While it would appear that any plans for senior development at Covell Village are off the frontburner, it appears that members of the “astroturf-front” organization for the Covell Village developers, CHA (Choices For Healthy Aging), are working behind the scenes with ConAgra while biding their time to push for development of their choice project at Covell Village. Astroturfing refers to political maneuvering that implies spontaneous, or “grassroots,” activity.
In a recent newsletter to their membership they write, “ConAgra has submitted a housing development plan, known as Cannery Park, adjacent to the Covell site. Development of that project likely will begin before the implementation of the Covell sustainable neighborhood project that we have conceived. The ConAgra land is within the city limits and therefore does not require approval by referendum of all eligible voters in Davis; it needs supporting votes from only three City Council members to move forward.”
“If ConAgra fully commits to CHA’s concept, engages with us, and includes all of the amenities, health and wellness support services (not just universal design in the homes) that we regard as vital, we will have the beginning of a neighborhood community that meets our needs,” they continue.
However, lest one believes that ConAgra might be a substitute for development at Covell Village, “Our original commitment and vision for the Covell site remains strong.”
This is an important statement, because it shows in clear and concrete terms that CHA is about developing Covell Village first and foremost, rather than simply about creating housing that seniors that can move into. It also continues to disparage the notion that ConAgra might serve as a substitute for Covell Village development.
They are also pushing their membership to attend a Cannery Park Land Use Planning and Update meeting on Thursday Dec. 9, 6:30 pm, Harper Junior High School MPR, 4000 E. Covell Blvd., Davis CA 95618.
There is little problem with the idea of CHA’s members pushing for senior-friendly features in a Cannery Park development, and it will be interesting to see how this all develops.
Remember that Cannery Park has been billed as a location primarily for workforce housing. And while the Vanguard has concerns about the overall impact of a housing development on this site, particularly taking away business park land, it would seem that workforce housing is a more defined need at this time than senior housing.
The Vanguard remains committed to the broader visions of the Senior Housing Model that have already been adopted, including universal design, accessibility, visitability and affordability features in housing. We are less clear on how a generalized housing development would include “all of the amenities, health and wellness support services” that CHA claims as vital.
We also question their commitment to such features, as their entire city council candidate’s forum was directed as a lobby session for Covell Village development, and terms such as universal design were not brought up by CHA but rather by membership questions.
It is clear that CHA is changing its tactics after being outmanuevered, mainly by city staff and the Senior Citizens and Social Services Commissions. They attempted and failed to stack the Senior Citizens Commission, the candidates for Council did not appear favorable toward development of a senior-segregated living facility at Covell Village, and right now the chances of Measure R approval of a large peripheral development are about as good as an alien landing at City Hall and kidnapping the city manager.
However, this communication does demonstrate that CHA remains a threat in this community, and they are attempting to use their numbers and narrow focus to push public debate on issues such as senior housing.
Again, the adopted principles for the city are good guidelines toward making all development more senior-friendly, but CHA remains narrowly focused. This is as much of a political tactic as any. If they show up en masse to all future discussions, it creates the illusion of the demand for such housing.
They continue to trumpet their outreach to 1200 individuals in the community as being supportive of Davis’ views on future senior housing, but they opposed efforts by the city to do a random survey of the residents to actually discern how deeply such a sentiment goes. That leads us to a great deal of suspicion that they realize that their views are not as widely held as they claim.
CHA remains worth monitoring, and those who are interested ought to attend the outreach meeting next Thursday to express a broader set of views on Davis values.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Can someone please define “workforce housing” to me?
Are there specific criteria houses must satisfy to be workforce housing?
How will the workforce housing at Cannery differ from the housing elsewhere in Davis where the vast majority of people that I know (myself included) are members of the workforce but apparently do not live in workforce housing?
Is there a disclosure statement when one purchases the house that tells owners it is workforce housing?
I don’t believe one can require owners to work or specify where they work, so workforce housing appears to be a euphemism for something–perhaps members of the workforce who earn less than six figure incomes?
What is the relationship between workforce housing and low income housing (where I am sorry to say a significant number of the tenants are not in the workforce) or moderate income housing (where most worker are). I do not think one can exclude people based on their income unless we are talking about low and moderate income housing and if that is the case, please use those terms so we know what is being debated.
“Workforce housing” and “Choices For Healthy Aging” are just pseudonyms for uneeded growth so the developers and growth happy council members can push their agenda down the community’s throat.
1) I’m curious why housing at the Cannery site is being pushed now, at a time when housing is not selling in Davis or anywhere in this country? We are in a deep recession which appears to be getting worse, particularly in CA.
