Back in 2009, the Vanguard called for an independent investigation into DACHA to clarify what had occurred. The problem of a lack of a clear and agreed-upon record remains to this day. As we saw last month, every stakeholder in the process can point to a document that backs up their viewpoint – whether it is the Arbitrator’s Ruling, the Grand Jury report, or the audit, among others.
The city is to be commended for trying to go on the record and clarify the situation, but unfortunately that effort has largely backfired, or at the very least, has failed to occur.
One problem focuses on the well-intentioned efforts of Stephen Souza to settle the matter back in 2010 and to create a framework that all parties could accept.
The problem is that the very language that Stephen Souza used to explain what happened has added to, rather than clarified, the confusion.
This is not an effort to criticize Mr. Souza, who again I think acted in good faith and in a well-intentioned manner.
However, beginning in an April 11 email and continuing to an April 24 email to the Vanguard back in 2010, Mr.Souza insisted that he was acting on his own and was not a representative for the city council or the redevelopment agency.
He told the Vanguard last Friday, “On April 11th, I was acting as a mediator in the discussion with David, Luke and DACHA representatives. I said in that meeting I had no authority to make an offer and that anything we did would have to go back to the Council/Agency.”
He adds, “I was given authority to present my framework of a settlement offer. I was to continue to try and get an agreed settlement offer by NP, Twin Pines and DACHA, not just a framework. The hope was to get to the point where I could bring a settlement offer to Council/Agency at the April 27th meeting where the Council would give staff direction to make a formal settlement offer, not a framework for a settlement offer.”
The critical point for him is perhaps less clear for others – the difference between a settlement offer and the framework for a settlement offer.
He writes, “I believe the key to understanding where the truth lies is the difference of a formal settlement offer vs. a framework of a settlement offer.”
But he could never get to that settlement offer because the offer was not agreeable to all sides.
He tried to further explain his position in an email to the Enterprise this Monday in which he stated, “An individual council member cannot act on behalf of the council… “I could never in any of those meetings outside of the council formally agree to anything because I don’t have that authority.”
“I was given authority and direction to present a framework of a settlement offer and it was a framework that I had crafted, that my colleagues had seen and concurred was a good framework to put forward,” Mr. Souza added.
“I had presented that via an email to all the parties, in the hope that I could get some agreement and work with the parties in a matter that was outside of the formal process.”
The problem is that Mr. Souza, throughout the process, lacked clarity for the parties involved as to what his offer represented.
While Mr. Souza represented at the time he alone had been the one to make the offer, the complexity of the offer suggests that a lawyer such as City Attorney Harriet Steiner wrote it.
Ms. Steiner adds fuel to the fire when she told the Enterprise, “The council never reached a point where it felt it was appropriate to formalize an offer.
“I think if there had been any interest (by Neighborhood Partners) in the proposal Stephen gave, we would have moved on toward a settlement, but there was no interest,” Ms. Steiner told. “I think we’re all talking about the same thing.”
The chief problem with the settlement offer from the city was that while it would have settled with David Thompson, Luke Watkins and Neighborhood Partners, Twin Pines would have been left out.
David Thompson calls it akin to a bribe.
“As you can see from the email it was addressed to DACHA and NP. It was to talk about the NP judgment. There was no offer of anything to TPCF except that I as part of NP was expected to get TPCF to drop its law suit … and get nothing,” he wrote on the Vanguard.
He added, “As soon as the offer appeared in my email box I looked at all the components and then called TPCF’s lawyer. I said does this not look like a bribe? TPCF’s lawyer instructed me to stay away from the offer…”
He added, “That deal is illegal under California law where I am the President of TPCF and would get personal funds from the City. The offer was never changed to accommodate the legal concerns of myself as President of TPCF.”
Mr. Thompson also responded to a question posed by me that they had communicated their concerns to Mr. Souza at the time of their talks.
Some have suggested that Twin Pines incurred no real damage and therefore was not entitled to damages.
That may or may not be true, but the problem is that in a settlement, the key phrase is “settle” on terms that are agreeable to all parties, and this agreement was not agreeable to all parties.
Back in 2009, the council voted 3-2 against having an independent party look into DACHA. Stephen Souza and Sue Greenwald were against it, as was Mayor Ruth Asmundson. Councilmembers Lamar Heystek and Don Saylor voted in favor of the investigation.
That same dynamic seems to hold now as well, as Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk have come out in favor of some sort of independent investigation, while the rest of the council has been resistant. Two of the challenging candidates have indicated some willingness to move forward with an investigation. More on that later.
We renew our call for an independent investigation because, right now, everyone can point to his or her own study that shows they are right, and the public record is clear as mud.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]The chief problem with the settlement offer from the city was that while it would have settled with David Thompson, Luke Watkins and Neighborhood Partners, Twin Pines would have been left out.[/quote]
In other words TP wanted money too…
[quote]Some have suggested that Twin Pines incurred no real damage and therefore was not entitled to damages.
That may or may not be true, but the problem is that in a settlement, the key phrase is “settle” on terms that are agreeable to all parties, and this agreement was not agreeable to all parties.[/quote]
Precisely – the City via Souza extended the possibility of a settlement, and Thompson made it clear the suggested offer was not acceptable in any way shape or form.
It is also clear from a statement made by Gonzalez, the attorney for TP, he assumed there was an offer by the City, but said it was not acceptable:
[quote]”The [April 2010 settlement] deal was unacceptable to TPCF [Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation] because there was no assurance that the LEHC [Limited Equity Housing Cooperative] would proceed beyond three years and no way for TPCF’s concerns about DACHA’s corporate misconduct to be remedied let alone come to light or TP being re-named the charitable beneficiary. Our goal was to have a viable, properly running LEHC and the City’s offer was to buy off NP at TPCF’s concerns expense.”[/quote]
“In other words TP wanted money too…”
They have a lawsuit. They believe that they have damages. Why would they drop the matter with nothing in return?
I continue to have a concern that is similar to the point that Elaine seems to be addressing.
He added, “That deal is illegal under California law where I am the President of TPCF and would get personal funds from the City. The offer was never changed to accommodate the legal concerns of myself as President of TPCF.”
