By David J. Thompson and William Powell
We have never seen such an exaggerated litany of attacks against much-needed affordable housing for low income seniors in Davis. This is from the perspective of our combined 60 years of serving the needs of low income seniors in Davis.
The future needs of hundreds of low-income seniors in Davis should not become the cannon fodder of the No on Measure L campaign in their false war on the facts about affordable senior housing. We believe Davis seniors deserve better and that Davis voters deserve an honest debate.
So, as longtime Davis senior housing providers, we are taking on just two issues of the No on L representative — keeping in mind that often repeated saying of Winston Churchill, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its trousers on.”
Issue 1
Opponents vehemently argue, “there is no guarantee that the required low-income housing will ever be built.”
The statement above is highlighted on an 8-foot-wide No on Measure L banner
Why make this untrue and factually unsupported accusation that the senior housing may never be built?
Over a nearly 30-year history, 1,100 apartments, housing over 3,000 people, valued at over 200 million dollars have been built on the 33 parcels set aside for affordable housing in Davis. See the 
truth at https://cityofdavis.org/residents/affordable-housing-program.
To assert to the Davis voter that affordable housing will never be built on this specific one piece of land is a vacuous example of false electioneering. With 3.7 acres of donated free land, free infrastructure and improvements and substantial state and federal funding sources available to Davis Senior Communities of course this campus will be built.
To claim otherwise is to go against 30 years of proven reality that are real homes to over 3,000 low-income Davis residents and neighbors. See the city’s long list of affordable rental housing at https://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=3264.
Please beware of other claims about affordable housing being made by the No representatives.
Issue 2
“West Davis Active Adult Community will not build ANY low-income housing itself like every other major development in Davis has done in recent years”
— Ballot Argument Against Measure L
We have pointed out that this statement is not even close to being factual. The No campaign keeps repeating massive untruths in an attempt to mislead the Davis voter. We don’t mind having a debate, but when it comes to building needed housing for low income seniors, the lies harm those seniors most in need in our community. With the waiting lists for four affordable senior housing communities being now at 441 and a wait of over three years a number of Davis seniors will be forced to leave town.
The donation of land to be set aside for affordable housing is the most valuable mechanism used by the city. The value of the land contributed to a nonprofit allows that land to be leveraged through state and federal programs to provide the highest subsidies and the lowest apartment rents. This category has provided more affordable housing apartments than any other during this past nearly 30 years.
The accusations that the No on Measure L makes are vastly incorrect. The developments in the same category as the Davis Senior Housing Communities at West Davis Active Adult Community are the following;
* Windmere 1: 48 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Windmere II: 58 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Fox Creek: 36 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Heather Glen: 62 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Homestead: 16 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Tuscany Villas: 30 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Walnut Terrace: 31 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Twin Pines, 36 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Owendale: 45 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Tremont Green, 36 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Moore Village, 59 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Cesar Chavez Plaza, 53 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
* Eleanor Roosevelt, 60 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land
Likewise, DSHC at WDAAC will feature 150 apartments built by a separate local nonprofit on donated land.
Those 13 prior developments donated acres of valuable land, infrastructure and improvements for local nonprofits to provide 570 affordable apartments available to Davis residents.
Please vote yes on Measure L to add another much needed 150 affordable senior apartments to meet the needs of the 441 low-income Davis seniors today on local waiting lists.
This is our joint effort to provide reliable factual information to the Davis resident and voter so you can make an informed decision. We will try to write a rebuttal each time a false claim is made about affordable senior housing in Davis. Please vote Yes on Measure L.
— William Powell, president of Delta Davis Senior Housing Communities (DSHC) and David J Thompson of Neighborhood Partners LLC (NP) have, between them, been Davis residents for more than 80 years. Powell has been president of DSHC since 2000 and also serves on the Davis Senior Commission. Thompson financed his first affordable senior housing community in California in 1981. See more information at http://westdavisactive.com/affordable-senior-housing/
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
““there is no guarantee that the required low-income housing will ever be built.”
