At Tuesday’s City Council Meeting, the Davis City Council approved by a 4-0 vote a grant to the Rancho Yolo Association for 43,900 dollars. This follows a grant of 50,000 that was approved in April. Councilmember Sue Greenwald abstained from this vote.
The motion approved by council was made by Councilmember Lamar Heystek and represented a compromise over the original staff recommendation which would require 10,000 dollars for a third party review of the process but come outside of the grant money. This would come from the 43,000 but reduce the cost of the third party review to 5,000.
The vast majority of residents at Rancho Yolo are low income seniors, most of whom are on fixed social security income, they have purchased their mobile homes at cost of roughly $80,000 per unit and now pay rent on them for somewhere around $400. Periodically that cost goes up by as much as $20 a month which is a substantial cost to someone on a fixed income and in many cases their rent will be more than half of their monthly income.
A few years ago the residents formed the Rancho Yolo Community Association and began to receive grants from the city. They contracted with Neighborhood Partners with the ultimate goal of putting together the money to buy the park from the owner and forming their own cooperative.
There are some additional concerns about the park. First, Mobile Home parks under city and state law have virtually no restrictions. A resident can be evicted from the site with 30 days notice. Unlike an apartment, they own the home, so they would have to sell their home and do so most likely after vacating the premises. Moreover, there are no restriction that would prevent the owner from selling the land to a new owner who could could turn the property into condominiums and displace the current residents.
It is for this reason that Neighborhood Partners and the Rancho Yolo Community Association want to have everything in place so that if the owner sells the land, they are ready to purchase the property and have everything in place to form a cooperative.
All of this is well and good except for the simple fact that the owner at this point does not want to sell the property and has no plans to do so in the foreseeable future.
The position of David Thompson from Neighborhood Partners who spoke on Tuesday night was that they wanted to put everything together so that if and when the park goes up for sale the residents association is able to buy the park. He stated that he believes they will be in position to make an offer next year.
The money for the grants comes from the CDBG Grant Fund and also Redevelopment Money and therefore does not come from the general fund. Nevertheless it should also be pointed out that one of the pots of money that the state wants to raid comes out of redevelopment.
The owner of the park seems to have become increasingly angry and perplexed by the actions of the city to push this forward after repeated letters indicating the lack of interest in selling the project.
On June 5, 2009 representatives for the owners sent a letter to City Manager Bill Emlen.
In part it stated:
“To the extent that it may be helpful to you, we have been asked to advise the City that Cali has no intention or desire to sell Rancho Yolo. This position is not dependent on the continuance of its lease of Rancho Yolo to Mr. Andrew Schafer. You should be advised however, that Cali has extended that lease from 2010 for an additional period of years.”
Apparently not satisfied that this message was received by the city, the owner’s representative sent another letter to the city dated July 20, 2009 that Councilmember Sue Greenwald read into the record.
“We have read the staff report from July 7. The city did not provide us with a copy, but we fortuitously obtained a copy of the report today. We remain puzzled by YCA and Davis’ refusal to accept the fact that the park is not for sale.
We are also puzzled by the city’s willingness to continue to spent funds on this matter when there must be better uses of public monies.
Moreover we also learned at your July meeting that it was proposed an offer be submitted to the park’s owner on an annual basis until one is finally accepted. This not only seems a waste of time, energy, and money for all involved but it serves to perpetuate a feeling of unrest and uncertainty among many Rancho Yolo Residents. We would hate to see the residents become so upset and discouraged by this continued uncertainty.
To be perfectly clear the park is not for sale. The owner will not consider offers of purchase unless and until the owner decides to sell the park.”
Councilmember Stephen Souza had stated the last sentence of the letter:
“The owner will not consider offers of purchase unless and until the owner decides to sell the park.”
He suggested this implied a degree of ambiguity in the intentions of the owners. However, Councilmember Greenwald disputed this account.
“If you read this in context, it is the strongest statement that they’re angry and don’t want to sell it, that I’ve ever read in my life.”
She continued,
“I’m sad, I’d like to see the Rancho Yolo residents own it at a price they can afford.”
The positions of the residents and Neighborhood Partners however seems to remain that owners can change their mind and they seem to believe it is worthwhile to have this mechanism in place as a measure of protection so that at the point when the owners are ready to sell their property they are ready to go. The owners on the other hand appear to see this move as the city trying to force their hand.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks David. How would these residents be able to afford to buy the park if they are so fixed income?
Also there appears to be disageement among the park residents about the directon to take and some rancor which is regretable.
The budget for the 40K appeared to include many items that the volunteer board should absorb rather than pay the consultants and there was a pitiful answer about status of possible funding. Lemar was sharp to bring these up.
The last 50K was at a time of budget distress, but this latest expendasure is even harder to justify.
