Accusations flew back and forth as even Covell Village developers John Whitcombe and Bill Streng came forward to speak.
City staff and certainly council seemed to bow under the pressure of a well-orchestrated effort by the Covell Partners to produce the demand for senior housing. They went as far as to wear ribbons that depicted the newly formed group CHA–“Choice for Healthy Aging.” They even got health and medical school faculty from UC Davis to come forward to advocate for senior housing options.
The group CHA is a group formed by the developers pushing for Covell Partners. It is interesting to note that the developers have been very selective about which seniors could join CHA and refused to allow, according to one person, someone who was not of like mind about Covell Village to join the group. This point belies the fact that the group CHA is simply a front for the developers to push for their project rather than truly a community-based grassroots organization.
City Staff bowed almost immediately to this lobbying effort by suggesting the city create a committee to study senior options made up of three members each from the Senior Citizens Commission, Social Services Commission, and Planning Commission.
As we mentioned previously, one of the goals of the developers was the inclusion of possible “Yellow light” sites for development after January 1, 2010.
Back in November, it appears that City Council had already passed a resolution to allow for the processing of “Yellow light” sites:
“After January 1, 2010, consider processing applications for additional “yellow light” sites for reasons such as housing needs, housing mix, or provision of extraordinary infrastructure improvements. Consideration of “yellow light” sites should proceed with caution.”
Councilmember Don Saylor pushed for more explicit language but Councilmember Stephen Souza did not see that as necessary. However, the general direction of council is that any application in a “yellow light” area could be brought before council for consideration as to whether that site should be processed. Councilmember Souza saw this as an additional layer that would allow for Council oversight before the expense was incurred by city and developer alike.
The most contentious suggestion that was adopted by a 3-2 vote pertains to how the city should go about compiling information. Councilmember Souza suggested that the city ought to utilize data collected by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser and the Covell Partners from speaking to roughly 800 seniors. Councilmember Souza believed that this would be good data to show where 800 members of the public were coming from on this issue.
This suggestion obviously proved contentious especially for Councilmembers Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald who saw this as a transparent attempt to allow a party with a vested interest in the outcome to influence the data collection. Obviously any data collected by the Covell Partners would be biased data, it would not be scientifically collected, it would not be any sort of random sample. At best it would amount to a focus group study by an interested party and at worst it would be akin to a push poll.
There is simply no way to control for randomness or non-biased collection of data. There would also be no way to determine whose opinions were counted and whose were not. As mentioned earlier, it was clear that people that may have contrary views were not allowed to join CHA.
As Councilmember Greenwald suggested this was simply an embarrassing effort by council to allow an interested party to shape the data collection process. If we want to get a true sense for what the community feels there has to be a neutral way by which to collect data.
But by a 3-2 vote the council majority prevailed on this arrangement to really make a mockery of the entire process. The notion that this is some sort of a community based movement is really quite amazing. The audacity of Councilmember Souza to push this through is something else.
They have basically turned this process over to the developers to allow them to shape debate here. In 2005, the voters of Davis opposed a development on Covell Village by a 60-40 vote. All three of the members of the council majority have argued that this vote did not mean that the land would never be developed.
I think it is somewhat appalling arrogance on their part to try to decide what the voters did or did not mean when they overwhelmingly voted against a project that the three of them helped to shepherd through the process.
It is easy to forget though that just five months after the Covell Village Measure X campaign, Mayor Asmundson told the Sacramento Bee that the voters didn’t understand what the 1,864-unit development offered. “We needed to educate the community better on the project,” she said.
From the start then, the Mayor was hardly someone who understood what the will of the people was on Covell Village.
For me, it is instructive to watch the way the council handled this group of people pressing for changes versus past groups of people who have earned the derisive title by some councilmembers as being mob rule. Here we have a situation whereby the Housing Element Steering Committee was directed to set up a process to evaluate each property for future development. The council then approved that process and even approved the rank-order of sites.
The HESC ranked the Covell Village site on the very low end of the spectrum. Now a large and noisy group has come forward obviously mobilized by the developers and is demanding a change to this ranking and process after the fact and instead of lecturing about process and procedure and the dangers of mob rule, the council and staff are simply acquiescing to it. In fact they are enabling it.
Mayor Pro Tem Saylor throughout the entire discussion pushed for more housing. Councilmember Greenwald made the very compelling argument that the city has already approved and entitled a number of parcels for development and still the developers have not pulled building permits. The reason for that is that the market is not there right now for new housing. At some point the market will turn around and there will be a number of building permits pulled. But in the meantime, why are we going to go ahead and increase the number of entitled parcels over and above what has already been approved in the process?.
Councilmember Souza and Saylor were arguing that we have an existing demand that we are not meeting. But the fact of the matter is that there is a large amount of houses on the market unsold. It is simply not clear that the market is demanding for new housing right now.
The bottom line is that I think there does need to be a discussion on senior housing in this community. But that discussion needs to be community-based rather than developer or project based. Last night some suggested that there was nothing wrong with developers driving the project. I disagree. It is not a suggestion that developers are some evil and foreign entity. Rather it is an acknowledgment that there is simply an interest on the part of the developer to achieve a certain outcome and therefore any process has to be free of any hint of a conflict of interest between an open discussion and a particular outcome.
If people want new senior housing options, it ought be within the context of discussing in an open and honest manner what options they want, where they want them, and how they want them to look. It seems to me the place to have these discussions is the Senior Citizens Commission which has already done considerable work looking into senior needs and what sorts of features all new housing should have in terms of accessibility. They can reach out to all sorts of groups and the goal would be to get input rather than develop and mobilize interest for any specific project.
