By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – The most controversial part of the Bretton Woods Senior Housing development is what is now being referred to as the Davis-Connected Buyers Program, which has restricted a good portion of the project to people with connections to the Davis community.
The review will go before the Davis Planning Commission this week, but it is an information item. Staff notes, “The Development Agreement (DA) does not require the Planning Commission to act on the Davis-Connected Buyers Program.”
They add, “The applicant is making this information available to the Planning Commission to keep a commitment he made during deliberations by the Commission on their now withdrawn application to modify the Bretton Woods Development Agreement (DA) relative to Davis-Connected Buyers Program.”
The DA does require that the applicant “Develop and implement appropriate local-connection requirements and verification procedures for such a program that are consistent with all applicable Federal and State fair housing requirements, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §3604), the California Fair Employment and 
Housing Act (Gov’t Code §12900 et seq.) and the California Unruh Act (Civil Code §51 et seq.) (the “Fair Housing
Requirements”), and provide City with a copy of such verification procedures.”
It further indemnifies, protects and holds the “City harmless from any and all claims arising out of Developer’s failure to comply with applicable legal requirements as set forth in or related to the Fair Housing Requirements…”
According to the revised plan, “Developer has elected to restrict ninety percent (90%) of the residential units within the Project, excluding the affordable housing and the specialized senior care, to initial purchasers with a preexisting connection to the City of Davis, and desires to sell or hold said percentage of market-rate residential units available for sale to households that include a local resident, defined as a person residing within the City or the Davis Joint Unified School District boundary, family of a local resident, a Davis employee, a Davis grade-school student, or an individual that attended Davis schools.”
In a letter dated March 25 to Sherri Metzker of the Community Development and Sustainability Department, David Taormino writes, “Behind the scenes we have been working diligently to fulfill numerous mitigation measures and project commitments.
“One commitment that we have been working to complete is the Davis Connected Buyers Program,” he writes. “As you are aware, the Development Agreement requires us to create a program aimed at ensuring that Bretton Woods serves the City’s internal need for housing by building homes for people with an existing connection to Davis.”
He went on to note that in September “I committed to your Commission that we would not seek to amend the DA to remove the Davis Connected Buyers Program” and that, once completed, he “would bring the program to the Planning Commission for your review.”
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.)
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Translation: The City Council is not interested in getting Commission input and advice and plans to rubber stamp whatever the developer submits on this “most controversial” part of the Bretton Woods development.
The part that I find surprising (though I really shouldn’t be surprised, by now) is how little attention this attracts from those who claim to be so concerned about disproportionate racial impacts.
That is, unless they can use that concern to support their own unrelated interests, it seems. Oh, sure – they’re plenty “concerned”, then!
As noted before, you’re one of the few who are consistent on this issue. In general, consistency is correlated with honesty/integrity.
RO, it was racist when it had teeth but no form. Now it has form but not teeth, so no longer racist. It’s just a big fat pile of nothing. But those who promoted or supported this thing – what were you thinking?
True.
But my comment is really more-directed at the “fair-weather” social justice activists. The ones who try to use racism as an excuse, when it appears that their primary interest is something else.
Eric, on the other hand – is more consistent regarding his concerns.
Sort of like the “green/global-warming warriors”, who somehow support a 5,000-parking spot development, adjacent to freeways.
Sometimes, these are the same people. “Fair-weather” social justice/global-warming warriors.
My suspicions are truly “woke”, whenever school district issues come up, one way or another. I have a very low-level of trust regarding “what you see is what you get”, there.
The idea behind Bretton Woods is to overcome the ownership inertia created by Prop 13, which is an inherently racially-biased law itself. The Buyer Program is intended to encourage older Davis owners who live in big houses more suitable for younger families to sell to those families and move to downsized homes within the community. Look at Miller Ave which has many large family sized houses. The average age of the residents is 70 years, which means there are few children. This policy is intended to carve out a means for those on Miller to move to a more appropriately sized home while staying in Davis. This opens up the housing on Miller to more young families which hopefully are also more diverse. Since we can’t change the state law that incents older residents to stay in their houses for longer, we can try to do this locally. And by doing so, we try to increase the diversity of the community.
This definitely happened when University Retirement Center was built. Many of my older customers cashed in the equity of their homes (which had appreciated considerably) and bought in at URC. That opened up homes in central and (old) west Davis for new families. That was 20 years ago, and we haven’t had a comparable development since. There are big gaps in the Davis housing market with respect to move-up housing at all levels.
Whites replacing whites (for those who claim to care about that type of thing).
Not sure how you know the average age of residents (or how many children they have), but death ultimately accomplishes the same thing, for all of us.