The Vanguard learned earlier this week that developers for Covell Village have yet to turn in an application for the development. That is still believed to be forthcoming, but the original word was that they would submit their application in January. That has not occurred.
In the meantime however, supporters of the project and members of the Astroturf Organization CHA (Choice for Healthy Aging) are turning up the heat with an apparent letter writing campaign following the February 2 editorial by Robert Chason, another member of CHA in the Davis Enterprise. Attempts to contact Robert Chason following our commentary last week have not succeeded.
She writes:
“When John Whitcombe and Bill Streng invited me along with many others to hear from us about the needs in our community, I went, and subsequently joined the CHA Steering Committee. The roundtable discussions were primarily centered on providing them with our ideas and perspectives on what we wanted. They kept notes and as I attended more discussions and brought others with me, the suggestions from everyone were included. We were listened to, heard and our ideas are being incorporated into a collective vision…
Now compare this with my attendance at a Senior Citizens Commission on Nov. 19, when the senior housing strategy report was being discussed. Others and I had prepared comments regarding our thoughts on a broad range of ideas to consider in a discussion of future senior housing opportunities in Davis.”
Here is the crux of the statement:
“Although we gave short, personal and informative presentations, stayed for the entire meeting and offered to answer questions based on our experiences, we were virtually ignored. There was no dialogue and from my perspective we were perceived as a hostile, self-serving group only interested in promoting a new development project.”
The problem here is that it seems people want to have things both ways. The fact of the matter is that while Ms. Bryan can honestly say that “in truth we are longtime citizens of Davis, who are looking for reasonable and economic options to housing choices here in our town” – the second that one joins a group that is a front for a developer, that was created by a developer for the purpose of focusing grassroots pressures to create a specific development in a specific location, people are going to view your views with skepticism. At that point, you are no longer the individual with individual ideas and views, you represent the organization – an organization shrouded with the mark of a developer who lost his last bid to develop a given property.
In short, no one believes you want an honest discussion on reasonable and economic options for senior housing, what we do believe is that there is a specific agenda to push a specific housing project and any discussion is going to be tailored in that direction and toward that end. That’s not an honest discussion is the problem and the Senior Citizens Commission sensing that agenda is going to view people’s view with greater skepticism than they would an unaffiliated individual. That is the price to paid for joining a group with such strong and obvious ties to developers in this community.
Two other letters appeared the same day written by members of CHA. Jeff March wrote that while he was pleased to see the approval of Carlton Senior Living project, he believes that the 25 to 35 memory care units “probably will fill quickly because demand for senior housing in Davis is expanding like a pressurized helium balloon.”
He argues that while the project “will be welcome for seniors who need assisted living,” it does not serve the needs of “active seniors who want to maintain their independence and prefer home ownership but find little of interest in our city’s existing housing stock and neighborhoods.”
Decent point except that it becomes obvious what he is pushing for in his next sentence:
“I belong to a citizens’ group called Choices for Healthy Aging, which for two years has sponsored an ongoing series of small-group discussions in which hundreds of Davis residents have participated. Don’t be misled by the fact that the population of Davis has increased by only 9 percent since the 2000 census; during the same time, the number of Davis residents age 55 or older has swelled by 51 percent, accounting for two-thirds of the growth of the city. That’s not due to an influx of seniors; it’s because ‘baby boomers,’ many of whom have lived here for decades, are aging.”
In the meantime, Don and Merna Villarejo write their tenth letter to the editor (exaggeration) arguing that the data that the city is using understates the likely growth of the senior population.
“We are pleased that our opinion contribution to The Davis Enterprise (Jan. 9) has elicited further discussion of senior housing needs. Our article presented compelling Census Bureau evidence that the number of Davis residents age 55 and older is increasing rapidly, by more than 50 percent in the past seven years.
No response to our article challenged the accuracy of these data, but this rapid increase in senior population was not considered in the development of the city’s senior housing strategy. We therefore continue to be convinced that many Davis seniors would be ill-served by the proposed senior housing strategy recommendations that seek to set an unrealistically small numerical cap on the construction of new homes intended to meet their needs. “
They push for the Planning Commission to also review the senior housing component. This is likely due to the fact that they failed to get the kind of support from the Senior Citizens Commissions and Social Services Commission – the two groups most specifically related to the topic of senior housing – and wish for the more pro-growth Planning Commission that looks at housing in general to weigh in.
More deception?
Writes Mr. March:
“My contemporaries prefer home ownership in a neighborhood with an emphasis on senior-oriented amenities. Download the CHA ‘housing needs survey’ at http://www.chadavis.com to see for yourself.”
