I read the op-ed in the Enterprise written by Robert Chason a few days ago entitled “Political Ills Found Locally, Too” and I came away completely perplexed by its purpose. Was he trying to criticize local government? Was he resigning as a paid consultant to the Covell Village developers John Whitcombe and Bill Streng? Was he decrying the problems of local governance?
Covell Village is expected to return to the Davis radar as the developers are revamping a proposal for an 800-unit, Sun City-style, retirement community on the property whose last project was handily defeated by the Davis voters back in 2005.
Given some of the implications here, I believe it is important to attempt to understand the point of Dr. Chason’s piece. Dr. Chason at the bottom is described as a long Davis resident who has retired as the chief operating officer at the UCD Medical Center in Sacramento. For the last two years he worked as a paid consultant with John Whitcome and Bill Streng, where he claims he was
“offering advice and expertise regarding senior health care strategies and new concepts for more efficient access to providers.”
He then describes his work:
“Much of my work has been devoted to creating more collaborative efforts among health care providers in Davis and building innovative, state-of- the-art systems for delivering more cost-effective care. This I have done with great enthusiasm and the belief that we might create a new model for health care, one that could be emulated by other communities attempting to address the issues of an aging population.”
But then he describes himself as becoming disillusioned with politics at all levels of government.
“Over the course of this past year I have become increasingly disillusioned with politics and political practices at all levels of government, particularly as they pertain to health care reform. We have all witnessed the gradual transmogrification of pending federal health care legislation that now bears little resemblance to legislation, which, at its inception, seemed far more likely to address many of the fundamental issues driving the high cost of care in this country.
What I find most troubling is that we no longer appear capable as a nation of having rational discourse on any matters in which people have strongly held opinions. I have never minded losing a debate in which all points of view have been fairly presented and given reasonable consideration, but such common courtesies are now more often the exception rather than the rule.”
Clearly one part of the point he is raising is that we cannot have rational discourse on matters where people have strongly held opinions. Does this have implications for why he resigned? I will get back to this point shortly.
He continues:
“My wife, Wendy, and I have given generously as I know many people in Davis have, of our time and personal resources to political campaigns, and more recently well intended efforts to sustain rather than enhance public schools and other important programs and activities that have long been the hallmark of our community. In return, we have been rewarded with higher taxes and fees, also intended as stop-gap measures to sustain the status quo rather than attacking the more difficult causes of our current financial crises.”
His last sentence is not that clear. Are we talking about local or national when he mentions higher taxes and fees that are stop-gap measures? Is he talking about the fiscal crisis in Davis and the attempts to raise taxes in order to cover up for post unsustainable practices or is he talking about the national fiscal crisis?
The discussion quickly moves into the local realm:
“My consulting also has given me reason to attend a number of City Council and commission meetings where the issue of senior housing has been discussed. I have not been surprised to learn that many of the ills afflicting government at higher levels are just as apparent here, but often more virulent than I would have imagined.”
Now perhaps he is referring to what happened last week? However, he speaks in the context of the issue of senior housing and I do not recall such an uncivil exchange in the discussions on senior housing. Perhaps I am mistaken here, perhaps he should have elaborated rather than starting at such a broad and general level talking about the federal government.
He continues:
“I have witnessed, first-hand, distortions of truth and fact, personal attacks on people offering alternative points of view, and persistent efforts to stifle debate and rational discussion on this issue. I believe, as I am certain many of you do, that often individuals whom we have elected to represent our interests are far more concerned with being re-elected than they are with making good decisions, especially when those decisions might be the least bit controversial.”
This would appear to be the crux of his point, but he is so general, that we are left to wonder as to what he is actually getting at. Which individuals is he referring to? Which side of the debate is he concerned about? People who are more concerned about being re-elected on our council? I can make a lot of criticisms of council, but not this one. Looking at council there may be one person on the current council who will run for reelection and it is doubtful that that serves as her motivation for opposing development at Covell Village.
He does manage to continue:
“I have decided to suspend my role as a consultant effective Jan. 1, believing I can be far more effective as an ordinary citizen supporting programs and activities that I think may be beneficial to this community, and helping to ensure that good, innovative ideas are properly debated.”
