Covell Partners Attempt to Hijack Thursday’s Housing Element Workshop

By David GreenwaldJanuary 24, 2008248 comments
The Vanguard has received a forwarded email from the Project Coordinator for North Davis Land Company, Lydia Delis-Schlosser. North Davis Land Company, is Tandem Properties’ owner and Covell Village developer John Whitcomb’s group. The email contains an invitation to tomorrow’s (Thursday January 24, 2008) Housing Element Steering Committee workshop where public input will be taken. The email also – and more insidiously – contains explicit instructions on how to fill out the Housing Element Workshop survey in order to best serve the needs of Mr. Whitcomb and the Covell Partners.

Mr. Whitcomb has been attempting to develop the Covell site for a number of years now.

The proposal for Covell Village was rejected by Davis voters by nearly a 60-40 margin in November of 2005. Now they have come back with a new proposal that seeks to build senior housing on the Covell Site.

This project first came before the Housing Element Steering Committee in September 2007.

Tomorrow night, there will be a workshop where the public can weigh in on where they would like to see development. The public can rank order those options from 1 to 37.

Mike Harrington, a former Davis City Councilmember and a current member on the Housing Element Steering Committee expressed concern and outrage at the tactics.

“This is more political manipulation of the political process by the Covell Partners and it is going to backfire against them just like their boogie man campaign backfired in the fall of 2005, when they attempted to scare residents into voting for Measure X with the letter from Supervisor Helen Thomson.”

Councilmember Lamar Heystek expressed concern over this process in a conversation with the Vanguard.

“Public participation that is choreographed by third parties simply cannot be taken at face value. This strategy calls into question the integrity of the public process. I’m disappointed that there are interests that feel the need to ‘coach’ the Davis public to advance their point of view. If we’re really interested in meaningful public engagement, we must let the people think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.”

Richard Livingston, who managed the campaign against Measure X in 2005 said in a statement to the Vanguard:

“It appears the same developers who lost the MEASURE X campaign by a 60% vote are at it again. Now they are trying to lure support for senior housing. They want the city to give them another shot at making money off something not needed in Davis. Senior housing is not a priority. Also interesting is the fact that they want another big development at a time when the economy in the United States is facing a serious recession, caused to some extent by overbuilding and inflated prices. It appears that their tactic it to stack the audience with their supporters in hopes of influencing the city. Well we saw how much they were willing to spend the last time to develop the Covell property. When a company is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get what they want imagine the profits they anticipate.”

Mayor Sue Greenwald told the Vanguard in general that she supports senior housing, but this is not the proper location or method by which it should be done.

“I’m very supportive of a continuing care facility. I’d like to see one located close to downtown. I think the PG&E Property is perfect for it, since we’re already looking at developing it.”

However, she stressed this was not the proper manner in which to go about doing this.

“I don’t like developer driven planning.”

This represents a blatant attempt to manipulate the political process whereby the public can have input into a crucial measure of the city’s housing future, and indeed these tactics cast doubt on the veracity of the entire process.

Here are copies of the email and the first three pages of the pdf instruction sheet attached to the email:





For the full text of the instruction sheets: hit the link

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

248 comments

  1. “they want another big development at a time when the economy in the United States is facing a serious recession, caused to some extent by overbuilding and inflated prices.”

    That makes no sense. Overbuilding lowers prices; it doesn’t inflate them. That is the law of demand.

    The places in our country where prices inflated so much — including our region — were places where demand outstripped supply.

    Prices have fallen as demand has fallen, while supply has held steady.

    The interesting question is why demand was as high as it was in 2005 and why it has since decreased. The common explanation, which I think explains most of the answer, is that credit was too loose and that put too many buyers into the market, driving up prices; more recently, credit markets, in reaction to the subprime crisis, have tightened up, and that has taken many marginal buyers out of the market, despressing demand and hence prices.

  2. “they want another big development at a time when the economy in the United States is facing a serious recession, caused to some extent by overbuilding and inflated prices.”

    That makes no sense. Overbuilding lowers prices; it doesn’t inflate them. That is the law of demand.

    The places in our country where prices inflated so much — including our region — were places where demand outstripped supply.

    Prices have fallen as demand has fallen, while supply has held steady.

    The interesting question is why demand was as high as it was in 2005 and why it has since decreased. The common explanation, which I think explains most of the answer, is that credit was too loose and that put too many buyers into the market, driving up prices; more recently, credit markets, in reaction to the subprime crisis, have tightened up, and that has taken many marginal buyers out of the market, despressing demand and hence prices.

  3. “they want another big development at a time when the economy in the United States is facing a serious recession, caused to some extent by overbuilding and inflated prices.”

    That makes no sense. Overbuilding lowers prices; it doesn’t inflate them. That is the law of demand.

    The places in our country where prices inflated so much — including our region — were places where demand outstripped supply.

    Prices have fallen as demand has fallen, while supply has held steady.

    The interesting question is why demand was as high as it was in 2005 and why it has since decreased. The common explanation, which I think explains most of the answer, is that credit was too loose and that put too many buyers into the market, driving up prices; more recently, credit markets, in reaction to the subprime crisis, have tightened up, and that has taken many marginal buyers out of the market, despressing demand and hence prices.

  4. “they want another big development at a time when the economy in the United States is facing a serious recession, caused to some extent by overbuilding and inflated prices.”

    That makes no sense. Overbuilding lowers prices; it doesn’t inflate them. That is the law of demand.

    The places in our country where prices inflated so much — including our region — were places where demand outstripped supply.

    Prices have fallen as demand has fallen, while supply has held steady.

    The interesting question is why demand was as high as it was in 2005 and why it has since decreased. The common explanation, which I think explains most of the answer, is that credit was too loose and that put too many buyers into the market, driving up prices; more recently, credit markets, in reaction to the subprime crisis, have tightened up, and that has taken many marginal buyers out of the market, despressing demand and hence prices.

  9. According to the Enterprise, the Valley Oak Charter School decision appears to have been made by Superintendent Hammond. Certainly, the Valley Oak petitioners should come out en mass for the School Board meeting but most of us now can attend the Housing Element Workshop on Thursday and let godfather Whitcomb see how we feel about his attempt to pack the meeting with his stooges.

  10. According to the Enterprise, the Valley Oak Charter School decision appears to have been made by Superintendent Hammond. Certainly, the Valley Oak petitioners should come out en mass for the School Board meeting but most of us now can attend the Housing Element Workshop on Thursday and let godfather Whitcomb see how we feel about his attempt to pack the meeting with his stooges.

  11. According to the Enterprise, the Valley Oak Charter School decision appears to have been made by Superintendent Hammond. Certainly, the Valley Oak petitioners should come out en mass for the School Board meeting but most of us now can attend the Housing Element Workshop on Thursday and let godfather Whitcomb see how we feel about his attempt to pack the meeting with his stooges.

  12. According to the Enterprise, the Valley Oak Charter School decision appears to have been made by Superintendent Hammond. Certainly, the Valley Oak petitioners should come out en mass for the School Board meeting but most of us now can attend the Housing Element Workshop on Thursday and let godfather Whitcomb see how we feel about his attempt to pack the meeting with his stooges.

  13. This move is too lame, even for the Tandem Property boys. Are they now going to come out and claim that this was not them but rather a move to sabotage their project’s chances, trying for sympathy support since the Housing Element committee put their property way down on the list.

  14. This move is too lame, even for the Tandem Property boys. Are they now going to come out and claim that this was not them but rather a move to sabotage their project’s chances, trying for sympathy support since the Housing Element committee put their property way down on the list.

  15. This move is too lame, even for the Tandem Property boys. Are they now going to come out and claim that this was not them but rather a move to sabotage their project’s chances, trying for sympathy support since the Housing Element committee put their property way down on the list.

  16. This move is too lame, even for the Tandem Property boys. Are they now going to come out and claim that this was not them but rather a move to sabotage their project’s chances, trying for sympathy support since the Housing Element committee put their property way down on the list.

  17. What will the Housing Update Committee do about this blatant attempt to manipulate the results of the workshop?

    The Committee Chair, Kevin Wolf, was caught up in the lies foisted by the Covell Partners several years ago when the Yes on X campaign sent a flier to most homes in Davis implying that Wolf had endorsed Covell Village as a representative of Friends of the River. FOR denied that Wolf is a spokesman for them and denied that FOR had endorsed the project. Mike Corbett subsequently wrote a letter to the Enterprise claiming that it was all a big mistake.

    Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

  18. What will the Housing Update Committee do about this blatant attempt to manipulate the results of the workshop?

    The Committee Chair, Kevin Wolf, was caught up in the lies foisted by the Covell Partners several years ago when the Yes on X campaign sent a flier to most homes in Davis implying that Wolf had endorsed Covell Village as a representative of Friends of the River. FOR denied that Wolf is a spokesman for them and denied that FOR had endorsed the project. Mike Corbett subsequently wrote a letter to the Enterprise claiming that it was all a big mistake.

    Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

  19. What will the Housing Update Committee do about this blatant attempt to manipulate the results of the workshop?

    The Committee Chair, Kevin Wolf, was caught up in the lies foisted by the Covell Partners several years ago when the Yes on X campaign sent a flier to most homes in Davis implying that Wolf had endorsed Covell Village as a representative of Friends of the River. FOR denied that Wolf is a spokesman for them and denied that FOR had endorsed the project. Mike Corbett subsequently wrote a letter to the Enterprise claiming that it was all a big mistake.

    Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

  20. What will the Housing Update Committee do about this blatant attempt to manipulate the results of the workshop?

    The Committee Chair, Kevin Wolf, was caught up in the lies foisted by the Covell Partners several years ago when the Yes on X campaign sent a flier to most homes in Davis implying that Wolf had endorsed Covell Village as a representative of Friends of the River. FOR denied that Wolf is a spokesman for them and denied that FOR had endorsed the project. Mike Corbett subsequently wrote a letter to the Enterprise claiming that it was all a big mistake.

    Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

  21. Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

    Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze. His ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers. The implicit insult to seniors(the obvious target for this email) with its detailed word-for-word instructions as to what and where to write in and mail their opinions should not go unnoticed by the leaders of our senior community.

  22. Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

    Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze. His ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers. The implicit insult to seniors(the obvious target for this email) with its detailed word-for-word instructions as to what and where to write in and mail their opinions should not go unnoticed by the leaders of our senior community.

  23. Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

    Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze. His ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers. The implicit insult to seniors(the obvious target for this email) with its detailed word-for-word instructions as to what and where to write in and mail their opinions should not go unnoticed by the leaders of our senior community.

  24. Will Wolf allow himself to be caught up in another sleazy tactic? I would think he’d be pissed. We’ll see….

    Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze. His ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers. The implicit insult to seniors(the obvious target for this email) with its detailed word-for-word instructions as to what and where to write in and mail their opinions should not go unnoticed by the leaders of our senior community.

  25. There is one key difference. The Lewis Property people did not include a how-to-manual and instruct people on how to fill out their forms. That for me is the crucial difference. I have no problem with people inviting others to a meeting. I have a big problem with including a form on what exactly to fill out and how in order to artificially create a demand for a specific project. So I strongly disagree with the assertion made by anonymous 9:17.

  26. David – Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X?

    And the title… Hijack?? really? To seize or steal with a threat of force? Did I miss a reference to using violence? You should choose your words more carefully, sir.

    Also, read closely, this mailer only went out to people who attended “outreach meetings”. Presumably, this email only went to those who count themselves as supporters of a new senior housing community at Pole Line & Covell.

    “Stuffing the ballot box” and “Sleazy tactics”?? PLEASE, spare us all your tiresome screeds.

    How many times have you received in the mail a tear out sheet of voting instructions to take into the voting booth with you from your favorite special interest group (be it Planned Parenthood or the NRA)… or not-so-favorite Governor?

  27. There is one key difference. The Lewis Property people did not include a how-to-manual and instruct people on how to fill out their forms. That for me is the crucial difference. I have no problem with people inviting others to a meeting. I have a big problem with including a form on what exactly to fill out and how in order to artificially create a demand for a specific project. So I strongly disagree with the assertion made by anonymous 9:17.

  28. David – Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X?

    And the title… Hijack?? really? To seize or steal with a threat of force? Did I miss a reference to using violence? You should choose your words more carefully, sir.

    Also, read closely, this mailer only went out to people who attended “outreach meetings”. Presumably, this email only went to those who count themselves as supporters of a new senior housing community at Pole Line & Covell.

    “Stuffing the ballot box” and “Sleazy tactics”?? PLEASE, spare us all your tiresome screeds.

    How many times have you received in the mail a tear out sheet of voting instructions to take into the voting booth with you from your favorite special interest group (be it Planned Parenthood or the NRA)… or not-so-favorite Governor?

