While the saga may not be ending just yet, the city’s involvement in DACHA may be if council goes through with a recommendation from city staff to sell the twenty former DACHA units as appreciation-capped affordable ownership housing units, using a standard lottery process.
According to city staff, “Actions related to the twenty affordable units, formerly held by DACHA, are necessary to maintain these housing units in the city’s inventory of affordable housing.”
They add, “Sale of these units as affordable ownership housing is consistent with the original intent of the units, as they were provided under for-sale housing projects.”
While selling these properties in this manner would preserve them as affordable units, it would end the cooperative living arrangement that had been created.
David Thompson, representing Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation, urged council along with the interested parties to come together to find a way to retain DACHA and its 20 homes as a limited equity housing co-op.
He has repeatedly charged that the city has misused public funds in its dealing with DACHA.
Following the January 11 meeting, in a letter to Mayor Krovoza and Council, he said, “the co-op should be restored but if not, the houses should be set at prices for 120% of median income so the most return of public funds can be obtained by the City and that to avoid any preferential treatment the houses should be made available only through a lottery.”
He continued, “Your handing of these former DACHA homes to the existing residents is I think a gift of public funds and is not following the California laws relating to the use of assets of and the dissolution of cooperatives and public benefit corporations.”
However, it appears that is what the city is recommending, leaving the homes as affordable.
DACHA has largely been silent publicly throughout this matter, in part out of a professed fear of legal retaliation by David Thompson and Luke Watkins. However, DACHA board member Ethan Ireland issued a strong statement this weekend ahead of tonight’s council meeting.
“The DACHA membership supports any action that will keep them out from under the thumbs of David Thompson and/or Luke Watkins,” he said.
“We have prepared a letter to the City, signed by a majority of our members, requesting our preferred course of action. This preference would be for the City to retain the units formerly belonging to DACHA as rentals, either through a county, state or federal management program, or through the auspices of another co-operative — provided, of course, that co-op is one that is not affiliated with David Thompson and/or Luke Watkins,” he continued.
Not that neither the city nor DACHA appears to be attempting to gain private ownership, as some have alleged.
The city recommends a lottery to distribute the houses. According to the staff report, “All households who qualify based on the income stated in their application are included in a lottery to randomize priority. All households are given a minimum of one ticket. Households with a local employee get four tickets in the lottery, and households with a senior or persons with disability get two tickets in the lottery. Then a lottery is held during which all of the tickets are randomly drawn and the order in which they are drawn creates a listed order of potential buyers. After the lottery prioritizes the applicants, they are then income-qualified, required to secure financing, and paired with housing units.”
Mr. Ireland notes that a lottery would not be the first choice of the residents of DACHA.
The DACHA Board Member told the Vanguard, “It would not be our first preference for the City to pursue a lottery; however, we would still support that decision for two reasons.”
First he said, “it would not put us back under control of Thompson & Watkins.”
While second, he added, “because that process would lay to rest Thompson & Watkins’ baseless claims of “civil conspiracy” by directly, publicly and transparently refuting their argument that our members somehow conspired to unduly gain ownership of their homes.”
The bottom line for Mr. Ireland is, “What we want, more than anything — more than even remaining in our homes — is for Thompson and Watkins to leave us alone.”
“Unfortunately however, Mr. Thompson has affirmed to me several times during my attempts to negotiate with him that if the City pursues any action other than that which he prefers, he will continue dragging the DACHA membership, individually if necessary, through court for the foreseeable future,” Mr. Ireland charged.
He continued, “It would seem the DACHA members are in a no-win situation: either the City complies with Thompson & Watkins’ demands and puts us directly at their financial mercy, or regardless of an individual members’ innocence in the matter Thompson & Watkins buries each of us under an avalanche of litigation against which nobody has the resources to defend himself.”
According to the city staff report, the twenty single-family homes now under ownership of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Davis were formerly owned by DACHA. DACHA was the first limited-equity cooperative project in the city’s affordable housing program. The organization owned twenty single-family units that had been sold to it at below-market prices as a result of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.
After a comprehensive refinance of the organization by the Redevelopment Agency in August of 2008, the Agency became the primary lender on the units. In October 2009, DACHA went into default on the Agency loan and subsequently the twenty units held as collateral on the loan went into foreclosure proceedings.
