By Gloria Partida
After Darren Wilson’s non-indictment in the shooting death of Michael Brown in 2014, I read an article by Brit Bennet in Jezebel titled I don’t know what to do about good white people. In it she described the challenges of sifting through nuanced racism in an era where most white allies are doing their best to support people of color.
It sums up that doing their best does little to mitigate the energy involved in deciding if a slight was due to your identity or the cluelessness of the person involved. Living 30 years in the heart of the most progressive city in our region I have certainly experienced my share of awkward encounters of people “doing their best.”
Maybe it is my background of growing up in the south, my experiences of knowing which restaurants would serve “us,” knowing that even in 1967, more then ten years after bus segregation ended, “we” did not sit in the front of the bus, my experiences of the hysterical parents boycotting our forced integration into “their” schools or maybe it is my natural proclivity towards optimism that allows me to give a wide berth to people that are “doing their best.”
I have always understood the forces we work against in accepting the other and have been a tireless advocate in patiently breaking down barriers and building bridges. Every now and then, however, 
my berth runs smack into a steel girder that underpins my basic and substantially grounded sensibilities.
Reading the tag line for the West Davis Active Adult Community Development, “Davis taking care of our own,” caused me to begin the familiar but annoying exercise of sorting where on the spectrum of cultural myopia this fell. Should I speak up? Sigh and chalk it up to people being clueless? Hold a community forum on cultural competency?
This tag line is an unfortunate choice at best. In the current political climate, it rings with a distinctly Trumpian tenor that effectively delineates “us” from “them.” Had I not spent eight months campaigning and listening to citizen after citizen complain about how people from outside of Davis were gobbling up real estate and turning it into rental property, how no one from Davis could actually afford to live here and how the high level of non-owner occupied properties was changing the social community investment, I would have definitely checked closets for white hoods.
Add to this the knowledge that the people moving into Davis were predominantly white upper class and that the people complaining were not protesting people of color moving in and I felt confident that the marketing move by the developer was one designed to meet a demand. While I still felt uneasy regarding the tag line it was when I learned of the lawsuit against this marketing plan that I truly felt the impact of misguided helpfulness.
The claim being brought against the developers’ marketing plan is that it illegally discriminates against minorities, perpetuates segregation, and has a disparate impact on members of protected classes.
The basis for the claim of illegal discrimination is that historical housing covenants skewed the population of Davis predominantly white and this unbalance has continued. Therefore, preferentially selecting residents for the development based on an association with Davis would continue to perpetrate this racial unbalance. Further it points to the difference in the racial make-up of our neighboring city, Woodland. Woodland has a much higher racial diversity. I will attempt to unpack my unease with this lawsuit.
Historically, housing covenants were a common practice. Many cities used them to exclude people of color. Why have some cities overcome their history and racially diversified while others have not? Woodland, which tends to be much more conservative then Davis, ironically is much more diverse. What has kept Davis so white even though we proudly champion diversity?
With exceptions for places that stay white, poor and tend to be racially intolerant, a quick un-statistical analysis of cities that are predominantly white rapidly unveils a huge difference in the price of housing and growth practices.
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.
Slow growth has kept prices of housing so high in Davis that many people, not just people of color, can not afford to live here. Many people that have been born and raised in Davis can not live here. These are people that volunteer in our community, care for our children and elderly. People that have real investment in the quality of our community.
As to the racial makeup of these people. I have a Nephew and Niece growing up in Davis who are linked to two multi-generational Davis families of African American and Filipino American ethnicity respectively. My Nephew and Niece will likely not be able to buy homes in Davis at the rate housing prices are going.
Having grown up in the mega sprawl of Los Angeles. I certainly understand the need for sensible growth. What I don’t understand is how this city wants to actualize it. Almost every development has met opposition.
Lawsuits have become a norm, adding expense and time to every new development. I believe in holding developers accountable to sustainability and affordability standards. I believe we should expect well planned developments that fit the needs of citizens.
This development fits a need for some of our seniors. Not all seniors want to be Downtown. Downtown is not the Mecca for all seniors. Walkable communities can be incorporated in all areas of our community.
