However it is important to recognize that Senior housing has a very particularized array of specific housing needs, and these needs need to be understood and incorporated into the general discussion on housing.
For example:
“The Commissions support the expressed preference for a variety of housing options that allows individuals to remain in their own homes, more commonly referred to as aging-in-place.”
Part of that means that houses can be built in such as a way that they can be adapted and modified to meet the needs of an aging population. That means doorways wide enough to potentially accommodate wheel chair access, that means that the general housing structure is made so that they can be modified to accommodate a senior occupant without having to rip the house apart.
The report goes on to say:
“The Commissions place importance on providing housing that can address the specific needs of seniors and other special needs populations within the city’s general housing stock, while also recognizing the need for some specialized housing options.”
Here are some of the key issues that highlight this report.
The issue of accessibility and visitability is crucial. A lot of older homes, people with wheel chairs simply would not have access to in order to even visit. They discuss making a checklist of desirable features that would provide better access and usability in the housing unit.
These features could include:
“zero threshold entry, exterior and interior paths of travel, accessible half or full bathroom, accessible common room on the ground level.”
They also put in language to “ensure affordable rental projects include fully accessible and visitable units…”
Transportation is crucial of course:
“Continue to promote and encourage public transit as an affordable and environmentally-sound alternative to personal vehicles.”
Issues that are raised include good access to public transit, provisions for electric and alternative fuel vehicles for shared resident use and the infrastructure to support the use of these vehicles. Finally ensure adequate greenbelt and bike path connectivity.
Affordability:
“Provide a variety of housing types and prices, including city subsidized, affordable and middle income housing requirements in an effort to provide housing opportunities at a range of income levels.”
Housing options:
“Promote various housing models in new housing developments that could accommodate seniors and other special needs groups.”
The report suggests that there needs to be a determination of the need for housing.
“Determination of housing type should be accomplished in response to the expressed desires of the community through local outreach and measurements of local demand…
Independent Market analysis–market analysis of the true community need for housing should be done by an independent consultant.”
The analysis should speak to issues of affordability, marketability, senior or special needs preferences, and current waitlists.
A couple more key senior-specific issues when looking at development of senior housing facilities.
One is on-site support staff:
“The need for medical, clinical, or psychological supportive staff and program planning and referral staff should be considered….”
Other services:
“The need for meal services, health services, recreational services and other basic life services being provided on-site should be considered.”
A big issue that came up with the Eleanor Roosevelt project had to do with the location and proximity to busing. It appears that busing is close. But as the commission pointed out that is deceiving. The distance requires a walk that is prohibitive for the less physically able. Moreover it requires navigation across a busy city street.
Thus they suggest two provisions:
“If public transit access is located in excess of 200 feet from the housing project, then an on-site shuttle service should be considered for use by residents.
All multi-unit housing projects should consider providing a shuttle for use by residents.”
It is understood that this is cost prohibitive and that small facilities would have greater difficulty doing this, however, they believe the term “should consider” mitigates that consideration and they want these guidelines at least considered and these issues raised at the time of development.
Location is important and they identify the need for housing to be built near public transit lines if there is no on-site shuttle, near a neighborhood shopping center especially with a grocery store and pharmacy, and near a medical facility that could provide both general health services and prescriptions.
I think this gets back to the issue of the need for neighborhood grocery stores but also neighborhood pharmacies. If we are going to have an aging population in Davis, having convenient pharmacies will be increasingly important.