After going through the necessary steps to a foreclosure sale, the Agency bid its credit on the units and gained title to the twenty units previously owned by DACHA. Thirteen of the twenty homes remain occupied. The Agency has received notice of an upcoming departure by another tenant, so occupancy will reduce to twelve in February.
The staff report continues, “The Agency Board needs to provide direction on future use of these twenty units as property owner and as a signatory to the affordable housing covenant on the properties. The City Council also needs to provide staff authorization and direction on how to proceed with the long-term use of these units as the original provider of the units under the City’s ordinance and as a signatory on the affordable housing covenant.”
Staff recommends that the units remain affordable to moderate income households at or below 120% of the areas median income, which would cap the income currently at $78,000 for a family of three and $87,000 for a family of four.
Staff concludes, that “this model will stabilize these twenty affordable housing units and repay the Agency in a timely manner.”
At the core of the argument by David Thompson has always been the presumption that the DACHA residents want private ownership. There are clearly still legal issues pending that the city, DACHA, and Twin Pines and Neighborhood Partners will have to address, however, it is clear both from this staff report and from comments by Ethan Ireland that there is no intent to convert DACHA for private gain by the members.
As such, there will be no handing of these former DACHA homes to existing residents, and the houses will be set at 120% of median.
The residents of DACHA appear ready to move on, even if it means losing their homes. They have their own set of charges and evidence to counter the claims made publicly by David Thompson and Luke Watkins.
As DACHA Board Member Ethan Ireland told the Vanguard, “So sure, a third party investigation might be helpful, but what we’d like — what we’d really, really like — is for David Thompson and Luke Watkins to leave us alone; to stop bullying us with suit after suit after suit. We just want to get on with our lives and it’s frankly impossible because we’re living in constant fear thanks to their constant legal harassment.”
This may not be ideal for them, but it at least manages to achieve one of their goals.
Can we now put this issue to rest? Perhaps. We shall see tonight. There are still a number of suits to be settled, but perhaps this can achieve a bit of closure for the residents of DACHA.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Isn’t the city still in litigation w Thompson/Watkins over the Dacha mess? If yes, I’m a bit at sea what litigation Thompson/Watkins can bring against individuals who were once in DACHA? DACHA has been essentially dissolved, no? Is Thomson/Watkins suing individual DACHA members, and if so, on what grounds? ???????
In an effort to find solutions for everyone I met with Ethan a couple of times last week. We agreed upon a suggestion I made. I attach that wording here as this is one of the requests what Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation will ask of the Council tonight.
Proposal A.
The Council should postpone for 30 days any actions on DACHA at the February 1, 2011 Council meeting. During that time representatives of DACHA, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation, Neighborhood Partners and the City of Davis should come together to find a way to retain DACHA and its’ 20 homes as a limited equity housing co-op.
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Last week Ethan agreed to support this concept.
And on January 21, we discovered a new and substantial legal issue. We found out in the debtor’s exam that neither of the two people who are representing themselves as DACHA board members are members of DACHA or seemingly ever were full members of DACHA. They had never purchased or held a membership share and their funds had been put into a trust account and the funds were never regarded as being owned by DACHA. Under California Law to be a member of a limited equity housing cooperative you must purchase a shareholder and be an owner occupant. Since October of 2009 three out of the four board members representing DACHA have not been owners of a membership share. The legal acts of a DACHA board where three of the four people claiming to be board members were not shareholders and likely not members of DACHA are now seriously in question. However, since October of 2009, this four person board has represented that they are the legal board of DACHA in front of Federal Court, in front of State Court, in front of the City Council and to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation and Neighborhood Partners. And the City of Davis provided public funds to this four person board to take legal action. It is this four person board that has represented themselves as DACHA’s legal board in the involuntary bankruptcy case, in the foreclosure and now in the dissolution.
At DACHA, regretfully, no board members were ever removed, no member was ever evicted, no late fee was ever charged, and discussion of delinquencies and self dealing transactions is hardly mentioned in six years of minutes. And the City staff empowered to take action to uphold California law as required by the loan agreements ignored and excused the six year string of transgressions. The comment of the Arbitrator is worth repeating.
