City of DavisThree years ago this month, a proposed development at Covell Village was defeated by a massive grassroots effort. The overwhelming defeat of Measure X by nearly a 60-40 margin has not slowed efforts to develop the property that is bordered by Pole Line and Covell Blvd.
Instead, the would-be developers of the property have changed tactics and changed the form of the would-be development. Now they are looking at a senior development.
Slowly and methodically, they are building toward a community consensus on the need for senior housing. They have done this by meeting with key stakeholders in the community and also senior groups, selling the case that the community of Davis is in need of more senior housing and that their property offers the ideal location for that development. Earlier this year, we got a window into their tactics when an email sent to various prospective supporters was leaked to the Vanguard. The email contained instructions on how to raise the profile of Covell Village at the Housing Element Steering Committee’s (HESC) workshop. They laid out in that email, very specific instructions for both demonstrating the need for senior housing as a priority as well as showing support for expanding city boundaries. However, the leak of that email to the Vanguard and the general public, thwarted efforts at that point to change the HESC’s assessment of the feasibility and need for housing at Covell Village.
What is clear however is that while opponents of Covell Village sleep, the developers remain hard at work. We flash forward to Wednesday night, where a well organized group of seniors came forward to speak at city council during a discussion of the HESC’s report and the next steps that the council would take with that report.
From this meeting, the group was clearly well-coached. They laid out the need for senior housing. This was done with two key points that were made. Seniors generally do not need large homes which are too bid for them to care for and inefficient in terms of energy usage–heating, electricity, and cooling. Second, that seniors wish to remain in the community but sometimes cannot due to lack of senior housing options in the community. They made these points and yet there was never one mention of Covell Village–the obvious focal point of this strategy.
At a certain and critical level, the seniors are correct on these two issues. Allowing seniors to downsize would free up larger housing for new home owners. And many Davis residents would like to stay in Davis, and the community ought to accommodate them.
However, from my experience not as a senior but talking to many seniors, the questions that need to asked and discussed are not whether we need more housing options for our seniors, but how best to provide them.
Here is where consensus breaks down. One idea is the senior-based community that would provide housing for seniors in a close-knit and segregated community. However, many seniors do not want to live in a seniors-only community. They enjoy a more mixed community where families with children and even students also live.
Second, it is the fear of many if we build a large senior-development that we would end up accommodating large numbers of people from across the region. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but if our goal is to provide for our current housing needs for local demand, building a large development may not serve that need very well. Even a somewhat smaller Eleanor Roosevelt Circle ended up serving more people from outside the city than from inside the city.
Third, the question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.
The big issue here is that we are again facing the prospect of developer driven development. It is clear that the Covell Village partners are driving the discussion here and in so doing, we are not getting perhaps a clear picture of what seniors in this community actually want.
Thus my first suggestion would be to find out what seniors actually want. How many people are looking to downsize from their current homes? How many people would like to live in a Senior-only community? How many people would be willing to trade for a smaller existing home with another resident?
This type of inquiry should occur not at the behest of a developer, but rather with leadership from groups like the Senior Citizen’s Commission. Let us determine what the internal housing demand really is for seniors, what seniors really want, the numbers that we are really talking about, and the time frame that we are really looking at.
My fear is that if we were to say build a senior housing facility in the next five years, it would get filled up largely with people from outside of the area. I am not against people from outside of the area moving in, but there is a problem with that happening if our purpose is to first provide for our local senior housing needs.
To put it in concrete terms, Janice Bridge, the former school board member and proponent of Measure X, got up on Wednesday evening to suggest that she will be looking for senior housing in the next 10 to 15 years. Let us say we build Covell in the next five years. It fills up with people from outside the community since she is not quite ready to move in there. Where is she going to live?
These are some of the reasons that the community needs to figure out its housing needs independently of a developer driven campaign to create the impression that senior housing in this form is a critical need. Again, I am not suggesting that we do not need senior housing, what I am suggesting is that we need to find out what the real need is and we need to figure that out from a more independent source.
In the meantime, opponents of Covell Village better be aware that as they sleep at night, the Covell Partners are hard at work fostering strong community consensus behind their latest project. They have learned from past mistakes and are slowly and methodically bringing stakeholders into line. By the time Measure Y gets on the ballot, it might be too late to change things.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Is Mike Corbett still involved with these developers? thx.
Is Mike Corbett still involved with these developers? thx.
Is Mike Corbett still involved with these developers? thx.
Is Mike Corbett still involved with these developers? thx.
“Third, the question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.”
One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.
The challenge in overcoming this transportation gap is that ERC is fairly small. It doesn’t have the economies of scale that allow the Altria facility on Alvarado or the URC to provide their own jitneys. While ERC’s handicapped residents can use Davis Community Transit, that is unavailable to some, more expensive, and less convenient than a van service provided in-house.
Thus, one advantage of a development along the lines CV is advocating is economies of scale: beyond transportation, a myriad of services which seniors might need in larger shares than the general population can be afforded by building a substantial senior community. Those economies simply cannot be achieved when you construct a small (60 unit) senior housing project here and another 2 miles away and so on.
But there may be a reasonable way to solve the scale problem for integrated senior housing: Perhaps we could force the creation of a senior facilities association which would operate like the DDBA operates. Every builder of senior housing would have to join the consortium and pay regular dues, much like all downtown businesses are forced to join the DDBA. The collective dues then could be used to overcome scale problems, so that the jitneys which serve the Altria residents could also serve ERC residents. As new senior-only housing is built, in CV or elsewhere in Davis, more new services which require economies of scale could be added to serve all senior housing developments in Davis.
“Third, the question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.”
One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.
The challenge in overcoming this transportation gap is that ERC is fairly small. It doesn’t have the economies of scale that allow the Altria facility on Alvarado or the URC to provide their own jitneys. While ERC’s handicapped residents can use Davis Community Transit, that is unavailable to some, more expensive, and less convenient than a van service provided in-house.
Thus, one advantage of a development along the lines CV is advocating is economies of scale: beyond transportation, a myriad of services which seniors might need in larger shares than the general population can be afforded by building a substantial senior community. Those economies simply cannot be achieved when you construct a small (60 unit) senior housing project here and another 2 miles away and so on.
But there may be a reasonable way to solve the scale problem for integrated senior housing: Perhaps we could force the creation of a senior facilities association which would operate like the DDBA operates. Every builder of senior housing would have to join the consortium and pay regular dues, much like all downtown businesses are forced to join the DDBA. The collective dues then could be used to overcome scale problems, so that the jitneys which serve the Altria residents could also serve ERC residents. As new senior-only housing is built, in CV or elsewhere in Davis, more new services which require economies of scale could be added to serve all senior housing developments in Davis.
“Third, the question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.”
One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.
The challenge in overcoming this transportation gap is that ERC is fairly small. It doesn’t have the economies of scale that allow the Altria facility on Alvarado or the URC to provide their own jitneys. While ERC’s handicapped residents can use Davis Community Transit, that is unavailable to some, more expensive, and less convenient than a van service provided in-house.
Thus, one advantage of a development along the lines CV is advocating is economies of scale: beyond transportation, a myriad of services which seniors might need in larger shares than the general population can be afforded by building a substantial senior community. Those economies simply cannot be achieved when you construct a small (60 unit) senior housing project here and another 2 miles away and so on.
But there may be a reasonable way to solve the scale problem for integrated senior housing: Perhaps we could force the creation of a senior facilities association which would operate like the DDBA operates. Every builder of senior housing would have to join the consortium and pay regular dues, much like all downtown businesses are forced to join the DDBA. The collective dues then could be used to overcome scale problems, so that the jitneys which serve the Altria residents could also serve ERC residents. As new senior-only housing is built, in CV or elsewhere in Davis, more new services which require economies of scale could be added to serve all senior housing developments in Davis.
“Third, the question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.”
One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.
