By E. Roberts Musser –
By E. Roberts Musser –
I want to make it clear at the outset that I am speaking as a private citizen, and not as Chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission. At the October 8, 2009 Davis Senior Citizens Commission meeting, a 62 page staff report was dropped into our laps unannounced as we walked in the door. None of us had seen it before, or anticipated its coming. It was complete news to our City Council Liaison Sue Greenwald and City Staff Liaison Maria Lucchesi, both of whom are extremely supportive of and knowledgeable about our commission’s work.
The topic of senior housing has become a hot button issue of late, as a developer prepares to put forth an application in January of 2010 for an 800 unit senior housing development. This would be only Phase I of a much larger, as yet undefined housing project. The senior housing portion of this project will be located on the southern one third of the site. The large tract of land where this senior housing is being proposed is located where the developer was going to build the controversial and massive 1800 unit Covell Village development – which was soundly defeated by Davis citizens in a Measure J vote by a margin of 60% to 40%.
According to the city staff report, on June 2, 2009, City Council directed staff (by a 3-2 vote) to develop a “Strategy for Housing Seniors in Davis” through 2013 and beyond.
-
Preliminary objectives were to evaluate community needs, interest level of seniors, senior housing share of the growth cap, and suitability of potential infill and peripheral sites.
-
The preliminary approach is to
- Develop a work program, building upon the Senior Housing Guidelines created by the Davis Senior Citizens and Social Services Commission.
- Costs beyond staff time were to be considered and funding source alternatives explored, for data collection, analysis, and determining interest levels.
- Data collected by Choices for Healthy Aging was to be included in the analysis.
-
This senior housing strategy is to be delivered to the City Council by December 31, 2009.
-
Next steps
- October 2009 – Staff drafts a resolution of senior goals and strategies
- November 2009 – Senior Citizens and Social Services Commissions review draft resolution with public input and make recommendations to City Council
- December 2009 – City Council considers recommendations with public input and adopts a resolution”
There are two surveys included in the staff report: 1) Bay Area Economics “Senior Population and Housing Data Projections, 2007-2030; 2) Area 4 Agency on Aging “2008 Senior Survey for People 60 and Older in Yolo County”. Both are lengthy and detail oriented, but most importantly are based on a number of assumptions that may or may not be reasonable, in light of the current state of the economy and the uniqueness of the city of Davis itself. But these two documents do at least give everyone a starting point for discussion. The gist of what is in these reports is summarized as follows.
Bay Area Economics “Senior Population and Housing Data Projections, 2007-2030
To put it succinctly, it is projected that there will be an increase in demand of 606 households for different types of senior housing in Davis from 2010 through to the year 2030.
However, those figures were arrived at with the following assumptions:
-
1% average annual compound growth rate in the Davis senior population
-
Only housing for seniors 65 years of age and older was considered
-
Projections are based on the current estimated supply of senior housing in the United States
-
Davis senior households are assumed to mirror overall 2000 Yolo County patterns
-
in proportion of seniors living in households versus group quarters
-
average number of seniors per household in each age bracket
-
-
Current supply & demand for age-restricted senior housing in Davis is assumed at equilibrium
-
American Seniors Housing Association, the nonprofit that came up with the above figure, is an organization whose members include those that manage, own or finance senior housing facilities throughout the United States.
According to the American Seniors Housing Association, approximately 15% of households 65 years of age and older live in age restricted senior housing. Using this assumption, the projected increase in demand for different types of age restricted senior housing in Davis from 2010 to 2030 are broken out as follows:
-
Continuum of Care, e.g. University Retirement Commons – 79 households
-
Independent Living, e.g. some units at Atria Covell Gardens – 48 households
-
Market rate assisted living, e.g. some units at Atria Covell Gardens – 63 households
-
Subsidized senior apartments, e.g. Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, Shasta Point – 59 households
-
Market rate senior apartments with no services, e.g. Kennedy Place – 79 households
-
Active adult residences (not defined by ASHA), e.g. Rancho Yolo – 277 households
With an assumed 1% growth rate
, the population of 55 years of age and older in Davis is projected to grow by 7,600 persons from 2010 to 2030. Thus the percentage of seniors 55 and older would increase from 15% to 22% of the total population.
