By E. Roberts Musser –
By E. Roberts Musser – To set the framework for this discussion, the essential elements of the Senior Housing Strategy are as follows:
2) Encourage programs to promote aging-in-place in existing homes, such as retrofit loans, utilities subsidies, promotion of additions and second units;
3) Specifically support smaller homes for increased affordability and greater housing accessibility;
4) Require an independent needs and fiscal impact analysis be completed before approving any senior housing project, to ensure any proposed development is what Davis seniors require and will not result in burdensome tax increases from the need for additional city services/infrastructure costs;
5) The recommendation for age-restricted senior housing desired between now and the year 2029 is set at approximately 700 units;
6) Any development application submitted for senior housing should be reviewed by the Senior Citizens Commission for recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council;
7) The burden is on the proponent of any project to explain why it would be necessary to depart from any of the above listed parameters.
Since the Senior Housing Strategy allows for any size development, so long as the developer can justify why it is necessary and in the best interests of seniors currently living in Davis, one wonders how the Villarejo’s come to the conclusion this policy would “severely limit housing choices for older city residents”. But the larger question is what type of housing do seniors really want?
Carlton Plaza Davis, an assisted living facility proposed for the site next to Davis Waste Removal and the Davis Police Department, is an approximately 125 unit building with dementia wing. It will provide a number of new jobs, help surrounding businesses, and contribute to the city’s property tax base. In short, this project would be a net contribution to the city, and not an economic drain. What’s not to like? So it passes muster in regard to the proposed Senior Housing Strategy.
On the other hand, let’s suppose a developer proposed a huge 1000 unit senior housing development, that provided a golf course and club house. Such a large housing complex would require much in the way of additional city services, such as parks maintenance, fire, police and the like. Because of the need for new streets, sewer and water lines, there would be huge infrastructure costs. Such expenses are not likely to be borne by the developer. Instead, current Davis residents will be burdened with higher taxes and fees to pay for these additional costs.
Many, many seniors survive on fixed incomes that cannot absorb large tax and fee increases, or even moderate ones. Thus the result of building a huge senior complex very well may be as follows: to drive current senior residents right out of town; while an influx of wealthy seniors from outside Davis who could afford buying into the new development enjoy playing golf – but at the expense of those who were forced to leave. Therefore such a proposed project would not likely pass muster under the Senior Housing Strategy.
The first and foremost consideration of the City Council should be to serve current residents of Davis. Thus any new senior housing project must not become an extensive financial burden to those elderly currently living within our city limits. Furthermore, we have to ask ourselves as a city if we want to be developing senior housing in large age-restricted enclaves? Or is it preferable to build much smaller projects throughout the city, that integrate age-restricted units into an intergenerational setting?
Beyond that, is it not preferable to ensure all new dwellings are subject to a Universal Design Ordinance, as is being contemplated in Sacramento, so that seniors have the option of aging in place? This is the express preference of the vast majority of seniors. Most do not live in a large home to begin with that would require downsizing. Most elderly would prefer to have the option to remain right where they are, owning their own home in fee simple and clear of any mortgage, a house that is already visitable and handicapped accessible.
If there were doubts as to what seniors in this town want in the way of senior housing, then the Villarjos should have gotten behind the senior survey idea proposed by City Staff. Instead, the group with which Don Villarejos is affiliated, California Healthy Aging, vociferously opposed the idea of conducting any such survey. Again, one has to wonder why the opposition against discovering what the elderly in this town truly want? Were they afraid of the answer?
Lesson to be learned: Be careful what you wish for in the way of new development – it may not be in the best interests of citizens, including yourself. Careful thought needs to be taken, to promote good planning.
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.
I believe that the senior housing should be downtown where seniors could walk to interesting destinations. Putting senior housing out in former tomato fields unnecessarily limits an active life for seniors.
Currently, the City is placing the homeless population downtown; the new -out-of-business storefronts are discouraging. Homeless people can’t afford to patronize businesses and seniors who can afford to patronize these businesses are not going to walk about shopping without a pleasant, safe downtown Davis.
The homeless population needs to be removed from downtown Davis and senior housing needs to be placed in downtown Davis. Of course, seniors who are no longer mobile wouldn’t be able to take advantage of a downtown location.
“Currently, the City is placing the homeless population downtown”
This is not really a true statement. There is a rotating cold weather shelter that places people at a number of different locations, there is no one place downtown however that the city is placing the homeless population.
