What was particularly surprising was that back in June, they seemed willing to utilize data collected by a group called CHA, a front group for the Covell Village developers. However, the council majority fell over themselves, often resorting to using arguments made by right wing organizations to discredit mainstream polling.
The Vanguard obtained an email sent on September 28, 2009 by Don and Merna Villarejo. Their argument was that a senior housing project was needed, but that this was flawed. The Vanguard article went on to quote four specific passages that outline the argument against the survey data. The problem was that it was a flawed argument.
First, they argued that seniors have not been educated on the range of housing options. Second, they argued that there were flaws in the survey methodology. Third, they argued that phone polling yields unreliable results. And finally, they complain that the failure to consider input from CHA suggested a “possibly unintended bias in undertaking the proposed senior housing survey at the present time.”
The article linked above went into each of these points in greater detail, but the bottom line is that the letter was clearly a signal to the council majority that CHA, and therefore the developers of Covell Village, were opposed to the use of polling to determine the desires and needs of Davis Seniors.
The article concluded that the reasons for that were likely that it took agenda control away from the developers that they had carefully cultivated and it introduced uncertainty into the equation. But perhaps in fact it should have suggested a bit more. Perhaps the Covell Village developers already know what a survey would show and it doesn’t support their premise that they have cultivated that the solution to Davis’ Senior Housing needs is a segregated Senior’s-only living facility.
More to this point, I was surprised to see in the Davis Enterprise yesterday a letter to the editor from Don and Merna Villarejo that was responding to my Vanguard article.
We have expressed our deep concerns to the City Council about the lack of suitable senior housing in Davis. A local blogger has posted seriously misleading allegations regarding our position that requires a public response.
To avoid any such charges of misleading allegations regarding THEIR position, I will reprint the full text of the letter here.
We have lived in our East Davis home for 34 years and would like to ‘age in place.’ However, we have become acutely aware of the limitations of our two-story home that lacks ADA-compliant entries, hallways and bathrooms. Remodeling is not an option owing to its prohibitive cost.
Instead, we seek a universal design home in a multi-generational Davis neighborhood, with grounds maintained by a homeowners association, and with nearby facilities and services required by aging seniors. Sadly, we have been unable to find housing in Davis that even comes close to meeting this standard, and we have no desire to be ‘institutionalized’ when we can live independently.
There appears to be no hope for such a neighborhood because the need is not recognized in the Davis city plan that bases its assessment on outdated 1990 census data. Census Bureau data for 2005-07 show that while the total Davis population has increased by slightly less than 10 percent since 2000, the over-55 population has increased by 37 percent, more than three times faster.
Updated Census Bureau data for the period 2006-08 being released Oct. 27 will further clarify the extent of the need for senior housing in Davis, precluding the need for the city to conduct its own survey.
Measure P asks the residents of Davis to approve 191 new ‘green’ housing units, but the needs of seniors are not included. Although ‘visitability and accessibility design features will be incorporated into the project wherever possible,’ all single-family homes in the development would be multi-story, defeating the purpose of accessibility.
Hundreds of senior residents have formed Choices for Healthy Aging. It is an independent organization with its own steering committee and statement of principles. Together we urge the city and its citizens to consider all seniors, both present and future, in helping to meet basic housing needs.
From this text, it becomes very clear that this was not a response to my piece at all, but rather a restatement of their letter to council.
In fact, the bulk of my article looked at two points of contention. First, their objections to polling. They barely even mention polling. Yet that was the bulk of their argument, that we could not conduct polling because of problems with the staff’s suggestions for polling. That was a problematic argument from the start, because the staff report was not going to be the basis for a survey. The survey would have been conducted by a professional polling firm and therefore most of the concerns laid out in their initial letter were dubious at best.
The second part of my article focused on the group CHA. They briefly address the issue of CHA at the bottom of their letter.
“Hundreds of senior residents have formed Choices for Healthy Aging. It is an independent organization with its own steering committee and statement of principles. Together we urge the city and its citizens to consider all seniors, both present and future, in helping to meet basic housing needs. “
The problem is that they are being dishonest here. CHA is not an independent organization, it was created by the developers and at least up until June shared a phone line and other services. To pass the group off as independent is simply dishonest.
