Editor’s note: The Vanguard was asked to publish verbatim this account of the history of DACHA, along with an accounting of all assets. This is pulled from the city’s staff report and it appears to be the most complete recounting of the DACHA history that I have seen. In conjunction with the other accounts the Vanguard has published, this will give all three sides a chance to have presented each side of the story, and all the public an opportunity to fully scrutinize what happened, what went wrong, and assess blame if and where necessary.
HISTORY
2002: City of Davis Redevelopment Agency (City RDA) retained Neighborhood Partners, LLC (NF) (operated by David J. Thompson (DT) and Luke Watkins (LW)), to develop a limited-equity affordable housing cooperative called ”Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association” (DACHA). DACHA home sites were randomly sprinkled throughout Davis, which would later be cited as highly problematic. City RDA initially invested $1,500,000 in the project. Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (TPCF), of which DT was its CEO, also provided start-up funds. DT made several personal loans to DACHA, naming TPCF as DACHA’s charitable beneficiary. During the first charter meeting, Dallas Kassing and Ty Smalley, also of TPCF, were appointed DACHA’s President and Treasurer respectively. The charter board retained NP as DACHA’s consultant for marketing and property acquisition – agreeing to pay DT & LW an hourly rate of $120, plus a finder’s fee of $8,000 (later increased to $10,000) for every house added to DACHA. DT listed himself as DACHA’s agent for service of process, routinely using his private address as the organization’s business address.
2003-2004: DT and/or LW were in attendance at DACHA meetings. DT drafted board agendas for DACHA, wrote most of its correspondence – while billing DACHA at $120/hr. As marketer, DT solicited members to purchase shares in DACHA. Several articles of correspondence authored by DT and 2004-2005 City Block Grant Application show DT stated repeatedly DACHA would provide “affordable home ownership.” DT actually listed himself and LW as board members in this application. Prospective members were told DACHA membership could be obtained for an average of $20,000, but the full purchase price wasn’t required because “investors” would make up the difference. Prospective members were not always informed “investors” were either DT himself or an organization he ‘operated (TPCF); nor was it made clear the “investment” funds provided would be treated as a loan. Most DACHA members spoke English as a second language, having difficulty understanding the sales pitch/contract terms. Many members mistakenly believed they made a down payment on a home they would own.
DACHA expanded rapidly, adding 12 new properties for a total of 20 units, nearly-meeting the original project scope of 22. By early, 2003, NP secured other development deals. As city representatives sat by at board meetings, DACHA’s scope ballooned to 60 properties. To keep up the rapid pace of acquisition, DT obtained loans on DACHA’s behalf. The DACHA board accepted them without question – regardless of terms. Through this combination of aggressive development, over-marketing and debt accumulation, DACHA became fiscally unstable/undercapitalized. ·The DACHA board was forced to increase carrying charges (rental rates) for residents to unsustainable levels. DT increased share prices for later members to amounts greater than $20,000 – in direct violation of the City’s Regulatory Agreement governing affordable housing.
2005: The price of living in a DACHA home went far beyond the Yolo County median for affordable housing, and median rental rate of Davis homes. So DACHA members obtained a detailed breakdown of their rents, discovering later-joining members across town were paying significantly more per month to occupy smaller units, pitting member against member in disputes over equity. At least two residents were being held liable for loans they never agreed to and for which no promissory note existed. DACHA members questioned Kassing & Smalley’s ability to make decisions independent of DT. Inquiry was raised as to the propriety of the relationship between DT’s firms and DACHA, as well as the apparent conflicts of interest between DT’s role as marketer and the financial rewards he was reaping as DACHA’s consultant.
The DACHA membership impeached Kassing and Smalley, appointing two resident directors to fill their seats. The new board notified NP that neither DT nor LW’s presence was desired at DACHA meetings. DT responded by presenting an ostensible “bill” for “services rendered” to DACHA since its 2002 inception, demanding immediate payment. Up to that point, NP had failed to issue any invoices to DACHA for services. The DACHA board requested a more detailed invoice to determine the validity of NP’s claim. The new board formally resolved not to continue expanding DACHA, informing NP it would not renew its consultant contract, asking that any pending developments be terminated and no new projects added.
