In late March, the Vanguard used a public records request to show the fundamental failure of Choices for Healthy Aging to impose its agenda on the ConAgra site.
“We greatly appreciated ConAgra’s willingness to conduct two lengthy meetings with CHA representatives, accompanied by senior city staff,” they wrote in conceding failure. “However, in all frankness we do not believe that our objectives can be met with the current land use proposal for a ‘multi-generational’ project in which seniors constitute a small minority and the disabled are not specifically considered.”
Having failed behind the scenes, they took a more direct approach on Tuesday night, continuing to push for an 80-20 mix of housing.
Mary Jo Bryan asked for senior housing “primarily but not exclusively serving the unmet needs of seniors.” She said this housing would not be “restrictive, we are looking for an integrated neighborhood.”
Don Villarejo once again argued for the changing demographics and the need to put up an alternative version for the cannery that meets the needs for seniors. He argued that he does not want to exclude anyone from this community, however, his preference is an 80-20 split of housing.
Curtis Houston also spoke in favor of the proposal designed by CHA. He argued that there were not plenty of places to downsize into a unit with his age group. He wishes to age in place but not in the houses that seniors are in now. He argued that his home could provide a very nice place to live for a younger family, while he would move into a more age-appropriate home with the types of amenities he is seeking.
Mr. Villarejo’s argument was particularly specious as he spoke literally out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. In one sentence he said that he did not want to exclude anyone from this community while at the same time arguing for an 80-20 split, whereby the seniors would get a vastly unequal share of the housing and the resources for the site.
But if CHA expected to gain anything from their efforts, it failed abysmally. If anything, they further alienated several members on the council, with the exception of Stephen Souza, a strong supporert of Covell Village and close ally of developer John Whitcombe.
CHA, the acronym for the group Choices For Healthy Aging, is an astroturf group, formed explicitly to create the illusion of mass support for a 800-unit senior housing facility at the notorious Covell Village site.
While the group claims to be an independent group of seniors, it was formed at the behest of one of Mr. Whitcombe’s chief consultants, Lydia Dellis-Schlosser. The group made the early tactical error of listing a phone number which rang to Ms. Dellis-Schlosser’s line with her message on the voicemail.
While the group purports to represent hundreds of seniors, we have largely seen the same core group in public functions.
On Tuesday night, a number of residents came forward to speak, arguing that in fact CHA did not represent their views and that they did not agree with an 80-20 split in housing but rather favored a more equitable and less self-serving distribution of the housing.
The bigger problem in Davis seems to be producing smaller and more affordable housing for working people.
It was particularly telling when Curtis Houston got up to suggest that his moving to new housing would free up his home for young people with a family. The problem, as a later speaker pointed out,is that his home was likely unaffordable to such a family.
The more CHA attempts to mobilize, the more transparent their efforts appear. They have not gained influence on council. They have not been able to translate their support for senior housing at Covell Village into anything broader.
Moreover, they have met with failure at virtually every step of the way.
First, there was the attempt to do a senior housing survey, however, CHA opposed that effort when it became clear that they would not be able to control people’s responses, and their councilmember advocates – Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson – voted against the housing survey.
Then independently, the Senior Citizens Commission and Social Services Commission jointly developed the senior housing guidelines, which shied away from supporting the age-restricted large senior housing facility and towards more moderate goals of smaller facilities and universal design.
Moreover, efforts by CHA to stack the Senior Citizens Commission failed.
CHA members keep arguing that they are about more than pushing for Covell Vilalge II and they have broader interests. However, the candidate’s forum just last year underscores the problem they have making that case.
As candidate Jon Li remarked, “The answer to every question was Covell Village.”
The problem for CHA was that not one of the candidates supported their vision – not one. And even the members of the public, who attended the meeting, were more interested in issues like universal design.
This was arguably their biggest failure to date. They had a great opportunity to show that they were about more than Covell Village and they failed.
Despite all of their protests the contrary, they have never shown it to be untrue that they are fronting for a specific project on a specific piece of land.
The biggest mistake that CHA made was too closely associating themselves with one of the most controversial developers on one of the most controversial and hotly disputed parcels of land.
The funniest part about Tuesday night is that the council just ignored them. They were not part of the discussion and they were unable to influence the direction of council.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The bottom line is that CHA does not represent all seniors, but only a certain contingent that has a certain specific vision that does not comport with the Senior Housing Guidelines or the city’s General Plan. This group is certainly entitled to push for what they want, but in ignoring everyone else’s needs, they were almost certainly doomed to failure. The city has various countervailing interests it must take into account, and any new senior housing must fit within that broader context. City staff knows this, and the current City Council also seems to understand this. Additionally, statistics show that approximately 85% of seniors want to remain in their own homes – indicating universal design in any new homes is what the city should be pushing for…
Good point Elaine. They have put their expressed needs over the needs of everyone else. And adding to that, claim to trying to meet the needs of everyone through some 80-20 split. Instead of helping their cause, they are going to polarize the community. Fortunately they have no true influence.