Either an offer was made, or it wasn’t. If an offer was made, and found unacceptable, then the claim that no offer was made until this year is untrue. If no offer was made, as David and Luke have claimed, then there can have been no “attempt at bribery” as David seems to be claiming.
And if it were perceived that there was either substantial legal error, or chicanery afoot in the issuance of a perceived offer, why not put your concerns on paper, offer an alternative that would have been acceptable to you,, and use the two documents as the initial negotiating points.
unless of course any of the involved parties thought that it would be financially advantageous to them to not even try for a negotiated
settlement ?
[quote]Either an offer was made, or it wasn’t. If an offer was made, and found unacceptable, then the claim that no offer was made until this year is untrue. If no offer was made, as David and Luke have claimed, then there can have been no “attempt at bribery” as David seems to be claiming.
And if it were perceived that there was either substantial legal error, or chicanery afoot in the issuance of a perceived offer, why not put your concerns on paper, offer an alternative that would have been acceptable to you,, and use the two documents as the initial negotiating points.
unless of course any of the involved parties thought that it would be financially advantageous to them to not even try for a negotiated
settlement ?[/quote]
BINGO! Nicely said!
[quote]They have a lawsuit. They believe that they have damages. Why would they drop the matter with nothing in return?[/quote]
Not only did Thompson want money for TP (meaning there was indeed a contemplated offer by the City but it was deemed unacceptable by Thompson), but from what Gonzalez says it appears there was a great deal more that was required – the return of the homes and TP named as charitable beneficiary. In other words it seems what was really wanted in settlement was the 20 homes. You read Gonzalez’s response and determine what is being asked for. I don’t see how you could come to any other conclusion, so please explain if you see it another way based on Gonzalez’s own words…
David
“…
“In other words TP wanted money too…”
They have a lawsuit. They believe that they have damages. Why would they drop the matter with nothing in return?”
Maybe in the best interest of the citizens of Davis whose best interests they keep saying they have at heart ?
Please note that I do not have enough knowledge of housing, co op, rental, financial matters to know who is technically (legally) right or wrong here. But, I do believe that I have an ability to appreciate whether or not one’s stated objectives are aligned with one’s actions. So far, I am not seeing that alignment in the statements and actions of David and Luke, who I am sure if they were acting in the best interests of the citizens of Davis instead of in their own, and /or their businesses best financial interests, do have sufficient knowledge of all of the above matters to have settled this long ago. Coild there perhaps be an element here of businessmen being willing to accept profit when the business is going well, but not being willing to accept some loss when things do not go as planned ?
Elaine: I’m not going to get into whether NP, David, Luke, TP, is right or wrong here. It’s very simple, they believe they have a claim. You may disagree. I may disagree. But they believe they do. A settlement means an agreement that all sides can accept that is suboptimal for all. You have to give a little to get. What motivation would TP have to settle if they get nothing in return.
And Medwoman, with all due respect, I think that’s a bit naive to suggest that Twin Pines should do what is in the best interests of Davis.
[quote]Maybe in the best interest of the citizens of Davis whose best interests they keep saying they have at heart ? [/quote]
Ultimately, whatever happens, citizens of Davis are going to have to pay, whether it is a settlement w NP/TP or the money to pay a lawyer to defend the lawsuits against the City – for a flawed plan conceived by the very people suing the City. DACHA members have/will pay even more for this debacle, and are ill equipped to fork over even more money than the average Davis taxpayer…
[quote]Coild there perhaps be an element here of businessmen being willing to accept profit when the business is going well, but not being willing to accept some loss when things do not go as planned ?[/quote]
Or perhaps wanting to game the system to their advantage, by removing any City Staff that oppose them? Look at Thompson’s own words on the Vanguard:
[quote]
• (01/24/12) – “Justice demands that this [DACHA] mess be cleaned up and the [City] employees involved have their employment with the City terminated.”
• (01/24/12) – “[DACHA] families became a pawn in City staff’s retribution for my whistle blowing.”
[/quote]
It is becoming clear DACHA members are pawns caught in the middle between an ongoing battle between the City and Thompson…
“for a flawed plan conceived by the very people suing the City”
And approved by council. Though I do find it interesting that it has often been called a flawed plan, but I believe it is not a plan that was unique.
Elaine, you never admit to the role that city staff and city atty played and continue to play in this. Most of us who have gotten wrapped up in this soap opera, have bc of the city’s role. WHAT has been done to change how the city handles affordable housing?
I think we need to focus on the data cited in the VG a couple of days ago about ~90/700 original affordable units are still affordable.
Can we explore that in terms of the city’s role?
Elaine what is your comment about that?
David
“And Medwoman, with all due respect, I think that’s a bit naive to suggest that Twin Pines should do what is in the best interests of Davis.”
Please note that this is not being suggested as an alternative by me. David has repeatedly made the implication that he, the president of TP
Is acting as a “whistle blower” presumably in the interests of the ctitizens of Davis. It would seem to me that a great deal in legal fees and time and tribulation could have been saved if he and Luke would have simply sat down, drafted a counter proposal, and presented it to Souza or directly to the City. The fact that they did not choose this course of action suggests to me that they did not perceive it as in their best financial interest to do so. I do not deny that this is their legal right. I just would find it more refreshing if they would stop the posturing, accusations ( use of the word bribe when referring to an offer that they cannot seem to agree whether or not it even occurred) and just admit that they are in it for the money as would seem to be the case.
[i]I think we need to focus on the data cited in the VG a couple of days ago about ~90/700 original affordable units are still affordable. [/i]
One apartment building can provide more than 90 affordable housing units, in perpetuity, without any ongoing city involvement or complicated equity-control schemes.
Sorry Don. Don’t follow. For rent not ownership or ??
A regular apartment building is the simplest way to provide affordable housing in Davis.
The New Harmony project in S Davis?
Generally speaking, the amount people will pay for rent is a product of supply and demand. Insofar as supply is insufficient, rental rates on all qualities of apartments (from the low end to the luxurious) are higher, and this redounds to the benefit of landords and harms the interests of tenants. Most tenants in Davis (students being the largest section of them) have lower incomes and less resources than most homeowners and certainly less than most landlords.
So if you want to help most lower income people in Davis, you need to encourage the development of more and more apartment complexes. Chances are that many new units will not themselves be affordable to our lowest income renters. That is because new construction is usually quite expensive and a developer needs higher rents to justify her investment. However, unless the new building draws in rich people from other towns, its presence will increase the total supply and effectively lower the pressure on rents for all apartments in Davis.