Sound good right? Here’s the problem as people who read this site regularly know, CHA opposed a scientific, impartial, random survey housing needs survey. Because of their opposition, the council majority opposed such a scientific survey. As we suspected then, the reason they opposed a scientific survey was that they wanted to allow their own, non-random and biased survey stand unopposed.
So by all means, the public should read their survey, I’m sure it has some good ideas, all of which point the need to develop a parcel of land with 800 homes that was overwhelmingly voted down by the Davis voters a few short years ago.
If members of CHA want to be viewed without suspicion and skepticism, perhaps they can at least allow for an honest debate, arguing against a senior survey that is conducted by professional pollsters while proffering their own that was not, is not honest. It does not allow for honest debate. They rely on the public to not know the background of their survey when they read it or the fact that they strongly opposed with a letter writing campaign efforts by the city to conduct a scientific survey.
There is nothing more ironic than when I read members of CHA arguing that people ought to not be “misled” or that they were treated “as a hostile, self-serving group only interested in promoting a new development project” because you know what, that’s exactly what they are doing in this pre-campaign and exactly what they are.
There can be no honest debate when we do not know people’s interests or motivations. CHA was created as a front organization to lobby for a specific project and that is precisely what they are doing.
You want an honest debate, take the Covell Village location off the table as a possible site for your senior housing and then we can discuss what senior housing needs we have and how to fill them. Can CHA eliminate the possibility that they are simply promoting a new development project? If they can, then maybe we can view them as something other than a hostile, self-serving group of otherwise good and distinguished residents. Otherwise, I have little choice but to believe that you are what we think you are.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You want an honest debate, take the Covell Village location off the table
Exactly.
The obvious first step is to take an actual survey of our Srs. My parents and most Srs I know want to live in their own house. Assisted living is generally for the very old–at least 75 and often over 80–or for the very infirm. The fact that Davis has a lot of baby boomers proves very little.
Once again our City Council refuses to do the right thing and do a proper survey. Instead they rely on a bogus report from the blatently pro-development firm Bay Area Economics–which, surprise, says we need Sr housing. They use national data to justify this. No one asked people in Davis. Our well paid staff has plenty of time to do a survey and it would cost us very little– about the cost of one firefighters insurance cash-out for postage.
And if we have Sr housing wouldn’t it make more sense downtown or close to downtown where folks could have more access to shops and restaurants?
Shouldn’t we be concerned about the health risk when our Srs realize that the only restaurant nearby is Carls Jr, which specializes in huge cholesterol packed bacon cheeseburgers?
This is just the latest excuse for a for housing we don’t need or want. These projects are either “really green” or “really grey” in order to bamboozle the public. There is plenty of infill in Davis, but the developers make more money turning Ag land into houses while the other land sits idle. Our “planning” staff is at the beck and call of these developers and three out of five of our City Council members are sponsored by local developer. Mmaybe they should be required to wear the developer’s logos at City Council meetings just like Tiger wears for Nike.
This is just more of the same old crap repackaged.
I have to agree with slow on this one. Davis citizens just voted 75% AGAINST peripheral development. Why are we even having this debate? If this isn’t proof that our CC and planning staff are in bed with local developers I don’t know what is.
If there is a demand for Sr housing, then we could build some modest Sr housing in infill close to downtown and see if there is an actual need.
slow growther: Our “planning” staff is at the beck and call of these developers
Actually, yes. They are the people responsible for reviewing the thousands of pages of documents for conformance to applicable law and regulation. And their authority begins and ends with *recommendations*, not final accept/refuse. Those decisions are left to the Commissions, and City Council.
Neutral: I do have to say that you do have a rather sanguine perception of what goes on. While you are undoubtedly technically correct that their authority begins and ends with “recommendations” you understate the impact of administrative decisions and how they can make it more or less difficult to push a project forward and I believe that some projects and developments are preferenced over others by city staff. I have seen enough with my own eyes and heard enough from a wide variety of developers to believe it is true.
The effort to bring up Covell again will be a real test of how well this community is able to spot and reject organized paid political pressure. I found the three comments above reassuring. I was not surprised to see the three letters in the Enterprise supporting Covell Village. I expect more. I also expect that even this City Council will see Covell II for what it is; a profit maker using senior housing as a shoehorn for working in further development. It would be interesting to see how much senior housing Davis folks really would like. A thoughtful plan to supply that identified need should be to develop senior housing that is compatible with community.
Slow Growther has it right, now they’re going to try and shove
“really grey” down our throat through some “perceived” senior housing need. Infill closer to downtown is the only way to go.
Planning staffs work with developers and reccomend projects but how they work with developers and who they represent can vary.
