In our time of covering Davis politics, the Davis Enterprise editorial staff has never opposed a development project – so it comes as little surprise that they would endorse Measure L. While they make some solid points in favor of the project, there are inexplicable comments in the editorial that boggle the imagination and, rather than dousing a controversy, they throw gasoline on the fire.
It makes sense that the editorial wants to address the lawsuit – although I think they might be better served with separate pieces attacking the lawsuit and then supporting the project. But that is more matter of a taste.
The editorial, along these lines, notes that “WDAAC must also deal with a lawsuit filed by Sacramento attorney Mark Merin alleging project is inherently discriminatory because its ‘Taking Care of Our Own’ component reserves 90 percent of the homes to people with ties to Davis and Davis has a relatively low population of certain ethnic groups.”
They respond, “We disagree with the premise, but that’s for the courts to decide.”
Instead, they argue that “what does concern us is the prospect of the lawsuit itself keeping people from voting for the project.” They write, “We urge Davis voters to examine the project’s merits for themselves. If you think it’s a good development, and you think that it’s not discriminatory, then vote on Nov. 6 and make your voice heard.”
The strongest point they make in the editorial is here: “If Davis demographics worry you, the absolute best way to guarantee they never change is to build nothing.”
But then it gets weird.
The next line: “If WDAAC gets built and all the white Davis seniors move into it, then it will give more opportunity for minorities from out of town to move into the single-family houses the seniors vacate.”
This is an absurd argument. It doesn’t help the community. It certainly doesn’t help the developers. It’s like say, hey we can have an all-white country club at El Macero (hypothetically) because it will free up the one at Wildhorse (again hypothetically) for minorities to attend.
This is just not a responsible argument. As much as the Vanguard used to disagree with Debbie Davis, the former editor, on some of her editorials, she would never have fallen into this trap.
The Enterprise goes from making a strong point that the lack of building new housing is contributing to the problem of demographics to make a horrible point that concedes the questionable premise of the opposition.
Compare that to Gloria Partida’s point: “One of the reasons Davis’ racial diversity has remained low is that Davis’ sensible growth practices have essentially priced people of color out. The irony of this lawsuit is that it brings forward many of the ways our slow growth policies, which are really at the crux of why people are protesting this development, perpetuate segregation and impact members of protected classes.”
From there the editorial shifts back onto stronger (and safer) ground, pushing back on the issue of “guarantee” that the low-income portion of the project will be completed. The Enterprise writes: “We find that it’s barely worth answering.”
They note the record of Davis Thompson of Neighborhood Partners, who they say “has proven time and again his commitment to building affordable housing. It’s what he does. He’s earned the right to be taken at his word when he says he will get the project done.”
Maybe they could have bolstered it by pointing out they just secured funding for Creekside, the work they did on Eleanor Roosevelt and the similar project in Dixon, both of which this project is modeled after.
“You want a sure thing?” the editorial asks. “The only guarantee is that if Measure L fails, then those 150 affordable senior apartments definitely will not be built.”
This is their strongest point, and it is the point that Gloria Partida made time and time again – preserving the status quo is not going to fix racial disparities in town and denying the largest affordable housing project in the history of Davis is not going to bring equity.
They hammer this point home well at the end: “Once again, the opponents of the plan would, if they succeed, ensure the outcome they claim to be objecting to. If you want to change Davis’ racial makeup, voting yes on Measure L provides more change than voting no. If you want more affordable housing in town, voting yes on Measure L provides a way to get that; voting no gets us zero.”
The question is whether the entirety of the editorial will be overlooked based on one very poorly chosen sentence that seems not only misplaced but also, in itself, to excuse racist behavior – if not in this project, then theoretically.
At some point, inexperience of the editor is no longer an excuse.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Does anyone know if the Yes on L people bought any ads in the Enterprise?
Back in the 70’s and 80’s most campaigns bought ads in “both” the SF Examiner and Chronicle, but in the 90’s when the Examiner was dying some campaigns only bought Chronicle ads and were “punished” by the Examiner…
I’m guessing they have, since they purchased ads with us fairly early on.
Yes on L has been advertising on a regular basis in the Enterprise. Quarter page ads are the ones I have seen most frequently.
David Greenwald: this article reads it’s like you want to call the Davis Enterprise out but you can’t really bring yourself do it in any substantial way. And instead you spend almost all of your time saying what you like about the Enterprise editorial.
I do agree with your statement that the Enterprise tries to “to excuse racist behavior” on the part of the WDAAC project’s “Taking Care of Our Own” program, which Gloria Partida described as “rings with a distinctly Trumpian tenor that effectively delineates “us” from “them.””. But that’s in your second to last sentence. If your lede was any more buried. we’d have to visit it at the Davis Cemetery to pay our respects.