If enough new apartment buildings were constucted such that the total vacancy rate rose from its usual 0% to 2% up to a more healthy 5%, everyone who rents an apartment in Davis–again, a group which includes most of the lower-income residents of Davis–would materially benefit.
By contrast, when you have a program which fixes the rents at a sub-market level for a handful of units, the few people who get those places (in theory*) benefit, but they actually harm renters as a class. Why harm? Because they reduce the profits of building new apartments and that results in a lower supply and a lower vacancy rate.
*What is unclear to me is how much lower these low-income units go for than the market is charging. According to the City website ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/housing/affordable/pdfs/low-moderate-rental-requirement-2011-12.pdf[/url]), a 1-bedroom “affordable” apartment goes for $1,122/month. Is that really less than a market rate? If the renter’s income is very low, then the same unit goes for $667/month. That likely is sub-market, depending on the quality of the apartment.
The City waters got muddier even more today by Harriet Steiner’s comments.
“The account in question held city money, not DACHA funds…”
Now we have to locate the documents.
We think that when DACHA borrowed (illegally) $4 million from the City that $4 million contained the reserve funds that all parties talk about.
If DACHA borrowed that money to have as reserves it was DACHA’s money.
If it was DACHA’s money it was not the city’s!
Suspect that Ms. Steiner will be wrong once again.
How long can citizens afford her mistakes?
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
New Harmony is costing the city $10 million, at least in loans. I see no reason whatsoever for the city to be expending or encumbering funds to provide apartments.
[url]http://www.mutualhousing.com/docs/SMHAReprint(3-16-11)_P3.pdf[/url]
Zoning densities are the way to provide affordable housing. I urge the city to get out of the affordable housing business completely. If we’ve learned anything from the many blog threads on DACHA over the last months, it is that the city isn’t the best organization to manage these things. If private investors want to build affordable housing, low-equity or otherwise, I’m sure zoning changes can expedite that. But for-profit apartments that yield a 5% vacancy rate achieve the same thing, as Rich has explained above.
My hope is that this issue will be resolved by arbitration, rather than going to court (unlikely) and that the city council will take this opportunity to review the current housing policies. Audits are retrospective. If some feel a need for that, I suppose that is fine, but it is worth noting that audits aren’t cost-free and we are in an era of limited resources.
My question is what the purpose of the audit would be. To affix blame? Pointless. To begin the process of crafting effective oversight and developing new housing policies? Then an audit might be worth the cost. But it will be almost impossible to find an independent auditor in this town.
I think what is important is what happens going forward. Sometimes I think the council is primarily reactive, and doesn’t always consider how their actions relate to planning goals. If the city’s priorities are stabilizing our fiscal condition, promoting economic development, achieving affordable housing, and retaining our distinctive character, are the councilmembers considering those priorities as they review projects that come before them?
How can we get our CC to agree. Joe, weigh in please. Rochelle?
Candidates?
Dear Don:
I think we need to focus on the data cited in the VG a couple of days ago about ~90/700 original affordable units are still affordable.
One apartment building can provide more than 90 affordable housing units, in perpetuity, without any ongoing city involvement or complicated equity-control schemes.
The sixty units at Dos Pinos operate exactly as DACHA was supposed to.
I believe that the 700 number applies to all the homes done as part of the ownership program of the city. This number does not include apartment rentals. All of the apartment rentals done under affordable housing have stayed affordable.
The 60 units at Dos Pinos have all the same formats, documents, agreements as were applied to DACHA.
Dos Pinos could have tried to take the same road as DACHA and they too could have made money by breaking the law. Thankfully, the DACHA members have ethics and standards and are law abiding.
I will say again that once the DACHA members were givne the nod by City staff to pursue dissolution (and get $200,000 each over time) there was no rationale to make the co-op work.
See Jeanne Johnson’s DACHA board requirements of the April offer,
1. City releases $230,000 reserve monies to NP
2. The foreclosure continues
3. TP lawsuit goes away
4. DACHA is dissolved
5. Nobody talks about the settlement nor DACHA
6. These points are put into legalize and signed by all appropriate parties
TPCF’s lawsuit about the DACHA board’s identified illegalities was to go away if NP (LW & DT)took the money and I as President of TPCF would get the TPCF board to drop the law suit.
Sure sounds like a bribe to me!
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
That is fine, David, and if you want to facilitate more projects like Dos Piños without any city funds (including loans), I’m sure the zoning densities can be changed in various places to accommodate it. I don’t oppose limited equity projects, or co-housing, or any of that. I just don’t think they should be funded by the city in any way, nor do I think they address the unique Davis housing issue: low vacancy rates in rental units.
SODA: we will have to ask the candidates directly about their positions on affordable housing programs and policies. Perhaps a series of threads in which the candidates are invited to post their positions and asked to participate. An online candidate forum.
[quote]”for a flawed plan conceived by the very people suing the City”
And approved by council. Though I do find it interesting that it has often been called a flawed plan, but I believe it is not a plan that was unique.[/quote]
I beg to differ. It was a very unique plan – bc it evolved over time to be anything but what the CC envisioned – with odd arrangements as to how the Board was to be configured, very irregular financing/loan/bookkeeping/billing procedures, and the like. It was clear there were built in conflicts of interest, but the CC chose to ignore the potential for trouble by failing to supervise – to ensure the conflicts of interest did not seep into contractual arrangements between consumers and the developers aka consultants aka salespersons.
[quote]Elaine, you never admit to the role that city staff and city atty played and continue to play in this. Most of us who have gotten wrapped up in this soap opera, have bc of the city’s role. WHAT has been done to change how the city handles affordable housing?
I think we need to focus on the data cited in the VG a couple of days ago about ~90/700 original affordable units are still affordable.
Can we explore that in terms of the city’s role?
Elaine what is your comment about that?[/quote]
On the contrary, I have said several times on the Vanguard that the city should have supervised the entire DACHA scheme from the outset, otherwise they never should have approved of this project in the first place. The city knew there were questionable conflicts of interest on the part of the developer; and was well aware there was the potential for those conflicts of interest to seep their way into any contracts made between the consumer and the developer. This is evidenced by the very questions asked by Katherine Hess addressed directly to the developer.