  29. There is one key difference. The Lewis Property people did not include a how-to-manual and instruct people on how to fill out their forms. That for me is the crucial difference. I have no problem with people inviting others to a meeting. I have a big problem with including a form on what exactly to fill out and how in order to artificially create a demand for a specific project. So I strongly disagree with the assertion made by anonymous 9:17.

  30. David – Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X?

    And the title… Hijack?? really? To seize or steal with a threat of force? Did I miss a reference to using violence? You should choose your words more carefully, sir.

    Also, read closely, this mailer only went out to people who attended “outreach meetings”. Presumably, this email only went to those who count themselves as supporters of a new senior housing community at Pole Line & Covell.

    “Stuffing the ballot box” and “Sleazy tactics”?? PLEASE, spare us all your tiresome screeds.

    How many times have you received in the mail a tear out sheet of voting instructions to take into the voting booth with you from your favorite special interest group (be it Planned Parenthood or the NRA)… or not-so-favorite Governor?

  31. There is one key difference. The Lewis Property people did not include a how-to-manual and instruct people on how to fill out their forms. That for me is the crucial difference. I have no problem with people inviting others to a meeting. I have a big problem with including a form on what exactly to fill out and how in order to artificially create a demand for a specific project. So I strongly disagree with the assertion made by anonymous 9:17.

  32. David – Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X?

    And the title… Hijack?? really? To seize or steal with a threat of force? Did I miss a reference to using violence? You should choose your words more carefully, sir.

    Also, read closely, this mailer only went out to people who attended “outreach meetings”. Presumably, this email only went to those who count themselves as supporters of a new senior housing community at Pole Line & Covell.

    “Stuffing the ballot box” and “Sleazy tactics”?? PLEASE, spare us all your tiresome screeds.

    How many times have you received in the mail a tear out sheet of voting instructions to take into the voting booth with you from your favorite special interest group (be it Planned Parenthood or the NRA)… or not-so-favorite Governor?

  33. to each their own…

    The FUNDAMENTAL flaw in your argument is that this Housing Element workshop is seeking input on the THINKING of Davis citizens, not just their vote choice.
    As I suggested, Tandem Property’s attempt to tell the email recipients exactly how to think and how to express their desires is an insult to the capabilities of those they are soliciting.

  34. to each their own…

    The FUNDAMENTAL flaw in your argument is that this Housing Element workshop is seeking input on the THINKING of Davis citizens, not just their vote choice.
    As I suggested, Tandem Property’s attempt to tell the email recipients exactly how to think and how to express their desires is an insult to the capabilities of those they are soliciting.

  35. to each their own…

    The FUNDAMENTAL flaw in your argument is that this Housing Element workshop is seeking input on the THINKING of Davis citizens, not just their vote choice.
    As I suggested, Tandem Property’s attempt to tell the email recipients exactly how to think and how to express their desires is an insult to the capabilities of those they are soliciting.

  36. to each their own…

    The FUNDAMENTAL flaw in your argument is that this Housing Element workshop is seeking input on the THINKING of Davis citizens, not just their vote choice.
    As I suggested, Tandem Property’s attempt to tell the email recipients exactly how to think and how to express their desires is an insult to the capabilities of those they are soliciting.

  37. anonymous 9:16 am said:
    Don’t worry, the same 50 people who are opposed to growth will show up, as they usually do.

    Someone once said that the first and most crucial thing in a participatory democracy is SHOWING UP. I would add .. offering your own thoughts.

  38. anonymous 9:16 am said:
    Don’t worry, the same 50 people who are opposed to growth will show up, as they usually do.

    Someone once said that the first and most crucial thing in a participatory democracy is SHOWING UP. I would add .. offering your own thoughts.

  39. anonymous 9:16 am said:
    Don’t worry, the same 50 people who are opposed to growth will show up, as they usually do.

    Someone once said that the first and most crucial thing in a participatory democracy is SHOWING UP. I would add .. offering your own thoughts.

  40. anonymous 9:16 am said:
    Don’t worry, the same 50 people who are opposed to growth will show up, as they usually do.

    Someone once said that the first and most crucial thing in a participatory democracy is SHOWING UP. I would add .. offering your own thoughts.

  41. “Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze.“

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Wolf should get a pass on his Yes on X activities – only that I am wondering whether he will try to distance himself from this most recent round of sleaze.

  42. “Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze.“

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Wolf should get a pass on his Yes on X activities – only that I am wondering whether he will try to distance himself from this most recent round of sleaze.

  43. “Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze.“

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Wolf should get a pass on his Yes on X activities – only that I am wondering whether he will try to distance himself from this most recent round of sleaze.

  44. “Long memory…Kevin Wolf does not deserve a “pass” on his Yes on X activities. He personally promoted the sleaze.“

    I didn’t mean to suggest that Wolf should get a pass on his Yes on X activities – only that I am wondering whether he will try to distance himself from this most recent round of sleaze.

  45. @ Anonymous 9:42 AM

    The email instuctions say, “please review the attached information and instructions.”

    REVIEW, not, “accept these words as the gospel truth, print, sign, and post because you’re not smart or savvy enough to do it yourself”.

    Your assertion that recipients (stooges if you prefer)of this email could have been hoodwinked into giving up free will without your insightful commentary is truly insulting.

    You want more insulting? How about Mike Harrington’s belief that many Davis citizens were scared into voting for Measure X by the “bogeyman”? Surely, nobody could have voted for Measure X because they did extensive research, weighed the options and came to a decision based on the merits of the project.

    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    We can do better.

  46. @ Anonymous 9:42 AM

    The email instuctions say, “please review the attached information and instructions.”

    REVIEW, not, “accept these words as the gospel truth, print, sign, and post because you’re not smart or savvy enough to do it yourself”.

    Your assertion that recipients (stooges if you prefer)of this email could have been hoodwinked into giving up free will without your insightful commentary is truly insulting.

    You want more insulting? How about Mike Harrington’s belief that many Davis citizens were scared into voting for Measure X by the “bogeyman”? Surely, nobody could have voted for Measure X because they did extensive research, weighed the options and came to a decision based on the merits of the project.

    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    We can do better.

  47. @ Anonymous 9:42 AM

    The email instuctions say, “please review the attached information and instructions.”

    REVIEW, not, “accept these words as the gospel truth, print, sign, and post because you’re not smart or savvy enough to do it yourself”.

    Your assertion that recipients (stooges if you prefer)of this email could have been hoodwinked into giving up free will without your insightful commentary is truly insulting.

    You want more insulting? How about Mike Harrington’s belief that many Davis citizens were scared into voting for Measure X by the “bogeyman”? Surely, nobody could have voted for Measure X because they did extensive research, weighed the options and came to a decision based on the merits of the project.

    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    We can do better.

  48. @ Anonymous 9:42 AM

    The email instuctions say, “please review the attached information and instructions.”

    REVIEW, not, “accept these words as the gospel truth, print, sign, and post because you’re not smart or savvy enough to do it yourself”.

    Your assertion that recipients (stooges if you prefer)of this email could have been hoodwinked into giving up free will without your insightful commentary is truly insulting.

    You want more insulting? How about Mike Harrington’s belief that many Davis citizens were scared into voting for Measure X by the “bogeyman”? Surely, nobody could have voted for Measure X because they did extensive research, weighed the options and came to a decision based on the merits of the project.

    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    We can do better.

  49. Re the 50 people opposed to growth who always show up: I attended the last work shop and thought at first I was in the wrong place. It looked like a developers convention.

    Anonymous at 9:42 a.m. Sorry, but the instructions specifically tell the email recipient how to fill in the comments, where to put the dots, and to rank #32 Covell Village site “high”.

  50. Re the 50 people opposed to growth who always show up: I attended the last work shop and thought at first I was in the wrong place. It looked like a developers convention.

    Anonymous at 9:42 a.m. Sorry, but the instructions specifically tell the email recipient how to fill in the comments, where to put the dots, and to rank #32 Covell Village site “high”.

  51. Re the 50 people opposed to growth who always show up: I attended the last work shop and thought at first I was in the wrong place. It looked like a developers convention.

    Anonymous at 9:42 a.m. Sorry, but the instructions specifically tell the email recipient how to fill in the comments, where to put the dots, and to rank #32 Covell Village site “high”.

  52. Re the 50 people opposed to growth who always show up: I attended the last work shop and thought at first I was in the wrong place. It looked like a developers convention.

    Anonymous at 9:42 a.m. Sorry, but the instructions specifically tell the email recipient how to fill in the comments, where to put the dots, and to rank #32 Covell Village site “high”.

  53. Exactly those instructions are pretty explicit to me. I have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with people coming out to express with their views. I don’t have a problem with inviting people to come out to express their views.

    Let’s say this, what if 500 people come out tonight, and 400 of them support developing Covell, how would we interpret that? Knowing this, I would interpret it as meaning that the Covell Partners did a good job of getting their people to the meeting. I actually think that’s counterproductive to their goals. I don’t think it helps them because in a good amount of people’s minds this is now an illegitimate process and that’s a real shame because this was an opportunity for real input.

    “Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X? “

    That’s what the comments are for.

    I gave Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz a guest commentary to express their viewpoints. If someone else wants space to write a guest commentary, send me an email and I’ll give it to you.

  54. Exactly those instructions are pretty explicit to me. I have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with people coming out to express with their views. I don’t have a problem with inviting people to come out to express their views.

    Let’s say this, what if 500 people come out tonight, and 400 of them support developing Covell, how would we interpret that? Knowing this, I would interpret it as meaning that the Covell Partners did a good job of getting their people to the meeting. I actually think that’s counterproductive to their goals. I don’t think it helps them because in a good amount of people’s minds this is now an illegitimate process and that’s a real shame because this was an opportunity for real input.

    “Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X? “

    That’s what the comments are for.

    I gave Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz a guest commentary to express their viewpoints. If someone else wants space to write a guest commentary, send me an email and I’ll give it to you.

  55. Exactly those instructions are pretty explicit to me. I have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with people coming out to express with their views. I don’t have a problem with inviting people to come out to express their views.

    Let’s say this, what if 500 people come out tonight, and 400 of them support developing Covell, how would we interpret that? Knowing this, I would interpret it as meaning that the Covell Partners did a good job of getting their people to the meeting. I actually think that’s counterproductive to their goals. I don’t think it helps them because in a good amount of people’s minds this is now an illegitimate process and that’s a real shame because this was an opportunity for real input.

    “Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X? “

    That’s what the comments are for.

    I gave Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz a guest commentary to express their viewpoints. If someone else wants space to write a guest commentary, send me an email and I’ll give it to you.

  56. Exactly those instructions are pretty explicit to me. I have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with people coming out to express with their views. I don’t have a problem with inviting people to come out to express their views.

    Let’s say this, what if 500 people come out tonight, and 400 of them support developing Covell, how would we interpret that? Knowing this, I would interpret it as meaning that the Covell Partners did a good job of getting their people to the meeting. I actually think that’s counterproductive to their goals. I don’t think it helps them because in a good amount of people’s minds this is now an illegitimate process and that’s a real shame because this was an opportunity for real input.

    “Would it have hurt to include reactions from one of the 8,843 citizens who voted FOR Measure X? “

    That’s what the comments are for.

    I gave Kevin Wolf and Eileen Samitz a guest commentary to express their viewpoints. If someone else wants space to write a guest commentary, send me an email and I’ll give it to you.

  57. great! if this “issue” has the unintended consequence of bringing out more people to the public workshop to advocate for what type of future they would like to see for Davis, its fine in my book.

  58. great! if this “issue” has the unintended consequence of bringing out more people to the public workshop to advocate for what type of future they would like to see for Davis, its fine in my book.

  59. great! if this “issue” has the unintended consequence of bringing out more people to the public workshop to advocate for what type of future they would like to see for Davis, its fine in my book.

  60. great! if this “issue” has the unintended consequence of bringing out more people to the public workshop to advocate for what type of future they would like to see for Davis, its fine in my book.

  61. That’s not quite what I suggested. And the other thing is that more people may come out to the process but the value of the feedback may be hindered.

  62. To each their own said:
    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    I would not characterize this as “mudslinging”. These postings are not addressing the merits of the project but rather Tandem Property’s loss of credibility and a clear history of demonstrable disdain for relying on the clear thinking and good judgement of the voters. This inevitably does color the response to their arguments.

  63. That’s not quite what I suggested. And the other thing is that more people may come out to the process but the value of the feedback may be hindered.

  64. To each their own said:
    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    I would not characterize this as “mudslinging”. These postings are not addressing the merits of the project but rather Tandem Property’s loss of credibility and a clear history of demonstrable disdain for relying on the clear thinking and good judgement of the voters. This inevitably does color the response to their arguments.