“What is curious is that representatives of the City of Davis were present throughout the entire time when the new Board took these untoward actions and they did little to discourage the Board”. (Page 5 of Arbitrations Award)
Go to http://sites.google.com/site/itsthelawdacha/home to see the facts about the DACHA debacle.
David Thompson, President Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[b]According to city staff, “Actions related to the twenty affordable units, formerly held by DACHA, are necessary to maintain these housing units in the city’s inventory of affordable housing.”[/b]
How about a better idea–the City of Davis just gets out of the entire business of affordable housing. It’s a scam. It does not serve poor or low-income people. It serves the companies which manage this stuff; and it provides high paid, highly benefitted make-work jobs for people with City titles like HOUSING & HUMAN SVCS PROG SUPERVISOR.
Instead of keeping these homes in the “city’s inventory,” I suggest we sell them at full market value. Then take every cent in profits (the amount they sell for minus the price they would have sold for as “affordable units”) and give that money to charities in town, like STEAC or Davis Community Meals or the Davis Community Clinic. Doing that would do far more good for far more lower-income residents than keeping this scam going. We should take every cent we are now paying city employees to run theses scams and give their salaries and benefits to charity as well.
One thing is obvious to me: Davis has a value system of helping the poor; and Davis has a class of inviduals who are enriching themselves while operating this blood-sucking enterprise which does nothing for most low-income residents.
What a ridiculous scam this entire enterprise is.
P.S. Did I say it’s all a scam?
Go to . . . to see the facts about the DACHA debacle.
Oh please. I’ve had enough of this totally one-sided “discussion” here on the Vanguard, and suggest that the moderator remove that link. And for the very first time I agree with Rifkin: the entire episode is a scam.
Repeating for the Zax here, this is an issue that has been blown out of all reasonable proportion and is, as I write, being dealt with in the proper forum: the courts.
City staff recommends another $270,000 to be wasted in Public Funds Fiasco: DACHA
It took five years to build DACHA to 20 homes. Five years of planning, meetings with city staff, hearings, working with the neighbors, helping with the architecture, organizing the co-op, setting up the system, attending myriad board meetings, helping to market the units, getting approvals from the city and state, getting agreements with the Tax Assessor, etc.
For that Neighborhood Partners received $139,500 in developer fees. An average to us of $6,975 per unit. However of that amount only $26,500 was public funds. So 20 homes at an average of $1,345 in public funds. Compared to others in Davis we earned our fee.
On the other hand, last year, City staff recommended that a nonprofit in town receive $34,483 to develop a 29 home land trust. And NP gets critiqued for charging too much.
And now City staff are recommending tonight that a Sacramento organization receive a no compete contract to sell the 20 DACHA homes and receive $270,000 in public funds to do so. An average of $13,500 in public funds to sell 20 homes in a few months for which NP received $6,975 to develop them over a five year period with it costing public funds of only $1,345. This sure seems like another massive waste of public funds.
As soon as I saw this $270,000 out of town boondoggle I alerted the Realtor community in town to this inexcusable act by city staff.
Why was this action not put out to bid?
Why was it sole sourced to an out of town organization?
Why were local realtors not contacted?
Why is the huge waste of public funds being suggested by City staff?
The hundreds of local realtors make a huge contribution to our community.
The action by staff is a huge slap in the face to the good realtors in Davis.
How long will the Council tolerate the ongoing staff mistakes made with DACHA?
An independent investigation of City staff and the use of public funds has been called for and is needed.
David Thompson, President
Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
So Mr. Thompson decides to respond by asserting I was supposedly never eligible to serve and that my argument is invalid because I ostensibly misrepresented myself? This is precisely what I mean. Mr. Thompson knows I have committed no wrongdoing; I have never even once been late on my rent once during my residence in DACHA or at any time thereafter. So in the interest of discrediting me he decides to invent charges and search for a way to manufacture liability and thereby hold the threat of civil litigation over my head.
All right, fine — since I’m now under a subpoena to produce this documentation anyhow, allow me to educate him and the readers of the Davis Vanguard:
-Prior to my even applying to join, the DACHA board enacted a resolution under which new members would be solicited and enrolled by protecting their share purchases in an trust account. Due to the threat of litigation from Thompson & Watkins, that board believed the only way to obtain new membership was to guarantee protection of their funds. The resolution states members enrolled in this fashion would be considered to be full members.