Without an assumed 1% growth rate
, the population of 55 years of age and older in Davis is projected to grow by 3,524 persons from 2010 to 2030.
Area 4 Agency on Aging “2008 Senior Survey for People 60 and Older in Yolo County”
Of the 830 respondents to the survey,
-
74% live in their own home;
-
18% pay rent;
-
4% live in assisted living;
-
2% in continuum of care facility.
62% of respondents do not spend more than 30% of their yearly income on housing.
78% do not live in seniors-only housing.
Other updates related to this process:
1) The City Council decided to delay initiation of a committee process to develop the senior housing strategy in Davis.
2) The City Council decided not to conduct a senior survey in Davis regarding the elderly’s preferences, plans, concerns and needs.
COMMENTARY
After reading the city staff report, I have more questions than answers. Among them are the following:
-
At what point should appropriate commissions be allowed to weigh in on a particular housing development project? During the pre-application planning phase; or when the planning commission receives the applicant’s proposal; or the night before the City Council is going to make a decision on whether to move the application forward?
-
Why is a 1% growth rate in the Davis senior population between 2010 and 2030 being assumed? Doesn’t the population growth rate within a city very much depend on a city’s general housing plan, and how much it is willing to grow? Build more houses, and an influx of people will come to fill them? Don’t build houses, and the population will stabilize?
-
Projections are based on housing needs in the United States. Does Davis actually mirror what is happening throughout the country? Does it even mirror what is happening throughout Yolo County?
-
What about the preference most seniors have for aging in place, according to an AARP survey? Wouldn’t instituting Universal Design features, that make homes handicapped accessible, make it less likely specialized types of senior housing will be needed in the future?
-
Do 15% of Davis seniors live in age restricted housing?
-
What are the waitlists of the various senior facilities in Davis?
-
Since American Seniors Housing Association is made up of those who manage, own or finance senior housing, don’t they have a vested interest in projecting greater increases in demand for senior housing than actually might be the case?
-
Why did the City Council majority of Ruth Asmundson, Don Saylor and Steve Souza choose not to do an independent senior survey, which would have determined internal demand for senior housing, and been consistent with the Senior Housing Guidelines developed by two city commissions (which had plenty of city staff and public input)? Yet very questionable data from California Healthy Aging is being included for analysis. Why are most of Davis seniors being completely left out of the process, and not being asked what they want or need?
-
Why is an unbiased Senior Housing Strategy Committee concept not moving forward, that would allow for extensive public input?
-
How can commissions or the public properly evaluate the draft of a resolution on such a massive issue in a few short days?
-
Isn’t this entire process being developer driven, within a time frame that is far too short to properly weigh the merits of any proposed project under contemplation?
Lesson to be learned
: Keep asking questions of your elected officials. If the electorate fails to speak out, their wants and needs may not be addressed properly.
Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who concentrates her efforts on elder law and aging issues, especially in regard to consumer affairs. If you have a comment or particular question or topic you would like to see addressed in this column, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.
“Trojan Horse Village” is rolling into position and will be painted gray with a green mane and tail . . . all you “No on P” true believers had better start focusing on the real threat to ag land, environment and city finances! There will be no Sierra Club endorsement here, but Dunning will support it!
Even if you give much credence to these “surveys” that are promulgated by special interest groups and carried out by opinion-gathering businesses whose bottom line depends on coming up with data that pleases its bill-payers, it speaks to a different economic time. Projections estimate that it will take about a decade for the economy to return to its 2007 levels and this would be in much devalued dollars. Those who have lost their jobs are projected, when they do find work, to not be able to return to their previous income level for the rest of their working lives. Like most other countries,more and more seniors will share living arrangements for the mutual economic benifit of the extended family. The growth of “Sun-City” senior developments, except for the quite well-off, is over; I say, “good-riddance”.