This lawsuit is the perfect embodiment of the good white people problem. This lawsuit is not helping me or other people of color that need housing. It is not helping seniors that need specialized development. Worst of all is the bald face appropriation of civil rights issues to negotiate a desired outcome for a land use issue.
I understand trying to find a handle to best champion a belief. This is the wrong handle. Conflating what people were willing to die for on the Edmund Pettus bridge for walkable communities is nauseatingly wrong. I can still feel the force with which my mother yanked me out of the second-row seat on the bus we were riding. I remember the speed with which she ushered me to the back. That was a civil rights moment that needed addressing.
I do not deny that we need to continue the fight and that language is important. My son fought for a hate crime conviction, because his attacker claimed that he his words meant nothing. This misguided tag line and marketing program require deep community dialogue and engagement to ensure no lines are crossed but to prevent much needed housing, a large amount of which is affordable, is a much bigger affront to diversifying the population of this city.
Gloria Partida is the Mayor Pro Tem of Davis and the first Latina elected to Davis City Council
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
“This lawsuit is the perfect embodiment of the good white people problem. This lawsuit is not helping me or other people of color that need housing. It is not helping seniors that need specialized development. Worst of all is the bald face appropriation of civil rights issues to negotiate a desired outcome for a land use issue.
I understand trying to find a handle to best champion a belief. This is the wrong handle. Conflating what people were willing to die for on the Edmund Pettus bridge for walkable communities is nauseatingly wrong.”
Gloria, I’ve been waiting for this kind of message to come from you for a long time in a public forum, and I applaud your courage and conviction on these issues. May you continue to speak your truth, and please don’t let anyone stop you from doing so, especially here.
To the comment section – good luck.
Gloria captured my thoughts perfectly – how do you get more diverse housing by blocking housing?
I am still waiting for a No on L team member to tell me the people of color supporting this lawsuit and opposing the project. Most people of color I know, myself included, think that Gloria’s “appropriation” comment is spot on.
You don’t get “more diverse housing by blocking housing” but if you are blocking housing in the hope that it increases the value of a home you own and/or the amount of rent a grad student is paying to rent your garage or shed/in-law in the backyard it is better to say “you want more diverse housing” then to come out and say “you just want more money”…
Michael Harrington asked me to post his email to David Thompson and Luke Watkins.
Harrington is throwing in weird terminology – “facially racist”
The closest definition I could find is this:
“def. facially discriminatory: Absent a legislative intent to discriminate on the basis of race or national origin, the classification will not be suspect and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny. In some cases, a law will be facially discriminatory, meaning that it explicitly discriminates based on racial classifications.”
So Harrington seems to say that this development is explicitly racist – purposely designed as such.
During his one term on the Davis City Council, Harrington championed a very similar housing project North of the hospital along the frontage road. His comments on this project are hypocritical.
Sharla: I would refer you to recent analysis regarding case law about the legality of just these types of locational/residential restrictions. Evidence of disparate impact is increasingly being viewed as facially discriminatory regardless of whether explicit language referring to race/ethnicity (or other protected classes) is being used in the discriminatory policy/program.
For example (my emphasis):
“On the whole, the trajectory of the case law on residency preferences exhibits two particularly notable trends. First, the decisions indicate an increasing judicial willingness to view disparate impact not only as a harm itself but also as evidence of intent or unconstitutionality….Second, the case law evinces increasing skepticism of circular justifications and a reluctance to treat residency preferences as presumptively valid. Decisions such as Comer, Langlois, and Oyster Bay suggest that when significant demographic disparities exist, the prioritization of local residents’ access to affordable housing may not be legitimate simply for reasons of parochialism.”
[ Columbia Law Review “Perpetuating Segregation or Turning Discrimination on its Head? Affordable Housing Residency Preferences as Anti-Displacement Measures, (Vol. 118, 2018).: https://columbialawreview.org/content/perpetuating-segregation-or-turning-discrimination-on-its-head-affordable-housing-residency-preferences-as-anti-displacement-measures/
And: “Regardless of the type of defendant, a plaintiff’s prima facie case would only require proof that, in a housing market with substantial minorities, a local preference is being employed in a predominantly white building or community.”