Trust me, the city’s money will find its way into the pockets of Neighborhood Partners, which is what this whole thing is all about. The owner doesn’t want to sell, has stated that position as strongly as possible, yet NP feels they can somehow force the owners hand into selling? You have to ask what is NP getting out of all of this? $$$$ at a time when the city can ill afford the expenditure. One has to really wonder what the City Council was thinking on this one, throwing good money after bad. How much longer are NPs going to be allowed to milk the city, and lead the residents of Rancho Yolo down the garden path. The whole DACHA mess comes to mind…
Seems to me I heard something about this sort of thing being done with Leisureworld in Woodland. Nbhd Ptners strongarmed the owner into selling, by convincing the Woodland CC to threaten rent control in city mobilehome parks. The owner was so badgered by Nbhd Ptners tactics, it finally threw in the towel in frustration. Can anyone verify this?
Also, my understanding is that once a mobilehome park becomes a cooperative, the monthly cost does not necessarily go down, but can go up. I have heard that Rancho Yolo monthly assessments would probably go up. If that is the case, then what good has the city done for Rancho Yolo residents?
The lowest income Rancho Yolo residents would be better served by giving them (incrementally) that public money to help them pay their rent. I’m not sure (as Anon 9:42 says) that the reason the City of Davis is wasting “redevelopment” money on this non-redevelopment is to enrich Neighborhood Partners. However, it is disturbing that this so-called non-profit organization gives money to members of the City Council who then turn around and award Neighborhood Partners public money. Is that unethical? Obviously it is. Alas, we have a serious lack of ethics at times in Davis.
“I’m not sure (as Anon 9:42 says) that the reason the City of Davis is wasting “redevelopment” money on this non-redevelopment is to enrich Neighborhood Partners. However, it is disturbing that this so-called non-profit organization gives money to members of the City Council who then turn around and award Neighborhood Partners public money. Is that unethical? Obviously it is. Alas, we have a serious lack of ethics at times in Davis.”
If “this so-called non-profit organization gives money to members of the City Council who then turn around and award Neighborhood Partners public money”, then how is that not wanting to enrich Neighborhood Partners? To award public money to Neighborhood Partners in exchange for campaign contributions is a desire on the part of the CC to enrich this nonprofit. Am I missing something here, or perhaps my wording wasn’t clear enough?
Puzzled: If you re-read my post, note that I am questioning if that is “the reason.” My point is, while it is in my opinion improper for anyone on the council to take money from a group or an individual which does business with the city and then vote public funds to that group or individual, I don’t know if that is “the reason” the money was awarded in this case. It’s certainly possible there is another reason.
FWIW, I don’t think Luke and David generally donate money to candidates though they may have given to Harrington and Souza who were long time friends.
“However, it is disturbing that this so-called non-profit organization gives money to members of the City Council who then turn around and award Neighborhood Partners public money.”
Which non-profit organization gives money to members of the City Council?
I abstained on the basis that I didn’t know what it meant to “prepare” to buy the park if the owners are adamant that they won’t sell it. I was torn; I felt I should vote against it, but I also felt a great deal of sympathy for the anguish and the fears of the residents who live in the park, and it was clear that the grant had 4 votes.
Even if the park were for sale, I have always pointed out to the residents that the monthly carrying costs when buying are not necessarily less expensive than renting. As some of the Rancho Yolo residents in opposition to the purchase pointed out last night, cooperative members would be assuming large liabilities if they were to purchase the park, not just for the mortgage, but also for the maintenance and the utilities. I would add that being in a prime location in Davis, the land has a much higher appraised value than the land of most mobile home parks, and under the terms agreed to when the park was established, the utilities are the responsibility of the owner of the property, not the city.
But all this is moot if the owners refuse to sell. The city has now spent almost $100,000 to help the residents “prepare” to buy a mobile home park which the owners have stated they refuse to sell. I asked staff whether any of the work to be accomplished with these funds could be used if the owners decided to sell in a few years, and staff said, “not really”. I asked staff whether, given this, the they still recommended funding the grant under consideration, and staff answered “yes”. I asked what it would accomplish, and staff answered “community building”.
I could use some “community building” funds myself. Where do I apply?
[quote]Which non-profit organization gives money to members of the City Council?[/quote]Neighborhood Partners LLC is David Thompson and Luther “Luke” Watkins. [quote]I don’t think Luke and David generally donate money to candidates though they may have given to Harrington and Souza who were long time friends.[/quote] I don’t doubt you are right, suggesting the contributions were driven by personal friendship. (I, too, gave a little money to Stephen’s campaign.) However, in my opinion, once a member of the council takes any money from anyone who does business with the city, that person should recuse himself from voting on an issue involving his contributor. It has the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I could be wrong but I thought Neighborhood Partners is for profit.