Economists and political scientists have devoted a large amount of literature to the “capture theory” which says essentially that regulators tend to be captured by the folks they regulate, even if they are well intentioned (think Tim Geitner.
Unfortunately this has happened in Davis. We can debate whether this is due to benign neglect or a more malig form of collaboration, but when we get project after project that the voters don’t want I find it hard for people to think that this is proper planning.
In the near term, in these hard economic times,Measure J and other citizen-generated initiatives appear to be the only way to thwart Davis returning to the unsustainable scheme of using developer fees generated by residential sprawl to continually back-fill budget deficits which are significantly generated by the salaries,benefits and very jobs of the very same city staff who are largely controlling these city decisions. It is critical that petty personal grievances be put aside in favor of grassroots solidarity.
Maybe the Covell Village folks will hire Bill Ritter to help with a “really grey” campaign; we’ll get bombbarded again with daily full page ads in the Enterprise showing happy seniors hugging and frolicking in the meadow; and maybe we’ll get another round of glossy, bucolic flyers showing seniors having picnics and lawn bowling, I can’t wait!!!!
Brace yourself Greg but I tbink Bill Ritter agrees with you on CVII.
Let’s hope there are other folks with Bill’s talents out there who are willing to shill for a developer.
This is more of the “same old,same old.” I’m getting old, and the idea of living out my years in a gated retirement village is repugnant to me; Covell Village would be preferable. My fear is that these very wealthy, very well organized developers will ultimately prevail. Personally, I’d love to see the fields remain filled with tomatoes and wheat, but I don’t think it is going to happen. I think that we slow/no-growthers, would be well advised to think of some sort of development that we could, not support, but at least live with.
David: you understate the impact of administrative decisions
And I think you *overstate*. In my experience, and in order of impact, it is first of all the public, then City Council, then Planning Commission that controls in this town. (See [url]Vanguard, 3 Feb ’10 on the Carlton Plaza.[/url])
Observer, don’t give in, that’s what the developers want. Through their constant bombardment they want us to eventually throw in the towel. Stay resolved and keep them from building uneeded sprawl just so some fat cats can stuff their wallets.
I believe that some projects and developments are preferenced over others by city staff. I have seen enough with my own eyes and heard enough from a wide variety of developers to believe it is true.
David, I would guess that the WHR debacle fit into this same scenario?
I am in with the last two sentences of Doug Minnis. “It would be interesting to see how much senior housing Davis folks really would like. A thoughtful plan to supply that identified need should be to develop senior housing that is compatible with community.” Yes. Perhaps this quality work has been done? If so, direct us all to it. If not, it needs to come from a credible and independent source — which needs to be City staff bringing independence, perspective and the proper tie-ins to related City issues. As my P OpEd set forth (it’s on http://www.joeforcitycouncil.org; shameless promotion?, yes!), development comes only after there is a “yes” to the questions of when, where and how. Development follows needs and planning.
“Boomer-rang” is an expression that has been added to our society’s lexicon, referring to grown children of baby-boomers who,with or without their new families, return to live in their parent’s “empty nest” home. Dramatic declines in job opportunities and salaries are the cause and the prospect of it changing significantly for a decade is remote.
Seniors sharing their mortgage-free “family” home rather than downsizing is a real and growing option to maximize the economic well-being of the extended family.
David:
What happened to my comments re: Covell Village II developers hiring Bill Ritter to run a “really grey” campaign for them? (I was going off of Neutral’s “really green” vs. “really grey” comments); I DID NOT call Ritter any personal names…the lengths which you go to protect his reputation are truly appalling!!!
Greg, just some more of the “selective editing” that occurs here.
“which needs to be City staff bringing independence, perspective and the proper tie-ins to related City issues”
Joe: In theory this is true. However, some individuals on the Davis city staff have become politicized; and consequently the staff cannot be counted on to bring independence, perspective, etc to the table. David Greenwald is absolutely correct.
The problem is most rampant in CDD (AKA – CYA) but I have also seen it in PW.
Case in point – Katherine Hess. She clearly has an agenda which she uses to finesse the system. This was not so much of an issue until attrition elevated her to director. Until we have an honest broker in this position, the polarization in Davis will continue to get worse.
Greg’s comments were colorful but they were relevant since the WHR campaign and current CVII campaign have parallels. This is a blog.
Last week when many people blogged to support Sue 2 hours mysteriously disappeared as “off topic” yet yesterday there was a long discussion about big box stores that was not really related to the topic du jour of cell towers.