-When my wife and I joined we signed a membership agreement, an occupancy agreement and paid our share purchase in good faith, through the process described above. Throughout the application process we were informed by the management agency and then later by the DACHA board that we were, in fact, full members.
-Prior to my election to DACHA’s board, the DACHA attorney and members of the City staff all certified my membership and certified my eligibility to serve on the board. There is documentation to prove it.
-After the enactment of AB1246 into law, our attorney requested a determination from the Attorney General about whether it was legal to return the funds held in trust on behalf of those members who joined in the fashion described above. The AG issued a determination it was both legal and appropriate to return those funds because those funds had never belonged to DACHA in the first place. The Attorney General NEVER STATED ANYTHING in regard to the validity of those members’ membership. Mr. Thompson’s statements in that regard are pure invention on his part.
I paid my share. I became a member. I was qualified to serve on the board. QED.
It is precisely these sort of statements and this sort of reflexively litigious behavior about which I complain in the foregoing article. I sincerely do not know how to interpret these actions other than as intimidation and bullying. Now I ask Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins directly to PLEASE LEAVE US ALONE.
Ethan:
You say you paid your share. But you did not. Because, later you say.
“The AG issued a determination it was both legal and appropriate to return those funds because those funds had never belonged to DACHA in the first place.”
So if those funds never belonged to DACHA then you never paid your share.
Under state law to be a member of a limited equity housing cooperative you must be a member owner. You by your own words state that the funds were never owned by DACHA. So how could you be a member owner?
No one can live at Dos Pinos without owning a share, no member at Dos Pinos can be on the board unless they own a share.
You and three others at DACHA received their $25,000 (4 x $6,250)in funds back but the other members did not.
You are still representing that you are a DACHA board member but clearly having received your trust funds back were you ever a member and how do you claim to be a member today?
David Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Here’s an idea, David: Why don’t you try acknowledging and addressing all the other points I made? Is it because you’d rather simply stick to the single point you think discredits me? Are you *deliberately* being obstinate? Please go back and re-read my previous post and respond point-by-point, like a big boy. Once you’ve done that, I’ll address your new questions.
[quote]”Staff concludes, that ‘this model will stabilize these twenty affordable housing units and repay the Agency in a timely manner’.”[/quote] I have exactly ZERO confidence in “staff conclusions” regarding any affordable housing matter in Davis, given the embarrassing history of these efforts in our generous city! Guess I’ll go read the report to find the facts and figures that might support the “stabilization:” and “timely repayment” staff cites for its “model.”
Name a single Davis “affordable housing model” in the last 20 years which has not been riddled with fraud, corruption, unfair or unearned enrichment, city staff or developer favoritism, and unanticipated consequences of city liability and embarrassment. (Only David Thompson seems to have the courage to claim his “model” is an unqualified success, and I’m not sure that his opinion is universally held.) [quote]”The residents of DACHA appear ready to move on, even if it means losing their homes….As DACHA Board Member Ethan Ireland told the Vanguard….” [/quote] David, I’m worried you got snookered here. I’d guess a high percentage of dozen residents are hoping to benefit from the city staff’s revised scam. And, I thought DACHA no longer existed–how can Mr. Ireland now be a “DACHA Board Member” speaking on behalf of the current occupants.
Our council shouldn’t be rushed (yet again!) into a quick decision based on comments from feuding participants and a city staff with proven incompetence and shady actions in conjunction with a worthy, but failed, objective. First, let’s find out what really went wrong with the DACHA model before we hurry to solve a problem we haven’t yet identified.
We should get every penny we can by selling off whatever housing is in the city’s inventory–at market value–and get out of home ownership as an affordable housing solution. [quote]”P.S. Did I say it’s all a scam?”[/quote] Did I mention that it’s also been riddled with fraud, corruption, etc.?
P.S.–How many homes have been sold as city-certified “affordable” during the last two decades? How many of these still are being sold as affordable vs. at market value? How many families still are living in homes they purchased under city affordable programs? How long did it take those who sold to sell at market value and leave Davis?
The answers to these questions about our past program results should be part of considerations for future program planning.