John Gianola, managing attorney for Legal Services of Northern CA Woodland and the City’s Sponsor Director for DACHA, began a legal analysis of DACHA records. He urged an audit, and the City agreed. The CPA firm Gilbert & Associates (G&A) was hired by the city to conduct the audit. G&A’s findings were critical of the DACHA model, expressing bafflement over how it was intended to function, and skepticism about its financial stability. Their analysis of the DACHA loans indicated many contained irregularities/abnormalities. The audit discovered numerous problems, such as sloppy accounting practices, no financial data-analysis, among other aberrations; determining DACHA to be unsustainable and encouraged restructuring. DT disagreed, demanding a new audit. Gianola responded with a letter to the City stating the audit findings were validated by his own review of the DACHA records. He indicated.NP had crafted DACHA’s bylaws, occupancy & subscription agreements in a shoddy manner, with little oversight from the City, and NP had mismanaged DACHA.
2006-2008: The new board cooperated with the City RDA in restructuring DACHA to meet the demands of the city’s regulatory agreement. Using the audit data as a model, the City RDA stabilized DACHA by refinancing via a single, long term fixed-interest rate loan. Funds from the fixed rate loan were used to pay off the unsustainable/irregular loans. At City RDA’s direction, the DACHA board reset membership share prices to a more affordable $6,250. Those who had expended more for their shares were refunded any excess paid. Rental rates were lowered to be more in line with the Yolo County median for affordable housing. NP filed suit against DACHA for alleged improper termination of its contract, demanding damages for canceled development projects and against residents for “interfering with economic relations”.
2008-2010: DT’s other company, TPCF, also filed suit against DACHA for supposed misuse of public funds, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conspiracy for financial gain, and various other charges, initially seeking $4.5 million in redress, and punitive damages. The NP v. DACHA suit was arbitrated, as required by NP’s consulting contract. Immediately prior to the arbitration hearing, DACHA’s attorney, Geoffrey Goodman of Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld LLP, was elected to a judgeship, requiring him to abandon the case. The replacement attorney from Nossaman, LLP neither negotiated nor researched DT’s preference for arbitrator, allowing DT’s selection to stand without challenge. Neither did the replacement attorney dispute assertions made by NP during the arbitration. As a result the judgment was in NP’s favor, with an award of $331,872. DACHA obtained new counsel through Hefiler, Stark and Marois LLP (HS&M). On advice of counsel, the DACHA board proposed a repayment/rent-increase plan, notifying DT & LW of their desire for a settlement of both suits. DT & LW obtained a Writ of Execution, levying DACHA’s accounts. In consequence, DACHA was left without operating funds. Thus DACHA defaulted on its loan to City RDA. The City then notified DACHA of its intent to foreclose.
2010: Further attempts at negotiation were unsuccessful. DT amended the TPCF suit to include the City of Davis, City RDA, and John Does 1-100 as co-defendants. NP and TPCF subsequently filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against DACHA, to halt the foreclosure sale and enforce the terms of the NP vs. DACHA arbitration award. The court ruled improper any attempt to file an involuntary bankruptcy upon a non-profit corporation. DACHA was awarded $45,000 in attorney’s fees. TPCF chose to pay NP the $45,000 damage award, reducing what DACHA owed to approximately $245,000. Unable to act to collect the $45,000 judgment, DACHA assigned its award to its attorneys, HS&M.
City RDA conducted a foreclosure auction of the DACHA houses, selling them to the City of Davis. DACHA was left with no real property or cash assets, becoming a non-profit cooperative corporation in name only. Former residents of DACHA began paying rent directly to City of Davis under a new lease agreement. HS&M filed a motion to withdraw from the case because it was no longer getting paid for its services. The City was not willing to offer monetary assistance for DACHA’s legal representation as it had in the past. Two weeks before Christmas, NP attempted to levy DACHA members’ personal finances, by claiming each member was in possession of money belonging to DACHA. DACHA residents responded by denying possession, which exempted them from garnishment.