As painful as it might be for some, the parallels between WHR and CVII are worth discussing. In both cases we have a developer paving over Ag land on the periphery (CV is actually closer to downtown and has a bit better claim as infill.) In both cases we have developers pushing a perceived need (green vs grey). Obviously folks here differ on the relative merits of each project, but I do not think its out of bounds to bring that up and Greg’s blog, though direct and hard hitting, was relevant.
This has to be even handed. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
As far as city planning staff we must factor in job security and job satisfaction. Planning development is what they are paid to fo. Remember my comment a few months ago. As our growth has slowed the planning staff has not shrunk. I believe they would be happy to have more growth=more job security. And let ‘s not forget Bill Emlen is a Planner so he influenced the rest and he promoted Katherine Hess
Thanks ‘slowgrowther” and “rusty49” for the support on this “selective editing” that is going on by David Greenwald on this issue….
Clearly, only three months after WHR was defeated by a resounding 75% (despite all the support David gave to the “small project” on his blog site), their is now concerns regarding the proposed peripheral development of CVII, using a “grey” guise instead of a “green” guise this time to foster voter support…I was just trying to point the parallels (although in a saracistic way by invoking the perils of the Yes on P campaign tactics and their campaign manager), and for that, I was given the iron finger of David’s censorship…in fact, since it appears that both David and I both do not want CVII to suceed, perhaps it would be prudent for these developers to hire Ritter to run their campaign!
Soda, just gov’t feeding into more gov’t. That’s why our city, state and country is in the fiscal mess we now find ourselves.
SODA
Your observation is similar to mine above re the capture theory in that both observe classic bureaucratic behavior.
If Davis is going to escape the usual trap where planners typically end up supporting developers over and over we need active citizen partcipation and a City Council with more integrity than the Gang of Three has.
If we can cut back on school teachers why can’t we cut back on planners? Maybe our planners can go into the City schools and teach our children. On second thought, maybe not–I don’t want our planning staff teaching my son about the world.
“the iron finger of David’s censorship”
Greg: Don Shor is the censor.
If you simply shrink CCD, the end result will be a more politicized department. The proper route is to bring in a new director from the outside who is tasked with the responsibility of “right-sizing” the department. Alternatively, you could also start with the replacing the City Manger, and working dowm from there.
Greg: Don Shor is the censor.
Don, did you delete mine and slowgrowther’s comments re: Bill Ritter and CVII?
If so, why? there were no personal or inflammatory comments in either post…this is starting to feel like a “fair and balanced” blog site
I am glad to hear it wasn’t David, but its still censorship.
I believe Don was also responsible for removing 2 hours of discussion about Sue last week. Ultimately the people who run this blog control the content but its a delicate balance. I’ve seen some pretty outrageous things on the blog allowed sometimes and yet other times we have censorship…Is there a party line here or are we only allowed to criticize some people (e.g. Sue) but not others (e.g. Bill Ritter)?
Both are public figures who are widely known. Both have made political mistakes but we only hear about Sue’s failings. Why?
There has to be an even standard applied here. I have no doubt its hard and I’m glad I don’t have to do it, but there does appear to be a double standard.
I have to agree with rusty that there appears to be selective editing going on here.
I did not remove the comments about Bill. I did remove the discussion about Sue, which I explained at the time. Any questions about that can be directed to me at donshor @ gmail.com.
A good example of this is how the planning department recommended against the recent Carlton Plaza project for senior assisted living. The reasons were not substantive whatsoever. Elaine Musser Roberts and other senior advocates had to lock horns with staff to fight for this great project. The loss of this project due to Hess advocating against it would have been heinous. The fact that Hess advocated so hard for Covell Village 1 was embarrassing, since as a staff member she was supposed to be objective. Now as Director of Community Development she has the audacity to try to deny every senior project that comes along to reserve any senior housing for Covell Village 2.
The plethora of letters from Whitcombe’s CHA constituency is clearly a revolt against the Carlton Plaza approval. That project clearly as diminished CHA’s argument for another huge 3 phase senior version of Covell Village. Whitcombe is determined try to push through another 1,400+ unit on that site and clearly she wants Hess to help him again, this time as the Director of Community Development.
Between having a Director of Community Development who has no credibility, can not handle her job competently (Hess has now exposed the city to the NewPath law suit), and who’s son works for John Whitcombe (conflict of interest), our community is destined for more planning disasters and near disasters, until Catherine Hess is replaced.
Clarification:
Whitcombe is determined try to push through another 1,400+ unit on that site and clearly Whitcombe wants Hess to help him again, this time as the Director of Community Development.
I retract my statement. There appears to be more than one active censor. My apologies to Don for singling him out, and kudos for his candor.