[Segregative-Effect Claims Under the Fair Housing Act (2017) https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1618&context=law_facpub%5D
Rik, I take issue with his use of the term “facially racist”. This is different than what you are talking about, I think.
Sharla:
“The line between discriminatory purpose and discriminatory impact is not nearly as bright, and perhaps not quite as critical, as the reader of the Court’s opinion might assume.” Justice John Paul Stevens (1976).
There is still a line of course, but while facially discriminatory = intent to discriminate and disparate impact = discriminatory effect, as I stated above, courts are increasingly viewing “disparate impact as evidence of intent in itself”. In any case, Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015) has validated the concept of disparate impact as applied to Fair Housing Act complaints, so intent has become a lot less important to try to delineate.
I don’t know if Harrington has done a legal analysis of this program, but I suspect he is referring to the project’s “Taking Care of Of Own” tagline that has echoes of white nationalist credos and strikes me and many others I have talked to as prima facie racism. As Gloria Partida said, “It rings with a distinctly Trumpian tenor that effectively delineates “us” from “them.”” and “…I would have definitely checked closets for white hoods.”
The locational restriction is prima facie direct discrimination against outsiders. And in a place that is significantly more white than surrounding areas, the outsiders are, by definition less white. the math isn’t hard to do.
Gloria asks “What has kept Davis so white?” but the answer is, unsurprisingly, not the one she came up with in her self-described “quick un-statistical analysis.” The third part in my article series will discuss this [“Part three of this series will expand the discussion on these disparities in housing in Davis and address “Keeping Davis White: Continuing Exclusion?” What policies and programs have had or would have the effect of continuing these exclusionary patterns? What is the legal status of these programs and policies? And how do we enact policies and programs to avoid continuing these past patterns and make the community more inclusive?”]
Rik, I look forward to reading Part Three of your series.
Thanks Matt! So do I! 😉
Typical Michael Harrington approach where he’s decided he’ll do whatever it takes to get to his preferred outcome, and then to disguise that outcome as somehow aligned with a higher social goal. We should acknowledge that his preferences are purely selfish, including profiting from CEQA nuisance lawsuits.
Je d’accord.
“that blows through every single climate action and good planning policies the City has in place, to get a few affordable units in the middle of nowhere?”
This seems to me to be a gross representation of Gloria Partida’s stated position. I do not believe that she is against “every single climate action and good planning policy” but rather is making a limited statement about a single criticism brought by litigants. That of the perpetuation of a de facto if not intentionally racist policy.
What I think this demonstrates is the legitimate differences in perspective of equally well intentioned people regardless of their skin color. In this regard, it seems no one is free of hyperbole. While those who oppose L have used a tactic I would not have chosen and do not support, no one is conflating this project to the Edmund Pettus bridge.
Again, my preference would be that everyone, regardless of side of the issue would limit themselves to their own perspective, not put words or motivations into the mouths of others and simply discuss the pros and cons of this project, and every other based on their own perspective, not on an emotionally driven claim of what others are thinking.
Where are you quoting that from?
Harrington. Scroll up.
Don’t see it. Did a word search on the word “blows”. Still nothing.
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/10/guest-commentary-lawsuit-represents-appropriation-civil-rights-issues-land-use-dispute/#comment-395164
I still don’t see it.
Does this have something to do with when people hit “Ignore Commenter” accidentally and then have no way either know they did it or fix the fact that they did it? I’ve read of people complaining of this.
As far as I know, I’ve never blocked anyone, certainly not on purpose, even Marina.
Would you please go into the “secret administrator’s box” and remove any blocks on anyone on my account . . . thank you.
Not sure if this is the reason, but David is the one who actually posted it, apparently on behalf of Mike Harrington. So, if you’re looking for a post by Harrington (directly), you won’t find it.
Nope, still don’t see it, even from Don’s link, not under Harrington or DG.
I often see the count of comments as much greater than the number of comments either posted or visible (not sure which, they just aren’t there). I thought this was due to editorial removals. Now I’m thinking I may have some person’s blocked. But I’m getting crickets since the link was posted.
Alan Miller said . . . Nope, still don’t see it, even from Don’s link, not under Harrington or DG.
