Let me back up here for a moment. Last week, it was determined by a 3-2 vote at the council meeting with the usual suspects supporting it and Councilmembers Lamar Heystek and Sue Greenwald opposing, that there would be some sort of community based discussion on senior housing needs.
In a bold and daring move, the council could get rid of the 800-lb gorilla in the room and simply take the Covell Village property off the table for this particular discussion. I wonder how fast you would see CHA disband and the impetus for these projects disappear.
Why are we discussing this issue? Because apparently staff has received a volume of communications from the public. Where has that emanated from? Likely the developers.
To make matters even worse, Councilmember Stephen Souza has suggested we incorporate data collected from the Covell Village partners. They claim to have spoken to 800 people from across the community. What I find interesting is that since that proposal, I have heard from many people who did meet with Covell Village and recommended against any sort of senior housing development at Covell Village and while everyone is supportive of senior housing options, many are opposed to a segregated senior housing project the likes of which Covell Village developers are proposing.
Again I say, let’s remove the 800-lb gorilla and remove Covell Village as a possible location. That will tell us again, whether this is a serious proposal or simply an attempt to push through a specific development project using senior housing as a “trojan horse.”
However, lost in that discussion is the narrow focus of this specific group. They want to have representatives from the Senior Citizens Commission, CHA, perhaps the Social Services Commission, and some UC Davis folks. Is that all there is in this community?
Why such a narrow focus on this commission? Why isn’t this discussion being looked at along with discussions on other community needs?
To put it simply, there is no broader community groups being incorporated into this discussion. UC Davis is fine, but they are not the sum total or representative of the entire community. There is no effort to include Neighborhood Associations. There is no effort to include average citizens. There is no effort to include students. There is no effort to include environmental groups. There is no effort to include the education community
We need to look at senior housing options for certain, but not in isolation. This is first and foremost a land use decision. There are huge ramifications for developing in that location that were addressed and voted upon in 2005. Have those changed?
What I resent, and that is indeed a strong word, is the idea that a developer can come in with their paid workers and foment citizen response. Some of have suggested that this notion is offensive, that seniors are somehow being portrayed as dupes. This has nothing to do with seniors. I would have the same feeling regardless of the demographic group. My problem is that you basically have paid lobbyists and mobilizers churning up a subsection of the population.
How representative are the people who came forward of the broader senior population? I have talked to many seniors in this community who are strongly opposed to development at Covell Village and also strongly opposed to living in senior-only segregated housing. Placing CHA on this committee biases the results of any discussion because you will have three individuals who have already decided we need senior housing at Covell Village.
We already know what CHA wants. What we need to know is what the other 65,000 residents want and this committee will not help us determine that.
So if we are to go forward with this process, here is what I would support.
First, eliminate Covell Village as a location for this project. There are other sites in the city that could accommodate it. That will remove a huge political element and allow for a more honest discussion. Let’s face it, any project that will include Covell Village will have polarity–is that what we want.
Second, remove CHA from participation.
Third, do not limit this to senior groups. Bring in commissions like planning, open space, even BEDC. Bring in neighborhood associations. Bring in student groups. Bring in average citizens.
Finally, there is an idea that this discussion must be completed by the end of the year. Sounds like a long time. But let’s break this out more fully. The Senior Citizen Commission just met on Thursday. They will not meet again until the second week of July. That is the soonest they can act to put members on the committee. Staff was not prepared to create these committees yet.
By the time the commission can act, it will be mid-July. From the end of July throughout August we have a dead period in Davis. Thus the soonest we can possibly start having meetings is September. So we are talking about at most three months of discussions for a complex and controversial subject? That makes zero sense and it will not work.
So the time-line option makes no sense and will not work.
Council needs to re-think this because right now it looks hastily planned and a disaster.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Given the very low rental vacancy rate, what Davis clearly needs is more housing for students and young adults: apartments, duplexes, multiplexes. That is a need that has been urgent for several years, and the university’s project will only cover a portion of the demand in that demographic. Any need for senior housing is based on scant hypothetical and anecdotal evidence. Need for rental housing is based on real numbers: rental vacancy below 1% for over a decade, and rents remaining high even during the downturn in the local housing market.
To discuss senior housing alone, out of the context of the overall housing demand in Davis, makes no sense. Davis needs more apartments. Build those, and it will free up other units for other buyers, including senior citizens and low income buyers.
Why does affordable housing have to be “ownership”? Many people live their entire lives renting… look at rental prices, particularly SF homes, in Davis last 10 years… very modest increases compared to house prices… if you want affordable housing where people can also still build equity, why not build mobile home parks… where people rent their “space”, but build equity in the structure (at much lower property tax rates)… Rancho Yolo is a pretty nice community…
Affordable housing isn’t necessarily ownership, some is though. For instance, the proposed WHR development, the affordable housing component is apartments. Much of the affordable housing in this town is apartment and other rental units
David:
Agree, agree & agree (with you, Don Shor & “old-timer”). We do not need a segregated (or in my term, “ghetto”) for senior citizens. This entire issue is just the latest in a series of “carrots” floated by the Covell investors in an attempt to salvage their ill-conceived goal to develop a huge tract of prime Ag land for their own profit.
I agree totally that Covell (whatever it’s called this week) should be taken off the table for development – period. The problem is, that Sousa (the self-defined, and mis-nomered, environmentalist) wants to pave over that prime ag land/habitat to gain favor with the wealthy land-owners.
I say: fight against Covell on all fronts, expose the senior housing “need” for the sham it really is, bring it to a Measure J vote and vote Sousa, Saylor & Asmundson out of office, once & for all.
Please remind me again, what does CHA stand for? (what does the acronym stand for, that is?)
I agree with most everything and, in particular, do not believe that housing for seniors needs to or should exclude others with similar housing needs. I agree that the discussion should be more generic, and not focus on Covell Village.
I do want to note, however, that commissions are, in fact, made up of “average citizens” (including me) who happen to have an interest and/or expertise in particular community issues. So, while one might want more or broader inclusion of community members, average citizens are not excluded from the proposed process.
Eric: Good point. My point was in raising “average” citizen was a broader and more representative subsection than what was proposed by the council for this process.
CHA=”Choice for Healthy Aging”
Choice for Healthy Aging.. umm, sounds to me that this means nutritious food and hot meals, good health, good exercise, and good friendship and companionship across the age groups. It also means a way to continue to participate in and enjoy community activities and community life. It doesn’t matter the size of your house or where it is located, if you don’t have these. Don’t a number of standing commissions already tackle these and other issues pertaining to senior life and needs?
So, Covell Village partners are at it again. It’s all about marketing, now with senior housing as bait. When I was on the Planning Commission in the early 1990s, I reminded the Duffel Brothers- aka Wild Horse Ranch (well at least they had horses), that their houses were “in Davis,” and asked why he and others needed fancy names or concepts that separated their project from the city. He said it was all about marketing widely to Real Estate companies and outside buyers.
Davis seniors will have to compete with other seniors who want to live in an attractive university community. Or, maybe they’ll just have to compete with those wanting a smaller home – regardless of bathroom handrails!
Don Shor, above, is right. We need rental housing. We need “infill” housing.
Nancy
[quote]Given the very low rental vacancy rate, what Davis clearly needs is more housing for students and young adults: apartments, duplexes, multiplexes. [/quote]I very much agree with this. Also, if new complexes are built, there is no reason seniors could not live in them. Insofar as they have special needs, those could be planned for.
There are a few things to consider, though:
1. West Village will (probably before any apartments could be proposed, authorized and constructed in the city of Davis) open. It includes 1,015 student apartments, designed for 2,862 students. With a (at least temporarily) declining student, staff and faculty population and this new development, the undersupply problem might ease on its own;
2. Where in Davis would the new apartments be built? I am not against building them on the periphery, even though these would mostly not serve students. By expanding the total supply of apartments, that would free up apartments closer to campus now occupied by non-students and thus “control” rents. However, there is a great deal of opposition in town to building on “farm land.” I’m dubious that the PG&E parcel is the solution to this problem; and
3. In part because of our (misguided) 25% low-income housing requirement, which applies to large apartment developments, the city will [i]lose[/i] money if we build new apartments in Davis. At least with market rate housing, the city does not lose money.
3. In part because of our (misguided) 25% low-income housing requirement, which applies to large apartment developments, the city will lose money if we build new apartments in Davis. At least with market rate housing, the city does not lose money.
Rich, is the following a legitimate paraphrase of your statement above? “The city will lose money if people with an income below the level needed to purchase “market rate housing” come to Davis. At least with “market rate housing” income people, the city does not lose money.”
I am going to try and explain better for those who care to be open to hearing what I have proposed concerning a Committee composed of Davis citizens who would look at one of the needs of Davis citizens.