DPD: “In short, no one believes you want an honest discussion on reasonable and economic options for senior housing, what we do believe is that there is a specific agenda to push a specific housing project and any discussion is going to be tailored in that direction and toward that end. That’s not an honest discussion is the problem and the Senior Citizens Commission sensing that agenda is going to view people’s view with greater skepticism than they would an unaffiliated individual. That is the price to paid for joining a group with such strong and obvious ties to developers in this community.”
Actually, CHA was given the opportunity to voice their opinions many times at Senior Citizens Commission meetings, including Roberts Chason. They (CHA members/supporters) were always treated with great respect. But they were also asked the hard questions, which CHA members/supporters often did not adequately answer.
Ultimately City Staffmember Bob Wolcott put forth a proposed Senior Housing Strategy, with Katherine Hess and Danielle Foster present. At that meeting, CHA was allowed to express its viewpoint again to City Staff after having made City Staff aware of their viewpoint elsewhere. The Senior Citizens Commission then weighed in, giving its viewpoint. The resulting City Staff Senior Housing Strategy incorporated almost all the motions made by the Senior Citizens Commission because we were more persuasive. CHA is just unhappy that their viewpoint is in the minority.
However, the Senior Housing Strategy is now back with City Staff, and City Staff is now getting a lot of pushback from the Covell Village developers and CHA, to pressure City Staff into changing the numbers. Currently the City Staff report put the senior housing cap in the next 30 years at 700 units. That parameter can be deviated from if and only if the developer can satisfactorily justify a need for the proposed housing. So when CHA claims the Senior Housing Strategy “limits” senior housing options, they are being disingenuous. All it does is force the developer to show a NEED for any proposed housing.
Further clarification:
This first paragraph of my posting got cut off somehow:
I agree with Norm and other comments that the City managerial staff level, particularly Catherine Hess, can not be counted on for bringing “independence, perspective and the proper tie-ins to related City issues”. Hess has have proven in multiple instances that she does not work in the best interests of the citizens. The example of the Carlton Plaza denial initially is just one of many examples.
Davis rocks: The reasons were not substantive whatsoever.
Except the requirement to rezone from “Industrial”, amend the General Plan, and in some manner deal with the concerns of both the Police Department and DWR. Do yourself a favor and read Elaine Musser’s account following the approval on Feb 3 on this blog.
So is the Vanguard’s policy as follows?
1. Anything said against Sue is fair game
2. Anything said against Bill Ritter is verboten
3. Anything Greg Sokolov says is suspect.
Sorry. but it does appear that way. Don’s reason for cutting off the blog supporting Sue was that it was “off topic” but that criterion seems quite selective including his own (interesting but not really on topic) discussion of big box stores yesterday.
I’d like to get back to CVII, but this is really sticking in my craw. I’d like to know what the Vanguard Party line is and I want to see it applied evenly. Let’s hope we can work something out here. I like this blog and want to support it, but we all have to feel enfranchised. I agree some behavior (ie., extremely rude comments esp. to a fellow blogger) should be off limits, but I do not feel there is a level playing field all the time.
Again, if you have questions about the posts I removed from the thread about Sue, contact me at donshor @ gmail.com. Specifically, though, I removed posts that were both ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ Sue. I would love to talk about big-box retail, but on each reply I did, at least, try to pull the conversation back to the topic at hand. Again, feel free to email me with queries about this or future actions.
I’ve mentioned it many times before that anytime the personal attacks begin or off topic comments are posted the blog’s administrators and I are going to remove those comments. I have warned several individuals many times of their violation of the rules, yet they persist. Either you can comply with the rules or you can go elsewhere to post your views. In other words, if posters do not respect the rules of this blog and persist in violating those rules they will be permanently banned from posting any and all comments.
People can have a difference of opinion without the personal attacks.
– David Greenwald
there were a number of blogs which did not level personal attacks but merely discussed the issue of censorship
these appear to have been removed as well
Responding to “slow growther’s” comments:
Today’s article is not about censorship. Stay on topic or your comments will be deleted. The Vanguard is going to enforce its long established rules regarding commenter’s postings.
Again, those that violate the rules will have their comments deleted. Those who persist in violating the rules will be banned from posting altogether.
– David Greenwald
Neutral:
Looks like you did not read the preceding articles written by Elaine Musser Roberts which laid out how the city’s objections were pretty ridiculous. Nearby this project site we already have a senior community (Eleanor Roosevelt Circle) and another apartment complex and the Police Department was already addressed years ago! This site has Konditorei on it (which was completely supportive of the project) and so the proposal was completely compatible.
So you need to read the other Vanguard articles by Elaine on Nov. 19, 2009 (particularly well explained), Sept. 16, 2009, Dec. 21, 2009, Jan. 14, 2010, Jan. 18, 2010,and Feb. 1, 2010 which explain all of this and to better understand the issue. Had Elaine not pointed out how groundless the city’s arguments were, together with the Senior Commission’s strong support for it, Hess would have killed the project.
