By Eric Gudz
We have much to consider November 6th, and as we move closer to Election Day, not a moment goes by where I’m not inspired by our community’s caliber of civic engagement. Out of all the issues on the ballot, the direction of our school and housing policies remains my top concern.
Our housing crisis deeply affects the vitality of our schools, and our ability to house our teachers and families in Davis is integral to our long-term success. We need leaders and initiatives that are ready to embrace these shared struggles, with vigor. Fortunately, we have bold options that will do just that.
When I first met Melissa Moreno, I was blown away by her 25+ years of experience as both an educator and a community leader. Her work to serve our community’s most vulnerable stood out for me, and her leadership is needed now more than ever before. Backed by the Democratic Party and hundreds of community members, she’s the leader we need on the Yolo County Board of Education.
For the Davis School Board, Cindy Pickett is a powerhouse of energy that continues to impress me daily. Her attention to teacher compensation excites me the most about her candidacy, and her professional credentials give me the utmost confidence in her ability to guide our community’s educational future.
Concerning housing, I’ll be voting yes on Measure L for the West Davis Active Adult Community. At a projected 13.8 units per acre and 150 affordable housing units, it’s one of our largest local affordable housing additions to date in Davis. Ease of access to medical services and major transportation routes further supports this neighborhood’s affordability, all while addressing a dynamic range of local needs.
The passage of Proposition 10 is critical. The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act inhibits our ability to adequately address the housing needs for at least two-thirds of our citizens. A “Yes” vote will remove these barriers in place that greatly impede local municipalities to take charge of their own housing destiny, and it will give policymakers the tools they need to fully address our mighty housing crisis.
Eric Gudz is a Davis Resident and Former Candidate for Davis City Council
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
I’ve always seen Eric as an advocate for student housing. How does WDAAC help the student housing situation? Besides some local seniors maybe downsizing and the 150 affordable senior units how is this project considered dynamic? What does this project do to address the community’s overall housing needs?
To me it’s a wasted opportunity.
I think having listened to a lot of students – they see the need for housing, period. And belief that having more housing for all sorts of needs is preferable. Maybe Craig can explain why he supports Measure L.
Did you mean Eric?
Saying they see the “need for housing, period” is like saying they see the “need a police force, period”….or the “need for running water, period”. If that is really what the students at UCD think then they are not really getting much training in objective, critical thinking, are they?….or is this just your opinion?
If the city had roving mobs killing people and no running water and we had a police force that wanted to come arrest the mobs and a contractor that would get the water flowing I have a feeling that people like Alan would tell them to go away and wait until we found a police force that had had de-escalation training and we found a contractor that would make sure the water had fluoride…
That’s my observation having talked with a few of them that are supporting this measure. I would not take that to mean that is universally true.
So, if a proposed project development plan and baseline features said only “This project will build 300 homes, period” they’d vote yes regardless of the specifics? That approach would certainly save a lot of time and effort.
The WDAAC will add more rental housing to Davis so maybe he wants to do something to help out with his support of prop 10 that will probably reduce the amount of rental housing available in town.
A stanford Study this summer found that rent control resulted in a 15% drop in the SF rental supply
https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf
Prop 10 only affects rental housing if the city decides to pass rent control
Prop 10 also impacts cities that are commuting distance to cities with rent control (rents in Daly City and Sausalito are higher today since SF has rent control)…
Yes, but it makes it easier for the city to do so.
You’ve been pushing this line of reasoning. That would be like saying if the state passed a Prop that the city could pass any tax at anytime without a vote that the Prop only affects Davis pocketbooks if the city decides to pass a tax.
The city could pass rent control if Prop 10 passes, that doesn’t mean the city will pass rent control. A lot of people think rent control wouldn’t work well in Davis. But I would rather have our city leaders able to make that call than a 20 year old law passed by the legislature.
The city could also enact rent control if Proposition 10 fails. Similar to what other cities have already done. Even the city of Sacramento has been considering it, in a very limited and temporary manner.
However, the housing market (and rising rents) are now cooling off, on their own.
I don’t think the Davis housing market is going to cool off any time soon.
Well, the facts show otherwise (unless you believe Davis is somehow “special” and immune to larger market forces such as rising interest rates and a cooling economy).
