways those “gross” demand values need to be segmented to be sure that any senior housing initiative leaves no Davis residents behind.
Bottom-line, we need a thorough inclusive study. Sooner rather than later.
To Matt:
Let me add yet another wrinkle into this already complex issue. Many seniors do not want to live in age-restricted housing! They are perfectly satisfied to live in rentals, or purchased condos/homes that are within normal neighborhoods containing people of all ages. The estimated figures from Tandem and HESC do not take that concept into account either. I know this holds true for many seniors, because I have heard from them at Senior Citizen Commission and City Council meetings.
Also, the AARP survey that indicates 83% of seniors want to remain in their homes (I rounded it to 85% for simplicity’s sake) was taken of 45 year olds and up (not 55 years old and up). It does shed some question on the validity of the numbers in this survey, since one’s view of things at age 45 is quite different than at age 65! As you suggest, what part of the country you are from also is a consideration, from a climate standpoint.
I do think there needs to be clarification of terms used in any senior housing discussion. Do we look at elderly folks starting at age 55, or is it more reasonable to start at age 65? What do we mean by housing “units” versus “households”. This clarity is most definitely required to have any kind of reasonable discussion. Also, some differentiation is necessary between age groups, e.g. 65-75; 75-85; 85-95.
I like your analysis of Tandem projections and those of HESC to be “bottom up” approaches, to justify their differing missions. This is exactly right. Numbers are being bandied about as justification for agendas other than the true internal need for senior housing in Davis (which goes to Mike Harrington’s point).
And your last comment is even more on point – we need unbiased analysis sooner rather than later. Tandem is pushing for a massive senior housing project that will do nothing more than mostly cater to external needs, bringing with it a whole host of problems. Most importantly it will require huge increases in city services, such as a fourth fire station, which the city does not have the money to pay for. Yet the developers are not willing to pay for these extra services themselves.
This is not a Tandem-bashing comment by the way. Tandem Properties is free to come up with any proposals it wants. I have invited them to come before our Senior Citizens Commission to make a presentation of their proposal. They have come to a joint meeting of our Commission and the Social Services Commission. Hard questions were put to them, so Tandem is aware of a certain amount of community opposition. How much opposition is unclear.
To Mike:
I would like to think that my article was so filled with facts and figures that justify my position, it made arguing against it almost impossible! Although Matt Williams had no problem poking a few holes in my numbers, so he and I can agree to disagree. However, we both ultimately concluded the numbers are probably not accurate.
Seriously though, my columns tend to be rather lengthy, fact oriented, and not as controversial. Had I come out and said I was absolutely for or against Tandem Properties proposal, there would have been a lot more heat perhaps. I normally leave the more controversial topics to DPD, which is much more his bailiwick. Or maybe my advanced age makes me appear wiser?! Who knows. DPD and I have talked about this phenomenon on his blog, where some rather innocuous things get 85 comments, while more important things get far less. Why that happens is anybody’s guess?!
However, you do make a valid point when you accuse Tandem of outright manipulation. I tend to think of it as pure salesmanship, which I fully expect. They are in it for the money, which is what private enterprise does. The real issue for me has to do with the City Council’s position in all of this.
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
My disgust is with City Council members not doing their homework, or trying to cut off any critism of a developers proposed project. Tandem is strictly in it for the money – something the City Council needs to keep in perspective, in looking at the larger picture. The City Council cannot abdicate its responsibility to look out for the welfare of the taxpayers who are currently living within the city and subject to higher taxes. This is especially true in light of the ever increasing tax burden we are being asked to shoulder. Another school parcel tax is being proposed, a public safety tax, and huge increases in water and sewer rates are being proposed.
I can’t tell you how pleased I was to see the article about the bankruptcy of Vallejo by DPD in today’s Davis Vanguard. If the City Council approves new housing projects willy-nilly, without assessing its impact on the pockets of taxpayers in so far as increases in city and county services, it will spell disaster for the city’s (and county’s)finances.