The rest of the letter is their opinion and they are certainly entitled to their opinion. What strikes me as odd is that they only briefly mention the senior survey in their letter and their opposition to it. That was the main point of the Vanguard article, and in their “public response” they have simply ignored that point. I suppose they recognized that it would not go over well.
Their argument now is that we do not need a survey because of the census data. But that is an equally flawed argument as they put up previously. The premise seems to be, we have an increasing population of seniors and therefore the census data will preclude the need to do a survey. The problem with that argument is that there is no automatic translation from population to specific housing need. What if the majority of seniors do not want a specific form of senior housing? Should we not take their views into account or only the CHA members who scream the loudest?
They seem to want to be entitled to their opinion on the need for senior housing–which they are entitled to–but do not believe there needs to be systematic accounting of every senior’s opinion on housing needs.
I would be remiss if I did not note their attempt to bring in the No on P vote by making reference to Wildhorse Ranch.
In January we can expect the new Covell Village application to be submitted to the city. It is clear that the developers and the members of CHA have no desire to explore alternatives other than the course that they have already set out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David:
The cognitive dissonance here is astounding.
You are concerned about the Covell Village developer tactics yet you give Parlin a free pass time after time. Parlin has lied or distoted any number of issues starting with claiming that townhouses selling for well over $400,000 are “affordable,” and the bogus $4 million dollar claim on the ballot statement. There are many more examples.
Unfortunately, developers have a huge incentive to dissemble, distort and outright lie. How about some balance here?
So you want to let Covell off the hook because you believe that David let Parlin off the hook? That doesn’t make much sense.
Couldn’t it simply be that David disagrees with you on P–affordable is a subjective and also a relative term, and the $4 million claim wasn’t bogus, though it was a bit more limited than implied in the ballot statement.
There is a world of difference between Covell Village and this great project. Parlin has not “lied”. He has stated that homes in the development are affordable, and indeed they are. The affordable apartments meet the state criteria for affordable to low and very low income. The rents are set by the city based on State codes. Market rate homes from $350,000 to $450,000 are affordable to middle income families based on formulas to determine household income and what that income can afford.
The claim about the $4 million is valid, though the ballot statement could have been a little more clear on the origin of the funds and how they can be used. The fact that Parlin will build the affordable apartments rather than having the city subsidize them saves the city the $3.2 million it would have to spend to build the units. The rest of the $4 million is a fee to the city that can be used for services, etc.
Cognitive: I suggest you learn to quickly multitask, this stuff is going to be coming down quickly and it’s not all about Measure P which is a small project in the scheme of the larger picture. If you think 2000 is too much, understand that Covell IV will be 800 units and only encompass the southern third of Covell Village.
So if you live in Wildhorse and oppose Covell Village IV next year, will the NIMBY claims start flying again?
Probably. The charge of NIMBY has come onto this blog virtually every time a project is opposed or growth or development argued against.
Sheryl Patterson offers interesting commentary regarding Measure P on another blog
“Sheryl Patterson offers interesting commentary regarding Measure P on http://www.davisvoice.com“
That’s actually off the ranch, since the topic here is Covell Village not Measure P.
David – this post may be about Covell, but didn’t the Villarejos call into question the “senior washing” of Measure P Wildhorse in their letter? Also, I think that if you did some actual research and interviewed these CHA people, you’d find that it’s not as simple as you think; I remember that list of CHA people containing some very highly respected, long term Davisites whom I’d hesitate to accuse of being pawns.
Re: “meanwhile, back on the ranch” – you must be too young to get the “Bonanza” reference/joke, but it’s similar to your multitasking comment above… I thought that you would appreciate another alternative news site like http://www.davisvoice.com covering local issues like Measure P
“The charge of NIMBY has come onto this blog virtually every time a project is opposed or growth or development argued against.”
Interesting. So if follow that line of reasoning, the next Mike Harrington blogs about he will oppose Covell Village IV (or “Halloween IV”, as he likes to call it), he is no less of a NIMBY that of which accuses No on P people as being???