I often see the count of comments as much greater than the number of comments either posted or visible (not sure which, they just aren’t there). I thought this was due to editorial removals. Now I’m thinking I may have some person’s blocked.
Alan, the graphic below shows a screenshot of the first four comments, and the fourth one is the one in question. Do you see all four, or are some of them missing?
If any are missing, you will need to contact David and share your password with him so that he can l;og into your account and clear the inadvertant “blocks.”
Nope, I don’t see that.
And that doesn’t make any sense, because I see DG’s posts all the time.
Seems to me that your first statement is an example of your second statement. (And frankly, is not that far off from what Gloria is alleging, here.)
For many, opposition or support for the development likely has nothing to do with the concerns described in the lawsuit. For some, perhaps the issues in the lawsuit are a real concern.)
Ron,
I can see how you would have thought that. However, the “tactic” I was referring to was the lawsuit. That is a matter of fact, not my opinion, and so I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.
The lawsuit is a “fact”. Whether or not it is a “tactic” is a different matter. It is not part of the formal campaign. In addition, I suspect that a majority of those opposed to the proposal are not involved in, or basing their conclusions on the lawsuit.
However, I believe that there are some folks concerned about the racial impacts of the Davis Buyers program, who might otherwise support the development.
Believing (or not believing) that it is a “tactic” has no verifiable basis, other than assumptions regarding motives. (I’m surprised that you cannot see this, as you’ve previously objected to such assumptions.) It is the same mistake that Gloria is making, in her article above.
I suspect that the Davis Buyers program will actually “disappear”, if the proposal is approved. Which provides the developer with the best of both worlds: the ability to tout the program (which doesn’t yet actually exist) prior to the vote, and abandon it afterward (if the development is approved by voters). Thereby allowing seniors from outside of the area to purchase houses directly, at WDAAC. (Bringing their low property taxes with them, as a result of the expected approval of Proposition 5.)
In general, I suspect that the underlying concerns regarding the Davis Buyers program are essentially an extension of the concerns regarding the “legal” discrimination (based upon age) that the development would allow. (Seems to me that this legal discrimination really rubs some people the wrong way. Especially since seniors often have more wealth and ability to purchase houses than some other groups, and often already benefit from Proposition 13.)
And, the Davis Buyers program would add an “extra layer” of discrimination, on top of the “discrimination cake”.
Ultimately, I suspect that local seniors who are actually counting on the Davis Buyers program (to provide local preference) will be disappointed, if the development is approved. And, I suspect that the city itself will suffer, due to the low property taxes collected from those who move there from outside of Davis.
The city will collect higher property taxes than they are presently receiving from the site, regardless of what happens to the Davis Buyers Program or who buys the homes.
Don: That is true, but rather pointless. The site is not in the city at this time.
One would have to examine the new costs vs. new revenues, over time. However, if the development ends up being occupied by those already benefiting from Proposition 13, I doubt that the results would be good for the city.
We can discuss this further, but I’d suggest that we refrain from doing so.
Are you talking this last week in Davis politics or this last week in national politics?
Tia… respectfully encourage you to ask Gloria to elaborate… the text was not clear, IMO
Along the lines of,
Am thinking you meant,
I may be i error as t your intent…
Howard
Thanks for catching that. You are correct. My feeling was that too broad an interpretation was being made of her objection. Again, when I post anything outside my area of expertise, it can be read as my opinion only.
Have a great day, Tia.
I didn’t want folk to “trigger” off a minor typo… some do…
“Again, my preference would be that everyone, regardless of side of the issue would limit themselves to their own perspective, not put words or motivations into the mouths of others and simply discuss the pros and cons of this project, and every other based on their own perspective, not on an emotionally driven claim of what others are thinking.”
Well said Tia. I support that sentiment 100%.
Regarding Gloria’s points, I have one question … What is the linkage, if any, between the Filipino/Hispanic senior Plaintiff Samuel Ignacio and the No on Measure L political team?
Gloria’s article and the comments of many here in the Vanguard appears to assume that Mr. Ignacio is in league with the No on Measure L team. Do we have any actual evidence to corroborate that assumption?