You are much more excited when you get to talk about this: “This is their strongest point – and it is the point that Gloria Partida made time and time again – preserving the status quo is not going to fix racial disparities in town…” What you fail to mention is that the real status quo in Davis involves development interests weakening and killing the policies put into place to provide affordable housing to low and moderate income groups such as the Middle Income Ordinance (suspended in 2009 because of efforts of the Chamber of Commerce and otherr) and the Affordable Housing Ordinance (dramatically weakened in 2018).
Here was my morning tweet on it:
Rik Keller said . . . What you fail to mention is that the real status quo in Davis involves development interests weakening and killing the policies put into place to provide affordable housing to low and moderate income groups such as […] the Affordable Housing Ordinance (dramatically weakened in 2018).
The Affordable Housing Ordinance was indeed changed by the City Council in early 2018. That change was time-linited. If I remember correctly, the changes automatically expire at the end of the year. I’m in the process of tracking down the exact wording and date(s).
One aspect of that Council decision was the September 29, 2017 signing into law by Governor Brown of 15 bills aimed at helping the state’s housing crisis. One of those bills was AB 1505 the “Palmer Fix” Inclusionary Housing Legislation, the provisions of which are described as follows:
.
In the early 2018 discussion of the time-limited changes, City Attorney Harriet Steiner told the Council that the current Affordable Housing Ordinance levels sufficiently exceeded the 15 percent threshold in AB 1505 that the City would either be forced to either (1) provide the required economic feasibility study to establish that Davis’ inclusionary ordinance does not “unduly constrain” housing production (with its attendant costs in both time and dollars), or (2) reduce the City’s rental inclusionary requirement to 15 percent.
The Council chose the second alternative, but only for a limited period of time, so that further information could inform discussion and passage of a more permanent ordinance.
Bottom-line, while development interests were not unhappy with the change, the reason for the change was compliance with change(s) in State law rather than response to local political pressure.
Isn’t the reason for the change in State law primarily due to the severe cutbacks in funding for Affordable housing? (Something which still hasn’t been addressed, regarding the Affordable housing planned for WDAAC.)
Actually, I suspect that funding for Affordable housing is a complicated subject. In any case, here’s an article regarding the cutbacks:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-trump-tax-affordable-housing-20170226-story.html
The legislature is having the same difficulty our local council is – trying to find the sweet spot by which we can get affordable housing out of developments without making it the requirements so onerous that it reduces the number of proposals. Keep in mind, the council is writing this ordinance not with project like WDAAC in mind, but rather with projects like L40 in mind – smaller, infill projects. The council does not believe there will be a lot of larger, peripheral projects with land dedication sites in the future. Robb Davis said as much.
David: Your response does not address what I was referring to, regarding the cutbacks in external funding (that peripheral/land dedication sites for Affordable housing depend upon).
Such funding does not come from developers.
From the article I posted, above:
“At the same time, the California Housing Partnership estimates that state and federal funding for low-income housing in California dropped 67% to $892 million annually between 2009 and 2015.”
“Your response does not address what I was referring to,”
My response wasn’t intending to address what you were referring to. It was intending to address a point I wanted to raise.
Ron, the answer to your question is found in the language describing the economic feasibility study meeting specified standards to establish that the inclusionary ordinance does not “unduly constrain” housing production.
Does not unduly constrain housing production is the operative term. Governor Brown was most concerned with the increasing lack of availability of housing across the board. Availability of funds for affordable programs was/is a secondary issue.
I suspect Howard’s awareness of the provisions of AB 1505 was the reason for his terse reply “no.”
You could be correct, but I haven’t seen any evidence to support it. The increasing lack of availability that you’re referring to might be due to the cutbacks in external funding for Affordable housing. And, the governor (and local officials) may have become concerned that the responsibility would then fall upon local developers to pay for it, thereby reducing incentives to build.
Again, refer to the article I posted. Is everyone “pretending” that external funds for Affordable housing haven’t been significantly reduced (e.g., the loss of RDA money)? I’m reasonably confident that I can find and post more articles showing that there’s been a significant loss of external funding.
People that have the goal of stopping all development in the hope if keeping property values and rents high also work to find a “sweet spot” of making people think they really want affordable housing but making the requirements so onerous that it reduces the number of new housing proposals to zero.
Again I think it’s important to look at different types of affordable housing proposals separately – integrated versus land dedication. David Thompson and Luke Watkins claimed previously that they would have no problem getting funding for WDAAC – and they indeed obtained the funding for Creekside within two years. On the other hand, there is not a lot of funding for the type of affordable housing we’re likely to see in most projects – integrated into the site and not part of a land dedication.
I’m not convinced that we’re getting the entire story behind this. For example, was it previously on a “waiting list”, due to the decades-long delay prior to the time that Neighborhood Partners took it over? Are the same “pots of money” used for Creekside (e.g., disabled individuals), as would be used for the proposal at WDAAC (seniors)? Was there still “leftover” funds available when it was funded (from the time that the state and federal governments provided more funds), which are no longer available?