The CA Attorney General sent a letter to DACHA, with notification that neither NP, nor the law firm they hired to incorporate DACHA as a non-profit (Goldfarb Lipman), nor any member of the DACHA Charter Board of Directors had ever filed properly with the CA Attorney General’s Register of Charitable Trusts (RCT), despite registration upon incorporation being required by state law. Neither had yearly tax documents been filed with the AG, as required by law. The AG’s office demanded a full financial accounting of DACHA and immediate registration on the RCT. DACHA’s board president informed the AG’s office of the defunct status of the organization and provided tax filing information as required.
2011: DACHA shareholders asked City of Davis to conduct a dissolution hearing pursuant to CA Civil Code §817.2. Seeking replacement legal counsel the board president discovered DACHA’s Directors and Officers Errors & Omissions insurance policy lapsed 6 mos. previously, due to a mistaken City Staff cancellation. The insurance agency refused to honor the policy, leaving DACHA without legal representation. DT & LW then used the Writ of Execution under the NP v. DACHA to compel testimony from present and former DACHA members and a child, even though members hadn’t been personally sued. DT amended the TPCF v. DACHA suit a third time to include additional charges. Yolo County Superior Court granted HS&M’s uncontested motion to withdraw as counsel. NP filed a second suit against DACHA and City RDA, seeking to obtain housing units formerly belonging to DACHA and now owned by the City.
Obtaining legal counsel for DACHA and its residents has been virtually impossible. Legal Services of Northern California has refused assistance due to a conflict of interest, denying DACHA residents access to low-income legal assistance. McGeorge School of Law and UC Davis Law School have declined to take the case. Housing & Economic Rights Advocates and the ACLU declined as well, stating they are not competent to provide legal advice in this arena. To date, all other private firms contacted in the surrounding area do not provide low-cost/pro-bono assistance; have conflicted out; have had prior dealings with DT; or are not skilled enough to handle a case of this complexity.
ASSETS & LIABILITIES
A. Assets: None. See attached general ledger.
B. Liabilities: Approximately $552,788.70. Detailed breakdown:
1) Damage award to Neighborhood Partners totaling approximately $267,758.60 (last notice of damage award total 141 days of last stated interest of $70.61 per day)|
2) California Corporation’s Estimated 2010 Tax totaling $800.
3) Legal fees to Nossaman, LLP totaling $93,918.08.
4) Legal fees to Hefner, Stark & Marois totaling $37,244.46.
5) Overdraft fees to First Northern Bank of Dixon totaling $1,142.64.
6) Woodland-Davis Termite & Pest Control invoice totaling $275.00.
7) Charlie’s Carpet Cleaning invoice totaling $195.00.
8) Sherwin-Williams Co. invoice totaling $400.00
9) Various City of Davis Finance Department Charges totaling $75,955.88
10) Madsen &, Walton Property. Management payroll totaling $39.04
11) Share transfer value to 12 members as follows:
a) Six members who left after the levy occurred, but were eligible for a repurchase of their shares as per DACHA bylaws, a total outstanding of $37,500;
b) Six members remaining in DACHA, who will be eligible for a repurchase of their shares upon their departure of the organization as per DACHA bylaws, an approximate total of $37,500.
DISPOSITION OF ASSETS
As stated above in the history section, DACHA is in possession of a single account receivable: an award of $45,000 in attorneys’ fees, the proceeds of which have been assigned to DACHA’s former counsel Hefner, Stark & Marois. Because NP levied DACHA’s accounts in 2009, seizing over $50,000; then deducted the $45,000 award of attorney’s fees from the total amount owed it by DACHA, and since the City foreclosed on and sold at auction all DACHA’s real property, DACHA has absolutely no assets.