  65. That’s not quite what I suggested. And the other thing is that more people may come out to the process but the value of the feedback may be hindered.

  66. To each their own said:
    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    I would not characterize this as “mudslinging”. These postings are not addressing the merits of the project but rather Tandem Property’s loss of credibility and a clear history of demonstrable disdain for relying on the clear thinking and good judgement of the voters. This inevitably does color the response to their arguments.

  67. That’s not quite what I suggested. And the other thing is that more people may come out to the process but the value of the feedback may be hindered.

  68. To each their own said:
    But this isn’t about Covell Village or thoughtful discussions on land use, is it? This is just political mud slinging at the municipal level.

    I would not characterize this as “mudslinging”. These postings are not addressing the merits of the project but rather Tandem Property’s loss of credibility and a clear history of demonstrable disdain for relying on the clear thinking and good judgement of the voters. This inevitably does color the response to their arguments.

  70. Senior Housing

    This submission is in response to the Vanguard’s misinterpretation of an email message that I distributed regarding tonight’s Housing Element Workshop. The Vanguard story in question had the headline “Covell Partners Attempt to Hijack Thursday’s Housing Element Workshop,” but the only hijacking that occurred was interception and misappropriation of my email message. I had sent that message only to people who expressed interest in provision of additional senior housing, which is in increasingly short supply in Davis. The project that North Davis Land Company envisions would help rectify that imbalance.

    Over the past few months we have spent countless hours meeting with more than 100 members of our community to learn about the needs and preferences for senior housing in Davis. The email I sent out was a private communication directed to the individuals with whom we have met, and only these individuals. It was not a news release, it was not a public call to action. I had the privilege to speak in person with every one of the people to whom I sent that message. In our small-group roundtable sessions, we engaged in heartfelt discussions about their plans for life after retirement.

    In those meetings, I repeatedly heard from people who said they will no longer need as much space as their present home contains, and indicated that they would like to reduce the maintenance that their existing home requires. Every person who received this email had expressed interest in our idea to design a comprehensive senior neighborhood community with a wide range of ownership housing opportunities, a continuum of care, wellness and fitness facilities, and extensive habitat and greenbelt areas.

    Each person who attended these meetings said they would like to receive updates on our progress and would be interested in supporting the process. The message that the Vanguard expropriated was one such piece of correspondence.

    The Vanguard story attributed Richard Livingston for declaring that “Senior housing is not a priority.” Oh? The people who voluntarily attended our informal group discussions, and who expressed interest in our concept and requested additional information to keep them informed and involved in the process, offer irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

    I must emphasize that I sent this email only to people who have come to our conference room and spent hours talking to us and sharing their thoughts and concerns regarding senior housing and the lack of choices in our town. Neither we nor they have any intention to manipulate the public process. We ARE, however, interested in stimulating discussion among people who have been dissatisfied with the present inadequacy in senior-oriented housing in Davis, and in involving them as advisors to help us in conceiving a solution. This email went to those who expressed interest and want to support a new type of senior housing opportunity for Davis.

    I am distressed by an inequity that Doug Paul Davis either did not perceive or deliberately chose to ignore. He attacked us for sending a private email message to a very small group of individuals who expressed the desire to be consulted about their needs for senior housing. Yet he failed to find fault when a member of the Housing Element Subcommittee — the group that is sponsoring this “Community Workshop” — distributed emails to thousands of people in Davis, promoting one project, denouncing others and encouraging people to come out and support their views. That hypocrisy is worthy of further scrutiny.

    If you are a person of advancing age or have family member looking to make plans for their future and are dissatisfied with the choices in this community to meet your needs we would like you to share your ideas with us.
    I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision. Please call anytime.

    Thank you,
    Lydia Delis-Schlosser
    916-425-6998

  72. Senior Housing

    This submission is in response to the Vanguard’s misinterpretation of an email message that I distributed regarding tonight’s Housing Element Workshop. The Vanguard story in question had the headline “Covell Partners Attempt to Hijack Thursday’s Housing Element Workshop,” but the only hijacking that occurred was interception and misappropriation of my email message. I had sent that message only to people who expressed interest in provision of additional senior housing, which is in increasingly short supply in Davis. The project that North Davis Land Company envisions would help rectify that imbalance.

    Over the past few months we have spent countless hours meeting with more than 100 members of our community to learn about the needs and preferences for senior housing in Davis. The email I sent out was a private communication directed to the individuals with whom we have met, and only these individuals. It was not a news release, it was not a public call to action. I had the privilege to speak in person with every one of the people to whom I sent that message. In our small-group roundtable sessions, we engaged in heartfelt discussions about their plans for life after retirement.

    In those meetings, I repeatedly heard from people who said they will no longer need as much space as their present home contains, and indicated that they would like to reduce the maintenance that their existing home requires. Every person who received this email had expressed interest in our idea to design a comprehensive senior neighborhood community with a wide range of ownership housing opportunities, a continuum of care, wellness and fitness facilities, and extensive habitat and greenbelt areas.

    Each person who attended these meetings said they would like to receive updates on our progress and would be interested in supporting the process. The message that the Vanguard expropriated was one such piece of correspondence.

    The Vanguard story attributed Richard Livingston for declaring that “Senior housing is not a priority.” Oh? The people who voluntarily attended our informal group discussions, and who expressed interest in our concept and requested additional information to keep them informed and involved in the process, offer irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

    I must emphasize that I sent this email only to people who have come to our conference room and spent hours talking to us and sharing their thoughts and concerns regarding senior housing and the lack of choices in our town. Neither we nor they have any intention to manipulate the public process. We ARE, however, interested in stimulating discussion among people who have been dissatisfied with the present inadequacy in senior-oriented housing in Davis, and in involving them as advisors to help us in conceiving a solution. This email went to those who expressed interest and want to support a new type of senior housing opportunity for Davis.

    I am distressed by an inequity that Doug Paul Davis either did not perceive or deliberately chose to ignore. He attacked us for sending a private email message to a very small group of individuals who expressed the desire to be consulted about their needs for senior housing. Yet he failed to find fault when a member of the Housing Element Subcommittee — the group that is sponsoring this “Community Workshop” — distributed emails to thousands of people in Davis, promoting one project, denouncing others and encouraging people to come out and support their views. That hypocrisy is worthy of further scrutiny.

    If you are a person of advancing age or have family member looking to make plans for their future and are dissatisfied with the choices in this community to meet your needs we would like you to share your ideas with us.
    I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision. Please call anytime.

    Thank you,
    Lydia Delis-Schlosser
    916-425-6998

  74. Senior Housing

    This submission is in response to the Vanguard’s misinterpretation of an email message that I distributed regarding tonight’s Housing Element Workshop. The Vanguard story in question had the headline “Covell Partners Attempt to Hijack Thursday’s Housing Element Workshop,” but the only hijacking that occurred was interception and misappropriation of my email message. I had sent that message only to people who expressed interest in provision of additional senior housing, which is in increasingly short supply in Davis. The project that North Davis Land Company envisions would help rectify that imbalance.

    Over the past few months we have spent countless hours meeting with more than 100 members of our community to learn about the needs and preferences for senior housing in Davis. The email I sent out was a private communication directed to the individuals with whom we have met, and only these individuals. It was not a news release, it was not a public call to action. I had the privilege to speak in person with every one of the people to whom I sent that message. In our small-group roundtable sessions, we engaged in heartfelt discussions about their plans for life after retirement.

    In those meetings, I repeatedly heard from people who said they will no longer need as much space as their present home contains, and indicated that they would like to reduce the maintenance that their existing home requires. Every person who received this email had expressed interest in our idea to design a comprehensive senior neighborhood community with a wide range of ownership housing opportunities, a continuum of care, wellness and fitness facilities, and extensive habitat and greenbelt areas.

    Each person who attended these meetings said they would like to receive updates on our progress and would be interested in supporting the process. The message that the Vanguard expropriated was one such piece of correspondence.

    The Vanguard story attributed Richard Livingston for declaring that “Senior housing is not a priority.” Oh? The people who voluntarily attended our informal group discussions, and who expressed interest in our concept and requested additional information to keep them informed and involved in the process, offer irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

    I must emphasize that I sent this email only to people who have come to our conference room and spent hours talking to us and sharing their thoughts and concerns regarding senior housing and the lack of choices in our town. Neither we nor they have any intention to manipulate the public process. We ARE, however, interested in stimulating discussion among people who have been dissatisfied with the present inadequacy in senior-oriented housing in Davis, and in involving them as advisors to help us in conceiving a solution. This email went to those who expressed interest and want to support a new type of senior housing opportunity for Davis.

    I am distressed by an inequity that Doug Paul Davis either did not perceive or deliberately chose to ignore. He attacked us for sending a private email message to a very small group of individuals who expressed the desire to be consulted about their needs for senior housing. Yet he failed to find fault when a member of the Housing Element Subcommittee — the group that is sponsoring this “Community Workshop” — distributed emails to thousands of people in Davis, promoting one project, denouncing others and encouraging people to come out and support their views. That hypocrisy is worthy of further scrutiny.

    If you are a person of advancing age or have family member looking to make plans for their future and are dissatisfied with the choices in this community to meet your needs we would like you to share your ideas with us.
    I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision. Please call anytime.

    Thank you,
    Lydia Delis-Schlosser
    916-425-6998

  76. Senior Housing

    This submission is in response to the Vanguard’s misinterpretation of an email message that I distributed regarding tonight’s Housing Element Workshop. The Vanguard story in question had the headline “Covell Partners Attempt to Hijack Thursday’s Housing Element Workshop,” but the only hijacking that occurred was interception and misappropriation of my email message. I had sent that message only to people who expressed interest in provision of additional senior housing, which is in increasingly short supply in Davis. The project that North Davis Land Company envisions would help rectify that imbalance.

    Over the past few months we have spent countless hours meeting with more than 100 members of our community to learn about the needs and preferences for senior housing in Davis. The email I sent out was a private communication directed to the individuals with whom we have met, and only these individuals. It was not a news release, it was not a public call to action. I had the privilege to speak in person with every one of the people to whom I sent that message. In our small-group roundtable sessions, we engaged in heartfelt discussions about their plans for life after retirement.

    In those meetings, I repeatedly heard from people who said they will no longer need as much space as their present home contains, and indicated that they would like to reduce the maintenance that their existing home requires. Every person who received this email had expressed interest in our idea to design a comprehensive senior neighborhood community with a wide range of ownership housing opportunities, a continuum of care, wellness and fitness facilities, and extensive habitat and greenbelt areas.

    Each person who attended these meetings said they would like to receive updates on our progress and would be interested in supporting the process. The message that the Vanguard expropriated was one such piece of correspondence.

    The Vanguard story attributed Richard Livingston for declaring that “Senior housing is not a priority.” Oh? The people who voluntarily attended our informal group discussions, and who expressed interest in our concept and requested additional information to keep them informed and involved in the process, offer irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

    I must emphasize that I sent this email only to people who have come to our conference room and spent hours talking to us and sharing their thoughts and concerns regarding senior housing and the lack of choices in our town. Neither we nor they have any intention to manipulate the public process. We ARE, however, interested in stimulating discussion among people who have been dissatisfied with the present inadequacy in senior-oriented housing in Davis, and in involving them as advisors to help us in conceiving a solution. This email went to those who expressed interest and want to support a new type of senior housing opportunity for Davis.

    I am distressed by an inequity that Doug Paul Davis either did not perceive or deliberately chose to ignore. He attacked us for sending a private email message to a very small group of individuals who expressed the desire to be consulted about their needs for senior housing. Yet he failed to find fault when a member of the Housing Element Subcommittee — the group that is sponsoring this “Community Workshop” — distributed emails to thousands of people in Davis, promoting one project, denouncing others and encouraging people to come out and support their views. That hypocrisy is worthy of further scrutiny.

    If you are a person of advancing age or have family member looking to make plans for their future and are dissatisfied with the choices in this community to meet your needs we would like you to share your ideas with us.
    I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision. Please call anytime.

    Thank you,
    Lydia Delis-Schlosser
    916-425-6998

  77. I appreciate Lydia Delis-Schlosser’s response. One of the good things about this blog is that there is an opportunity for response and debate. And this debate occurs in the light of day rather than behind closed doors. We would not be having this discussion and most people would be unaware that this occurred without such means of communication.

    I nevertheless disagree and strongly with several of the points that Ms. Delis-Schlosser makes.

    First of all there is no interception of an email. The email was sent out, one of the recipients forwarded the message. Once an email is sent out to a recipient it becomes the property of that recipient to do with as they choose including using the forward feature.