So this near disaster was Hess trying to kill a terrific assisted living proposal! Had Hess gotten her way — the project would have been denied.
My mother is 86, blind, and has poor manual dexterity and strength in her hands due to a series of strokes. Yet she insisted on living in her own home, alone, in the suburbs. She always has said that she wanted to die at home in her own house, which is the house I was raised in. She has been very, very active and reasonably happy, considering that my father died many years ago.
Recently, she has seemed weakened after two carotid artery surgeries. Then came the historic Washington D.C. blizzards last week when she had to be rescued by the national guard because the streets were impassible and the entire neighborhood had no heat or electricity (with temperatures of 10 degrees).
She is now, at the age of 86, considering assisted living. There are a number of nice assisted living facilities around Washington DC and Maryland, where she lives. My sister had taken her to see a number of them. She is not interested in the large subdivision style facility. She isn’t interested in the facility on the grounds of the pretty suburban hospital.
The one she is interested in is called Brighton Gardens at Friendship Heights. I looked it up on the web, http://www.sunriseseniorliving.com/community/CommunityHome.do?from_search=1&commid=299 It appears to be a mid-rise building.
I asked her why she was interested in this one above all others and she had one very firm reasons: It was in a thriving suburban downtown area, was walking distance to the metro and the busline, and was near her social network. (She uses public transportation, white cane and all). She wants to be where the action is.
I just hope that when I am 86, there is a nice, mid-rise assisted living facility near downtown Davis for me. Whatever else we build or don’t build, I hope that we do include a generous-sized assisted living facility near downtown Davis, because I think there are a lot of us who would share my mother’s preferences if we reach extreme old age.
David, you claim to support free speech and the airing of all views. That should include views that are critical of you and your associates.
Your heavy-handed, one-sided editing will result in a loss of respect for the Davis Vanguard.
Davis rocks: “Proper political process actually worked in this case after a certain amount of prodding, and very well I think. The developer came up with a proposal that would have put a facility for the frail elderly in the middle of a parcel zoned light industrial, right next to DWR and DPD. These two entities purposely located in an industrialized area so they could carry on activities that might be noxious if carried on in the middle of a residential neighborhood. City staff was put in the unenviable position of trying to voice the understandable complaints of DWR and DPD.” [Elaine Musser, Vanguard, 1 Feb]
She really doesn’t characterize any of the actions by city staff as “ridiculous” or without substance anywhere in any of her commentaries/reports. And if you have them, direct me to any citations to Katherine Hess’ involvement in any of this. Thanks.
I want to add a further point, the Vanguard is here as a community forum. If you agree with the main article, great. If you disagree, argue your points but do not become personal. If you believe in the future that we have left up a personal attack, alert Don or myself and it will be removed as soon as possible. We want this to be a place where people feel free to voice their opinions without fear of being attacked. We also want this to be a place free of mudslinging. Critical analysis is great, just be analytic rather than personal.
It is okay to say I disagree with David Greenwald, for example and here’s why. It is not okay to call anyone on here a name or defame their character. This policy has always been part of the user agreement, it will now be enforced more tightly.
-David Greenwald
David, again, I think you tend to employ a double standard. There is a thin line between defaming character and offering opinions on motives. For example, if you say a certain council member voted a certain way to please the firefighter union, that is offering an opinion on a motive which, some will view as “defaming”. Yet it is an integral to political discourse.
Similarly, if someone writes that they think you have highlighted a particular incident in order to advance a personal political agenda rather than strictly engaging in reporting on the issues, that would be similarly an integral part of political discourse, although you would see it as “defaming” yourself.
In the end, the Vanguard will have more respect if it is viewed promoting issues, rather than a faction within the grass-roots community.
Sue:
“In the end, the Vanguard will have more respect if it is viewed promoting issues, rather than a faction within the grass-roots community.”
That’s what we’re trying to do–if you feel that we should have removed a post in the future, please let us know. Thank you your contribution above to this vital issue. We’re trying to create more civil discourse on this board. I hope you will be a leader and help in that capacity.
David,
I have received a number of complaints that you are removing posts merely because they are critical of you or your associates.
If you are truly trying to be a community forum, why don’t your simply repost the my post that you censored.
It read:
“David, you claim to support free speech and the airing of all views. That should include views that are critical of you and your associates. Your heavy-handed, one-sided editing will result in a loss of respect for the Davis Vanguard.”
This is a critical but not uncivil comment, and most progressive blogs would not have censored it.
