By David Taormino
Bretton Woods (formerly called The West Davis Active Adult Community) was approved by Davis’ voters in November 2018. At that time, the Applicant proposed a Davis-Connected Buyers Program as a part of the Project which was designed to retain Davis’ senior population.
The program was intended to ensure that Davis-connected seniors would be prioritized at Bretton Woods so they could downsize into age-appropriate housing while staying local, simultaneously, the existing housing stock would become available to a new generation. A program to achieve those policy goals has now been released.
The Davis-Connected Buyers Program (DCBP) is based on six key principles.
- Focus on attracting Davis’ existing age-qualified homeowners to Bretton Woods, thereby retaining our valued, aging citizenry.
- Open Davis’ inventory of larger, single-family designed homes for purchase by a new generation in order to better utilize the existing housing inventory and support the attendance levels of Davis schools.
- Comply with the goals of Measure J/R to have development proposals serve the internal needs of the City and thereby maintain the integrity of the voter approval process.
- Meet the 2018 election and campaign representations for a Davis Connected Buyers Program that attracts buyer with a preexisting Davis connection.
- Implement policies and processes that achieve the aforementioned objectives but do so in a manner that will not intentionally or unintentionally prevent the sale, directly or
indirectly, of housing or otherwise result in housing being unavailable or restricted because of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, disability, familial status, marital status, sexual orientation, or any arbitrary basis. Furthermore, do so in a manner that will not perpetuate discrimination within the City of Davis that resulted from a history of racially discriminatory covenants or informal redlining within the City. - Comply with all applicable Federal and State fair housing requirements, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act (42. U.S.C S3604), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov’t Code S12900 et. Seq.) and the California Unruh Act (Civil Code S51 et. Seq.)
The Davis-Connected Buyers Program is rooted in the language of Measure J/R and intended to help address the extreme local housing crisis resulting from a lack of supply. It was always intended to promote a diversity of homeowners with an emphasis on meeting the needs of local seniors.
The program and its objectives were the topic of much discussion as the Project sought City Council and voter approval in 2018.
In 2020, a proposed amendment to the Development Agreement to remove the program by a potential master builder, K. Hovnanian (K. Hov), was met with controversy. K. Hov eventually withdrew its amendment request and ultimately opted not to build at Bretton Woods. Since then, the Applicant has crafted the DCBP which is aimed at achieving the stated policy objectives.
The DCBP is a comprehensive, multi-phased advertising plan along with a verification and reporting system focused primarily on Davis-connected seniors. The program’s goal is to achieve a sale of ninety percent (90%) of the residential units within Bretton Woods to purchasers with a pre-existing connection to the City of Davis.
From its inception, the program was designed to comply with fair housing laws, including a commitment to not perpetuate historical discriminatory housing practices or impediments to homeownership in Davis rooted in bias. Since the 2018 approvals, this commitment has intensified in response to national and local attention surrounding racial injustice and implicit bias, spurred by the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement.
Accordingly, as crafted, the DCBP exempts protected classes of buyers from needing to provide any evidence of a local connection. The DCBP uses Federal and State Fair Housing standards to better define groups of individuals exempted from the local connection requirement. Removing the local connection requirement for any person of a protected class is an intentional step to eliminate any barrier to entry for groups which may have been historically excluded..
David Taormino is the Project Manager of Bretton Woods
To read a full detailed program – see here.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
I appreciate the effort to address issues with the Davis-Based Buyers Program. Limiting marketing to the local region is a legitimate means to accomplish the goal of selling primarily to local buyers.
The proposed fixes to the Davis-Based Buyers Program, however, don’t fully make sense. For example, the program detail provides:
This takes the language on protected classes out of context.
Fair housing laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. Everyone falls within these categories as long as they identify with a gender, race, color, religion, marital status, etc. They just can’t be discriminated against based on their race, religion, gender, etc. All races, genders, religions, etc. are protected against discrimination. Under the above language of the program, because everyone identifies with a gender, race, color, etc., no one would have to complete the form.
The development plan still provides that 90% of buyers must have a Davis connection. But if some groups are exempted from this requirement, does it mean that less than 90% of sales can be to buyers without Davis connections? That’s not clear in the program description.
Correction to last paragraph: Sentence should read: … does it mean that less than 90% of sales can be to buyers with Davis connections?
Or, worded a tad clearer, “does it mean over 10% of sales can be to buyers without demonstrable ‘Davis connections’ (which is an undefined term!), if they meet one or more of the criteria for “don’t ask, don’t tell…”
You are basically correct, Eric… the whole thing is murky, ambiguous, open for interpretation or manipulation… Dave T is an attorney… think that all comes from the ‘training’ attorneys get… same for politicians… ‘gotta have room to not only make your case, but be able to back-pedal if necessary…
That is one of the greatest belly laughs I’ve had in awhile.