[quote]there is no one place downtown however that the city is placing the homeless population.[/quote]What is 422 D Street being used for? I thought it was the year-round (as opposed to cold weather) homeless shelter. [quote]I believe that the senior housing should be downtown where seniors could walk to interesting destinations. [/quote]I’m sure there are seniors from 65-80 who would like that option. However, a consideration for (many) older seniors that does not fit our downtown is proximity to medical services. The area between the Atria facility on Alvarado and the URC on Shasta Drive works well, in part, because they are so close to the hospital and to the various clinics associated with Sutter. For those who don’t drive, it helps that Safeway is so close to them, as well.
In South Davis, there is an empty field which wraps around the Kaiser Clinic from Cowell Blvd to Drew Avenue. That might be a good place for new senior housing. It’s near the medical facility, close to the South Davis Safeway and buses run all day long from Cowell into the downtown.
When I first read the opinions in the Villarejo’s Op/Ed, and especially after reading Elaine’s points above, it appears that the Villarejos believe the City should pursue a two-fold Senior housing approach. One portion of that approach would focus on a very narrow segment of the Senior population in Davis, and the other portion would focus on the needs of the rest of Davis’ Seniors. Unless I am missing something the words “Me first” would appear to describe the Villarejos’ proposal.
The steps outlined by Elaine appear to address the [u]whole[/u] Senior housing issue, not just a limited segment. Perhaps either the Villarejos or Citizens for Health Aging can explain why a focus on “fee-simple” housing is the best approach for addressing the needs of the tens of thousands of Seniors refered to in the Op-Ed.
Bob Wolcott and Danielle Foster have put a huge amount of energy, thought and skill into the approach the City has put forward. The Senior Citizens Commission has shown insight and flexibility in working with Bob and Danielle to come up with as positive an approach as possible. That approach should be pursued for the benefit of all Davis Seniors.
Appreciate the analyses & comments by Elaine,etc, but have a question.
Why do we need 700 more housing units for seniors? I’m a senior, know many other seniors and NONE of us see a need for more housing in Davis – senior or otherwise.
Once the (West Village) UC Davis “community” is built, there will be a huge surplus of vacant rentals in Davis. Why not simply institute a city ordinance to require that all single family dwellings that have been rentals for 3 (or 5?) of the past 5 years must be retrofitted to ADA standards as a condition of resale?
By doing this, all rental resale units would be upgraded, and we would need few (if any) new housing units. Therefore, I urge a resale/retrofit requirement for rental resales.
I do admit that we need more assisted living units for seniors who can no longer live independently. In my opinion, that should be the only focus of any attempt to “develop” more housing “for seniors.”
rick, the details supporting the specifics of what I am about to write are sketchy, but there are a meaningful number of current Davis Seniors who want to downsize out of their current home into a “fully accessible” smaller home. The “desires” of the varied Seniors who fit into that category are far from homogenous. Some want to live in downtown, some want to live near a healthcare facility, some what the closeness and support of a multi-family environment like DRC, some want the relative independence of a single-family casita in a new Senior community, some want to live near their children.
The list of these “desires” is endless. It sounds like you and your friends have what you want in your current home. My wife and I have what we want in ours . . . but if one of us died unexpectedly I can see the possibility that the survivor might find our current house a bit too much for one person. As such I can understand the feelings of those who do want to downsize. If you were counseling a recent widow or widower on where to look for a smaller house in Davis, where would you advise them to look?
[quote]Why not simply institute a city ordinance to require that all single family dwellings that have been rentals for 3 (or 5?) of the past 5 years must be retrofitted to ADA standards [u]as a condition of resale[/u]?[/quote]I’ve never heard this idea before and on its face it does not sound bad.
However, I might amend your idea slightly.
One thing to consider is that a large percentage of single family dwellings in Davis which are rentals are rented to (able-bodied) university students and (because of their proximity to campus) will always be student rentals (as long as they are rentals). So I would allow for an alternative option for these houses.
The option is this: Allow a seller of a designated student rental* to pay an ADA compliance fee of 50% of whatever the cost of the retrofit would be. Say a full retrofit to ADA standards (wider doors, wheelchair ramp, bathroom fixtures, etc.) costs $2,000. So a seller of one of these homes would pay $1,000 into a City ADA fund.
The City could then, once the fund was established, loan the money (interest free) to lower income seniors in Davis who want their homes retrofitted to meet their needs. When they sell their houses, the money they borrowed from the fund would be paid back and the fund would be replenished.
With that modification, all non-student rental homes (under the Entrikin Plan) would eventually accommodate seniors and the disabled; student rentals would not be needlessly modified; and more needy** homeowners would have the opportunity to make their homes more accessible, as needed.