Vanguard readers should congratulate Musser for taking the time to write this excellent analysis and raise such important questions. Here again, the role of staff in producing timely reports and of a commission being allowed to carry out its mandate without undue outside influence or interference from the city council or other parties is highlighted. I hope she’ll submit this to the Davis Enterprise for publication as an op-ed.
Ditto to nancy. This article is well written and informative. I’d like tko see it as an Op Ed in the Enterprise, or even better, the Bee.
I’d just like to throw this out on the senior survey issue. Regardless of the motivation for not moving ahead with that process–why, exactly, is it presumed that the opinions of seniors should be given the greatest weight, or special consideration, in determining the future direction of the City’s senior housing policy?
Most (albeit not all) seniors are already satisfactorily housed and would not necessarily be looking for alternative housing years in the future, when housing strategies being considered now come to fruition. It’s the rest of us–those who will become seniors, or whose parents will become seniors, over the next years/decades, who will be primarily impacted by housing policies adopted, and decisions made, now.
I’m not suggesting that input from seniors is unimportant (certainly not at my age), or that any survey data should not be analyzed by age group. I am suggesting, however, that today’s decisions on senior housing strategies impact all Davis residents, regardless of age. Seniors should not, therefore, be the primary target group of any survey of community opinions.
Eric:
“why, exactly, is it presumed that the opinions of seniors should be given the greatest weight, or special consideration, in determining the future direction of the City’s senior housing policy?”
I’m not sure if you read my initial report on the housing survey, but that was my original thought as well when the item came up for discussion, namely that we needed to look into senior housing policies within a framework of all housing needs and I suggested that we not age restrict the survey and rather we could oversample seniors to get a statistically significant sample size, but view their views within the context of the entire population.
The problem is, I did not anticipate that the council majority would seek to kill the idea of survey whatsoever and so from my standpoint, the question arose as to why and to push a survey of some sort if we are going to go ahead with another covell, which it seems we will in January.
David –
“we needed to look into senior housing policies within a framework of all housing needs”
I couldn’t agree with you more. And this goes beyond housing. Livable communities are senior-friendly (and disability-friendly) communities. Elaine’s fourth bullet point–on the importance of expanding accessible housing throughout the community–relates to this as well.
Anyone care to tell me WHY I would move from a location that will be paid for, to a place that wouldn’t be(based on the prices I’ve seen)?
I hope to be one of these “seniors” one day and in 20 years the place we have will be paid off and I doubt very seriously if we will be able to essentially trade for some new place that has shared walls! Aside from the theory of “downsizing”…..
Thank you Elaine, for a great article.
I am a senior and own my own home. I have no desire, nor do any of my friends, to live in age-restricted housing, nor do I see any need for a large development of senior housing in Davis. I have stated before, that what Davis needs is to ensure that ALL areas and development in Davis have accessible and visitable housing that will accommodate seniors and those with disabilities. We do not need to build senior-only Del Webb style housing here. This serves no internal need. CHA is a group of seniors who were organized by Tandem Properties to sell the idea of a big senior development in Davis. A recent letter to the editor by a member of CHA demonstrates exactly that.
Before moving forward with even the concept of any more big developments in Davis, we need a community discussion on what we want our community to be and look like 20, 30, or 50 years down the road. Do we leave this up to the electeds and developers or do we decide as a community what we want to be?
“Do we leave this up to the electeds and developers or do we decide as a community what we want to be?”
On Nov 3rd, we will decide Measure P (and here were are certainly NOT leaving up to the developers, who thought a low turnout election and huge warchest of campaign dollars would make for a easy victory; can’t wait to see them lose!)
For just one example of how a community – that is the large city of Spokane, WA – came together and for two-plus years worked to create a vision AND a practical visionary package of amendments to their city charter – google “Envision Spokane.” Davis should be so lucky. Let’s do just this.