Crickets…
I find it strange that some seem to assume that people with light-colored skin are, by definition, not concerned about discrimination against others. And, that those with darker skin necessarily are.
It’s also strange that the skin color of concerned citizens wasn’t brought up in reference to Picnic Day (and other incidents across the region, state, and nation in which race was alleged to be a factor). If I’m not mistaken, there were/are plenty of light-skinned people concerned about those incidents. (I don’t view Picnic Day as necessarily based upon racism, but some other light-skinned people apparently do.)
You don’t understand the issue. White skin people can be concerned about discrimination. They can speak up when such cases arise. What separates this from Picnic Day is that NO PEOPLE OF COLOR in this community have raised this issue – it is only being raised by white, no-growth advocates, who are opposing the housing development and would be opposing it regardless of this language. We see this as hypocritical and self-serving. I’ve asked several times for No on L supporters to name people of color supporting their position, I have gotten crickets for a response.
Craig, are you saying that the Filipino/Hispanic senior Plaintiff in the lawsuit, Samuel Ignacio, is a white, no-growth advocate?
There are few people of color on either side of this issue, largely as a result of the overwhelmingly-white demographics of Davis. What “color” are the developers and their supporters?
What an ignorant, pointless argument.
Doesn’t matter if the people who are developing the property are white – it’s a bunch of whites calling something racist without asking people of color how they feel about it first.
Yeah, perhaps a scientific poll should be taken to gauge a given community’s response based upon skin color (which for the most part doesn’t even exist in Davis, in the first place). And, if say 10 out of the 15 people of color who exist in Davis and are surveyed believe there’s an issue, then the lawsuit should proceed.
Never mind the people of color from outside of the community, who are the ones who are impacted.
At this point, I’ll settle from you naming one person of color who supports the suit and lives in Davis.
Your question is irrelevant. Regardless, I haven’t discussed this issue with anyone (regardless of skin color), except on this blog. So, I wouldn’t be able to name a white person who meets your description, either (except perhaps on this blog).
The issue is that the Davis buyers program excludes those from outside of Davis. It’s entirely possible that the few persons of color inside of Davis would not be concerned, or even understand why it’s a potential legal problem. (That’s where Rik’s articles helped shed light on the issue.) If you can’t see or understand this, I don’t think discussing it further will help you to do so.
Craig must not know the many students of color in town that like the slow growth people are worried that more development might slow the appreciation of older Central Davis homes making it harder to sell and move to SF, Carmel or La Jolla when they retire (unlike their peers that got jobs at UCSF, Cal or UCSD after getting their PhD’s and have homes in St Francis Wood, Claremont or La Jolla Farms worth 3x the nicest home in Central Davis…
It really is time that the Vanguard ban people from commenting unless they post as either “white” or “non-white”. It really is time!
(from his picture, Eric Gelber appears to be VERY white, possibly albino . . . from my avatar, well, is it the mask or the creature underneath?)
Craig – I know you think you are raising a profound point by repeating this question, but you are not. The question is silly. First, there are probably less than a small fraction of one percent of Davis residents even aware of the lawsuit. So, I’ll ask you: Name one person of color who says they would support a policy that puts people of color at a distinct disadvantage in qualifying to purchase a home in Davis.
Craig, in addition to the point Eric has made, there is another key legal reality that you need to be aware of. Specifically, any person of color who currently lives in Davis does not qualify to be a member of the “excluded/affected class.” By definition (in the program as currently described), people of color who currently live in Davis are not excluded. In order to be a member of the excluded/affected class, a person of color has to currently reside someplace other than Davis.
Unless someone with more legal expertise than me weighs in with a different interpretation, that means that by definition Samuel Ignacio does not currently live in Davis. It is not a leap of faith to assume that the people of color who most closely support Mr. Ignacio’s lawsuit are also members of the excluded/affected class … and therefore also currently live someplace other than Davis.
Matt – from the standpoint of legal standing, you are correct. From the standpoint that people of color would oppose policies/ proposals they deemed to be racist regardless of their eligibility, the point is at the very least muted.
Gloria? (Technically not a “policy”, but an undefined program proposed by a developer as part of their “sales ploy” to voters – especially for those who are senior and white.)
