This is another example of Councilmember Stephen Souza coming up with a clever idea during the council meeting but not having throught through the implementation of the process. The form and structure of the committee changed drastically throughout the process, but the goal was for the committee to make a recommendation to the City Council by the end of 2009. To do that, it was scheduled to meet nine times between July 30 and November 19.
Now it is completely unclear as to what will be happening. In an email sent on July 29 from City of Davis Planner Bob Wolcott more answers were raised than were answered:
“Last night, City Council confirmed “delaying initiation” of the Committee. Therefore, no meetings are scheduled.
Staff intends to continue to work on the project, with completion by the end of the year per Council’s direction. Prior to taking the final product to Council, we expect to go to meetings of the Senior Citizens Commission, Social Services Commission and Planning Commission. At some “mid step”, we will further explore the idea of taking policy options (when they are identified) to a joint meeting of the Senior Citizens Commission / Planning Commission where public comments could be received.”
What this seems to suggest is that the city has forgone the step of public input and instead will have staff study the issue and then possibly take it to the commissions for input.
It is unclear whether this is a positive or negative occurrence but it does seem clear that the idea for having a community based input and discussion, flawed as it was from the start, with the deck stacked as it was from the start, is dead. The timeline always seemed unworkable given the reality of producing a report on such a topic in such a limited amount of time.
Instead now it appears staff will study the issue, maybe take it to some of the commissions, and then present their findings to council. In the meantime it appears by January that we will see the introduction of the new Covell Village project which will feature a large senior housing complex.
Perhaps this is a recognition of the reality that they simply could not complete the task that was assigned to them in the time allotted. The more cynical view might be that they recognized that they could not stack the results of the committee and therefore had to opt for another approach. Really, who knows.
What does seem clear is that we will see another attempt to pass a form of Covell Village. It is clear that preserving Measure J will be a priority for next spring. While the council was unanimous in placing it back on the ballot, there seems to be a strong effort underway to either kill or water it down.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
DPD
What is your rationale for your last sentence?
At the last Planning Commission meeting, where they took up the issue of the business park exemption from Measure J, one of the commissioners kept asking about putting multiple versions of J on the June ballot to give the voters a “choice”. I am afraid that there will definitely be attempts to sabotage Measure J in some way.
SODA’ite: What I’m hearing from people in the know.
CITY STAFF IS CONTROLLING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
1) City staff has clearly told developers they may not come to commissions to discuss ideas for a proposed project. This cuts off public discourse. Developers may learn what citizens want, and citizens may learn what the developers have in mind, if allowed to come before commissions. City staff clearly does not want any public discussion going on that it cannot run through its own filter.
2) Despite HESC’s work to have an orderly list of green, yellow and red light sights, it is being completely ignored by developers and city staff. HESC may have just as well not bothered with all their work.
3) City staff has now cut out public participation in the senior housing issue for all intents and purposes. Any commission input will be filtered through city staff, and the final report will not necessarily reflect anything but city staff’s opinion.
4) Souza’s idea was extremely flawed from the beginning, and not workable. But then Souza has the habit of proposing all sorts of nonsense to cover the fact that he is a shill for developers. Had he been up front about wanting citizen input about senior housing, he would not have stacked the deck, nor insisted on such an unreasonable time frame.
5)Why is city staff so afraid to do an independent citizen survey?
6) IS CITY STAFF GOING TO USE THE SENIOR HOUSING GUIDELINES IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS? Guidelines promolgated using input from commissions, the public, developers? Guidelines that have not been officially vetted by the City Council and formally adopted by them. Why? Because city staff has not done so, even though the Senior Citizens Commission (mainly) and Social Services Commission/ADA Subcommittee have worked tirelessly to complete these guidelines.
One has to wonder if city staff decided they didn’t like the make-up of the Senior Housing Strategy Committee, because they did not believe the results from the chosen committee would have fit in with their foregone conclusions?
I have zero interest in our community building a large development for seniors only. Zero.
[quote]What Is Bothering Me said . . .
One has to wonder if city staff decided they didn’t like the make-up of the Senior Housing Strategy Committee, because they did not believe the results from the chosen committee would have fit in with their foregone conclusions?[/quote]
Unfortunately at this juncture we can only speculate. I was excited about the prospects of serving on the committee with the other 8 members, who were:
Shula Blumenthal (City Senior Citizens Commission)
Ananya Choudhuri (City Planning Commission)
Greg Clumpner (City Planning Commission)
Romeo Favreau (City Senior Citizens Commission)
? (City Social Services Commission)To be appointed July 20
? (City Social Services Commission)To be appointed July 20
Elaine Roberts Musser (Yolo County Commission on Aging and Adult Services)
Don Villarejo (Choices for Healthy Aging, Davis)
Matt Williams (Yolo County Health Council)
I thought we could accomplish quite a lot between now and January if we got after it.
It seems city staff has a job security conflict to promote development. Comments?
Is there no quasi binding to the housing element steering committee list of properties? Reminds me of CVillage when multiple commissions’ recomendations were ignored.
I don’t understand the need for a commission. Can’t the people listed above just meet on their own time and discuss issues of mutual concern?
What the city really needs is a youth commission. Apparently, the closure of the teen center to make room for the Bicycle museum was a surprise for the kids in town. So much for involving stakeholders in the discussion. Apparently it doesn’t really matter when it’s only kids that are affected. Imagine if the senior center were closed instead. Oh, the outrage!
[quote]Apparently, the closure of the teen center to make room for the Bicycle museum was a surprise for the kids in town. [/quote]I think most teens in Davis would be surprised to hear that we had an official teen center.
“I was excited about the prospects of serving on the committee with the other 8 members.”
So was I Matt.