It takes a lawyer to call out a lawyer. Nice job, EG
. . . and if it were worded the ‘other’ way, it would basically read, “poor white people with no connection to our city need not apply”, which reminds me of another ‘poor whites need not apply’ program discussed in another comment section today, a universal base lottery that officials are breeding in Oakland.
As I read this, as not a lawyer, having a goal is different than a ‘must’. So I’m guessing the answer is ‘yes’, less than 90 % of sales can be to buyers without Davis connections.
Which means, the DCBP is DC BS. It’s a program of words that in practice means ‘anyone can buy there’.
After all,
Perhaps K. Hov proposed the amendment because they knew following a binding so-called DCBP was stepping into a legal tar pit, and ‘ultimately opted not to build’ because without the amendment they weren’t willing to take the risk.
Meanwhile, the unstated policy objectives are to try to save face with this word salad pablum of bullshˆt, and actually have something built so ‘the developer’ can make some money.
Great job on the intensified commitment to use words in sentences that sound politically woke, meanwhile creating a program of nothing.
The program, never fully defined, was intended to ensure passage of a Measure JeRkeD vote. Now it’s just an annoyance to the developer that must be dealt with.
Ironically, the lack of supply causing the extreme local housing crisis is itself rooted in the language of Measure J/R.
Alan:
I read the developer’s goal as being more than mere precatory intent. From their materials:
OK, well you dug into their materials. I was going by the one sentence which is what 99% of us will read.
But then if it is restricting 90% to Davis connections, doesn’t the criticism of long-standing existing racial inequity in Davis mirroring into the program come again into play, negating all the flowery words used to weave around that, with only 10% not, which isn’t exactly how non-discrimination housing laws work.
Good question. Presumably, if one checks the “Exempt protected class” box, the buyer wouldn’t count as part of the 10% cap on non-Davis connected and they could purchase without regard to the cap. But given that the protected class language makes no sense here, your guess is as good as mine.
Question: Will the City Council need to review and approve this revised buyers program, which is clearly a modification of the Development Agreement?
Regardless of what one thinks of this program, how is it that the city even allowed it to be presented?
Don’t they get some kind of legal analysis regarding these things? Such as that provided by Eric (for “free”, no less)?
Why not just present this as, “we’re going to market it, locally” in the first place? Did the developer think he’d “lose” that way?
By the way, though – the recently-approved Proposition 19 allows seniors to move their (current) property taxes anywhere in California. So, I guess that a development like this might get a a lot of “taxpayer deadbeats”, from other counties. (For those who don’t think much of Proposition 13.)
I have a different view of Proposition 13, in that it seems to me that a 2% increase per year should be “enough”. Especially since properties are eventually reassessed, anyway.
And in a town like Davis, they end up loading properties with parcel taxes, anyway. (Again, which seniors sometimes don’t have to pay.)
Of course, Ms. Aguiar-Curry is working on making that parcel-tax approval process “easier”, regardless 🙂
And then there’s CFDs, Mello-Roos, etc. – but I digress.
Never heard of 1st amendment, or right of seeking administrative remedies? Might depend on ‘whose ox is being gored’…
Presentation is one thing… approval quite another… they have a right to present, but NO right of approval…
Presented to voters, Bill.
How is it that the council thought this was o.k. – especially since it was challenged at the time?
Do they have any “gatekeeper” duties whatsoever?
How is it that Eric seems to understand the problem, better than they did? Isn’t there a city attorney who is supposed to review these things and provide guidance?
Again, you are being dense… how can it be put to voters if Commissions, CC does not review it? Are you saying the proposal should be put before voters [edited] absent Commission(s), CC review? What if Commission(s), CC reject the proposal? If so, should there still be a ‘vote of qualified voters’?
I did not preclude the need for a subsequent JeRkeD vote… but your words are clearly,
That implies ‘even presented to the voters’ is precluded… even by referendum, CC’s either have to correct an issue, or put it to the voters…
The voters do not issue stone tablets from a certain mountain in the mid-east…
You appear not to know, understand, of which you speak…
So, you’re apparently stating that the council has a choice: Either correct a legally-questionable proposal (depending upon whether or not they are so inclined), or let the voters decide legality.
Interesting, if true. (Which I don’t assume is true.)
I believe the project has serious issues… all of them practical. But, it has been approved.
No approvals, nor recommendations of approval of the ‘proposed modifications’, have been made at this point. Not by staff, not by commission(s), not by CC.
Suggest you re-read your 7:23 P, 8:10 P, 8:29 posts…
I stand by my 8:08, 8:24 posts… apologize if I was not perfectly courteous…
I believe we’re referring to two different things (actions taken in support of the original program, vs. proposed actions now).
My final comment.