2) Why have this public meeting right before the holidays, when many people’s attention is on other things?
3) Is CHA’s vision at the Cannery for senior housing a seniors only enclave, with amenities (golf club, maid service, lawn service, telemedicine, etc.) that only the wealthy can afford, as it was in the Covell Village vision? Is this what most Davis seniors want? Will this ultimately bring in wealthy seniors from elsewhere and not serve Davis citizens? Statitistics show most (87%) seniors want to age in place in their own homes (codified in CA law).
4) To what extent is development of the Cannery site going to raise taxes in Davis, bc new services are needed (police, fire, park maintenance, etc.), at a time when the city cannot provide services to current residents bc of budget shortfalls? Will this new tax burden drive lower and middle income seniors on fixed incomes already here out of Davis?
5) Why is the city moving forward with development at the Cannery site as residential housing, when at the DSIDE meeting the Business and Economic Development Commission made it clear the Cannery site is the only large site left for business park development? Has the city and BEDC given up on the idea of developing the Cannery as a high tech business park – which would generate revenue or at least break even, whereas residential development would most likely cost the city money at a time when the city can ill afford more expenses?
6) Why is this latest plan for developing the Cannery site for residential housing being pushed right before Saylor leaves office? Why not wait until a full council with new member/mayor is seated, for such a controversial/monumumental new issue?
I’ll stop there…
Dr. Wu: “Can someone please define “workforce housing” to me?”
Workforce housing to me means housing that is affordable to the average worker employed in Davis. I don’t know what the average income is for a worker employed in Davis, but I’m sure there are statistics on it. The problem is that it has been shown that the cost of housing in Davis is so high, because of the desirability of living here (especially bc of the quality of Davis schools), that any new housing built will never be affordable to the average workers in Davis – unless it is city/state/federal subsibsidized affordable housing of which there is a very limited supply. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, or add additional details…
Elaine:
All of your questions are excellent and very worthy of attention. I do not have many answers but some comments:
1. It is a standard developer tactic to push through EIRs in December and in August when few people are around (for the 45 day comment period) but in this case one would think the group would want to show that there was interest. Maybe its just incompetence.
2. The more I think about the issue, the more it seems that the present likely path for Hunt-Wesson makes no sense. If its not going to be a high-tech campus-like park, does mixed use make sense? It strikes me as a cutting the baby in half type of solution. It might be better to keep the # units the same but give folks more land (see below for why).
3. How hard has the City looked into the viability of a campus business park? A number of people (some clearly working on the behalf of the Cannery developer) on this blog have pointed out that the site has lied fallow for a while. That is a good point in their favor–but I am not convinced the City has really explored this route thoroughly. I agree that the site makes no sense for general commercial development, but it might work as a campus like setting and Davis should be a desirable place for that.
4. You are absolutely 100% correct that we need to look at the fiscal issues. Unfortunately most housing does not pay for itself in California unless its quite expensive or the developer pays the City large fees up front–and its generally cheaper for the developer to run a PR campaign and pay off certain council members than it is to pay these fees.
5. That is why the “workforce housing” issue is going to be contentious. To make this project work out financially for the City, the houses may need to be more expensive than some people in Davis would like and the upfront fees will also have to be higher than the developer will want to pay. But that is the bargain we are going to have to strike.
6. Question 6 answers itself, but whatever happens at the Cannery will take time. We need a better process than we have had in this City over the past few years.
Thank you, Doctor Wu, for your insightful questions. I will tackle each as best I can:
[i]”Can someone please define ‘workforce housing’ to me?”[/i]
[b]Workforce housing means a house that would sell for between $500,000 and $750,000 in Davis today, but someone working as a barista at a downtown coffeehouse can buy for $45,000 plus a shoebox filled with organic tomatoes.[/b]
[i]”Are there specific criteria houses must satisfy to be workforce housing?” [/i]
[b]Yes. A minimum of four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a large interior closet with a grow-light ([url]http://www.greenmanspage.com/guides/lightguide.html[/url]), a handsomely tiled roof with interesting neighbors who have a large Golden Retriever who rarely barks.[/b]
[i]”Is there a disclosure statement when one purchases the house that tells owners it is workforce housing?” [/i]
[b]Yes, however, there is also a non-disclosure statement which comes with it, so no one can disclose the disclosure statement.[/b]
[i]”I don’t believe one can require owners to work or specify where they work, so workforce housing appears to be a euphemism for something–perhaps members of the workforce who earn less than six figure incomes?” [/i]
[b]Doctor, the key thing to understand is that the Man is holding down the Workers. When Workers eventually take control from the Man and adopt a Living Wage Ordinance, everyone will make at least $400/hour.[/b]
[i]”How will the workforce housing at Cannery differ from the housing elsewhere in Davis where the vast majority of people that I know (myself included) are members of the workforce but apparently do not live in workforce housing?” [/i]
[b]The workforce housing in the Cannery will come with ketchup.[/b]
[img]http://www.frugalfairhope.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/img_7197.jpg[/img]
Thank you Mr. Rifkin for your commentariat.