Guarantee:”a formal promise or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled, especially that a product will be repaired or replaced if not of a specified quality and durability.
I don’t know about “guarantee” but I do know we have entered hyperbole season. I agree that the list of previous developments that have been completed is impressive, and I do not share this particular concern about the project. However, differences of opinion do not mean that either side is “lying”. A list of accomplishments is simply not a “guarantee” of future performance. It is evidence of likely reliability, not a “guarantee” which is technically accurate on the part of the “No on L” side.
Can we really not disagree without calling the other side “liars” when in fact this particular claim is, by definition, true? This comment intended to apply equally to both sides.
Do you truly not see the difference in exposing a statement as “not factual”, “untruth”, and/or a “lie”, and calling someone “a liar”? I believe there is a huge difference.
But if an individual continues to issue such statements, what term should be used?
Howard
True as written. But, the statement is factual. There is no “guarantee”. So neither the word “lie” or “liar” would be applicable no matter how many times it is repeated.
Tia; It is not true that there is “no” guarantee. There is some guarantee as I outlined yesterday. It’s not a perfect guarantee. What I would like to see from an opponent is (A) a way to improve the guarantee and (B) how it is that people think the language is weak enough that the developer can avoid building affordable housing – particularly when the land reverts to the city if they fail to develop it in time.
“some guarantee” = “a little bit pregnant”
Guess we’d have to ask why the large Affordable housing site on 5th near Pena (which has been there for years) remains vacant. Is funding an issue? Also, are there other vacant Affordable housing sites like that, around the city?
In any case, it seems that the other article today regarding the Pacifico development is a cautionary one, regarding mismanaged Affordable housing.
What project are you referring to?
I’m not sure where to find a link, regarding that site (on 5th, near Pena). It’s a large site (maybe an acre or so), between the shopping center and Windmere apartments (which also consists of Affordable housing, for very low-income folks).
The city allowed the site to be “densified”, a couple years ago. When Robb was in office, I believe there was an intention of housing more very-low income folks, there (bordering on homelessness).
Correction: The Windmere Affordable development includes a range of incomes. (Not just very-low.)
https://localwiki.org/davis/Windmere_Apartments
The large lot I’m referring to is just west of Windmere, on Fifth Street. I think this is a link, regarding it:
http://city-managers-office.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CMO/Housing-and-Human-Services/Affordable%20Housing/Request%20for%20Proposals-%20Mace%20Ranch%20III%20October%202014.pdf
The reason I’m asking is that didn’t they just build one right around there?
The link I posted above includes the following text. (This supports my question regarding the availability of funding for Affordable housing developments – including the one proposed at WDAAC.)
Note the date on the RFP, as well. (4 years ago, without so much as a shovel of dirt turned.) And, note the lack of operating subsidies, in the text above.
Wondering if there’s other Affordable housing development proposals like this as well, in which funding is an issue.
David: Here’s an Enterprise article regarding the “uphill battle” that Affordable housing developments face, due to lack of funding. (Is it still your position that there’s “some guarantee” that the Affordable housing component at WDAAC would be built, if the development is approved?)
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/its-an-uphill-battle-for-affordable-housing-in-davis/
Did you read the article you linked or just see the title?
Here’s what it says: “When affordable housing developers do manage to acquire property, they can leverage the value of the property for at least 10 times the property’s value for funding. Using the example of Creekside Courts’ land dedication, Watkins said that developers have been able to raise $25 million by leveraging the land, which was appraised at $2 million.”
David: Well, the “proof would be in the pudding”, so to speak. Creekside is apparently the same Affordable housing development that I referred to, on Fifth Street.
4 years have passed since the RFP was put out, without any construction. And again, note the lack of (continuing) operating funds, even if it is built.
Perhaps you could check with Luke, and ask what the holdup is. And while you’re at it, perhaps you could ask about ongoing operating funds.
And again, note my comment (and referenced citation) in my comment at 8:15 a.m.
Hmm. “Leveraging” a $2 million plot of land to obtain $25 million. (I’d like to know how that works.)
