By David Taormino
Only in Davis are you guilty of a “crime” (breaking a promise) before you commit it. Not only are you presumed guilty of yet to occur offense; there is talk of your punishment. No need for a trial and facts just the criticism and punishment will do. And please do not include facts in the discussion: opinion and speculation is good enough for Davisites.
For the Vanguard readers who appreciate logic AND facts:
Fact 1: I promised 90% of WDAAC (Bretton Woods) homebuyers will have an existing Davis connection. The criteria is in the Jan 2018 and later campaign materials given to voters.
Fact 2: No Bretton Woods home has yet to be built or purchased. Therefore, I have not broken any promise.
Fact 3: I intend to keep that promise when we have homes available for purchase.
Fact 4: I promised in the Development agreement I would design a program to achieve the goal of 90% Davis Connected Buyers and submit the program to the City for review. I did exactly that.
Fact 5: I remain confident that the plan will work as intended.
Fact 6: My implementation plan meets Federal and State Fair Housing Laws and Requirements and cases that interpret those laws.
Fact 7: To date, Bretton Woods has over three hundred probable homebuyers with written commitments, some with deposits, some without. All potential Buyers have executed a commitment form to purchase indicating they are ready, willing, and able to purchase a home when built. In order to submit the commitment form and have it accepted by Bretton Woods, each of the potential buyers has been interviewed by a Bretton Woods staff person determining their connection to Davis, if any.
Fact 8: More than 90% of the three hundred plus persons with commitments meet the specific criteria for Davis Connected Buyers as originally published in the Jan 2018 campaign literature and thereafter.
Fact 9: Not one commentator or reporter has commented on the actual implementation program, ONLY the Buyers questionnaire which is part of the verification process. The precise questionnaire is still being vetted including whether completing it or not is optional. I expect any such wording will be removed and the questionnaire’s completion made mandatory which is appropriate in my opinion.
Opinion: When I provide evidence starting next Fall and continuing thereafter that I have kept my campaign promise. I would hope all those “convicting” me today of breaking my promise will publicly apologize as they should.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Mr. Taormino is conveniently forgetting he proposed last year to completely eliminate the Davis Based Buyers Program upon which the community rightly responded loudly. Then he came back with a proposed program that was so laughably ridden with loopholes that it might as well have been rescinded completelely. So that’s twice he has tried to eliminate or eviscerate his Davis Based Buyers Program and renege on his explicit promise to voters. And he may still get away with it if the Council caves to his demands.
Yet here he is whining about he is the victim. He’s right about one thing…this could only happen in Davis!
One can only base their comments and opinions of the buyers program on the information provided. In this case, the information has been misleading, incomplete, and ever-changing. 300 committed potential buyers being vetted and we still don’t know the criteria being applied.
We’ve been told all along that the specifics of the buyers program have yet to be determined—it’s a work in progress—so it’s beyond criticism.
Fact 10: Based on what information has been provided, the buyers program makes no sense, potentially violates fair housing laws, and would not achieve its purported purpose.
I was going to lease the world’s smallest violin to play Vivaldi’s Four Seasons in Central Park on Flag Day in response to this article, but realized even the world’s smallest violin wasn’t small enough for this task.
THEREFORE, I have commissioned the construction on an even tinier violin using nanotechnology, and have commissioned a talented group of UCD music grad students to write a FIFTH SEASON to add to Vivaldi’s Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. This new season to be played with full symphony and nano-violin, and titled “WHINING!” (think hottest Davis summer ever, with a swarm of mosquitoes).
That fifth season should be called Discontent. It would be an ugly hunchback of a season.
Unlike the six or seven or eight regular commenters on the Vanguard critical of this program (none of whom are interested in living at Bretton Woods and have not applied to live there) I am hopeful that the program works out and see it as a positive step that a builder attempted to address housing with a local focus. Time will tell to what extent the stated goals for local ownership are achieved. I’m sure most of the naysayers are pulling for the total or even partial failure of this program so they can feel good about their righteous indignation. If the program succeeds, there will be silence and all will be forgotten. Meanwhile, other houses will get built without any such programs with the buyers being mostly wealthy and white and nobody will raise objections because that’s the way it’s always been.
Seems to me that the claim is that there is “no” program.
If the questionnaire is “mandatory”, while responding to it “isn’t”, I’m not sure what to make of that. Or, if it will include a “decline to state” category, similar to questionnaires for employment, etc.
But honestly, anyone “waiting around” to see if this program is implemented before deciding to whether or not to buy wouldn’t make much sense to me, either.
Though (given the legal concerns brought up by some on here, and the lawsuit that was withdrawn – without prejudice, I think), I would also question the following, if challenged again.