[quote]I could be wrong but I thought Neighborhood Partners is for profit.
[/quote]Okay.
“Puzzled: If you re-read my post, note that I am questioning if that is “the reason.” My point is, while it is in my opinion improper for anyone on the council to take money from a group or an individual which does business with the city and then vote public funds to that group or individual, I don’t know if that is “the reason” the money was awarded in this case. It’s certainly possible there is another reason.”
Rich, I understand what you are saying now.
“However, in my opinion, once a member of the council takes any money from anyone who does business with the city, that person should recuse himself from voting on an issue involving his contributor. It has the appearance of a conflict of interest.”
You won’t get any argument from me there!
“But all this is moot if the owners refuse to sell. The city has now spent almost $100,000 to help the residents “prepare” to buy a mobile home park which the owners have stated they refuse to sell. I asked staff whether any of the work to be accomplished with these funds could be used if the owners decided to sell in a few years, and staff said, “not really”. I asked staff whether, given this, the they still recommended funding the grant under consideration, and staff answered “yes”. I asked what it would accomplish, and staff answered “community building”.”
And the million dollar question is what is “community building”? Is it worth $100,000 of the city’s money at a time of economic disaster, that is going straight to line the pockets of developer Neighborhood Partners? Why is staff supporting this? More importantly, why is the City Council supporting this? What a disgraceful waste of community redevelopment funds, especially at a time when redevelopment funding is probably going to be drastically cut.
This also has the smell of what happened w Leisureworld – an underhanded strongarm tactical move against the owner, assisted by Mr. Strongarm #1 – Steve Souza; and developed and facilitated in tandem by Mr. Strongarm #2 – David Thompson; Mr. Strongarm #3 – Luke Watkins.
Let’s ask some pertinent questions:
1) Is the Davis CC prepared to threaten the owner of Rancho Yolo with rent control?
2) To what lengths is the Davis CC prepared to go to assist Neighborhood Partners in muscling a sale from the owner?
3) Will the costs to live in Rancho Yolo to residents be less, if the sale goes through? Guaranteed to be less? Or will the costs actually be greater than they are now?
3.5) What have Neighborhood Partners promised the residents? The city?
4) What if the sale doesn’t go through? What costs of Neighborhood Partners are the residents responsible for? What has the city gotten for its $100,000 investment in “community building”.
5) What other entities have been the beneficiary of city “community building” funds? Or is Rancho Yolo the first? If the first, why only them?
6) Where is the def’n of “community building”? What exactly does it mean? What is its purpose/mission? How do city redevelopment funds fit into the def’n?
“The whole DACHA thing” is the situation where NP won a $331,000 judgment against DACHA for not honoring its commitments. The arbitrator repeatedly criticized the city for facilitating the situation where DACHA’s new board was trying to basically steal public housing money for themselves.
NP came out smelling like a rose, and the city affordable housing office and DACHA smelling like …
Some posters are still confused about the status of Neighborhood Partners. Neighborhood Partners is a “for profit” corporation, not a non-profit.
I have watched helplessly for the past two years while Elvia Garcia-Ayala attempted to instruct the Rancho Yolo Board on “community building”. Not only were her gentle suggestions ignored, she was openly insulted and accused of trying to “take over” the Board. NP with the enthusiastic cooperation of a board comprised of residents sworn to support NP, has now effectively eliminated any form of dissention. This is accomplished by a Newsletter that contains only carefully vitted NP information, and new By-laws that give the Board the right to kick any resident out of the Homeowners Association for “conduct detrimental to the objectives of the Association”. This is community building????
And after watching the Tuesday City Council meeting, I still have questions about why the city is involved in funding an issue that’s so controversial among the people effected by it.
I’m puzzled by why the city puts nearly $100,000. into this so called ‘Rancho Yolo project’. What is the benefit to the city and it’s residents to fund in today’s tight times this ‘what if the owners ever want to sell’ movement? The owners have said very emphatically they don’t intend to sell the Rancho Yolo property. City staff have recommended against funding and said that what money the city puts forth today may have no value to future actions by ND and the park board. What happens if they need more money again next year (third year in a row)? Does the city say no and lose the $100,000. given or do they continue this ‘bailout’ trend to save what’s already been lost? Is there any accountability to the city regarding where the money is going and how it’s being used? And why did it appear at the council meeting that Mayor Ruth Asmundson was so determined to push this grant through?
And why has there been no cost analysis of this prior to positioning to buy? What is the impact on Rancho Yolo residents if it’s determined that assuming a purchase debt in addition to all upkeep and upgrade to an aging park is prohibitively expensive for many but not all? What happens if such a move then devalues the properties held by current residents and threatens their homes because it’s being pushed by NP who won’t have to pay for it and some residents who can perhaps afford it? They don’t really know yet!!
