The individual writes:
Stephen Hayes, a Senior Citizens Commissioner, recently spoke at the June 2nd City Council meeting. He was quoted in the June 3rd Davis Enterprise,
“Hayes believes the developers are driving a wedge in the community by trying to appeal to seniors for support… ‘If you have a house in Davis and you want to move somewhere else, sell it and move somewhere else,’ Hayes said during public comment.”
Mr. Hayes seems to have pre-judged any concept that is being discussed collaboratively with the professional community and through outreach with Davis seniors. I cannot believe we have someone on the Senior Citizens Commission that says I have no right to advocate and work for better choices for seniors in Davis. Mr. Hayes insinuates that Davis seniors are somehow being manipulated. Anyone with such a low opinion of seniors should not be on the Senior Citizens Commission.
Aside from a clear misinterpretation of what Mr. Hayes said at the meeting–he never said anyone had no right to advocate or work for more or better choices for seniors and it’s clear that he does not have a low opinion of seniors, though that is certainly the language that Councilmember Stephen Souza used at the meeting–is this really how the Covell supporters want to play it?
The writer goes on to ask for Mr. Hayes to either be removed from the commission or at the very least recuse himself from taking a seat on the Senior Housing Strategy commission.
As I understand it, the new Senior Housing Strategy Committee will explore ALL of the possible housing choices that Davis seniors should have. Mr. Hayes appears to be unwilling to have an open mind about the needs of Davis seniors, and if he remains on the Senior Citizens Commission he should recuse himself from taking a seat on the Senior Housing Strategy Committee.
I am unsure what the grounds are for removal other than Mr. Hayes disagrees with the views of the individual. Or perhaps they are wanting people to serve on that body that have as they write, “an open mind about the needs of Davis seniors.” If that is the standard, then perhaps they ought to ask for Janice Bridge to recuse herself from taking a seat on the Senior Housing Strategy Committee too.
What is particularly interesting is that during the comments that Stephen Hayes made at the June 2 meeting, he never identified himself as a member of the senior citizens commission, instead he referred to himself as a senior and a longtime residence. Clearly he was speaking as an individual–which is his right not only under city rules but under the constitution.
On the other hand, Janice Bridge also spoke before council on June 2 and she advocated for such a project. at the old Covell Village site During the course of her advocacy for the project, she told the council, “I serve on the commission for seniors” without qualifying that she was not speaking on behalf of the commission. This is the second time that she has done this, the first time being in an article in the Davis Enterprise from January 2, 2009 after he appointment to the commission in December 2008. That article, as reported in the Vanguard strongly advocated for a senior housing project at Covell Village.
Advocating for development at Covell Village is of course not a new thing for Janice Bridge. Long before she became a reborn advocate for an 800 unit senior project at Covell Village, she was a high profile advocate for the 1864 housing unit project that the voters overwhelmingly rejected in 2005. Ms. Bridge was featured by the “Smart Planning – Yes on X” Campaign as one of their top promoters. And Ms. Bridge was no ordinary advocate at that. She was alsoone of the named officers of a small citizen’s group that advocated for Covell Village–Neighbors for Covell Village. She was a signator on all campaign financial filings and their February 16, 2006 termination statement from that group. Her name even appeared on the letterhead.
Again, is this the game the Covell Village supporters want to play? Clearly there are strong views on both sides of this issue and the community.
One of my objections is the idea of including the group CHA (Choice for Healthy Aging)–a group specifically composed of people who support the senior housing project at Covell Village and who have excluded seniors who do not share that view–serving on a committee that will look at senior housing options. The group has been created by the developers themselves. Talk about going into the discussions without an open mind.
But obviously that was a one-sided objection. It seems unlikely that these kinds of objections will go far, however, they serve as a reminder for what we will likely see down the line when things really start heating up.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Some time ago when I asked to be taken off the telephone list for advertisers, I assumed that it would include special interest groups such as Choices for Healthy Living. I must have forgotten a tricky step I was on their “do call and bother” list. We shall see if a very firm:”get Lost ” worked to correct that major oversight! I think we are in for a political contest that will make Covell I look tame.
DPD
Who was the letter from?