This seems to be the “beginning” of a program that’s already been implemented:
Regardless of the legalities, this just doesn’t seem right. Really? What if every development did this?
Atmosphere getting a little thin out on Planet Hart?
I was just thinking the same thing about y’all.
Dave Hart – You are correct in assuming I have no interest in living in Bretton Woods, but I don’t hope that it fails. I simply would not want to live in a community that discriminates against families with children (despite its legality), excludes non-seniors with disabilities in need of accessible housing, and excludes a more diverse demographic of buyers without arbitrarily defined connections to Davis. I prefer to live in an inclusive community, not one emphasizing exclusivity and exclusion.
I was under the impression that this development was oriented to seniors but that it would not be exclusively seniors unlike many seniors-only developments in surrounding areas. So, kids or not, the homes that Davis seniors would vacate to live at Bretton Woods could be bought by seniors or anybody else, like people with kids. I was also unaware there was a prohibition on seniors with disabilities. I think there is an ADA suit there and they will win unless you are misrepresenting the situation. It sounds as if anyone could live there, as long as they can get a loan assuming they need one. That last point is the only real issue. The financial access and that is what red-lining was all about. I really don’t care who lives there but I do think the time is coming when even people who comment on the Vanguard will come to understand that government will have to be involved in helping low income people to become homeowners. It cannot happen on a meaningful scale without that kind of intervention.
It does allow non-senior buyers but in no more than 20% of the homes—i.e., could end up being 0%. I didn’t say there was a prohibition on seniors with disabilities. I said by, effectively, excluding non-seniors, it also means that non-senior households that include a disabled member who needs accessible housing are excluded.
As to the homes Davis seniors would vacate, they could be bought by non Davis-connected buyers, thereby defeating the purpose of the Davis-connected buyers program.
It’s a development based on keeping people out rather than inclusiveness.
Re: Eric
The new buyer could be the city. Then that unit can join a Davis-connected buyer program.
However, for that to work, the city needs a place to house the current seniors with properties. Or they could put it in their will to sell/donate their current property to a Davis-connected buyer program.
Oh, snap! 🙂
Though I understood the primary purpose (from some who supported the program) that the purpose was to ensure that “they” had exclusive access to the senior housing, thereby eliminating competition from those pesky, wealthy outsiders.
But that the housing that was “left behind” was fair game for those same outsiders.
It just gets “stupider” by the moment. Sounds like a word that a dumb guy would post, doesn’t it?
What are the loopholes? (Alan can’t see my posts. So if someone else could answer…)
The irony is that few of the people demanding housing only to meet “the internal needs” of the city were born here. Why is this internal needs nonsense important anyway? Doesn’t it simply perpetuate the historic racial demography of Davis?
Isn’t that the argument against this program, in the first place?
Seems to me that some (but certainly not all) of those who are concerned about this program are on the slower growth end of the spectrum. So, perhaps it’s not “them” who are focused on keeping out others.
Personally, I (also) think it’s both hopeless and ridiculous to pretend that most new housing will be occupied by those who already have homes, in Davis. Or nearby, for that matter. So, I would agree that “internal needs” is a rather hopeless concept in the first place. As it should be, given that people move in-and-out of communities all the time.
Unless one were to keep track of local births and ensure that housing is reserved for them as they become adults, it’s just absurd.
New housing is usually occupied by new residents. In the case of senior housing, it might be somewhat different – even without this program.
“Seems to me that some (but certainly not all) of those who are concerned about this program are on the slower growth end of the spectrum. So, perhaps it’s not “them” who are focused on keeping out others.”
This is nonsense. Slow growth advocates who opposed the project used the buyers program as a campaign issue to try to upend the project. The same people who opposed the project are now acting like this is some great transgression against the voters that should be resolved through a second election. In reality, the problems with the program were well vetted during the election and the voters approved the project anyway.
This is simply another delaying tactic that proves that Measure D is a complete success for no growth. Currently Measures J, R and D have a perfect track record of nothing built in 21 years.
There are people (whom I’d consider “slow-growth”) who supported this proposal. I know of some.
There are people (who I would not consider “slow-growth”) who are concerned about the program, itself. (I believe that one of them commented in this article, and in just about every article regarding this subject. He is not the only one.)
There are people who had other concerns with the proposal (e.g., legal discrimination based upon age, relatively low-density usage, etc.).
Then, there are people who supported the proposal, possibly because they view it as meeting an “internal need”.
As far as I know, the program is not holding up the development, itself.