Maybe you can ask Luke.
But the bottom line that you have actually demonstrated is that there really is no such thing as a guarantee under any circumstances. The notion is a red herring. And at best all you can do is take all reasonable precautions/ steps to make sure that affordable housing can be delivered. The question then really is – have they done enough?
Actually, I first noticed a sign (describing the location as a future Affordable housing site) at least 15 years ago, from what I recall. (I used to travel by the site quite frequently.) I think the sign started disintegrating, after awhile. Not sure if the sign is still there.
It would be interesting to know the complete history of the site, and the reason that nothing has been built there (despite all of the completed development around it). (Despite the previous availability of RDA money.)
And, if David chooses to research this, perhaps he’ll then explain why he believes WDAAC has “some guarantee” that the Affordable housing component will actually be built.
That might be the question, from the perspective of the developers and those looking at it from that point of view.
From the perspective of seniors looking for an Affordable, well-run place to live (as “featured” by the developers of WDAAC), a better question might be “how likely is it” to occur, and “how soon”.
As a side note, the Enterprise article above notes the actual cash donation for Affordable housing by the Sterling developers. (In addition to the site itself, I understand.)
1) It is a fact that the project developers have provided no guarantees about the affordable housing program component of the project. Given how we have seen in the past few days how the project developers have tried to back away from firm commitments to other aspects of the project, this is a very real cause for concern. The question is not the qualifications and portfolio of Neighborhood Partners LLC, but rather what is actually in the “contract with the citizens” for the project and what is not.
2) If we are going to talk about misleading statements, Mr. Thompson opened his statements to the Davis City Council claiming that 27% of the units on the project were to be reserved for the very lowest incomes. Such a count by units (or “doors” as he put it last night) is highly misleading because, while 150 of the 560 project units (26.8%) are designated to be affordable in the plan, the affordable units are ALL planned as as studio and 1-bedroom units, while the rest of the project is 2/3+bedroom and higher. City of Davis affordable housing rules state that to figure out “credit” for percentage of affordable units they need to be counted as 2 to 3 bedroom equivalents: let’s call it an average of 2.5 bedrooms. The 150 studio and 1-bedroom units would count as a maximum of 60 units then or about 13% of total project units (60 units divided by (60 affordable + 410 market rate = 470 units) and probably much less than that depending on what “credit” is given to 0-bedroom/studio units.
“It is a fact that the project developers have provided no guarantees about the affordable housing program component of the project. ”
Rik:
I don’t think that’s completely true.
This language is from the project baseline features:
“and will also include senior affordable housing that complies with the requirements of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance”
“Provide land to accommodate 150 subsidized affordable senior apartments.”
“Senior affordable apartments – 600 sf”
“The first phase of development shall include infrastructure for senior affordable apartments”
That’s not “no guarantees” and the land reverts to the city if the affordable housing is not making sufficient progress.
Are they posting a bond? What happens if it never happens?
What do you mean are they posting a bond?
So you believe that the city will have donated land with infrastructure laid down and not have it developed as affordable housing? That’s assuming that the current developers fail to develop it as affordable housing as they are contracted to do.
Leaving aside my skepticism of that, I don’t know what would happen if they do not do what they are required to do. But building the affordable housing seems to be required in the baseline features.
A bond is an insurance policy. Limits of time. And performance…
Neither you, nor I will ever be able to judge “never”… only a century or so before, it was said, “man will never fly”… “man will never land on the moon, and come back”…
Rhetorical question you put forward? Hyperbole? Disingenuous for a purpose?
Can you come out and say what you mean?
If you collect on an insurance policy, the insurer is done… the money would have to be sufficient to complete the task…
David Greenwald: I think this comment of yours highlights just how skimpy the language in the Development Agreement actually is when it comes to the affordable housing component of the project. Compare that to the much larger amount of language in the Development Agreement devoted to the “Taking Care Of Our Own”/Davis-Based Buyer’s Program–for which the developers are trying to walk back their commitment level to in the past couple of days–and you have demonstrated why a concern for the lack of guarantees is warranted. It is strange that you have several times talked about the lack of guarantees in the DBB Program but you do not apply the same standards to the affordable housing component.