Staff at the June 2, 2009 Council meeting put forward an outline of “A Strategy for Housing Seniors in Davis” (Strategy). The staff proposal and my addition of three categories of its membership have nothing to do with a specific site or any specific application that may or may not come before the Council in the future. This from the Strategy: Evaluate issues including: community needs, interest levels of seniors, senior housing share of the growth cap, suitability of potential infill and peripheral sites. Develop the strategy with community input for Council approval. Develop with representatives (possibly 3 each) from commissions. Those Commissions are the Senior Citizens Commission, Social Services Commission and Planning Commission. I added CHA, Medical Field and UCD faculty and students from the Business School and Community and Regional Development Department.
The reasons I added these three categories are: for CHA I did so because as I looked around the room that night and saw many people who I have known for almost 30 years who were members of CHA that I know to be experts on senior needs both from a housing and service perspective. I know them to be caring contributing members of our community who are not automatons.
As to the medical field I want someone on the Committee that has knowledge of gerontology and the evolution of the field. This person does not have to be a doctor and should not be a member of CHA.
The third category UCD faculty and students from the Business School and Community and Regional Development Department is for the purpose of having someone that can keep the cost down by helping to compile the data and information in a report for the Council. This person also should not be a member of CHA.
After thinking about the proposal more I believe the Committee should only be 9 members and would suggest that it be as such: Senior Citizens Commission-2 members, Social Services Commission-2 members, Planning Commission-2 members, CHA-1member, Medical Field-1 member, UCD faculty and students from the Business School and Community and Regional Development Department-1 member.
The suggestion of adding data gathered by CHA was a wrong description, it is just information; it is not scientific data and will not drive the process. It is but one very small piece of information the Committee will hear of look at. The Committee will determine what to do with it.
Finally I believe whatever we do to meet this need should not be one size fits all. We are all different no matter what age we are.
David makes interesting points in his commentary; however, I really don’t see any way that this senior housing issue is going to go away. As Don Shor has pointed out “Any need for senior housing is based on scant hypothetical and anecdotal evidence.” The Covell Partners would very much like to see the discussions dominated by their “800 people from across the community.” As long as that is the case, the Covell Partners control the conversation . . . in large part because the people who are putting forward other positions on the senior housing issue have even less data (if any data at all).
Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the approach Bob Wolcott presented in the Housing Update presentation two weeks ago. Study the issue. I wholeheartedly concur with David’s desire to expand the participation beyond the groups discussed by Council.
I look forward to involving UCDavis Business School students and faculty participation as [u]resources rather than constituents[/u]. I can easily see a number of students devoting their academic time and effort to constructing a robust survey that goes out in the mail to every senior in Davis . . . and then gathering the submitted data in a scientific manner that 1) provides Davis with useful information on the needs of its seniors, and 2) is the substance of a significant number of student thesis papers. Think of the UCD component that Steve Souza proposed as “high-quality free labor.” In these tough economic times any creative ideas on how to get high quality output at a very low cost is well worth exploring.
Finally, lets be realistic about the data Covell Partners has generated. No one is saying that it will be the [u]only[/u] data used. What has been said is that the information they have collected gives us all a sense of what one sliver of our senior community has shared. There may be useful input in their data that allows the survey questionaires to be as robust as possible.
Doing nothing is 1) not an alternative, and 2) leaves the Covell Partners largely in control of their own fate.
Matt: I am all for having a discussion on senior housing, but I am not in favor of having them under the terms that Mr. Souza has laid out both on here and at the council meeting.
First, I think there cannot be a discussion with Covell Village sitting as the 800 pound gorilla. So if you want a discussion, that has to be placed off the table.
Second, the people in CHA have already made up their minds that they want a senior housing facility at Covell. Their participation taints this process.
Third, I want to see the broader groups brought into than Mr. Souza laid out either at the Council Meeting or on here.
I agree, it does not go away and I also agree that it is not a one-size-fits all approach.
David, any discussion of what the senior housing need is in Davis should be independent of any sites. No gorillas of any size, shape or description. That is why I like the idea of an indepth, scientific study that ends up being publishable in peer-reviewed journals.
Matt: I don’t disagree. I just think the way this has come about has tainted it and it ironically makes it less likely that we come to a reasonable conclusion.
[quote]Rich, is the following a legitimate paraphrase of your statement above? “The city will lose money if people with an income below the level needed to [u]purchase[/u] “market rate housing” come to Davis.[/quote]No. The city will lose money if it forces developers to build for-sale or for-rent housing which pays less in property taxes (divided by 9*) than it costs the city in provision of services.
Were it up to me, I would blow up HUD and its state equivalent and its local equivalent and stop buiilding all price controlled housing projects. I’d then take all that money — the vast majority of which goes to lining the pockets of developers who finance campaigns and to well-paid government administrators — and give it to needy people in the form of housing vouchers, just as we give needy people food stamps.
*The city gets something like 11% of the property taxes paid by city property owners.
Matt:”I can easily see a number of students devoting their academic time and effort to constructing a robust survey that goes out in the mail to every senior in Davis….”
Why seniors? Why should senior housing have any greater claim on city council and staff consideration regarding housing issues than students, young adults, young families, low-income residents, city staff, or members of any other demographic group?
Housing should be looked at as a whole. That was the point of the housing task force that you participated in, and I see no reason the council should be giving special consideration to one group based on age. If anything, the clearly demonstrated need for housing is way at the other end of the age spectrum.
So I have no problem with the various groups Steven has identified weighing in on housing needs in general. But the council should also listen to groups that are concerned about the availability of rental housing, of low-cost housing, and so on. Stop addressing senior housing as though it is a unique problem here in the housing market. Pent up demand for senior housing doesn’t seem to me to be the major factor driving the Davis housing market.
Rich: “2. Where in Davis would the new apartments be built? I am not against building them on the periphery, even though these would mostly not serve students. By expanding the total supply of apartments, that would free up apartments closer to campus now occupied by non-students and thus “control” rents. However, there is a great deal of opposition in town to building on “farm land.””
New apartments can be built anywhere as long as transit serves them. Look at where the apartments are now. The large apartment developments along Sycamore and in South Davis were considered peripheral when they were built, and they are filled with students and young adults. Those developments, by the way, tend to be a major boon to nearby neighborhood shopping centers.
The concern about building on farm land, IMO, is overstated. An environmentally sound development on former row-crop land is better than a poorly designed one on class 4 soil. Contiguous developments with appropriate traffic flow are better than leapfrogging out just to save farmland. I also believe the low-income housing requirement should be abolished entirely (which I realize will never happen), as it accomplishes absolutely nothing.
“and give it to needy people in the form of housing vouchers, just as we give needy people food stamps. “
Alex, can I have Section 8 Vouchers for 1000 please?
Steve Souza: “After thinking about the proposal more I believe the Committee should only be 9 members and would suggest that it be as such: Senior Citizens Commission-2 members, Social Services Commission-2 members, Planning Commission-2 members, CHA-1member, Medical Field-1 member, UCD faculty and students from the Business School and Community and Regional Development Department-1 member.”
I see your “process is evolving”. That’s the name of your game, isn’t it? When criticized for foolishness, you move the target. How about moving it again – to representatives from the three commissions as city staff suggested? CHA, UCD Med Ctr, Business Schools can act as consultants to the larger committee made up of commissions. Afraid of what commissioners alone might find? Or was the idea to stack the deck with pro-Covell Village groups? CHA members all spoke in favor of Covell Village senior housing, as did members of the UCD Med Ctr. Nothing like trying to neutralize any opposition from commissions, Steve.
And why all of the sudden is there a desire to cut down on commission member numbers? One would think you don’t particularly trust the commissions to come out with the result you are looking for, Steve. You can kiss yourself goodbye in the next City Council election Mr. Souza. I doubt anyone would vote for you. All you do is gum up the workings of local gov’t.
“and give it to needy people in the form of housing vouchers, just as we give needy people food stamps. ”
The feds are moving away from the voucher system completely. So continuing to propose it as a solution is pie in the sky.
Souza:”I am going to try and explain better for those who care to be open to hearing what I have proposed concerning a Committee composed of Davis citizens who would look at one of the needs of Davis citizens.”
Trouble is your explanations keep changing.
“Rich, is the following a legitimate paraphrase of your statement above? “The city will lose money if people with an income below the level needed to purchase “market rate housing” come to Davis. At least with “market rate housing” income people, the city does not lose money.””
I would say that about sums it up, from what I can tell!
“Why seniors? Why should senior housing have any greater claim on city council and staff consideration regarding housing issues than students, young adults, young families, low-income residents, city staff, or members of any other demographic group?”
This is exactly right. Senior housing considerations effect all housing options in Davis. Everyone should weigh in on senior housing issues. After all, everyone will weigh in when it comes to a measure J vote!