It was stated by one speaker at the meeting Tuesday that the many park residents who didn’t vote on this issue are assumed to have supported it. Since when did refusing to vote on an issue mean support for it? Refusing to vote is not a wise decision when there’s so much at stake but neither can it be viewed as de facto support when people don’t vote. It was clear from Tuesday evening’s meeting that there is concern and dissent among park residents, even fear of reprisal.
And throughout all this, who benefits financially from this ‘study’ of how the association can buy that which is not for sale? Who’s getting paid while all this ‘studying’ is going on? The answer to both questions is Neighborhood Partners. They’re the ones perpetuating the myth that the park association should position themselves to buy if and when the park ever becomes available. NP creates a scenario – residents should pursue buying the park and hire us to help. And they get the city and some RY park residents to buy into it. Then NP and the RY Association Board (yes, the Board supports this, not all association members!) go about setting up a movement to develop fund sources to buy something that isn’t for sale.
Is it even beneficial for residents to purchase the property? Who knows? No one has done a cost analysis. NP doesn’t care, they’re getting paid. Has the RY Board even done the math yet? They’re supposed to represent the best interests of all the park residents.
Give me a break! This whole issue is strange.
I suspect the Ranch Yolo residents are in for a rough ride – at the expense of NPs. I suspect the city of Davis was taken for a ride by NPs.
Residents should just stay calm and keep a low profile on this issue. Even NP can’t buy something that isn’t for sale.
“”The whole DACHA thing” is the situation where NP won a $331,000 judgment against DACHA for not honoring its commitments. The arbitrator repeatedly criticized the city for facilitating the situation where DACHA’s new board was trying to basically steal public housing money for themselves.
NP came out smelling like a rose, and the city affordable housing office and DACHA smelling like …”
Or NP engineered the entire mess to their advantage, bc they are slick businesmen, who know better how to work the system. Perhaps DACHA was misled, much as Rancho Yolo and the city are being misled now?
CON ARTIST – slick operator
who gai[N]s others’ confidence
to [P]erpetrate a swindle.
This is becoming libelous. NP is not a public figure at this time, so we need to back off this line.
“This is accomplished by a Newsletter that contains only carefully vetted NP information, and new By-laws that give the Board the right to kick any resident out of the Homeowners Association for “conduct detrimental to the objectives of the Association”. This is community building????”
No, but it is one of the dangers of having a HOA, that may insert such nonspecific and threatening language into its By-laws. Such verbiage is nothing more than an attempt to bully residents into voluntary compliance with the HOA Board’s will (in this case Neighborhood Partners bidding). Those sorts of provisions can be removed, if the majority of the homeowners want it. But very often such language results in the tyranny of the few over the many – many who live in fear of eviction/fines. A HOA is not a democracy, and Rancho Yolo residents are beginning to discover that harsh reality.
“Residents should just stay calm and keep a low profile on this issue. Even NP can’t buy something that isn’t for sale.”
It happened in Leisureworld in Woodland. The owner got fed up with being harassed by NP, and the Woodland CC who backed NP. The same scenario is playing out here.
“Is it even beneficial for residents to purchase the property? Who knows? No one has done a cost analysis. NP doesn’t care, they’re getting paid. Has the RY Board even done the math yet? They’re supposed to represent the best interests of all the park residents.”
The irony here is that in the case of the development of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle here in Davis, that David Thompson was also involved with, Jerilyn Cochran of City Staff let slip it was Neighborhood Partners that did the cost analysis of whether the project was viable or not. Imagine, it was the developer (and not the city), who determined whether the project was economically feasible or not! Talk about a conflict of interest! As it turned out, ERC wasn’t viable as originally envisioned – a mixed income senior facility. It is virtually a low income institution now, but only w huge assistance from the city to dig it out of the financial hole it fell into.
Same scenario played out – where the city had already put up so much money and invested so much time in the project, the city did not feel it could abandon the situation. In consequence, the city continued to shovel money to Neighborhood Partners, just as is happening w Rancho Yolo. Fortunately, ERC has survived all the turmoil, but at what cost to the city?
Secondly, the Rancho Yolo HOA Board is required to do its due diligence as required under the law, and is liable if it doesn’t. DACHA found this out to its cost. It looks like the Rancho Yolo HOA Board may be headed in the same direction…
“This is becoming libelous. NP is not a public figure at this time, so we need to back off this line.”
Just for the record: Libel is a type of defamation. Generally written opinion on a matter of public concern is not defamatory unless it appears to be based on specific facts, and an express allegation of those facts would be defamatory. Also the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the falsity of the statement and specific damage to reputation. Under NY Times v Sullivan, malice must be proved in the case of public figures. A person becomes a public figure by voluntarily injecting himself into the particular public controversy (which David Thompson of Neighborhood Partners has done many times on behalf of Rancho Yolo at City Council meetings).