After consultation with a bankruptcy attorney on 13 April 2011, it was determined DACHA is unable to sustain a bankruptcy petition due to its utter and complete lack of finances. Said attorney recommended dissolution as the only viable option and also stated a bankruptcy petition would only interfere with the ability of the organization to dissolve.
Further, he stated, a bankruptcy would likely not eliminate the suits pending from NP and TPCF because of the non-dischargeable nature of the allegations.
SATISFACTION OF DEBTS & LIABILITIES
DACHA’S debts have been discharged to the fullest extent possible. DACHA is incapable of satisfying its debts and/or liabilities to any further degree. Due to entrenched litigation stifling prospects of generating income at any point now or in the future, there is no conceivable way in which DACHA will ever be capable of meeting any of those obligations.
CONCLUSION
DACHA has no finances; no real property; no assets of any kind. It has no legal representation, nor resources to retain an attorney for itself or its members. DACHA has only two remaining resident directors (at least one of whom cannot resign under both California Law and the DACHA bylaws), and 11 remaining members, some of whom own shares the corporation is incapable of repurchasing as its bylaws require. Because it would serve absolutely no good purpose to continue the business of running DACHA as if it were a viable non-profit public benefit corporation/affordable housing cooperative, and to avoid DACHA’s members being further victims of financial exploitation, as well as continued legal and public harassment against which they are unable to defend, it is the conclusion of the DACHA board and all of its membership that the only solution available is dissolution of the cooperative.
Who is the author of the various sections. Your intro suggests not the Vanguard?
I should have said – and will add, this is pulled from the city’s staff report and it appears to be the most complete recounting of the DACHA history that I have seen.
I doubt that the city staff authored this. The language is reminiscent of Vanguard stories and comments. I could be wrong, but would the real author(s) please stand up?
I also remember reading something in the 50-some pages that the city staff wrote that they weren’t going to be considering the DACHA history in evaluating whether the dissolution proposal was meeting requirements.
For clarification: This recounting is the required submission by DACHA of its dissolution plan to the city under CA Civil Code Section 817.2.
“I doubt that the city staff authored this”
It was in the city’s staff report – it was never stated that it was authored by the city. I have no idea who authored it.
My understanding is that this report was authored by DACHA.
[quote]My understanding is that this report was authored by DACHA.[/quote]
Precisely…
If the first paragraph of the DACHA Dissolution Plan is any measure then DACHA is once again woefully short on the truth, facts and information.
Of all the DACHA documents this one is the most lacking in validity. Of course there is a DACHA side but this first paragraph tells me that DACHA has started off losing any ability for its case to be credible. The DACHA information goes downhill from the first sentence on.
What is written here by DACHA reminds me of the quotes of the Arbitrator about the DACHA Board.
Quotes from the Arbitration Award filed with the Yolo County Superior Court in June, 2009. Quotes by Kenneth M. Malovos, the attorney jointly chosen by DACHA and Neighborhood Partners and approved by the Yolo Superior Court.
“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)
“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)
Throughout all of the testimony of the DACHA board and members there is a pattern of lack of knowledge of the basic facts of their actions. Even when the DACHA members were in control of the board none of them seem to remember how major board decisions were made. As we have learned from testimony major DACHA decisions seemed to be being made by City staff (Foster) and one or two board members (Teague, Garcia or Huff). The rest of the DACHA board seemed oblivious to the decisions taken in their name.
We clearly need to learn more about the role of City staff? The cost and losses to the City re: DACHA are now at $2.4 million.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Let’s look at the first sentence in DACHA’s opening paragraph.
“2002: City of Davis Redevelopment Agency (City RDA) retained Neighborhood Partners, LLC (NF) (operated by David J. Thompson (DT) and Luke Watkins (LW)), to develop a limited-equity affordable housing cooperative called ”Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association” (DACHA).”