I still do not understand the point here, he believes that he was ineffective as a paid consultant to Whitcombe and Streng but will be more effective as a private citizens who used to be a paid consultant to Whitcombe and Streng? I would like to understand why he believes he is ineffective as a consultant and why he would be more effective as a private citizen.
He concludes:
“I plan to remain active as a member of Choices for Healthy Aging, working as a volunteer on behalf of more and better alternatives for senior housing in Davis. “
Here’s the problem I have with this entire article other than the fact that the Davis Enterprise actually printed it. First, it was vague.
Third, he complains that we are no longer capable of having rational discussions, part of the reason for that is that we have paid political operatives that have been hired to frame the debate. We have an organization in Davis called CHA that we know is an astroturf organization in that it was formed by the developers themselves to give the appearance of a grassroots movement in support of senior housing.
He is concerned about senior housing, or so he claims, but in actuality he wants a specific project on a specific site. And he is disingenuous about it. We cannot have civil and rational discussion on controversial topics when people are practicing deception up front. It cannot happen. CHA is a deceptive organization. It was created by developers to push a particular issue that will create a specific project on a specific property. All the discussion generated by CHA is geared not to the issue of senior housing but rather a given end result.
When we have this type of public resignation and change by people who are respected members of our community like Robert Chason, it creates more and not less questions.
Members of CHA need to understand that no matter how strongly they believe in senior housing, the public in Davis is not going to support a peripheral project at Covell Village. They are wasting their time. If they really want senior housing they will take the senior housing survey seriously, they will allow for a scientific poll to be done in Davis, they will follow the guidelines laid forward by two city commissions. I think they somehow believe a groundswell of seniors will produce the outcome they desire. It will not.
From what I can tell, seniors are divided as to whether a Sun City type project is what they want when they retire and need to downsize. Seniors are like everyone else in opposing peripheral sprawl in Davis. And they just are not going to generate support for such a project. So they have a choice, they can try to stack the process and beat their heads against the wall that is Measure J, or they can work with other members of the community to address a lot of their concerns in smaller and less sprawl inducing developments.
But there is another angle here as well. Dr. Chason appears to have his own conflicts in this process. UC Davis was invited to do a pilot project on telemedicine at the still to be proposed Covell Village, the next generation. Robert Chason would appear to gain financially from spearheading such a project. In fact, he spoke specifically about the telemedicine idea at a Senior Citizens Commission meeting.
So the question at this point is why is he resigning from being a paid consultant, but at the same time supporting the same project through their front group CHA?
The whole thing is unseemly and again, Dr. Chason never clearly articulates his purpose in writing the article or his real reasons for resigning. I simply do not understand his op-ed or why the Enterprise decided they should print it.
Perhaps he can come on the Vanguard and answer some of these questions and put our concerns to rest.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I too found Dr. Chason’s Op/Ed strange. I also had a hard time separating it from Don and Merna Villarejo’s opinions presented in their January 8th Op-Ed in the Enterprise.
When I first read the opinions in the Villarejo’s Op/Ed, and especially after reading Elaine Musser’s letter to the Editor, it appears that both Dr. Chason and the Villarejos believe the City should pursue a two-fold Senior housing approach. One portion of that approach would focus on a very narrow segment of the Senior population in Davis, and the other portion would focus on the needs of the rest of Davis’ Seniors. Unless I am missing something, the words “Me first” would appear to describe the Villarejos’ proposal and Dr. Chason’s past consulting efforts. Perhaps inviting Dr. Chason to expand on his Op/Ed with a follow-up article here on the Vanguard would be a good idea.
The steps outlined in Ms. Musser’s letter appear to address the whole Senior housing issue, not just a limited segment. Perhaps either Dr. Chason, the Villarejos or Citizens for Health Aging can explain why a focus on “fee-simple” housing is the best approach for addressing the needs of the tens of thousands of Seniors refered to in the Op-Ed.
Bob Wolcott and Danielle Foster have put a huge amount of energy, thought and skill into the approach the City has put forward. That approach should be pursued for the benefit of all Davis Seniors.
I am less perplexed than some by a badly written Op-Ed piece–maybe because I see badly written papers all the time– and perhaps that explains the resignation, which may have been encouraged.