It was the city’s affordable housing program, and as such it should have been administered in such a way as to: conform to what was promised; and provide proper oversight at the inception of this highly experimental model. Had that been done, I suspect things may have turned out differently. For instance, had the Board been configured better in the beginning so the developer/consultant/salesperson was not overly represented, there would not have been so much self-dealing in regard to the drafting of the governing documents (e.g. the clause requiring the purchase of more units no matter the financial condition of DACHA), etc.
[quote]TPCF’s lawsuit about the DACHA board’s identified illegalities was to go away if NP (LW & DT)took the money and I as President of TPCF would get the TPCF board to drop the law suit. Sure sounds like a bribe to me! [/quote]
As medwoman so astutely pointed out, how could there be a bribe, if there was not offer as you claim? You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]My hope is that this issue will be resolved by arbitration, rather than going to court (unlikely)…[/quote]
Actually this entire mess is most likely going to court, bc DACHA has no way to defend itself, and the opposition knows it. In consequence, the opposition will obtain a default judgment without DACHA being able to show up in court to represent/defend itself (a corporation must have attorney representation by law). The opposition will then trumpet the default judgment as proof positive of DACHA’s wrongdoing, even tho it will have PROVED NOTHING. But because the opposition has deep pockets and DACHA members do not, DACHA members are powerless to stop such a travesty/abuse of legal process…
[quote]My hope is …that the city council will take this opportunity to review the current housing policies. Audits are retrospective. If some feel a need for that, I suppose that is fine, but it is worth noting that audits aren’t cost-free and we are in an era of limited resources.
My question is what the purpose of the audit would be. To affix blame? Pointless. To begin the process of crafting effective oversight and developing new housing policies? Then an audit might be worth the cost. But it will be almost impossible to find an independent auditor in this town. [/quote]
Well said!
DACHA’s records provided by DACHA as a result of discovery show that as of June 30, 2010, the DACHA members owed their own organization $47,627.78. Subsequent requests for information show that none of that debt has been paid.
Owing much of that $47,627.78 are eight DACHA board members.
There is no written evidence of City staff taking any action to reduce delinquencies.
Interesting that the Souza memo said:
“DACHA members have a short period of time to get back in good standing (90 days, for example) or DACHA will pursue remedies, including eviction.”
The DACHA report to the Council for dissolution admits DACHA owes the City of Davis $75,955.88:
#9. Various City of Davis Finance Department Charges $75,955.88
So that money is still owed to DACHA and the City and the City has not taken any action
Remember the bylaws require that a board member be removed if they were more than 30 days delinquent.
Worried about how the City manages our public funds?
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
“Ms. Steiner adds fuel to the fire when she told the Enterprise, “The council never reached a point where it felt it was appropriate to formalize an offer. “I think if there had been any interest (by Neighborhood Partners) in the proposal Stephen gave, we would have moved on toward a settlement, but there was no interest,” Ms. Steiner told. “I think we’re all talking about the same thing.”
So far, at least Stephen Souza, Harriett Steiner, Luke Watkins, David Thompson and Jeanne Johnson all have said in writing in emails, the Enterprise and/or the Vanguard that Councilman Souza was operating on his own behalf in trying to get negotiations, that he was NOT acting as a representative of the City of Davis, that we was NOT presenting an offer from the City Council in 2010. Please respond if you disagree with anything I’ve said here.
These people all were direct participants in the 2010 discussions; none has chosen to belabor the point the way some of us have in a fruitless attempt to have Luke and David T. to deny their belief–the same belief documented by DACHA’s Jeanne in her contemporary email–that whatever Councilman Souza was shopping around was NOT an offer from the City Council–a fact that the councilman emphasized in his own email at the time.
None of this would matter if the current City Council hadn’t voted 5-0 to try a smear campaign last week to blame Luke and David T. for the city’s decision to foreclose on the DACHA members, claiming everything would be fine if the two Bad Boys had just accepted the City’s 2010 offer. Now we know that no offer ever existed and that Stephen’s concept or framework was NOT accepted by DACHA or NP or TP or the City itself.
So, the Council’s public relations campaign collapsed in a heap the instant Councilman Souza offered up an apparently fraudulent email that bolstered the NP/TP contention that the first offer they’d received from the City came this year. The councilman promptly retracted the Council’s op-ed
Repeating charges over and over again does not make them true. Secondly, all of this is going to come out of the taxpayers’ collective pockets, so the public is not being done any service by these lawsuits…
The Grand Jury report/audit/John Gianola’s letter makes it clear the city needs to do more due diligence in a supervisory role of its affordable housing program…
The City Council needs to look into this comment by Ms Steiner in The Enterprise today.
“The account in question held city money, not DACHA funds…”
This is the resolution adopted by the City of Davis on the 24th June, 2008.
They approve a loan of $4,170,000 to DACHA. Part of the loan that is borrowed is identifed as “Establishing Reasonable General Reserves..”
The amount borrowed by DACHA from the City contains a line item for $432,000.
These were the reserves I believe that NP, TPCF, DACHA and the City were referring to.
From 2008 on through June of 2010 DACHA was paying interest on the $4 million loan. As the $432,000 was included in the $4 million they borrowed.
By anyone’s interpretation those reserves were DACHA’s. If they were the City’s why were they included in the loan amount?
Steiner’s Enterise explanation does not hold water unless the Council voted other funds for DACHA that were never made public?
Why do so many of the Souza, Steiner and the City’s facts evaporate under scrutiny?
Heres the City Document.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Davis that:
SECTION 1. In order to repay all secondary loans and provide an adequate reduction in
membership shares that ensures ongoing affordability, the revised allocation for use of
the refinance funds under this loan shall be:
Purpose Current Estimate
Purchase of primary loans (includes existing City/Agency assistance to DACHA)
$3,483,000
Repayment of Secondary Loans
$255,000
Establishing Reasonable General Reserves (Capital, Maintenance, Administrative and Vacancy Reserves, as well as reserves for other share price stabilization)
$432,000
Total $4,170,000
SECTION 2. The comprehensive refinance loan shall be made for a period of 40 years.