The challenge in overcoming this transportation gap is that ERC is fairly small. It doesn’t have the economies of scale that allow the Altria facility on Alvarado or the URC to provide their own jitneys. While ERC’s handicapped residents can use Davis Community Transit, that is unavailable to some, more expensive, and less convenient than a van service provided in-house.
Thus, one advantage of a development along the lines CV is advocating is economies of scale: beyond transportation, a myriad of services which seniors might need in larger shares than the general population can be afforded by building a substantial senior community. Those economies simply cannot be achieved when you construct a small (60 unit) senior housing project here and another 2 miles away and so on.
But there may be a reasonable way to solve the scale problem for integrated senior housing: Perhaps we could force the creation of a senior facilities association which would operate like the DDBA operates. Every builder of senior housing would have to join the consortium and pay regular dues, much like all downtown businesses are forced to join the DDBA. The collective dues then could be used to overcome scale problems, so that the jitneys which serve the Altria residents could also serve ERC residents. As new senior-only housing is built, in CV or elsewhere in Davis, more new services which require economies of scale could be added to serve all senior housing developments in Davis.
“I am not against people from outside of the area moving in (to senior housing built in Davis), but there is a problem with that happening if our purpose is to first provide for our local senior housing needs.”
Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point.
We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.”
Further, once a person moves here, regardless from where, he or she becomes a Davis resident with all the rights and privileges of everyone else. A senior who has lived here since 1955 is no more a Davisite than one who came in 2005 just to live in retirement at the URC.
I think the real questions ought to be: Does a given proposal enhance Davis or detract from it? Does the proposal harm or improve the city’s finances? Can our infrastructure handle the burden of the project? Will the external costs of the development be borne by the developer or by the community at large?
“I am not against people from outside of the area moving in (to senior housing built in Davis), but there is a problem with that happening if our purpose is to first provide for our local senior housing needs.”
Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point.
We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.”
Further, once a person moves here, regardless from where, he or she becomes a Davis resident with all the rights and privileges of everyone else. A senior who has lived here since 1955 is no more a Davisite than one who came in 2005 just to live in retirement at the URC.
I think the real questions ought to be: Does a given proposal enhance Davis or detract from it? Does the proposal harm or improve the city’s finances? Can our infrastructure handle the burden of the project? Will the external costs of the development be borne by the developer or by the community at large?
“I am not against people from outside of the area moving in (to senior housing built in Davis), but there is a problem with that happening if our purpose is to first provide for our local senior housing needs.”
Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point.
We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.”
Further, once a person moves here, regardless from where, he or she becomes a Davis resident with all the rights and privileges of everyone else. A senior who has lived here since 1955 is no more a Davisite than one who came in 2005 just to live in retirement at the URC.
I think the real questions ought to be: Does a given proposal enhance Davis or detract from it? Does the proposal harm or improve the city’s finances? Can our infrastructure handle the burden of the project? Will the external costs of the development be borne by the developer or by the community at large?
“I am not against people from outside of the area moving in (to senior housing built in Davis), but there is a problem with that happening if our purpose is to first provide for our local senior housing needs.”
Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point.
We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.”
Further, once a person moves here, regardless from where, he or she becomes a Davis resident with all the rights and privileges of everyone else. A senior who has lived here since 1955 is no more a Davisite than one who came in 2005 just to live in retirement at the URC.
I think the real questions ought to be: Does a given proposal enhance Davis or detract from it? Does the proposal harm or improve the city’s finances? Can our infrastructure handle the burden of the project? Will the external costs of the development be borne by the developer or by the community at large?
Rich:
We are not an island, I made clear (or at least tried to) that my only point in bringing up the local demand is that is our first obligation. If we build a senior facility for the purpose of giving local seniors an option but we build it in such a way that we merely get people to move in from out of town, then we have down nothing to solve our local demand for housing. Hence we will need to build more housing down the line in order to meet that local demand. If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need. It’s not an issue of being on an island, it’s an issue of meeting a local demand first and foremost.
Rich:
We are not an island, I made clear (or at least tried to) that my only point in bringing up the local demand is that is our first obligation. If we build a senior facility for the purpose of giving local seniors an option but we build it in such a way that we merely get people to move in from out of town, then we have down nothing to solve our local demand for housing. Hence we will need to build more housing down the line in order to meet that local demand. If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need. It’s not an issue of being on an island, it’s an issue of meeting a local demand first and foremost.
Rich:
We are not an island, I made clear (or at least tried to) that my only point in bringing up the local demand is that is our first obligation. If we build a senior facility for the purpose of giving local seniors an option but we build it in such a way that we merely get people to move in from out of town, then we have down nothing to solve our local demand for housing. Hence we will need to build more housing down the line in order to meet that local demand. If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need. It’s not an issue of being on an island, it’s an issue of meeting a local demand first and foremost.
Rich:
We are not an island, I made clear (or at least tried to) that my only point in bringing up the local demand is that is our first obligation. If we build a senior facility for the purpose of giving local seniors an option but we build it in such a way that we merely get people to move in from out of town, then we have down nothing to solve our local demand for housing. Hence we will need to build more housing down the line in order to meet that local demand. If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need. It’s not an issue of being on an island, it’s an issue of meeting a local demand first and foremost.
Is Elaine Musser around? I’m interested in her response on this one.
Is Elaine Musser around? I’m interested in her response on this one.
Is Elaine Musser around? I’m interested in her response on this one.
Is Elaine Musser around? I’m interested in her response on this one.
Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing? Universally accessible housing looks a lot like regular housing (no it does not have to have ramps, rails in the hallways, etc.), and it helps folks to age in place.
Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing? Universally accessible housing looks a lot like regular housing (no it does not have to have ramps, rails in the hallways, etc.), and it helps folks to age in place.
Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing? Universally accessible housing looks a lot like regular housing (no it does not have to have ramps, rails in the hallways, etc.), and it helps folks to age in place.
Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing? Universally accessible housing looks a lot like regular housing (no it does not have to have ramps, rails in the hallways, etc.), and it helps folks to age in place.
“If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need.”
My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.
Say a study of locals determines that we need to build 120 units every three years for Davis seniors, including a mix of options. Say we build those 120 units. But, because we cannot prevent anyone from the outside moving in, say 100 of the 120 units* are taken by non-Davis people. If that happens, we would have shorted the interal demand by 100 units over the three year cycle.
——
* I recall reading that 5 out of 6 residents at the URC — that includes all of the housing options they have in all of their buildings — resided outside of Davis immediately before moving to the URC. I would guess the senior place on Alvarado is similar.
“If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need.”
My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.
Say a study of locals determines that we need to build 120 units every three years for Davis seniors, including a mix of options. Say we build those 120 units. But, because we cannot prevent anyone from the outside moving in, say 100 of the 120 units* are taken by non-Davis people. If that happens, we would have shorted the interal demand by 100 units over the three year cycle.
——
* I recall reading that 5 out of 6 residents at the URC — that includes all of the housing options they have in all of their buildings — resided outside of Davis immediately before moving to the URC. I would guess the senior place on Alvarado is similar.
“If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need.”
My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.
Say a study of locals determines that we need to build 120 units every three years for Davis seniors, including a mix of options. Say we build those 120 units. But, because we cannot prevent anyone from the outside moving in, say 100 of the 120 units* are taken by non-Davis people. If that happens, we would have shorted the interal demand by 100 units over the three year cycle.
——
* I recall reading that 5 out of 6 residents at the URC — that includes all of the housing options they have in all of their buildings — resided outside of Davis immediately before moving to the URC. I would guess the senior place on Alvarado is similar.
“If the issue is providing for local demand, then our first priority is to build housing to accommodate that need.”
My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.
Say a study of locals determines that we need to build 120 units every three years for Davis seniors, including a mix of options. Say we build those 120 units. But, because we cannot prevent anyone from the outside moving in, say 100 of the 120 units* are taken by non-Davis people. If that happens, we would have shorted the interal demand by 100 units over the three year cycle.