This opening statement is completely untrue. The City of Davis/RDA did not retain or hire or contract with or have any form of signed agreement with Neighborhood Partners.
There was no contractual relationship of any kind between the City/RDA and NP.
How bizarre for DACHA to make a claim in the opening sentence that is completely and factually untrue.
There is no validity to DACHA’s information in this first sentence of their public document they are submitting to the City and to the Attorney General.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
The second sentence states; “DACHA home sites were randomly sprinkled throughout Davis, which would later be cited as highly problematic.”
Our response: DACHA is a multi site co-op almost all in three clusters in Davis. Who cited it as problematic?
Many co-ops in California are multi-site and work very well.
•The largest Senior Co-op in California has almost 2,000 units at 15 different sites in eleven different cities
•The largest Student Co-op in California accommodates about 1,300 students at 20 different locations throughout the City of Berkeley
•The largest housing co-op in California accommodates 15,000 households at numerous locations in three different cities
•Oak Center Homes is 89 homes on 42 different sites in Oakland
•Solar Community Housing Association is four houses on three different sites with the intent to acquire more sites at different locations.
•All Land Trusts (a different form of cooperative) in California are multi-site
The problem with DACHA was not multi-sites but greed for the $200,000 each one could gain if they dissolved the Co-op. May 21, 2005 letter to Council from DACHA, we want to own the homes. From that time on the members focussed on actions that regretfully led to the destruction of the co-op.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]Elaine: “My understanding is that this report was authored by DACHA.”
Sue: “Precisely…”[/quote]Meaning what? Or, more specifically, who?
In so far as I am aware, no developer can build an affordable housing project for the city’s affordable housing program in which the city has invested a substantial amount of its own RDA funds [i]without the city’s permission[/i]…
[quote]Meaning what? Or, more specifically, who?[/quote]
DACHA, period.
In the first paragraph DACHA also wrote:
“Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation (TPCF), of which DT was its CEO, also provided start-up funds. DT made several personal loans to DACHA, naming TPCF as DACHA’s charitable beneficiary.”
How lazy and incorrect can DACHA be? I am not CEO of Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation. As a nonprofit we do not have a CEO. I am and have been for 20 years the unpaid President of the TPCF board. We have a paid Executive Director.
I did make several loans to DACHA but in none of them did I name TPCF as the Charitable Beneficiary.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]Our response: DACHA is a multi site co-op almost all in three clusters in Davis. Who cited it as problematic? [/quote]
John Gianola, former head of Legal Services of Northern CA, whom I have a great deal of respect for. He cited specific problems within DACHA that had to do with the particular multi-site approach that had been implemented…
[quote]The problem with DACHA was not multi-sites but greed for the $200,000 each one could gain if they dissolved the Co-op. May 21, 2005 letter to Council from DACHA, we want to own the homes. From that time on the members focussed on actions that regretfully led to the destruction of the co-op. [/quote]
Please note from dissolution plan:
[quote]Several articles of correspondence authored by DT and 2004-2005 City Block Grant Application show DT stated repeatedly DACHA would provide “affordable home ownership.”… Many members mistakenly believed they made a down payment on a home they would own.[/quote]
DACHA homeowners only know what they were told…
[quote]From that time on the members focussed on actions that regretfully led to the destruction of the co-op. [/quote]
From the dissolution plan:
[quote]G&A’s findings were critical of the DACHA model, expressing bafflement over how it was intended to function, and skepticism about its financial stability. Their analysis of the DACHA loans indicated many contained irregularities/abnormalities. The audit discovered numerous problems, such as sloppy accounting practices, no financial data-analysis, among other aberrations; determining DACHA to be unsustainable and encouraged restructuring. DT disagreed, demanding a new audit. Gianola responded with a letter to the City stating the audit findings were validated by his own review of the DACHA records. He indicated.NP had crafted DACHA’s bylaws, occupancy & subscription agreements in a shoddy manner, with little oversight from the City, and NP had mismanaged DACHA….