The loan will accrue compounded interest of 3 percent during the life of the loan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Davis on this twenty-forth day of June 2008 by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Sue Greenwald
Board Chair
ATTEST:
Margaret Roberts, MMC
Agency Clerk
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
…major charge by “clarifying” that he simply was advancing a “framework” since he had no authority from the council to make any offer.
It is so clear that–as David G. observes–Stephen Souza was trying to do right in 2010 and get the parties to agree to some settlement that would avoid a trial. It is so clear that not one of the parties had agreed to anything. It is not clear why nearly two years went by before anymore attempts to negotiate after the councilman’s “failed model,” assuming that’s what happened.
It also seems clear that our City Council undertook a really unwise drive-by shooting, missed by a mile and now is hiding behind Ms. Steiner’s legal skirts, in spite of their macho claims to prove the op-ed case with additional emails. If they’d only agreed to the Vanguard request to investigate and find out what really happened with DACHA before they shot off their pens. Instead, they seem to have assured that the City will be ending up in court.
“The Grand Jury report/audit/John Gianola’s letter makes it clear the city needs to do more due diligence in a supervisory role of its affordable housing program….”
Bingo! Is there any room for disagreement on your excellent point, Elaine. I’d add the findings and decisions of the mediator–specifically noting instances of the city staff’s neglect–to your list of documentation.
Think Grand Jury should look into the entire affordable housing program historically.
I located this info from 2009 for Dos Pinos.
Forgive me if the table does not replicate as I am hoping.
It shows you that a limited equity housing cooperatives works over time to trend lower each year against the Davis rental market.
In a market that has never acheived the 5% vacancy rate in the last 20 plus years people who do not qulaify for low income housing have to live with market conditions. However, the Dos Pinmos limited equity cooperative housing model shows you how the co-op model provides the only multifamily respite from the market in Davis.
In 2012 members of Dos Pinos living in a 3 bedroom unit in Davis are saving about $10,000 a year over renting the average market in Davis.
DOS PINOS HOUSING COOPERATIVE
An affordable housing alternative in Davis, California
•All ages and walks of life are represented–singles, single parents, couples, and families with children.
•Dos Pinos has 60 units: one-, two-, and three-bedroom units with private individual courtyards and washer/dryer hookups.
•Members may also use the pool, spa, community room and communal laundry room.
•Pets are allowed at Dos Pinos within our policy guidelines.
(as of January 2009) Monthly Rent
Unit Sq. Ft Monthly Assessment UCD Housing Study Share Value
1BR 652$615 $947 $15,639
2BR 928$863 $1,226 $20,651
3BR 1238 $1076 $1,818 $26,312
* The maximum transfer value may be more. The share value and features associated with an individual unit may differ depending on Board-approved permanent improvements made by members.
•Dos Pinos members who itemize their income tax deductions are able to deduct their portion of the corporation’s mortgage interest and real estate taxes. For 2008, proportional mortgage interest and real estate taxes were $2462 (1-BR); $3506 (2-BR); and $4195 (3-BR).
•Each member’s share value appreciates per criteria outlined in our Bylaws. The annual rate of appreciation is the prime interest rate (as of Jan 1st of each year) as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Historically, annual rates have ranged from 4.0% to 10.0%.
•Shareholders may apply for Board approval for permanent improvements to their units with the cost of improvements, less depreciation, added to the share value of the unit within the terms of our Permanent Improvement Policy.
•There are minor transfer costs when memberships are purchased or sold, but no closing costs as would be paid when buying a house.
•Approximate financial qualification for membership is a monthly household gross income that is equal to or greater than two and a half times the monthly assessment noted above.
For more information or an application for membership, come by to see us at:
2550 Sycamore Lane; Davis, CA 95616-5601 or call 530/758-2550
http://www.community.coop/davis/dospinos
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Sorry. I’ll try again but that did not work.
There are five column headings:
Unit Size
Sq. Ft
Monthly Assessment
UCD Housing Study(Rentals)from 2009 UCD Study Added by DT
Share Value
So then check the five inputs against the above headings,
Sorry,
David
Cannot seem to save the table. Any suggestions?
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
For some reason, this forum doesn’t like tables. Here’s a screen capture from 2011 of the same figures:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/dospinos.png[/img]
Some information about Dos Pinos
Comparisons of relative affordability and the net savings and wealth building gain in;
Dos Pinos Housing Cooperative v UCD Housing Study* (1985-2009)
& v Yolo County Median Income (1985-2009)
David Thompson of Neighborhood Partners, LLC has assembled this information. David assembled data about the Dos Pinos Housing Cooperative to arrive at the following impressive economic returns of a limited equity housing cooperative (LEHC):
•$474,722 is the combined net savings and wealth building gain for the 60 households at Dos Pinos relative to the market cost of rental housing in Davis during 2009.
•In 1985, a three bedroom unit at Dos Pinos occupied by a family of four required them to earn 111% of median income. By 2009 that same family of four needed only to earn 59% of median income to be able to live at Dos Pinos. Dos Pinos is now substantially more affordable relative to Yolo County Median income. No other “shared equity” housing model has this dramatic “more affordable” result.
•Davis’ strong and often hot housing market has historically had a very low rental vacancy rate (ten year average is 1.7%) which pushes up rental rates. Dos Pinos has shown that it has substantially increased affordability relative to the apartment rental market and increased affordability relating to median income.
•What Dos Pinos shows so strongly is that on an annual basis the model generates sizeable disposable household income and creates measurable wealth building opportunities for the families that live in the cooperative.
•In 2009, a household in a 3 bedroom unit had an economic gain of $10,742, in a 2 bedroom unit a gain of $5,801 and in a 1 bedroom unit a gain of $5,803. None of the other over 8,000 market rate rental units in Davis creates the gain that Dos Pinos does for its residents. In fact, because of the high rents and the high proportion of income going to rent (US Census) most renters in Davis have very little disposable income. Families living at Dos Pinos do!
See also info at http://www.community.coop/davis
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Dos Piños is fine, I hope you will build more of them. But we need to accommodate an enrollment increase of 5000 students in the next few years, and UCD isn’t going to build enough for that. We need well over 1000 new housing units for renters in Davis, and my guess is that still wouldn’t put our vacancy rate at 5%. So building affordable single-family homes and small low-equity co-ops isn’t going to solve the cost problem for the overwhelming majority of renters.