So if the next reincarnation of a project on the Covell Farm property comes along that has a 100% GHG reduction program. Has homes starting at $200,000, has 2/3 of the homes presold to existing senior Davisites and has most of the transportation via green energy sources. Would all the Yes on P’ers call the project really, really, really affordable and really, really, really green.
To Cognative, your nasty postings against DPD remind me of the old phrase, no good deed goes unpunished. Here the poor man gets up at about 4:30 am to write articles for all of us to read and become a bit more educated, and here you come, attacking him again. The negative attack flavor of you and your friends are a significant reason why some dont read or comment on the Blog.
Greg: If you read my past commentary, I think NIMBY is an unfortunate and dismissive word. It implies inherently that one accepts one thing one other people’s backyard, that one would not in their own. Within the context of development in Davis, that is a difficult charge to maintain, because most people have consistently approved most new development. To use the Target example, it is not that I oppose Target in Davis but am okay with it in other towns, I think the very concept of big-box retail is detrimental to all local communities and small business. I think sprawl development encroaching on farmland is detrimental to all communities not just Davis. We may disagree on whether the current project is sprawl development and the degree to which we consider it encroaching on farmland, but I hope most of us can share in those values and recognize that this is not merely NIMBYism but rather a deeply held belief. As such I think Harrington has been very destructive to this process, but the discourse overall has become overheated, so it is difficult for me to single out one individual.
Meanwhile: I am just concerned that ever issue from now until election devolves into a Measure P fight and we are missing the bigger picture by looking at things through this prism. There is a huge picture out there of Davis and things are afoot in the next three weeks that will affect that greatly. However, if we turn this into a Measure P fight, we will be diverted from other issues that are equal and greater importance.
[quote]Market rate homes from $350,000 to $450,000 are affordable to middle income families [/quote]For the umpteenth time, according to the figures the developer gave city staff, the townhouses will average $451,000 the first yer they are on the market. How you can keep repeating these figures that contract the figures given to staff by the developer is puzzling.
[quote]The claim about the $4 million is valid, though the ballot statement could have been a little more clear on the origin of the funds and how they can be used.[/quote]This claim has been thoroughly discredited at every level.
“As such I think Harrington has been very destructive to this process…”
Dear David. I welcome your comments on the whole “NIMBY” concept; I too voted against Target, as I have friends who own small businesses in downtown Davis and I am worried that downtown Davis will become like other small town downtown business districts, including Chico and Tracy.
I also thank you for repudiating the hateful and vile things that Mr. Harrington has tried to characterize of the NO on P campaign; enough said on this issue from me.
By the way, as far as future issues for Davis beyond Nov 3rd: I will vote NO on Covell Village and will vote to retain Measure J!
[quote]The claim about the $4 million is valid, though the ballot statement could have been a little more clear on the origin of the funds and how they can be used.[/quote]
By definition, there is a net fiscal benefit if the revenues that the City receives from a project are greater than the City costs of the project. The claim of a “$4 million net benefit” is clearly wrong.
If the City had to pay $3.2 million in affordable housing subsidies, then this project would run a deficit of $3.2 million more than it already would in the long-run. Of course, the City doesn’t have to pay these subsidies whether Wildhorse Ranch is built or not. So, there is no $3.2 million deficit in either case. But to move this $3.2 million over to the positive side of the ledger and count it as a “net benefit” is double-counting at the very least.
The City’s fiscal analysis assumes an average price of $425,000 in 2009 for the 78 attached townhouses, which will increase to $451,000 by 2012 (when the first units could be built). Let’s just take the $425,000 average, for simplicity. If 10 townhouses sell for $350,000, the other 68 have to all sell for $430,000 to average $425,000. There may be a few in the $300,000’s to serve as loss leaders, but for every one below $425,000, there have to be at least one above $425,000 to average out to $425,000.
The claims on the single-family detached houses are even more suspect. The Yes on P ballot rebuttal says that they will “range from $450,000 to $550,000” yet the City’s fiscal analysis uses an average price of $550,000. It’s mathematically impossible for the range to be between $450,000 and $550,000 yet average $550,000 (unless each and every house sells for $550,000).