To Matt:
Let me add yet another wrinkle into this already complex issue. Many seniors do not want to live in age-restricted housing! They are perfectly satisfied to live in rentals, or purchased condos/homes that are within normal neighborhoods containing people of all ages. The estimated figures from Tandem and HESC do not take that concept into account either. I know this holds true for many seniors, because I have heard from them at Senior Citizen Commission and City Council meetings.
Also, the AARP survey that indicates 83% of seniors want to remain in their homes (I rounded it to 85% for simplicity’s sake) was taken of 45 year olds and up (not 55 years old and up). It does shed some question on the validity of the numbers in this survey, since one’s view of things at age 45 is quite different than at age 65! As you suggest, what part of the country you are from also is a consideration, from a climate standpoint.
I do think there needs to be clarification of terms used in any senior housing discussion. Do we look at elderly folks starting at age 55, or is it more reasonable to start at age 65? What do we mean by housing “units” versus “households”. This clarity is most definitely required to have any kind of reasonable discussion. Also, some differentiation is necessary between age groups, e.g. 65-75; 75-85; 85-95.
I like your analysis of Tandem projections and those of HESC to be “bottom up” approaches, to justify their differing missions. This is exactly right. Numbers are being bandied about as justification for agendas other than the true internal need for senior housing in Davis (which goes to Mike Harrington’s point).
And your last comment is even more on point – we need unbiased analysis sooner rather than later. Tandem is pushing for a massive senior housing project that will do nothing more than mostly cater to external needs, bringing with it a whole host of problems. Most importantly it will require huge increases in city services, such as a fourth fire station, which the city does not have the money to pay for. Yet the developers are not willing to pay for these extra services themselves.
This is not a Tandem-bashing comment by the way. Tandem Properties is free to come up with any proposals it wants. I have invited them to come before our Senior Citizens Commission to make a presentation of their proposal. They have come to a joint meeting of our Commission and the Social Services Commission. Hard questions were put to them, so Tandem is aware of a certain amount of community opposition. How much opposition is unclear.
To Mike:
I would like to think that my article was so filled with facts and figures that justify my position, it made arguing against it almost impossible! Although Matt Williams had no problem poking a few holes in my numbers, so he and I can agree to disagree. However, we both ultimately concluded the numbers are probably not accurate.
Seriously though, my columns tend to be rather lengthy, fact oriented, and not as controversial. Had I come out and said I was absolutely for or against Tandem Properties proposal, there would have been a lot more heat perhaps. I normally leave the more controversial topics to DPD, which is much more his bailiwick. Or maybe my advanced age makes me appear wiser?! Who knows. DPD and I have talked about this phenomenon on his blog, where some rather innocuous things get 85 comments, while more important things get far less. Why that happens is anybody’s guess?!
However, you do make a valid point when you accuse Tandem of outright manipulation. I tend to think of it as pure salesmanship, which I fully expect. They are in it for the money, which is what private enterprise does. The real issue for me has to do with the City Council’s position in all of this.
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
My disgust is with City Council members not doing their homework, or trying to cut off any critism of a developers proposed project. Tandem is strictly in it for the money – something the City Council needs to keep in perspective, in looking at the larger picture. The City Council cannot abdicate its responsibility to look out for the welfare of the taxpayers who are currently living within the city and subject to higher taxes. This is especially true in light of the ever increasing tax burden we are being asked to shoulder. Another school parcel tax is being proposed, a public safety tax, and huge increases in water and sewer rates are being proposed.
I can’t tell you how pleased I was to see the article about the bankruptcy of Vallejo by DPD in today’s Davis Vanguard. If the City Council approves new housing projects willy-nilly, without assessing its impact on the pockets of taxpayers in so far as increases in city and county services, it will spell disaster for the city’s (and county’s)finances.
To Matt:
Let me add yet another wrinkle into this already complex issue. Many seniors do not want to live in age-restricted housing! They are perfectly satisfied to live in rentals, or purchased condos/homes that are within normal neighborhoods containing people of all ages. The estimated figures from Tandem and HESC do not take that concept into account either. I know this holds true for many seniors, because I have heard from them at Senior Citizen Commission and City Council meetings.