Neutral,
Here are excepts from the Nov. 19, 2009 Vanguard article by Elaine Roberts Musser.
“The Davis Senior Citizens Commission opted to make sure its voice was heard, and passed the following three motions to be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council:
1. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission recommends the Senior Housing Guidelines [it promulgated] be used in evaluating this project.
2. Preliminary evaluation of documents provided by city staff and the developer indicate this project would essentially conform to the major elements of the Senior Housing Guidelines.
3. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission respectfully disagrees that the proposed land use is incompatible. Surrounding facilities have set a precedent of residential use near that location with Eleanor Roosevelt Circle [senior housing facility] and student housing already in place.
City staff’s resistance to this project is very perplexing, and makes no sense at present. Having heard their opposition, perhaps they will be better able to bolster their position and articulate a more reasoned argument. Nevertheless, I find it troubling that the city staff report indicates 1) a request for input, when in fact city staff has already made up its mind; 2) couching the report as informational only, blatantly discouraging commission action. The Davis Senior Citizens Commission has faced this sort of struggle before, where its participation is not really welcome by the city, but rather the Commission is being asked to rubber stamp an already formulated opinion.”
And it is my commentary that the reasons the city came up with were ridiculous (which I thought was obvious), not Elaine. The reasons were ridiculous because the same issues had been discussed and resolved when the other nearby apartment complexes were approved, one of which is a senior apartment complex.
The topic at hand is Covell Village, any post not directly on topic will be removed. Complaints should be EMAILED not posted.
New name of blog:
“The David Greenwald Has the Last Word Vanguard of Davis”.
[quote]E Roberts Musser said . . .
However, the Senior Housing Strategy is now back with City Staff, and City Staff is now getting a lot of pushback from the Covell Village developers and CHA, to pressure City Staff into changing the numbers. Currently the City Staff report put the senior housing cap in the next 30 years at 700 units. That parameter can be deviated from if and only if the developer can satisfactorily justify a need for the proposed housing. So when CHA claims the Senior Housing Strategy “limits” senior housing options, they are being disingenuous. All it does is force the developer to show a NEED for any proposed housing. [/quote]
In the Measure P discussions one of the recurring themes was “wouldn’t it be nice if we could restrict the housing to meeting only internal demand.” I could be wrong, but when I read Elaine’s final two sentences above, what I see is a mechanism to do exactly that. Developers are going to be hard pressed to show a need for their project if the people they have signed up don’t have existing ties to Davis. Further, people from outside Davis are probably going to be less willing to sign on the dotted line for a possible future project outside their own current community. That will be incurring a personal obligation that more than likely isn’t consistent with the ebbs and flows we all incur in life.
It appears (to this observer) that Bob Wolcott and Danielle Foster have once again demonstrated that they have a good sense of the pulse of Davis . . . and have Davis’ best interests at heart. When people start slinging mud about City Staff, they need to remember that there are truly great people on that Staff. Don’t paint all of them with the same unflattering brush.
David, If I may suggest a solution to the problem you and Don have described above and wrestled with today. Specifically, I think you should create a thread (or a topic with multiple threads) on the Vanguard site called “Rant and Rave”. When you run into posts that go off topic or violate the personal attacks standard, the posts wouldn’t be deleted, but rather moved to the Rant and Rave thread (or section).
This isn’t a novel idea on my part. The Philadelphia Eagles Message Board has had a R&R section for years. It is actually quite popular amongst a certain segment of the rabid Eagles fan base. Posters know what they are getting when they go there. I think it would be a very good solution to your current dilemma and would take your blog administrators out of the unenviable position they are currently in.
Bottom-line, we can’t legislate away extreme behavior. People will always be subject to human nature.
Matt Williams:
As I tried to make clear in my posting, the decision to deny Carlton Plaza by Hess (not “lower level staff”) is the issue I was addressing. My comments refer to the Carlton Plaza project application issue not the Senior Commission’s Senior Housing Strategy discussions. You are mixing up the two subjects. Your concern extrapolates incorrectly, and in fact is contrary to my point.
My point is that Hess is clearly trying to place the blame for her bad decisions and actions on other city staff members, which is unacceptable. The most obvious example of this is the current NewPath disaster where she authorized the cell tower permits and did not notify the public. She needs to take responsibility for her actions because trying to defer blame to “lower level staff” or other departments is simply unacceptable.
D r, your response smacks of “Me thinks milady doth protest too much.” I didn’t refer to you or your specific post. You are neither the first, nor the last, person to comment on the quality of decisions that emanates from the CDD. I will continue to point out that painting all Staff with the same brush is both inaccurate and foolish.