These will be guidelines as the commission pointed out throughout the discussion, they will not be requirements. But I think all housing projects should keep these issues in mind for both seniors, but also for people with a variety of disabilities. This is a good start the housing discussion we are going to need to have over the coming months and years as our population continues to age.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Grannies in BondageBefore we go off and build Covell Village (aka Southern Woodland) to solve this …crisis… contrived by developers, lets figure out a solution that helps Davis rather than hurts it.I would propose that Davis launches a $5M tax-free bond carrying a rate of 5%. I believe very strongly that the entire bond would be subscribed locally. This bond would be divided into 100 loans of $50,000 each.Each loan would come with a building package, waiver of set-back requirements and a …none of planning department’s usual bullshit… certificate. The city would allow- for anyone who requests it- the construction of a …granny cottage… of roughly 400 square feet on their property. $50,000 is adequate to build a very nice structure that is energy efficient, comfortable and accessible (I was going to suggest including a wood stove, but then realized that this IS Davis…)The loan would be recorded against the property and the payments would be amortized over 10 years. The mortgage would be $498 per month. Rental rates for a nicely built 400 square foot cottage in a garden are considerably higher than this.We would get 100 new living spaces in Davis this year. If it works, we would do another bond next year, and the year after that etc. until we either run out of seniors or out of home owners who want a cottage in their backyard.If we could waive set-back requirements, we are talking about a 20×20 foot space in the backyard. Add to this a nice porch and a path the the front gate and you have a home. Either the owner could move back to the cottage (if they are older and want a smaller home) or a family could rent the cottage to a student who needs housing. Either way, it creates a new living space. In 8 year’s time, we have replaced the need for Covell Village by creating 800 new units in our existing neighborhoods.It costs the city nothing. The bonds are funded locally (I would buy a bunch, and I am sure that a lot of people wouldn’t mind getting a 5% tax-free return on their money secured by Davis real estate) and repaid locally. The homeowners get at least their payments covered by rental income and after 10 years, its all profit. The renter gets a lovely cottage. If a senior lives there, they get to stay on their property, live in their neighborhood in a new, energy efficient home that is sized right and accessible, and their large home is now available for a family to move in, creating rental income for the senior.What is wrong with this plan? Since this is Davis, some misguided do-gooder will decide that there has to be a lottery with extra points assigned to left-handed midgets and put a cap on rents based on the annual wages of free-range chickens or something. But if the city can just avoid meddling with the simple concept, it allows them to do something good, for free…ps- I would help pay for it to start if if the city was interested.
If a developer is permitted to build senior housing on his property and it doesn’t meet the needs of seniors, the developer will lose money. Thus, the developer has a big incentive to build senior housing that seniors need and want.On the other hand, if a bunch of communists in Davis PLAN a senior housing project based on what they think seniors want and it turns out they were talking to the wrong seniors, the communists don’t lose any money, but the community does.There is a hundred years of experience trying the communist model of planning housing projects for other people who the communists look down on, thinking that only the central planners know what is best for the people and that for-profit developers are evildoers who only look out for their own interests. Turns out, the communists fail every time. They build low quality housing at a very high price that most don’t ever want to live in.There has been a lot of whining and complaining on this blog about Atria’s for-profit senior housing development on Alvarado. However, what is not said is that the Atria project and the URC (also for-profit) were built with no taxpayer money and no central planning by communists and they are both full. The URC has never been without waiting list. Meanwhile, the communist planned senior housing projects in Davis cost more money per square foot, used taxpayer money even though the developers made profits, and they could not fill up without more taxpayer money in the form of Section 8 funding.If Davis taxpayers want a failed model, follow the centrally planned commnist paradigm. If Davis wants high quality senior housing that meets the needs of real senior citizens, all the market to work, where developers only make profits if they build what is demanded by their customers.
Mike Heart , step up be a man and pay for your whole idea, since you sound like a developer landlord , wanting to swindle the seniors out of there money ..
The Vanguard needs to post information on the new Covell Village senior proposal accurately. The Covell Village Partners are just proposing PHASE ONE of three phases with the 800 unit. The 800 unit project is just the start-up part of the almost 400 acre build out that they want. Phase Two would be around 700 units. They are not even willing to say how many units Phase Three would bee but instead want to hold that remaining land in …Urban Reserve… so the entire project is likely to be well over 2,000 units. These guys are just trying to get the camel’s nose under the tent.And then whamo! This project would have just a heavy traffic, and infrastructure costs to residents as Covell Village. This time the developers are trying to use the seniors to try to ram it through. And the audacity of the developers to try to convince the public in the Enterprise that this is not about money but them just being altruistic. Give me a break….. On top of this, the land only cost these developers $3 million for almost 400 acres! If this land were ever to be developed they absolutely can afford to (and need to be required to) do their required 2:1 ag mitigation on the northern part of the 400 acres. Davis residents almost got the wool pulled over their eyes the last time these developers tried to ram through Covell Village. Time to keep our eyes open and let these developers know that the community is on to their tricks this time and that they do not get to dictate city planning to us.