——
* I recall reading that 5 out of 6 residents at the URC — that includes all of the housing options they have in all of their buildings — resided outside of Davis immediately before moving to the URC. I would guess the senior place on Alvarado is similar.
Rich:
I understand your point and I believe you are correct. That’s why one of the things I would like to see are smaller numbers of units that are advertised locally first so that we can capture more of the local demand. You’ll still get out of area people, hopefully some would be people with family who live in Davis who want to move closer to family.
Rich:
I understand your point and I believe you are correct. That’s why one of the things I would like to see are smaller numbers of units that are advertised locally first so that we can capture more of the local demand. You’ll still get out of area people, hopefully some would be people with family who live in Davis who want to move closer to family.
Rich:
I understand your point and I believe you are correct. That’s why one of the things I would like to see are smaller numbers of units that are advertised locally first so that we can capture more of the local demand. You’ll still get out of area people, hopefully some would be people with family who live in Davis who want to move closer to family.
Rich:
I understand your point and I believe you are correct. That’s why one of the things I would like to see are smaller numbers of units that are advertised locally first so that we can capture more of the local demand. You’ll still get out of area people, hopefully some would be people with family who live in Davis who want to move closer to family.
I question the discussion’s implicit assumption about what seniors want (small.shared, etc.), and agree with DPD that some research needs to be done. Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts. We’d need fewer bedrooms, but more space for our retirement hobbies. (And then there is the increasing trend of adult children spending long stints living with their senior parents until they can afford their own housing). We also need later life stage housing, which is assisted living. Many seniors don’t necessarily want smaller homes – they want differently configured and flexible homes, and they really want public transportation and access for the invitable day when driving is not feasible.
My point is that rather than determine “what type of housing would work best for seniors,” maybe we need to ask “what do our seniors want that they aren’t getting now?” And I hope we are defining seniors as 55-75 age group, which has one set of needs, and the 75+ group. (You can change the age lines on this grouping, but basically we need to acknowledgfe that there are active seniors and then they evovle into a group of less mobile seniors.)
We will all be there sooner than you think. Good planning for all phases of life in this community will serves everyone’s needs. We need to ask the people who have the need now to find out what needs are not being filled now.
I question the discussion’s implicit assumption about what seniors want (small.shared, etc.), and agree with DPD that some research needs to be done. Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts. We’d need fewer bedrooms, but more space for our retirement hobbies. (And then there is the increasing trend of adult children spending long stints living with their senior parents until they can afford their own housing). We also need later life stage housing, which is assisted living. Many seniors don’t necessarily want smaller homes – they want differently configured and flexible homes, and they really want public transportation and access for the invitable day when driving is not feasible.
My point is that rather than determine “what type of housing would work best for seniors,” maybe we need to ask “what do our seniors want that they aren’t getting now?” And I hope we are defining seniors as 55-75 age group, which has one set of needs, and the 75+ group. (You can change the age lines on this grouping, but basically we need to acknowledgfe that there are active seniors and then they evovle into a group of less mobile seniors.)
We will all be there sooner than you think. Good planning for all phases of life in this community will serves everyone’s needs. We need to ask the people who have the need now to find out what needs are not being filled now.
I question the discussion’s implicit assumption about what seniors want (small.shared, etc.), and agree with DPD that some research needs to be done. Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts. We’d need fewer bedrooms, but more space for our retirement hobbies. (And then there is the increasing trend of adult children spending long stints living with their senior parents until they can afford their own housing). We also need later life stage housing, which is assisted living. Many seniors don’t necessarily want smaller homes – they want differently configured and flexible homes, and they really want public transportation and access for the invitable day when driving is not feasible.
My point is that rather than determine “what type of housing would work best for seniors,” maybe we need to ask “what do our seniors want that they aren’t getting now?” And I hope we are defining seniors as 55-75 age group, which has one set of needs, and the 75+ group. (You can change the age lines on this grouping, but basically we need to acknowledgfe that there are active seniors and then they evovle into a group of less mobile seniors.)
We will all be there sooner than you think. Good planning for all phases of life in this community will serves everyone’s needs. We need to ask the people who have the need now to find out what needs are not being filled now.
I question the discussion’s implicit assumption about what seniors want (small.shared, etc.), and agree with DPD that some research needs to be done. Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts. We’d need fewer bedrooms, but more space for our retirement hobbies. (And then there is the increasing trend of adult children spending long stints living with their senior parents until they can afford their own housing). We also need later life stage housing, which is assisted living. Many seniors don’t necessarily want smaller homes – they want differently configured and flexible homes, and they really want public transportation and access for the invitable day when driving is not feasible.
My point is that rather than determine “what type of housing would work best for seniors,” maybe we need to ask “what do our seniors want that they aren’t getting now?” And I hope we are defining seniors as 55-75 age group, which has one set of needs, and the 75+ group. (You can change the age lines on this grouping, but basically we need to acknowledgfe that there are active seniors and then they evovle into a group of less mobile seniors.)
We will all be there sooner than you think. Good planning for all phases of life in this community will serves everyone’s needs. We need to ask the people who have the need now to find out what needs are not being filled now.
Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?
Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?
Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?
Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?
I kind of alluded to that in my response to Rich, I think that is an internal need and something that we ought to account for in our planning.
I kind of alluded to that in my response to Rich, I think that is an internal need and something that we ought to account for in our planning.
I kind of alluded to that in my response to Rich, I think that is an internal need and something that we ought to account for in our planning.
I kind of alluded to that in my response to Rich, I think that is an internal need and something that we ought to account for in our planning.
I want to reiterate a couple of points others have made. Data do not support the notion that seniors want to live in age-restricted housing. And, even if a small proportion of seniors would prefer segregated housing, it is not sound policy.
The needs of seniors—for accessible housing, for affordable housing, for convenient and accessible transportation—are not unique to seniors. By providing for more visitable and universally designed housing and investing in transportation systems, the City can meet the needs of seniors without excluding other segments of the population with similar needs—e.g., people with disabilities, low income families with or without children.
The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.
I want to reiterate a couple of points others have made. Data do not support the notion that seniors want to live in age-restricted housing. And, even if a small proportion of seniors would prefer segregated housing, it is not sound policy.
The needs of seniors—for accessible housing, for affordable housing, for convenient and accessible transportation—are not unique to seniors. By providing for more visitable and universally designed housing and investing in transportation systems, the City can meet the needs of seniors without excluding other segments of the population with similar needs—e.g., people with disabilities, low income families with or without children.
The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.
I want to reiterate a couple of points others have made. Data do not support the notion that seniors want to live in age-restricted housing. And, even if a small proportion of seniors would prefer segregated housing, it is not sound policy.
The needs of seniors—for accessible housing, for affordable housing, for convenient and accessible transportation—are not unique to seniors. By providing for more visitable and universally designed housing and investing in transportation systems, the City can meet the needs of seniors without excluding other segments of the population with similar needs—e.g., people with disabilities, low income families with or without children.
The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.
I want to reiterate a couple of points others have made. Data do not support the notion that seniors want to live in age-restricted housing. And, even if a small proportion of seniors would prefer segregated housing, it is not sound policy.
The needs of seniors—for accessible housing, for affordable housing, for convenient and accessible transportation—are not unique to seniors. By providing for more visitable and universally designed housing and investing in transportation systems, the City can meet the needs of seniors without excluding other segments of the population with similar needs—e.g., people with disabilities, low income families with or without children.
The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.
Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.
Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.
Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.
Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.
Anonymous, you lost me.
Anonymous, you lost me.
Anonymous, you lost me.
Anonymous, you lost me.
My co-worker’s grandmother lives in Sun City Lincoln Hills, CA.
She said it’s “huge!” I looked it up and noticed that it is huge and that there are many like it in the Roseville, Rocklin, Grass Valley area.
Is this what we want Davis to become? A segregated community?
Don’t we want seniors to be integrated into our community and not live in a community where they are isolated? Do we want a city in a city?
Just asking.