Unfortunately that process is now about to be tainted or at least potentially tainted by the inclusion of data that is frankly biased and not collected in any kind of controlled or scientific manner. It is really appalling that the council majority has allowed this to happen.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Agree. Another case of Council majority disregarding the work of one of their commissions/task forces. Happens all the time. Did someone from Housing Element SC speak?
Why can’t we get a grad student or group of students to take the survey on as a project for a faculty member. I am always surprised that we have this huge academic force in our community and rarely use its resources. To me a win/win.
Great article, David. You touched on a major problem in national as well as local politics.
Housing, in general, and senior housing, in particular, are interesting and complex issues, involving not only facts but values as well. So concensus will be difficult.
That said, I believe the one theme that underlies many, if not all of our our major problems, is the role of industry/business in directing government policy. We were warned of the military-industrial complex by Eisenhower, then of the self serving goals of the auto industry by Ralph Nader. The alliance of government and industry was justified by a CEO of the l950’s (Charlie Wilson), saying, “What’s good for GM is good for the country.” Ha! He was ridiculed, but the heavy advertising of unsafe, gass guzzling cars continued until gas prises and environmental concerns became mainstream concerns. Similarly, taxpayers work long hours to support a complex, massive war machine, not all of which is needed. There was much opposition to Gates eliminating extravagant fighter planes that have no role in our current wars against insurgents that blend into the general population.
Then there is the tobacco industry, whose products contribute to the leading cause of cancer deaths as well as to heart disease and the escalating medical costs of caring for the victims of tobacco.
Then there is the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies that still obstruct significant health policy changes.
So, I think there is ample reason to avoid the role of business in government; their intrests may be mutually incompatible. I say this even for Streg, whose Covell Park is a great asset to any community, and even though I adore my Whitcombe house, whcih is a major reason I will not move out of Davis. They are great contractors, but please stay out until hired.
Definitely a case of asymmetrical conflict… The proponents stand to make tens of millions of dollars if their project goes forward. The opponents make nothing either way. Busing seniors, fake front organizations, questionable studies etc. are all cheap investments relative to the eventual return if the project succeeds.
The city has teased the developers too long and needs to either give them some acceptable development concept (12 ranchettes for example) or make them an offer to buy it as permanent greenbelt. This is not going to go away…
More like the fox guarding the henhouse than inmates running the asylum, if you asked me. But we KNOW Lydia Dellis-Schlosser’s information is balanced, ’cause when Souza asked her if it was, she said “yes.” I almost fell out of my chair when he asked that question; what ELSE would she have answered??
These were my motions last night:
1. The tables provided at the end of this report reasonably project anticipated development through 2013.
2. The actual/anticipated residential development is in compliance with the growth cap and substantial compliance with the housing type targets, and that the projected development could reasonably meet the community’s housing needs through 2013.
3. The development applications submitted for the “yellow light” site of Wildhorse Horse Ranch shall continue to be processed.
4.“A Strategy for Housing Seniors in Davis”
Develop a strategy for housing seniors through 2013 and beyond
Evaluate issues including:
Community needs
Interest levels of seniors
Senior housing share of the growth cap
Suitability of potential infill and peripheral sites
Preliminary approach
Develop work program
Build upon the work already started by the SCC and SCC: “Guidelines for Housing that Serves Seniors…” intended to assist in the review of applications for senior housing projects.
Consider costs (beyond staff time):
Could involve data collection, analysis and determining interest levels, request data collected by CHA
Funding source alternatives
Time frame for work program approved by Council.
The “strategy will come back to the Council by December 2009.
Develop the “strategy”. Develop the strategy with community input for Council approval. Develop with representatives (possibly 3 each) from commissions.
Senior Citizens Commission (SCC)
Social Services Commission (SSC)
Planning Commission (PC)
CHA
Medical Field
UCD Business School or community regional development
[i]Councilmember Souza and Saylor were arguing that we have an existing demand that we are not meeting. But the fact of the matter is that there is a large amount of houses on the market unsold. It is simply not clear that the market is demanding for new housing right now.[/i]
There is one kind of demand that I really don’t think is being met, and that is student housing. I do not know how much of the blame lies with the state for not building dormitories, and how much lies with the city or developers for not building student apartments. Either way it is a raw deal for students. In my opinion, it is a worse outcome than high student fees, even though student fees don’t particularly thrill me either.
When I went to college, living and studying with classmates and walking to class (or bicycling would be fine) were essential to the experience. So was living away from home. But now when I teach here, I see a lot of students who commute 10 miles, 30 miles, even 50 miles to school. They can’t join study groups; their experience is almost like night school. Many of these students live with their parents, and not always by preference. It works against the ideal of UC as a state university rather than a regional one, as well as the ideal of adult independence. Ultimately the system is saying to these students, we believe in a public university education, but we only give you half.
Given the general pattern with public universities, it would be unusual for UC Davis to build and build and build on campus to meet all unmet demand for student housing. It would be ideal, but I don’t think that it’s realistic. Surely the city can do more. Either we care about students or we don’t. If we do care, there should be more to it than confronting the arrogant so-and-sos who manage UC.
To be sure, it’s also valid to build senior complexes, but I don’t have the same sense of moral failure as with university students.
Stephen, You are probably the swing vote on these issues. Please don’t set up another Covell Village fiasco. The current proposal is DOA. Don’t you see it?
Make them give the mitigation land on-site, if you vote for anything they bring forward.
I would hate to see another situation where the CC, staff, City Commissions, and the community were tied up in knots, occupying precious city agenda time, and 1000s of hours of irreplaceable and valuable community volunteer hours. For what? Another DOA project.
The 2004-04 Covell Village project basically gutted city time and resources, eliminating energy for any other significant city policy or program.
Stephen, like I have commented to you before, it’s basically on your shoulders if there is another 2-3 year meltdown. Cheers!