    Second to suggest that this email and directive was simply about senior housing does not fit the facts of the directive. It requested that people place as a priority the expansion of city boundaries. It also requested that people such avoiding infill development that could accommodate senior housing. This is not a generalized support for senior housing it is a project-specific support for a particular senior housing development. Neither of these responses are necessary in order to voice support for senior housing unless you are voicing support for a specific project–the one sponsored by the sender of the email.

    The debate over the need for senior housing is indeed an important one and it is also one of controversy, where people who sit on commission such as the senior citizens commission do not agree on whether and how much additional senior housing is needed.

    In my opinion, this an important debate and should not be driven by developers who have a vested interest in building a specific type of housing but rather the community as a whole.

    I stand by my characterization of this email as intended to manipulate the political process. If you were merely intending to communicate with those who had indicated a willingness to support a senior housing project, why specifically coach them on how to fill out the questionnaire?

    I find this a cynical manipulation of a political process, but I thank you for posting here to tell your side of the story.

  78. I appreciate Lydia Delis-Schlosser’s response. One of the good things about this blog is that there is an opportunity for response and debate. And this debate occurs in the light of day rather than behind closed doors. We would not be having this discussion and most people would be unaware that this occurred without such means of communication.

    I nevertheless disagree and strongly with several of the points that Ms. Delis-Schlosser makes.

    First of all there is no interception of an email. The email was sent out, one of the recipients forwarded the message. Once an email is sent out to a recipient it becomes the property of that recipient to do with as they choose including using the forward feature.

    Second to suggest that this email and directive was simply about senior housing does not fit the facts of the directive. It requested that people place as a priority the expansion of city boundaries. It also requested that people such avoiding infill development that could accommodate senior housing. This is not a generalized support for senior housing it is a project-specific support for a particular senior housing development. Neither of these responses are necessary in order to voice support for senior housing unless you are voicing support for a specific project–the one sponsored by the sender of the email.

    The debate over the need for senior housing is indeed an important one and it is also one of controversy, where people who sit on commission such as the senior citizens commission do not agree on whether and how much additional senior housing is needed.

    In my opinion, this an important debate and should not be driven by developers who have a vested interest in building a specific type of housing but rather the community as a whole.

    I stand by my characterization of this email as intended to manipulate the political process. If you were merely intending to communicate with those who had indicated a willingness to support a senior housing project, why specifically coach them on how to fill out the questionnaire?

    I find this a cynical manipulation of a political process, but I thank you for posting here to tell your side of the story.

  79. I appreciate Lydia Delis-Schlosser’s response. One of the good things about this blog is that there is an opportunity for response and debate. And this debate occurs in the light of day rather than behind closed doors. We would not be having this discussion and most people would be unaware that this occurred without such means of communication.

    I nevertheless disagree and strongly with several of the points that Ms. Delis-Schlosser makes.

    First of all there is no interception of an email. The email was sent out, one of the recipients forwarded the message. Once an email is sent out to a recipient it becomes the property of that recipient to do with as they choose including using the forward feature.

    Second to suggest that this email and directive was simply about senior housing does not fit the facts of the directive. It requested that people place as a priority the expansion of city boundaries. It also requested that people such avoiding infill development that could accommodate senior housing. This is not a generalized support for senior housing it is a project-specific support for a particular senior housing development. Neither of these responses are necessary in order to voice support for senior housing unless you are voicing support for a specific project–the one sponsored by the sender of the email.

    The debate over the need for senior housing is indeed an important one and it is also one of controversy, where people who sit on commission such as the senior citizens commission do not agree on whether and how much additional senior housing is needed.

    In my opinion, this an important debate and should not be driven by developers who have a vested interest in building a specific type of housing but rather the community as a whole.

    I stand by my characterization of this email as intended to manipulate the political process. If you were merely intending to communicate with those who had indicated a willingness to support a senior housing project, why specifically coach them on how to fill out the questionnaire?

    I find this a cynical manipulation of a political process, but I thank you for posting here to tell your side of the story.

  80. I appreciate Lydia Delis-Schlosser’s response. One of the good things about this blog is that there is an opportunity for response and debate. And this debate occurs in the light of day rather than behind closed doors. We would not be having this discussion and most people would be unaware that this occurred without such means of communication.

    I nevertheless disagree and strongly with several of the points that Ms. Delis-Schlosser makes.

    First of all there is no interception of an email. The email was sent out, one of the recipients forwarded the message. Once an email is sent out to a recipient it becomes the property of that recipient to do with as they choose including using the forward feature.

    Second to suggest that this email and directive was simply about senior housing does not fit the facts of the directive. It requested that people place as a priority the expansion of city boundaries. It also requested that people such avoiding infill development that could accommodate senior housing. This is not a generalized support for senior housing it is a project-specific support for a particular senior housing development. Neither of these responses are necessary in order to voice support for senior housing unless you are voicing support for a specific project–the one sponsored by the sender of the email.

    The debate over the need for senior housing is indeed an important one and it is also one of controversy, where people who sit on commission such as the senior citizens commission do not agree on whether and how much additional senior housing is needed.

    In my opinion, this an important debate and should not be driven by developers who have a vested interest in building a specific type of housing but rather the community as a whole.

    I stand by my characterization of this email as intended to manipulate the political process. If you were merely intending to communicate with those who had indicated a willingness to support a senior housing project, why specifically coach them on how to fill out the questionnaire?

    I find this a cynical manipulation of a political process, but I thank you for posting here to tell your side of the story.

  81. Ms. delis schlosser is justifying sending out an email to over 100 people and telling them exactly how to vote to promote a specific senior project–not just any senior housing–but the Covell Village site specifically. She is promoting a specific project–her boss’s. So, if 500 people show up, and 100 of them follow her instructions, as they are likely to do, then that is going to skew the data significantly in favor of John Whitcomb’s project. That is hijacking the process. This is a far cry from sending emails to friends and asking them to attend the workshop and support development that continues to support the long-held policies that have made Davis the unique and highly livable community that it is. What Ms. delis schlosser did was done specifically to line the pockets of one developer, who was soundly defeated two years ago by a 60%-40% vote, at the expense of the rest of us in the community.

    If we do need more senior housing in Davis-and there has been much discussion on that with members of the senior commission stating we do not need it and especially do not need this type-then we need to plan it appropriately. There are many parcels much closer to the downtown and other amenities that could accommodate senior housing. Most seniors, if they move out of their family homes, want to down-size. The homes this developer wants to build are not this type of housing. And I will speculate that the proposal for senior housing at this site is a ploy to get a foot in the door, and that this proposal will end up with a sea of big expensive homes, just like the Covell Village proposal.

    It is despicable that this developer came back with another big development for this site–and don’t be fooled by his “phasing”; this developer plans to develop all of that parcel just as planned in the original CV project, with just as many big, expensive homes, promoting sprawl, traffic nightmares, and huge negative impacts on our infrastructure and finances. The voters of Davis overwhelmingly defeated his last project and he just slapped us all in the face, returning with another proposal and possibly putting the entire community through another horrible campaign, just to further line his pockets.

  82. Ms. delis schlosser is justifying sending out an email to over 100 people and telling them exactly how to vote to promote a specific senior project–not just any senior housing–but the Covell Village site specifically. She is promoting a specific project–her boss’s. So, if 500 people show up, and 100 of them follow her instructions, as they are likely to do, then that is going to skew the data significantly in favor of John Whitcomb’s project. That is hijacking the process. This is a far cry from sending emails to friends and asking them to attend the workshop and support development that continues to support the long-held policies that have made Davis the unique and highly livable community that it is. What Ms. delis schlosser did was done specifically to line the pockets of one developer, who was soundly defeated two years ago by a 60%-40% vote, at the expense of the rest of us in the community.

    If we do need more senior housing in Davis-and there has been much discussion on that with members of the senior commission stating we do not need it and especially do not need this type-then we need to plan it appropriately. There are many parcels much closer to the downtown and other amenities that could accommodate senior housing. Most seniors, if they move out of their family homes, want to down-size. The homes this developer wants to build are not this type of housing. And I will speculate that the proposal for senior housing at this site is a ploy to get a foot in the door, and that this proposal will end up with a sea of big expensive homes, just like the Covell Village proposal.

    It is despicable that this developer came back with another big development for this site–and don’t be fooled by his “phasing”; this developer plans to develop all of that parcel just as planned in the original CV project, with just as many big, expensive homes, promoting sprawl, traffic nightmares, and huge negative impacts on our infrastructure and finances. The voters of Davis overwhelmingly defeated his last project and he just slapped us all in the face, returning with another proposal and possibly putting the entire community through another horrible campaign, just to further line his pockets.

  83. Ms. delis schlosser is justifying sending out an email to over 100 people and telling them exactly how to vote to promote a specific senior project–not just any senior housing–but the Covell Village site specifically. She is promoting a specific project–her boss’s. So, if 500 people show up, and 100 of them follow her instructions, as they are likely to do, then that is going to skew the data significantly in favor of John Whitcomb’s project. That is hijacking the process. This is a far cry from sending emails to friends and asking them to attend the workshop and support development that continues to support the long-held policies that have made Davis the unique and highly livable community that it is. What Ms. delis schlosser did was done specifically to line the pockets of one developer, who was soundly defeated two years ago by a 60%-40% vote, at the expense of the rest of us in the community.

    If we do need more senior housing in Davis-and there has been much discussion on that with members of the senior commission stating we do not need it and especially do not need this type-then we need to plan it appropriately. There are many parcels much closer to the downtown and other amenities that could accommodate senior housing. Most seniors, if they move out of their family homes, want to down-size. The homes this developer wants to build are not this type of housing. And I will speculate that the proposal for senior housing at this site is a ploy to get a foot in the door, and that this proposal will end up with a sea of big expensive homes, just like the Covell Village proposal.

    It is despicable that this developer came back with another big development for this site–and don’t be fooled by his “phasing”; this developer plans to develop all of that parcel just as planned in the original CV project, with just as many big, expensive homes, promoting sprawl, traffic nightmares, and huge negative impacts on our infrastructure and finances. The voters of Davis overwhelmingly defeated his last project and he just slapped us all in the face, returning with another proposal and possibly putting the entire community through another horrible campaign, just to further line his pockets.

  84. Ms. delis schlosser is justifying sending out an email to over 100 people and telling them exactly how to vote to promote a specific senior project–not just any senior housing–but the Covell Village site specifically. She is promoting a specific project–her boss’s. So, if 500 people show up, and 100 of them follow her instructions, as they are likely to do, then that is going to skew the data significantly in favor of John Whitcomb’s project. That is hijacking the process. This is a far cry from sending emails to friends and asking them to attend the workshop and support development that continues to support the long-held policies that have made Davis the unique and highly livable community that it is. What Ms. delis schlosser did was done specifically to line the pockets of one developer, who was soundly defeated two years ago by a 60%-40% vote, at the expense of the rest of us in the community.

    If we do need more senior housing in Davis-and there has been much discussion on that with members of the senior commission stating we do not need it and especially do not need this type-then we need to plan it appropriately. There are many parcels much closer to the downtown and other amenities that could accommodate senior housing. Most seniors, if they move out of their family homes, want to down-size. The homes this developer wants to build are not this type of housing. And I will speculate that the proposal for senior housing at this site is a ploy to get a foot in the door, and that this proposal will end up with a sea of big expensive homes, just like the Covell Village proposal.

    It is despicable that this developer came back with another big development for this site–and don’t be fooled by his “phasing”; this developer plans to develop all of that parcel just as planned in the original CV project, with just as many big, expensive homes, promoting sprawl, traffic nightmares, and huge negative impacts on our infrastructure and finances. The voters of Davis overwhelmingly defeated his last project and he just slapped us all in the face, returning with another proposal and possibly putting the entire community through another horrible campaign, just to further line his pockets.

  85. This is another attempt by the owners of Covell Village who previously called themselves the Covell Village Partners to bring forth a massive development project similar to the one overwhelmingly rejected by Davis voters in November 2005. They have simply changed their company name to North Davis Land Company, to avoid the stigma of Covell Village. These very same people now bring forth a similar project, but this time are using Senior Citizens as a “Trojan Horse” to accomplish their goal.

    Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett and her “vision” and the vision of her employers—the old Covell Village Partners who have morphed into the North Davis Land Company owners—is the same as the inappropriate project they previously tried to foist on the residents of the city of Davis.

  86. This is another attempt by the owners of Covell Village who previously called themselves the Covell Village Partners to bring forth a massive development project similar to the one overwhelmingly rejected by Davis voters in November 2005. They have simply changed their company name to North Davis Land Company, to avoid the stigma of Covell Village. These very same people now bring forth a similar project, but this time are using Senior Citizens as a “Trojan Horse” to accomplish their goal.

    Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett and her “vision” and the vision of her employers—the old Covell Village Partners who have morphed into the North Davis Land Company owners—is the same as the inappropriate project they previously tried to foist on the residents of the city of Davis.