I very much doubt there is any libel going on here. However, it is always better to keep the discourse civil, and argue from logic.
Let’s see If I can understand this. The City is reportedly cash-starved and “tightening its belt (fiscally)” to reduce expenditures.
BUT, the Council has given even more money (bringing the total to ~ 100K) to a small group of people to “buy” Rancho Yolo, even though the current property owners have insisted repeatedly that they do not intend to sell.
To ?????: You should read the DACHA arbitration decision. I think that someone should send it to the Grand Jury. Also, DACHA is being sued by a non-profit housing co-op for their conduct towards stealing those affordable housing dollars and homes for themselves.
DPD: when are you going to do the cover to cover story on DACHA and city staff’s conduct?
Also, why did the CC vote to loan DACHA millions after staff and the CC were well aware of the DACHA issues, and why was some of that public money allowed by city staff to be spent to each member’s individual benefit?
Why didnt the City Attorney do her job and keep staff and the CC from giving away public resources?
DPD: do the story.
Yolo Grand Jury: subpoena the records. You will have a first class issue to work on.
“You should read the DACHA arbitration decision.”
Problem is that arbitrators are not always as impartial as they are supposed to be, especially if the attorney for one side is pals with the arbitrator. It happens far too often. Furthermore, in arbitration, the win usually goes to the side that has more funds to hire a better lawyer. Justice is not always meted out in arbitration or the courtroom as it should be. Look at the OJ Simpson or Rodney King case.
However, the issue of DACHA is irrelevant to the Rancho Yolo debacle. As Rick E. said: “BUT, the Council has given even more money (bringing the total to ~ 100K) to a small group of people to “buy” Rancho Yolo, even though the current property owners have insisted repeatedly that they do not intend to sell.”
“Why didnt the City Attorney do her job and keep staff and the CC from giving away public resources?”
The same question should be asked of the funds to Rancho Yolo that is going to line the pockets of NPs. Funny how NPs seems to wind up making money out of every controversy it creates?
The city gave $4 MILLION to DACHA and they have given $40,000 (after $50,000) to RYCA some of which will go to NP. Those really aren’t comparable figures.
West Davis:
After graduating from UCD and residing in Davis for over 25 years, I was happy to recommend Rancho Yolo Mobile Home Park to my parents when they were ready to retire. The rent is reasonable; comfortable homes; tree-lined streets in the park; beautiful club house; friendly, caring neighbors; social events on a regular basis; close to shopping; good medical care in Davis; local transportation for handicapped and elderly; good landlord; excellent management.
What more could they want? I’ll tell you what….what any of us want….secure in the knowledge that they can stay in their own home; that they will be able to live in Rancho Yolo with reasonable rents. If Rancho Yolo is ever sold to a new owner, the new owner will be hit with a very big increase in property taxes over what the current owner is paying….this big increase will immediately show up in monthly rent bills. HOWEVER, if the residents are fortunate enough to be able to buy the park (through loans and grants), the tax rate will stay at the rate the current owner is paying. A big difference for the homeowners in the park.
Sure, the rents might not go down with resident-owned…..BUT they won’t be raised to cover exorbitant property taxes. Another point…..the Rancho homeowners have hired a consultant to help them prepare to locate financing for their venture. They have confidence in their choice; I’m sorry, but I believe any other consultant they might have hired right now would be fair game to be criticized, just because a few people in the park are opposed to the purchase. I would suggest they leave Neighborhood Partners alone…..they are doing a good job for the seniors in the park.
“The city gave $4 MILLION to DACHA and they have given $40,000 (after $50,000) to RYCA some of which will go to NP. Those really aren’t comparable figures.”
The city has given nearly $100,000 to this Racho Yolo “venture”. Neighborhood Partners created the “issue” of the “need to be ready to buy the park just in case” that generated money for them. I find that troubling. What are you trying to say here, that a little graft is OK, but big graft is not?
West Davis: “Sure, the rents might not go down with resident-owned…..BUT they won’t be raised to cover exorbitant property taxes. Another point…..the Rancho homeowners have hired a consultant to help them prepare to locate financing for their venture. They have confidence in their choice”
Apparently not all folks in Rancho Yolo have confidence in the consultants the HOA Board hired. Many have grown disenchanted with NPs. Nor has there been any kind of real INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS. As one commenter has noted: “And why has there been no cost analysis of this prior to positioning to buy? What is the impact on Rancho Yolo residents if it’s determined that assuming a purchase debt in addition to all upkeep and upgrade to an aging park is prohibitively expensive for many but not all? What happens if such a move then devalues the properties held by current residents and threatens their homes because it’s being pushed by NP who won’t have to pay for it and some residents who can perhaps afford it? They don’t really know yet!!”