[quote]The feds are moving away from the voucher system completely. So continuing to propose it as a solution is pie in the sky. [/quote]It’s fine to have your own opinions. But please, don’t make up your own facts. The truth is, the voucher model for Section 8 housing is now the dominant one. No longer is the government building and owning housing projects, as it once did. The problem is that the voucher holders DO NOT have the right to spend the vouchers in the private market. They are forced to spend them in housing which itself was built privately but with subsidies from government.
An interesting political question is “why is the food stamp program run in such a sensible manner?,” given that almost all other welfare programs are designed to first help campaign contributors, second employ administrators and only third help the needy? I don’t know the answer to this. However, I suspect it has to do with the powerful farm lobby. Every time the money for food stamps is increased, it is inside “the farm bill.” Most of the money in the farm bill is welfare for wealthy farmers (including most of the wealthy farmers in our region). Thus, what it seems like is going on is that, in exchange for robbing the taxpayers, a scrap (food stamps) is thrown out to the poor, under a voucher system which (while sometimes underfunded) actually is designed to help needy people, as opposed to our housing programs.
For those of you who don’t understand how factually incorrect everything “My View” said above, look at the HUD website ([url]http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/about/index.cfm[/url]), which explains the housing voucher program (a badly run, terribly inefficient program designed by the “non-profit” developers) operates.
I suppose, by the way, that some of you are unfamiliar with just how much welfare wealthy farmers get. While we give a few scraps to the poor (in food stamps), here is a list of the top Yolo County recipients ([url]http://farm.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=06113&progcode=total[/url]) of farmer welfare cash — they get a lot more in non-cash subsidies, of course — from 1995-2006: [quote]1 River Garden Farms Co ∗ Knights Landing, CA 95645 $5,027,664
2 Hermle Farms ∗ Zamora, CA 95698 $3,284,667
3 M & F Farms ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $2,869,512
4 Frelen Company ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $2,779,465
5 Wallace Ranches ∗ Woodland, CA 95776 $2,195,069
6 D H Breckenridge And Son ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $2,173,061
7 B V Farms ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $2,116,274
8 Rominger Rice ∗ Winters, CA 95694 $2,089,541
9 Doering Farms A Partnership ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $2,076,224
10 Faris Farms ∗ Woodland, CA 95776 $2,052,382
11 Button & Turkovich ∗ Winters, CA 95694 $2,043,277
12 Doering Farms ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $1,869,539
13 Schaupp Farms ∗ Esparto, CA 95627 $1,847,412
14 Joe F Muller & Sons ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $1,800,077
15 Geer Ranch A Partnership ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $1,752,073
16 Payne Farms ∗ Woodland, CA 95776 $1,631,341
17 C Strehle & Sons ∗ Yolo, CA 95697 $1,605,239
18 Fred & Eric Tenhunfeld ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $1,603,778
19 Dick & Karen Dettling ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $1,589,555
20 S & S Farms ∗ Woodland, CA 95695 $1,575,096 [/quote] Some families own 5, 6, 7, or even 10 different farm operations. So the total for a given farm might understate just how much money one family is taking in.
Here are the top Davis and El Macero recipients: [quote]1 Jones & Jones Davis, CA 95617 $ 1,390,420.07
2 Cen Cal Farms Davis, CA 95616 $ 1,131,952.29
3 H D Balsdon Davis, CA 95616 $ 1,126,423.27
4 S A M Farms Inc Davis, CA 95617 $ 936,418.35
5 William R Pritchard Family Ptshp Davis, CA 95616 $ 866,297.00
6 Los Rios Farms Davis, CA 95617 $ 800,442.08
7 Blue Gum Ranch Davis, CA 95616 $ 783,139.00
8 Gregory Schmid Davis, CA 95617 $ 723,771.34
9 John M Foraker Davis, CA 95616 $ 615,855.94
10 Jeff Schaap Davis, CA 95618 $ 611,721.19
1 John Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 990,183.94
2 Dewit Family Farms El Macero, CA 95618 $ 975,027.74
3 Mccormack Farms El Macero, CA 95618 $ 971,829.25
4 Michael J Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 962,091.46
5 Diamond D Contractors El Macero, CA 95618 $ 690,932.89
6 Jeffrey Middlekauff El Macero, CA 95618 $ 611,457.26
7 Jack Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 579,453.51
8 Elna Stevenson Et Al El Macero, CA 95618 $ 579,428.64
9 John J Anderson El Macero, CA 95618 $ 579,071.29
10 Debra S Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 521,312.28
[/quote]
“An interesting political question is “why is the food stamp program run in such a sensible manner?,””
Have you ever watched someone with food stamps purchase lobster, while I didn’t feel I could afford anything but hamburger? Have you ever watched a welfare family pile out of their fancy sports car to collect their food stamps, while I drive around in my beat up old car? The food stamp program is not perfect either.
“For those of you who don’t understand how factually incorrect everything “My View” said above, look at the HUD website, which explains the housing voucher program (a badly run, terribly inefficient program designed by the “non-profit” developers) operates.”
The website does not give any indication one way or the other as to whether the gov’t is phasing Sect 8 out. The word from on high I have heard from gov’t people in the know is the voucher system is on its way out, out, out. Only time will tell who is right.
Don Shor said . . .
“Why seniors? Why should senior housing have any greater claim on city council and staff consideration regarding housing issues than students, young adults, young families, low-income residents, city staff, or members of any other demographic group?
Housing should be looked at as a whole. That was the point of the housing task force that you participated in, and I see no reason the council should be giving special consideration to one group based on age. If anything, the clearly demonstrated need for housing is way at the other end of the age spectrum.
So I have no problem with the various groups Steven has identified weighing in on housing needs in general. But the council should also listen to groups that are concerned about the availability of rental housing, of low-cost housing, and so on. Stop addressing senior housing as though it is a unique problem here in the housing market. Pent up demand for senior housing doesn’t seem to me to be the major factor driving the Davis housing market.”
Don, the simple answer to your question is . . . I believe there is really no controversy or doubt about the need for workforce housing in Davis. Given that belief I don’t think we need to study the workforce housing need. Rather we need to get going on doing something about it. As we speak, we are missing good workforce housing opportunities. Grande was approved at a density that really isn’t going to address our workforce housing needs. The Wildhorse neighbors group continues to oppose the Horse Ranch’s proposed density. Chiles Ranch will be heard this week by Council. Does it address the workforce housing need?
One huge difference between the senior and workforce segment is that the former already lives in Davis, and for the most part no longer works in Davis, while the latter already works in Davis, and for the most part doesn’t live in Davis. The reason the senior need should be sliced and diced is twofold. 1) if housing is built we need to be [u]sure[/u] the seniors will actually move into that housing [and thus free up their existing homes for existing workers in Davis], and 2) we need to be sure that senior housing is provided for seniors of all incomes. My gut feel from watching the CHA speakers make their public comment is that there are very few (if any) low income seniors in CHA. The worst thing we could do is leave Davis’ low income seniors literally and figuratively out in the cold.
[quote]The website does not give any indication one way or the other as to whether the gov’t is phasing Sect 8 out. The word from on high I have heard from gov’t people in the know is the voucher system is on its way out, out, out. Only time will tell who is right.[/quote]I’m sorry. I thought you could read. The entire HUD website I directed you to explains how the voucher program works for Section 8. It doesn’t say Section 8 is being “phased out.”
By the way, I love how you come on here, make anonymous personal attacks against people who use their own name, and then site as your great reference, “The word from on high,” as if you are Mr. Big Shot.
FWIW, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, despite its original concept of providing housing for “middle-income seniors” is in part Section 8 housing. Its low-income residents receive vouchers, which they spend as rent to live at ERC. I have absolutely no problem with that. The real problem is the millions of dollars in subsidies we spend on building these private “non-profit” complexes; and that we don’t allow people with vouchers to use them where they want to in the market place. The response to that is that the money the vouchers are worth is too little for real private housing. But if 75% of the HUD budget didn’t go to private contractors and HUD employees, but instead, like Food Stamps, went directly into the vouchers, those vouchers would be worth much, much more. (It’s important to understand that the real beneficiaries of HUD are its employees and private contractors who build this “private” housing.)
Rifkin… you “refute” those who make ‘personal’ attacks on you… yet you attack public employees… you accuse them of being self-serving… what do you think they have to deal with?