…The report suggests that there needs to be a determination of the need for housing….Determination of housing type should be accomplished in response to the expressed desires of the community through local outreach and measurements of local demand…Independent Market analysis–market analysis of the true community need for housing should be done by an independent consultant….The analysis should speak to issues of affordability, marketability, senior or special needs preferences, and current waitlists….This is the heart of the senior housing guidelines. There must be an independent market analysis and community outreach to determine what the actual …internal… senior needs are – before building any more senior housing….If a developer is permitted to build senior housing on his property and it doesn’t meet the needs of seniors, the developer will lose money. Thus, the developer has a big incentive to build senior housing that seniors need and want.On the other hand, if a bunch of communists in Davis PLAN a senior housing project based on what they think seniors want and it turns out they were talking to the wrong seniors, the communists don’t lose any money, but the community does….I strongly disagree. What has happened in the past is that housing has been developer-driven, and did not necessarily meet …internal… demand. In other words, developers built, and they didn’t care who bought, as long as they made a big fat profit. The new housing built may have served a regional need, but not necessarily the needs of Davis citizens, who should be of primary concern first and foremost. A huge influx of homebuyers in general is very costly for the city, that has to provide additional services it cannot afford to fund, especially in the current economic downturn. Taxpayers as well will not be able to afford paying for those additional services, especially with the astronomical water/sewer rate increases coming down the pike….The 800 unit project is just the start-up part of the almost 400 acre build out that they want. Phase Two would be around 700 units. They are not even willing to say how many units Phase Three would bee but instead want to hold that remaining land in …Urban Reserve… so the entire project is likely to be well over 2,000 units….Good point, and all the more reason to only build what is necessary and the city can afford. The city’s estimate is a MAXIMUM of 150 senior housing units needed between now and 2013, which seems a much more realistic number than the 800 currently being proposed by the Covell Village proponents/developers. A massive influx of seniors from outside would put a horrible strain on current gov’t services.
…The new housing built may have served a regional need, but not necessarily the needs of Davis citizens, who should be of primary concern first and foremost….Any new housing of any type built in Davis will attract newcomers. It’s impossible for it not to. Even if you centrally plan, that remains true. From what I’ve read about URC, most of the residents lived in Davis before moving into the URC or had an adult child who lived in Davis. By contrast, in the centrally planned ERC, almost all residents moved in from other communities without ties to family in Davis. …A huge influx of homebuyers in general is very costly for the city, that has to provide additional services it cannot afford to fund, especially in the current economic downturn….In general, you are wrong.The only time city services cost more to provide than the property taxes generated is when non-profit housing is built. Market-rate housing creates a net surplus in revenues for the City of Davis.
Covell Village would have been a perfect location for seniors. It is near a pharmacy, grocery store and bus lines. The seniors of Davis thank you for vetoing that one. I’m sure they respect that we need to preserve that useless dead land as a vacant lot.If a developer is permitted to build senior housing on his property and it doesn’t meet the needs of seniors, the developer will lose money. Thus, the developer has a big incentive to build senior housing that seniors need and want.On the other hand, if a bunch of communists in Davis PLAN a senior housing project based on what they think seniors want and it turns out they were talking to the wrong seniors, the communists don’t lose any money, but the community does.THIS IS SO TRUE. LET THE MARKET WORK AND SENIORS WOULD GET WHAT THEY WANT AND NEED.
I don’t think that the City should be building housing for seniors. The city is known for its good schools and needs to attract families with children to continue the demand for good schools. Seniors don’t need good public schools because they usually don’t include school-age children in their households.That does not mean that I am opposing senior housing, just that I oppose the City subsidizing senior housing. I don’t think that adding a whole housing development focusing on seniors’ needs will help the City in any way.