“I’m not suggesting that input from seniors is unimportant (certainly not at my age), or that any survey data should not be analyzed by age group. I am suggesting, however, that today’s decisions on senior housing strategies impact all Davis residents, regardless of age. Seniors should not, therefore, be the primary target group of any survey of community opinions.”
Eric, I could not agree with you more! But it looks as if seniors are not going to be asked anything, let alone anyone else in the city. My preference, like yours, would be a survey of all residents. As you rightly point out, younger folks are hopefully destined to be our seniors of tomorrow, so their views of what housing would be needed as seniors is just as important if not more important than the views of current seniors.
I also think adopting a Universal Design ordinance would solve a lot of problems. If homes built now are made accessible/visitable, so most can age in place if they so choose, there will be less of a need for new senior housing. This will result in a cost savings for everyone, including the city and of course taxpayers as a whole.
No Friend of Covell Village says: “we need a community discussion on what we want our community to be and look like 20, 30, or 50 years down the road. Do we leave this up to the electeds and developers or do we decide as a community what we want to be?”
Isn’t our General Plan update the vehicle for Davis citizens to participate in creating the vision of our Davis of the future?? We have met and exceeded our SACOG fair share mandate for housing up until 1213 and should not be considering approval ANY additional housing until our General Plan update(with vigorous citizen participation) has been formalized. … this includes Whitcombe’s property abd THE WILDHORSE RANCH
PROPERTY currently under consideration with our Measure P vote.
it seems to me that as Chair you Elaine should have more say as to the agenda of the commission. if you see the agenda building process as flawed or feel you are being used, you need to raise your voice at all opportunities possible. confront those on the council who are not hearing your concerns, during public comment or when appropriate.
“it seems to me that as Chair you Elaine should have more say as to the agenda of the commission. if you see the agenda building process as flawed or feel you are being used, you need to raise your voice at all opportunities possible. confront those on the council who are not hearing your concerns, during public comment or when appropriate.”
Recently, I have done so twice –
1) Once when Paul Navazion advised the City Council he had not seen any good reason to give the Finance and Budget Commission information on WHR until the night before the City Council was to make its final decision as to whether to put WHR on a the ballot for a Measure J vote. I actually made a request of the City Council to inform the Davis Senior Citizens Commission long before that of any future senior housing projects under comtemplation. I pointed out that commissions cannot possibly act in an advisory capacity to the City Council if they are not given relevant housing development information in a timely manner. I emphatically stated it was absolutely “ridiculous” (my words) to give the information to a commission the night before a decision was to be made by the City Council.
2) At the very last City Council meeting (October 13) I stated the following –
a) “The issue of when commissions should be presented information from a developer is becoming a hot button issue and and an inportant one.
b) My understanding is the Subcommittee on Commissions is in the process of looking at this issue.
c) I would urge the information about housing development reach commissions at the earliest stages. As we have seen with Measure P, both the City Council and developer are at an extreme disadvantage making tough decisions at midnight. Commissions need to get information much earlier if they are to properly carry out their function as an advisory body to the City Council.
d) The Davis Senior Citizens Commission, in an effort to rectify a developer driven process, promulgated Senior Housing Guidelines. These guidelines were extensively reviewed and had input from the Social Services Commission, ADA Subcommittee, city staff, developers and members of the public. At least developers have some guidance as to what seniors want at the planning stages.
e) The question is, when can developers present information to commissions? We have a developer of an assisted living facility ready and waiting to make a presentation to our commission. But we as a commission are waiting for direction, as the project moves forward to the planning commission and awaits a staff report.
f) My preference is for earlier rather than later. The Planning Commission would say yea or nay on technical grounds. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission would like to look at this project from a policy perspective based on the Senior Housing Guidelines.
g) The clearer and more spelled out the development process, the less angst will be caused to all, and it will result in better planning, allowing commissions to act in their advisory capacity FULLY INFORMED.”
The real question is whether the Subcommittee on Commissions (Asmundson and Souza) is listening! I know other commissions feel similarly frustrated.