Here’s an article that immediately popped up on an Internet search. Note that this is impacting the Bay Area, as well. I’ve posted several others over the past few days, in addition to this one:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article2609397.html
Would you like me to post perhaps another 50 more links, showing that the housing market is cooling (along with a cooling impact regarding the amount of rents)?
Woops – that’s an old article. I’ll find some others.
Davis’ housing market, at least the rental housing is based on student enrollment increases and current lack of vacancy for current capacity. I think that operates independently of more global market predictions – just as Davis didn’t suffer nearly as badly during the housing collapse in 2008.
O.K. – here’s some more:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/sales-of-new-homes-slump-to-nearly-a-2-year-low/ar-BBOPIzv?ocid=spartandhp
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/networth/article/Bay-Area-rents-plateauing-studies-confirm-9193894.php
There’s only so much increases in rent (or purchase costs) that folks will tolerate, before moving to other areas:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/priced-out-californians-buying-homes-in-idaho-for-monopoly-money/ar-BBOQn6y?ocid=spartandhp
Regarding student housing, Davis is “already set”, regarding all of the projects approved in the city, or on campus. (Not to mention the likelihood of redevelopment of the gigantic University Mall property/proposal, right across the street from UCD.) Even if it’s not designed as a “megadorm”, it would still likely house a large number of students.
How can Davis be “set” when it can’t build anything due to litigation?
I believe that the litigation will merely result in a delay. Not something to over-react to, in terms of overall plans for the city.
Sterling is being built (albeit slowly, for reasons unconnected to litigation). There are no legal challenges against the Davis Live development.
Again, I’m wondering why students aren’t expressing their concerns (to UCD) regarding the lack of finalized/approved plans for Orchard Park. It’s still not ready to proceed, even when the lawsuit is settled.
Ron: on the U-Mall, met with the development team yesterday, and they told me they are shifting gears to do mainly one and two room apartments so that if students want to move there they can, but they can be more versatile. They’ll be avoiding the four and fives.
I am 46 years old and part of the sandwich generation — having to care for my own kids as well as aging parents. Last March my mom came to live with me and I explored all of the senior housing options in Davis and anything affordable had a very long waitlist (years and years). I ultimately decided to remodel my first floor office into a bedroom for my mom (she can’t climb stairs). Many of my friends are in the same situation — wanting our aging parents to be closer, but having a difficult time figuring out how to do that in Davis. Anyway, this is just a roundabout way of saying that senior housing does affect families with school-aged children. Perhaps not directly in terms of affordable family housing, but in terms of being able to house other family members.
.
Families with children, non-seniors with disabilities, and others who may also need smaller, relatively affordable, accessible housing–as well as seniors–could directly benefit if they were not prohibited from purchasing 80% of the homes in WDAAC.
Eric, yes, good point.
Hope you don’t mind that I bolded some words in your text.
The market-rate housing won’t be “affordable”, and the subsidized housing already/apparently has a waiting list, as you noted. (I’m still not sure where the folks on the waiting list generally live, now. Maybe a mixture of regional residents, on multiple waiting lists. I wonder if the developer reached out to some local agencies, to create their list?)
It seems likely that the developer will completely abandon the “Davis buyers” program, if the overall proposal is approved. Folks like you will be competing for those houses, from those moving in from other areas.
Remodeling your home as needed (as you’ve done) is probably the best/cheapest option for most, whether or not WDAAC is approved.
“I explored all of the senior housing options in Davis and anything affordable had a very long waitlist (years and years).”
The market rate units at WDAAC if built today would have price points at $510,000 (1200 sf) units to $765,000 (1800sf units) at current market rates of ~$425/sf for new construction. The custom lot houses would be even more.
The affordable component on 5% of the site is cynically being used as a Trojan Horse to sneak a luxury sprawl development on the vast majority of the site past the voters.
If a senior sells their old home and has at least $100K to put down on a $510K home the mortgage payment on a 30 year loan at 5% will be less than $2,200/month (less than the average home “rent” in the (and LESS than HALF of the average for a home rent in the Bay Area) so this place is not going to be a development for the “top 1%”.
Ken: If a senior moves out of his/her current $510K home (with $100K in equity) and moves into a nearby (but slightly smaller) $510K home (with the belief that this will save money), then they’re probably already suffering from the early stages of dementia (and might be ready for a skilled nursing facility, instead)!
Not to mention closing and moving costs, and the probability that their existing house has a much lower rate than 5%, on the balance. And, sacrificing the low property taxes on their existing home, which they might otherwise pass on to their children (who would continue benefiting from those low taxes).