Below, is the Sun City description:
Sun City Lincoln Hills is a 55+ retirement community located between the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Lake Tahoe and San Francisco. Amenities at Sun City Lincoln Hills include three facilities totaling 110,000 square feet for residents. Two state of the art fitness centers, four pools, spas, indoor walking track, billiards, crafts, computers, sewing, concert amphitheater, ballroom, wellness spa, restaurants, bars, café and 70+ groups and clubs. Sun City Lincoln Hills is a place of natural beauty with four mild seasons and offers two public golf courses, hiking and biking trails meandering over 2,992 acres of rolling hills, wetlands, creeks and open space. Miles of trails run through the community providing residents picturesque scenery for walking and biking. In the background are the Sutter Buttes, and the wine country of Napa and Sonoma are a short drive, as are the historic gold rush towns in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Sacramento, California’s capital, offers museums, professional sports, theatre, and fine dining.
My co-worker’s grandmother lives in Sun City Lincoln Hills, CA.
She said it’s “huge!” I looked it up and noticed that it is huge and that there are many like it in the Roseville, Rocklin, Grass Valley area.
Is this what we want Davis to become? A segregated community?
Don’t we want seniors to be integrated into our community and not live in a community where they are isolated? Do we want a city in a city?
Just asking.
Below, is the Sun City description:
Sun City Lincoln Hills is a 55+ retirement community located between the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Lake Tahoe and San Francisco. Amenities at Sun City Lincoln Hills include three facilities totaling 110,000 square feet for residents. Two state of the art fitness centers, four pools, spas, indoor walking track, billiards, crafts, computers, sewing, concert amphitheater, ballroom, wellness spa, restaurants, bars, café and 70+ groups and clubs. Sun City Lincoln Hills is a place of natural beauty with four mild seasons and offers two public golf courses, hiking and biking trails meandering over 2,992 acres of rolling hills, wetlands, creeks and open space. Miles of trails run through the community providing residents picturesque scenery for walking and biking. In the background are the Sutter Buttes, and the wine country of Napa and Sonoma are a short drive, as are the historic gold rush towns in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Sacramento, California’s capital, offers museums, professional sports, theatre, and fine dining.
My co-worker’s grandmother lives in Sun City Lincoln Hills, CA.
She said it’s “huge!” I looked it up and noticed that it is huge and that there are many like it in the Roseville, Rocklin, Grass Valley area.
Is this what we want Davis to become? A segregated community?
Don’t we want seniors to be integrated into our community and not live in a community where they are isolated? Do we want a city in a city?
Just asking.
Below, is the Sun City description:
Sun City Lincoln Hills is a 55+ retirement community located between the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Lake Tahoe and San Francisco. Amenities at Sun City Lincoln Hills include three facilities totaling 110,000 square feet for residents. Two state of the art fitness centers, four pools, spas, indoor walking track, billiards, crafts, computers, sewing, concert amphitheater, ballroom, wellness spa, restaurants, bars, café and 70+ groups and clubs. Sun City Lincoln Hills is a place of natural beauty with four mild seasons and offers two public golf courses, hiking and biking trails meandering over 2,992 acres of rolling hills, wetlands, creeks and open space. Miles of trails run through the community providing residents picturesque scenery for walking and biking. In the background are the Sutter Buttes, and the wine country of Napa and Sonoma are a short drive, as are the historic gold rush towns in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Sacramento, California’s capital, offers museums, professional sports, theatre, and fine dining.
My co-worker’s grandmother lives in Sun City Lincoln Hills, CA.
She said it’s “huge!” I looked it up and noticed that it is huge and that there are many like it in the Roseville, Rocklin, Grass Valley area.
Is this what we want Davis to become? A segregated community?
Don’t we want seniors to be integrated into our community and not live in a community where they are isolated? Do we want a city in a city?
Just asking.
Below, is the Sun City description:
Sun City Lincoln Hills is a 55+ retirement community located between the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Lake Tahoe and San Francisco. Amenities at Sun City Lincoln Hills include three facilities totaling 110,000 square feet for residents. Two state of the art fitness centers, four pools, spas, indoor walking track, billiards, crafts, computers, sewing, concert amphitheater, ballroom, wellness spa, restaurants, bars, café and 70+ groups and clubs. Sun City Lincoln Hills is a place of natural beauty with four mild seasons and offers two public golf courses, hiking and biking trails meandering over 2,992 acres of rolling hills, wetlands, creeks and open space. Miles of trails run through the community providing residents picturesque scenery for walking and biking. In the background are the Sutter Buttes, and the wine country of Napa and Sonoma are a short drive, as are the historic gold rush towns in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Sacramento, California’s capital, offers museums, professional sports, theatre, and fine dining.
“Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.”
Corbett recently built a very nice (though quite dense) townhouse project on B Street between 7th and 8th…. He does nice work.
“Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.”
Corbett recently built a very nice (though quite dense) townhouse project on B Street between 7th and 8th…. He does nice work.
“Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.”
Corbett recently built a very nice (though quite dense) townhouse project on B Street between 7th and 8th…. He does nice work.
“Let Mike Corbett build it and they will come, sounds like your worried that these new seniors only read the newspaper.”
Corbett recently built a very nice (though quite dense) townhouse project on B Street between 7th and 8th…. He does nice work.
My parents lived in a 55 and up community with all the amenities, medical, recreation, golf, religious in Las Vegas. They loved it until my father died and my mother got Alzheimers. We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?
My parents lived in a 55 and up community with all the amenities, medical, recreation, golf, religious in Las Vegas. They loved it until my father died and my mother got Alzheimers. We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?
My parents lived in a 55 and up community with all the amenities, medical, recreation, golf, religious in Las Vegas. They loved it until my father died and my mother got Alzheimers. We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?
My parents lived in a 55 and up community with all the amenities, medical, recreation, golf, religious in Las Vegas. They loved it until my father died and my mother got Alzheimers. We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?
Davis is more expensive because people want to live here. THey want the city infrastructure, schools, good planning, that have been put together for generations.
The voters have taxed themselves over the years in extra amounts to build what we have here. If you cannot afford it, go live in Woodland. Im sorry, but you made your economic choices and are where you are on the scale.
Wish I had a mansion in Beverly Hills?? Oh, those stupid elitists there who price it too high for me to have what they have, on my lowly salary.
Davis is more expensive because people want to live here. THey want the city infrastructure, schools, good planning, that have been put together for generations.
The voters have taxed themselves over the years in extra amounts to build what we have here. If you cannot afford it, go live in Woodland. Im sorry, but you made your economic choices and are where you are on the scale.
Wish I had a mansion in Beverly Hills?? Oh, those stupid elitists there who price it too high for me to have what they have, on my lowly salary.
Davis is more expensive because people want to live here. THey want the city infrastructure, schools, good planning, that have been put together for generations.
The voters have taxed themselves over the years in extra amounts to build what we have here. If you cannot afford it, go live in Woodland. Im sorry, but you made your economic choices and are where you are on the scale.
Wish I had a mansion in Beverly Hills?? Oh, those stupid elitists there who price it too high for me to have what they have, on my lowly salary.
Davis is more expensive because people want to live here. THey want the city infrastructure, schools, good planning, that have been put together for generations.
The voters have taxed themselves over the years in extra amounts to build what we have here. If you cannot afford it, go live in Woodland. Im sorry, but you made your economic choices and are where you are on the scale.
Wish I had a mansion in Beverly Hills?? Oh, those stupid elitists there who price it too high for me to have what they have, on my lowly salary.
I think that it is important issue before us to understand regarding the senior housing subject is that the citizens of Davis need to address as a community and determine citizen-based solutions. Clearly, the Covell Village Partners are formulating a campaign of pitting senior against non-senior in the hope of creating an urgency and panic response by the community. They, clearly, have been working methodically to recruit as many Davis seniors into their campaign to create a base to rail through their “solution” to any senior housing issues before us. Have we heard of any other potential solutions to senior housing needs other then a proposed mega-383 acre senior housing proposal at the Covell Village site?