If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn’t, then consider my comment to apply to others.
I just turned 67, live in Rancho Yolo, and believe that the last thing Davis needs is another senior ghetto – especially an expensive one.
And as for a Rant and Rave section, we don’t need one here. We’re swimming in a ranting and raving society, and that’s more than enough.
Matt Williams:
I think that most of us understand that the city clearly runs it business from “the top down” so criticism of the departments implies the management level for the most part since they oversee all the decisions. So the criticism that I see here about bad decisions being made at the city, I would say, refers to those staff members at “the top” managerial level.
timeforachange,
If there are cuts due to reduced work load, the job security of the to managerial level isn’t at risk. So when comments are made that Staff are doing things to protect their jobs, it isn’t logical to see those comments as directed at “the top” managerial level only.
I could be wrong, but that is the way I see it.
Matt Williams:
Sorry Matt, but I think you misunderstood my comment. My comment has to do with getting better decision makers at the top staff level where there are problems and Community Development Department, for instance, definitely needs a new director.
I understand your comment. Why are you taking my comment personally? Were my words aimed at you? What is it about, “When people start slinging mud about City Staff, they need to remember that there are truly great people on that Staff. Don’t paint all of them with the same unflattering brush.” that you don’t like?
Matt Williams:
I was responding to your comment because my sense is that most people criticizing staff on this thread today, sound like they are more concerned with the performance (or lack of) management level city staff, not “lower level” staff. I believe that most folks posting are not implying in any way that it is all of city staff.
time,
Your point and mine coexist very well together.
For anyone who is interested in land use decisions, of which Carlton was, and anything on the Covell Village site will be:
Staff, whether at the level of “Department Head” or those under them, NEVER denies nor approves projects at those levels. They CAN’T.
Hess, nor any other staff member, denied the Carlton project. What staff did, based on their best weighing of the pros & cons of the project, recommended denial of the request to rezone the property to accommodate the project. Had the project been proposed at a location where that use would have been permitted, or conditionally permitted, I strongly suspect that the recommendation would have been for approval.
To change land use (re-zone), ONLY the City Council can approve or deny. The most the Planning Commission can do is recommend that the City Council take a particular action. Staff generally gets two chances to make recommendations. Once at PC, once at CC.
Zoning is adopted by “ordinance”… hence, it is a law, previously approved by the City Council, the “people’s representatives”. Most projects, as proposed, have pros & cons. If staff reviews a particular project that would require a change in law to accommodate, I would expect that they would need to find that there were significantly more pros than cons to justify the changes.
The facts are as follows: Staff recommended that the PC deny the Carlton application. Planning Commission disagreed, and recommended that the City Council approve the zoning change that would allow the project to proceed. The matter went to the CC, and the staff report to the CC, given the discussion at PC and the PC’s actions, recommended that CC go with the PC’s application.
This is how government works. This lesson in civics is offered pro bono, wirth the goal of promoting intelligent discussion of the issues.
hpierce:
It looks like you missed this point that was made earlier in the blog:
02/13/10 – 12:27 PM
“A good example of this is how the planning department recommended against the recent Carlton Plaza project for senior assisted living.”
But thanks for the free civics lesson for others who many not be familiar with the city’s “process”. In the future you may want to offer other such information without so much condescension.
That aside, the same problem occurred of almost losing the Carlton Plaza senior assisted living project because Hess recommended against the project. That bad decision from city staff had to be fought long and hard by Elaine Roberts Musser and the Senior Commission to save this great project. Much to their credit, had it not been for all of Elaine’s and the Senior Commissions hard work, Carlton Plaza would have likely been denied by City Council since the Council majority almost always goes along with the city staff’s recommendations.
Given Hess’s history of planning disasters, maybe it is because Hess does not have a planning background that she can not make good planning decisions. All the more reason of why she should be replaced by someone who has a planning background and is competent.
My sincere apologies, Davis rocks… I will make sure I understand every nuance of every post in every thread before I comment again… I obviously was incompetent to comment as I did. I completely missed your point.
Davis rocks
02/13/10 – 06:08 PM
…
Matt Williams:
As I tried to make clear in my posting, the decision to deny Carlton Plaza by Hess (not “lower level staff”) is the issue I was addressing.
I stupidly misunderstood that you did not mean than Hess denied the project.
Again… my apologies… you were right, and I was wrong to post what I did.
hpierce:
No problem. My earlier posting (12:27 PM) clarifying that planning staff made recommendations was posted far before than the later one you mention (6:08 PM). You obviously did not understand the inference that Hess, as director, is responsible for the recommendations that go forward by planning staff.
Not to worry. Apology accepted and please don’t be so hard on yourself!