Nor have you addressed the very important issue that the owner has stated emphatically he does not want to sell the park, period. Yet the city is still paying NPs to pursue the issue of buying the park from an owner unwilling to sell. This seems a collosal waste of money, especially in light of the fact that the state is going to cut redevelopment funding to the cities.
“Sure, the rents might not go down with resident-owned…..BUT they won’t be raised to cover exorbitant property taxes.”
How are rents going to be raised to cover exorbitant property taxes if the owner is not going to sell? Why would he want to sell. He is making megabucks collecting rents from nearly 300 residents every month, and would not want to sell anytime soon now that the housing market is down. Your logic escapes me here…or is this the “line” Neighborhood Parners has fed you?
I am truly amazed at all the writings of people who know nothing about the purchase program of Rancho Yolo. Have you ever attended a general meeting or board meeting or workshop at Rancho Yolo in regards to the park purchase?By Are you aware of the folks who donate time and money towards working on this goal. Are you aware NP did not call us we called them. Are you aware we are not stupid people and have looked into all this quite throughly. Can we wait until the owner decides to sell to find the funding and educate the over 300 seniors in the park? I say a big thank you to the Council and the city for helping all these seniors to try and do something about this. Won’t these people writing against the program feel bad when all these seniors are looking for a place to live because they have been priced out of their homes. Let us keep spending money in Davis on other things and not the seniors. I sincerely hope all you folks against us will remember someday you will be a senior. By the way I didn’t see any place where the owner said he would never sell.
To Amazed:
You are correct…..when I read your message, I went back through posts and found that Dave Greenwald reported that (per Sue Greenwald’s input at the council meeting) the following was in the Rancho Yolo owners’ letter:
“To be perfectly clear the park is not for sale. The owner will not consider offers of purchase unless and until the owner decides to sell the park.” Per that verbiage, the owner has not ruled out someday selling the park.
To Amazed: As for who’s donated money to this non-project? I’m aware of the $93,900. the city has donated toward working on this goal. And what are you educating the seniors in the park on? On why you want them to vote for this even though there is no information on whether or not it’s a good idea?
The greatest likelihood that they’ll be priced out of their homes is if they assume a buyout of the property and all that goes with it. Have you done the math? How much will it cost current residents? You don’t even know because the property has no sale price associated with it. You have no idea what the property value would be if they ever did want to sell but you’re sure residents should want to buy it. Cost that out for them at $400. a month, if you can.
The owner hasn’t ruled out ‘someday’? Spend $93,900. of city money now ($50,000. last year, $43,900. this year) on NP consultant fees, attorney fees, and ‘senior education’ just in case? And if 10 years from now, they entertain an offer to buy, the cost analysis will have to be done all over again, and the numbers will be higher, and the park infrastructure will be older. Where will the money come from for a new study? The city?
Amazed, you should say a big ‘thank you’ to the city council, but not the city staff who have twice recommended against funding this. So should David Thompson say thank you. What a ‘cash cow’ the city has become! We must have more money than anyone knew! I bet this issue will be resurrected at election time because I, for one, am angry about the council’s cavalier handling of funds managed by the city. What happened to the first $50,00. Is there any accountability? Can we see the ledger sheet for where the money has gone so far?
This is going to cause great concern for the Cali family as this issue continues to brew. Is that the object?
And to West Davis: Your statement ‘Per that verbiage the owner has not ruled out someday selling the park.’ is a peculiar interpretation given by a Council member of the Cali family’s categorical denial, in two separate letters, of in any interest in selling. As for ‘getting ready to buy, in case’, what I’ve said above applies to the ‘someday’ fantasy.
“Have you ever attended a general meeting or board meeting or workshop at Rancho Yolo in regards to the park purchase?”
Yes, I have. And I was disheartened by the bullying by NPs/others residents in the park that I saw, against anyone who was not for purchase of the park or even dared to raise a question about the purchase of the park. Those doing the bullying should be ashamed of themselves. RY was once a nice friendly park, that has now become disharmonious and bitterly divided on this issue, a division financially capitalized on by NPs.
“Can we wait until the owner decides to sell to find the funding and educate the over 300 seniors in the park?”
Can the city afford to fork over $40,000 + a year, year after year? This whole scenario has become a cash cow for NPs, at a time when the city can ill afford it.
“By the way I didn’t see any place where the owner said he would never sell.”
What part of “To be perfectly clear the park is not for sale.” do you not understand? “The owner will not consider offers of purchase unless and until the owner decides to sell the park.” I read this to mean “I will not be bullied into selling the park until I am darn good and ready to do so. And the current residents nor the strongarm antics of NPs is going to make me do anything I don’t want to do.!”