  87. This is another attempt by the owners of Covell Village who previously called themselves the Covell Village Partners to bring forth a massive development project similar to the one overwhelmingly rejected by Davis voters in November 2005. They have simply changed their company name to North Davis Land Company, to avoid the stigma of Covell Village. These very same people now bring forth a similar project, but this time are using Senior Citizens as a “Trojan Horse” to accomplish their goal.

    Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett and her “vision” and the vision of her employers—the old Covell Village Partners who have morphed into the North Davis Land Company owners—is the same as the inappropriate project they previously tried to foist on the residents of the city of Davis.

  88. This is another attempt by the owners of Covell Village who previously called themselves the Covell Village Partners to bring forth a massive development project similar to the one overwhelmingly rejected by Davis voters in November 2005. They have simply changed their company name to North Davis Land Company, to avoid the stigma of Covell Village. These very same people now bring forth a similar project, but this time are using Senior Citizens as a “Trojan Horse” to accomplish their goal.

    Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett and her “vision” and the vision of her employers—the old Covell Village Partners who have morphed into the North Davis Land Company owners—is the same as the inappropriate project they previously tried to foist on the residents of the city of Davis.

  93. Ms. Delis-Sclosser

    I compliment you on a well-crafted response. The issues at hand,and not addressed adequately by your response, are the “recommendation” instructions for the comment section that are supposed to express the ideas of the participants in this WORKSHOP as well as explicit instructions as to where to rank the CV site in the listing.

  94. Ms. Delis-Sclosser

    I compliment you on a well-crafted response. The issues at hand,and not addressed adequately by your response, are the “recommendation” instructions for the comment section that are supposed to express the ideas of the participants in this WORKSHOP as well as explicit instructions as to where to rank the CV site in the listing.

  95. Ms. Delis-Sclosser

    I compliment you on a well-crafted response. The issues at hand,and not addressed adequately by your response, are the “recommendation” instructions for the comment section that are supposed to express the ideas of the participants in this WORKSHOP as well as explicit instructions as to where to rank the CV site in the listing.

  96. Ms. Delis-Sclosser

    I compliment you on a well-crafted response. The issues at hand,and not addressed adequately by your response, are the “recommendation” instructions for the comment section that are supposed to express the ideas of the participants in this WORKSHOP as well as explicit instructions as to where to rank the CV site in the listing.

  97. mike corbett is not involved in the current proposal, other than maybe having several conversations with the developers regarding their ideas for the site.

  98. mike corbett is not involved in the current proposal, other than maybe having several conversations with the developers regarding their ideas for the site.

  99. mike corbett is not involved in the current proposal, other than maybe having several conversations with the developers regarding their ideas for the site.

  100. mike corbett is not involved in the current proposal, other than maybe having several conversations with the developers regarding their ideas for the site.

  101. “Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett…“

    Lydia also worked for the Village People in their last quest to develop their parcel.

    Mike Corbett does not appear to be involved this time around, but apparently Lydia still needs a job.

    Given her involvement in the previous Covell scheme (which was not a senior housing project), it is difficult to take her newfound concern for senior housing seriously. Rather, she is merely doing her job – implementing the latest campaign strategy to develop Covell Village.

    I wonder if they will also hire consultant/spokesman Nathan Ballard, who spearheaded the Yes on X campaign? The name of his firm is “Earned Media,” which refers to the practice of getting your issue in the press by doing something newsworthy (as opposed to paid advertisements). Most of the earned media Yes On X got was negative publicity when they repeatedly shot holes in their feet (PizzaGate, the Helen Thomson “bogeyman” letter, the Kevin Wolf/Friends of the River fiasco, etc.)

    Considering this most recent sleaze, it appears that Nate Ballard may already be at work.

  102. “Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett…“

    Lydia also worked for the Village People in their last quest to develop their parcel.

    Mike Corbett does not appear to be involved this time around, but apparently Lydia still needs a job.

    Given her involvement in the previous Covell scheme (which was not a senior housing project), it is difficult to take her newfound concern for senior housing seriously. Rather, she is merely doing her job – implementing the latest campaign strategy to develop Covell Village.

    I wonder if they will also hire consultant/spokesman Nathan Ballard, who spearheaded the Yes on X campaign? The name of his firm is “Earned Media,” which refers to the practice of getting your issue in the press by doing something newsworthy (as opposed to paid advertisements). Most of the earned media Yes On X got was negative publicity when they repeatedly shot holes in their feet (PizzaGate, the Helen Thomson “bogeyman” letter, the Kevin Wolf/Friends of the River fiasco, etc.)

    Considering this most recent sleaze, it appears that Nate Ballard may already be at work.

  103. “Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett…“

    Lydia also worked for the Village People in their last quest to develop their parcel.

    Mike Corbett does not appear to be involved this time around, but apparently Lydia still needs a job.

    Given her involvement in the previous Covell scheme (which was not a senior housing project), it is difficult to take her newfound concern for senior housing seriously. Rather, she is merely doing her job – implementing the latest campaign strategy to develop Covell Village.

    I wonder if they will also hire consultant/spokesman Nathan Ballard, who spearheaded the Yes on X campaign? The name of his firm is “Earned Media,” which refers to the practice of getting your issue in the press by doing something newsworthy (as opposed to paid advertisements). Most of the earned media Yes On X got was negative publicity when they repeatedly shot holes in their feet (PizzaGate, the Helen Thomson “bogeyman” letter, the Kevin Wolf/Friends of the River fiasco, etc.)

    Considering this most recent sleaze, it appears that Nate Ballard may already be at work.

  104. “Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser is the current Mike Corbett…“

    Lydia also worked for the Village People in their last quest to develop their parcel.

    Mike Corbett does not appear to be involved this time around, but apparently Lydia still needs a job.

    Given her involvement in the previous Covell scheme (which was not a senior housing project), it is difficult to take her newfound concern for senior housing seriously. Rather, she is merely doing her job – implementing the latest campaign strategy to develop Covell Village.

    I wonder if they will also hire consultant/spokesman Nathan Ballard, who spearheaded the Yes on X campaign? The name of his firm is “Earned Media,” which refers to the practice of getting your issue in the press by doing something newsworthy (as opposed to paid advertisements). Most of the earned media Yes On X got was negative publicity when they repeatedly shot holes in their feet (PizzaGate, the Helen Thomson “bogeyman” letter, the Kevin Wolf/Friends of the River fiasco, etc.)

    Considering this most recent sleaze, it appears that Nate Ballard may already be at work.

  105. You will notice Lydia has a 916 area code. And she wants us to trust her and Covell Village partners with planning our future?

    Please Lydia, Natomas needs your kind of sprawl. We don’t.

  106. You will notice Lydia has a 916 area code. And she wants us to trust her and Covell Village partners with planning our future?

    Please Lydia, Natomas needs your kind of sprawl. We don’t.

  107. You will notice Lydia has a 916 area code. And she wants us to trust her and Covell Village partners with planning our future?

    Please Lydia, Natomas needs your kind of sprawl. We don’t.

  108. You will notice Lydia has a 916 area code. And she wants us to trust her and Covell Village partners with planning our future?

    Please Lydia, Natomas needs your kind of sprawl. We don’t.

  109. Enough with the vitriol, sarcasm and half-truths. And we wonder why our City Council has a difficult time being rational and civil…

    FYI

    1) Lydia is a highly respected member of this community who lives in Davis and has raised her two sons in Davis public schools.

    2) Nate Ballard is now the Press Secretary for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco.

  110. Enough with the vitriol, sarcasm and half-truths. And we wonder why our City Council has a difficult time being rational and civil…

    FYI

    1) Lydia is a highly respected member of this community who lives in Davis and has raised her two sons in Davis public schools.

    2) Nate Ballard is now the Press Secretary for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco.

  111. Enough with the vitriol, sarcasm and half-truths. And we wonder why our City Council has a difficult time being rational and civil…

    FYI

    1) Lydia is a highly respected member of this community who lives in Davis and has raised her two sons in Davis public schools.

    2) Nate Ballard is now the Press Secretary for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco.

  112. Enough with the vitriol, sarcasm and half-truths. And we wonder why our City Council has a difficult time being rational and civil…

    FYI

    1) Lydia is a highly respected member of this community who lives in Davis and has raised her two sons in Davis public schools.

    2) Nate Ballard is now the Press Secretary for Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco.

  113. This is not about Lydia. This is about the Whitcombe boys being less than honest with the public once again. Lydia may be a respectful person, but the tactics they employed her to carry out were anything but respectful to seniors and the community as a whole.

    So what if Nate works for the less than honest mayor of SF? What he did with Yes On X was less than honest as they twisted the truth to the voters of Davis who were too smart to fall for their slick mailer campaign.

    It’s not about Nate or Lydia. It’s about being honest with the citizens of Davis and letting them make decisions on their own.

  114. This is not about Lydia. This is about the Whitcombe boys being less than honest with the public once again. Lydia may be a respectful person, but the tactics they employed her to carry out were anything but respectful to seniors and the community as a whole.

    So what if Nate works for the less than honest mayor of SF? What he did with Yes On X was less than honest as they twisted the truth to the voters of Davis who were too smart to fall for their slick mailer campaign.

    It’s not about Nate or Lydia. It’s about being honest with the citizens of Davis and letting them make decisions on their own.

  115. This is not about Lydia. This is about the Whitcombe boys being less than honest with the public once again. Lydia may be a respectful person, but the tactics they employed her to carry out were anything but respectful to seniors and the community as a whole.

    So what if Nate works for the less than honest mayor of SF? What he did with Yes On X was less than honest as they twisted the truth to the voters of Davis who were too smart to fall for their slick mailer campaign.

    It’s not about Nate or Lydia. It’s about being honest with the citizens of Davis and letting them make decisions on their own.

  116. This is not about Lydia. This is about the Whitcombe boys being less than honest with the public once again. Lydia may be a respectful person, but the tactics they employed her to carry out were anything but respectful to seniors and the community as a whole.

    So what if Nate works for the less than honest mayor of SF? What he did with Yes On X was less than honest as they twisted the truth to the voters of Davis who were too smart to fall for their slick mailer campaign.

    It’s not about Nate or Lydia. It’s about being honest with the citizens of Davis and letting them make decisions on their own.

  117. Lydia Delis-Schlosser closes her comment with an interesting sentence:
    “I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision.”
    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would not like to talk about and not become involved with her vision?
    The tenor of this sentence is, of course, a natural outgrowth of the thinking that resulted in the doctored Housing Element Committee response forms.
    In other words, to follow this logic to its twisted conclusion, it doesn’t matter what you think, just so long as you “become involved” with her vision.

  118. Lydia went too far. Had she just notified her contacts about the upcoming workshop, maybe even attached the survey, and even encouraged them to support the Covell proposal, her actions would have been fine. But to give such detailed instructions on how to respond to the survey is…well, sleazy.

    To Eileen Samitz’ credit, while she has an email list from the No on X campaign that she sends information to and discusses her view of upcoming issues, she has never tried to change people into unthinking robots who write in her words on surveys, or read statements written by her during public comment periods, etc.

    I think that I would go so far as saying that Lydia’s actions are a form of elder abuse – manipulating vulnerable people for personal gain.

    Lydia’s actions would never fly in the academic world. As a student, she would be referred to Judicial Affairs. As an instructor or researcher, the study would be found flawed and ignored. Why would she ever believe that in this college town, her actions in this matter would be OK?

    As a personal reaction – I have long held the belief that the Covell Village site will eventually be developed, but when I hear about these types of actions, it makes me not even want to consider it. I just don’t want to feel like I’ve been fooled into voting for the project. Just give me the information, and let me warm up to the project. If it is a good one, then I’ll vote for it. Please.

  119. Lydia Delis-Schlosser closes her comment with an interesting sentence:
    “I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision.”
    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would not like to talk about and not become involved with her vision?
    The tenor of this sentence is, of course, a natural outgrowth of the thinking that resulted in the doctored Housing Element Committee response forms.
    In other words, to follow this logic to its twisted conclusion, it doesn’t matter what you think, just so long as you “become involved” with her vision.

  120. Lydia went too far. Had she just notified her contacts about the upcoming workshop, maybe even attached the survey, and even encouraged them to support the Covell proposal, her actions would have been fine. But to give such detailed instructions on how to respond to the survey is…well, sleazy.

    To Eileen Samitz’ credit, while she has an email list from the No on X campaign that she sends information to and discusses her view of upcoming issues, she has never tried to change people into unthinking robots who write in her words on surveys, or read statements written by her during public comment periods, etc.

    I think that I would go so far as saying that Lydia’s actions are a form of elder abuse – manipulating vulnerable people for personal gain.