Also, the AARP survey that indicates 83% of seniors want to remain in their homes (I rounded it to 85% for simplicity’s sake) was taken of 45 year olds and up (not 55 years old and up). It does shed some question on the validity of the numbers in this survey, since one’s view of things at age 45 is quite different than at age 65! As you suggest, what part of the country you are from also is a consideration, from a climate standpoint.
I do think there needs to be clarification of terms used in any senior housing discussion. Do we look at elderly folks starting at age 55, or is it more reasonable to start at age 65? What do we mean by housing “units” versus “households”. This clarity is most definitely required to have any kind of reasonable discussion. Also, some differentiation is necessary between age groups, e.g. 65-75; 75-85; 85-95.
I like your analysis of Tandem projections and those of HESC to be “bottom up” approaches, to justify their differing missions. This is exactly right. Numbers are being bandied about as justification for agendas other than the true internal need for senior housing in Davis (which goes to Mike Harrington’s point).
And your last comment is even more on point – we need unbiased analysis sooner rather than later. Tandem is pushing for a massive senior housing project that will do nothing more than mostly cater to external needs, bringing with it a whole host of problems. Most importantly it will require huge increases in city services, such as a fourth fire station, which the city does not have the money to pay for. Yet the developers are not willing to pay for these extra services themselves.
This is not a Tandem-bashing comment by the way. Tandem Properties is free to come up with any proposals it wants. I have invited them to come before our Senior Citizens Commission to make a presentation of their proposal. They have come to a joint meeting of our Commission and the Social Services Commission. Hard questions were put to them, so Tandem is aware of a certain amount of community opposition. How much opposition is unclear.
To Mike:
I would like to think that my article was so filled with facts and figures that justify my position, it made arguing against it almost impossible! Although Matt Williams had no problem poking a few holes in my numbers, so he and I can agree to disagree. However, we both ultimately concluded the numbers are probably not accurate.
Seriously though, my columns tend to be rather lengthy, fact oriented, and not as controversial. Had I come out and said I was absolutely for or against Tandem Properties proposal, there would have been a lot more heat perhaps. I normally leave the more controversial topics to DPD, which is much more his bailiwick. Or maybe my advanced age makes me appear wiser?! Who knows. DPD and I have talked about this phenomenon on his blog, where some rather innocuous things get 85 comments, while more important things get far less. Why that happens is anybody’s guess?!
However, you do make a valid point when you accuse Tandem of outright manipulation. I tend to think of it as pure salesmanship, which I fully expect. They are in it for the money, which is what private enterprise does. The real issue for me has to do with the City Council’s position in all of this.
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
My disgust is with City Council members not doing their homework, or trying to cut off any critism of a developers proposed project. Tandem is strictly in it for the money – something the City Council needs to keep in perspective, in looking at the larger picture. The City Council cannot abdicate its responsibility to look out for the welfare of the taxpayers who are currently living within the city and subject to higher taxes. This is especially true in light of the ever increasing tax burden we are being asked to shoulder. Another school parcel tax is being proposed, a public safety tax, and huge increases in water and sewer rates are being proposed.
I can’t tell you how pleased I was to see the article about the bankruptcy of Vallejo by DPD in today’s Davis Vanguard. If the City Council approves new housing projects willy-nilly, without assessing its impact on the pockets of taxpayers in so far as increases in city and county services, it will spell disaster for the city’s (and county’s)finances.
To Matt:
Let me add yet another wrinkle into this already complex issue. Many seniors do not want to live in age-restricted housing! They are perfectly satisfied to live in rentals, or purchased condos/homes that are within normal neighborhoods containing people of all ages. The estimated figures from Tandem and HESC do not take that concept into account either. I know this holds true for many seniors, because I have heard from them at Senior Citizen Commission and City Council meetings.
Also, the AARP survey that indicates 83% of seniors want to remain in their homes (I rounded it to 85% for simplicity’s sake) was taken of 45 year olds and up (not 55 years old and up). It does shed some question on the validity of the numbers in this survey, since one’s view of things at age 45 is quite different than at age 65! As you suggest, what part of the country you are from also is a consideration, from a climate standpoint.