[quote]Rifkin… you “refute” those who make ‘personal’ attacks on you… yet you attack public employees… you accuse them of being self-serving… what do you think they have to deal with? [/quote]What a load of b.s., Bobby. I’ve never ever attacked public employees. If you think questioning the labor deals made by our elected officials which have put the fiscal health of the state, county and city government in jeopardy is an attack on public employees, you have bigger problems than I thought, Bobby.
k… for the record, Mr. Rifkin never attacks anyone… he just wants to expose ‘truth’ and encourage healthy discussion of substantive issues… examples:
[quote]I’m sorry. I thought you could read. The entire HUD website I directed you to explains how the voucher program works for Section 8. It doesn’t say Section 8 is being “phased out.”[/quote]
[quote]By the way, I love how you come on here, make anonymous personal attacks against people who use their own name, and then site as your great reference, “The word from on high,” as if you are Mr. Big Shot.[/quote]
[quote]And since you don’t work for the City, you must be unaware of the fact that the City of Davis pays the FICA tax for Medicare for its employees. That is why its cost of retiree health benefits is cut in half for retirees over age 65, Bobby. You are just misinformed.[/quote]
[quote]I dare you to check with the city’s Finance department (needs to be someone familiar with payroll) and ask “what is the FICA rate paid by the city for pre-1986 employees who have no medicare contribution deducted from their paycheck?” and then post the answer to the discussion. For my part of the dare, if the answer indicates that the city makes contributions (FICA) whereby that employee would be eligible for Medicare, I will share my “identity”. I wouldn’t think it matters tho’ particularly where I am primarily arguing matters of fact.[/quote] (attributed to “Bobby” by Mr. Rifkin)
Rich, did you ever follow up on the “facts” of FICA coverage?
[quote]k… for the record, Mr. Rifkin never attacks anyone… he just wants to expose ‘truth’ and encourage healthy discussion of substantive issues… examples:[/quote]
Other than the second quote you used, I don’t see anything that is a personal attack. He certainly has attacked the substance of the argument, but not the person. Regarding his anonymous posting comment, it of course is definitely personal in nature. However, I think 1) you can tell by my posting name that I strongly support that particular point, and 2) there isn’t any way to make that point without being personal.
I frequently disagree with the points Rich makes, but I rarely see him make his points without backing them up with facts as he sees them.
How do you guarantee that whatever housing built will be affordable and purchased by the segments of the population that you want to target from within the Davis population? And, if you talk about those who live in Davis working in Davis, a number of years ago, it is my recollection, a majority of those living in Davis (not students) work “outside” of Davis. They live in Davis for the schools and other amenities.
Nancy, there are a number of ways that if done in concert will come close, but there will never be a guarantee. Anti-Descrimination/Fair Housing laws prevent that in the open market.
The first way is to have the discipline at 1) the Planning Department Staff leve, 2) the Planning Commission level, and 3) the Council level to only approve new housing with livable square footage under 1800 sq ft.
The second way is for 1), 2) and 3) to only approve high density housing, which would make the lot sizes smatt enough that an owner would be physically and fiscally discouraged from adding significant square footage to a house they own.
The third way is the approach Rich Riffkin has discussed. Vouchers for those people who work in Davis, contribute to its economic vibrance and vitality, but can’t afford a house at the premium market prices that the quality of life in Davis commands.
“1) if housing is built we need to be sure the seniors will actually move into that housing [and thus free up their existing homes for existing workers in Davis]”
Most seniors want to age in place in their very own home. This idea that somehow seniors should downsize for the good of the community to free up housing for young families is just ludicrous. It is a developer ploy that does not mesh with statistical reality. A study was done by the AARP, showing of those 55 years and older, 87% do not want to leave their homes/downsize. They want to stay put and age in place. That is not always possible as seniors can grow frail, but it is important to know this preference. Also, there are more and more services available to help seniors remain in their own homes – private pay and public in home supportive care
Rifkin: “I’m sorry. I thought you could read. The entire HUD website I directed you to explains how the voucher program works for Section 8. It doesn’t say Section 8 is being “phased out.””
“By the way, I love how you come on here, make anonymous personal attacks against people who use their own name, and then site as your great reference, “The word from on high,” as if you are Mr. Big Shot.”
Just because there is info on a website about Section 8 does not mean it is not being phased out. Name calling does not become you – stick to the issue. I have access to info from a good deal of people in the know, who have told me the Sec 8 voucher system is being phased out. I know from personal experience the voucher system is fraught with many, many problems – especially wrt slumlords. People with Sec 8 vouchers will tell you it often results in substandard living conditions in housing owned by absentee slumlords. Often Sec 8 social workers know about the substandard housing, but are getting kickbacks and will do nothing to report it, even tho the housing has failed HUD inspection by honest HUD inspectors. I would suggest getting off your high horse, and start talking to some people who live in Sec 8 housing, and those who have to administer it. By the way, Sec 8 waiting lists are so long, often it takes two years or longer to get on just the waiting list. Meanwhile, what do these people do for housing? The Sec 8 voucher system is a mess, the gov’t knows it, and is going in other directions.
“FWIW, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, despite its original concept of providing housing for “middle-income seniors” is in part Section 8 housing. Its low-income residents receive vouchers, which they spend as rent to live at ERC.”
Yes, and this use of vouchers is far better for the recipient. They are in a safe environment, that is up to standard, and have an on-site social services director who can help frail seniors with any problems they may have. ERC is an innovative model that truly works, and should be replicated bc of its success. Instead you condemn it as not cost effective.
Public programs for low income by their very nature are not cost effective – but morally required as a safety net for those less fortunate. Low income people should not have to live in bug infested leaking slum houses, just so taxpayers can save money. As the saying goes, “there but for the grace of God go I”.
I used to live in a two story 4 bedroom house on half an acre. Through circumstances not of my own making, I now live on SSI and am medically disabled, even tho I hold advanced degrees. If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. As health care improves, people are living longer, but outstripping their income. I know of a former CEO of a company who now lives in low income senior housing. We shouldn’t have to live in substandard housing.
Logical Thinker, you are absolutely right, and the research studies support your point. For instance, AARP completed a study of why Burlington, Vermont was such a “Great City for Older Adults” On page 9 of the study (available at [url]http://www.aarp.org/research/housing-mobility/indliving/vt_communities_2007.html[/url] 79% of the respondents (age 45+) said the Strongly Agreed with the statement “What I’d really like to do is remain in my home for as long as possible.” Another 11% said they Somewhat Agreed. Another 5% said they Somewhat Disagreed. That leaves the last 5% who Strongly Disagreed. Burlington is a good comparison for Davis, because it to is a University town and according to the AARP study, “homeowners age 45+ in Burlington tend to be higher income residents.”
So lets start with a hypothesis that 5% is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Davis residents age 45+ who Strongly Disagree with the statement “What I’d really like to do is remain in my home for as long as possible.” Using the census information provided to the Housing Element Steering Committee, 17,176 of the 64,606 Davis residents in 2006 were over the age of 45 (which is a 22% increase over the 2000 Census counts) 5% of 17,176 means 858 Davis residents over 45 feel strongly that they do not want to remain in their current home for as long as possible, and another 858 are of the same opinion, only to a lesser extent.
The point of all the above is that it does not take a very large percentage to come up with a significant number.
Now with that said, we have no idea what proportion of those 858 want to move from their current house to a community where one of their children lives. Nor do we know how many current Davis residents have parents who want to move to Davis to be near their children and grand children. We also don’t know what the fiscal situation is for the people in the groups of 858. Bottom-line, we are being ostriches with our heads in the sand if we don’t take the initiative and do the necessary study to understand what our senior needs are.
[quote]Yes, and this use of vouchers is far better for the recipient. [/quote] Total nonsense. You are not accounting for the millions of dollars in subsidies which don’t go to the residents. They go to the people who give big campaign donations to the elected officials who dole out that taxpayer money.
It’s a shame you are afraid to tell us who you are or tell us who your friends in high places are or tell us what your sources are for information about “vouchers being phased out” which — I’ve Googled it — does not appear to be available in the public realm. If you would come clean, we could determine if you have any credibility at all. Up to now, you have none.
“So lets start with a hypothesis that 5% is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Davis residents age 45+ who Strongly Disagree with the statement “What I’d really like to do is remain in my home for as long as possible.” Using the census information provided to the Housing Element Steering Committee, 17,176 of the 64,606 Davis residents in 2006 were over the age of 45 (which is a 22% increase over the 2000 Census counts) 5% of 17,176 means 858 Davis residents over 45 feel strongly that they do not want to remain in their current home for as long as possible, and another 858 are of the same opinion, only to a lesser extent.
The point of all the above is that it does not take a very large percentage to come up with a significant number.”
The problem with your assumption is that of including those 45 years of age and older to determine the number who want to remain in their homes. The AARP study started with age 55, those who are technically seniors (or at least seniors by AARP standards). Furthermore, many seniors who are in the 13% group who want to move eventually do not want to live in age restricted housing period. They are perfectly happy downsizing to whatever smaller housing is available within the regular housing stock.
Things get even more complicated when you ask a 55 year old if they want to ever live in assisted living. I will bet you almost all of them (99 and 99/100ths %) will say “no”. Same answer for skilled nursing. But the reality is that many will eventually have to. Right now, the only game in town for assisted living is Atria Covell Gardens, which is unaffordable to low or middle income folks.
To further confuse the issue, seniors often can remain in their home with private pay or public in-home supportive care. A low income senior may not want to downsize bc to do so will realize a capital gain that is not only taxable, but will make them ineligable (sp?) for MediCal and other public benefits.