He didn’t say their current home was worth 510K.
Many seniors have built considerable equity in their homes in Davis. Any of them who downsize into WDAAC, if they bought their present home more than a decade ago, will have a considerable nest egg to put aside. If their old home sells to someone new to Davis, it potentially increases the diversity of the city. If those people have children, it helps the school district. In both cases, the city and county realize an increase in property tax valuation because the WDAAC site is presently a field and the old home is now re-appraised at current market value.
That was the point of the Davis Buyers program, which evidently emerged from the public outreach the Taorminos did over many months as they developed these plans. But even if that is scrapped due to the lawsuit and the hostility directed at it by the opposition, it is still possible that the benefits I describe could occur. It’s just less likely than it would have been otherwise.
And yet, we’ve lost another skilled nursing facility (probably to yet another apartment building), on Pole Line Road!
Probably more money for developers of apartments these days, vs. skilled nursing facilities. Perhaps due to government cutbacks in Medicare/Medicaid funding, combined with exposure to liability, government regulation, etc.?
It does not cost much to rent a U-Haul for the day to move a parent from the Bay Area to Davis and since few older Americans have only one kid if a guy wants to live in his childhood home and buys out three siblings after inheriting a home they will only get the reduced taxes on 25% of the homes value (paying more than the nicest house in Davis if the home is in a nice part of the Bay Area). I know many seniors moving to Davis to be closer to kids and grandkids (not to save money). I think Ron has mentioned that he is around my age (Mid 50’s) . Close to half my friends have lost their parents and I don’t know a single person that moved in to their childhood home for the low property taxes and I’m wondering if Ron knows any? Of my close friends that have not yet lost a parent I’m pretty sure that not a single one plans to move in to their parent’s home after they die. I do know two different families where the kids kept their parents Tahoe cabins (and the low property taxes) but I was just taking to one of the guys and he mentioned that even with a close family that gets along there is a lot of stress (and money issues) owning a cabin with your brother and sister…
Don: Ken used an example of someone with $100K in equity, moving into a $510K home. But, you’re right – he didn’t specify the or location of the home that’s supposedly being sold, in that theoretical example.
Overall, it seems that it’s just as likely that seniors would move out of, or into the area entirely (especially with the expected approval of Proposition 5.) And, WDAAC would facilitate seniors moving to Davis, bringing their unwelcome/low property taxes with them. (Either directly to WDAAC, or to one of the local homes that’s “theoretically” supposed to be freed up homeowners within Davis moving to WDAAC – which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.)
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Property_Tax_Transfer_Initiative_(2018)
Ken: Regarding “inheriting” low property taxes, I think there are legal ways to avoid the pitfalls that you mentioned. It probably requires a trip to an estate planning attorney.
In any case, I don’t know if there’s lots of seniors who want to be uprooted from their long-term Bay Area homes, to move into WDAAC to be closer to their children in Davis. But, doing so would require decisions regarding what to do with the old home, whether or not to transfer their property taxes to WDAAC, closing and moving costs, etc. (And, if they only have $110 in equity – as per your example, “someone” is going to have to make new mortgage payments, at what would likely be higher interest rates.) I’m assuming that there’s going to be Mello-Roos fees, as well. Those fees can be an “unexpected surprise”, to those moving into new houses from older, more-established areas.
Bottom line – it ain’t gonna be cheap. Hopefully, those same seniors won’t have to move again (into a nursing home), within a couple of years of arriving. If so, there goes whatever remains of the inheritance! 🙂
Ron said . . . “And yet, we’ve lost another skilled nursing facility (probably to yet another apartment building), on Pole Line Road!”
Ron, are you aware of the circumstances that caused the abandonment of the SNF facility on Pole Line by its owners/operators? That abandonment does have to do with an “A” word, but not “apartment” but rather “asbestos.”
Matt: I had heard that the skilled nursing facility was damaged in an electrical fire, but I did not know about the asbestos. It’s been abandoned for some time, now.
But, if it’s torn down and rebuilt as an apartment complex, that’s a pretty good sign that there’s more money in apartment complexes, vs. skilled nursing facilities. I’ve heard that skilled nursing facilities are facing more financial (and possibly legal) challenges, these days. At a time of limited government funding, as well.