On advice of counsel, the DACHA board proposed a repayment/rent-increase plan, notifying DT & LW of their desire for a settlement of both suits. DT & LW obtained a Writ of Execution, levying DACHA’s accounts. In consequence, DACHA was left without operating funds. Thus DACHA defaulted on its loan to City RDA. The City then notified DACHA of its intent to foreclose.[/quote]
Who destroyed this cooperative?
David, to this question: [quote]”Who is the author of the various sections. Your intro suggests not the Vanguard?”[/quote] You replied:[quote]”I should have said – and will add, this is pulled from the city’s staff report and it appears to be the most complete recounting of the DACHA history that I have seen.[/quote]When I responded to SODA’s question, you jumped in to note: [quote]”It was in the city’s staff report – it was never stated that it was authored by the city. I have no idea who authored it.”[/quote]I guess I could reply, “I never stated that you stated it was authored by the city,” but I’ll make some other observations instead:
1. When you note, “the [u]Vanguard[/u] was asked to publish verbatim this account of the history of DACHA….”, isn’t it basic that you include in the editor’s note who it was who asked you to publish something?
2. Why would you not be responsive to SODA’s question about who wrote the piece and talk about the city report from which it was “pulled” instead? It seems disingenuous to pretend to answer if you know you’re not, but that reasonable people will read that the city authored it for their report. If you knew it only was an attachment to the report, submitted by DACHA, and you didn’t know the author, I’d expect you’d say that.
3. Why don’t you care to know who authored an article that you agreed to reprint? Why wouldn’t you attribute it to the author? [quote]”I have no idea who authored it.”[/quote]I’m sorry, but this is difficult to accept. It suggests you don’t care and don’t care to find out and don’t want to know–none of these options is credible, given your great coverage of DACHA’s journey.
What I don’t get is why play these mystery games about authorship of a critical piece of work in this case? It makes it look as though there’s some reason to keep it anonymous, which I don’t think is true at all. If I were responsible for this document, I’d take pride in my authorship and hard work.
[quote]What I don’t get is why play these mystery games about authorship of a critical piece of work in this case? It makes it look as though there’s some reason to keep it anonymous, which I don’t think is true at all. If I were responsible for this document, I’d take pride in my authorship and hard work.[/quote]
DMG has merely reprinted a public document – the dissolution plan that was submitted to the city by DACHA…
To JustSaying: Surely you are aware there are many lawsuits filed and threatened to be filed in this case, which requires extreme caution…
[quote]”John Gianola, former head of Legal Services of Northern CA, whom I have a great deal of respect for. He cited specific problems within DACHA that had to do with the particular multi-site approach that had been implemented…”[/quote]This flaw in the project design has been cited so many times, it’s become generally accepted as a fact. It’s used over and over in most every discussion about why DACHA failed, so one presumes it has some validity.
Where is Mr. Gianola’s report on the DACHA project?
[quote]Where is Mr. Gianola’s report on the DACHA project?[/quote]
I will send DMG the entire letter for publication – it was an attachment to the dissolution plan…
To JustSaying: Just as an aside, here is the pertinent part of the report inre multi-site housing:
[quote]It seems to go against the very nature of a cooperative to have members’ units scattered about the City. Similar units in one location certainly foster a sense of common good and cooperation. Indeed, I’ve observed that it has been difficult for DACHA to establish a common bond among its residents. In fact, this scattered-site model fosters inherent conflict among residents. For example, there is some conflict and resentment among members that some of the DACHA units with the worst financing have been a drain on DACHA’s limited resources. Also, residents of one site have particular landscaping needs that they would like DACHA to pay for while residents of another site do not see how such maintenance will benefit them. Thus, scattered-sites present an impediment to developing a cooperative relationship which is essential to a housing co-op model.
Moreover, building similar units as one development with similar financing has the benefit of not only fostering cooperation among co-op members, but has the benefit of a favorable economy of scale. Needless to say, the staggered scattered-site model of DACHA is a poor economy of scale and helped lead to unfavorable financing to the organization and high maintenance costs to the residents.
