By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – When I first sat down and spoke with developer David Taormino, far in advance of the West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC) project (now known as Bretton Woods), he explained his concern and the lessons of the Cannery—basically a project that was supposed to supply housing that was affordable (small “a”) to the community ended up way too expensive and got purchased by out-of-town Bay Area residents fleeing a hugely expensive housing market.
Taormino was determined to avoid that pitfall and came up with the concept of the Davis-Based Buyers Program. I was skeptical at the time (and remain somewhat skeptical) about its legality.
Clearly the city has concerns as well, which is why there is both the indemnity clause and the Fair Housing Clause written into the Development Agreement.
There was also the initial concern that the provision would be discriminatory—limiting who could purchase the project to a much whiter pool of applicants than the general population of the region.
After going over the proposal and running some numbers, I became convinced that it would probably have a negligible impact on racial composition.
First, the pool it is pulling from is amazingly broad—so broad that it probably negates some of its own premise, as the people need to have had a connection to Davis, such as a current resident, previous resident, relative of a current resident, or a graduate of UC Davis. That’s probably a less diverse base than the overall region, but it’s broad enough that it doesn’t have to be.
Second, I don’t have a lot of statistics on the comparable project at the Cannery, but I can’t imagine that Bretton Woods will end up less diverse than Cannery.
Third, to the extent that the developer’s theory of their project pulling from existing residents is true, it will open up existing housing stock for new families to come to Davis.
Fourth, it will also house about 150 or so affordable units which, looking at that pool, is a good deal more diverse than the typical market rate pool.
Finally and probably most importantly the status quo in Davis—limited housing stock—is itself a form of soft discrimination locking in the existing demographics, and while Davis has become much more diverse over the last 20 years, it is still far less diverse than the rest of the region. Not building housing exacerbates that trend.
The developers here have also attempted to modify the proposal to ensure that they are not discriminating or violating federal and state fair housing laws.
“This commitment has been and remains critically important to the Applicant,” they write. “Beyond intent, a vital component of complying with fair housing laws is to ensure that any program will not result in a disparate impact on any member of a ‘protected class.’”
They note: “To address this concern, the marketing program targets several buyer pools that are equivalent to, or more diverse than, the City of Davis’ demographics such as the DJUSD area and UC Davis alumni. The data indicates that, by including these buyer pools within the sphere of targeted buyers, the program will not result in a disparate impact to any protected class.”
They have thus modified the program so that “any member of a protected class is not required to demonstrate a Davis connection when purchasing a home in Bretton Woods.”
The developers note: “It is our sincere hope that this exemption will prevent any unintended disparate effects.”
Former Mayor Brett Lee, along with former Social Services Commissioner Claire Goldstene, have some concerns about these modifications, however.
In an op-ed this weekend, they write: “The developers first proposed eliminating the Davis-Based Buyers Program in its entirety in July 2020, but faced immediate criticism from city residents and accusations of perpetrating a ‘bait-and-switch.’ They withdrew that request.”
Lee and Goldstene continue: “They have now returned with an alternative proposal where prospective buyers would be asked about their Davis connection, but if they are members of a ‘protected class’ they could bypass answering that question and still be eligible to purchase a home in the new development.
“While the developer’s proposed alternative sounds laudable at first, the practical effect would be to end the Davis-Based Buyers Program, as they desired in July of last year,” they argue. “Understandably and appropriately, the definitions of ‘protected class’ in fair housing law can be construed quite broadly, which means that nearly every prospective home buyer could choose not to answer the question about a Davis connection and still buy a house in Bretton Woods. This likely outcome would violate the promise made to the community when the proposal was placed on the ballot about providing needed senior housing for Davis residents and those with a connection to Davis.”
While I understand Brett Lee’s concern here, I don’t believe this concern is fatal. I would definitely tighten the definition of protected class to be race or national origin rather than some of the other classes.
I still worry about legality here and I worry about the fact that, because the city is indemnified, they have not done the necessary legal analysis to determine whether these proposals pass muster.
My biggest concern here is to find a way to expeditiously build desperately needed housing stock including 150 or so units of affordable housing that can alleviate some of the housing crunch. This project will not be a game changer, it will not end the housing crisis locally, but, if done right, it could be a vital piece of the puzzle for this community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
21 years later Measure J is a 100 % no growth success since to date not one unit has been completed under the ordinance.
So the former Mayor is upset because the developer can’t legally keep a promise that was given to assuage some voters desire to keep people from moving to Davis. What does the former Mayor suggest the developer do?
“My biggest concern here is to find a way to expeditiously build desperately needed housing stock including 150 or so units of affordable housing that can alleviate some of the housing crunch.”
I thought your biggest concern was direct democracy for those who are allowed to vote.
LOL!
LOL!
Not true.
Adding more of the same type of people exacerbates that trend, or at least maintains the status quo.
Terrific: “I have no statistics of what I’m comparing it to, nor do I have any statistics of what will be. And yet, I’m sharing my imagination with you.”
Of course not – voters already approved it, at least partly based upon the “promise”.
The only thing left is to save face and “appear” that the promise is being kept.
By the way, have they released pricing information? As you probably know, Proposition 19 (approved last year) allows seniors to bring their property tax “with” them – anywhere within California. So much for “local” housing (not to mention limited property tax collections).
Great – then encourage the developer proceed with the program as originally planned prior to the election. Sounds like that wouldn’t be a problem at all!
You’re not doing the developer any “favors”, by continuing to bring up his efforts.