If the lower prices that the developer claims are correct, then the fiscal analysis needs to be redone to show a bigger deficit, which will grow each and every year.
By claiming $4 million in net fiscal benefits that don’t exist and by using lower housing prices in ballot statements and campaign literature than was used in the City fiscal analysis, Davis voters are not getting an accurate picture.
It can’t be OK to give the Council majority and Parlin a free pass on these distortions, yet condemn the Council majority and Covell Village IV. How about some consistency?
The claims on the single-family detached homes are eve
Try it , you might like it , I liked ” Target ” also , before I forget vote no on ” P ” , take that ” Blog Boy ” .
The most innovative housing project I know is Hundredfold Farm in Gettyburg, PA. A multi-generational co-housing project that is totally off the grid self-sufficient and recycles all wastewater through an on-site system and greenhouse wetland. This is the type of housing that is a real model of GREEN that Davis and the county should be supporting with the necessary change in permits, rules, etc. Furthermore, the City/County should adopt a Feed-in Tariff (FITS) financing mechanism for solar, the most efficient,cheapest way to get solar onto roof tops – a succesful model used in the EU and being implemented in a number of US states. City policies not to mention so-called green developers in Davis are no longer cutting edge. Candidates for local/county offices could take the lead advocating for and facilitating such truly innovative, needed projects if they would ween themselves off developer support in elections.
Take a look at http://www.hundredfoldfarm.org/index2.htm
“Their argument now is that we do not need a survey because of the census data. But that is an equally flawed argument as they put up previously. The premise seems to be, we have an increasing population of seniors and therefore the census data will preclude the need to do a survey. The problem with that argument is that there is no automatic translation from population to specific housing need. What if the majority of seniors do not want a specific form of senior housing? Should we not take their views into account or only the CHA members who scream the loudest?”
I will go one step farther. What if building a big 800 unit senior housing development results in higher taxes, which it inevitably will, bc of the increases that will be needed in city services and infrastructure costs. Those higher taxes very well could spell financial doom for many low and middle income Davis seniors on fixed incomes who already live here. They very well could be forced out of their homes as a result. Isn’t that a factor that needs to be taken into consideration when building senior housing? This is exactly what happens when housing becomes a developer driven process, and citizen input is not obtained or is ignored.
Sue: The $4 million claim has not been discredited. It was accepted by staff, the city attorney and the county clerk as a valid statement. That is why it remained in the rebuttal and was not challenged.
The $4 million claim was not challenged because we do not have the money for an attorney. That does not make it correct. It is completely bogus.
Please read Mark Siegler’s excellent blogs and comments on the $4 million issue.
Just because an underfunded grass roots campaign doesn’t have the money or where withall to file a legal claim against Parlin, makes their ” 4 million benefit” claim valid? unbelievable…don’t you think Witcomb may be planning some similar financial claims shenigans for CVIV if WHR passes…they would learn a new playbook: Hire Talbott Solar and put solar panels on the units for Seniors; sell all the units at 350,000 and then state you will save the City millions of dollars…I can see the CV-IV campaign message:
REALLY GREEN, REALLY AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING THAT SAVES THE CITY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS! VOTE YES ON COVELL VILLAGE!
On October 9, the Davis Enterprise reported (p. A5) that “affordable housing subsidy funds cannot be used for general city services. Savings in the account are not typically considered a ‘net fiscal benefit,’ as the Yes on P campaign claims, according to city officials.”
So, the claim has “not been discredited” by staff?
No Friend of Covell Village, here’s what the Yes on P ballot statement says:
[quote]According to an independent fiscal analysis and confirmed by staff, the project results in net fiscal benefits of approximately $4 million over the 15-year analysis period, providing a reliable annual source of funding for city services — something no other Davis
project has done.[/quote]
Please explain clearly how each part of this statement is correct.
Measure P is a City election and the Council majority has a duty to make sure that all ballot claims are accurate. They failed in this case, but the absence of a legal challenge does make make an inaccurate claim correct.
“According to an independent fiscal analysis”
Isn’t this just Matt Williams and his spreadsheet?