In short, I believe the very concept of DACHA as staggered scattered-site units is fundamentally a faulty model for cooperative housing. [/quote]
[quote]”DMG has merely reprinted a public document – the dissolution plan that was submitted to the city by DACHA….Surely you are aware there are many lawsuits filed and threatened to be filed in this case, which requires extreme caution…”[/quote]True enough, but David didn’t try to attribute it the way you describe. In fact, when asked about the authorship (probably because he neglected to say who wrote it or who promoted its publication in the [u]Vanguard[/u]), he implied city staff involvement.
I understand that you might live with the secrecy levels required for this document, but one would think that David would not be satisfied even if he thought it was “most complete recounting of the DACHA history that I have seen.” Since I might not be an attorney, I thought more disclosure was appropriate in this forum.
Anyway, I think I know who authored and edited the dissolution paper/[u]Vanguard[/u] article and on whose behalf the work was done. Good enough for me.
Good enough for David, too, since the article will end up on both lists, most commented on and most read.
[quote]Vanguard…most commented on and most read.[/quote]
LOL Yes the Vanguard is [i]very[/i] well read!
“isn’t it basic that you include in the editor’s note who it was who asked you to publish something?”
The editor’s name? It was members of the public, if they wish to make themselves known, they can do so.
“What I don’t get is why play these mystery games about authorship of a critical piece of work in this case?”
What you interpret as a “game” was merely the fact that I was trying to get the material out, did not know who put it out, and did not take enough time to elaborate on this. I do my best to get the material out and properly attribute it. I don’t have a staff, I don’t have an editor, Highbeam is kind enough to volunteer their time to at least catch the worse errors, but it’s difficult not to over look things even when they are important as this was. Unfortunately, I feel like you are trying to play games with me and that instead of making thoughtful suggestions you try to play gotcha. I don’t have a dog in the DACHA fight. I have pushed for transparency and independent investigation and I have tried to get as much material out as I can. This was an opportunity to put out a synopsis, obviously a biased, we can speculate about who the author might be.
To JustSaying: In hindsight, I doubt anyone involved in the DACHA project wanted it to fail. All connected with DACHA certainly wanted complete and utter success. The problem is that due diligence was not done at the outset, for a project that was extremely complicated, controversial in the sense it was extremely innovative by the city’s standards, and that had serious inherent developer conflicts of interest/development flaws that needed to be addressed but were allowed to slide/fester/balloon out of all control…
Just as an aside, my fervent hope is there are serious lessons to be learned from the DACHA debacle on how NOT to do an affordable housing project…
Because of the numerous inaccuracies, misstatements and mistruths in the DACHA document TPCF asks that each of the authors of the DACHA report be identified.
We do not think it appropriate that the authors for DACHA are not identified but are allowed to submit a series of shoddy facts in a report required by state law for a request for legal dissolution hearing to the City Council for forwarding to the Attorney General.
Is this report coming from the board of two members who do not own shares in DACHA as required by State Law?
Was this report authorised by the apparently non eligible DACHA board?
When did the DACHA approve this report for submission to the state?
Please provide the minutes of the DACHA board meeting where this report was approved?
Was it written by bone fide DACHA members?
Were non DACHA members involved in the writing of this document?
Unless the authors of the DACHA report are identified as being the responsible parties TPCF will ask for the report to be struck from the public record. We are talking about a public hearing required by State Law.
Each one of authors of any document submitted in the public and transparent dissolution process required by law should be identified. No unsigned document should be accepted by the City and entered into the hearing record.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
David: That does not seem to be a good way to bring the authors forward. Why not focus your time on correcting the record as opposed to engaging in a witch hunt?