So to put things in a little better perspective, numbers don’t necessarily tell you much. However, what we do know is that Covell Village Redux developers are attempting to push a large Eskaton type senior enclave on this town, which most likely will not meet the internal demand of seniors in Davis. What will happen is the Covell Village Redux will be marketed all over CA, bringing in seniors from everywhere, which will tax our current county social services system, the delivery of city services, and will financially burden current taxpayers who live in Davis. I very much doubt that is in the best interests of any citizen of Davis.
“It’s a shame you are afraid to tell us who you are or tell us who your friends in high places are or tell us what your sources are for information about “vouchers being phased out” which — I’ve Googled it — does not appear to be available in the public realm. If you would come clean, we could determine if you have any credibility at all. Up to now, you have none.”
I have no credibility to you perhaps. Others more knowledgeable on this issue are well aware my assessment is correct. Secondly, you have failed to address any of my points with respect to the problems with the Sec 8 voucher system. If you don’t believe me, then start doing some real research on the issue beyond merely looking at the HUD website. Get out and start talking to Sec 8 voucher recipients, and ask them if they like the system. Or are you afraid of the answer they will give you? Get educated in the practical sense. Interview ten Sec 8 recipients beyond those in any single facility. I have, but have you?
Another point I would like to address is your demand for names, and an unwillingness to believe anyone who does not specifically identify themselves. Part of the beauty of blogging is that the public may say what they think w/o fear of retaliation. If you are not ready to be a willing participant in the give and take of a blog and its anonymity, then go elsewhere. You are certainly free to disagree w opinions, but the personal attacks and pompous insistence you know more than everyone else bc you are willing to identify yourself is growing tiresome. IT FRANKLY HURTS YOUR CREDIBILITY. You seem more willing to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you, than debate the issues.
“Bottom-line, we are being ostriches with our heads in the sand if we don’t take the initiative and do the necessary study to understand what our senior needs are.”
I might agree with you, except that the committee that Souza has proposed is a one sided biased pro-developer group. Sue Greenwald asked for an independent study of senior housing needs, yet the City Council majority gave that suggestion a thumbs down. That tells me the City Council majority does not want an honest debate about senior housing. All they want is a rubber stamp and political cover for Covell Village II. It’s disgusting!
Logical Thinker, where did you get 55+? The first two sentences of the report in the AARP link in my post read, “This community survey, part of The Burlington Livable Communities Project, was conducted on behalf of AARP by Woelfel Research, Inc. Eight hundred Burlington residents age 45 and older participated . . . “
[quote]
Logical Thinker . . .
oes not take a very large percentage to come up with a significant number.”
“Furthermore, many seniors who are in the 13% group who want to move eventually do not want to live in age restricted housing period. They are perfectly happy downsizing to whatever smaller housing is available within the regular housing stock.
Things get even more complicated . . .
To further confuse the issue . . .
So to put things in a little better perspective, numbers don’t necessarily tell you much . . . [/quote]
Everything you have said argues for doing a detailed study looking at Davis-specific responses/data, so our approach produces value for both the community and the seniors themselves.
As David said and I agree with . . . no specific simians should be part of the study. The study should be focused on needs. Once we know that then possible solutions for that need can be weighed.
[quote]In The Know . . .
Another point I would like to address is your demand for names, and an unwillingness to believe anyone who does not specifically identify themselves. Part of the beauty of blogging is that the public may say what they think w/o fear of retaliation. If you are not ready to be a willing participant in the give and take of a blog and its anonymity, then go elsewhere. You are certainly free to disagree w opinions, but the personal attacks and pompous insistence you know more than everyone else bc you are willing to identify yourself is growing tiresome. IT FRANKLY HURTS YOUR CREDIBILITY. You seem more willing to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you, than debate the issues.[/quote]
Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying that cowardice is one of the fundamental tenets of the blogging community? Why are you afraid of retailiation? If your points have sufficient merit then there should be no justifiable basis for retaliation.
I’ve read evey post between the two of you. You have yet to cite your sources. Why is that? Rich has been very direct in putting forward his points. You are the one who is obfuscating.
“vouchers being phased out”
Is this part of SEVRA? I know Maxine Waters has been promoting legislation (SEVRA) that would reform the Section 8 voucher system, but if anything it is likely to lead to more vouchers and more funding, not less, and this president might actually support and sign the legislation. In the past it has died in the Senate.
“Am I hearing you correctly? Are you saying that cowardice is one of the fundamental tenets of the blogging community?”
I never said any such thing. Are you saying that if someone blogging is not willing to identify themselves, they are being a coward?
“I’ve read evey post between the two of you. You have yet to cite your sources. Why is that? Rich has been very direct in putting forward his points. You are the one who is obfuscating.”
Yes Rich has put forth his points very directly, but that doesn’t make him right. Has he talked to Sec 8 voucher recipients? It is obvious he has not, or he would not be saying what he is saying. Sounds like you need to talk to a few Sec 8 recipients as well.
There are very good reasons not to identify oneself. For instance, if one is in a particular profession, holds a particular political office, etc. Retaliation is a very real possibility. Rich is not worth losing my position over. As it so happens I work very closely with the Sec 8 voucher system and its recipients, so I know of what I speak. Rich has not addressed any issues I have raised about the problems in the system, just insisted I am not credible if I don’t give my name. Furthermore, his personal attacks are uncalled for (see comments by him below) and are aimed at more than just one person other than myself. Personal attacks are cowardly in my book.
Rich: “It’s fine to have your own opinions. But please, don’t make up your own facts.”
Rich: “For those of you who don’t understand how factually incorrect everything “My View” said above…”
Rich: “By the way, I love how you come on here, make anonymous personal attacks against people who use their own name, and then site as your great reference, “The word from on high,” as if you are Mr. Big Shot.”
Rich: “What a load of b.s., Bobby.”
Rich: “you have bigger problems than I thought, Bobby.”
Rich: “If you would come clean, we could determine if you have any credibility at all. Up to now, you have none.”
Now I will say it again. From what I have heard, the federal gov’t is phasing out the Sec 8 voucher system. There are good reasons for this:
1) Long, long waiting lists that do not open up for as much as two years; this is because it is difficult to find landlords willing to take the below market rates the gov’t sets for Sec 8 housing;
2) Slumlords who rent uninhabitable housing that cannot be leased at fair market value because of its deplorable conditions;
3) HUD social workers who take kickbacks from these same slumlords;
4) HUD inspectors who are afraid to speak out; or who do and are ignored.
And you can’t figure out why I would not want to identify myself, knowing what I know? Why do you think there are anonymous whistleblower phone numbers? Geeeeeeeeze!
“Logical Thinker, where did you get 55+? The first two sentences of the report in the AARP link in my post read, “This community survey, part of The Burlington Livable Communities Project, was conducted on behalf of AARP by Woelfel Research, Inc. Eight hundred Burlington residents age 45 and older participated . . . “”
We may be talking at cross purposes here. The AARP study I was referring to was one cited in a city staff report, and was taken from those 55 years of age and older (don’t know specifically how). 87% of the people polled indicated they wanted to remain in their homes. Are you referring to a different study, taken in VT, that showed different stats?
I agree with you that a study of senior housing needs might be a good discussion for the city to have, but it must
1) Be conducted in a fair manner;
2) Include everyone’s opinion, including non-seniors;
3) Be given sufficient time to do a thorough analysis;
4) Have nothing to do with any specific project.
Thus far, the committee that will study this issue is heavily weighted in favor of developers, thanks to Steve Souza. The analysis is to be finished by Dec of 2009 – just in time for Covell Village II developers to submit an application for development in Jan 2010 as promised to supporters. This entire process has all the appearance of a pro forma committee, whose task is to rubber stamp approval of Covell Village II, as political cover for the City Council majority. The same City Council majority who is beholden to developers who have contributed to their campaigns.
Better no committee and no analysis than a tainted committee and questionable analysis. Sigh! I guess citizens will have to vote down Covell Village II in a Measure J vote, that is if Measure J ever gets out of commission meetings. But then that was the idea, no?
“”vouchers being phased out”
Is this part of SEVRA? I know Maxine Waters has been promoting legislation (SEVRA) that would reform the Section 8 voucher system, but if anything it is likely to lead to more vouchers and more funding, not less, and this president might actually support and sign the legislation. In the past it has died in the Senate.”
Could be. I suspect Sec 8 and other public benefit programs will go with whatever political wind is blowing at the time. You make a very good point!
[quote]
In The Know . . .
I never said any such thing. Are you saying that if someone blogging is not willing to identify themselves, they are being a coward? [/quote]
That is exactly what “Part of the beauty of blogging is that the public may say what they think w/o fear of retaliation. If you are not ready to be a willing participant in the give and take of a blog and its anonymity, then go elsewhere.” says. You don’t see Eileen Samitz posting anonymously, nor Don Shor, nor Pam Neiberg, nor Mike Harrington. If the shoe fits . . .