The answer is no. The reality is that the 383-acre size of the project (that they are trying for) would still would bring the very same problems, and impacts, as the predecessor “Covell Village” project. Why? Because it is the same project, but simply dividing it up into three “phases”. What makes these developers think that they can try to convince the public that more than 180 acres of flood plain is going to disappear from their 383 acre site? Or that the enormous traffic impacts would go away from an already heavily traffic impacted area? Or that the enormous costs (over $350 million dollars) to the community are going to be ignored? The same problems exist for their most recent proposed 383-acre “phased” mega-project proposal as the 383-acre Covell Village project proposed just three years ago. The citizens were wise enough to reject a terrible proposal then, yet the developers continue to try a new angle to get their way. Now their new target is Davis senior citizens pull their latest campaign for mega-development.
The question is, since these developers are focusing on recruiting a very vulnerable and respected segment of our community (Davis seniors) will they succeed in manipulating our community again as they tried to do with Measure X? Let us not forget that they made promises of “affordable” housing which, in reality, were an average of $600,000 in the proposed Covell Village. What about the $60 million that Covell
Partners promised for schools that turned out to be a TAX for Davis citizens? What about the enormous infrastructure costs to the rest of the community that the Covell Village Partners never addressed during Measure X to the tune of more than $350 million for waste water treatment plant expansion and surface water not to mention city services such as fire, police and parks? What about Davis community based solutions rather than Covell Village Partner driven development? After all of the opposition to the enormous size of the Covell Village proposal, why haven’t the developers even had the respect to the citizens 60:40 vote to reduce the enormous size of their project?
Finally, what about we, as a community, looking at ALL the potential solutions, rather than ONE solution offered by ONE group of developers? Who says that one age-restricted development is the only solution to senior housing issues? The onus is on us, as the citizens of Davis, to keep our hand on the helm of the planning our city.
I think that it is important issue before us to understand regarding the senior housing subject is that the citizens of Davis need to address as a community and determine citizen-based solutions. Clearly, the Covell Village Partners are formulating a campaign of pitting senior against non-senior in the hope of creating an urgency and panic response by the community. They, clearly, have been working methodically to recruit as many Davis seniors into their campaign to create a base to rail through their “solution” to any senior housing issues before us. Have we heard of any other potential solutions to senior housing needs other then a proposed mega-383 acre senior housing proposal at the Covell Village site?
The answer is no. The reality is that the 383-acre size of the project (that they are trying for) would still would bring the very same problems, and impacts, as the predecessor “Covell Village” project. Why? Because it is the same project, but simply dividing it up into three “phases”. What makes these developers think that they can try to convince the public that more than 180 acres of flood plain is going to disappear from their 383 acre site? Or that the enormous traffic impacts would go away from an already heavily traffic impacted area? Or that the enormous costs (over $350 million dollars) to the community are going to be ignored? The same problems exist for their most recent proposed 383-acre “phased” mega-project proposal as the 383-acre Covell Village project proposed just three years ago. The citizens were wise enough to reject a terrible proposal then, yet the developers continue to try a new angle to get their way. Now their new target is Davis senior citizens pull their latest campaign for mega-development.
The question is, since these developers are focusing on recruiting a very vulnerable and respected segment of our community (Davis seniors) will they succeed in manipulating our community again as they tried to do with Measure X? Let us not forget that they made promises of “affordable” housing which, in reality, were an average of $600,000 in the proposed Covell Village. What about the $60 million that Covell
Partners promised for schools that turned out to be a TAX for Davis citizens? What about the enormous infrastructure costs to the rest of the community that the Covell Village Partners never addressed during Measure X to the tune of more than $350 million for waste water treatment plant expansion and surface water not to mention city services such as fire, police and parks? What about Davis community based solutions rather than Covell Village Partner driven development? After all of the opposition to the enormous size of the Covell Village proposal, why haven’t the developers even had the respect to the citizens 60:40 vote to reduce the enormous size of their project?
Finally, what about we, as a community, looking at ALL the potential solutions, rather than ONE solution offered by ONE group of developers? Who says that one age-restricted development is the only solution to senior housing issues? The onus is on us, as the citizens of Davis, to keep our hand on the helm of the planning our city.
I think that it is important issue before us to understand regarding the senior housing subject is that the citizens of Davis need to address as a community and determine citizen-based solutions. Clearly, the Covell Village Partners are formulating a campaign of pitting senior against non-senior in the hope of creating an urgency and panic response by the community. They, clearly, have been working methodically to recruit as many Davis seniors into their campaign to create a base to rail through their “solution” to any senior housing issues before us. Have we heard of any other potential solutions to senior housing needs other then a proposed mega-383 acre senior housing proposal at the Covell Village site?
The answer is no. The reality is that the 383-acre size of the project (that they are trying for) would still would bring the very same problems, and impacts, as the predecessor “Covell Village” project. Why? Because it is the same project, but simply dividing it up into three “phases”. What makes these developers think that they can try to convince the public that more than 180 acres of flood plain is going to disappear from their 383 acre site? Or that the enormous traffic impacts would go away from an already heavily traffic impacted area? Or that the enormous costs (over $350 million dollars) to the community are going to be ignored? The same problems exist for their most recent proposed 383-acre “phased” mega-project proposal as the 383-acre Covell Village project proposed just three years ago. The citizens were wise enough to reject a terrible proposal then, yet the developers continue to try a new angle to get their way. Now their new target is Davis senior citizens pull their latest campaign for mega-development.
The question is, since these developers are focusing on recruiting a very vulnerable and respected segment of our community (Davis seniors) will they succeed in manipulating our community again as they tried to do with Measure X? Let us not forget that they made promises of “affordable” housing which, in reality, were an average of $600,000 in the proposed Covell Village. What about the $60 million that Covell
Partners promised for schools that turned out to be a TAX for Davis citizens? What about the enormous infrastructure costs to the rest of the community that the Covell Village Partners never addressed during Measure X to the tune of more than $350 million for waste water treatment plant expansion and surface water not to mention city services such as fire, police and parks? What about Davis community based solutions rather than Covell Village Partner driven development? After all of the opposition to the enormous size of the Covell Village proposal, why haven’t the developers even had the respect to the citizens 60:40 vote to reduce the enormous size of their project?
Finally, what about we, as a community, looking at ALL the potential solutions, rather than ONE solution offered by ONE group of developers? Who says that one age-restricted development is the only solution to senior housing issues? The onus is on us, as the citizens of Davis, to keep our hand on the helm of the planning our city.
I think that it is important issue before us to understand regarding the senior housing subject is that the citizens of Davis need to address as a community and determine citizen-based solutions. Clearly, the Covell Village Partners are formulating a campaign of pitting senior against non-senior in the hope of creating an urgency and panic response by the community. They, clearly, have been working methodically to recruit as many Davis seniors into their campaign to create a base to rail through their “solution” to any senior housing issues before us. Have we heard of any other potential solutions to senior housing needs other then a proposed mega-383 acre senior housing proposal at the Covell Village site?
The answer is no. The reality is that the 383-acre size of the project (that they are trying for) would still would bring the very same problems, and impacts, as the predecessor “Covell Village” project. Why? Because it is the same project, but simply dividing it up into three “phases”. What makes these developers think that they can try to convince the public that more than 180 acres of flood plain is going to disappear from their 383 acre site? Or that the enormous traffic impacts would go away from an already heavily traffic impacted area? Or that the enormous costs (over $350 million dollars) to the community are going to be ignored? The same problems exist for their most recent proposed 383-acre “phased” mega-project proposal as the 383-acre Covell Village project proposed just three years ago. The citizens were wise enough to reject a terrible proposal then, yet the developers continue to try a new angle to get their way. Now their new target is Davis senior citizens pull their latest campaign for mega-development.