As a side note, Medicare does not normally pay for long-term care, in a skilled nursing facility. But, Medicaid does (if one qualifies for it, based upon personal finances). Some folks are in for a rude surprise, when they find out that they will probably have to pay for such care out of pocket (to the tune of around $7,000/month). But, it’s apparently quite overwhelming, to have to care for someone with dementia (for example), at home.
Maybe Davis needs an “IADCC” (“Inactive Adult Day Care Center”).
Ron, the steps that needed to be taken to address the electrical fire damage illuminated the asbestos problem.
You are correct skilled nursing facilities (SNF) are facing more financial challenges, these days. So the future use of that parcel is unlikely to be a new SNF. Since the site is off the beaten path for retail and for a restaurant, the commercial possibilities are severely constrained … constrained in much the same way the commercial possibilities for the Sterling site were constrained.
Matt: I did not see the Sterling site as particularly constrained. Also, there are other businesses besides retail and restaurants.
But, the WDAAC site is superior to most, for commercial or mixed-use development. Right next to an unimpacted freeway access point, near UCD, on poor soil, and next to a hospital. Those are probably a large part of the reasons that this site was previously considered for innovation center development:
http://davisinnovationcenter.org/the-project/project-location/
I think the real problem is that developers don’t want to build commercial developments. They’re sometimes willing to do so, if it includes housing.
And yet, we’re getting ready to “seal the deal”, regarding losing yet another potential site. This time, for something that really isn’t even a primary need.
My parents didn’t graduate from college and I was born when they were in their 20’s. My wife’s parents went to college and grad school and she was born when they were in their 30’s. My wife is an Ivy League grad that went to grad school and our kids were born when she was in her late 30’s and early 40’s and about half her close female friends from college and grad school had their first kid when over 40 (thanks in part to IVF) so we are going to have a LOT more people like Cindy in years to come that are taking care of kids “and” aging parents at the same time as more and more people go to college and delay getting married and having kids. I just heard a radio ad from a contractor yesterday saying it was getting easier to add “granny flats” in West Sac. Allowing more “granny flats” in Davis would help people take care of aging parents and then help them pay for college after the parents pass away and unit is rented to a college student or person that works in town.
Granny flats could help. The inclusion of such “multi-generation” (small, separate units) within new housing has been a trend, in recent years. The Cannery has some of these, as do other developments in the region.
Some major builders (such as Lennar and Taylor Morrison?) are building these types of “multi-generation” dwellings. (I like touring new housing developments, as much as I simultaneously dislike seeing them spread across the region – creeping closer to Davis as well.)
Just like students supported Trackside and developers just to increase any stock. YIMBY-Ki-Yeah!
Measure L (WDAAC) moves the city in the exact opposite direction from providing housing for teachers and families, and ensures less funding for schools (e.g., compared to almost any other development alternative).
If this measure passes, and anyone starts complaining (again) about aging demographics in this town – ask them how they voted on this measure.
See the link below, for a recently-proposed alternative for the same site:
http://davisinnovationcenter.org/the-project/project-location/
Exactly Ron, I agree with Eric’s statement above but this project does almost nothing to address those concerns.
Unless of course we have some retiree teachers who decide to move here and go back to work. Unlikely.
If this proposal is approved, the Vanguard and others will then say that another peripheral development/site is needed to house new families and workers. (Not to mention an innovation center.)
However, I do expect that peripheral development proposals will not be put forth quite as often in the near future, due to the cooling-off of the housing market. (Along with rising interest rates – which I presume also impacts the ability of developers to borrow money and have developments “pencil out”.) But, you can be sure that some will still come forward – aided by the Vanguard, development activists, and some on the council.
The Vanguard has never supported a “peripheral development” – (I don’t consider Nishi to be peripheral.
Sure you have. You’ve been pushing for an innovation center for as long as I’ve been reading this. (Whether or not it includes housing. But, I suspect that you’d rather see it include housing.)
You may not consider Nishi to be “peripheral”, but the fact that it was outside of city limits (and required a Measure R vote) shows your belief to be factually untrue.
I meant housing projects.
The innovation centers are primarily housing projects.
Still, I’d rather see one at the site of the WDAAC, instead of the senior-citizen development. I believe that it’s a superior site for it, due to its proximity to UCD and ease of access to the freeway. (Along with its relatively poor soil quality, from what I understand.)
Perhaps we’ll see a scaled-down innovation center proposal on this site in the future, if WDAAC fails. (The Davis Innovation Center apparently included the WDAAC property, as well as some other property.)