I think the issue of financial involvement is key. Just as campaign contributions are important to track, so are the financial interests of supporters (and yes that was an issue in meausure P).
Senior housing issue?
What senior housing issue? This as all just a guise by the developers to try and get another Covell Village project going.
Phil: I’d like to see a city ordinance that discloses all paid consultants for city projects. That would alleviate the anxiety.
There are multilayers to this but to me the op-ed and its non-explanation raises another flag about the dealings of the Covell Partners.
Rusty: there are legitimate senior housing issues, most of which could be solved through infill except that’s not what Covell wants, so I agree with most of your post.
David, I’m all for infill. Yes, I agree there are some issues, but not the big problem the developers would like you to believe.
I’m with you there, that’s for sure.
DG: [b]I came away completely perplexed.[/b]
I will try to enlighten you.
[i]1. “Was he trying to criticize local government?”[/i]
He was. “… many of the ills afflicting government at higher levels are just as apparent here, but often more virulent than I would have imagined.”
[i]2. ” Was he resigning as a paid consultant to the Covell Village developers John Whitcombe and Bill Streng?”[/i]
No, he has suspended himself: “I have decided to [u]suspend[/u] my role as a consultant effective Jan. 1.”
[i]3. “Was he decrying the problems of local governance?”[/i]
Yes. “… individuals whom we have elected to represent our interests are far more concerned with being re-elected than they are with making good decisions, especially when those decisions might be the least bit controversial.”
I hope my answers clear up your perplexion.
By the way … there is no word “perplexion.” It should be “perplexity.” My bad.
“what senior housing issue”
In Davis only those who own homes they have enough equity in don’t think there are any housing issues.
I have not heard seniors clamoring for housing, and the fact that the City is relying on a very generic study prepared by a consultiung firm that specializes in working for developers rather than having our well paid planning staff actually conduct their own survey of people who live here says something.
Phil, wasn’t there a controversy on one of the senior housing studies? If I’m not mistaken I vaguely remember complaints that the results were skewed in favor of developement.
I have not heard seniors clamoring for housing
[i]I have not heard seniors clamoring for housing[/i] If the Senior Village project is built, you think the units won’t sell or won’t be occupied? You think the developers will lose money?
One more try: [quote] I have not heard seniors clamoring for housing. [/quote] Phil, if the Senior Village project were built, you think the units would’t sell or would’t be occupied? You think the developers would lose money?
A key question, if they did all sell, is whether it would be from internal demand or from having drawn seniors to Davis. I have little doubt that any senior-only project could be filled with appropriate marketing.
Elaine’s previous columns indicate that the senior commission has discussed the extent of internal demand for senior housing. Perhaps she would like to address that here again.
Rifkin: you think the units would’t sell or would’t be occupied?
Irrelevant. The question is whether we need that development on that site, now, and the answer is absolutely not.
[b]Don:[/b] “A key question, if they did all sell, is whether it would be from internal demand or from having drawn seniors to Davis.”
I presume most of the seniors living in those units would come from outside of Davis. That has been the case at both Alvarado Gardens (Atria) and at the URC and ERC. Because of the massive size of the Senior Village proposal, it would likely be even a higher percentage coming from the outside. However, I’m not sure why that matters so much.
If you build 500 units of new senior housing and 500 seniors leave their homes and apartments in Davis, you will have to bring in 500 new people from outside Davis to fill those up. If 250 units are filled by new seniors and 250 are filled by current Davis residents, you have to attract 250 outsiders to fill the units current Davis seniors would be leaving. So no matter how many units you build, the town effectively grows by that much; and all of the growth comes from outside town, be it old people or youths.
[b]Don:[/b] “I have little doubt that any senior-only project could be filled with appropriate marketing.”
I agree. That suggests, at least in our region (if not in Davis alone) there is some “clamoring” for senior housing, whether Phil is hearing it or not.
[b]NEUT:[/b] “The question is whether we need that development on that site, now, and the answer is absolutely not.”
I don’t [i]need[/i] it there. I have my house already. And it sounds like you have yours.
But if my “need” and your “need” were the basis for development, then no new developments would ever be built.