[quote]How about a better idea–the City of Davis just gets out of the entire business of affordable housing. It’s a scam. It does not serve poor or low-income people. It serves the companies which manage this stuff; and it provides high paid, highly benefitted make-work jobs for people with City titles like HOUSING & HUMAN SVCS PROG SUPERVISOR. [/quote]
I couldn’t agree more! What a scam — what a tax payer rip-off.
Quotes from the Arbitration Award filed with the Yolo County Court in June, 2009.
Quotes by Kenneth M. Malovos, the attorney jointly chosen by DACHA and Neighborhood Partners and approved by the Yolo County Court.
“What is curious is that representatives of the City of Davis were present throughout the entire time when the new Board took these untoward actions and they did little to discourage the Board”. (Page 5 of Arbitration Award)
“The testimony by three members from DACHA who appeared at the arbitration can only be described as cavalier. For the most part their testimony was characterized by failures of memory, contradictions and a certain inability to admit even their own written words. Two of theses members appear to have been in serious arrears in their fees during times that they were members of the Board, in direct contravention of the bylaws”. (Page 7 of the Arbitration Award)
Why is city staff misspending your money?
The Million Dollar Public Funds Fiasco!
Independent Investigation called for!
City of Davis staff has now spent over $1 million dollars of public funds against the Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (TPCF) and NP, LLC to pay for the services of 24 lawyers and to questionably subsidize Davis Areas Cooperative Housing Association (DACHA). Up to $375 an hour paid to sixteen lawyers at the City Attorney’s law firm. Public funds in one form or another also partially paid for DACHA’s two lawyers at Nossaman, and six lawyers at Hefner, Stark.
$1 million in public funds and 24 lawyers used to support a DACHA Board of directors ineligible to serve, improperly seated and accused of breaking numerous California laws such as distributing over $200,000 of those public funds to themselves. Why is city staff using public funds for such a cover-up?
•Most Board members were behind more than 30 days in their carrying charges/rents and according to the bylaws should have been automatically removed from the board
•Many Board members were also improperly seated in sponsor seats
•Some Board members had loans from DACHA. None of the loans to Board members were approved (as legally required) by the Attorney General
•The Davis City staff recommended that the City Council lend $4 million dollars of public funds to a DACHA Board ineligible to serve
•The President and Secretary of DACHA who signed under penalty of perjury documents associated with the loan of $4 million dollars of public funds, were both ineligible to serve
•In a transcript of the October 20, 2009 meeting, the City Attorney told City Council that “we had the evidence of the membership vote”.
•The City Attorney did not share with the Council that almost all of the members were also ineligible to vote and therefore DACHA had no legal quorum. In June, 2008, the 20 members were delinquent to DACHA $64,713
•DACHA of course was at that time delinquent to the City of Davis but city staff will not make the amount of delinquency known. In their recommendation to that City Council for the $4 million loan, staff failed to report that: DACHA owed the city a sizeable amount; the board was ineligible to act and owed $24,781; the membership owed $64,713 and was ineligible to vote; the city had received a legal opinion stating that the city’s approval of DACHA using over $200,000 of public funds to distribute to themselves was illegal.
Why did city staff not do their due diligence in making a loan of $4 million dollars of public funds to DACHA?
Off-topic. Straw man argument. If you’re going to challenge the validity of my membership, citing the arbitration award does *nothing* to address the points I brought up, particularly because it refers to an entirely different board. How about you argue like a grown-up here and actually respond to all the other points I brought up — points which I assert directly refute your challenge?
Please, David, this is getting pathetic.
Brown’s doing the typical Democrat double-speak. Pension reform should be upfront and on the tablenow at the same time that we might be voting on raising our taxes. Brown’s just using the “first things first” to get out of what should be done. Nothing will happen with the pensions as Brown can’t alienate his base, the unions. Are you Democrats going to hold his feet to the fire, I doubt it, and Brown knows it.
Sorry, wrong board.
To Ethan Ireland: I listened carefully to the DACHA discussion at the City Council meeting Tuesday night. Sounds like DACHA still exists, correct? Are you happy that the CC gave assurances DACHA members in good standing will not be evicted? It seemed as if the CC wants to get this right, is not happy about the continued litigation, and desires to take a good hard look at its affordable housing program and perhaps come up w a different model.
But one point I am still baffled by – are current members of DACHA actually being sued by Thompson/Watkins, or just being threatened?