They’re not. First of all, the council did not authorize MRIC to go forward with housing. Second, even if they did, it would be some workforce housing mixed into a much larger commercial site, hardly primarily housing. Personally I have mixed feelings about housing on the innovation site – the upside is that it doesn’t make a lot sense to create new jobs without a place for the folks to live (see URP) but politically it would have been a problem. Increasingly I see it as a non-issue as the bird has flown the coop, and not for the better.
The fact that there are no immediate neighbors (except a hospital) also makes the WDAAC location a good site for commercial, or semi-commercial development.
MRIC will raise its ugly head again, with the council that’s currently in place. And, it will primarily attract workers from Sacramento and beyond. While housing folks who may work in Sacramento, themselves. A terrific location, for those who want to increase the amount of commuting on I-80 (while screwing up the Mace freeway access points, as well).
It’s a great proposal, if one simply wants to expand the size of the city on prime farmland along the already-congested I-80, far from UCD.
Proposition 10 is essentially dead, by the way. I just read that it’s headed for almost certain defeat. (It never really had a chance, to begin with.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/california-rent-control-initiative-appears-headed-for-defeat/ar-BBORCWi
At the risk of being “off-topic” (as all seem to focus on rent-control, which is only indirectly involving Davis, in the upcoming election), I agree with Eric’s support of Pickett and Moreno.
The article mentions Prop 10 which is all about rent control.
Note the cognitive dissonance and/or double standards…
WDAAC should be opposed because it targets specific housing consumer demographics and excludes other consumer demographics that we should target.
The question came up earlier, students are supporting this project. I don’t know that it’s universally true, but I just think we need more housing. It’s funny when students support student housing, they’re acting out of self-interest. When they support other housing, they get questioned on it.
Eric Gudz describes WDAAC as “addressing a dynamic range of local needs”.
Sure, if “dynamic range local of needs” mean targeting 10% of the housing to 90% of the most wealthy. That’s “dynamic” in the sense of a lot of energy and effort focused on “helping” those who need it least, and a lot of marketing and propaganda to try to slip this luxury sprawl past the voters.
Rik Keller wrote; “The affordable component on 5% of the site is cynically being used as a Trojan Horse …”
However, in actual fact, the parcel assigned for affordable senior housing is the largest parcel ever (twice the amount of land required) donated in Davis to meet the requirements. That parcel will also accommodate 150 apartments, the highest number of low income apartments ever built in Davis. which will house about 170 seniors. 37% of those low income seniors will be minorities who will get to live at WDAAC.
We believe that the affordable senior housing campus we will be able to build will be a standout Davis contribution to inclusionary zoning. Please read the words from the Davis Enterprise of Diane Evans, a resident of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle. Take into account that passage of Measure L will mean that 170 seniors like Diane Evans will be able to live at DSHC in West Davis.
New opportunities
Letters to the Editor http://www.davisenterprise.com/author/letters, October 22, 2018
As an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle senior resident, I thank the citizens of Davis for caring to build housing for seniors. I actually had no connections here but I needed flat land. I am a post-polio person. This enabled me to walk farther without falling a few more years.
I came to evaporate peacefully into nothingness. Just the opposite happened. Living in this caring environment, I sprouted a whole new branch. Here ERC developed an enhanced community by engaging residents in setting policies we would live by. That was a huge transfusion for me, a wearied activist. Before you knew it, with the support of ERC, I was providing events that informed the Davis population of environmental and other social issues.
ERC is a senior-renewal program. It inspires some of us to grow vegetables in our raised planter beds. Others manage our ERC’s variety store which also serves as a conversation hub. A few of us participated in the UCD, Olli, senior continuing education classes held on our site. I participated in all of this which led to Volunteer opportunities for various committees with the City of Davis. I so loved working with the Human Relation’s Committee and on special projects like the annual Martin Luther King celebration.
ERC is the perfect location for me. Easy transportation, across the street is the bus stop. The paratransit bus is a call away. Although I have my health challenges and live full time from a wheelchair, I am working on the completion of my life’s project, mental health services for infants and toddlers. As an intern in a post-doctorate program, I had the chance to build a baby playgroup with the Davis Community Church. I have since opened a part-time mental health practice specializing in infant-toddler services
This energy flowing through my senior years comes directly from the Davis Community through the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, thank you. Davis is a uniquely qualified community to establish new models of senior housing. Please vote yes on Proposition L to house more seniors.