The question is, since these developers are focusing on recruiting a very vulnerable and respected segment of our community (Davis seniors) will they succeed in manipulating our community again as they tried to do with Measure X? Let us not forget that they made promises of “affordable” housing which, in reality, were an average of $600,000 in the proposed Covell Village. What about the $60 million that Covell
Partners promised for schools that turned out to be a TAX for Davis citizens? What about the enormous infrastructure costs to the rest of the community that the Covell Village Partners never addressed during Measure X to the tune of more than $350 million for waste water treatment plant expansion and surface water not to mention city services such as fire, police and parks? What about Davis community based solutions rather than Covell Village Partner driven development? After all of the opposition to the enormous size of the Covell Village proposal, why haven’t the developers even had the respect to the citizens 60:40 vote to reduce the enormous size of their project?
Finally, what about we, as a community, looking at ALL the potential solutions, rather than ONE solution offered by ONE group of developers? Who says that one age-restricted development is the only solution to senior housing issues? The onus is on us, as the citizens of Davis, to keep our hand on the helm of the planning our city.
To add a little context to this discussion, I would like to note the following:
I believe the “push for more senior housing” that occurred at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting was in response to an earlier city staff report propounded for the previous City Council meeting. That city staff report was not favorable to Covell Village partners. It estimated that the most senior housing Davis would need between now and the year 2013 was a maximum of 150 units. This infuriated the Covell Village site developers, because it effectively shut off any further attempts to build a large senior complex there.
In addition, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission has been working on a set of senior housing guidelines, which is close to being finished. (Input for these guidelines was garnered from various citizens, developers, and the Social Services Commission.) I alluded to it at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting. The Senior Housing Guidelines represent a checklist of considerations that should be taken into account when senior housing is under consideration or being proposed. I talked about them in a previous article on this blog.
There are three very important points raised in these guidelines: 1) Senior housing should be planned for “internal” needs only through an assessment by an independent consultant; 2) The net cost to the city of senior housing needs to be assessed and taken into account; 3) Certain basic amenities need to be considered when planning for senior housing, such as transportation.
It is important that we as a city at least make some attempt to determine what the “internal” needs of our own citizens are. According to the waitlists at our low income seniors-only facilities for instance, there is very little need for that sort of thing. Yet a facility like URC is still quite popular and has a long waitlist.
If we end up building too big a senior housing community, that will tend to cater to outsiders coming in, then we must consider the net costs to our city of developing such a project. Suddenly we will find ourselves having to provide more city services at a time when tax revenues will not support it. An influx of seniors from the outside will also cause our county medical system to become overburdened, with more low income residents tapping into the same anemic pot of county money.
This is why it is imperative that we do not allow developer driven housing anymore. It is not that developers are somehow inherently evil, or are wrong for wanting to make a boatload of money. It is that the city must weigh the positives and negatives of any housing proposal, making any decisions based on what is in the best interests of its own citizens.
However, that process can become corrupted if City Council members take campaign contributions from developers, are independently wealthy and can absorb any and all new taxes, and the like. Hence the need for fixed guidelines agreed upon by the entire community.
My hope (call me an eternal optimist) is that these guidelines will provide a solid framework to base housing decisions on, so that housing development is no longer developer driven and contentious. Developers need to be given guidelines to go by when making proposals; citizens need to be made aware of various considerations that need to take place when housing is being proposed; and the City Council needs some guidance in its decisionmaking process.
Thus my suggestion is if you want better planning, be you pro- growth, anti-growth, slow-growth, push for Housing Guidelines that the entire community can agree on. Like Measure J, it sets a definite precedent that we want better planning as a community, planning that has general consensus and is not developer driven for whatever reason.
To add a little context to this discussion, I would like to note the following:
I believe the “push for more senior housing” that occurred at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting was in response to an earlier city staff report propounded for the previous City Council meeting. That city staff report was not favorable to Covell Village partners. It estimated that the most senior housing Davis would need between now and the year 2013 was a maximum of 150 units. This infuriated the Covell Village site developers, because it effectively shut off any further attempts to build a large senior complex there.
In addition, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission has been working on a set of senior housing guidelines, which is close to being finished. (Input for these guidelines was garnered from various citizens, developers, and the Social Services Commission.) I alluded to it at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting. The Senior Housing Guidelines represent a checklist of considerations that should be taken into account when senior housing is under consideration or being proposed. I talked about them in a previous article on this blog.
There are three very important points raised in these guidelines: 1) Senior housing should be planned for “internal” needs only through an assessment by an independent consultant; 2) The net cost to the city of senior housing needs to be assessed and taken into account; 3) Certain basic amenities need to be considered when planning for senior housing, such as transportation.
It is important that we as a city at least make some attempt to determine what the “internal” needs of our own citizens are. According to the waitlists at our low income seniors-only facilities for instance, there is very little need for that sort of thing. Yet a facility like URC is still quite popular and has a long waitlist.
If we end up building too big a senior housing community, that will tend to cater to outsiders coming in, then we must consider the net costs to our city of developing such a project. Suddenly we will find ourselves having to provide more city services at a time when tax revenues will not support it. An influx of seniors from the outside will also cause our county medical system to become overburdened, with more low income residents tapping into the same anemic pot of county money.
This is why it is imperative that we do not allow developer driven housing anymore. It is not that developers are somehow inherently evil, or are wrong for wanting to make a boatload of money. It is that the city must weigh the positives and negatives of any housing proposal, making any decisions based on what is in the best interests of its own citizens.
However, that process can become corrupted if City Council members take campaign contributions from developers, are independently wealthy and can absorb any and all new taxes, and the like. Hence the need for fixed guidelines agreed upon by the entire community.
My hope (call me an eternal optimist) is that these guidelines will provide a solid framework to base housing decisions on, so that housing development is no longer developer driven and contentious. Developers need to be given guidelines to go by when making proposals; citizens need to be made aware of various considerations that need to take place when housing is being proposed; and the City Council needs some guidance in its decisionmaking process.
Thus my suggestion is if you want better planning, be you pro- growth, anti-growth, slow-growth, push for Housing Guidelines that the entire community can agree on. Like Measure J, it sets a definite precedent that we want better planning as a community, planning that has general consensus and is not developer driven for whatever reason.
To add a little context to this discussion, I would like to note the following:
I believe the “push for more senior housing” that occurred at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting was in response to an earlier city staff report propounded for the previous City Council meeting. That city staff report was not favorable to Covell Village partners. It estimated that the most senior housing Davis would need between now and the year 2013 was a maximum of 150 units. This infuriated the Covell Village site developers, because it effectively shut off any further attempts to build a large senior complex there.
In addition, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission has been working on a set of senior housing guidelines, which is close to being finished. (Input for these guidelines was garnered from various citizens, developers, and the Social Services Commission.) I alluded to it at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting. The Senior Housing Guidelines represent a checklist of considerations that should be taken into account when senior housing is under consideration or being proposed. I talked about them in a previous article on this blog.
There are three very important points raised in these guidelines: 1) Senior housing should be planned for “internal” needs only through an assessment by an independent consultant; 2) The net cost to the city of senior housing needs to be assessed and taken into account; 3) Certain basic amenities need to be considered when planning for senior housing, such as transportation.
It is important that we as a city at least make some attempt to determine what the “internal” needs of our own citizens are. According to the waitlists at our low income seniors-only facilities for instance, there is very little need for that sort of thing. Yet a facility like URC is still quite popular and has a long waitlist.
If we end up building too big a senior housing community, that will tend to cater to outsiders coming in, then we must consider the net costs to our city of developing such a project. Suddenly we will find ourselves having to provide more city services at a time when tax revenues will not support it. An influx of seniors from the outside will also cause our county medical system to become overburdened, with more low income residents tapping into the same anemic pot of county money.
This is why it is imperative that we do not allow developer driven housing anymore. It is not that developers are somehow inherently evil, or are wrong for wanting to make a boatload of money. It is that the city must weigh the positives and negatives of any housing proposal, making any decisions based on what is in the best interests of its own citizens.