Dear Stephen:
Perhaps you could take data from people on the Vanguard as well. I’m a senior who would like accessible housing but I don’t want to live in a “Senior” housing project. I couldn’t make it last night, but please count my voice.
Also if you are going to involve CHA, why not involve the Vanguard or Citizens for Responsible Planning. Why are you only including pro-development groups?
The end of the 4th motion as amended by Councilmember Saylor should have read: UCD faculty and students from the Business School and Community and Regional Department.
I was at the council meeting, but left before the discussion, as had things I had to do. I cannot believe anyone would be stupid enough to want to use CHA data! Those interviews were selective, to begin with. Johnnie and company interviewed their buddies and others who supported Covell Village. They may have gotten some others in there too (I know of at least two who did not support CV and who are not Johnnie’s buddies who were interviewed.), but anyone who was not of their mindset did not make the final cut for CHA or probably for inclusion in the interview results.
I have some anecdotal evidence of that: I have a friend who is a friend of John Whitcombe’s and who does support most development and did support Covell Village. I, of course, do not support much development, and was a strong opponent of Covell Village. We agree to disagree. He actually asked me to come to one of the interviews, and I agreed to do so. He said he would get back to me, once they set the next one up. I was never contacted again. I really, really wanted to go to, to tell them how I felt about their senior housing project.
CHA’s data is worthless and for Steve Sousa to suggest we use it really upsets me. I keep trying to like the guy, and then he does something so blatantly obvious as this. Of course, Steve, like Don, wants to go to higher office, and the only way to do that is to kiss up to the developers who finance their campaigns. Unfortunately, they end up selling their souls,integrity and principles as well as their votes.
We do need to have a discussion about senior housing and what kind of need does exist, but it needs to be a community process. I have no problem with starting with the guidelines the senior commission has developed. I actually helped a bit with those guidelines. But, remember, there are people on the senior commission who were put there especially to influence the commission to support the senior development at CV. Jan Bridge comes to mind. So, the commissions should not be the be-all and end-all in this discussion.
Maybe we need to start our own interviews of seniors and see what we can come up with?
[i]Of course, Steve, like Don, wants to go to higher office, and the only way to do that is to kiss up to the developers who finance their campaigns.[/i]
In general, if you want elected officials to be less beholden to campaign contributors, then you should give them raises. I know that this is counterintuitive to many people, but it’s true. You’re really aggravated by some arrogant so-and-sos who defy the will of the people, and raising their salaries feels like the last thing that you want to do. But it’s not about fairness or even merit. If the institution doesn’t pay enough for loyalty at the top, then outsiders will make their own bids.
The honest way that this can play out is for said leaders to relocate to better-paying jobs. That’s not a good thing either, but it is honest and it’s much better than staying on without loyalty.
Note that I really don’t want to endorse or oppose any of these specific accusations concerning the city council. I think that the general point is important.
[quote]In general, if you want elected officials to be less beholden to campaign contributors, then you should give them raises.[/quote]Highly paid California legislators — the highest paid in the nation — are beholden to the interest groups which finance their campaigns. The Democrats, in general, pay back the labor groups which fund their campaigns. That is why I believe, for example, Mariko Yamada is sponsoring AB 155, a bill written by the firefighter unions, who helped put her in office. The Republicans do the same thing for the business and other groups which fund them for office.
No matter how much we compensate legislators, this problem will remain as long as we have privately financed campaigns. The best answer, though not perfect and problematic in other ways, is to have publicly financed campaigns, paid for by a dedicated tax.
Although I don’t favor increasing the salaries of our members of the city council — largely because these have traditionally been volunteer jobs and because I don’t want to see the money taken away from road repairs and lower-paid city staffers — I do agree there is a public benefit, in general, of paying elected officials well, just not the benefit Greg claims.
My alternate to Greg’s notion would be this: If you want elected officials to be less likely to make policy decisions for their own personal benefit, then you should pay them a substantial salary. I must add, though, that I have never seen any evidence in Davis that our elected officials have pushed policies for their personal financial gain.
Why is it that this venue chooses to vilify pioneer builders of this town’s very successful foundation? Why does it choose to strip them of credibility and label them as capitalistic greed mongers? Many of you live in Streng, Whitcombe, and Corbett built homes. They actively contributed to what now makes Davis great.
Do we just approve and build fringe elements of section 8 housing to keep pupils in the faltering Davis public schools?
Or do we wish to recognize what the corrupt local real estate industry has perpetrated? Which is Davis as an out of towner slum lord community. Can we turn the other cheek and recognize Davis now as an affluent retirement community with needs for moderately sized housing?
“Many of you live in Streng, Whitcombe, and Corbett built homes. They actively contributed to what now makes Davis great.”
I use PG&E everyday, so what?
I think Old Skool has a good point that is lost on some folks who are newer arrivals to town, who don’t appreciate the contributions of people like Bill Streng and John Whitcombe and Mike (and Judy) Corbett. Whereas PG&E is a nameless/faceless corporation headquartered 75 miles away, these folks are and always have been members of the Davis community. So many people who decry “big business” or corporate behemoths and claim they favor the local and the small businesses forget that is just what Streng & Whitcombe & the Corbetts are. Nonetheless, they don’t have to agree with the proposals of Streng & Whitcombe. Everyone has the perfect right to say they are wrong for whatever reasons they think that is the case. But in deciding they are wrong, I think (as Old Skool says above) you should still be respectful of just how much good they have done for Davis to make it what it is.
When M Zhu said, “I say this even for Streng, whose Covell Park is a great asset to any community, and even though I adore my Whitcombe house, which is a major reason I will not move out of Davis,” I think M struck the right tone for a civilized discussion, respecting the side M does not agree with.