I would further note that the language you do point to as “guarantees” has the following implications:
– “Provide land to accommodate 150 subsidized affordable senior apartments”: this would mean actually 7.5 to 9.4 acres of land at the City standard of 16-20 units per acre** for land dedication, about twice the land area that is set aside in the proposal. This highlights the fact that the project is trying to take credit for a higher percentage of affordable housing than they are really proposing (because the affordable units will all be studios and 1-bedroom units)
** see this article for a discussion of which City provisions apply: [https://davisvanguard.org/2018/09/guest-commentary-erroneous-assumptions-hyperbole-used-justify-wdaacs-illegal-affordable-housing-program/]
– “The first phase of development shall include infrastructure for senior affordable apartments”: specifically mentions roadways and stubs for water-sewer/electrical. Infrastructure isn’t housing.
– the actual provision for land reverting to the city is if 60 units are not built within 3 years. If the studio and 1-bedroom units proposed were all 1) counted as 1-bedroom and 2) with an equivalent “credit” for meeting the City’s affordable housing requirements at a rate of 2.5 bedrooms per unit, this is equivalent to only 24 units, or less than 6% of total project units (410 market rate + 24 affordable).
I’m wondering if Rik is aware that most seniors (in a senior restricted property where younger relatives can’t live with them) live in studios and 1-bedroom units.
P.S. If low income Seniors want to share a kitchen with others we don’t need 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units at the WDAAC since they can move to Pacifico (where there has been over sixty rooms at sitting empty for over a decade waiting for someone that wants to share a kitchen)…
“most seniors (in a senior restricted property where younger relatives can’t live with them) live in studios and 1-bedroom units”
Not true in Davis as the majority of age restricted housing is in Rancho Yolo which has an abundance of 2-3 bedroom units.
“It is strange that you have several times talked about the lack of guarantees in the DBB Program but you do not apply the same standards to the affordable housing component.”
The difference is that there is some language in the BPFs for affordable housing, but none for the DBB. Even the language in the DA for the DBB is nuanced and speculative. They are clearly uncertain that it will pass muster – as am I – and therefore they seem to hedge their bets.
In terms of the BPF for the affordable project, I guess my question would be what more do they actually need in there to guarantee housing? It appears, thin as it may seem, they have covered the bases needed.
“between them” ??? Between Bill Gates and I, we’re billionaires.
Nice. Like. Damn good comment…
First bolded item… correct reference would be “Fifth street, opposite San Sebastian”… guess it depends what ‘near’ means… might, or might not, be considered factually false…
Second bolded item… factually false… unless the shopping center is U-Mall, Oak Tree Plaza, or Oakshade Town Center, or if the commercial/office property on Spafford is considered a “shopping center”… I’d not define it as such. It has had a high turnover as to businesses. Limited “shopping” opportunities.
The site @ Fifth/San Sebastian has gone thru two iterations… first was approved, designed, reviewed as to public utility design details… financing failed… never materialized.
Second iteration was approved in concept… don’t know what happened since…
Let’s deal with facts, folks… not diversionary tactics.
Howard: Both of your statements (in reference to my comment) are false. (Apparently, you believe that your use of a subsequent “qualifier”, provides you with an “out” to make such false statements. I can only guess regarding the reason you do such things, in regard to some commenters.)
Had you not separated out my comment here (which is also questionable, regarding motive), you would have seen that I subsequently included links showing the exact location.
Untrue. As written.
No, it isn’t. The location of the site is accurately discussed in the comments above. You included some “qualifiers” in your own statement to make it appear as though you had some actual point to make.
This comment by Howard was subsequently deleted. However, it is misleading, and unnecessarily/inaccurately insulting.
There does not seem to be any purpose, regarding Howard’s comments. There is no disagreement about the location of the site in question. Again, details regarding the exact location of the site is shown in earlier comments on this page.