Now if you can tell me who “the man” is I can rest peacefully.
One final question: Can we have Heinz catchup instead of Hunts? I believe Heinz is the catchup that is “too thick and rich too run.” (Perhaps from “the man” since its rich.)
[i]”Now if you can tell me who “the man” is I can rest peacefully.”[/i]
The Man has a full non-disclosure agreement, of course. However, these are the well-known candidates:
[img]http://www.nsemarketing.com/videos/David-RosenbergMD/David-RosenbergMD-poster.jpg[/img]
[img]http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/8/2/saupload_vr_david_rosenberg_pic1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://a.images.blip.tv/Plesstv-DavidRosenbergJWT900.png[/img]
[img]http://daverosenberg.net/images/dave_judge.jpg[/img]
Why now? Two reasons; the long lead time required for development and the high price of housing in Davis still makes it profitable to build here. Restrictive housing policies make Davis a high demand market even at lower prices the diminishing returns are still worth it especially since the land is already paid off.
” I’m curious why housing at the Cannery site is being pushed now, at a time when housing is not selling in Davis or anywhere in this country? We are in a deep recession which appears to be getting worse, particularly in CA. “
Well, there are several possibilities:
1. The developers are motivated not by the profit motive, but by a desire to provide high quality low cost housing to the community.
2. Your assumptions are incorrect.
“Astroturfing refers to political maneuvering that implies spontaneous, or “grassroots,” activity.”
Almost right. Actually it refers to political maneuvering that implies spontaneous, or “grassroots,” activity, and which is not in agreement with the viewpoint of the person using the term.
[quote]Two reasons; the long lead time required for development…[/quote]
Correct! Given that an EIR needs to be scoped, prepared, evaluated, etc. before any ‘entitlement’ is granted, the subsequent processes that need to be done (a portion of the site is within the 100-year floodplain) to get plans approved, financing, etc., “best case” scenario (from developer’s standpoint) would be to have a ‘shovel-ready’ project in 2-3 years… IF they develop the site…. it is not uncommon in today’s ‘reality’ to have a landowner to get entitlements, then “shop” the land and approvals to someone else to actually do the project… getting approvals doesn’t obligate the owner to actually do anything… particularly if it doesn’t “pencil out”… I don’t think Con-Agra is a builder…
Rifkin: “Workforce housing means a house that would sell for between $500,000 and $750,000 in Davis today, but someone working as a barista at a downtown coffeehouse can buy for $45,000 plus a shoebox filled with organic tomatoes.”
LOL, especially bc I swear that is what some people seem to be advocating for…
As we learned during the Wildhorse Ranch debate, these terms for housing can be fungible to the point of meaning nearly anything. But “workforce housing” is usually used to refer to a housing cost affordable such that monthly mortgage payments or rent do not exceed 30% of the workforce family’s income, and that income should be 50 – 120% of the area’s median income (Wikipedia gives an alternative value up to 180% of the area’s median income). Note that there is a significant difference between Davis family AMI ($74,051, 2000 census) and Yolo County AMI ($51,623, 2000 census).
So I guess the question is how many $275,000 homes ConAgra is planning to build.
I have seen the term used interchangeably with “affordable housing” but usually in the context of providing housing opportunities for “essential” workers in the community such as teachers, police officers, etc.
They write, “CHA has the opportunity to greatly influence the final outcome of the Cannery Park plan, ensuring that a new style of housing for seniors can become a reality within the next two years…”
That seems a little optimistic to me.
Don Shor: “As we learned during the Wildhorse Ranch debate, these terms for housing can be fungible to the point of meaning nearly anything. But “workforce housing” is usually used to refer to a housing cost affordable such that monthly mortgage payments or rent do not exceed 30% of the workforce family’s income, and that income should be 50 – 120% of the area’s median income (Wikipedia gives an alternative value up to 180% of the area’s median income). Note that there is a significant difference between Davis family AMI ($74,051, 2000 census) and Yolo County AMI ($51,623, 2000 census). So I guess the question is how many $275,000 homes ConAgra is planning to build.”
Your assessment approximates how I would have gone about figuring it out. And as is clear from the numbers, the idea of “workforce housing” is just not realistic as a practical matter. This boat just won’t float…