Thanks for bringing to light the outright lies perpetuated by these greedy land owners and developers. They use senior housing, and low income housing as their ace in the hole argument as a means for pushing their proposals forward. I’m glad your readers are smart enough to see that this is just a stunt, a kind of war tactic where they put women and children on the front line in order to appeal to the guilt of the “enemy”. Steven Souza this thing will never pass. Sorry. The last time the proposal was pushed through and presented to the voters, I spoke with one of the developers and asked him how much “low income housing” he was providing. There was about 10 or so duplex type condos, that were for sale for 237,000 dollars. If you ask me, that’s not low income. Low income people cannot afford to live in low income housing. Huh, wow imagine that. They use the argument that it’s not as expensive as regular homes, but this argument is mute, because it’s still too expensive. You have to be making 50k/ per year at least to afford to live there. People making 10 bucks an hour, could never live in a house in Davis. But then I guess, that’s what they want. Low income housing in Davis is outrageously expensive. In fact, if one were to call a management company like say John Berkely Man agement and you were to ask them how many people are behind on their rent, you’ll find that there are several tenants that are several months behind on their rent, because they’ve lost their jobs. Yet they won’t decrease the rents. In fact, this year was the worst year for economic downturns, yet they still manipulated the numbers and lobbied their congressmen so they could still raise the rents.
Thanks for recognizing what this who fiasco is…a CROCK OF BULL POOP.
Mr Old skool davis,
This is not an affluent retirement community. It’s a community which has students with their needs not being met. We need to build more housing for students so landlords/slumlords can stop continuing to work together to continually raise rents.
Sara Lee: Your wish is my command! And I believe the entity you wish for is going to be called ‘West Village’.
“Souza: Develop the “strategy”. Develop the strategy with community input for Council approval. Develop with representatives (possibly 3 each) from commissions.
Senior Citizens Commission (SCC)
Social Services Commission (SSC)
Planning Commission (PC)
CHA
Medical Field
UCD Business School or community regional development”
Councilmember Souza, you don’t see a conflict of interest here? A stacked deck? But then you knew that when you made this proposal, didn’t you? I assume your motto is “If I can’t win the fair way, then win whatever way I can, and damn ethics!” Shame, shame, shame! And you want to run for higher office? Don’t hold your breath!
Let’s see. 3 developer votes from CHA will negate 3 votes from any commissioners against Covell Village II. 3 developer votes from UCD Med Center will negate another 3 votes from any commissioners against Covell Village II. 3 developer votes from UCD Business School will negate another 3 votes from any commissioners against Covell Village II. All opposition to Covell Village II nicely defanged. Gee Souza, afraid of real community input?
It was clear to me as the City Council meeting progressed during Councilmember discussion, that the fix was in before anyone from the public spoke. The ASS axis of evil was at it again, not thinking about the good of the citizens. They are for development, no matter the cost to Davisites. Well citizens will have the final say in a Measure J vote, and those 3 (Asmundson, Souza & Saylor) will look stupid again when the resurrected Covell Village is defeated yet again.
I am not new to Davis. I have lived here for 47 years. The Strengs, Whitcombe, etc. did not build their developments to benefit all of us. They built them to make a lot of money and because they could. No, I do not appreciate it when a developer tries to shove down our throats a massive development bringing insurmountable problems to the community and leaving us all to pay the costs, WHEN WE JUST VOTED THE FIRST ITERATION OF IT DOWN BY A 60%-40% VOTE! I think the people spoke, but is this arrogant “benefactor” listening? No. He wants to get his project built one way or another, people be darned, to make himself another few million bucks. This person is arrogant and ruthless. He will not stop, but then, neither will we.
Local they may be, but small? Tandem Properties is not a small business.
I made a motion that the city instruct staff to conduct a comprehensive, independent, statistically valid survey of what Davis seniors really want. I suggested that we lay out ALL the options, describing them accurately.
Any developer who submits a large senior-only project should be required to pay for this survey as part of the application. Unfortunately, it failed because Saylor, Souza and Asmundson voted against it.
This survey would include, but not be limited to, the following options:
Staying in your existing home, moving to a smaller existing home, moving to a continuing care facility, moving to a home designed for seniors in a new, age-mixed development, moving to a home designed for seniors in a small or (medium sized), age-segregated neighborhood within a mixed-aged development, moving to a higher-end condominium downtown which costs about as much or a little less than your existing home, with an elevator, balcony, great spacious living room with highish ceilings, great windows and a lobby level with social lounges, beautiful landscaping an exercise room and perhaps a security person at the desk that is walking distance to downtown and Amtrac, moving to a lower priced version of a condo that is walking distance to downtown and Amtrac, a higher-end rental walking distance to downtown and Amtrac (and downtown near farmers’ market), affordable ownership and/or rental in walking distance to downtown or Amtrac (and then ask about the same condo options on the periphery of town), and of course, moving to a very large age-segregated peripheral development with amenities.
The poll could allow seniors should be able to pick first, second third choices.
Only after we do a comprehensive poll such as this can we best determine how to meet Davis senior needs.
I personally fear that a massive-age segregated development will be marketed nationally and will detract from the University character of the town. Davis can’t be all things to all people. I don’t think it would be right to become a national sun-belt retirement Mecca, because we are first and foremost a University of California host city. I think we can meet the needs of those seniors who live in Davis (and some of their parents) better and more appropriately with a mix of the senior-only and senior compatible housing types that I described above, without resorting to massive, peripheral age-segregated subdivision. But I would like to see an accurate poll of those between 45 and 110, to understand the desires of the Davis citizens who are senior or will be senior soon.