While it is a public record, I decided there was no compelling reason to name the person. It is not a name I am familiar with.
The Covell Village Partners now known as Davis Neighbors play hardball. If one has an opinion that differs from them you are going to be attacked and bullied. During the Measure X campaign the developers and many of their supporters waged a campaign of intimidation. As a result of these tactics they lost and the Covell Village site has become damn near a “third rail” of politics in Davis.
The developers of Covell Village divided the community in 2005 with their Yes on X campaign and they are at it again. If one dares to disagree with their proposals watch out!
This will continue until we face the issue of the Covell site and make a decision about what is to be done with it. I personally advocate perhaps a dozen “ranchettes” or whatever is allowed by the rural ag density and make that its highest and best use and be done with it.
Dear Covell Village Partners: Councilmember Saylor campaigned on civility. Maybe you should get some schooling on the subject?
Also, one of the reasons the sprawl developers hate me is I don’t have a local law practice that is at least partially dependent on the sprawl machine for business. As one of them infamously said in a strategy meeting to get rid of me on the CC, “Harrington cannot be controlled. We need one of our boys up there.” Well, they got two of them, and I was free to focus on knocking down Meausre X in 2005. Be careful what you wish for …
Most of the local attorneys would be attacked and business referrals dried up if those attorneys took contrary positions, with Kopper, Mooney and one or two others being the exceptions.
Ask any Davis business, and they will tell you that they cannot publically take a stand against the Covell machine or they will be taken off the lists of referrals from other businesses.
All I can say is thank God my income is not dependent on what I see going on politically in this city.
Many many Valley towns that are owned by the sprawl machines of their local communities are at or near bankruptcy, dying highway strip malls, etc. Look at Woodland, with its dying mall, decaying downtown.
Because the letter has become essentially public knowledge, I am now providing my perspective as a private citizen concerning the issues raised:
During the public comment period at the June 2 City Council Meeting, I spoke as a member of the public, and not as a member of the Senior Citizen’s Commission. After the meeting, I was interviewed by Ms. Crystal Lee of the Davis Enterprise, and I made it clear to her that I was presenting my personal perspective only, and was not speaking for the Commission.
As far as my personal comments were concerned, I remember emphasizing that most senior citizens within Davis are vibrant and diverse in lifestyles, perspectives, and choices in housing. Developers in general are not showing respect for the diversity of seniors as a group by offering them a restricted choice of housing.
In response to the quote… “‘If you have a house in Davis and you want to move somewhere else, sell it and move somewhere else”…, I assume people understand that my statement certainly includes “within Davis”. In fact, the proven method for many citizens to move within Davis is to upsize to a larger, more expensive home as the family grows, and subsequently downsize to a smaller, more modest home as children leave. I am also an advocate for Universal Design during home construction which will allow a home to subsequently be modified (“age in place”) in an efficient and economical manner as needed as the owner also ages in place. If future developments within Davis incorporate Universal Design principles, then seniors would have a more diverse choice of housing options within Davis, and would have an increased chance to continue to reside within Davis There would also be a reduced demand for senior specific housing.
To date, I think that the City of Davis has done a good job in advocating for and optimizing choices for seniors, and find that there are many senior housing options within the City. However, I will support an open outreach effort to the senior citizen community as a whole concerning the assessment and retention of diverse housing options within Davis if it is deemed necessary.
During my life as a former Naval Officer, a Ph.D trained scientific professional, Department of Water Resources supervisor, and as a husband and father, I have learned to be a strong advocate for my position, as well as to fairly evaluate all sides of major issues before I make an informed decision. I intend to continue to do so. Thank you for the opportunity to express my perspective.
Mike Harrignton hit the nail squarely on the head..looks as if we have our own version of a Davis WTO. Oppose them and you’re out.
Why do we have to “have” something built on that corner? Can’t we just have some “wild” acreage for visual nurturing, and a place for the wild things to live and play. Must we build something on every open piece of space?
BTW, I spoke with Lydia D-S, and came away with the notion that housing would not be affordable to this senior..maybe some more apartments, but how affordable they would be was a question which information was unavailable for at that time. We already have apartments for seniors, both market based and affordable.