“Sue: The $4 million claim has not been discredited. It was accepted by staff, the city attorney and the county clerk as a valid statement. That is why it remained in the rebuttal and was not challenged.”
It’s hard to believe that the original “No Friend to Covell Village” actually posted such hogwash! This kind of campaigning cannot be allowed to win!! Signing off now… I’m heading out to canvass another precinct for NO on P. Join us this Saturday to do Mace Ranch.
Which Council majority voted to put Measure P on the ballot at 1:30 in the morning of July 29th?
“Measure P is a City election and the Council majority has a duty to make sure that all ballot claims are accurate.”
I’m not sure about the above statement. Rebuttal statements, signed by Davis citizens are probably given a great deal of leeway(truth-wise) by the officials running this special election. Obviously, the signers of the Yes on P rebuttal statement did not act independently of the Yes on P campaign. IT WAS THE DUTY of the Yes on P campaign to make sure that the claims that the Yes on P people made as part of the ballot were not false. THEY failed to do this or attempt to correct the false statement; it remains on the ballot. Such political cynicism and duplicity is just not acceptable in Davis and should be rejected with a NO on P vote.
Ol’ timer is right. Many supporters of P have touted their No on Covell Village credentials and then they have turned around and made or tacitly supported the same types of false claims that Covell supprters and developers are making.
Its like the abused child becoming an abuser. A dishonest campaign is bad for Davis and the ends do not justify the means.
Of course, I meant to say, “They failed in this case, but the absence of a legal challenge does NOT make an inaccurate claim correct.”
The Council majority who put Measure P on the ballot was Asmundson, Heystek, and Saylor.
so, David, now you’re editing other people’s posts?
Meanwhile, back on the Ranch…
10/14/09 – 08:28 AM
…
Sheryl Patterson offers interesting commentary regarding Measure P on another blog
ORIGINALLY it read “… regarding Measure P on http://www.davisvoice.com“
SO…. is any mention of http://www.davisvoice.com no longer allowed? Does it rank up there with “Parlington”?
[quote]Sue: The $4 million claim has not been discredited. It was accepted by staff, the city attorney and the county clerk as a valid statement. That is why it remained in the rebuttal and was not challenged.[/quote]Okay. We will go back over this tired ground.
Please try to read this carefully, so you can understand why your assertions are so wildly incorrect.
First, the City manager told me that staff was in fact upset about this rebuttal statement, but that they were not challenging the statement because: “we are not the truth patrol”. (I disagreed, I felt the city was an interested party since the city put the measure on the ballot).
Next, read everything that Mark Siegler said above about the false nature of the net fiscal benefit argument.
Then, try to understand that even the claim that there is a $3.2 million savings to the dedicated affordable housing trust funds (which must be spent on affordable housing and cannot be spent on city services) is wrong.
First off, it is important to understand what the affordable housing trust funds are. Mostly, they are made up of the share of the redevelopment agency tax increment that, by law, must be put aside and spent on affordable housing. When there is money in the fund, it must be spent on affordable housing, so we spend it.
The affordable housing could be built with federal and state subsidies alone, on the dedicated land. But we had city affordable housing money, so we spent it. The subsidy figures that were mentioned in the staff report, and on which you base your claim of a $3.2 million savings, represent our recent, extraordinarily high city subsidies. The subsidies didn’t have to be made at all, and they certainly didn’t need to be so ridiculously high. In fact, there has been much discussion since I have been on the council about the fact that we are being much too loose and extravagant with these dedicated funds.
Your argument is analogous to the following argument: If the City overpaid $3.2 million to build a poorly-conceived and/or extravagant bike overpass, could the Covell Village partners that claimed they were providing a $3.2 million fiscal net benefit to the city because they were going to build a normal bicycle overpass within budget?
The answer is no, and you and the other anti-Covell Village Parlin project people would have been outraged by this claim.
Your double standard is posing a serious credibility problem.
Phil:
The city had the option of challenging the rebuttal language, but did not as they accepted the language in the end.
For goodness sakes. The city did NOT accept the language. As reported in the Davis Enterprise, staff said WE DO NOT CONFIRM the statement made in the Yes on P rebuttal statement.