[i]Highly paid California legislators — the highest paid in the nation — are beholden to the interest groups which finance their campaigns.[/i]
This is true, but there are two reasons that there is not much to learn from this fact. First, no state legislators anywhere in the United States are paid anything like what they would be paid in the private sector with similar responsibilities. Second, unlike legislators in some states, California legislators are expected to square the circle, which is a deeply corrupting mandate. Term limits also undermine both competence and loyalty.
[i]I must add, though, that I have never seen any evidence in Davis that our elected officials have pushed policies for their personal financial gain.[/i]
I agree that it’s not as simple as good compensation vs corruption. Yes, our city council members have been fairly honest as a group. Still, if it is true that they are volunteers, then this would explain two problems that inevitably arise. First, since they are only human, they would not have the energy to examine technical questions the way that the city staff can examine them. If they get tired, then big things might be relegated to the consent calendar. They might only receive reports from the city manager or whoever in the mode of watching the evening news. Second, while some people might be happy to give away hundreds of hours of their time to help Davis, many qualified city councillors would want to move on to higher office.
I should add that the process selected by the council is a loaded process. Why should a small, unrepresentative group develop a senior housing strategy? Which members of the medical school (or medical profession — Steve Souza used the both terms) would would be selected? The ones who support a massive senior-only subdivision, or the ones who oppose it? Which members of the business school would be selected? The ones who support the project or the ones who oppose it?
Sue Greenwald: “I should add that the process selected by the council is a loaded process. Why should a small, unrepresentative group develop a senior housing strategy? Which members of the medical school (or medical profession — Steve Souza used the both terms) would would be selected? The ones who support a massive senior-only subdivision, or the ones who oppose it? Which members of the business school would be selected? The ones who support the project or the ones who oppose it?”
Sue, notice Steve’s statement about numbers: “
“Develop the “strategy”. Develop the strategy with community input for Council approval. Develop with representatives (possibly 3 each) from commissions.
Senior Citizens Commission (SCC)
Social Services Commission (SSC)
Planning Commission (PC)
CHA
Medical Field
UCD Business School or community regional development”
Notice the word “possibly 3 each”. What the hell does that mean?
Who says this discussion is all about seniors? Last time I looked, citizens other than seniors get to vote on Measure J!
I watched the City Council meeting on cable last night and I can honestly say that I am terribly disappointed in Steve Souza’s added recommendations to the City staff’s recommendations to have a senior housing “community wide discussion”.
For crying out loud, the Covell Village partners hired the former CEO of the UCD Medical Center as their main speaker and advocate. So adding more UCD Medical Center doctors to “help” is just stacking the deck for the Covell Village developers. More UCD “helpers” from the Business school can’t be expected to be objective either. And CLEARLY, the developers own campaign people of CHA is the biggest insult. Then, as if staking the deck with Pro-Covell Village representatives isn’t bad enough, then to add in the Covell Village Partners own senior “data” is a total farce. What a scam and pretty disgraceful behavior to say the least.
The public asked for an OBJECTIVE community wide discussion and instead got a totally Pro-Covell Village based committee to shepherd through the new big and as bad version of Covell Village.
Shame on you Steve. For the record, did you discuss your “recommendations” with any of the Covell Village developers or advocates before presenting them at the Council meeting last night?
Greg Kupenburg,
You’ve never seen any council members vote on anything that’s to their own personal financial benefit? Liar liar pants on fire. And if you haven’t seen anything, then hey, that just means you haven’t seen it. Anybody can get a nice wad of cash in an envelope without anybody seeing anything except the culprits involved. Saylor’s, Souza’s and most particularly Asmundson’s corruption is lucid.
Dear Mr. Old Skool Davis,
My wish is your command? Hmmmm, okay, good to hear. We should have a private personal conversation some time. Okay, let’s just put this on the table. If you build west village, it better be green and follow the santa cruz’s format. There just better be solar panels, led lights, permanent furniture, so that the students don’t dump all their furniture that they don’t need into the landfill at the end of their school tenure. and yes it just better be affordable. if you build these developments, there’s no promise that the rents will go down. guarantee me and the residents of davis that rents will go down you ‘ll stop colluding with your rental housing association monopoly to fix rental prices in davis. promise me that you ‘ll take down the corrupt and collusion of police to placate the accurate statistical reporting of crime in this community, that is designed to only keep prices artificially inflated. oh but you wouldn’t do that. you couldn’t cause it would hurt your pocket right?
my wish is your command? i’m waiting
oh yes, could you also recall that asshole of a governor too please? schwarzeneggar. you know the one who refuses to raise taxes for the wealthy, because he’s wealthy himself, yet he’s raised dmv fees, sales tax, court fees, other fees etc etc all in an effort to balance the budget, and he still is going after the weakest of weak.
window d r e s s i n g
I would really like to see a wider survey of Davis seniors, and those on the cusp of being senior. (Maybe at 55 I’m already a senior – the AARP sent me a membership card.) The assumption that all or most seniors want to move out and downsize is flawed. Our needs are as diverse as our lives. Most of us will be working much longer than we thought to earn our pensions (if we are lucky enough to have one). My anecdotal survey of peers is that we DO NOT want to move out of our homes. We want to age in place, but we want to modify our current Davis homes to be more ADA compliant, more energy efficient so we won’t have to pay high utility bills on retirement income, and we want transportation to/from downtown and other venues for the day when we can’t drive. We do NOT want to live in a senior community, we DO NOT want to live in a smaller place, and we definitely DO NOT want to live downtown where the noise is. We like to visit there, but many of us left our central Davis homes years ago when we couldn’t stand the noise from the students. We like students, we were noisy students once too, we just didn’t want to live in a primarily student area. To each his own. I’m sure there are many varied senior needs, but I’m also sure that the needs being pushed here don’t seem to match with needs expressed by many seniors I know.