*The seller would have to prove somehow that his tenants were primarily young adults under 25 or enrolled in college. The reason the compliance fee should be around half of the cost of a retrofit is to avoid needless retrofits. If the fee costs the seller as much or nearly as much as the retrofit, most will opt to get new doors and ramps and such, whether they are needed or not.
**What income level in Davis qualifies as “needy” is hard to say. However, a way to determine who gets the money and who does not could be income-based and handicap-based in this respect: If there is enough money as of a specified date for say 20 retrofits in the fund and there are 40 applications for retrofit dollars, the City could discriminate in favor of the 20 lowest income (per capita) families who applied; and ties could be broken based on actual physical disabilities. Those who did not qualify for a loan the first time might get one the next time funds were distributed.
Why is this a problem now? Haven’t people in Davis always had kids moving out, spouses dying and wanting to downsize? Why is this suddenly a hot topic?
Davis is full of cottages, duplexes, single story places. Just look in North Davis or South Davis. Or condos. Here is one: http://www.davishomes2sell.com/idx/cms/2/details.html
Now seems a great time to downsize. What are Jan & Adam Bridge waiting for?
“Why do we need 700 more housing units for seniors? I’m a senior, know many other seniors and NONE of us see a need for more housing in Davis – senior or otherwise.”
This is an interesting question. The 700 units represents a “cap”, not a “target”. We would only build the 700 units over a 30 year period if it is NEEDED. Whether it is needed will depend not only on quantity of units, but WHAT TYPE, such as independent living, assisted living. Currently, Carlton Plaza Davis, an assisted living facility of approximately 125 units, was just approved by the Planning Commission, and now goes before the City Council for approval on Feb 2, 2010.
If you look closely at the Senior Housing Strategy, it requires that an INDEPENDENT NEEDS ANALYSIS be done, as well as a FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, before any more senior housing is built. Thus any new senior housing must not only be necessary, but not unduely impact current Davis Seniors financially with overly burdensome new taxes and fees to pay for any of the new proposed senior housing.
Making all new housing visitable and handicapped accessible is just a common sense approach, and helping modify existing homes to make them visitable and handicapped accessible also makes good sense, and is included in the Senior Housing Strategy. Now we just have to convince the City Council of the wisdom of this new Senior Housing Strategy!
Matt Williams: “Bob Wolcott and Danielle Foster have put a huge amount of energy, thought and skill into the approach the City has put forward. The Senior Citizens Commission has shown insight and flexibility in working with Bob and Danielle to come up with as positive an approach as possible. That approach should be pursued for the benefit of all Davis Seniors.”
This is exactly right. Bob Wolcott spent an entire Senior Citizens Commission meeting and Social Services Commission meeting paying very close attention to what each commissioner had to say, and what the public had to say, including CHA members and the developers. The Senior Housing Strategy is a synthesis of what came out of those meetings, and is in the best interests of Davis seniors in general.
Danielle Foster worked with both commissions extensively to produce the Senior Housing Guidelines, which are incorporated into the Senior Housing Strategy. City Staff could not have worked any harder to include all concerned parties to develop this Senior Housing Strategy – which is a good first start at estimating what analyses need to go into deciding what senior housing is needed. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission asssumed this would be an ongoing process, to be continually improved as various issues are raised along the way.
IMHO, the Senior Housing Strategy was arrived at in the correct way, with plenty of opportunity for commission and public input, which was very much taken into account. The time frame was unreasonably short, and no senior survey was taken, which was the decision of the City Council majority. Nevertheless, City Staff rose to the occasion, went to the appropriate commissions, very much included them in the process, and what you have is a pretty decent work product that should not be considered unreasonable under anyone’s standards.
City staff, the commissions and the public should be commended for a job well done under difficult circumstances.
cd, I like your screen name. Civil discourse is definitely desireable. The listing you linked is a good one for the purposes of downsizing. 900 square feet and little yard fit the general profile of the downsizing target of a lot of Seniors. The weakness of that particular listing is accessability. It is on two floors, which would not work for a substandial segment of Seniors.
With that said, your point is well taken, and it begs the question, “Should one of the initiatives that Davis includes in its resources for Seniors be an on-line templating website that categorizes Davis’ currently available listings by Senior “needs” categories. Quite frequently the reason that people don’t know about what is available is the fact that they aren’t looking in the right place, or that looking is difficult. It is possible that an ideal downsizing home for Don and Merna Villarejo is currently for sale in Davis and they don’t know it.