“I think most teens in Davis would be surprised to hear that we had an official teen center.”
Typical adult view. This illustrates perfectly why we need a Youth Commission.
Don’t denigrate the teens. They know lots of things you don’t know. They can do things with technology most adults don’t even know are possible. The loss of the Teen Center was shocking and disappointing to me. I guess the teens can go hang out by the train tracks or someplace else. I haven’t seen anything about utilization of the teen center but I have seen kids there where they are safe and supervised. While I think a Bike Museum is a cool thing to have and will be some sort of tourism draw I don’t like turning kids out onto the streets.
My son and his friends made extensive use of the teen center. This is a disappointing loss, and seems like a misplaced priority.
“…..One has to wonder if city staff decided they didn’t like the make-up of the Senior Housing Strategy Committee, because they did not believe the results from the chosen committee would have fit in with their foregone conclusions?……
Could CHA Be Wondering Also!?!
There was a concerted effort by members of a pro-development entity called Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) to disqualify me, as a member of the Senior Citizens Commission, from being considered for the Senior Housing Strategy Committee, should I have chosen to serve. A June 09, 2009 letter sent by a representative of CHA to the City Council, City Staff, and the Senior Citizens Commission objected to a specific comment I made as a private citizen at the June 2, 2009 Davis City Council meeting about the senior-specific housing project proposed for the former Covell Village site. My comment was, “…If you have a house in Davis and you want to move somewhere else, sell it and move somewhere else*.” I assume everyone understands that this statement certainly includes “within Davis”. In fact, the proven method for many families to move within Davis is to downsize from a larger, more expensive home to a smaller, more modest home after the children have matured and moved out. I understand that this incident has been highlighted by the Davis Vanguard in a June 11, 2009 article titled, “Covell Village Redux Supporters Play Hardball.”
Immediately prior to the Senior Citizens Commission meeting scheduled for July 8, 2009, CHA upped the ante. On July 7, 2009, twelve members of CHA sent a signed letter to the Chairwoman of the Senior Citizens Commission along with electronic copies of the letter to all members of the Commission, the City Council, and other addressees. This letter reiterated the specific concern of the previous CHA letter along with the intimation that I should not be considered for the Senior Housing Strategy Committee because I could not “fairly evaluate all types of housing for seniors”. If any one of these twelve members of CHA had taken the time to talk to me face to face, they might have had a different perspective. They would have learned that as a former Naval Officer, a Ph.D. trained scientific professional, Department of Water Resources supervisor, and as a husband and father, I have learned to be a strong advocate for my position, but also to fairly evaluate all sides of major issues before I make an informed decision. I intend to continue to do so.
In the end, I decided not to participate on the Senior Housing Strategy Committee for personal reasons. I could not make the time commitment over the fall for an extensive, labor intensive project with a rigid end of the year deadline that could have negatively impacted the upcoming Holiday season for me and my family.
__________
*During the public comment period at the meeting, I spoke as a member of the public, and not as a member of the Senior Citizen’s Commission. After the meeting, I was interviewed by Ms. Crystal Lee of the Davis Enterprise, and I made it clear to her that I was presenting my personal perspective only, and was not speaking for the Commission. As I remember, I indicated that most senior citizens within Davis were diverse in lifestyles, perspectives, and choices in housing, and that developers in general were not showing respect for the diversity of seniors as a group by offering them a restricted choice of housing. I also advocated for the incorporation of Universal Design principles during home construction within the City of Davis. This would allow a home to “age in place” (subsequently be modified in an efficient and economical manner as needed) as the owner also ages in place. If future developments within Davis incorporate Universal Design principles, then seniors would have a more diverse choice of housing options within Davis, and would have an increased chance to continue to reside within Davis There would also be a reduced demand for senior specific housing.
Don Shor: “My son and his friends made extensive use of the teen center. This is a disappointing loss, and seems like a misplaced priority.”
Don, I am in absolute agreement with you. I certainly would be strongly in favor of a Youth Commission. If we have commissions for trees, bikes, and seniors, it would seem to me there should absolutely be one dedicated to concerns about issues related to our young people. Furthermore, this town economically thrives because of UCD students. Young people of all ages need some sort of independent representation in this town, since our future is dependent on our youth of today.
Steve Hayes: “There was a concerted effort by members of a pro-development entity called Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) to disqualify me, as a member of the Senior Citizens Commission, from being considered for the Senior Housing Strategy Committee, should I have chosen to serve.”
This was a shameful and unethical episode, which greatly angered me. It has been an honor and privilege to work with you, Steve, on the Davis Senior Citizens Commission. As its Chairperson, I strongly castigated the letter writers during our commission’s public comment period. It was stated by me emphatically that personal attacks of the sort in that letter are unacceptable in public discourse before a commission. Every member of our commission voluntarily takes the time out of his/her busy schedule to participate in local governance, and should be commended for doing so.
There are many varying viewpoints on a number of senior issues by each and every member of our commission, and these different pespectives need to be respected. No one should be purposely villified to encourage disqualification from serving on a proposed task force. This is especially true when done because a particular group is trying to finesse/control who is chosen to be a member of some select committee, i.e. attempting to “stack the deck” in their favor.
Dirty tactics like these are unseemly, dishonest, unethical, uncivil, and at one time were used to try and destroy the Davis Senior Citizens Commission itself. Such underhanded techniques were not successful then, and are not likely to be in the future. Citizens are more attuned to what is going on, thanks to the Davis Vanguard.
I strongly encourage citizens to become involved in local governance. One of the best ways to do that is come before the appropriate commission, and let us hear your concerns. You will be greeted with respect, and listened to with great interest. However, commissioners expect the same ground rules to apply. Commissioners have the right to speak their mind, and be listened to and treated in a respectful manner as well.