In the case of CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging) the plot is especially thick because it represents an effort at agenda setting. Agenda setting is a term most common used in measure the effects of mass-news coverage, which argues that increased coverage and prominence by media sources increases the perception of the importance of the issue. In this case, the astroturf campaign has been able to create an agenda for senior housing that was largely off the radar prior to the waging of the campaign. The purpose hear is to create the perception of a mass movement for senior housing in order to push the latest proposal at Covell Village onto the agenda and eventually onto a Measure J ballot.
Another idea pushed by the council majority and particularly Councilmember Stephen Souza was to use data already gathered by CHA as a partial basis for information to be considered. As Mr. Souza would explain on the Vanguard on June 13:
“The suggestion of adding data gathered by CHA was a wrong description, it is just information; it is not scientific data and will not drive the process. It is but one very small piece of information the Committee will hear of look at. The Committee will determine what to do with it.”
Nevertheless such data seemed fairly tainted as a source and so this week, the council proposed using $20,000 from a specific pot of money to obtain data through traditional scientific survey research. I was a bit leery of the exercise myself, not sure what the aim was. However, I was stunned when one-by-one the council majority opposed it.
Elaine Roberts Musser’s description of this was pretty good. The thing I kept wondering that night was what I was missing. Didn’t the council majority want data so they could justify the need to push Covell Village?
Then it became clear, they didn’t want data that could possibly show that we did not have the desire for segregated senior housing. They did not want a process where the outcome was in doubt. That’s why they pushed for a specific composition to the senior housing committee and when they did not get that composition they moved on to other ideas.
Mayor Ruth Asmundson pressed for using social media as a means to acquire data. She had apparently just sat in on a seminar at the League of Cities Conference. Indeed she pressed for it at the Finance and Budget Commission meeting as well. She seemed concerned about the length of time it would take to complete a phone survey and that people would refuse skewing the results.
That’s kind of the argument right wing organizations use when they want to discount the results of unfavorable polls. And there is a bit of a problem refusals, but pollsters have never really found a systematic problem. The polling from the past presidential election turned out to be fairly accurate, certainly within the margin of error. I think her concern is misplaced and social media which would be a non-random sample would be far from a replacement. Moreover as Ms. Roberts-Musser pointed out, many seniors do not possess computers, so social media is probably a good way to reach teens but not seniors.
It was only later that evening, having been leaked communications that had gone to council that it all made sense. The Covell Partners opposed doing a survey. It would take the matter out of their hands. They clearly want a chance to cook or manipulate any data, and a scientific random sample phone survey does not lend itself to such manipulation.
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.
However, there are serious problems with going ahead with the proposed survey at this time. Most importantly, seniors have not yet been provided with concrete examples of the full range of potential future housing choices, severely limiting their ability to describe preferences for future development. For example, the notion of a new, multi-generational community in Davis with a majority of units reserved for households in which at least one person is age 55 or older has yet to be seriously discussed in the city planning process, let alone be included among possible preferences in the proposed survey.
Reading between the lines, the argument appears to be they have not yet had an opportunity to wage their campaign to manipulate the data. Apparently they do not trust that the seniors in this community can accurately answer a survey unless they learn the “full range of potential future housing choices.”
But the argument and rationalization gets worse.
A second major concern is the survey methodology, which is not described in City Council Agenda, of September 29, 2009. To obtain valid results, surveys must adhere to strict guidelines: first, complete enumeration of the population of interest (in the present case, all current Davis residents age 55 or older); second, from this enumeration, random selection of a sample of potential participants; third, the survey instrument should only include queries that have proven to yield reliable responses, such as queries in the Census of Population or American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau) or the Current Population Survey (Bureau of Labor Statistics); last, only include additional queries if they have been demonstrated to be reliable in the peer-reviewed academic literature or equivalent testing.
This argument makes no sense. Obviously if the city were to perform a survey, they would hire professional pollsters that would be able to address these points. So this is nothing more than a strawman argument.
We also see in this email the genesis of Asmundson’s objection:
While telephone surveys are widely used today, there are unpredictable shortcomings that sometimes yield unreliable results. For example, the well-publicized and substantially inaccurate predictions from telephone polling during the pre-2004 presidential election period was a major embarrassment for the media on election night. Today, professional polling finds more and more potential respondents declining to participate, leading to what is termed “non-respondent bias.”
But they tip their hand with their very last paragraph:
Finally, the failure to consider possible input from the 250+ members of Choices for Healthy Aging suggests a possibly unintended bias in undertaking the proposed senior housing survey at the present time.
The mention of CHA remove all doubt as to what this email was about. CHA opposes the senior housing survey. CHA is now depicted as a group that is more than 250 members. The astroturfing continues.