I do think there needs to be clarification of terms used in any senior housing discussion. Do we look at elderly folks starting at age 55, or is it more reasonable to start at age 65? What do we mean by housing “units” versus “households”. This clarity is most definitely required to have any kind of reasonable discussion. Also, some differentiation is necessary between age groups, e.g. 65-75; 75-85; 85-95.
I like your analysis of Tandem projections and those of HESC to be “bottom up” approaches, to justify their differing missions. This is exactly right. Numbers are being bandied about as justification for agendas other than the true internal need for senior housing in Davis (which goes to Mike Harrington’s point).
And your last comment is even more on point – we need unbiased analysis sooner rather than later. Tandem is pushing for a massive senior housing project that will do nothing more than mostly cater to external needs, bringing with it a whole host of problems. Most importantly it will require huge increases in city services, such as a fourth fire station, which the city does not have the money to pay for. Yet the developers are not willing to pay for these extra services themselves.
This is not a Tandem-bashing comment by the way. Tandem Properties is free to come up with any proposals it wants. I have invited them to come before our Senior Citizens Commission to make a presentation of their proposal. They have come to a joint meeting of our Commission and the Social Services Commission. Hard questions were put to them, so Tandem is aware of a certain amount of community opposition. How much opposition is unclear.
To Mike:
I would like to think that my article was so filled with facts and figures that justify my position, it made arguing against it almost impossible! Although Matt Williams had no problem poking a few holes in my numbers, so he and I can agree to disagree. However, we both ultimately concluded the numbers are probably not accurate.
Seriously though, my columns tend to be rather lengthy, fact oriented, and not as controversial. Had I come out and said I was absolutely for or against Tandem Properties proposal, there would have been a lot more heat perhaps. I normally leave the more controversial topics to DPD, which is much more his bailiwick. Or maybe my advanced age makes me appear wiser?! Who knows. DPD and I have talked about this phenomenon on his blog, where some rather innocuous things get 85 comments, while more important things get far less. Why that happens is anybody’s guess?!
However, you do make a valid point when you accuse Tandem of outright manipulation. I tend to think of it as pure salesmanship, which I fully expect. They are in it for the money, which is what private enterprise does. The real issue for me has to do with the City Council’s position in all of this.
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
My disgust is with City Council members not doing their homework, or trying to cut off any critism of a developers proposed project. Tandem is strictly in it for the money – something the City Council needs to keep in perspective, in looking at the larger picture. The City Council cannot abdicate its responsibility to look out for the welfare of the taxpayers who are currently living within the city and subject to higher taxes. This is especially true in light of the ever increasing tax burden we are being asked to shoulder. Another school parcel tax is being proposed, a public safety tax, and huge increases in water and sewer rates are being proposed.
I can’t tell you how pleased I was to see the article about the bankruptcy of Vallejo by DPD in today’s Davis Vanguard. If the City Council approves new housing projects willy-nilly, without assessing its impact on the pockets of taxpayers in so far as increases in city and county services, it will spell disaster for the city’s (and county’s)finances.
Elaine, don't think of it as poking holes, think of it as augmenting the really good info you shared. 8>-)
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
Excellent point. Really excellent point.
Elaine, don't think of it as poking holes, think of it as augmenting the really good info you shared. 8>-)
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
Excellent point. Really excellent point.
Elaine, don't think of it as poking holes, think of it as augmenting the really good info you shared. 8>-)
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
Excellent point. Really excellent point.
Elaine, don't think of it as poking holes, think of it as augmenting the really good info you shared. 8>-)
When HESC formally presented its findings to the City Council, I heard both Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson unequivically insist that Davis needs more housing; Davis needs to grow. No caveats, no hesitation, no analysis. At least Don Saylor had the grace to say the city still needed to “quantify” the need for senior housing – politically hedging.