    Lydia’s actions would never fly in the academic world. As a student, she would be referred to Judicial Affairs. As an instructor or researcher, the study would be found flawed and ignored. Why would she ever believe that in this college town, her actions in this matter would be OK?

    As a personal reaction – I have long held the belief that the Covell Village site will eventually be developed, but when I hear about these types of actions, it makes me not even want to consider it. I just don’t want to feel like I’ve been fooled into voting for the project. Just give me the information, and let me warm up to the project. If it is a good one, then I’ll vote for it. Please.

  121. Lydia Delis-Schlosser closes her comment with an interesting sentence:
    “I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision.”
    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would not like to talk about and not become involved with her vision?
    The tenor of this sentence is, of course, a natural outgrowth of the thinking that resulted in the doctored Housing Element Committee response forms.
    In other words, to follow this logic to its twisted conclusion, it doesn’t matter what you think, just so long as you “become involved” with her vision.

  122. Lydia went too far. Had she just notified her contacts about the upcoming workshop, maybe even attached the survey, and even encouraged them to support the Covell proposal, her actions would have been fine. But to give such detailed instructions on how to respond to the survey is…well, sleazy.

    To Eileen Samitz’ credit, while she has an email list from the No on X campaign that she sends information to and discusses her view of upcoming issues, she has never tried to change people into unthinking robots who write in her words on surveys, or read statements written by her during public comment periods, etc.

    I think that I would go so far as saying that Lydia’s actions are a form of elder abuse – manipulating vulnerable people for personal gain.

    Lydia’s actions would never fly in the academic world. As a student, she would be referred to Judicial Affairs. As an instructor or researcher, the study would be found flawed and ignored. Why would she ever believe that in this college town, her actions in this matter would be OK?

    As a personal reaction – I have long held the belief that the Covell Village site will eventually be developed, but when I hear about these types of actions, it makes me not even want to consider it. I just don’t want to feel like I’ve been fooled into voting for the project. Just give me the information, and let me warm up to the project. If it is a good one, then I’ll vote for it. Please.

  123. Lydia Delis-Schlosser closes her comment with an interesting sentence:
    “I welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about and become involved with our vision.”
    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would not like to talk about and not become involved with her vision?
    The tenor of this sentence is, of course, a natural outgrowth of the thinking that resulted in the doctored Housing Element Committee response forms.
    In other words, to follow this logic to its twisted conclusion, it doesn’t matter what you think, just so long as you “become involved” with her vision.

  124. Lydia went too far. Had she just notified her contacts about the upcoming workshop, maybe even attached the survey, and even encouraged them to support the Covell proposal, her actions would have been fine. But to give such detailed instructions on how to respond to the survey is…well, sleazy.

    To Eileen Samitz’ credit, while she has an email list from the No on X campaign that she sends information to and discusses her view of upcoming issues, she has never tried to change people into unthinking robots who write in her words on surveys, or read statements written by her during public comment periods, etc.

    I think that I would go so far as saying that Lydia’s actions are a form of elder abuse – manipulating vulnerable people for personal gain.

    Lydia’s actions would never fly in the academic world. As a student, she would be referred to Judicial Affairs. As an instructor or researcher, the study would be found flawed and ignored. Why would she ever believe that in this college town, her actions in this matter would be OK?

    As a personal reaction – I have long held the belief that the Covell Village site will eventually be developed, but when I hear about these types of actions, it makes me not even want to consider it. I just don’t want to feel like I’ve been fooled into voting for the project. Just give me the information, and let me warm up to the project. If it is a good one, then I’ll vote for it. Please.

  125. Doug Paul Davis,

    I like how you always cherry pick one criticism out of a bunch and simply toss it aside while ignoring the others.

    The other ones must be so right on the money that they need no qualifications.

    mmmm yummy sarcasm, tastes so good with violently hijacked, half-true screeds by sleazy stooges

  126. Doug Paul Davis,

    I like how you always cherry pick one criticism out of a bunch and simply toss it aside while ignoring the others.

    The other ones must be so right on the money that they need no qualifications.

    mmmm yummy sarcasm, tastes so good with violently hijacked, half-true screeds by sleazy stooges

  127. Doug Paul Davis,

    I like how you always cherry pick one criticism out of a bunch and simply toss it aside while ignoring the others.

    The other ones must be so right on the money that they need no qualifications.

    mmmm yummy sarcasm, tastes so good with violently hijacked, half-true screeds by sleazy stooges

  128. Doug Paul Davis,

    I like how you always cherry pick one criticism out of a bunch and simply toss it aside while ignoring the others.

    The other ones must be so right on the money that they need no qualifications.

    mmmm yummy sarcasm, tastes so good with violently hijacked, half-true screeds by sleazy stooges

  129. Revised postion of my recent comment:

    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about but yet not become involved with her vision?

  130. Revised postion of my recent comment:

    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about but yet not become involved with her vision?

  131. Revised postion of my recent comment:

    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about but yet not become involved with her vision?

  132. Revised postion of my recent comment:

    Very interesting–because, it begs the question: Would she not welcome calls from anyone who would like to talk about but yet not become involved with her vision?

  133. I have repeatedly expressed my concern that the senior housing issue is being used by developers inappropriately – to gain a toe-hold in developing where developers have been previously unsuccessful. Senior housing is an extremely complicated issue, because it is accompanied by the complexity of level in care required, affordability, access to transportation, handicapped accessability, and the need to downsize.

    If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC). Originally ERC was designed with the idea in mind of affordable housing for middle income seniors. Instead, because of funding constraints arranged by developers, ERC became a “mixed income” senior facility. Unfortunately it was not what Davis seniors wanted or needed. In consequence ERC began with a high vacancy rate – and as a result has become pretty much a low income senior facility -importing many seniors from outside Davis.

    To sum up, ERC did not end up serving the needs of DAVIS SENIORS, especially the very ones the project was originally designed for – low middle to middle income seniors. It is unclear who did the market analysis of ERC’s feasibility, the city or the developers. For the developers to do it is a clear conflict of interest in my opinion. If the city did the analysis, how did they manage to get it so wrong?

    Common sense would dictate a middle income senior is not going to want to pay above market rates for a tiny one bedroom apartment (why not go elsewhere and get something cheaper with more amenities?), while a next door neighbor pays considerably less.

    I wonder if this sudden interest in senior housing at the Covell Village site coincides with the large rent increases at Atria Covell Gardens? Yes, there may be a need for more senior housing, but it has to be the correct type of senior housing, and properly located. ERC was placed at one end of town, does not have a facility bus, and has a particulary dangerous roundabout to be traversed to get to a busstop some distance away – a very unsuitable location. Atria Covell Gardens has an assisted living component, and its residents are concerned about affordability. All of this has to be factored in when putting forth plans for proposed senior housing. Nor have I seen any data that specifically shows a huge need for hundreds of new senior housing units. During the Covell Village discussions, the developers were questioned about this – and kept repeating customers would come, they were sure of it. Virtually all the senior housing being proposed at that time had a pretty hefty price tag.

    Furthermore, the senior housing issue is going to be complicated by the budget crisis and the upcoming increase in taxes (school tax, library tax, landscape and maintenance tax, public safety tax, etc., etc. etc.) as well as huge increases in water and sewer rates. Often seniors are on fixed incomes, and it doesn’t take much to tax them right out of their homes.

    I would ask why the developers of Covell Village are suddenly so concerned about senior housing, yet have not approached the Senior Citizens Commission about their proposal? Instead commissioners have been invited to focus groups as individuals. The adage “divide and conquer” comes to mind.

    I am not anti-developer, just not in favor of determining our city’s housing needs based on the bottom line of the developer, especially those developers who are trying to make an end-run around appropriate political process. This sort of tactic does not sit well with voters, as evidenced by the resounding “no” vote of Covell Village.

    At the moment, what we need more of is appropriate business, not more housing that requires additional city services. The city cannot afford to provide services to its citizens as it is. Bring business into Davis to create the tax revenue to pay for services, and then developers may get a much more positive response. And by the way, it is high time the developers started paying for their fair share of city expenses they create when they build new homes. New housing developments require more police, fire, park maintenance, etc.

  134. I have repeatedly expressed my concern that the senior housing issue is being used by developers inappropriately – to gain a toe-hold in developing where developers have been previously unsuccessful. Senior housing is an extremely complicated issue, because it is accompanied by the complexity of level in care required, affordability, access to transportation, handicapped accessability, and the need to downsize.

    If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC). Originally ERC was designed with the idea in mind of affordable housing for middle income seniors. Instead, because of funding constraints arranged by developers, ERC became a “mixed income” senior facility. Unfortunately it was not what Davis seniors wanted or needed. In consequence ERC began with a high vacancy rate – and as a result has become pretty much a low income senior facility -importing many seniors from outside Davis.

    To sum up, ERC did not end up serving the needs of DAVIS SENIORS, especially the very ones the project was originally designed for – low middle to middle income seniors. It is unclear who did the market analysis of ERC’s feasibility, the city or the developers. For the developers to do it is a clear conflict of interest in my opinion. If the city did the analysis, how did they manage to get it so wrong?

    Common sense would dictate a middle income senior is not going to want to pay above market rates for a tiny one bedroom apartment (why not go elsewhere and get something cheaper with more amenities?), while a next door neighbor pays considerably less.

    I wonder if this sudden interest in senior housing at the Covell Village site coincides with the large rent increases at Atria Covell Gardens? Yes, there may be a need for more senior housing, but it has to be the correct type of senior housing, and properly located. ERC was placed at one end of town, does not have a facility bus, and has a particulary dangerous roundabout to be traversed to get to a busstop some distance away – a very unsuitable location. Atria Covell Gardens has an assisted living component, and its residents are concerned about affordability. All of this has to be factored in when putting forth plans for proposed senior housing. Nor have I seen any data that specifically shows a huge need for hundreds of new senior housing units. During the Covell Village discussions, the developers were questioned about this – and kept repeating customers would come, they were sure of it. Virtually all the senior housing being proposed at that time had a pretty hefty price tag.

    Furthermore, the senior housing issue is going to be complicated by the budget crisis and the upcoming increase in taxes (school tax, library tax, landscape and maintenance tax, public safety tax, etc., etc. etc.) as well as huge increases in water and sewer rates. Often seniors are on fixed incomes, and it doesn’t take much to tax them right out of their homes.

    I would ask why the developers of Covell Village are suddenly so concerned about senior housing, yet have not approached the Senior Citizens Commission about their proposal? Instead commissioners have been invited to focus groups as individuals. The adage “divide and conquer” comes to mind.

    I am not anti-developer, just not in favor of determining our city’s housing needs based on the bottom line of the developer, especially those developers who are trying to make an end-run around appropriate political process. This sort of tactic does not sit well with voters, as evidenced by the resounding “no” vote of Covell Village.

    At the moment, what we need more of is appropriate business, not more housing that requires additional city services. The city cannot afford to provide services to its citizens as it is. Bring business into Davis to create the tax revenue to pay for services, and then developers may get a much more positive response. And by the way, it is high time the developers started paying for their fair share of city expenses they create when they build new homes. New housing developments require more police, fire, park maintenance, etc.

  135. I have repeatedly expressed my concern that the senior housing issue is being used by developers inappropriately – to gain a toe-hold in developing where developers have been previously unsuccessful. Senior housing is an extremely complicated issue, because it is accompanied by the complexity of level in care required, affordability, access to transportation, handicapped accessability, and the need to downsize.

    If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC). Originally ERC was designed with the idea in mind of affordable housing for middle income seniors. Instead, because of funding constraints arranged by developers, ERC became a “mixed income” senior facility. Unfortunately it was not what Davis seniors wanted or needed. In consequence ERC began with a high vacancy rate – and as a result has become pretty much a low income senior facility -importing many seniors from outside Davis.

    To sum up, ERC did not end up serving the needs of DAVIS SENIORS, especially the very ones the project was originally designed for – low middle to middle income seniors. It is unclear who did the market analysis of ERC’s feasibility, the city or the developers. For the developers to do it is a clear conflict of interest in my opinion. If the city did the analysis, how did they manage to get it so wrong?

    Common sense would dictate a middle income senior is not going to want to pay above market rates for a tiny one bedroom apartment (why not go elsewhere and get something cheaper with more amenities?), while a next door neighbor pays considerably less.

    I wonder if this sudden interest in senior housing at the Covell Village site coincides with the large rent increases at Atria Covell Gardens? Yes, there may be a need for more senior housing, but it has to be the correct type of senior housing, and properly located. ERC was placed at one end of town, does not have a facility bus, and has a particulary dangerous roundabout to be traversed to get to a busstop some distance away – a very unsuitable location. Atria Covell Gardens has an assisted living component, and its residents are concerned about affordability. All of this has to be factored in when putting forth plans for proposed senior housing. Nor have I seen any data that specifically shows a huge need for hundreds of new senior housing units. During the Covell Village discussions, the developers were questioned about this – and kept repeating customers would come, they were sure of it. Virtually all the senior housing being proposed at that time had a pretty hefty price tag.