Now with that said, there are clearly situations that merit a pseudonym. One of the regular posters in the Blog is the spouse of a Judge. Anonymity makes sense in that situation. What you have described about your personal situation sounds like it merits some caution. However, Rich simply asked you to share your sources. If you are afraid of retaliation on them, then give them a psudonym and then share your data.
[quote]Yes Rich has put forth his points very directly, but that doesn’t make him right. Has he talked to Sec 8 voucher recipients?[/quote]
Somehow individual Section 8 beneficiaries in Davis wouldn’t appear to have the inside scoop on the latest governmental policy discussions regarding the future of Section 8 . . . but those are the only sources you cite. How does that “man on the street” perspective translate into the insight you claim?
[quote]And you can’t figure out why I would not want to identify myself, knowing what I know? Why do you think there are anonymous whistleblower phone numbers? Geeeeeeeeze![/quote]
We aren’t talking about Watergate here. There are no Deep Throats. Share your sources other than individual Section 8 recipients. Otherwise you have to recognize that all you look like is a blow hard . . . or should I say a Mr. Big Shot.
[quote]Secondly, you have failed to address any of my points with respect to the problems with the Sec 8 voucher system.[/quote]I oppose the current system. It is designed not for the complete benefit of the needy. It is designed largely to benefit the campaign financiers. So why should I address your indefensible comments?
Matt:
“You don’t see Eileen Samitz posting anonymously, nor Don Shor, nor Pam Neiberg, nor Mike Harrington.”
How do you know?
[quote]Part of the beauty of blogging is that the public may say what they think w/o fear of retaliation. [/quote]This falls apart when you constantly attack me by name.
[quote]You are certainly free to disagree w opinions, but the personal attacks and pompous insistence you know more than everyone else bc you are willing to identify yourself is growing tiresome. [/quote]I have never made a personal attack. You are not a person. You are something which hides behind a false name and makes derogatory comments about people who have the courage to use their real names. I feel like even responding to your silly personal attacks against me is an Adventure in Wonderland.
“This falls apart when you constantly attack me by name. “
Here’s the way I view this–the upside of blogging psuedononymously is that people are able to post their thoughts more freely. People face-to-face will often not tell you what they really think because there is a social price to be paid.
The downside is that there is a lack of civility that can arise when people behave in the safety of cover as they would not behave in polite society.
The real downside is that any claims to knowledge and expertise that are uncited are generally regarded with skepticism if not outright dismissed. Whereas if people know the messenger, the credibility of the messenger may persuade others.
[quote]Yes Rich has put forth his points very directly, but that doesn’t make him right. Has he talked to Sec 8 voucher recipients?[/quote]Yes. I not only have spoken with a LOT of people in Section 8 housing, I used to live in a building in West Oakland (at the corner of 25th and Adeline) which was in a neighborhood chock full of privately owned Section 8 housing projects whose residents were voucher users.
What is so strange is your conception that I defending the current system. I am doing just the opposite. The only defense raised for it (in this discussion) is your defense of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, but (because you have not been so far dealing in verfiable facts) you have ignored the public money taken away from needy residents which went into the pockets of those who build and operate projects like that one. [quote]It is obvious he has not, or he would not be saying what he is saying. [/quote]You obviously love to make personal attacks like this one. What you are saying is “Rifkin is an ignoramous.” And then you go back and hide behind your fake name. Nice guy, you are. I feel sorry for your children.
“This falls apart when you constantly attack me by name.”
If you track back through the comments, you were the on the attack, not me. “Don’t make up your own facts; Mr. Big Shot; What a load of b.s. Bobby; Up to now you have none [credibility]”. Why is it necessary to stoop to personal attacks? Just simply say “I disagree with you. According to the HUD website…blah, blah, blah”. There is no reason the discourse has to become uncivil. We can agree to disagree. And I disagree with you, based on the knowledge I have. If you wish to rely solely on what you have read off the HUD website, feel free.
“I agree with you that a study of senior housing needs might be a good discussion for the city to have, but it must
1) Be conducted in a fair manner;
2) Include everyone’s opinion, including non-seniors;
3) Be given sufficient time to do a thorough analysis;
4) Have nothing to do with any specific project.”
I believe that any study of housing needs should assess the issues facing all age groups. I think that young adults face much more difficult housing issues in this community, and in most cases spend a higher percentage of their income on housing. I believe that people who work at Davis businesses mostly live here, and have limited housing options. I think a lot of people who work at the university don’t live here, because they prefer to live elsewhere or found better housing deals in nearby communities. I think that people who work here and are in the lower income brackets can only afford to rent, are competing in a crowded housing market, and need relief. I think that middle income people who work here who can buy a home tend to buy outside of this market. I would guess that seniors tend as a group to be skewed to the higher income brackets, have more housing choices already, and tend to have equity they can use for housing options. My guess is that they are the least likely to need special consideration by the city council.
I believe all of that, but I don’t have much evidence for any of it, nor does anybody have evidence regarding senior housing preferences. Unfortunately, appointing a stacked commission to investigate the housing desires of a particular segment of the population is not going to address the problems facing all these groups. Nor is it likely to yield anything useful in the way of policy suggestions for the council. So it will be a waste of time and effort.
“…nor does anybody have evidence regarding senior housing preferences…”
Except for the studies previously referenced.
“”You don’t see Eileen Samitz posting anonymously, nor Don Shor, nor Pam Neiberg, nor Mike Harrington.”
How do you know?”
Thanks, DPD. There have been discussions on here before as to whether anonymous commenting should be allowed. Some are vehemently opposed to anonymous posting. However, it is important to understand that one can be much franker and more honest in their comments if they do not have to post their name. It makes for more robust discussion on the merits, rather than devolving into a politically correct tea party that goes nowhere. With anonymity and frankness comes some pretty harsh statements, some clear nut cases, and some misinformation, but it works quite well. When it tends to break down is if the discourse devolves into name calling. Often I cull information from this website that I have not been able to obtain anywhere else. My suggestion: tone down the unnecessary nasty rhetoric and stick to the issues. But if it were not for anonymity, I would not comment on this blog, for what its worth. From the number of anonymous bloggers, I think I can safely say I am not alone.
[quote]
David M. Greenwald . . .
How do you know?[/quote]
Unless someone is posting under their name . . . which can’t be done as you know . . . then the following examples should suffice
[quote]
Mike Harrington
06/11/09 – 08:14 AM
…
Dear Covell Village Partners: Councilmember Saylor campaigned on civility. Maybe you should get some schooling on the subject?[/quote]
[quote]
Don Shor
06/13/09 – 04:12 PM
…
Matt:”I can easily see a number of students devoting their academic time and effort to constructing a robust survey that goes out in the mail to every senior in Davis….”
Why seniors? Why should senior housing have any greater claim on city council and staff consideration regarding housing issues than students, young adults, young families, low-income residents, city staff, or members of any other demographic group? [/quote]
Don and I actually talked about this f-t-f this afternoon at his place of business.
If my ancient brain isn’t failing me, both Pam and Eileen have authored articles.
[quote][/quote]
“Unless someone is posting under their name . . . which can’t be done as you know . . . then the following examples should suffice”
Sure, any of those people may post under their own name, and on occasion post under a pseudonym. I’ve done it before.
[quote]David M. Greenwald . . .Here’s the way I view this–the upside of blogging psuedononymously is that people are able to post their thoughts more freely. People face-to-face will often not tell you what they really think because there is a social price to be paid.
The downside is that there is a lack of civility that can arise when people behave in the safety of cover as they would not behave in polite society.
The real downside is that any claims to knowledge and expertise that are uncited are generally regarded with skepticism if not outright dismissed. Whereas if people know the messenger, the credibility of the messenger may persuade others. [/quote]
Ultimately the choice ends up being between the perceived social price vs. the courage of one’s convictions. I can’t understand why that is such a hard choice? Joan of Arc had no problem. Mahatma Ghandi had no problem. Why should bloggers in Davis have any problem? Especially since our issues are so much more trivial than theirs were.
Matt, cited sources are very often incorrect. No one has a lock on credibility. Everyone is free to believe or not to believe, to disagree or not to disagree. Sometimes it is from anonymous uncited sources that the truth comes out. DPD can tell you, no matter how hard he tries to get things right, checks and rechecks his sources, sometimes he gets it wrong. Other times an anonymous tip leads him to the truth more than cited “facts” from so called “experts”. Rich himself admits he missed the Tahir Ahad/Total School Solutions scandal, even tho Rifkin had info told to him about the scandalous behaviour of Ahad. Perhaps if Rich had been a little more open-minded, he might have broken that story. Instead it did not get uncovered by DPD until long after it was over – but not its terrible aftermath – Valley Oak was closed because of it.
“Ultimately the choice ends up being between the perceived social price vs. the courage of one’s convictions.”