As clarification to my last question, it almost sounded as if DACHA members just rent their homes, there is no chance of them being sued, whereas if they buy in again, it is possible Thompson/Watkins have threatened to sue DACHA members? Is that correct?
PS Do not feel compelled to answer if it would not be wise from a legal perspective…
Just Saying: “We should get every penny we can by selling off whatever housing is in the city’s inventory–at market value–and get out of home ownership as an affordable housing solution.”
I had the impression from something that was said last night that there is a possibility if the homes were sold off at market rate that the proceeds could possibly be attached by Thompson/Watkins to satisfy the judgment against DACHA. Don’t know if this is true or not, and Harriet Steiner did not seem clear on this issue. She would have to have time to investigate the legalities of the situation…which is growing more complicated by the minute…
Paul Navazio had a good suggestion, which was to step back, and take a look at the entire affordable housing program in Davis, before deciding specifically what to do w the DACHA homes. THe CC agreed, so this issue will come up again at the end of March/beginning of April…
What did seem clear is that David Thompson was requesting the city reconstitute DACHA as a cooperative just as it once was, something DACHA members (and I suspect the city) are firmly opposed to. The relationship between Thompson/Watkins and DACHA has been thoroughly poisoned by the litigation/and more threatened litigation repeatedly instituted by Thompson/Watkins, to wit:
“The legal acts of a DACHA board where three of the four people claiming to be board members were not shareholders and likely not members of DACHA are now seriously in question. However, since October of 2009, this four person board has represented that they are the legal board of DACHA in front of Federal Court, in front of State Court, in front of the City Council and to Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation and Neighborhood Partners. And the City of Davis provided public funds to this four person board to take legal action. It is this four person board that has represented themselves as DACHA’s legal board in the involuntary bankruptcy case, in the foreclosure and now in the dissolution.”
This does not sound as if there is a sincere effort to “work things out”, but rather a ratcheting up of hostilities, and a non-acceptance of the reality that DACHA is not going to go back to being a cooperative under the management of Thompson/Watkins…
It will be very interesting to see what the outcome of litigation is – whether it is settled out of court, goes to a full blown trial, who actually gets sued in the end, and what the judgment of the court is…
What is clear is that there were at least some in DACHA who were probably total innocents, who lost everything in this debacle. Sue Greenwald expressed her greatest concern as to them, and wanted to reassure them that they were not going to be in danger of being evicted from their homes. Frankly, this is the danger of housing cooperatives. When they work, they can be a useful model – but the risk is that they do not work out at all, and the homeowner can lose everything. This is the issue that the city needs to wrestle w – whether the cooperative model is the one the city should be using for its affordable housing program. There were some other very interesting models that were discussed last night that might be more viable and less risky, such as a down payment assistance plan…
Appreciate your impressions re. last night’s discussion, Elaine. I’m wondering if the staff would do a better job coming up with options and impacts if there was more communication between them and council members along the way.
It’s discouraging to see them show up with shallow reports (like this two-parter) that promote a certain staff recommendation with uncritical thinking, generalized observations and inadequate data. Then, it’s back to the drawing board with the hope that they’ll provide something more professional on which the council could base its decision. [quote]”Paul Navazio had a good suggestion, which was to step back, and take a look at the entire affordable housing program in Davis, before deciding specifically what to do w the DACHA homes.”[/quote] Agree. Staff not knowing where this particular issue fits in contributed, no doubt, to the problems with the report/recommendation. [quote]”What is clear is that there were at least some in DACHA who were probably total innocents, who lost everything in this debacle. Sue Greenwald expressed her greatest concern as to them, and wanted to reassure them that they were not going to be in danger of being evicted from their homes.”[/quote] Granted some of the parties were more innocent than others, but should we count agreeing to make housing payments that couldn’t be sustained as the act of a “total innocent”?
Sue G.’s “greatest concern” is misplaced, in my opinion. Major decisions about the city’s affordable housing program and future direction should not be driven by concern for a dozen unfortunate families who now find themselves unwitting players in an untypical situation.
This targeted compassion may have led to some of the earlier staff decision-making that helped get DACHA, the city and Thompson/Watkins in this fix.
I’d also like to see some qualified, independent entity look at what went wrong here before try to decide how we fix it.
I live in one of the homes in question, and I agree w/ Ethan Ireland.