    Furthermore, the senior housing issue is going to be complicated by the budget crisis and the upcoming increase in taxes (school tax, library tax, landscape and maintenance tax, public safety tax, etc., etc. etc.) as well as huge increases in water and sewer rates. Often seniors are on fixed incomes, and it doesn’t take much to tax them right out of their homes.

    I would ask why the developers of Covell Village are suddenly so concerned about senior housing, yet have not approached the Senior Citizens Commission about their proposal? Instead commissioners have been invited to focus groups as individuals. The adage “divide and conquer” comes to mind.

    I am not anti-developer, just not in favor of determining our city’s housing needs based on the bottom line of the developer, especially those developers who are trying to make an end-run around appropriate political process. This sort of tactic does not sit well with voters, as evidenced by the resounding “no” vote of Covell Village.

    At the moment, what we need more of is appropriate business, not more housing that requires additional city services. The city cannot afford to provide services to its citizens as it is. Bring business into Davis to create the tax revenue to pay for services, and then developers may get a much more positive response. And by the way, it is high time the developers started paying for their fair share of city expenses they create when they build new homes. New housing developments require more police, fire, park maintenance, etc.

  136. I have repeatedly expressed my concern that the senior housing issue is being used by developers inappropriately – to gain a toe-hold in developing where developers have been previously unsuccessful. Senior housing is an extremely complicated issue, because it is accompanied by the complexity of level in care required, affordability, access to transportation, handicapped accessability, and the need to downsize.

    If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC). Originally ERC was designed with the idea in mind of affordable housing for middle income seniors. Instead, because of funding constraints arranged by developers, ERC became a “mixed income” senior facility. Unfortunately it was not what Davis seniors wanted or needed. In consequence ERC began with a high vacancy rate – and as a result has become pretty much a low income senior facility -importing many seniors from outside Davis.

    To sum up, ERC did not end up serving the needs of DAVIS SENIORS, especially the very ones the project was originally designed for – low middle to middle income seniors. It is unclear who did the market analysis of ERC’s feasibility, the city or the developers. For the developers to do it is a clear conflict of interest in my opinion. If the city did the analysis, how did they manage to get it so wrong?

    Common sense would dictate a middle income senior is not going to want to pay above market rates for a tiny one bedroom apartment (why not go elsewhere and get something cheaper with more amenities?), while a next door neighbor pays considerably less.

    I wonder if this sudden interest in senior housing at the Covell Village site coincides with the large rent increases at Atria Covell Gardens? Yes, there may be a need for more senior housing, but it has to be the correct type of senior housing, and properly located. ERC was placed at one end of town, does not have a facility bus, and has a particulary dangerous roundabout to be traversed to get to a busstop some distance away – a very unsuitable location. Atria Covell Gardens has an assisted living component, and its residents are concerned about affordability. All of this has to be factored in when putting forth plans for proposed senior housing. Nor have I seen any data that specifically shows a huge need for hundreds of new senior housing units. During the Covell Village discussions, the developers were questioned about this – and kept repeating customers would come, they were sure of it. Virtually all the senior housing being proposed at that time had a pretty hefty price tag.

    Furthermore, the senior housing issue is going to be complicated by the budget crisis and the upcoming increase in taxes (school tax, library tax, landscape and maintenance tax, public safety tax, etc., etc. etc.) as well as huge increases in water and sewer rates. Often seniors are on fixed incomes, and it doesn’t take much to tax them right out of their homes.

    I would ask why the developers of Covell Village are suddenly so concerned about senior housing, yet have not approached the Senior Citizens Commission about their proposal? Instead commissioners have been invited to focus groups as individuals. The adage “divide and conquer” comes to mind.

    I am not anti-developer, just not in favor of determining our city’s housing needs based on the bottom line of the developer, especially those developers who are trying to make an end-run around appropriate political process. This sort of tactic does not sit well with voters, as evidenced by the resounding “no” vote of Covell Village.

    At the moment, what we need more of is appropriate business, not more housing that requires additional city services. The city cannot afford to provide services to its citizens as it is. Bring business into Davis to create the tax revenue to pay for services, and then developers may get a much more positive response. And by the way, it is high time the developers started paying for their fair share of city expenses they create when they build new homes. New housing developments require more police, fire, park maintenance, etc.

  145. Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?

  146. Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?

  147. Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?

  148. Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?

  149. “If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC).”

    Elaine,

    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    If a private developer, with his own money, had designed and built a for-profit senior housing project on that site with his own money, it never would have been a fiscal debacle at all. The only reason it is a fiscal debacle is because the government funded ERC and controlled what was and what was not built.

    This is one of the problems of socialism: government investment in private concerns is alwasy terribly inefficient; consumers are not catered to; and when money goes to waste, the public at large pays the price.

    If we, as a society, want to help poor people, including poor seniors, afford better quality of housing, or in housing which better meets their needs, we should give the money to the poor and let the marketplace provide the housing.

    The perfect model is with the food stamp program. It is efficient and it leaves the decision-making to consumers, not regulators and their patrons. That is exactly how we should go with housing programs, as well.

  150. “If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC).”

    Elaine,

    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    If a private developer, with his own money, had designed and built a for-profit senior housing project on that site with his own money, it never would have been a fiscal debacle at all. The only reason it is a fiscal debacle is because the government funded ERC and controlled what was and what was not built.

    This is one of the problems of socialism: government investment in private concerns is alwasy terribly inefficient; consumers are not catered to; and when money goes to waste, the public at large pays the price.

    If we, as a society, want to help poor people, including poor seniors, afford better quality of housing, or in housing which better meets their needs, we should give the money to the poor and let the marketplace provide the housing.

    The perfect model is with the food stamp program. It is efficient and it leaves the decision-making to consumers, not regulators and their patrons. That is exactly how we should go with housing programs, as well.

  151. “If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC).”

    Elaine,

    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    If a private developer, with his own money, had designed and built a for-profit senior housing project on that site with his own money, it never would have been a fiscal debacle at all. The only reason it is a fiscal debacle is because the government funded ERC and controlled what was and what was not built.

    This is one of the problems of socialism: government investment in private concerns is alwasy terribly inefficient; consumers are not catered to; and when money goes to waste, the public at large pays the price.

    If we, as a society, want to help poor people, including poor seniors, afford better quality of housing, or in housing which better meets their needs, we should give the money to the poor and let the marketplace provide the housing.

    The perfect model is with the food stamp program. It is efficient and it leaves the decision-making to consumers, not regulators and their patrons. That is exactly how we should go with housing programs, as well.

  152. “If senior housing is developer driven, instead of being carefully thought out, the city ends up with fiscal debacles as in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC).”

    Elaine,

    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    If a private developer, with his own money, had designed and built a for-profit senior housing project on that site with his own money, it never would have been a fiscal debacle at all. The only reason it is a fiscal debacle is because the government funded ERC and controlled what was and what was not built.

    This is one of the problems of socialism: government investment in private concerns is alwasy terribly inefficient; consumers are not catered to; and when money goes to waste, the public at large pays the price.

    If we, as a society, want to help poor people, including poor seniors, afford better quality of housing, or in housing which better meets their needs, we should give the money to the poor and let the marketplace provide the housing.

    The perfect model is with the food stamp program. It is efficient and it leaves the decision-making to consumers, not regulators and their patrons. That is exactly how we should go with housing programs, as well.

  153. “Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?”

    This has been raised and address several times. I have no problem with Eileen Samitz or the Covell Partners sending an email to supporters urging them to attend a meeting. That is part of the process by which people receive word about a meeting and come and participate.

    The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form. To my knowledge Eileen did not send one of those out. I feel that that taints the process and distorts it. I think that harms not only the process but the project that the Covell Partners are supporting.

    I’d like to hear one of the supporters of Covell address that specific point, because every one of them has dodged that complaint and that is the only complaint here.

  154. “Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?”

    This has been raised and address several times. I have no problem with Eileen Samitz or the Covell Partners sending an email to supporters urging them to attend a meeting. That is part of the process by which people receive word about a meeting and come and participate.

    The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form. To my knowledge Eileen did not send one of those out. I feel that that taints the process and distorts it. I think that harms not only the process but the project that the Covell Partners are supporting.

    I’d like to hear one of the supporters of Covell address that specific point, because every one of them has dodged that complaint and that is the only complaint here.

  155. “Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?”

    This has been raised and address several times. I have no problem with Eileen Samitz or the Covell Partners sending an email to supporters urging them to attend a meeting. That is part of the process by which people receive word about a meeting and come and participate.

    The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form. To my knowledge Eileen did not send one of those out. I feel that that taints the process and distorts it. I think that harms not only the process but the project that the Covell Partners are supporting.

    I’d like to hear one of the supporters of Covell address that specific point, because every one of them has dodged that complaint and that is the only complaint here.

  156. “Why is it okay for people like Eileen Samitz and others to advocate that no growth nimbys go to the meeting but it is wrong for greedy developers to rally their supporters? What is wrong with trying to get people to come out and support one particular position or another?”

    This has been raised and address several times. I have no problem with Eileen Samitz or the Covell Partners sending an email to supporters urging them to attend a meeting. That is part of the process by which people receive word about a meeting and come and participate.

    The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form. To my knowledge Eileen did not send one of those out. I feel that that taints the process and distorts it. I think that harms not only the process but the project that the Covell Partners are supporting.

    I’d like to hear one of the supporters of Covell address that specific point, because every one of them has dodged that complaint and that is the only complaint here.

  157. Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA(now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams,bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.

  158. Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA(now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams,bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.

  159. Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA(now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams,bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.

  160. Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA(now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams,bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.

  161. “The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form.”

    Has anyone who has ever been in a labor union or guild, not been explicitly instructed by the union or guild how to fill out a ballot or similar political form? Even when you are voting for board members, the leadership will (almost always) explicitly say which candidates you should vote for. The same goes for almost all political elections and many ballot measures.

  162. “The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form.”

    Has anyone who has ever been in a labor union or guild, not been explicitly instructed by the union or guild how to fill out a ballot or similar political form? Even when you are voting for board members, the leadership will (almost always) explicitly say which candidates you should vote for. The same goes for almost all political elections and many ballot measures.

  163. “The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form.”

    Has anyone who has ever been in a labor union or guild, not been explicitly instructed by the union or guild how to fill out a ballot or similar political form? Even when you are voting for board members, the leadership will (almost always) explicitly say which candidates you should vote for. The same goes for almost all political elections and many ballot measures.

  164. “The problem is very specific and that is the how-to guide that was sent out explicitly informing people how to fill out the form.”

    Has anyone who has ever been in a labor union or guild, not been explicitly instructed by the union or guild how to fill out a ballot or similar political form? Even when you are voting for board members, the leadership will (almost always) explicitly say which candidates you should vote for. The same goes for almost all political elections and many ballot measures.

  165. “Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA (now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams, bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.”

    Dams, bridges, roads and so on are public commodities. Housing is not a “public” commodity.

    The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.

    “neglected in free-market capitalism”

    Because most public infrastructure needs are natural monopolies, it is inefficient to have unregulated private companies own them. It is not the case that these assets are “neglected by capitalists.” It is rather the case that, in our country, government can do an adequate serving as the monopolist. In cases where the roads and bridges are neglected or falling apart, those are likely examples of where the government monopoly did a poor job.

  166. “Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA (now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams, bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.”

    Dams, bridges, roads and so on are public commodities. Housing is not a “public” commodity.

    The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.

    “neglected in free-market capitalism”

    Because most public infrastructure needs are natural monopolies, it is inefficient to have unregulated private companies own them. It is not the case that these assets are “neglected by capitalists.” It is rather the case that, in our country, government can do an adequate serving as the monopolist. In cases where the roads and bridges are neglected or falling apart, those are likely examples of where the government monopoly did a poor job.

  167. “Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA (now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams, bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.”

    Dams, bridges, roads and so on are public commodities. Housing is not a “public” commodity.

    The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.

    “neglected in free-market capitalism”

    Because most public infrastructure needs are natural monopolies, it is inefficient to have unregulated private companies own them. It is not the case that these assets are “neglected by capitalists.” It is rather the case that, in our country, government can do an adequate serving as the monopolist. In cases where the roads and bridges are neglected or falling apart, those are likely examples of where the government monopoly did a poor job.

  168. “Rich Rifkin… The entire public infrastructure of the USA (now aging and neglected in free-market capitalism), dams, bridges, roads, TVA, almost every significant public building with style and craftmanship was built under a US-style socialism.”