To me, this is the greater harm – City Council members offering up opinions on the need for growth without taking full responsibility for that position. I would have liked to ask Ruth and Don how much more housing did they think the city of Davis needed? And why? And how much would it end up costing the city in the face of declining tax revenues? I would bet my bottom dollar they could not articulate any sound reasoning, but I could be wrong. However, the 15 minute comment period enforced by Mayor Asmundson did not allow for any substantive discussion – a very telling action.
Excellent point. Really excellent point.
Matt – got some clarification on the terms “household” versus “unit”. Apparently “unit” is a gov’t planning term, and refers to the actual housing unit, such as a single house, apartment, cottage or condo.
It turns out one bed in a nursing facility or one room in a rental is not equal to a “unit”. Some assessment is done, and the city determines how many beds or rooms will equal a housing “unit”. For instance, 3 beds may be determined to equal 1 “unit” comparable to a single family dwelling.
The term “household” refers to people living within a housing “unit”, but tends to be more explainable as a monetary earning unit.
As it turns out, the exact definition of “unit” is not determined by the city until an actual development proposal has been placed before them. Talk about nuanced definitions!!! By the time I got finished talking to the city staff housing expert, it is no wonder no one can make heads nor tails of this stuff!!!
Matt – got some clarification on the terms “household” versus “unit”. Apparently “unit” is a gov’t planning term, and refers to the actual housing unit, such as a single house, apartment, cottage or condo.
It turns out one bed in a nursing facility or one room in a rental is not equal to a “unit”. Some assessment is done, and the city determines how many beds or rooms will equal a housing “unit”. For instance, 3 beds may be determined to equal 1 “unit” comparable to a single family dwelling.
The term “household” refers to people living within a housing “unit”, but tends to be more explainable as a monetary earning unit.
As it turns out, the exact definition of “unit” is not determined by the city until an actual development proposal has been placed before them. Talk about nuanced definitions!!! By the time I got finished talking to the city staff housing expert, it is no wonder no one can make heads nor tails of this stuff!!!
Matt – got some clarification on the terms “household” versus “unit”. Apparently “unit” is a gov’t planning term, and refers to the actual housing unit, such as a single house, apartment, cottage or condo.
It turns out one bed in a nursing facility or one room in a rental is not equal to a “unit”. Some assessment is done, and the city determines how many beds or rooms will equal a housing “unit”. For instance, 3 beds may be determined to equal 1 “unit” comparable to a single family dwelling.
The term “household” refers to people living within a housing “unit”, but tends to be more explainable as a monetary earning unit.
As it turns out, the exact definition of “unit” is not determined by the city until an actual development proposal has been placed before them. Talk about nuanced definitions!!! By the time I got finished talking to the city staff housing expert, it is no wonder no one can make heads nor tails of this stuff!!!
Matt – got some clarification on the terms “household” versus “unit”. Apparently “unit” is a gov’t planning term, and refers to the actual housing unit, such as a single house, apartment, cottage or condo.
It turns out one bed in a nursing facility or one room in a rental is not equal to a “unit”. Some assessment is done, and the city determines how many beds or rooms will equal a housing “unit”. For instance, 3 beds may be determined to equal 1 “unit” comparable to a single family dwelling.
The term “household” refers to people living within a housing “unit”, but tends to be more explainable as a monetary earning unit.
As it turns out, the exact definition of “unit” is not determined by the city until an actual development proposal has been placed before them. Talk about nuanced definitions!!! By the time I got finished talking to the city staff housing expert, it is no wonder no one can make heads nor tails of this stuff!!!
Perhaps we should simply quantify the number of pulses that want to change their status. Then the specifics associated with that pulse will determine its specific circulatory system requirements.
Perhaps we should simply quantify the number of pulses that want to change their status. Then the specifics associated with that pulse will determine its specific circulatory system requirements.
Perhaps we should simply quantify the number of pulses that want to change their status. Then the specifics associated with that pulse will determine its specific circulatory system requirements.
Perhaps we should simply quantify the number of pulses that want to change their status. Then the specifics associated with that pulse will determine its specific circulatory system requirements.