It’s the politics of distraction and working well. How many times do we need to go down this road? First we had big houses on big lots, then a Sports Center, a ‘Village’, and now ‘Senior Downs’, and the only thing that changed was the group formed to advocate for development of a single piece of property. If the people in town are truly interested in the needs of seniors, take it to the appropriate Commission(s). But this proposal should never have made it on to the agenda, and has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘seniors’.
Unfortunately, it made it to the agenda because Tandem will not stop until they get their property developed and because they pretty much own three of our council members. Despite the Housing Update Committe recommendations (and let me add here that that committee was stacked in favor of the council majority who owe Whitcombe and associates their souls, as all council member chose three reps for the committee) which put the Covell site at number 32 of a 36 site list, not to be considered prior to 2013, the council majority is going to bring it up anyway–because they can.
AARP published the results of studies that show that more than 87% of seniors want to remain in their own homes until they die. If they are forced to leave due to illness or infirmity, they will be going to assisted care, not a new home. We do not need this massive, senior only, segregated development, but Johnnie wants it and he owns the council majority. I am also a senior, but I was not interviewed by Tandem. I do not want to leave my home. I am not interested in living in a senior only community. This will not be to benefit Davis seniors. It will be a Del Webb type community, that will be filled by wealthy seniors from all over the country, and it will forever change Davis.
” It will be a Del Webb type community, that will be filled by wealthy seniors from all over the country, and it will forever change Davis.”
And it will forever add to the cost of city services, and drive low and middle income seniors right out of Davis. All to line the pockets of the the senior Johnnie Whitcombe. Ya gotta love this guy – NOT!
My sleuthing has uncovered a RED ALERT email from Eileen Samitz. Here it is and my response to the emails that I have received:
About the Covell Village site plans:
1) We DO NOT want another mega-version of a 383 acre Covell Village project. The proposal for the PHASE ONE 800 units is too many units because of all the impacts no less the Phase TWO and Phase THREE units as well.
2) WE WANT A FAIR AND OBJECTIVE PROCESS OF HAVING A COMMUNITY WIDE DISCUSSION ON SENIOR HOUSING. WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF NINE ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THREE UCD DOCTORS, THREE UCD BUSINESS SCHOOL MEMBERS OR LOCAL BUSINESS MEMBERS AND ESPECIALLY THE THREE “CHOICES FOR HEATHY AGING” REPRESENTATIVES (CHA).
3) WE WANT THE CITY OF DAVIS TO COLLECT ITS OWN INDEPENDENT DATA. WE DO NOT WANT THE CITY USING THE COVELL VILLAGE PARTNERS SENIOR HOUSING DATA TO DOMINATE THE PROCESS OF A COMMUNITY WIDE DISCUSSION OF SENIOR HOUSING. USING THE COVELL VILLAGE DEVERLOPERS DATA WOULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT BIAS IN THE DISCUSSION AND IS INAPPROPRIATE.
Since I was the one who made initial motion and Councilmember Saylor changed it through a substitute substitute motion you should have the whole thing as it was presented to us by staff with a few changes by Councilmember Saylor and me. Here it is:
“A Strategy for Housing Seniors in Davis”
Develop a strategy for housing seniors through 2013 and beyond
Evaluate issues including:
Community needs
Interest levels of seniors
Senior housing share of the growth cap
Suitability of potential infill and peripheral sites
Preliminary approach
Develop work program
Build upon the work already started by the SCC and SSC: “Guidelines for Housing that Serves Seniors …” intended to assist in the review of applications for senior housing projects.
Consider costs (beyond staff time):
Could involve data collection, analysis and determining interest levels, request data collected by CHA
Funding source alternatives
Time frame for work program approved by Council
The “strategy will come back to the Council by December 31, 2009.
Develop the “strategy”. Develop the strategy with community input for Council approval. Develop with representatives (possibly 3 each) from commissions. Senior Citizens Commission (SCC)
Social Services Commission (SSC)
Planning Commission (PC)
CHA
Medical Field
UCD faculty and students from the Business School and Community and Regional Department.
Four points need to made here because you have an invalid perception of the process as I intended with the addition of 9 other members to staff’s initial proposal.
1) The 3 CHA members are Davis Seniors and yes they will have a bias but they also I believe will want to know what are the needs of other seniors in Davis.
2) It is 3 members from the medical field not medical school. They will also be Davisites who will have knowledge of the medical profession and how it is evolving in the treatment of seniors. They will be picked by staff without regard to how they stand on any past or present proposals of where homes would be built to take care of the need for senior housing.
3) The 3 members who will come from the UCD faculty and students from the Business School and Community and Regional Department are there to help with the data collection, analysis, to determine interest levels and to help keep the cost down of the process (free volunteer help). They too will be Davisites and will be chosen by staff without regard to how they stand on any past or present proposals of where homes would be built to take care of the need for senior housing.
4) As to the inclusion of the data collected by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser it is but small piece of the motion concerning data the committee will collect its own data and do its own analysis and build upon the work already done by the SCC and SSC: “Guidelines for Housing that Serves Seniors. The CHA data can be thrown out or used if determined to be bias and useless that is the committees call, it is but one small piece of the info to be gathered. I would think the CHA data was gathered for the purpose of determining what seniors want in a development otherwise why gather it. This why I asked for its inclusion, but if it turns out to be worthless so be it.
Thank you Stephen for your comments.
Folks: I just want to say, we have an elected official taking the time to post here. We can of course agree or disagree with him. But this is an opportunity perhaps to engage in a discussion and I encourage people to do that without simply lobbing insults at Mr. Souza.
I have some concerns with Mr. Souza’s proposal that I will share shortly.
First, I think the inclusion of CHA in the discussion process is problematic. The group has been presented as an advocacy group, but as several people have told me, they have largely handpicked the membership to be sympathetic to bringing a project to Covell Village. And they have specifically excluded people who might harbor opposing viewpoints. Thus having a group so constituted helping to shape policy will help predetermine the position.