“Are you aware we are not stupid people and have looked into all this quite throughly.”
1) Then where is the INDEPENDENT feasibility analysis? Have you shared it with ALL RY residents or the city, bc no one has any evidence of such a study?
2) Why are you continuing to pursue the issue, when the owner has told you in no uncertain terms the park is not for sale? Just bc you want this to happen? Even if the owner is unwilling?
3) How much do you want the city to continue to funnel into this “dubious” (at best) project? When is enough enough? $200,000, $400,000, $600,000, a million?
NPs will be perfectly willing to keep RY residents on the hook for a hopeless project so long as the city is willing to continue forking over the money. Bet if the city stopped shoveling over funding, NP would disappear in a hearbeat, leaving RY residents in the dust, without so much as a “by your leave”.
“Can we wait until the owner decides to sell to find the funding and educate the over 300 seniors in the park?”
Educate RY residents in what? How to bully into silence RY residents who do not want to buy the park or who raise questions? How to bully an unwilling owner into submission to sell? How to wrangle the city out of precious public funds to funnel to NPs, so NPs can twist the arm of an unwilling owner? Do you really consider this “community building”? Do you really think the city is going to keep funneling money to NPs every year indefinitely? NP is hoping so.
“I say a big thank you to the Council and the city for helping all these seniors to try and do something about this.”
Sure you do, bc the money is not coming out of your pocket. But what about projects that go unfunded, bc NP is sucking up redevelopment funds that could have gone for more worthwhile endeavors, as opposed to a pipe dream that is not likely to materialize, and may not be benficial to residents ecomomically even if it did materialize?
“Won’t these people writing against the program feel bad when all these seniors are looking for a place to live because they have been priced out of their homes.”
Won’t you feel bad when all those seniors in RY regret having gone co-op, bc they are paying more than they would if things had been allowed to remain the way they are? Won’t you feel bad when certain lower income seniors are displaced from RY bc they cannot afford the hefty fees/buyout costs associated w the park going co-op?
You must be a resident of Rancho Yolo if you have been to our meetings. Our sign in sheets have only shown residents, your name has not been on them as someone not living here.
Rancho Yolo has the friendliest people I have met anywhere I have lived. And they get along just fine except for the few who are against all this and they have shut out some of the best friends they will ever have because they are for this.
It sounds to me like you do not like NP and you are taking it out on anyone who works with them including us.
I’m sorry but this is the end of your statements for me, I have a life and it doesn’t have time to play your games.
“Rancho Yolo has the friendliest people I have met anywhere I have lived. And they get along just fine except for the few who are against all this and they have shut out some of the best friends they will ever have because they are for this.”
Read what you just wrote: “they get along just fine except for the few who are against all this”. That says it all – we all get along unless you don’t agree with us. Congrats – you just made my point for me!
Yes, Rancho Yolo was a friendly place until a few people became determined that the park will be purchased no matter what.
NP did a feasibility study, at taxpayer expense, and it shows rents going UP if the park is purchased by residents.
The board president attached a letter to the study which states “the materials we have provided are a range of estimates, guess-timates and ASSUMPTIONS.” After 3 years of consulting, that’s NP best effort?
The board hasn’t done any due diligence, but, in fairness, the board wasn’t legally elected. They were vetted by NP and are the few die-hard believers who follow NP and refuse to be swayed by facts or reality.
One would expect the city council and city attorney to provide a dose of reality, but that didn’t happen with DACHA either.
Rancho Resident: Not Board Member
I have read all the Blogs and appreciate all the thought that went into each one. But let me speak up as just a park resident. I have taken the time to check into many of the details that seem to be ‘choking up’ certain residents (a very small minority of residents, I might add). There is not enough space here to address all issues brought up, but here are a few:
(1) Rancho Yolo IS a very friendly place; please do not let anyone tell you otherwise. HOWEVER, if you stop and think about it…smiles beget smiles. Frowns beget frowns! A majority of the residents are smiling about the prospect of a resident-owned park. So which group is frowning?????
(2) The same people who are objecting so vociferously through these blogs, and elsewhere, to the park purchase as a co-op have stated that they, too, would like to see the park purchased…..through condo-ization. Do the Calis know that these people have their own agenda in this dispute? Do you people reading these blogs know that condo-ization means purchasing the land under the homes? How many people in Rancho Yolo could afford the $100,000 to $150,000 to purchase that little piece of land?
(3) A feasibility study was indeed completed….the issue brought up here in a blog was that park rents would be raised. Funny, according to the same study, my rent would go down!