Ron – I don’t think Gloria indicated she’d favor such a policy. She just expressed the opinion that any civil rights action challenging anything less egregious than what was occurring in the South in the 60s is “nauseatingly wrong.” I find that view disturbingly unrealistic and misguided.
David Greenwald said . . . From the standpoint of legal standing, you are correct. From the standpoint that people of color would oppose policies/ proposals they deemed to be racist regardless of their eligibility, the point is at the very least muted.
Not sure what you mean by “muted.” Care to expand/clarify?
Craig
“ We see this as hypocritical and self-serving.”
Who is the “we” in the above sentence? Are “we” the developers? Are “we” people of color? If so which specific groups? It seems to me that not all “people of color” see all issues the same way just as not all whites do. Jeff ( he of the many name iterations) and I are both quite pale, and yet we rarely see any issue the same way.
I (and other light-skinned people) did not sit in the back of the bus (in an urban area in the Bay Area), due to direct threats and harassment if attempted. Some seem to downplay/justify these types of experiences.
No one is comparing the discrimination alleged in the Ignacio lawsuit to the overt racism and de jure segregation of the Deep South in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The only thing being conflated here, as Matt Williams points out, is this lawsuit with opposition to WDAAC.
There is nothing to suggest plaintiff Ignacio is opposed to WDAAC. To the contrary, the complaint alleges that, due to the Taking Care of Our Own program, he is at a disadvantage in purchasing a home there due to the racial imbalance among seniors with a connection to Davis. The relief requested is to enjoin implementation of the local buyers’ preference program, not to block the development.
Civil rights violations today rarely take the form of overt, intentional discrimination. Often they involve unintended consequences of misguided policies and laws developed by people with the best of intentions. I believe that’s the case here. So, let’s not question the legitimacy of a civil rights lawsuit by comparing it to Selma, Alabama in the ‘60s.
I also question the use of the phrase, “good white people problem.” Aside from the fact that this lawsuit was brought by a Filipino American on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the phrase is what commenters on the Vanguard would normally refer to as “playing the race card.”
Finally, I would note that Gloria Partida is one of five individuals who could likely make this lawsuit go away. Because the Taking Care of Our Own program is part of the development agreement and ordinance, not the base project features, she and the rest of the Council can negotiate a settlement with the plaintiff and the developer to drop any local buyers’ preference program.
I found it both condescending and presumptuous, as well. (In more than one way.) I’m rather surprised at its use, here.
A lot of us found this lawsuit condescending and presumptuous.
Maybe so, but they’re not on the council. And, they’ve brought up actual legal (not necessarily political) concerns. Seems that it’s pretty well-supported with actual facts, and that even David agreed with the potential legal ramifications.
“even David agreed with the potential legal ramifications.”
What did I agree with?
David: If I’m not mistaken, you stated that you believe there are potential legal issues regarding the “Davis buyers” program. (Or more accurately, the Davis buyers program that doesn’t yet exist.)
Yes, I am not convinced that the program will pass legal muster – a separate but related issue to this.
How is “that” separate? Are you referring to political arguments?
I’m concerned that the developer has the best of both worlds – the ability to appeal to those who want to “take care of our own” – but with no real intention of doing so, if the proposal is approved.
Again, see Proposition 5, in reference to the Bay Area market that they may ultimately pursue. (The same folks/seniors who will bring their low property taxes with them to Davis.)
I’m not convinced that this would have as profound a racial impact as some do. However, I’m not convinced there is a valid legal basis that if someone from the Bay Area wanted to purchase a home, they could legally be denied. As I said yesterday (I think), there are other ways they could market homes to Davis residents without the buyer program.
I think this is the bigger issue, along with the ramifications of seniors transferring their low property taxes to Davis. (And, using up a 75-acre site that might otherwise have a legitimate use to address an “internal need” – other than being a sprawling, suburban-style development for seniors from outside of Davis.)
But unfortunately, “being on the fence” (regarding the Davis Buyers program – which still hasn’t actually been created), allows the developers to argue that it will serve some kind of “other” internal need. (Which is also questionable, regarding that definition and how it functions to do so.)