However, that process can become corrupted if City Council members take campaign contributions from developers, are independently wealthy and can absorb any and all new taxes, and the like. Hence the need for fixed guidelines agreed upon by the entire community.
My hope (call me an eternal optimist) is that these guidelines will provide a solid framework to base housing decisions on, so that housing development is no longer developer driven and contentious. Developers need to be given guidelines to go by when making proposals; citizens need to be made aware of various considerations that need to take place when housing is being proposed; and the City Council needs some guidance in its decisionmaking process.
Thus my suggestion is if you want better planning, be you pro- growth, anti-growth, slow-growth, push for Housing Guidelines that the entire community can agree on. Like Measure J, it sets a definite precedent that we want better planning as a community, planning that has general consensus and is not developer driven for whatever reason.
To add a little context to this discussion, I would like to note the following:
I believe the “push for more senior housing” that occurred at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting was in response to an earlier city staff report propounded for the previous City Council meeting. That city staff report was not favorable to Covell Village partners. It estimated that the most senior housing Davis would need between now and the year 2013 was a maximum of 150 units. This infuriated the Covell Village site developers, because it effectively shut off any further attempts to build a large senior complex there.
In addition, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission has been working on a set of senior housing guidelines, which is close to being finished. (Input for these guidelines was garnered from various citizens, developers, and the Social Services Commission.) I alluded to it at Wednesday evening’s City Council meeting. The Senior Housing Guidelines represent a checklist of considerations that should be taken into account when senior housing is under consideration or being proposed. I talked about them in a previous article on this blog.
There are three very important points raised in these guidelines: 1) Senior housing should be planned for “internal” needs only through an assessment by an independent consultant; 2) The net cost to the city of senior housing needs to be assessed and taken into account; 3) Certain basic amenities need to be considered when planning for senior housing, such as transportation.
It is important that we as a city at least make some attempt to determine what the “internal” needs of our own citizens are. According to the waitlists at our low income seniors-only facilities for instance, there is very little need for that sort of thing. Yet a facility like URC is still quite popular and has a long waitlist.
If we end up building too big a senior housing community, that will tend to cater to outsiders coming in, then we must consider the net costs to our city of developing such a project. Suddenly we will find ourselves having to provide more city services at a time when tax revenues will not support it. An influx of seniors from the outside will also cause our county medical system to become overburdened, with more low income residents tapping into the same anemic pot of county money.
This is why it is imperative that we do not allow developer driven housing anymore. It is not that developers are somehow inherently evil, or are wrong for wanting to make a boatload of money. It is that the city must weigh the positives and negatives of any housing proposal, making any decisions based on what is in the best interests of its own citizens.
However, that process can become corrupted if City Council members take campaign contributions from developers, are independently wealthy and can absorb any and all new taxes, and the like. Hence the need for fixed guidelines agreed upon by the entire community.
My hope (call me an eternal optimist) is that these guidelines will provide a solid framework to base housing decisions on, so that housing development is no longer developer driven and contentious. Developers need to be given guidelines to go by when making proposals; citizens need to be made aware of various considerations that need to take place when housing is being proposed; and the City Council needs some guidance in its decisionmaking process.
Thus my suggestion is if you want better planning, be you pro- growth, anti-growth, slow-growth, push for Housing Guidelines that the entire community can agree on. Like Measure J, it sets a definite precedent that we want better planning as a community, planning that has general consensus and is not developer driven for whatever reason.
“We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?”
Building more senior housing in Davis will not necessarily make it more affordable! That takes better planning.
“The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.”
It should be noted that sometimes segregation through age restriction is necessary in regard to senior housing in relation to medical crises, such as in a Continuum of Care facility like URC, or assisted living such as Atria Covell Gardens.
“Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?”
Yes, but it should be offset by those who want to move OUT of Davis to be near their relatives.
“Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts.”
I would agree with you in general. However, as we age in place, oftentimes a medical crisis will force us into an assisted living facility, or independent living facility with in-home supportive care. Thus those sorts of options need to be addressed, even if you don’t think you will ever need them. The chances are eventually you will. The developers actually have some interesting notions about this issue, “telemedicine” being one of them. We actually need developers to come up with innovative ideas – but we need the City Council to make objective decisions about senior housing with respect to the perceived needs of citizens – based on objective criteria.
“My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.”
I think you make a good point. However, there is still a need to address “internal” demand in some fashion, rather than build a huge housing complex the city and county cannot afford to pay for, that as an end result financially overburdens our system. There are ways to give Davis citizens first preference at purchasing new housing, so you can control to some extent who housing is sold to.
“Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing?”
It certainly could help, but if you have a severe medical problem that requires nursing assistance, universal accessibility will not help you. Also, if you live in a house, but are on a tight budget, the finances of its upkeep can become too much for you. Universal accessibility won’t help with that either. Look at what is happening with our current sewer rates. Mine increased by 250% in August, as did others. Those on fixed incomes may find the increase in sewer and projected water rates may price them right out of their homes. Universal design will not assist with that sort of problem. Less expensive senior housing might, like senior cottages that are less expensive to maintain.
“Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point. We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.””
I strongly disagree here. If we are not careful to plan properly, we will overburden an already cash-strapped system, by bringing in a huge influx of seniors from the outside. Build a huge housing complex with all the amenities, and seniors from outside will flock to it like bees to honey. But the residents here will be taxed up the wazoo to pay for the extra services that will be needed for this sudden influx, unless we insist developers pay for the extra services needed. Otherwise taxes will have to go up, on top of huge increases in water and sewer rates. This will cause citizens already here to be driven out of house and home to make way for wealthy seniors from outside.
On the other hand, if we build smaller housing complexes that meet internal demand, limiting news about it to remain more or less local, the new senior housing is much more likely to meet internal demand. There are many ways to control the influx of massive groups of seniors from outside Davis – especially if we want to retain this community as a relatively small college town.
“One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.”
I absolutely agree with you here! Let’s face it, ERC was poor planning in regard to placement and transportation.
“We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?”
Building more senior housing in Davis will not necessarily make it more affordable! That takes better planning.
“The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.”
It should be noted that sometimes segregation through age restriction is necessary in regard to senior housing in relation to medical crises, such as in a Continuum of Care facility like URC, or assisted living such as Atria Covell Gardens.
“Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?”
Yes, but it should be offset by those who want to move OUT of Davis to be near their relatives.
“Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts.”
I would agree with you in general. However, as we age in place, oftentimes a medical crisis will force us into an assisted living facility, or independent living facility with in-home supportive care. Thus those sorts of options need to be addressed, even if you don’t think you will ever need them. The chances are eventually you will. The developers actually have some interesting notions about this issue, “telemedicine” being one of them. We actually need developers to come up with innovative ideas – but we need the City Council to make objective decisions about senior housing with respect to the perceived needs of citizens – based on objective criteria.
“My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.”
I think you make a good point. However, there is still a need to address “internal” demand in some fashion, rather than build a huge housing complex the city and county cannot afford to pay for, that as an end result financially overburdens our system. There are ways to give Davis citizens first preference at purchasing new housing, so you can control to some extent who housing is sold to.
“Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing?”
It certainly could help, but if you have a severe medical problem that requires nursing assistance, universal accessibility will not help you. Also, if you live in a house, but are on a tight budget, the finances of its upkeep can become too much for you. Universal accessibility won’t help with that either. Look at what is happening with our current sewer rates. Mine increased by 250% in August, as did others. Those on fixed incomes may find the increase in sewer and projected water rates may price them right out of their homes. Universal design will not assist with that sort of problem. Less expensive senior housing might, like senior cottages that are less expensive to maintain.
“Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point. We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.””