Second, Why not have an open process where there are not people who have a predetermined view of the project.
Third, from what I have been told the individuals from UC Davis who came before council have strongly advocated for development of the senior housing facility at Covell Village. They did this before the Senior Citizens commission.
Fourth, if we are including CHA in this discussion, why not members from citizens for responsible planning, many of whom are Davis seniors but who would bring in an alternative viewpoint on landuse and development?
Fifth, I think any use of CHA data is highly problematic. As I stated in my article it is somewhat akin to using industry focus groups and push polling to determine policy direction. It might have a few nuggets of useful data, but for the most part it would be difficult to trust the results. I know quite a few people who met with Lydia and have alternative viewpoints, yet I never quite hear that portrayed. I would feel more comfortable with a process that allows us to seek out a range of input rather than a developer driven process.
As such Councilmember Souza, I would like to put forward this forum as a possible area for studying community opinion. We have thousands of residents logging onto this site, far more than the number of people spoken to by the developers.
I understand your desire for there to be affordable means by which to collect data, I hope you understand our trepidation with the process that you have laid forward.
The bottom line here is simple Councilmember, your comments on Tuesday night alarmed many people who listened to what you had to say. It was concerning to hear how this process was set forward. I know speaking for myself and many others that I have spoken to, we have no faith in this process. We believe that this is completely developer driven and controlled and that as such they were able to turn out a large number of individuals to make an issue out of something that two years ago when the HESC process began was not on the radar.
The choice is really yours–do you want this to be a repeat of what happened in 2005 where there was a polarizing and divisive fight over Measure X? Because that is where this is headed. You see the beginning of it this week. If that’s your goal, you can proceed. I’m not making a threat, I am conveying to you the reality of Davis politics. The choice is yours. If you want a true discussion, work with Councilmember Heystek or Councilmember Greenwald and set up a process that everyone will agree with. Because right now, the message is clear, we cannot work with this process and the result will be more divisiveness and tumult.
“Four points need to made here because you have an invalid perception of the process as I intended with the addition of 9 other members to staff’s initial proposal.”
Have you now decided it will be three each from CHA, medical profession, business school? Because your words were (possibly 3 each). Perhaps if you cut the representation of each of these questionable groups to 1 each, and primarily let the commissions handle business, the perception of corruption would be far less. It seems as if your motion was unclear, and is currently “evolving” as we speak.
Souza: “It is 3 members from the medical field not medical school. They will also be Davisites who will have knowledge of the medical profession and how it is evolving in the treatment of seniors. They will be picked by staff without regard to how they stand on any past or present proposals of where homes would be built to take care of the need for senior housing.”
If you really mean what you say, Mr. Souza, then that would preclude any of the UCD Med Ctr folks who spoke on behalf of the new Covell Village at either the Senior Citizens Commission or before the City Council. Agreed?
“As to the inclusion of the data collected by Lydia Dellis-Schlosser it is but small piece of the motion concerning data the committee will collect its own data and do its own analysis and build upon the work already done by the SCC and SSC: “Guidelines for Housing that Serves Seniors. The CHA data can be thrown out or used if determined to be bias and useless that is the committees call, it is but one small piece of the info to be gathered. I would think the CHA data was gathered for the purpose of determining what seniors want in a development otherwise why gather it. This why I asked for its inclusion, but if it turns out to be worthless so be it.”
So you are admitting the data could be biased? Then why ask for it to be included, unless you wanted to “stack the deck”? Do the right thing, and play with an undoctored deck of cards.
Souza says: “Develop the “strategy”.” Strategy to make sure the city council majority has cover from this hand picked “committee” to vote in favor of Covell Village for the Elderly Phase I? Citizens, including seniors, have already spoken to this issue, and don’t want Covell Village.
I appreciate that Steve has explained his position and I think that even though he has good intentions the fundamental problem with the suggestion of nine proposed participants for the senior housing discussion is simply too many and too biased. There needs to be balance and fairness in such an important community wide discussion.
I agree with David’s on point comment’s above and the comment also considering the idea of reducing the number of the nine reps to three or less. This is an idea worth discussing but I am not convinced that they should be part of the discussion at all since it would be so hard to try to determine who would be objective enough in their input for the benefit of the community rather then the benefit of these developers who we have demonstrated less then stellar behavior before, during, and after their land use campaigns (i.e. recall the Enterprise covering these developers singing “We shall overcome” just before the election?).
Why not let the public give some input into how the process will go and then let city staff try to come up with a compromise that we can all live with rather then having the Council predetermine who will be involved in this process and how it would be organized?
Sara Lee: Wake up and smell the Folgers girl friend!
Your obviously oblivious to the workings of big brother over at the University. You see, the City of Davis is so ridiculous at the issuance of building permits. The big UCD brother thumbed their nose at The City of Davis and will build whatever they damn well please over on their reservation!
They even hired away the old City Manager and made him a quasi- Dean of sorts! So, your long Santa Cruz grade requirements will get steam rolled by big brother as he can do whatever he want’s without the consent of Mad Hatter Sue. The revered and esteemed A.E. Teichert Corp. is breaking ground west of 113 as we speak.
“Why not let the public give some input into how the process will go and then let city staff try to come up with a compromise that we can all live with rather then having the Council predetermine who will be involved in this process and how it would be organized?”
City Staff did come up with a reasonable proposal – 3 members each from the Senior Citizens, Social Services and Planning Commission. That was the perfect solution, and should be how the process moves forward. Believe me, there are developer plants on some of those commissions, such as Janice Bridge on the Senior Citizens Commission. From articles in the Davis Enterprise and statements she has made at the City Council (a lot of it misleading statements), Jan Bridge is clearly in the pocket of developers – so it is not as if developer interests would not be represented on this ad hoc senior housing committee.