And, if the development is approved, the Davis Buyers program “disappears”, allowing direct sales to those from outside of Davis (who will bring their low property taxes with them, as a result of Proposition 5 – which is expected to pass).
“allows the developers to argue that it will serve some kind of “internal need”. (Which is also questionable, regarding that definition.)”
Only if you don’t believe that seniors being able to downsize is an internal need.
But it is amazing that their own campaign have taken us off course from what I agree is the more important discussion.
I shudder to ask, but as you previously noted – you aren’t dependent upon encouragement from others.
I’m going to guess that (in your view) it’s “economic development” (aka, an innovation center) – which will likely result in yet another (“built-in”) housing development. Especially since residential development seems to be the primary/only thing that developers are truly interested in pursuing. Even in other/nearby cities.
Not to worry, though – the residential housing market is apparently showing signs of cooling off. (Which will impact innovation center proposals, as well.)
Craig, how is a Filipino/Hispanic senior filing a fair housing civil rights lawsuit either condescending or presumptuous? You appear to have prejudged Samuel Ignacio, and found him wanting.
That must be fake partisan news ringing in your ears unless you mean American from non-American and legal immigrants from illegal immigrants. And frankly that has nothing to do with the topic unless you are lamenting the lack of illegal immigrants that would live here.
I have minority employees that work in Davis and can afford to live here, but they live in Sacramento because they find Davis demographics in general don’t make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It isn’t any concern about Davis people being inherently racist, it is just a feeling that “these are not my people’. I am an educated Caucasian and I feel that too.
So let’s not conflate tribal value judgements made by people as indicative of Davis having a racial bias. Racial demographic differences require a much more layered and deep explanation than “Davis is not welcoming to people of color.”
However, I do agree that there is a simple economic explanation for SOME of Davis’s under representation of certain minority groups.
The capitalized word “SOME” is intriguing… care to elaborate?
Howard, I think he already did when he described his minority employees who have the financial where-with-all to afford to live here (the city where they work), but choose not to do so for life style choice reasons.
I am grateful for Gloria Partida’s sane contribution to the discussion. Thank you Gloria.
Michael Harrington sent Luke Watkins and I of Neighborhood Partners, an email today which he asked to be reprinted in today’s Vanguard. As he has shared that with the public it deserves a response.
Michael said;
“…that blows through every single climate action and good planning policies the City has in place, to get a few affordable units in the middle of nowhere?”
Now to the point Michael address to Luke and I.
“…to get a few affordable units in the middle of nowhere?”
150 affordable apartments (is not a few) for low income seniors is even by Davis standards a most outstanding opportunity. That is twice the number of affordable apartments of any kind that have ever been able to be built on donated land. It will be a 10% increase in all of the affordable apartments ever built in Davis. It is 28% of all the doors that will open to seniors in WDAAC.
And it is not, “in the middle of nowhere?”
The largest grouping of seniors of all incomes and races in Davis are within a half mile of the nearby Sutter Davis Hospital and Emergency Room; University Retirement Community, Shasta Point, Covell Gardens, and Olympic Cottages.
Michael, as a Council member, you played an important role in getting Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC) approved and we are eternally grateful for your efforts to help those low income Davis seniors. However, we have 224 on the waiting list of all races and ethnic groups at ERC. With three turnovers in 2017 there is no way everyone on the waiting list will ever get an affordable apartment in Davis.
150 additional low cost affordable senior apartments is a game changer for the future of Davis seniors, and respectfully I say many of us are indeed working hard to “get a few affordable units in the middle of nowhere?”
For about 170 low income seniors in Davis this will be home in a valuable location and it will be well worth it,
David
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners,
David Thompson:
The proponents for the WDAAC project are using numbers that vastly overstate the share of affordable housing that it will provide. The affordable component of the project consists of all studio and 1-bedroom units, whereas the rest of the project consists of 2-, 3-, and 4-bedroom units. Therefore, on a bedroom basis (which is good way to “compare apples to apples” in this case), the affordable bedrooms only make up about 8-12%* of the total bedroom in the project* To put it another way, somewhere between 88-92% of the project will be high-priced housing not affordable to the vast majority of the population and not addressing critical housing needs.