(4) Someone said on here that the board was not legally elected. I didn’t have to do any research on that one. I beg to differ on that point. I voted (in an election open to all members) and was present at the club house when the ballots were counted. Each individual on the board (directors and officers) was on the ballot, and was legally voted in.
(5) Numerous references have been made to DACHA. I located a Davis Enterprise article (July 15, 2009) that disclosed that NP was awarded damages from Dacha for breach of contract by a new board of directors at Dacha. The article said that Kenneth Malovos of the Sacramento Superior Court stated that when Dacha replaced their old board of directors, the new board “operated on the mistaken and novel notion that it could simply undo actions taken by a previous board”. Looks to me as though NP only collected what was legally due them.
(6) The blog also stated that folks in our park are not “swayed by facts or reality” Not true….residents here are not swayed by the lies and half truths presented by the “naysayers”. We accept, and appreciate, facts and reality. Thank you all for listening to my ramblings.
There are many misconceptions regarding park purchase, which is surprising after 2+ years of consultation and salesmanship by NP, paid for by the city. Some residents and board members still believe they would end up owning their own lot, or would be part owners of the park.
A majority of residents don’t favor purchase. Most residents don’t vote, don’t go to meetings, they just hope this will all go away.
Who is proposing condo-ization? This is a straw man David sets up now and again to create diversion from the problems inherent in his co-op scheme.
Anyone who paid attention to board elections knows in the last 2 board elections names were added AFTER the close of nominations. And with David overseeing elections and ballots at city/taxpayer expense, secret voting ended. The board president recently said they couldn’t figure out how to conduct secret ballot elections! Now residents can’t be on the board unless they agree to sign the Director’s Pledge which requires they support NP and park purchase and vote for whatever they’re told to vote for.
THE BOARD HAS NOT BEEN LEGALLY ELECTED UNDER THE BYLAWS. And what thinking person would want to be on a board that doesn’t allow discussion and a variety of opinions. A board required to swear allegiance to NP.
As to DACHA, the sales materials were very misleading, no wonder co-op shareholders were confused. David recently said NP won “because we had a better attorney”. And NP actually only got a little over half of what they said they were owed. Apparently they had demanded hundreds of thousands they weren’t even entitled to.
Most of the RYCA board forget NP wants to make a million dollar sales commission here.
If there are ever concerns about illegal manuevering by a HOA Board, that are not in keeping w HOA By-laws, please visit the website of the Center for CA HOA Law at http://www.calhomelaw.org. Matters such as these can be addressed through various mechanisms, including small claims court.
To eyes open I would like to ask a few questions. Your latest report was so un-believeable that I have to ask these questions and I hope you will try and answer them honestly.
1. Do you live in Rancho Yolo.
2. Do you want to see the park purchase by the residents ever happen?
3. How would you suggest going about this?
4. If it was done the way you would suggest would you help?
5. If the Cali family said “yes it is for sale” would you be a part of it?
6.Do you have a suggestion of anyone (consultant, Real Estate Broker, Lawyer) who could help make this happen?
7. Are you involved in any programs in Rancho Yolo and if so please tell us which ones.
Please give your ideas on how to go about this, we really are listening and this is your chance.
1. “Do you live in Rancho Yolo.”
What relevance does that have to the discussion? The $40,000 paid to NP was taxpayer money, that could have been spent in more productive ways.
2. “Do you want to see the park purchase by the residents ever happen?”
Not if it is to the residents’ disadvantage.
3. How would you suggest going about this?
I think more work needed to have been done, BY AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT NOT CONNECTED IN ANY WAY TO NP, to determine if buying the park would be advantageous to residents. But since the current owners have no intention of selling, it is a moot point.
4. If it was done the way you would suggest would you help?
This question is pointless, in light of the above answers. The owner has no intention of selling. I would not be willing to “help” NP bully the owner into submission.
5. If the Cali family said “yes it is for sale” would you be a part of it?
Not if it is not to the advantage of current residents. If it was to their advantage, perhaps yes, if it was fiscally sound for the city and NP charged reasonable fees. The answers to both those questions are highly debatable. However, the Cali family has given an unequivical “no” to selling the property. What part of “no” do you not understand?
6.Do you have a suggestion of anyone (consultant, Real Estate Broker, Lawyer) who could help make this happen?
Who, WITH ANY ETHICAL INTEGRITY, would lead residents to believe they can buy the park, when the owner has said emphatically “NO SALE”.
7. Are you involved in any programs in Rancho Yolo and if so please tell us which ones.
Now what in God’s name does that have to do w anything? What, I can’t weigh in on this issue unless I am a Rancho Yolo resident, even tho my tax dollars are being expended for this project?
Just wanted to see if you would be honest about anything, guess not!
Has this issue gone away or is it lurking somewhere quietly simmering?