What we know at this point is that the Covell Village operation will be introducing their new project in early January and will push for this project as quickly as possible. Clearly they want to control all access the council has to information about senior needs. So CHA lobbied the council majority to oppose this senior survey, which only would have made sense if the council majority wanted to be working with real scientific data instead of a developer-created astroturf campaign when making decisions about housing options. All and all this was an appalling revelation, something that I never saw coming when the idea of a survey was proposed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, I say let a senior project come forward. Then we could have a battle
between the Parlinites vs the CHAites!
Excellent investigative reporting DPD! Apparently the City Council majority is not interested in hearing what seniors have to say. I would assume that is likely because they have already made up their minds, and don’t care what seniors want or need. How shameful. What we have is a developer driven process, which is antithetical to the Senior Housing Guidelines formulated by the Davis Senior Citizens Commission/Social Services Commission/ADA Subcommittee, and had extensive input from city staff, developers, CHA, and the public.
“The Vanguard obtained an email sent on September 28, 2009 by Don and Merna Villarejo.”
Who was the email to? And was it in the public domain, or not for public consumption?
It was sent to council therefore public record.
What a surprise. Imagine that, another Don Saylor pro-developer agenda moves ahead without proper data or “community” input. Hey, soon we’ll be able to enjoy vast concrete spaces, parking lots, big box stores and “highly affordable housing”…..what a joke. Welcome to Vacaville.
Thanks for the lesson on astroturfing and agenda setting. It helps to understand what’s going on.
good work DPD. The bottom line is that the Council Majority of Saylor/Asmundson and Souza has the majority vote and it will come down to MEASURE J. This is why it is so important to deal with Measure P and demonstrate to the city(and this Council majority) that without full citizen input and adequate time and access to information on a project that falls under measure J , it will be REJECTED, no further considerations necessary.
What’s the term for when a developer BUYS with cold hard cash the endorsements of former elected officials, the Sierra Club Board (after that slimy move, I doubt the current board will sit much longer), the College Democrats, and this blog? Got a fancy term for that or should we just call Parlin and all it’s paid cronies CORRUPT?
I don’t know what went on behind the scenes on this survey thing, and neither do you. But why would we even consider spending $20k on a survey when we’re furloughing city employees?
good so the sierra club is endorsing it. good it’s better than nothing but what makes me sick is that they are calling some of these houses priced at 300k “affordable”.
what a stinky slinky lie and quite frankly, everything that’s painted one way with these developers always turns out another way. they are there just to take money from the govt. and call it “affordable and “low income’
choc and jon berkely management are typical of entities that take advantage of all these govt. run programs that exploit the poor and give the rich a TAX credit. i’m sick of the lies and deceipt and fleecing of Americans by our own damn greedy selves. it’s time to put a stop to the corruption.
“good so the sierra club is endorsing it. “
technically, our local Sierra Club chapter can not speak officially for the Sierra Club. This must be done through the regional chapter. There is enough irony to go around here. Read my postings about what transpired when the regional chapter met to determine if they would approve Whitcombe’s Covell Village project, post#98-Councilperson Greenwald Removed as Laision from Budget and Finance Commission.
Something is wrong about the WHR project, and that’s why I’ve gone back & forth on Measure P. The Sierra Club “endorsed” the project (ONLY on the basis of “green, sustainability.”), but the developer’s ads now make it seem as if the Sierra Club endorsed the project as “affordable:” UNTRUE!
And the “No on P” folks have painted the League of Women voters as “unfair,” because the League enforced its policy of not including elected officials on forum panels.
Even though WHR is a relatively small project, I believe we need to step back (as a community), and vote “NO on P.” The developer might lose time & money, but that was his gamble by claiming the project “affordable,” and falsely implying the Sierra Club endorsed his project as “affordable.”
I’ve thought long & hard about my position, and can finally live with it. WHR has many “green” features, but the developer crossed the line with ads suggesting that the Sierra Club endorsed the project as “affordable” (which it did not).
So, even though I support the “green” amenities of WHR, and am very unhappy with many of the tactics used to criticize the project, I believe we need to step back, and take a bit more time by voting “NO on P.”
Even though this is a small project, I am very offended by the way the developer & his paid consultants mis-represented and mis-used the good name of our local Sierra Club for their personal financial gain.
Please join me in voting “NO on Measure P.”
Thank you.
Ol Timer:
You are incorrect in what you say about the Mother Lode Chapter and their vote to support the local group’s opposition to Covell Village. I was there. The Chapter supported all of our reasons for opposing the project based on its huge impacts to our community. The only impact that they would not allow us to discuss in our subsequent literature and ad opposing the project was the traffic impact. That blew me away, but their reasoning was that if traffic gets bad enough, then people will get out of their cars! The Chapter did not support us based solely on the lack of community involvement as you stated.