[*depending on how the affordable studios are counted and the assumptions for exact unit mix of unit sizes for the market-rate portion].
For some context, the City of Davis’ long-standing 25-35% affordable housing requirement was temporarily reduced to 15% earlier this year based on pressure from groups including the developers of this very project. These same groups were also responsible for suspending the Middle Income Ordinance in 2009 that required a share of units to be affordable to that underserved group. And now the developers are telling us that we should be happy with this small fraction of affordable housing on the site. This project could do much better and we should hold developers to a much higher standard to adequately provide a mix of housing units for the full-range of needs.
For someone that claims to want more “affordable” housing in town Rik sure seems sad that we might up with 150 more units worth OVER $30 MILLION dollars (using bizarre by the bedroom math to try and argue that it is not enough and is “only” 8-12% of his new number).
P.S. For some context I’m wondering if Rik or anyone else can name a project that was actually built where the developer was required to build 25-35% affordable units (or 25-35% of the “bedrooms” were affordable if Rik likes his new method of tracking “affordable” housing better).
P.P.S. Can anyone name another business in town that is forced by the government to make a percentage of what they sell “affordable” (it would be nice if people with lower incomes could buy coffee, groceries and potting soil at affordable prices)…
Since you like potting soil analogies: the developers are saying that their mini bags of soil (the affordable units) that only contain 1/3 the amount of soil as their regular bags (the market rate units), count the same because they are all bags. Just more deception from the project.
From Rik’s response it seems that he does not want any more “affordable” housing in town unless is the perfect size for him (and he can’t name a project actually built with 35% affordable units or another business in town that is forced to sell a percentage of “affordable” items)…
Ken
“it would be nice if people with lower incomes could buy coffee, groceries and potting soil at affordable prices)…”
Not a particularly apt analogy since with regard to coffee and groceries. Within most of the grocery stores in town one can buy expensive brand or much less expensive versions of the same items. One has a plethora of stores ranging from WholeFoods until it closed through Nugget, Safeway to the market near the Dollar Store. There are also food banks re if someone still cannot pay. None of which is applicable to housing.
And yes, it would be nice. And we could as a very wealthy society, choose to house and feed everyone by structuring our society differently….but we won’t.
Tia is correct when she says: “Within most of the grocery stores in town one can buy expensive brand or much less expensive versions of the same items.” but it sounds like she is not aware that within most cities (including Davis) one can buy (or rent) an expensive home or much less expensive home. There are also homeless shelters in the state for people who can’t buy or rent a home…
So you don’t believe we should have low income housing is the bottom line of this.
The way you can look at this the government through social welfare programs has decided that things like food (AFDC), medical coverage (Medi-Caid, ACA, Medi-Cal), and housing (affordable housing programs) are essentials and the government to some extent subsidizes them for at least limited populations. We can debate over the extent and wisdom of this practice. The government could use things like Section 8 vouchers as opposed to mandating set asides for affordable housing, but it’s largely the same concept, I think.
The link below shows why the structure of society Tia wants never works:
https://i0.wp.com/www.whaleoil.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/socialism-33-cc.jpg?ssl=1
I would love to have more low income/affordable housing and if we taxed everyone a little bit more we would have a ton of money to help poor people pay rent expanding the Section 8 program (just like everyone pays a little more in taxes so the poor can buy food with EBT cards).
It would be a nightmare if the only place the poor could buy food was at the “affordable” section of a store and every time a new 7-11 wanted to open the city made them set aside a percentage of the food to be “affordable” (or even worse/less efficient) donate a portion of the site so a politically connected “affordable food provider” could spend a ton of money to build an “affordable food store”.
The current system works for a lot of people, but it is not the best/most efficient way to actually help the growing number of people having a hard time paying the rent.
Where’s the cartoon showing Ken gullibly buying mini bags of soil because “Hey, they’re bags.”?
Rik… simple questions…
Do you live in an “affordable” (using City criteria) unit?
Are you “underserved”?
Have you decided how you will vote on Measure L? Will you share why?
Was going to vote against the measure… spurious arguments are pushing me towards a “Yes”… maybe spite, but to paraphrase a song from my youth (Leslie Gore), “it’s my vote, and I’ll cast it as I want to”…