“I appreciate that Steve has explained his position and I think that even though he has good intentions the fundamental problem with the suggestion of nine proposed participants for the senior housing discussion is simply too many and too biased.”
I don’t think Souza’s intentions were good at all. I think he got together with Whitcombe, and the two strategized how best to circumvent City Staff’s proposal.
David: I understand your call for civility, but I consider Souza a snake the in the grass (or as another contributor stated “I smell a rat.”) Even after the developer-loaded housing (planning?) committee ranked the Billy-John ghetto near the bottom of the yellow zone, Souza is pushing for yet another vote by yet another pro-developer loaded “committee.” Seems to me we should do two things: (1) Expose Souza for the fraud he is (as an alleged progressive envioronmentalist): and (2) Immediately begin mounting a campaign to renew Measure J and a campaign to defeat the Johny-Billy senior ghetto once and for all.
Anyone who has followed Davis politics over the long haul must recognize that commissions & committees are just distractions and stalling tactics. While we waste time & energy debating committee compositions, “fairness,” and idealistic aspects of our City’s governance, the developers are working full-time with one goal in mind: to get their project approved and make millions of dollars, no matter the cost to exisiting residents. So, I say forget about Souza: he is a distraction (and I believe purposely so) to keep progressives from focusing on the real issues: (1) renewal of Measure J and (2) defeat of the next Covell (whatever) development proposal.
Steven:
I cannot believe you say that, though the CHA reps might be biased, you believe they would like to know what other Davis seniors want. NO that is not what they want. They are all hand-picked to support Johnnie’s project. The CHA group is so bogus! The data is so bogus! No, they did not collect it to see what seniors want in a development. It was collected from hand-picked supports of Whitcombe and Covell Village to support Johnnie’s project. It is totally bogus! It means nothing! Throw it out. It should never have been suggested or even acknowledged at at all credible. Nor should CHA. These are all just Covell Village/John Whitcombe supporters who want the site developed and gave themselves a fancy name to do it. (There actually may be some others seniors who have been duped by the other CHAs.)
Steve: Make this an open, community-wide discussion. Have the city do a legitimate survey of seniors in Davis with questions determined by an unbiased panel. Use the senior and social services and planning commission members for the panel. The study publised by AARP last year stated that more than 87% of seniors want to ramain in their own homes. Why would Davis seniors be different?
“The study publised by AARP last year stated that more than 87% of seniors want to ramain in their own homes. Why would Davis seniors be different?”
Because Johnny Whitcombe says so! Didn’t you know he speaks for all seniors now? Who died and made Johnny Whitcombe the arbiter of all things right and relevant in Davis? Asmundson, Souza and Saylor, that’s who! Next election, throw the bums out!
I’m wondering if Souza is causing all this stir as a distraction from the real issues at hand – like the budget mess the city is in, and the water debacle? The City Council majority could not find their you know what with their elbow! Sue Greenwald was absolutely right when she chastised the Council majority for wasting staff time on Covell Village Reprised, instead of the more important issues of the fiscal crisis the city is in, and how to keep the costs of the water project down.
One of the reasons our city has budget problems is because of sprawl development, like this one, for which services cost more than the revenue brought in by the project. And one of the reasons for the water project is to SUPPORT more sprawl development like this one. CV II is not a diversion. It is part of the problem.
“And one of the reasons for the water project is to SUPPORT more sprawl development like this one. CV II is not a diversion. It is part of the problem.”
Good point!
Old Skool Davis,
Don’t talk to me about folgers. nobody can wake up to THAT!!! And don’t call me girl friend, boy friend. So, I’m assuming you’re talking about Sue Greenwald (mad hatter sue?). I believe she would endorse a project that’s truly green. The fact that teichert is breaking ground makes me nervous. We really need to have permanent furniture for the students so as to save the annual dumping of worthless furniture that’s made cheaply in china. when you complain about big brother, sounds to me like you’re pissed that you have to follow rules and regulations. i know wouldn’t we all love to dump waste and chemicals into the ground water without those irritating environmentalists and that fascist big brother telling me not to do so. I know it costs you money to be responsible, and you want to line your pockets with more.
well maybe you need a time out young man, because in life, there are rules and regulations, and in life there are consequences.
anyway, i’m still waiting for my wishes to be fulfilled. Mr. Old skool davis, don’t you know you’re sitting in a pile of poison and agricultural waste? and looks like you and everyone else in davis is paying a premium for this poison…brought to you by right wing republican tax hating farmer / good ole boy. you friends with Frontier fertilizer? i can imagine you all sitting around at yolo fliers club complaining about those irritating liberals, and welfare recipients. were it not for welfare my friend, you and your rich cohorts would not be able to pay 600 dollars a month for your illegal immigrant labor. you are nothing but slave owners willing to take as much as you can from every and anybody. people like you make me sick. so my wish is that you go to your lobbyists, and tell the governator, that if he continues to cuts social services to the core, you won’t be able to get cheap labor subsidized by the federal government.
tell the governor that he needs to raise taxes for the wealthy, stop funding welfare to illegal immigrants, and cut all governmental pay roles by 5%. Firefighters, teachers, cops, and prison unions included.
Do that for me will you and perhaps we can get together, and i’ll help you get your precious “senior” housing implemented.
http://polycanyonvillage.calpoly.edu/
just a post script, check out the link
I agree with Rich. For now we need to focus on renewing measure J and defeat the next Covell Whatever. Also, we need to get real and serious about electing council members that really care about the community and not special interests (private developers, union groups, etc.). On the next go around lets toss out Souza, Saylor and da mayor.