What are you saying? If someone posts anonymously, they don’t have the courage of their convictions? Frankly, that is an insult to anonymous bloggers. What if you are a commissioner? What if your job would be put in jeopardy because of what you said? There are also strategic reasons to blog anonymously, to counter unfair political maneuvers. You need to keep a more open mind I think…and Rifkin needs to remain more civil.
[quote]Elaine Roberts Musser . . .
“Sure, any of those people may post under their own name, and on occasion post under a pseudonym. I’ve done it before.” [/quote]
As have I Elaine. The key words are “on occasion.” Am I correct in assuming that the frequency of such occasions is less than 10%?
“As have I Elaine. The key words are “on occasion.” Am I correct in assuming that the frequency of such occasions is less than 10%?”
I plead the fifth!
[quote]Disagree . . .
What are you saying? If someone posts anonymously, they don’t have the courage of their convictions? Frankly, that is an insult to anonymous bloggers. What if you are a commissioner? What if your job would be put in jeopardy because of what you said? There are also strategic reasons to blog anonymously, to counter unfair political maneuvers. You need to keep a more open mind I think…and Rifkin needs to remain more civil.[/quote]
No. I am saying that they value the courage of their convictions less than the social price. There are times when that relative weighting is very appropriate, but in the vast majority of issues discussed here, if a poster asks the question, “What is the social price associated with my posting this comment?” the answer is “Very little, if any.” In those situations there is very little reason why the poster shouldn’t post with their own name.
What if you are a commisioner? Same rules apply. Elaine Musser is a commissioner. We see her post under her own name frequently. As she has noted above, there are times when she sees a social price and posts with a pseudonym.
If everyone simply asked themselves, “What is the social price?” before deciding how to label their post we would have IMHO 90% of the posts with names and much less acrimony. Reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.
“If everyone simply asked themselves, “What is the social price?” before deciding how to label their post we would have IMHO 90% of the posts with names and much less acrimony. Reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.”
It isn’t just for social reasons that someone posts anonymously. Sometimes tactics are involved. You have to look at this as more of a chess game. You don’t necessarily want your opponents knowing what your next move is going to be. It may be necessary to play your cards close to the vest. Your professional position could be placed in jeopardy. Think! If you worked for John Whitcomb, but disagreed about Covell Village II, but wanted to express your disagreement without losing your job, what better way than to blog on the Davis Vanguard! And I certainly wouldn’t want to quit my job in this economy, or get fired from it!
[quote]Rich himself admits he missed the Tahir Ahad/Total School Solutions scandal, even tho Rifkin had info told to him about the scandalous behaviour of Ahad. Perhaps [u]if Rich had been a little more open-minded[/u], he might have broken that story.[/quote]That is mostly correct. However, it had nothing to do with being “open-minded.” It was really just a case of laziness on my part. David put A LOT OF WORK INTO THE REPORTING HE DID ON AHAD. I give him great credit for that; and fault myself for not following through on the tip I got.
To follow up on what Matt referred to with regard to Maxine Waters, you can click here ([url]http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/105167[/url]) to read the reforms her committee has proposed with regard to vouchers. Essentially, she hopes [i]to greatly expand the program.[/i] I looked everywhere (on Google search) to see if there is a proposal of any kind to phase out or reduce the voucher program now in existance. I found nothing of the sort. Just the opposite, in fact. Every reform proposal is an expansion.
… And to repeat, because the anonymous hatemonger does not understand my position, I am not in favor of the current system. It needlessly restricts housing options for needy people and enriches people who are already well-off. If a person has a Section 8 voucher, he can only spend that voucher at an apartment which is in the system. He cannot rent anything which is truly in the private marketplace. (Contrast that with food stamps, where every supermarket* accepts stamps almost the same as cash.)
This is an anecdotal example (I read about in a Cato publication ([url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/pubs.html[/url])), but it illustrates in a way where the current HUD program is failing: In Detroit, there are literally thousands of vacant bank-owned homes. Many of these homes are in livable condition. At the same time, in the Detroit metro area, there is a very long waiting list for housing for people who have HUD vouchers. These folks waiting in line for HUD-approved apartments would be good candidates to rent the bank-owned homes. But because of the way Section 8 is structured — to enrich the people who build Section 8-designated housing — the voucher holders cannot legally spend their vouchers on rent for one of these now empty houses. So what is happening is the empty houses are falling apart, as vandals steal everything in them and no one rents them. A congressman from Detroit has been trying (for the last 5-6 years) to change the system to allow vouchers to be used in any private housing, but that reform is being fought tooth and nail by the folks who build and operate the current housing stock.
*Supermarkets, of course, have to register with the DoA.
The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7500. Seems to me they could just give them to some of the folks with HUD vouchers in exchange for a little sweat equity.
[quote]Whoa! . . .
It isn’t just for social reasons that someone posts anonymously. Sometimes tactics are involved. You have to look at this as more of a chess game. You don’t necessarily want your opponents knowing what your next move is going to be. It may be necessary to play your cards close to the vest. Your professional position could be placed in jeopardy. Think! If you worked for John Whitcomb, but disagreed about Covell Village II, but wanted to express your disagreement without losing your job, what better way than to blog on the Davis Vanguard! And I certainly wouldn’t want to quit my job in this economy, or get fired from it! [/quote]
Get over yourself. How in God’s name would posting tactics anonymously vs. posting those same tactics with a name change the fact that your opponents would know the tactics? Do you truly think that the Covell Village II people fear specific tactics because they are linked to a specific person? No way. The power they fear (if they fear anything) is the power of the collective. The discussions here on David’s Blog whether anonymous or not give Whitcomb, et. al. plenty of insight into what tactics to expect from their opposition.
Your Whitcomb employee example is so over the top it defies description. I fully expect your next post to hint that said hypothetical person is either 1) an undercover mole, or 2) Roseanne Rosannadanna’s cousin on her mother’s side. Those are the only two reasons I could imagine for someone working for Whitcomb and opposing the years and years and years of Covell Village that Davis has had to cope with.
About 99% of the time, I post using my name. My opinions are mostly well-known, and if I cannot stand behind my comments, I dont post.
I see several prominent members of the political and business community regularly posting without using their names. From years of working with them, I know their writing style and flash points, so those “secret” posts stand out to me, but probably not to most of the rest of the readers of this Blog.
One person who has posted secretly in the past I have tried to “out,” as I find it offensive that she/he says one thing publically, but secretly says the opposite.
DPD and I have had some arguments about my taking those anonymous posts and attacking the poster by name, and I have tried to respect his comments to me and toned it down. At least until this person once again tries to turn the roads my kids are going to be biking on to/from school into Service Level F nightmare roads. Then the gloves come off.
What I am talking about is the ongoing attempt to Master Plan Lewis Homes and Covell Village. It is real. They are spending $100,000s of dollars to jam through a project that will wreck the safety and quality of life for all residents of Davis, especially north of 5th Street/Russell. They have 3 votes on the CC, and most if not all senior City Staff are supporting it. You think 2004-05 was fun? Wait til you see what these people have in store for you. The 2005 Covell Village Project was worth, gross, about $1 billion dollars. Add Lewis Homes and you add another $250 million, more or less.
So for $1.25 billion, they are cynically using senior residents in an emotional ploy to pass their horrible projects.
“because the anonymous hatemonger does not understand my position”
Why use the perjorative “hatemonger”? Because that person doesn’t agree with your position? Can’t you stop the personal attacks, or are you just addicted to hate speech?
“If a person has a Section 8 voucher, he can only spend that voucher at an apartment which is in the system. He cannot rent anything which is truly in the private marketplace. (Contrast that with food stamps, where every supermarket* accepts stamps almost the same as cash.)”
This is a basic misunderstanding of how the Sec 8 voucher system works. Sec 8 voucher recipients can rent from the private marketplace right now. However, most private landlords do not want to rent to Sec 8 voucher recipients because they have to take the rental rate the federal gov’t sets for their area, which is below market rate. Let me give you an example.
Let’s say an owner of a house wants to rent it out. If the owner were to rent the house to four students, at fair market value in Davis, the owner could probably get $2000 per month ($500 from each student). However, if the landlord were to rent the same house to a single mother with three children with a Sec 8 voucher, the family would probably only have to pay $300 per month, and the gov’t would pick up the rest – BUT THE REST IS BASED ON THE RATE THE GOV’T SETS.
More than likely the gov’t would only kick in another $1000 per month. Why should any landlord rent to Sec 8 voucher recipients for $1300 per month, if they can rent to students and make $2,000 per month? These are by no means exact figures, just a hypothetical example, but it is essentially how it works.
So what is the end result? Private owners who have decent housing are unwilling to rent out at below market rates. This pushes Sec 8 voucher recipients into project based Sec 8 housing, which is relatively scarce, and hence the long waiting lists. If the gov’t were willing to pay FMV, there would be considerably more Sec 8 housing in the private sector than there is.