Diane C. Evans
To house another 170 low income Davis seniors please vote YES on Measure L. There is no other place for them to go.
David J. Thompson
Neighborhood Partners, LLC
http://www.npllc.org/projects
Again–a classic case of misdirection by David “Copperfield” Thompson. “Keep your eye on the affordable apartments. Pay no attention to the 325 low-density for-sale homes, 80% of which will not be available to families with children, non-seniors with disabilities, first-time home buyers, etc., and 90% of which will not be available to other outsiders.”
Ask yourself: are you willing to accept 150 affordable apartments as a bribe for approving a 350-unit, low density, segregated for-sale housing development–a restricted community where those deemed to be outsiders are persona non grata?
Any proposal that arises is likely to include Affordable housing. There’s nothing unique about this (except that the Affordable housing developer has chosen to actively advocate on behalf of the primary developer, in this case).
The problems with the Affordable housing funding structure (in which potential availability of external taxpayer funds results in advocacy for sprawl) is on full display, here. This won’t be the last time that this occurs.
Eric Gelber: in addition, David Thompson always talks about the number of “doors” for the affordable component of the project and the percentage that represents of the total. That is because when one uses a more reasonable measure of actual people, the balance is far different.
Thompson also doesn’t mention that one of the reasons that the small (5% of the total site area) 4-acre parcel is the “largest ever” in Davis is that many previous projects have met their affordable housing requirement by actually building the units rather than just donating the land.
Thompson states “the parcel assigned for affordable senior housing is … twice the amount of land required.” In response: 1) the project actually provided no calculations about the number of units that are required under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, even though the Ordinance requires these calculations! 2) as well-documented by Alan Pryor in detailed calculations, the project is only providing about half of the acreage required by the AHO. Thompson’s false claim that they are providing twice the amount of land required is off by a factor of 4!
“Thompson also doesn’t mention that one of the reasons that the small (5% of the total site area) 4-acre parcel is the “largest ever” in Davis is that many previous projects have met their affordable housing requirement by actually building the units rather than just donating the land.”
This comment is not only probably untrue, it also doesn’t make sense. If the goal is to get the most units of affordable housing, what difference does it make whether the developer pays for them?
Since Craig has been around for a while he should know that the “goal” for most people opposed to the project is not to get more “affordable units” (or “housing for kids”, or protect people from “toxic air” or save farmland) but to kill the projects (to keep home prices and rents high, reduce traffic or just f with developers for fun the way some people troll blogs)…
I think the goal is to get the most “bang for the buck”, regarding peripheral proposals in particular. Otherwise, we’ll have a continuing advocacy for “other” needs, as defined primarily by development activists. Well-beyond Davis’ regional share of growth and development.
I always find it beyond ironic when developers and their allies suggest that “others” who don’t necessarily go along with their plans are the ones driven primarily by money. Only in an ass-backward, developer world, I guess.
I would add that I actually see senior housing as having the least impact (of any alternative), regarding housing prices and rents. Probably won’t impact that in even the slightest manner.
However, bypassing an opportunity to build a broader-range proposal probably will have an impact – in the opposite direction.
In other words, for those who want housing and rent prices to stay high, this is probably the best proposal that can be expected.
But, this proposal might have one of the worst impacts (of any alternative), in terms of fiscal impacts to the city. Note that any fiscal analysis was apparently performed BEFORE Proposition 5 arose, as well. (In other words, it probably wasn’t even considered.)
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Property_Tax_Transfer_Initiative_(2018)
Rik Keller’s misleading attack on affordable housing ought to be at least accurate.
He writes, ” …that many previous projects have met their affordable housing requirement by actually building the units rather than just donating the land.
Rik, What is wrong with your sentence above?
What we call “units” is a one bedroom apartment for a low income senior with 30% of those apartments affordable to seniors earning less than $13,000 a year.
The “units” you speak of are not “units”, they are not even “apartments” they are a single bed in a double room with two beds in a 2-3-4-5 bedroom apartment with at least four – six students as the other occupants. The lowest rent for those single beds on Olive Drive are set at almost $700 plus a month.
So, is this the No on L’s future for the hundreds of low income seniors on Davis waiting lists. To rent a bed in a double room at almost $700 a month on a thousands dollars a month of social security.