Please just accept the fact that you were wrong and apologize. And also, please sign you name. When a campaign has no spokespeople willing to sign their names when they make assertions, the campaign looks very weak indeed.
To survey or not to survey is fun to watch, but not too important. This market testing task is usually something the merchant does, not the consumer. It seems to me that there are two previous ideas that need to be considered. The first is the wisdom of having a concentration of seniors citizens. We have learned from the low cost housing projects in large cities that ghettos are a problem. We have put our low cost housing around the community to avoid ghettos. It has worked very well. It may be that having concentrations of seniors in a ghetto is not such a good idea. Might in fill housing for seniors be a better solution for this group of local folks. Having spent Sunday evening in my neighborhood party where children, young parents and a good number of senior and very senior neighbors got together I can attest to the joys of living in an age integrated part of town . A second question has to do with the Madison Avenue language of the proposal. “Senior Housing” looks a lot like a verbal appeal to the public good that it takes to justify development in Davis. And this nice sounding idea might be no more than a linguistic shoehorn for getting a major development into Covell II. I see too little public good from this proposal.
Wow David, since when did you begn editing other peoples posts at whim?
I posted the link to http://www.davisvoice.com because you today’s post regarding the Villarejo’s LTE ignored the “senior washing” of Measure P. Have you gone isolationist because you fear “another blog” mght actually give you some competition? Sad day for citizen journalism.
Quick, go check out http://www.davisvoce.com ‘s reasonably fair coverage of measure p before David deletes/redacts this post too
Wow David, since when did you begn editing other peoples posts at whim?
I posted the link to http://www.davisvoice.com because you today’s post regarding the Villarejo’s LTE ignored the “senior washing” of Measure P. Have you gone isolationist because you fear “another blog” mght actually give you some competition? Sad day for citizen journalism.
Quick, go check out http://www.davisvoce.com ‘s reasonably fair coverage of measure p before David deletes/redacts this post too
I have to say. I was previously going to vote for Measure P. But the little irritants that won’t stop have finally gotten through. The fact is, 450,000 or even 400,000 homes are not affordable. We are a two-person income home and could barely afford a 400,000 mortgage without substantial risk.
So…with that said, I cannot vote for housing that is being sold as affordable. It was a nice try, but it is simply not affordable. Now that I think about it, I don’t really think it is infill either, though I don’t know if that was a selling point.
Meanwhile: We’re not providing free advertising to competing blogs, please respect our policies if you wish to post here.
Where exactly are these policies located?
At this time, there is no written policy. This became a problem yesterday, when someone–not you, began to spam the board, and action was taken to protect the integrity of the site. You are welcome to quote from an article posted anywhere if it brings up a point you think is pertinent, but suggestions to go to another site are not going to be allowed. I ask you to please respect this policy. Thanks.
Sue:
Please explain to me, then, why the rebuttal argument was accepted by the city, the city attorney and the county clerk as valid.
She (and others) have explained it clearly several times in this thread.
Perhap No Friend of Covell Village needs a remedial reading course.
I posted a comment last night between 10/14 7:42pm Minnis and 10/15 4:38am Greenwald about how my vote on Measure P had changed. I said I no longer thought the Measure P project was affordable, since I investigated and found I could not afford a mortgage at the price they’d be selling, and this on a two-person income.
My comment was deleted. Perhaps it was because I called myself “No Friend of Covell Village’s Davis Voice” or some such- that is amazing case of censorship when you cannot even mention a competitor.
Still, getting a comment deleted reminds us that this is not an open forum by any means. That isn’t a criticism, just a point we should all keep in mind.
They used to call them barn raisings? So abhorrently comical I can’t seem to shake this piece of propaganda off my mind. Has Ritter et al… lost their bearings? The YOP mailings have only driven me more against this development. Your public relations is not working. And, how many times have the YOP used the acronym “NIMBY”. Of course I care who “lives in my backyard”, what is wrong with that? And by the way, my family is far from rich (ie: NIMBY’s are rich folks) and have chosen to work hard for what we have. Sad to except that land will continue to be developed sooner or later. Humans need to rethink what we are on this earth for. Good riddance on P.