The city needs to get out of the affordable housing business, rezone land as needed to mixed uses and higher densities. It’s particularly troubling that the council is going forward with the ConAgra site for single family homes when it is a prime location for the highest-density housing that is truly needed in this town.
Dear Don:
On the above matter you and I are in general agreement. I agree with the idea of rezoning as I there is a miniscule amount of land zoned multi-family in Davis right now. I would also agree that for incoming projects there needs to be a higher proportion of multi-family. Neither do I disagree about building up instead of out.
I have often thought we should Unitrans do our housing planning. They have the most amazing statistics on what creates a bus passenger and what increase in service generates the most new customers.
Apartments should follow bus routes. I have vociferously complained to the Council about one issue in this vein.
Why did the planning staff allow for most of the family oriented affordable housing sites to be placed at locations nowhere near a Unitrans bus route?
Twin Pines, Tremont Green, Moore Village, Terracina are not on bus routes.
However, if your goal is affordable rental housing it canno be done under present market conditions or even ones that allow for more units being built. The base built on impact fees, property taxes, normal operating costs plus building and development costs do not allow a project today or in the future to be at an affordable rent.
That is why a limited equity housing cooperative over time can achieve below market savings but they will be the islands among the mass of higher than average rental costs that by the Census take more money from the residents of Davis than the average town.
But now both of us have gone off topic so back to DACHA.
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners. LLC.
SODA, I don’t think anyone in city government for more than four years want ANYONE looking into DACHA, let alone the projects tha preceeded it. There has been a purposeful blindness to the problems of the PSAT projects. Past projects have left Davis with almost housing that hasn’t gotten swallowed up by the regular real-estate market as the first owner sold, pocketing big profits.
What if we found out that some of these ending up with hundreds of thousands of dollars of quick-turnaround, windfall profits were folks who ended up an the front of the iine because(?) the were employed by or were family and friends of developers or city planning/building dept.?
What if responsible staff leaders and council members who still are here knew this was going on and failed to act? I don’t think we want to know what’s been happening; we can’t handle the truth.
Better to blame everything in the most recent affordable fiasco on the two Bad Boys and build a big, expensive rental housing project. Those always seem to work in the big cities.
So looking at Ms. Steiner’s role in the DACHA debacle.
City staff declares a quorum at the October 2005 DACHA membership meeting so that DACHA can illegally remove Dallas Kassing as TPCF representative on the board.
Due to being delinquent more than 30 days a review of the rent rolls show there were not enough eligible members for a legal quorum.
The illegal meeting then goes ahead and seats three DACHA residents on the board who are ineligible as they are delinquent.
The illegal meeting elects three ineligible members to the board. The board composed of ineligible members then elects the three ineligible residents as board officers.
From that day on in 2005, the DACHA board was composed of illegal residents.
From 2006 on a majority of the board were illegal residents.
2005-2011 City staff continues to meet with the illegal board.
Is there nothing in City regulations that would stop a staff member from attending illegal meetings?
In 2007 with City staff present (Cochran, Foster) the DACHA board has three meetings where they discuss suspension of the DACHA bylaw that says you cannot vote if your delinquent 30 days. How can a membership that does not have enough eligible members vote illegally to suspend the bylaws?
Under California Law you need approval to suspend the bylaws. DACHA has never seen an approval from the state for this illegal action.
Who told the DACHA members they could suspend the bylaws with approval from the state? Did that advice come from City staff or through City staff from Harriet?
Nevertheless, by being at the meeting where suspension of the bylaws was considered, City staff knew of the bylaw restrictions on board members and members voting “from being 30 days delinquent” so they would have known then that the board and membership were voting illegally.
The illegal board and the illegal membership voted to illegally borrow $4 million from the City.
The story of the illegal votes of the DACHA board and membership are becoming legend.
Did the DACHA board and members come up with these untoward actions themselves?
Or did staff get them to do it? We shall soon learn more about the role of Harriet Steiner.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Many thanks to Medwoman and Elaine for some of the clearest statements I have read on this mess.
Can I get some further clarification? Am I correct that the developers/consultants (who keep reiterating their concern for affordable housing) are now suing all of the DACHA members (the affordable housing residents) for profit the developers/consultants contend they failed to make because of decisions/actions by some of the affordable housing residents when functioning as DACHA board members?
[quote]Maybe in the best interest of the citizens of Davis whose best interests they keep saying they have at heart ? [/quote]Put up or shut up… Mr Thompson is talented in innuendos… if he fails this test, perhaps libel/slander accusations should be pursued..
[quote]We shall soon learn more about the role of Harriet Steiner.
[/quote]Put up or shut up… Mr Thompson is talented in innuendos… if he fails this test, perhaps libel/slander accusations should be pursued..
My ‘bad’… captured wrong quote…
I put up our emails, Steve Souza put up his deleted from email. Mr. Souza said he would send more emails to prove his point and he never did. So I had to show more emails showing that he always said he not the City was making the offer.
Today Ms. Steiner confirms the City was behind the offer.
But today, Ms. Steiner bolsters her case by making a claim that I do not think is true. I provide the documents and await City response.
The City Attorney claims that the $432,000 for reserves line item that DACHA borrowed from the City as a loan that is approved by City Resolution prepared by Ms. Steiner “is City money”.
Ms. Steiner made that claim in the Enterprise.
I actually showed the loan approval documents provided by the City under a Public Records Act search.
Within that $4 million dollar loan there was $432,000 in reserves. The members of DACHA had illegally distributed about $200,000 of those public funds to themselves in contravention of a legal opinion they had been provided that it was against state law.
So Souza’s math tells us there is $286,000 remaining in those DACHA funds.
Ms. Steiner needs to show that the funds she is talking about are different than DACHA’s reserve funds referred to in DACHA’s loan documents that Souza, DACHA and NP were talking about?
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
Remember the Wildhorse lawsuit where one of the individuals was sued for pocketing money received paid to the group to settle a lawsuit?
I have always understood people lining their own pockets but there is this peculiar thing in Davis where people who engage in self dealing and sleaze feel free to participate in civic life as if taking advantage and ripping people off is no big deal. I would think that if you made a bunch of money off of people qualifying as low income and then went in for the kill with a lawsuit after draining those people’s funds, thereby limiting their ability to have representation in court to defend themselves against your predatory actions, you would have the good sense to lay low instead of engaging in civic life as though you were some altruistic upstanding member of the community.