My own feeling is that, if that acreage is developed, a Senior Village is [i]not[/i] the right way to go. I think for the next 10-15 years, that property is the best large peripheral site near Davis for development*.
I don’t think it’s wise to plan all of it for seniors** exclusively. I think Davis will be healthier if we plan for a mix of housing that includes families with kids and for-rent apartments. If we have more apartment complexes and more single family housing, the cost of living (and home values) in Davis will decline somewhat for everyone else.
However, if the university never grows again (and we fail to attract new industry, as Sue Greenwald has advocated), then all new peripheral development in Davis becomes a question mark. I also feel that if a new development pays for itself and does not create an undue burden on existing residents, then the property owner should have the right to do what he thinks the market wants on his property.
—————–
*Why is it the best? Because it is the only large site on our periphery which is surrounded on 3 of its 4 sides by developed portions of Davis. The only real drawback as a site is the fact that Covell Blvd. will be swamped by the marginal traffic. However, I don’t think that is reason enough to not build more housing on that property. No one likes to get stuck in traffic. And the people who really hate that should start riding their bikes or taking a bus during the commute hours.
** I presume that there is a corporate benefit for senior housing, as long as it is for-profit, higher-end and market rate. That is, seniors in expensive new units will pay property taxes, will have expendable income to buy merchandise in town and pay sales taxes, but won’t (outside of ambulance services) require much in public services. They won’t commit crimes. They won’t send kids to schools. Etc.
“I think Davis will be healthier if we plan for a mix of housing that includes families with kids and for-rent apartments.”
I think Davis will be healthier if we leave it as farmland.
[quote]I think Davis will be healthier if we leave it as farmland. [/quote] Yeah, you live on what used to be farmland. But no one else should. I get it.
OK, then let’s build it all out, since I live on farmland then everyone should be able to come here and live on farmland. Let’s go for the Elk Grove look, or maybe we can be another Natomas. Since I live on farmland I don’t have any say in keeping my city the nice liveable place it is.
I get it.
Phil,
Perhaps the Covell partners did not feel that there would be sufficient public support for a large peripheral senior project. If they were confident, I suspect they would have supported an independent, scientific survey of Davis senior housing preferences. Also, the unanimous council support for last weeks’ senior assisted living project could be interpreted as an indication that the Covell partners had readjusted their thinking.
If so, I think the Covell Partners made a wise decision. A large age-segregated subdivision never seemed like a very Davis-like idea to me.
“the unanimous council support for last weeks’ senior assisted living project could be interpreted as an indication that the Covell partners had readjusted their thinking”
Sue,
I’m not following your logic. How does the vote on the senior housing project give us insight into what the Covell Partners might be thinking? Could you please expand on this thought? Thanks.
Dear Rich:
Allow me a correction as to the statement you made about ERC. We have 59 one bedroom units.
80% of the residents of ERC were from Davis,
10% were from other parts of Yolo, Solano and Sacramento Counties.
6% within 100 miles of Davis
2 people were from out of state but had children in Davis
We were proud to successfully serve the local market for very low, low and moderate income seniors.
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, the development team for ERC.
This was pure speculation. If the Covell Partners had decided not to go forward with a large age-segregated subdivision with a cluster of various care facilities, there could be more interested in filling such needs at other sites throughout the city. Again, pure speculation.
I have been a Davis resident for decades. I am eligible for reduced rate senior housing. My application for such has been on several lists for over 4 years…..and some of you don’t think we need more senior housing for those retired seniors who live in Davis?
David Thompson: I stand corrected. Sorry for my error.
Dear Rich:
Thanks.
I believe over 60% of the URC residents were from out of town. However, you do have the dilemma of wanting parents to be near so that is a question to ask about the out of towners.
We recently asked a similar question at Rancho Yolo, the largest senior community in Yolo County.
2. Before you moved into Ranch Yolo, where were you living?
64 Davis 37.8%
15 Yolo County 8.9%
58 California34.3%
22 out of state 13.1%
8 did not state 4.7%
3. Do you have family members in Davis or Yolo County?
Yes = 103 60.9%
No = 5532.5%
Did not state = 11 6.5%
So you see that 46% lived in Davis or Yolo County before they moved into Rancho Yolo whereas 61% of those that moved in had relatives in Davis or Yolo County.