Let’s have an honest equivalency discussion of housing as your “units” are single beds in a double room in a student building at almost $700 a month and our “units” are real apartments for a senior to live in at $500 a month.
For us there is no comparison at all for our low income Davis seniors between a single bed in a double room in a student rental and a complete apartment.
Please vote YES on Measure L to give hard working low income seniors 150 apartments to live in proudly for the rest of their lives. Where else will they go?
David J. Thompson
Neighborhood Partners. LLC.
David Thompson,
If you’ve read my analysis over the past few months, you see that I have also called out projects that are trying to claim affordability for per-bed arrangements (ahem, Nishi).
There’s a reason why you keep repeating the phrase “doors” though, and that is to exaggerate the percentage of the total project population that is served by the affordable component.
Let’s get back to your claim that the WDAAC project is donating 2x the amount of land required by the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. You are really saying the project is only required to donate 2 acres under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance? Please show your math as to how you arrived at this calculation. Alan Pryor has conducted a very detailed analysis and shown his work, and the real number is around 8 acres.
Unless you’re a “Davis” senior who wants to downsize or one of the lucky 150 on the senior affordable housing list how does this project benefit you as a Davis resident? That’s something Davis voters have to decide. Other than a handful of seniors I don’t see how this development benefits anybody. If anything it’s a hindrance to your way of life with added traffic, more trouble finding downtown parking and more people crowding the downtown and the roads.
Davis needs student housing and affordable family and workforce housing, this project does neither.
Vote NO!
Keith O – Exactly! (You may become a social justice warrior yet.)
Social justice = “what’s in it for me?” Interesting view. And dangerous to civil and property rights.
Voted no on L. But for reasons far removed from growth paranoia, human rights/social justice, etc., considerations.
Whatever floats ya’ll’s boats…
Keith going to the dark side? I certainly hope not!
“Unless you’re a “Davis” senior who wants to downsize or one of the lucky 150 on the senior affordable housing list how does this project benefit you as a Davis resident”
I see. So based on that logic, unless you move into a new development, no housing development benefits an individual resident.
Craig, you need to understand… many here believe they (as individuals) have a god-given right to dictate what others can do with their property, in agonizingly precise detail. [Children of a lesser, corrupt, selfish, narcissistic god, IMHO]
AND, they have to receive not just mitigation, but a positive benefit.
As Tom Lehr might sing, “who’s next?”
Hey Howard, you’re back. How are you? We all so missed you.
So if a Mercedes dealer wants to build on a site on the edge of town are we going to oppose it and demand instead a used car dealer because otherwise fewer Hispanics or students can afford the cars?
Absurd?
Well the arguments from some of the most vocal No people are as absurd. Mental gymnastics, irrational rationalization and hyperbole to back their generally fussy tantrum of negativism.
There are some near logic hits with a few making the case for more integrated diversity in housing demographics, but where they come up short is denial of the financial infeasiblility of such a project, plus the refusal to admit that housing targeting particular demographics is totally common. So their position is the common Davis malady of perfection being the enemy of the good. Since WDAAC is imperfect in their eyes they will oppose it and vote no. We have seen that play out over and over and over again… with Nishi-2 being the only significant peripheral housing development approved in the last 25 years.
I wonder how these perfectionists function in their own lives? Or maybe they only demand it of others and not themselves.
Jeff may think it is “absurd” but I sure would like one of the 170 “affordable” Mercedes AMG GTs we got them to sell before they got the OK to build the dealership.
https://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/class/class-GT/bodystyle-CPE
I’m sure Rik would be upset if the “affordable” cars only had two “doors” (vs. 4 Doors for the S Class Sedans and 5 doors for the M Class SUVs) but just like it seems he is surprised that some 55 + “seniors” want smaller homes I’m one55+ “senior” that would be happy to trade in my almost 25 year old pickup for a smaller “affordable” 2 door AMG GT (or Porsche 911 GT3).
P.S. Maybe we can force two Taco Bells in town to bring back the $0.99 value menu at some “affordable” tables and make the two Subways in town sell “affordable” $4 footlongs at a couple tables if they want to renew their business licenses…
If I were going to buy in WDAAC, I’d keep my existing house, rent it out to students, and pocket $10k (maybe more, I only did a quick calculation) every year, plus capital appreciation on 2 Davis houses. I wonder how many other Davis seniors are thinking the same thing.