In other words, I wouldn’t necessarily take this at face value. It would practically take an audit, to arrive at a supported conclusion that the same funds are now available for WDAAC.
I’m actually a lot more concerned that some are claiming that the only way to obtain external funding for Affordable housing is by approving a sprawling development (to obtain a “free” site, from the primary developer). I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that this is actually the case.
If it actually is true, then it provides an incentive for Affordable housing developers to consistently act as an advocate for sprawl.
Makes one wonder how Affordable housing developments are funded in locations that don’t have peripheral open space (e.g., the Bay Area).
Perhaps (once again), we’re not getting the complete story, on here.
Not sure that it’s relevant why it wasn’t seriously attempted prior to the 2014 RFP, but I was told that there were certain people in the city who didn’t prioritize it.
Ron, as you will see if you click on this LINK, Governor Brown signed 15 housing bills that day. As it says in the article here’s how they’re supposed to help the affordability crisis. The following quotes collectively describe the 15 bills.
— The “15 good bills” Brown signed into law here Friday morning include a new fee on real estate transactions and a $4-billion bond on the 2018 ballot that together could raise close to $1 billion a year in the near term to help subsidize new homes for low-income residents.
— Lawmakers’ most robust response to California’s housing affordability problems in recent memory.
— “Today California begins a pivot from a housing-last policy to a housing-first policy,” said Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who wrote one of the key measures.
If you look at AB 1505 in isolation, then my answer to your question is “No the reason for AB 1505’s specific change(s) in State law is NOT primarily due to the severe cutbacks in funding for Affordable housing?
If you look at all 15 bills in aggregate, then my answer to your question is “Yes, these 15 bills are a comprehensive holistic effort to deal with structural challenges the State of California was experiencing during the months leading up to September 2017 in the funding and delivery of Affordable housing?
Matt: thanks for the clarification!
I’d like more information on those discussions and why the City chose the immediate route to reduce it to 15%, especially given studies and needs assessments and analyses that are already on the books and could be updated very easily. No word yet either on the latest study; have heard its going through internal review, but why not put out a prelim draft for public vetting?
A more interesting question is why they are doing it again when they had Plescia prepare a similar report in 2015.
That’s a good question! My first thought is that in a brief review I did of it awhile back, the analysis was not very sophisticated compared to others I’ve reviewed.
(My second thought is that somebody didn’t like what it said….)
Rik Keller asked . . . I’d like more information on those discussions and why the City chose the immediate route to reduce it to 15%, especially given studies and needs assessments and analyses that are already on the books and could be updated very easily. No word yet either on the latest study; have heard its going through internal review, but why not put out a prelim draft for public vetting?
Rik, you are asking a question that a number of Davis citizens (including myself and at least one Council candidate) asked from the public comment podium during meetings of both the Social Services Commission and the City Council (it never came before Finance and Budget Commission). The February 6, 2018 Staff Report reads as follows:
David Greenwald said . . . A more interesting question is why they are doing it again when they had Plescia prepare a similar report in 2015.
The answer to that question is pretty straightforward David . . . the 2015 Plescia report did not take into consideration the specific impact of AB 1505 or the collective impact of the 15 housing bills Governor Brown signed on September 29, 2017.
Matt: Thanks for posting the article.
Turns out that the Vanguard has (at least partly) addressed the loss of RDA funds, previously. The Vanguard noted the following:
“In October, Robb Davis noted that the city used to get about $2 million a year from Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds, which could support such affordable housing projects. With the loss of RDA, that revenue stream is gone.”
The article discusses some other new sources, but it’s unclear if that makes up for the loss. (I posted another article recently – regarding statewide ramifications, which suggests that it has not.)
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/01/sb-2-takes-effect-impact-davis-affordable-housing-remains-unclear/
Also from Vanguard article, above:
So, the fund (which Robb Davis noted would not even fill the gap regarding the loss of RDA – even if it had been encacted) never even saw the light of day. It was rejected by the other council members, as I recall. “Nipped in the bud”, so to speak.
Here’s another article, regarding the loss of RDA money:
https://www.aircre.com/can-affordable-housing-crisis-tied-rda-demise/
Despite noting it several times over the past few days, no one has addressed how this might impact funding for the Affordable component at WDAAC.
The affordable housing development team has confidence they can get the funding needed. They have a strong track record.
IMO they’re the professionals and they know where the funds are. A moment on Google finds a plethora of grant funding available for affordable housing from federal agencies, among others. But since you won’t believe the professionals, or anyone else you consider “pro-development,” then there is little point in continuing to post these articles or elicit any further discussion on the subject.
Don: Your response is essentially, “trust us” – despite evidence which shows that the Affordable housing funding environment has drastically changed. And, despite the fact that the Affordable housing developers have a vested interest in generating support for the proposal.