I strongly disagree here. If we are not careful to plan properly, we will overburden an already cash-strapped system, by bringing in a huge influx of seniors from the outside. Build a huge housing complex with all the amenities, and seniors from outside will flock to it like bees to honey. But the residents here will be taxed up the wazoo to pay for the extra services that will be needed for this sudden influx, unless we insist developers pay for the extra services needed. Otherwise taxes will have to go up, on top of huge increases in water and sewer rates. This will cause citizens already here to be driven out of house and home to make way for wealthy seniors from outside.
On the other hand, if we build smaller housing complexes that meet internal demand, limiting news about it to remain more or less local, the new senior housing is much more likely to meet internal demand. There are many ways to control the influx of massive groups of seniors from outside Davis – especially if we want to retain this community as a relatively small college town.
“One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.”
I absolutely agree with you here! Let’s face it, ERC was poor planning in regard to placement and transportation.
“We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?”
Building more senior housing in Davis will not necessarily make it more affordable! That takes better planning.
“The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.”
It should be noted that sometimes segregation through age restriction is necessary in regard to senior housing in relation to medical crises, such as in a Continuum of Care facility like URC, or assisted living such as Atria Covell Gardens.
“Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?”
Yes, but it should be offset by those who want to move OUT of Davis to be near their relatives.
“Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts.”
I would agree with you in general. However, as we age in place, oftentimes a medical crisis will force us into an assisted living facility, or independent living facility with in-home supportive care. Thus those sorts of options need to be addressed, even if you don’t think you will ever need them. The chances are eventually you will. The developers actually have some interesting notions about this issue, “telemedicine” being one of them. We actually need developers to come up with innovative ideas – but we need the City Council to make objective decisions about senior housing with respect to the perceived needs of citizens – based on objective criteria.
“My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.”
I think you make a good point. However, there is still a need to address “internal” demand in some fashion, rather than build a huge housing complex the city and county cannot afford to pay for, that as an end result financially overburdens our system. There are ways to give Davis citizens first preference at purchasing new housing, so you can control to some extent who housing is sold to.
“Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing?”
It certainly could help, but if you have a severe medical problem that requires nursing assistance, universal accessibility will not help you. Also, if you live in a house, but are on a tight budget, the finances of its upkeep can become too much for you. Universal accessibility won’t help with that either. Look at what is happening with our current sewer rates. Mine increased by 250% in August, as did others. Those on fixed incomes may find the increase in sewer and projected water rates may price them right out of their homes. Universal design will not assist with that sort of problem. Less expensive senior housing might, like senior cottages that are less expensive to maintain.
“Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point. We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.””
I strongly disagree here. If we are not careful to plan properly, we will overburden an already cash-strapped system, by bringing in a huge influx of seniors from the outside. Build a huge housing complex with all the amenities, and seniors from outside will flock to it like bees to honey. But the residents here will be taxed up the wazoo to pay for the extra services that will be needed for this sudden influx, unless we insist developers pay for the extra services needed. Otherwise taxes will have to go up, on top of huge increases in water and sewer rates. This will cause citizens already here to be driven out of house and home to make way for wealthy seniors from outside.
On the other hand, if we build smaller housing complexes that meet internal demand, limiting news about it to remain more or less local, the new senior housing is much more likely to meet internal demand. There are many ways to control the influx of massive groups of seniors from outside Davis – especially if we want to retain this community as a relatively small college town.
“One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.”
I absolutely agree with you here! Let’s face it, ERC was poor planning in regard to placement and transportation.
“We moved her to assisted living in Woodland. Why Woodland? Because like all housing in Davis this too was about half of what it cost in Davis. So we figure what we spend in driving time and gas and pollution is offset by what we save in rent and care expenses. So once again we find that the nimby’s in Davis create the problems they claim to want to reduce by restricting growth. When we they ever learn oh when will they ever learn?”
Building more senior housing in Davis will not necessarily make it more affordable! That takes better planning.
“The needs of seniors can and should be met–but not by promoting unnecessary segregation and exclusion.”
It should be noted that sometimes segregation through age restriction is necessary in regard to senior housing in relation to medical crises, such as in a Continuum of Care facility like URC, or assisted living such as Atria Covell Gardens.
“Are my parents who want to live near me and my family in their later years of life considered an internal need?”
Yes, but it should be offset by those who want to move OUT of Davis to be near their relatives.
“Most of my friends are over 55 and do NOT want small,shared housing. We want to age in place in our homes in Davis. We are not about to “move out to make room” for “new” families (if we did, our houses would go to our children and their families – who often live,outside Davis now). If we did move, we’d be looking not for less square footage but diffferent and flexible layouts.”
I would agree with you in general. However, as we age in place, oftentimes a medical crisis will force us into an assisted living facility, or independent living facility with in-home supportive care. Thus those sorts of options need to be addressed, even if you don’t think you will ever need them. The chances are eventually you will. The developers actually have some interesting notions about this issue, “telemedicine” being one of them. We actually need developers to come up with innovative ideas – but we need the City Council to make objective decisions about senior housing with respect to the perceived needs of citizens – based on objective criteria.
“My point, perhaps poorly put, is that whatever we build, a lot of it will go to outsiders, no matter what. Thus, I think, whatever number equates to “local demand” will be too low.”
I think you make a good point. However, there is still a need to address “internal” demand in some fashion, rather than build a huge housing complex the city and county cannot afford to pay for, that as an end result financially overburdens our system. There are ways to give Davis citizens first preference at purchasing new housing, so you can control to some extent who housing is sold to.
“Wouldn’t implementing Sue Greenwald’s proposals for requiring universal accessibility in new residential construction solve many of the problems seniors face in their current housing?”
It certainly could help, but if you have a severe medical problem that requires nursing assistance, universal accessibility will not help you. Also, if you live in a house, but are on a tight budget, the finances of its upkeep can become too much for you. Universal accessibility won’t help with that either. Look at what is happening with our current sewer rates. Mine increased by 250% in August, as did others. Those on fixed incomes may find the increase in sewer and projected water rates may price them right out of their homes. Universal design will not assist with that sort of problem. Less expensive senior housing might, like senior cottages that are less expensive to maintain.
“Contrasting local needs with developer needs or regional demand is all a moot point. We are not an island. We have no siege-proof walls. There are no laws permitting discrimination in favor of existing long-term residents. As such there is no way to prevent outsiders from moving in, and there is no way to design senior housing in Davis which would principally serve “our local senior housing needs.””
I strongly disagree here. If we are not careful to plan properly, we will overburden an already cash-strapped system, by bringing in a huge influx of seniors from the outside. Build a huge housing complex with all the amenities, and seniors from outside will flock to it like bees to honey. But the residents here will be taxed up the wazoo to pay for the extra services that will be needed for this sudden influx, unless we insist developers pay for the extra services needed. Otherwise taxes will have to go up, on top of huge increases in water and sewer rates. This will cause citizens already here to be driven out of house and home to make way for wealthy seniors from outside.
On the other hand, if we build smaller housing complexes that meet internal demand, limiting news about it to remain more or less local, the new senior housing is much more likely to meet internal demand. There are many ways to control the influx of massive groups of seniors from outside Davis – especially if we want to retain this community as a relatively small college town.
“One problem with ERC which you wrote about, given its location and the immobility of some seniors, is the difficulty its residents have getting to where they need to go in Davis using public transportation. ERC is not near any supermarkets, drugstores, pharmacies, Sutter Hospital, Kaiser clinic or most other medical facilities. It is not in walking distance to downtown or the university.”
I absolutely agree with you here! Let’s face it, ERC was poor planning in regard to placement and transportation.
“Davis is more expensive because people want to live here.”
No Davis is more expensive because it has good schools and has restricted growth and as a result restricted supply.
“Davis is more expensive because people want to live here.”
No Davis is more expensive because it has good schools and has restricted growth and as a result restricted supply.
“Davis is more expensive because people want to live here.”
No Davis is more expensive because it has good schools and has restricted growth and as a result restricted supply.
“Davis is more expensive because people want to live here.”
No Davis is more expensive because it has good schools and has restricted growth and as a result restricted supply.