Truth be told, I’m kind of glad this proposal passed, at this point. Same with Nishi. So if you’re going to complain about Measure D, you might want to focus on development proposals which weren’t approved.
In all fairness, Ron G, what is correct is,
There has been building on properties exempt from the JeRkeD process… but, your essential point is absolutely correct…
Wrong. At the time of the election there was only a general description of the program in the Development Agreement. Details had not been provided and the parameters are still in a state of flux.
I’m sure you are correct about the development agreement. My point is that the objections to the program were vetted during the campaign. Its not like the issue came out of nowhere after the election. In fact Eric, as I recall, you raised the issue throughout the campaign.
Yes. I misinterpreted what you meant. But the same holds—the identified problems at the time of the election could only be based on the general description of the program. Since then, as details have been added, it’s only gotten worse.
It does seem to be a beating a dead horse kind of thing. The City Council should scrap it. Otherwise its going to drag on forever without any housing ever getting built.
1) A questionairre that does not have to be filled out and/or has a “decline to state” clause in it (and thus the Davis connection will thus not be verified for any prospective buyer) – and everyone who fills out a questionnaire will be accepted as long as they are credit qualified .
2) An exemption to the Davis-connection requirement based on race, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, religious affiliation, etc – or, in other words, if you are alive!
3) A prohibition against advertising in the Bay Area or outside the region by the developer or builders – but real estate agents and 3rd parties can advertise wherever they like.
https://brettonwoodsdavis.com/dcbp/
It would make sense if the priority is:
1. Seniors with a property in Davis trading in their existing property for one in BW.
2. Seniors with no property in Davis, but are alreadly living in Davis.
3. A buyer with a property in Davis for trade in.
4. A buyer in a qualified disadvantaged group who lives in Davis with no property in Davis or elsewhere.
It would also make sense if the BW site is like a dorm instead of “property” such that the property cannot be inherited from the title holder to an heir of their choice. When the title owner leaves (the mortal world) the unit becomes available to others on the waiting list. Maybe the selling price can be inherited to someone, but not the property itself.
Edgar, the wealth gap by “race”, for lack of a better term, in this country has to do with the ability to own property, trade “up”, pass along to children through inheritance. Housing is an acute need whether a person owns it or not and should be a top priority. But owning property in this country and in this economic system is what guarantees better education, better health care, and insulation against inevitable economic downturns. Public policy aimed at increasing property ownership is a different goal than policies that favor the production of more housing.
An algorithm addressing gap is that “a person is not allowed to own more than X houses while there is still people with X-delta houses.”
Say X=delta=1, then no one can own more that 1 house when there are still homeless people (who want to be housed).
There is a distinction between addressing the gap (keeping delta small), and letting everyone be a homeowner. If the issue is not about the gap but involuntary homelessness, then the algorithm is “a person is not allowed to own more than X houses while there is still people without Y houses.”
Say X=Y=1, then it means no one may have more than one house unless there is no involuntary homelessness. As long as there is no involuntary homelessness, people could own as many houses as they want/afford.
None of the comments here respond to or challenge Taormino’s facts. None will really be impacted by this new neighborhood. My own concerns are that it blends in with the broader community (doesn’t turn into a “gated” community and the people moving in will be comfortable with sharing its amenities) and that it pays for itself (specifically the increase cost of fire, police, infrastructure to serve the neighborhood). I think there is enough local interest to start expanding the waiting list and get ahead of promotion to Bay Area buyers.
Sharla, a substantial portion of Dave Taormino’s statements are his opinions rather than actual facts.
With that said, in the USA and here in Davis, everyone has the right to express his/her opinion(s). I strongly support that right.
So far . . .
FAIL. The “Innovation” park proposal had an under-Covell extension of the N/S offroad bike path through the development looping east to a landing on the east side of the freeway to connect with and expanded Davis Bike Loop on the other side. Bretton Woods has no such through public bike/ped access, forever blocked. One of about four reasons I voted against it.
Alan… the proposal of the “innovation” project, for what you described was one one-hundredth (or less) as being engineeringly or financially feasible than the concept of Davis seniors moving out of their homes (Bretton Woods) and freeing up affordable housing for Davis based (or anywhere) young families, and anyone who believed either believe in unicorns, the Easter bunny, and frequent “dispensaries”… both were/are smoke and fun-house mirrors…
Meant to get to a positive JeRkeD vote, in the style of the great P.T. Barnum… certain voters have been born every minute…
At least financially, and given engineering considerations, the DISC (whatever name de jour) proposal for a grade-separated crossing of Mace was/would have been orders of magnitude more likely…
But that was a ‘crash and burn’ at the polls…
P.T. understood…