Since when has one of the iron laws of economics been refuted? If supply fails to grow and demand rises, prices will rise. This is the Father Guido Sarducci Five Minute University take away…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4
Because white households on average have substantially more wealth than other ethnic groups, particularly Black ones, white families, especially older wealthier ones, are the ones best able to bid and win the higher prices.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disparities-in-wealth-by-race-and-ethnicity-in-the-2019-survey-of-consumer-finances-20200928.htm
Great, Richard.
Sounds like you have “no concern” regarding disparate impacts, and that you should be advocating for the program to go through as originally planned, then.
Suggest you relay those thoughts to the developer.
And maybe you and David (both) can advocate for your own personally-defined “protected classes”, as well. Just make it up, as David has already put forth.
But in the meantime, if this attracts even more middle-class, older white people, then the resulting population increase will make it that much more difficult to achieve an integrated (total) population, via more development.
Mathematically (as an example), adding one “person of color” to an existing population of 10 people creates a higher percentage of diversity (in regard to the total population) than adding one to a population of 20.
So the more “whites” you add, the harder it will be to achieve diversity, later. For those who care about that outcome, or for those who “claim” that they do – when it’s convenient.
“Sounds like you have “no concern” regarding disparate impacts, and that you should be advocating for the program to go through as originally planned, then.”
It seems like you assume what you need to prove.
“And maybe you and David (both) can advocate for your own personally-defined “protected classes”, as well. Just make it up, as David has already put forth.”
Actually they are defined by Title VII
But David, you wrote this:
So which is it?
One is the legal definition, the other are the categories that make sense to apply for this. Don’t see any conflict between the two.
Legal concerns are the reason that this program is being “modified”.
To whom does that make sense to? Disabled people, for example?
I’d suggest that you list all of the protected classes you’d like to exclude.
Let’s see: There’s a possible conflict with the law (regarding the original proposal, as well as your own personal/preferred definition of “protected class”). Not to mention a problem in logic.
Anything else?
But as a statistician, one can better totally guess at stuff 😐
Your best line ever, RO.
So that gets to what is considered a protected class? There are so many categories these days.
So only non Davis connected Christian male heterosexual whites need not apply? Does that sound about right? I have no idea but it would be interesting to have it defined.
As I noted in the piece, they are going to have to tighten the definition.
Followed by this:
What makes you think that you can decide that a protected class can be arbitrarily limited to race or national origin?
Hopefully, they’re not relying upon you for legal guidance.
Therefore, by deduction, I climb about my high, Yiddish horse ‘Matzo Ball’ and ride, proclaiming to all the land:
Hear yee! Hear yee!
Mr. David Greenwald of the Davis Vanguard sayeth that the following protected classes are unworthy of protection under the Davis-Based Buyers Program (unless connected to Davis stock):
• color
• religion
• gender
• disability
• familial status
• marital status
• sexual orientation
Is that about right? 😐
I suggest they just build the houses as soon as possible, and then market them heavily in Davis. I believe they’re already getting deposits on the units. They might not even have to market them at all.
This whole discussion has turned into the biggest mess of circular reasoning that I’ve ever seen around a development project. We all should stop trying to control the housing market, and I will add that the prejudice against “outsiders” — particularly, evidently, those from the Bay Area — is pretty disturbing. I’m only acquainted with a few people who were actually born and raised here. The rest of us moved here from somewhere else for some reason. It would be great if a bunch of the houses sold to existing residents who would thereby create move-up homes for others, and it would be wonderful if this increased the city’s diversity. But the extent to which people try to micro-manage this stuff is bordering on the absurd.
The commenters on here are not responsible for this program. And some specifically warned against proceeding – including at least one whom I would not describe as a “slow-growther”.
And if that wasn’t warning enough, you’d think that the lawsuit would have gotten more attention.
I actually agree with this, but it also conflicts with the entire “internal housing need” assessment/justification. If some want to advocate building more housing for Bay Area transplants to the region (in addition to what SACOG requires), maybe they should just say so.
Bay Area transplants might understand how “sprawl” occurs (while not even lowering housing prices), better than most. That’s why the anti-sprawl movement was born there (e.g., Marin, Sonoma counties, etc.). We’ve already seen what happened to San Jose, the East Bay, etc.
In a way, Bay Area transplants are the “problem”, but also understand the “solution” (e.g., in the form of urban limit lines, land preservation, etc.). And (unlike what occurs on this blog), they seem to place more value on what they’ve saved.
No developer that I’m aware of has ever tried to do what the Davis-Based Buyer’s Program outlined and probably for good reason: it’s unenforceable and thus the wrong way to go about solving the problem or even righting the wrongs of decades of red lining. I agree with Don Shor that the houses should get built (I voted for this without considering the DBB Program) and that if the developer is serious about his stated intentions about who will live there, that he instigate a heavy recruitment program now. Even so, those who fit the target demographics may need help lining up financing. If the city thinks this is important, maybe they need to get serious as well about how to make this work. It’s clear that no good ideas for making this program successful in terms of its stated goals will come from the usual cadre of commenters on the Vanguard. Those ideas and proposals will have to come from people and organizations that want to see this succeed and have the requisite knowledge and background.
Amen to that. See: “Affordable Housing” . . . LOL
As started by the developer, the City, and Davis voters, in embracing this stupid, elitist concept.
I forgot that making programs successful (including the one U just called ‘unenforceable’) are the responsibility of Vanguard commenters. How silly of me. Y’know what is also clear? That no good ideas for making this program successful in terms of its stated goals will come from the developers, the City, nor Davis voters.