“What I am talking about is the ongoing attempt to Master Plan Lewis Homes and Covell Village. It is real. They are spending $100,000s of dollars to jam through a project that will wreck the safety and quality of life for all residents of Davis, especially north of 5th Street/Russell. They have 3 votes on the CC, and most if not all senior City Staff are supporting it.”
I actually disagree with you on one point. I don’t necessarily think city staff are supporting this. They did at one time (Yes on Measure X), but not now. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t city staff put forth the proposal to leave things as is? Then kicked the final decision about whether to move Covell Village up on the “yellow site” list to the CC? What I have heard is City Staff feels discouraged that this whole discussion about Covell Village II is coming at a time when they are already doing massive work on the city budget. The indication I am getting is city staff would prefer the whole question of Covell Village II would just go away. Am I being naive, or missing something?
Very helpful post How It Works.
Based on what you have said, if (hypothetically) Covell Village II goes forward as a senior community, the developers/owners could simply refuse to accept Section 8 residents. Is that correct?
If it is, can the City make acceptance of a certain percentage of Section 8 seniors a permanent requirement of any senior community anywhere in the City?
To Wondering: I am sure that a lot of things are getting kicked down the field due to the budget issue. But not this one.
Please understand that the CC has adopted building and development fees that fully pay for staff and the department. A huge project like Lewis Homes or CV pays the city bills, big time. (Later, those projects will hurt the city’s budget, but for right now, the funding keeps the cash coming in the doors for current positions and expenses.)
Further, when I was on the Housing Update Committee, some senior staff commented to me on several occasions that Lewis and CV should be master planned.
I know who the senior staff proponents, and secret opponents are, but I won’t disclose that here.
Lewis donated money and resources to the 2004-05 CV project because they want the road access from the top of their 100 acres east over to Poleline. Lewis still wants that. Anyone who supports Lewis Homes is either a secret or overt CV supporter, or a mushroom living in the closest being fed dark brown substances manufactured by paid and at least one “self-described volunteer” consultants to those projects.
If you study the sociology of complex organizations (I did, at UCD), one of the first points is that the organization, once created, has to find ways to keep itself in existence. Meaning, fund itself and its personnel. You see the problem all the time with non-profits who morph their goals from savings the eagles, to the whales, to the wolves, etc. Whatever brings in the bucks.
So, CV and Lewis Homes do that for Planning and Building, Public Works, etc.
Look at the surface river water project. Do you think that is about providing drinkable water to our residents? Nope. It’s all about providing full funding for years and years for certain staff positions in the City’s Public Works Department, and for the consultants that make millions off the project. And of course, those consultants provide large sums of money to the CC and other candidates who support using public money to the trough. At some point we all need to put the project on the ballot through signature campaign. It will be the only way to stop the feeding frenzy that is going on right now.
To Wondering, sorry for the long ramble, but all these issues tie in together. It’s all about the short term wads of money that these large developments bring into the community. And few of the financial beneficiaries care much about the long term consequences. Look at the sprawl debacle around the Valley if you dont believe me.
“Based on what you have said, if (hypothetically) Covell Village II goes forward as a senior community, the developers/owners could simply refuse to accept Section 8 residents. Is that correct?”
Yes, individual homeowners can refuse to rent out their homes/aparments to Sec 8 recipients. In so far as I am aware, developers would have nothing to do with it. The developer subdivides the land, then builds houses/apartments, which people buy/rent. Once sold, if bought as a rental property, it is up to the individual owner whether they want to rent to Sec 8 recipients at gov’t rates below FMV. In this town, of scarce rentals for students, it isn’t going to happen!
“If it is, can the City make acceptance of a certain percentage of Section 8 seniors a permanent requirement of any senior community anywhere in the City?”
I don’t think so, if I am understanding your question correctly. The Sec 8 voucher system works on the premise that the recipient can rent anywhere, so long as the landlord is willing to take a Sec 8 voucher and the gov’t rate that goes along with it. I believe the only thing the city can do is require the developer to build a certain percentage of affordable housing, affordable housing which the city then administers. That sort of program is separate from Sec 8, unless a PROJECT is required to be built that is specifically for Sec 8 recipients. It is possible (I think) to require the developer to provide a so-many-unit Sec 8 PROJECT as their share of affordable housing.
My problem is I am not that conversant with Davis’s affordable housing requirements, and exactly how it works. What I do know is that citizens in Davis (and any other city) tend not to want a Sec 8 housing project in their backyard. This is almost universally true. However, usually affordable housing ordinances require each city to take its fair share of low income residents by being forced to build suitable housing projects.
Let’s take Eleanor Roosevelt Circle as an example. Originally, ERC was to be a mixed income facility. It has a total of approximately 60 units. A certain number were set aside for Sec 8 recipients, a certain number were set aside for those who were not quite poor enough to qualify for Sec 8, a certain number were set aside for low middle income, up to a middle income of no more than approximately $40,000 per year. Because of the funding sources, there was also a requirement that 1) a third of the residents had to be mentally or physically handicapped, 2) w an on site social services director to supervise.
The Sec 8 apts were rented immediately, the next tier went fairly fast, but towards the middle income, the apts could not be rented. That is bc the rent for the middle income apts was actually above market rate. Seniors could get a two bedroom apt elsewhere in town for the same or a lesser price. As the middle income units sat empty, the city felt the need to step in. Sec 8 voucher recipients were allowed to rent the units set aside for middle income folks.
At the same time, a huge marketing campaign was waged by the developers, to fill all the vacancies as quickly as possible. Suddenly seniors were cozened into moving from Shasta Point, an all Sec 8 project in Davis, to ERC. The shame of it was there is no bus shuttle for ERC, but Shasta Point shares one with University Retirement Commons. Some seniors regretted their rash move, bc now they had no built-in transportation. On top of everything else, Shasta Point then had a vacancy problem.
The ultimate result has been that ERC is basically an almost all low income housing project. The experiment of a mixed income facility did not work. However, ERC is a wonderful low income housing model in certain ways. For low income disabled seniors, it is a Godsend. There is a social services director on site 5 days a week, and an on site manager 24/7. ERC has a lovely community room, which is used by various groups, which brings classes and entertainment to the residents. It is a relatively safe environment, with its own little on-site store and community garden. As a low income housing project, it has a lot going for it. The biggest drawback is the lack of an on site shuttle.
Just a little history for all of you.
ERC was approved on a series of 3/2 votes. Susie Boyd, self-professed Queen Bee of the Seniors, consistently voted against it. She and Sheryl Freeman wanted the land to go to CHOC for yet another of their garden variety cookie cutter projects.
There was, and still is, some sort of unholy alliance between CHOC and some city staff. Ruth and I caught those staff giving away $5 million in city funds to CHOC. It was stopped, but I could not get enough CC support to tell the City Manager to fire the involved staff members or be fired himself.
Sue Greenwald was a loyal supporter of the ERC, and she and I voted with Ted to approve the project.
“Further, when I was on the Housing Update Committee, some senior staff commented to me on several occasions that Lewis and CV should be master planned.”
I have a feeling city staff is sick to death of Covell Village, and the Cannery project is DOA. My feeling is city staff wants Covell Village II off its plate, but is not willing to go out on a limb if the CC majority wants Covell Village Redux/Upchuck.
“Look at the surface river water project. Do you think that is about providing drinkable water to our residents? Nope. It’s all about providing full funding for years and years for certain staff positions in the City’s Public Works Department, and for the consultants that make millions off the project.”
I so agree with you on this one! You are right on the money here. I actually was told by a city staffer that “hey, I’m happy to have these projects, it keeps me working”. These projects (water and sewer) are going to bankrupt this city and its citizens.
To Wondering: You are calling the next version of CV “Covell Village II.”
We call it “CV IV,” or “Halloween IV,” sort of a play on the “Freddie Returns” series of movies.
Eileen is more expert on the older (pre-2000) history than I am, but my understanding is that CV came forward and lost 2x before 2000. Then Measure X in November 2005 was Halloween III, and now the latest is IV.
The “Halloween” also comes from the infamous Helen Thompson “boogey man scare letter” where she said something like “vote for Measure X or Steve Gadero will get you!”
The No on X Committee then ran a fullpage newspaper ad on Halloween that is one of the funniest as well as deadly political parodies I have ever seen, before or since.
(DPD, sometime would you run that Helen letter again, and the Halloween ad response, just to remind people what we are up against with these people??)
Now, the CV partners are trying to manipulate and scare senior citiznes with “you wont have a good home in Davis if you dont vote for our project.” Same tactic, different target, same arrogance, and same result, I hope.
In any case, I think knocking down Halloween IV should force them to follow the current general plan like everyone else, with its public benefit and land mitigation policies. I doubt that there will be a V, unless there is broad public agreement on what the land map will look like.