The notion that the people who profited most from this debacle have the audacity to continue to push for more of the same is unbelievable. There was a reason snake oil salesmen had wagons so they could get out of town and move on to greener pastures before the pitchforks caught up to them.
Why did Sue, Steve, Joe and Lamar vote against an independent audit? Could it be that that they were trying to cover up the failure of the council regarding this or is this just a case of being pennywise and pound foolish. For all the bashing of Don that the Vanguard has done you might give him some credit for wanting to get to the bottom of it. Kudos to Dan and Rochelle. I wonder what Lucas and Brett think about an independent audit?
Lamar voted for it, Ruth voted against it.
Don Saylor received credit in our initial article ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3051:council-opts-against-third-party-review-of-dacha-amid-dire-report&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]):
[quote]Councilmember Don Saylor seconded the motion, and argued forcefully that there were enough competing claims and the situation was complex enough warrant a third party, not involved the process, to examine the legality and other issues surrounding the city’s loan of more than $4.15 million. [/quote]
There have been a number of suggestions about how to make Davis affordable but until Davis gets over the idea that adding supply won’t effect prices without building so much, that it destroys what makes Davis exceptional, Davis will remain unaffordable to any family that doesn’t have a doctor in the house (Ph.d, M.D., Ed.D, J.D.).
It is important to note that affordable housing programs run by the city have been attempts to manipulate the market for a few lottery winners necessitated by the unwillingness of the community to grow as needed. The repeated failures of these programs should call into question the ideals that necessitated them in the first place. I wonder what affordable programs existed before limited growth became the mantra in Davis back in the 70’s?
By the way the thing that makes davis exceptional is not its size its the University. Building adequate housing for a community centered around a knowledge based economy is a good thing. Arbitrary limits to our growth based on some false notion of market economics and what makes Davis a good place to live are sadly misplaced and counterproductive.
[quote]”It is important to note that affordable housing programs run by the city have been attempts to manipulate the market for a few lottery winners necessitated by the unwillingness of the community to grow as needed.”[/quote]And the worse thing is that you’re only half-right here, Mr.Toad. Many of these projects did not involve lotteries at all and the city made no effort to verity income levels of applicants.
Who do you think ended up at the top of the lists if the programs relied on city staff and developers to publicize and manage the affordable housing units? And, if you were a city employee or other favored person who made the list, how long would you take to flip the new house and cash out your well-earned(?) equity profits?
Given the housing economics you cite, there’s no workable model that can provide cheap housing in Davis for poor people except subsidized rentals and, ironically, co-ops of the DACHA type which offer tax and some other benefits of ownership without giving big bonanzas to a few select individuals.
What we’ve learned in the past days is that DACHA co-op members–in league with city staff–planned and tried to carry out a scheme to dissolve the co-op in and get the housing units sold off to themselves at a discount. If this had been successful, this would have been just one more instance of a city project unfairly benefitting a few.
At least, you were half-right here, and your point was completely on target. Better than then one just before full of “facts” that don’t apply at all in the present case. Snake oil and pitchforks?
I think that the City of Davis staff punishes Neighborhood Partners, LLC partially because I have blown the whistle on a number of affordable housing projects where City staff appear to have made major mistakes. City Staff know that I am the instigator of several major revelations of abuse in affordable housing projects.
For the three projects below 67 owners made $13.4 million that the City should have shared in.
No income requirements, no first time home buyer requirements just who you knew and two years later you received a windfall of $200,000.
$13.7 million of windfall that the City should have shared in gone without any action being taken by anyone.
Can we really afford these mistakes.
Wildhorse Affordable Housing
Intent: A total of 52 Homes were to meet the city standards for affordability and be sold well below market value. By City policy the 52 homes were required to have a recapture note placed on them for the City to share in the windfall.
Outcome: The 52 “affordable” homes were made available seemingly without ensuring the buyers met income guidelines or were first time home buyers. The homes were made available mainly to friends of the developers and other connected buyers.
The developer of Wildhorse personally assigned one of the Wildhorse affordables to a City employee at a price of $143,000. I think they already owned a home.
There was no lottery or list just who you knew. There was no check for owner occupancy.
The only restriction was that you have to live in the home for two years before you sold it.
There should have been a recapture note for the City to share in the $11 million of windfall. The City Attorney agreed that the Council had required a recapture note in 1995 but admitted that
“with respect to the recapture note, we can find no record in either the City files or in our files that this note was drafted or implemented.”
Working with the Title Company I found out that about six of the Wildhorse homes were sold prior to the two year limit. They made $960,000 illegally.
The City Attorney had the right to get back those windfalls but chose not to. Why?
One house was gained by a City staff member. Why was that not looked into?
At least one house was never lived in.
Within two years of the limit having expired half of the homes had been sold and anecdotally most sellers left town. Each buyer made at least $200,000 on the sale of the home a total of over $11 million in gain for 56 questionable transactions in two years.
Marden Homes
A total of 8 Homes were meant to be self-help housing and to meet the city standards for affordability. No recapture note. Did City lose the chance share in the $1.6 million windfall. The Developer got I think four of their relatives as the first four on the list. Another home was won by a family that had just won one in Wildhorse. We blew the whistle on the whole thing.
Willow Creek
7 or 8 homes No Recapture Note imposed by City staff. Did City lose chance to share in $1.4 in windfall lost. All the homes sold either before or immediately after 2 years. Each seller made over $200,000 per home. Only one of the owners stayed in Davis
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC March 15, 2012
[quote]Can I get some further clarification? Am I correct that the developers/consultants (who keep reiterating their concern for affordable housing) are now suing all of the DACHA members (the affordable housing residents) for profit the developers/consultants contend they failed to make because of decisions/actions by some of the affordable housing residents when functioning as DACHA board members?[/quote]
DACHA is being sued, not DACHA members. And yes DACHA is being sued for the profits the developer/consultant/salesperson failed to make off the flawed/failed model developed by the developer/consultant/salesperson. It is the developer/consultant/salesperson that is CLAIMING he lost his profit bc of the actions of DACHA – but it has not been PROVEN in court or anywhere else.