One person at that meeting, Tim Frank from the National antisprawl campaign, argued for “green” features in CV, such as the density–he stated that it was 15 units per acre–but it was pointed out that 1900 units on 232 acres devoted to housing was 8 units per acre, so that argument lost.
to NO friend of Covell Village:
Your description of what transpired at the Mother Lode chapter meeting is fairly accurate but what you are really describing are the arguments( I KNOW that you think that they were persuasive) put forth by the Yolo chapter for their non-endorsement of CV. I do not remember any clear statement by the Mother Lode board that they voted to not endorse CV based upon your arguments. On the contrary, the national representative of Sierra Club, who I would imagine carries some significant weight with the Mother Lode chapter, dismissed most of your arguments. As I remember, the only argument “left standing” was the one about the violations of the Measure J process and I think,although my memory could be a little fuzzy after 5 years, this was articuated as the reason for the Mother Lode Chapter validating the Yolo chapter’s decision.
On another point, I received the Yes on P flyer today with the statement in bold letters, “Endorsed by the Sierra Club”. As you well know, the Yolo chapter is not authorized to speak for the Sierra Club. It must be authorized by the Mother Lode chapter.
I will take as fact your statement that the Mother Lode chapter later reviewed your arguments and picked which ones they would permit the Yolo chapter to use. I was not aware of this. I was describing what transpired in the meeting itself and I stand by my observation that what appeared to sway the vote in the Yolo chapter’s favor was the violation of process argument. I find it disturbing that the very people who so vigorously argued this point against Covell Village give the WHR measure J process a “pass” even though the compromising of the Measure J has been even more egregious. Grassroots politics depends on passion and principles to level the playing field against well-heeled interests. Playing the same “ends justifies the means” game is the death nell of grassroots politics.
“I don’t know what went on behind the scenes on this survey thing, and neither do you. But why would we even consider spending $20k on a survey when we’re furloughing city employees?”
This city spent $75,000 on a survey to determine if citizens liked our parks. Surprise, surprise, the answer was “yes”.
The city usurped the Teen Center for a bicycle museum, and is now going to pay additional city funding to rent Oddfellows Hall for teens. Souza suggested this idea, and just so happens to be a member of Oddfellows Hall.
The city is going to spend God only knows how much for a special election on Measure P, instead of including the vote with other elections/issues in June.
Need I go on? If we don’t do a senior survey, then CHA will be able to point to its tainted data, and say “See, seniors have clearly shown they want Covell Village IV”. And what data does anyone have to rebut that statement?
Catch my drift why $20,000 for a senior survey is a necessity, not a waste of money? Whitcombe & Co are afraid of what a senior survey will show – that most seniors want to remain in their homes. That would reflect badly on his desire to build a huge Eskaton like senior community that will bring in all sorts of wealthy seniors from outside, increasing the need for city services, driving up taxes, water/sewer rates for all of us, so that many will find themselves priced right out of their homes. Especially middle income Davis seniors on fixed incomes!
How ironic, build a senior community, to displace the low and middle income seniors aleady here!
The yes on P campaign is paying for the election not the City. Also was the City not paying for the maintenance of the Teen Center and would do so for any other City site. So if the City rents another location for less than the maintenance cost to have a drop in site for the teens the City will save money.
“So if the City rents another location for less than the maintenance cost to have a drop in site for the teens the City will save money.”
Huh? The city will be paying the extra rent for Oddfellows Hall, above and beyond what is paid to maintain the former Teen Center. Had the teens remained at the Teen Center, the city wouldn’t have to put out that additional Oddfellows Hall rent money.
The Hall of Fame Committee will be maintaining the 3rd and B facility not the City. So there is no cost to the City.
Ol Timer:
Sorry but your memory is bad. Tim Frank from National, who had been lobbied tried to dismiss some of our arguments, but we countered him. He actually carried no more weight there than those opposing X. There were a number of us who spoke. I have the actual statement from that meeting describing why the Mother Lode voted to support our No position. The only thing that they had issue with was the traffic impacts, but we did refer to them in our Flame article. They supported all other issues.
The arguments in our literature talked about process (ignoring the commission imput); size, not smart growth (not in the city, not previously impacted by growht, unaffordable housing, in a flood plain); financial impacts for infrastructure required by the development–road widening; not part of general plan; other options for growth on land already in the city;
That is how it work. The local group starts the process, voted to endorse or not, and then goes up the line asking for support for the position. The Mother Lode either accepts the arguments or not and votes accordingly. We got a unanimous vote with one abstention. Tim Frank did not vote. He is not a Mother Lode member.