So family ties play a significant role relative to users of senior housing.
Dear Rich:
Thanks.
I believe over 60% of the URC residents were from out of town. However, you do have the dilemma of wanting parents to be near so that is a question to ask about the out of towners.
We recently asked a similar question at Rancho Yolo, the largest senior community in Yolo County.
2. Before you moved into Ranch Yolo, where were you living?
64 Davis 37.8%
15 Yolo County 8.9%
58 California34.3%
22 out of state 13.1%
8 did not state 4.7%
3. Do you have family members in Davis or Yolo County?
Yes = 103 60.9%
No = 5532.5%
Did not state = 11 6.5%
So you see that 46% lived in Davis or Yolo County before they moved into Rancho Yolo whereas 61% of those that moved in had relatives in Davis or Yolo County.
So family ties play a significant role relative to users of senior housing.
Rifkin: I don’t need it there. I have my house already. And it sounds like you have yours.
In context, I was referring to the substantial amount of available acreage on “the list” in the general plan. Sorry, left that part out.
Don Shor: “A key question, if they did all sell, is whether it would be from internal demand or from having drawn seniors to Davis. I have little doubt that any senior-only project could be filled with appropriate marketing.
Elaine’s previous columns indicate that the senior commission has discussed the extent of internal demand for senior housing. Perhaps she would like to address that here again.”
Thanks Don, for mentioning this issue and requesting my comment. The problem with catering to external demand for senior housing, is that if the proposed senior housing project is too large, it requires huge extras in the way of city services, county social services, and infrastructure costs. This will result in increased taxes and fees to pay for it all, which will financially strap Davis seniors living on fixed incomes.
In the past, such increases in taxes and fees have driven many Davis seniors on fixed incomes right out of town who cannot afford it. We have a responsibility to take care of our own citizens first and foremost. So when we plan for senior housing, we need to address the internal demand for senior housing rather than any external demand.
The business about family members who live out of town being an internal need is a red herring. There are apt to be just as many seniors who live in Davis who want to move away to live near their relatives, as there are seniors who live out of town who want to move to Davis to be near relatives.
Conversely, small infill projects like the new Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility don’t require much in the way of new city services (if any), won’t require huge infrastructure costs (the developer is paying for bike path connections and other such things), and will actually be a net fiscal positive for city coffers (approximately $50,000 per year I think was the number). It will provide 100 new jobs, and be a economic boon to businesses close by.
Carlton Plaza Davis will provide a much needed dementia unit, and more intense care than is often provided at other assisted living facilities. Because of its location, Carlton Plaza Davis can partner with Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, an independent living facility which has many low income folks who could benefit from a sharing of services with Carlton. These are the sorts of projects Davis needs to be looking at for seniors – there is virtually no downside to them.
[i]I believe over 60% of the URC residents were from out of town. [/i]
I first moved to Davis in 1965. The vast majority of Davis residents are “newcomers” to me. However, I have no prejudice against new residents. I don’t understand the idea that we should favor people who arrived here already. Further, it is illegal to do so.
I understand that some developers pretend (for marketing purposes) that all they are doing is filling the demand of existing Davis residents. But (as I pointed out above) that makes no difference, even if it is true: the homes existing residents leave will ultimately be filled by more newcomers.
A neighbor of mine, for example, moved into the URC about 5 years ago. She would count as “an existing Davis resident.” However she and her friend moved to Davis 10 years ago with the hope of living at the URC, but were on the waiting list. Her friend died just before a spot at URC opened up. When the URC became available, my neighbor sold her house and moved into the URC. Her home was then purchased by an existing Davis resident for family members who moved back to Davis (after living elsewhere). The net effect was the exact same had she and her friend just moved directly into the URC from outside of Davis.
[i]”So family ties play a significant role relative to users of senior housing.”[/i]
I suspect, if Senior Village were built, at least half of the new residents would fit that criteria. Many of the new residents would have adult children living in Davis or living somewhere in the Sacramento area. That’s a big reason they would want to retire here. I’ve met many seniors (in Davis and Woodland) who retired in Yolo County for that reason.