[quote]What we’ve learned in the past days is that DACHA co-op members–in league with city staff–planned and tried to carry out a scheme to dissolve the co-op in and get the housing units sold off to themselves at a discount. If this had been successful, this would have been just one more instance of a city project unfairly benefitting a few. [/quote]
“What we’ve LEARNED”? There is a huge difference between allegations being made and proving those allegations…
“Given the housing economics you cite, there’s no workable model that can provide cheap housing in Davis for poor people except subsidized rentals and, ironically, co-ops of the DACHA type which offer tax and some other benefits of ownership without giving big bonanzas to a few select individuals.”
There are plenty of alternatives there just isn’t the mind set to go down a different path. The notion that Dacha is the only solution would be laughable if not for the fact of how many people lost money.
David Thompson “I think that the City of Davis staff punishes Neighborhood Partners, LLC partially because I have blown the whistle on a number of affordable housing projects where City staff appear to have made major mistakes. City Staff know that I am the instigator of several major revelations of abuse in affordable housing projects.”
Your the victim here, laughing all the way to the bank. Why not file an amended complaint in your lawsuit claiming retaliation instead of crying foul.
“There are plenty of alternatives there just isn’t the mind set to go down a different path. The notion that Dacha is the only solution would be laughable if not for the fact of how many people lost money.”
Of course, I didn’t say a DACHA-type co-op is the only way to get cheap housing for larger numbers of people in Davis–just one on the ways that has worked, along with rentals, rather than home ownerships that give a few people big windfall profits when they move back to Vacaville or Woodland. Just trying to agree with you, Dude.
I’d welcome your own list of workable affordable housing alternatives for Davis’ high-cost, low-growth situation.
If I could see the list of the 700 “affordable” homes that the City staff have it would be useful.
However of that 700 I would expect no more than 100 have gone through any lottery, income qualification, first time homebuyer review.
City policies have given a lot of windfall to family friend favoritism.
Mr. Toad, I too welcome your ideas?
We may disagree but we both seek solutions.
David Thompson, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Even though David G. is too modest to reprint anything that makes him look like he knew what he was talking about two years ago, this is worth rereading:[quote]”It is interesting to note that from Mr. Emlen’s version of events, they fail to mention questions raised about the re-finance or specify that the city loaned $4.15 million in it to reduce the share cost and the monthly carrying charges. They also failed to mention that a number of actions, at least according to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins may have been initiated by board members who did not have standing to serve on the board.
Moreover they fail to mention that the loan payments were owed to the Redevelopment Agency and the Redevelopment Agency could have waived the payment requirements until DACHA had paid back the arbitration award to Neighborhood Partners. Instead, the Agency declared DACHA in default and moved foreclosure as a way to remove Neighborhood Partners from the equation.
The city council declined to have an independent investigator investigate what happened, what went wrong, and whether city-directed actions in the refinance were legal. The result is that the public is hearing a version of events from an interested party in this dispute, not an impartial bystander as the op-ed implies. It may be that the city is absolutely correct here.
From my perspective I certainly do not have a lot of confidence in the city and city staff to simply take their word for versions of events. We have all seen occasions that would question the judgments, ethics, and efficacy of city staff and their actions.”[/quote]Why did the present City Council take the same op-ed route to point the finger of blame when it didn’t work for the city manage and housing director in April, 1010.
The op-ed approach is used for just one purpose, to avoid answering questions from media and the public.
Notice how quiet our Mayor, Councilman Souza (who promised proof) and Council Member Greenwald (never before at a loss for word on this topic) have become after dropping their misleading op-ed here and in the [u]Enterprise[/u]? When it’s a stategy used by our elected representatives, it a sure sign of cowardice.
It’s not just the ineptness that’s distressing here, it’s the lack of honorable decisions by our city staff and city council. If the staff can’t be trusted on this matter, as David suggested two years ago, why would a new council sign onto a mis-leading, self-serving op-ed draft that didn’t meet the smell test?
To JustSaying: dmg’s op-ed piece is just a rehash of what Thompson told him, as dmg himself concedes:
[quote]The result is that the public is hearing a version of events from an interested party in this dispute, not an impartial bystander as the op-ed implies. It may be that the city is absolutely correct here. [/quote]
Elaine: I don’t believe that’s what I was saying in the passage you quoted Elaine.
[quote]”To JustSaying: dmg’s op-ed piece is just a rehash of what Thompson told him, as dmg himself concedes:”
“The result is that the public is hearing a version of events from an interested party in this dispute, not an impartial bystander as the op-ed implies. It may be that the city is absolutely correct here.”
“Elaine: I don’t believe that’s what I was saying in the passage you quoted Elaine.”[/quote]Elaine, where did you come up with that odd reading? It’s obvious the “interested party” David’s describing here is the City of Davis, and he’s critical because the city’s op-ed isn’t the impartial view that it purports to be.
My objection to this approach–the same one that was used last week by the City Council is that it provides a one-sided brief for which the council members have decided to let stand of in spite of its untruths.
Here is the context: [quote]”[u]The city council declined to have an independent investigator investigate what happened, what went wrong, and whether city-directed actions in the refinance were legal.[/u] The result is that the public is hearing a version of events from an interested party in this dispute, not an impartial bystander as the op-ed implies. It may be that the city is absolutely correct here.”[/quote]
To dmg and JustSaying: My extreme frustration with the coverage of this entire issue in all media forums and at City Council meetings is that much if not most of it has been a forum for an unproven allegation dump by Thompson/Watkins. DACHA and the City are prevented from being as candid as they would like due to the threat of impending lawsuits, while the suing parties sling mud in the press and in CC chambers at the parties they are suing, including repeatedly singling out DACHA members for public ridicule. When DACHA or the City do anything remotely in their own defense, Thompson/Watkins start another allegation dump, causing as much confusion/obfuscation as is possible, so that their primary role in this debacle is overlooked. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, DACHA members are subjected to massive discovery requests/abuse of legal process by Thompson/Watkins that DACHA members cannot defend themselves against. Another round of massive discovery has been requested (this is #3 for my client). DACHA members cannot move on with their lives, but are caught in a perpetual legal nightmare without end. It’s disgusting…
Elaine, first kill all the lawyers?