I can practically hear my former audit team laughing at me, if I relied upon this type of statement.
Actually it’s not. It’s here’s a record, do you think they can deliver. If you don’t think so, vote no.
David: I don’t think the Affordable component is a “make or break” issue for most voters, anyway. It would not comprise the majority of the development.
I’d still like to know how Affordable developments/components receive external funding and are constructed, in situations where there is no peripheral land (e.g., in the Bay Area).
It is truly unfortunate that the Affordable component is being “marketed” to voters in order to facilitate approval of a much larger, sprawling, market-rate suburban-style development. (That’s the issue that causes me the most concern, and would not necessarily be limited to the WDAAC proposal in the future.)
“I’d still like to know how Affordable developments/components receive external funding and are constructed, in situations where there is no peripheral land (e.g., in the Bay Area).”
This summer I went on an affordable housing tour sponsored by the Sacramento Housing Alliance. Most of the sites are purchased via grants, sometimes they are donated, it is a long and hard process to acquire a site, then getting funding for the site, etc. If you’re actually interested in learning about this, you can call them up and I’m sure one of their staff members would walk you through some of the ways by which land is acquired.
Thanks, David.
I’m also wondering if the externally-funded component is ever “incorporated” into a market-rate infill building. (At least the funding for it.)
In general, it seems like the funding structure encourages an unhealthy and corrupt alliance between market-rate and Affordable housing developers. (Well, maybe they’re not all that different from each other, after all.)
Ron said . . . Despite noting it several times over the past few days, no one has addressed how this might impact funding for the Affordable component at WDAAC.
Ron, I think the answer is self-evident. Since there is no RDA funding any more, RDA funding will have absolutely no impact on the funding for the Affordable component at WDAAC.
Nice one!
glad someone noticed! That was before I had my coffee too. Unfortunately, now I have to wait 17 more years before I can be funny again, like a cicada.
Speaking only on the editorial, not the content or position made, fully concur this was not a good piece of writing. The Vanguard Editor pointed out several points. An editorial, like a column, is intended to persuade others using one or more of the following: emotion, data, reason, and logic. The latter ingredients are especially effective in Davis where the educational level is so high and our respective BS Meters are well tuned.
Supporters of the Measure probably were first pleased to see the endorsement, then cringed here and there in response to ancillary issues that were better left unspoken.
[edited, off topic]
To make it easier for those who are in a state of perpetual indignation to suss out his meaning, the editor should have bracketed his comment with <sarcasm>—— </sarcasm>.
Don:
In your view, this line is “sarcastic”?
“If WDAAC gets built and all the white Davis seniors move into it, then it will give more opportunity for minorities from out of town to move into the single-family houses the seniors vacate.”
So they really don’t think it will provide more “opportunities for minorities”?
I think Seb Oñate probably rolled his eyes and had a hint of sarcasm when he wrote “all the white Davis seniors”.
If he did, he massively screwed up.
The sentence from the editorial reading, “If you think it’s a good development, and you think that it’s not discriminatory, then vote on Nov. 6 and make your voice heard” should read “If you think it’s a good development, and you think it’s not unlawfully discriminatory …” since there can be no dispute that it is discriminatory. It discriminates based on age and based on whether the buyer has a connection to Davis, however that connection is ultimately defined. Or the sentence could read “If … you think that it’s not discriminatory but even if it is, you don’t give a damn, then vote on Nov. 6 and make your voice heard.”
Whatever anyone thinks about any measure, if they “think”, then they should vote. If they do not, I for one, will not tolerate any “belly-aching” from them, no matter the result, on any measure or candidate.
Sorry, I acknowledge that I’m a ‘bastard’ about that! I’m damn insensitive (heavy, apparent bias) to folk eligible to vote, who don’t, then becry the results…
I’ll vote my judgement. Hope all will.
Last day to register to vote is days away…
Agree. All should inform themselves and vote. I took this sentence to mean, specifically, Vote Yes on Measure L.
David Greenwald has really changed his tune since 2015! Back then it was going to spell the “end of fair housing” and would end up “further dismantling the dream [of Martin Luther King]” if the Inclusive Communities Supreme Court case overturned disparate impact claims. [https://davisvanguard.org/2015/01/sunday-commentary-ii-the-end-of-fair-housing/]
And now we have a textbook example of an exclusionary housing program in the “Taking Care Of Our Own” program of the WDAAC/Measure L project on the ballot in Davis in November and Greenwald is against a lawsuit that relies on that very Supreme Court decision that ended up affirming disparate impact (legalese for “discriminatory effect”) claims, and he goes so far as to characterize this lawsuit as a “dangerous game playing the race card.” [https://davisvanguard.org/2018/09/view-dangerous-game-playing-race-card-buyer-program/]