CA Civil Code Section 817.2(d) states:
[quote](d) If the dissolving limited-equity housing cooperative or
workforce housing cooperative trust does not merge with an existing
cooperative or trust, both of the following shall occur:
(1) Upon completion of the public hearing required pursuant to
subdivision (a), the city or county shall adopt a resolution
approving of the dissolution and make a finding that the dissolution
plan meets the requirements of state and federal law, meets the
donative intent standards of the United States Internal Revenue
Service, and is free of private inurement, which includes, but is not
limited to, a prohibition on any member receiving any payment in
excess of the transfer value to which he or she is entitled pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 817.
(2) The city or county shall forward all of the information and
written testimony from the hearing to the Office of the Attorney
General for the Attorney General to consider as part of his or her
ruling on the dissolution.[/quote]
One of the problems with this poorly drafted statute is that it is woefully short on specifics; is unbelievably vague/confusing as to its terms…
[quote]How bizarre for DACHA to make a claim in the opening sentence that is completely and factually untrue.–[b]David Thompson[/b][/quote]David, these poor people can’t even afford an attorney to help them write their dissolution plan, and in the past, when a little money was available to them to hire an attorney, you objected vehemently and claimed we were providing a “gift of public funds”.
Now, you are essentially ridiculing them because they don’t have the money to hire an attorney.
I don’t know the exact legal way to describe the relationship between you, Luke, the City and the RDA, but I have an attorney that I can and will ask, and they don’t.
But since you have plenty of attorneys, why can’t you help us out and just tell us the legal description of your relationship between the City and the RDA?
Another sentence in the first paragraph of the DACHA report goes on to say;
“During the first charter meeting, Dallas Kassing and Ty Smalley, also of TPCF, were appointed DACHA’s President and Treasurer respectively.”
It is incredulous how incorrect this statement is. Dallas Kassing and Ty Smalley were not also of TPCF. Neither Dallas Kassing nor Ty Smalley were ever board members of TPCF, neither of them had had any or have had any organizational or any other relationship to TPCF in any way, ever, at any time.
Is anyone at DACHA checking these incorrect statements?
Please give us a document that is accurate?
You can ask Kassing and Smalley under oath if they ever had any relationship to TPCF and the answer will be no.
Where the unsigned authors of the DACHA report submitted as a public record for the use of the Attorney General to decide on the upholding of law come up with this statement is beyond me.
The lack of validity starting with this first paragraph should be of concern to the City Council and to the Attorney General. There is hardlly an iota of truth in just the first paragraph.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
[quote]”To JustSaying: In hindsight, I doubt anyone involved in the DACHA project wanted it to fail. All connected with DACHA certainly wanted complete and utter success. The problem is that due diligence was not done at the outset, for a project that was extremely complicated, controversial in the sense it was extremely innovative by the city’s standards, and that had serious inherent developer conflicts of interest/development flaws that needed to be addressed but were allowed to slide/fester/balloon out of all control…”[/quote]As usual, we end up agreeing in the end.
If it’s true as alleged that the developers had conflicts which encouraged them to take unfair financial advantage of the DACHA members instead earning their fair capitalistic cut in this project, [u]someone[/u] should have been there to assure that they couldn’t put the members at such a disadvantage.
If it’s true as alleged that the DACHA members had friends who encouraged them to undermine the co-op so they could end up with individual windfall profits, [u]someone[/u] should have been there to assure they maintained all of their financial and legal responsibilities.
That [u]someone[/u] is the City of Davis, in my opinion. There’s no indication that anyone in city government accepts any responsibility for what happened during the many years before we moved in to foreclose on DACHA.
I would venture to say this was written by Elaine.
If whoever wrote the DACHA peice had asked me if I would read it to make sure of any inaccuracies, misstatements or errors I would have been quite willing to review the document.
However, non one chose to do that. Now some unknown people have submitted an unsigned document to the City as part of a hearing process that meets the requirements of State law and is to be submitted to the Attorney General.
Numerous statements are made about TPCF and NP which are incorrect, untruthful and possibly harmful to our organizations.
We do not think the City should allow this document to go forward.
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners LLC