The notion of MORE falls under the very undesirable category of excessive consumption…one of the major reason of global warming. If for no other reason,
the City Council should shut this proposal down.
I have a problem with the “letter” being quoted out of context. The fact that snippets are being published but the whole withheld is inappropriate. The fact that it was addressed to public officals working in their political capacity makes it a public document. In the interest of fairness and openness, it should be published in its entirity with no edits or it should not have been referenced.
I disagree that the letter was quoted out of context. I published the first three paragraphs from it verbatim. I also published the fifth paragraph.
I omitted the fourth paragraph which said:
[quote]
“Also, I take exception to his statement that basically the only place I should be allowed to age in place is my current home and if I don’t like the existing housing options, then I should say goodbye to friends and family and leave Davis.”[/quote]
And the sixth and seventh paragraphs:
[quote]I have been a member of this community since 1980. I retired in 2006 with 26 years of service to UCD, I’m an active member of the Davis United Methodist Church, I volunteer at Grace in Action, and at the Patwin School Library. I love Davis and wish to enjoy my retirement years here. I would like to encourage our city leaders to embrace a vision that addresses the changing needs of our community.
We need to have a serious and thoughtful discussion about the housing needs of Davis seniors. The Senior Housing Strategy Committee should be comprised of citizens willing to fairly evaluate all types of housing choices for seniors.[/quote]
I did not take the remarks out of context, but for the sake of flow and importance, I did quote from paragraphs that I wanted to respond to.
how much developer $ does this person get? This person only appears to say that Hayes should go just because he is against the project. Is he not allowed to be agaisnt the project?
The so-called,”SENIOR VILLAGE” (previously known as Covell Village & Center) is a sham. It is the same property, owned and proposed for development by the same owners, who are now trying to pave prime Ag land for millions of dollars in profits, under the guise of senior housing.
If ever there were a reason to renew Measure J, and send the dirt-speculators out of town, the “new” Covell is the perfect fit. Citizens don’t want it; it would destroy prime ag land; and adversely impact both East Davis & our city as a whole.
It’ now time to say “No” to the “Covell” site, once & for all.
The Covell Village Partners/CHA/Davis Neighbors/Tandem Properties people are at it again. Instead of discussing the merits of their proposed project they and their supporters attack citizens who hold different viewpoints. Once again their attack dog strategy is underway.
Jan Bridge is their plant on the Senior Citizen Commission who before and after her appointment has advocated to the commission specifically for a senior project at the old Covell Village site. Ms. Bridge is entitled to her views, but should not use her position on the commission to publically support a specific proposal unless the commission as a whole has decided to do so. By the same token she and her cohorts should extend the same courtesy to Mr. Hayes or anyone else who may not agree with them.
The attacks, assumptions and vitriol are coming from both sides. From what I have read and heard there is a preponderance of it on this blog and in the Council Chambers from a small portion of OUR community. It has to stop if WE are going to ever collectively solve OUR problems.
I don’t see how we are going to solve OUR problems if we have to deal with wealthy developer interests who are diverting us with their souped up rhetoric.
If everyone who had an opinion on something happening in Davis, and spoke up about it, were kicked off of the commissions they serve on, well, we would not have any commissioners. If Steve Hayes’ commission appointment is tinkered with over this, it would be a travesty. But consider this – The letter writer also has every right to complain about him voicing his opinion, however inappropriate people think the complaint is. Heck, don’t people on this blog do the same thing with people serving on the City Council every day – complain about how horrible their views are and that they should not be serving on the council?
“But consider this – The letter writer also has every right to complain about him voicing his opinion, however inappropriate people think the complaint is. Heck, don’t people on this blog do the same thing with people serving on the City Council every day – complain about how horrible their views are and that they should not be serving on the council?”
It is appropriate to disagree with Steve Hayes viewpoint, but not appropriate to attack him personally. There is a difference. For instance, the person who wrote the letter should not have indicated Mr. Hayes was not fit to be on the Davis Senior Citizens Commission just because his viewpoint disagreed with hers. By the way, I discovered the writer of this letter is a member of CHA. No surprise!