    Dams, bridges, roads and so on are public commodities. Housing is not a “public” commodity.

    The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.

    “neglected in free-market capitalism”

    Because most public infrastructure needs are natural monopolies, it is inefficient to have unregulated private companies own them. It is not the case that these assets are “neglected by capitalists.” It is rather the case that, in our country, government can do an adequate serving as the monopolist. In cases where the roads and bridges are neglected or falling apart, those are likely examples of where the government monopoly did a poor job.

  169. @ Rich Rifkin @ DPD

    Exactly.

    Also, did any of you read comments by “to each their own”?
    9:19am
    10:12am

    Mountains out of (something much smaller than) a molehill… typical for this blog

  170. @ Rich Rifkin @ DPD

    Exactly.

    Also, did any of you read comments by “to each their own”?
    9:19am
    10:12am

    Mountains out of (something much smaller than) a molehill… typical for this blog

  171. @ Rich Rifkin @ DPD

    Exactly.

    Also, did any of you read comments by “to each their own”?
    9:19am
    10:12am

    Mountains out of (something much smaller than) a molehill… typical for this blog

  172. @ Rich Rifkin @ DPD

    Exactly.

    Also, did any of you read comments by “to each their own”?
    9:19am
    10:12am

    Mountains out of (something much smaller than) a molehill… typical for this blog

  173. You’re right, mountains out of molehills, that’s why all the concern expressed on here, that’s why it was in the Enterprise tonight. No one is concerned other than DPD. Keep your head buried deep in the same anonymous.

  174. You’re right, mountains out of molehills, that’s why all the concern expressed on here, that’s why it was in the Enterprise tonight. No one is concerned other than DPD. Keep your head buried deep in the same anonymous.

  175. You’re right, mountains out of molehills, that’s why all the concern expressed on here, that’s why it was in the Enterprise tonight. No one is concerned other than DPD. Keep your head buried deep in the same anonymous.

  176. You’re right, mountains out of molehills, that’s why all the concern expressed on here, that’s why it was in the Enterprise tonight. No one is concerned other than DPD. Keep your head buried deep in the same anonymous.

  181. Gotta love the *yawn* defense. The new strategy appears to be minimize the importance of this issue since the attempts to reason were met with superior logic.

  182. Gotta love the *yawn* defense. The new strategy appears to be minimize the importance of this issue since the attempts to reason were met with superior logic.

  183. Gotta love the *yawn* defense. The new strategy appears to be minimize the importance of this issue since the attempts to reason were met with superior logic.

  184. Gotta love the *yawn* defense. The new strategy appears to be minimize the importance of this issue since the attempts to reason were met with superior logic.

  185. “The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.”

    My words here are unclear and not entirely right. Let me correct myself:

    A dam which provides flood protection is a public good because the benefits of that good are indivisible (i.e., sold individually). The same can be said of most natural assets: clean air; the natural flora and fauna; and so on.

    A house, regardless if it is built or owned by a socialist entitity, is naturally a private good, because even if a lot of people choose to live in it, others can be excluded from its benefits.

    Highways, on the other hand, are not inherently “public goods.” However, they are (in most cases) natural monopolies. If left to the free market, there would be underinvestment in highways and, once a monopoly was established, uncompetitive pricing. For that reason, there is a strong public interest in at least regulating, if not owning, private entities which are natural monopolies. Utilities are a good example of this, as well.

    By contrast, housing is not a natural monopoly. Left to the free market, it will be provided to consumers at the quality they desire for the lowest possible price in most cases. However, where there are serious barriers to entry in a housing market, the competition will be imperfect and prices won’t be as low as possible.

    My view, as I’ve said before, is that if the market rental price of quality housing is too much for some Americans to afford, we ought to give them housing stamps to subsidize their rents. Yet I see no public interest in publicly subsidizing the purchase of real estate by low income people, especially when that means forcing sellers to lower the price of their homes so a poor person can buy it.

  186. “The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.”

    My words here are unclear and not entirely right. Let me correct myself:

    A dam which provides flood protection is a public good because the benefits of that good are indivisible (i.e., sold individually). The same can be said of most natural assets: clean air; the natural flora and fauna; and so on.

    A house, regardless if it is built or owned by a socialist entitity, is naturally a private good, because even if a lot of people choose to live in it, others can be excluded from its benefits.

    Highways, on the other hand, are not inherently “public goods.” However, they are (in most cases) natural monopolies. If left to the free market, there would be underinvestment in highways and, once a monopoly was established, uncompetitive pricing. For that reason, there is a strong public interest in at least regulating, if not owning, private entities which are natural monopolies. Utilities are a good example of this, as well.

    By contrast, housing is not a natural monopoly. Left to the free market, it will be provided to consumers at the quality they desire for the lowest possible price in most cases. However, where there are serious barriers to entry in a housing market, the competition will be imperfect and prices won’t be as low as possible.

    My view, as I’ve said before, is that if the market rental price of quality housing is too much for some Americans to afford, we ought to give them housing stamps to subsidize their rents. Yet I see no public interest in publicly subsidizing the purchase of real estate by low income people, especially when that means forcing sellers to lower the price of their homes so a poor person can buy it.

  187. “The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.”

    My words here are unclear and not entirely right. Let me correct myself:

    A dam which provides flood protection is a public good because the benefits of that good are indivisible (i.e., sold individually). The same can be said of most natural assets: clean air; the natural flora and fauna; and so on.

    A house, regardless if it is built or owned by a socialist entitity, is naturally a private good, because even if a lot of people choose to live in it, others can be excluded from its benefits.

    Highways, on the other hand, are not inherently “public goods.” However, they are (in most cases) natural monopolies. If left to the free market, there would be underinvestment in highways and, once a monopoly was established, uncompetitive pricing. For that reason, there is a strong public interest in at least regulating, if not owning, private entities which are natural monopolies. Utilities are a good example of this, as well.

    By contrast, housing is not a natural monopoly. Left to the free market, it will be provided to consumers at the quality they desire for the lowest possible price in most cases. However, where there are serious barriers to entry in a housing market, the competition will be imperfect and prices won’t be as low as possible.

    My view, as I’ve said before, is that if the market rental price of quality housing is too much for some Americans to afford, we ought to give them housing stamps to subsidize their rents. Yet I see no public interest in publicly subsidizing the purchase of real estate by low income people, especially when that means forcing sellers to lower the price of their homes so a poor person can buy it.

  188. “The distinction is plain: public commodities are indivisible; private commodities (such as food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc.) are divisible.”

    My words here are unclear and not entirely right. Let me correct myself:

    A dam which provides flood protection is a public good because the benefits of that good are indivisible (i.e., sold individually). The same can be said of most natural assets: clean air; the natural flora and fauna; and so on.

    A house, regardless if it is built or owned by a socialist entitity, is naturally a private good, because even if a lot of people choose to live in it, others can be excluded from its benefits.

    Highways, on the other hand, are not inherently “public goods.” However, they are (in most cases) natural monopolies. If left to the free market, there would be underinvestment in highways and, once a monopoly was established, uncompetitive pricing. For that reason, there is a strong public interest in at least regulating, if not owning, private entities which are natural monopolies. Utilities are a good example of this, as well.

    By contrast, housing is not a natural monopoly. Left to the free market, it will be provided to consumers at the quality they desire for the lowest possible price in most cases. However, where there are serious barriers to entry in a housing market, the competition will be imperfect and prices won’t be as low as possible.

    My view, as I’ve said before, is that if the market rental price of quality housing is too much for some Americans to afford, we ought to give them housing stamps to subsidize their rents. Yet I see no public interest in publicly subsidizing the purchase of real estate by low income people, especially when that means forcing sellers to lower the price of their homes so a poor person can buy it.

  189. Rich,

    The difference between mailers endorsing candidates or a proposition and an email telling people how to vote and what to say is that the purpose of the Housing Element Mtg. is to get ideas not to TELL people what ideas to have.

    Bug difference.

  190. Rich,

    The difference between mailers endorsing candidates or a proposition and an email telling people how to vote and what to say is that the purpose of the Housing Element Mtg. is to get ideas not to TELL people what ideas to have.

    Bug difference.

  191. Rich,

    The difference between mailers endorsing candidates or a proposition and an email telling people how to vote and what to say is that the purpose of the Housing Element Mtg. is to get ideas not to TELL people what ideas to have.

    Bug difference.

  192. Rich,

    The difference between mailers endorsing candidates or a proposition and an email telling people how to vote and what to say is that the purpose of the Housing Element Mtg. is to get ideas not to TELL people what ideas to have.

    Bug difference.

  197. Rich Rifkin said:
    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    NO… YOUR characterization is wrong. The project WAS developer-driven which is different than developer- funded.. Our Davis Planning Department was “asleep at the switch” on this one..therein lay the problem, not public funding but lack of responsible public agency oversight.

  198. Rich Rifkin said:
    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    NO… YOUR characterization is wrong. The project WAS developer-driven which is different than developer- funded.. Our Davis Planning Department was “asleep at the switch” on this one..therein lay the problem, not public funding but lack of responsible public agency oversight.

  199. Rich Rifkin said:
    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    NO… YOUR characterization is wrong. The project WAS developer-driven which is different than developer- funded.. Our Davis Planning Department was “asleep at the switch” on this one..therein lay the problem, not public funding but lack of responsible public agency oversight.

  200. Rich Rifkin said:
    Your characterization of ERC as developer driven is wrong. That project was built by millions of dollars in public money with government input from beginning to the end.

    NO… YOUR characterization is wrong. The project WAS developer-driven which is different than developer- funded.. Our Davis Planning Department was “asleep at the switch” on this one..therein lay the problem, not public funding but lack of responsible public agency oversight.

  201. I’m pretty sure that the “No on X” campaign was also doing essentially the same thing as what DPD described is happening here. The reason this the email campaign is raised in this column is that DPD is anti-growth.

    Much ado about nothing.

  202. I’m pretty sure that the “No on X” campaign was also doing essentially the same thing as what DPD described is happening here. The reason this the email campaign is raised in this column is that DPD is anti-growth.

    Much ado about nothing.

  203. I’m pretty sure that the “No on X” campaign was also doing essentially the same thing as what DPD described is happening here. The reason this the email campaign is raised in this column is that DPD is anti-growth.

    Much ado about nothing.

  204. I’m pretty sure that the “No on X” campaign was also doing essentially the same thing as what DPD described is happening here. The reason this the email campaign is raised in this column is that DPD is anti-growth.

    Much ado about nothing.

  205. I sure would like the anonymous people who malign my reputation to put their name on the line and show a little bravery. I don’t think you would say the things you say if you couldn’t hide.

    I will go through the false statement said about me one at a time. I did this once before on an earlier blog about my role on the committee. It is tedious, and here my comment are at the bottom while some people will only read the slander and never get to this rebuttal.

    Long Memory at 12:26 brings up the mistake Mike Corbett made in listing me as an FOR staff member without showing me the affiliation before printing. Why bring this up again when Mike clearly acknowledged his mistake? You must think that Mike and I are both lying and I would be so stupid as to falsely affiliate myself with an organization I care a great deal about

    Now you imply that I am “caught up in another sleazy tactic” because the Covell developer’s representative did something she shoudn’t have. Speaking of sleazy, have you examined the technique you just used to muddy my reputation?

    Anonymous (9:16) has a faulty memory of what I said in the Aggie or is purposely distorting it. You can look it up but in case you don’t, here is my quote in that Aggie story – “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,” said Kevin Wolf, proprietor of a Gidaro watch group website gidaroelectionwatch.org and Measure X supporter.

    So Anonymous, how do you construe that to saying “His (Kevin’s) ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers.” I will assume you have a bad memory and just wanted to believe that this is what I said. It would help to know who you are, because you probably wouldn’t be so careless with your memory or accuracy of statements if everyone knew the author. This is the second time I have had to rebut this same ridiculous claim. I guess you didn’t see my rebuttal the first time. Do you see the problem of slandering people behind anonymous comments? Probably not.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee discussed the problems that workshops like this have in not being truly representative of what the average Davisite thinks. We will get a sense of what the participants at the workshop thought but have forewarned each other that any attempt to make the summary be representative of the community overall will not work. Lydia should have remembered that discussion and left Eileen Samitz to be the one trying to Red Alert her No on X list to attend. The number of “votes” from the workshop on any subject will not be used by the committee to “represent” the Davis public. What Lydia did was politically foolish as was a lot of things done by consultants in the Yes on X campaign. I suspect she wasn’t trying to be sleazy or stuff the ballot box. She probably thought she was countering somewhat Eileen’s Red Alert that urged people to stand against Covell and for Lewis Homes. The only difference is that Eileen is much more politically savvy and wouldn’t tell people exactly how to vote, in part because she didn’t need to. They knew what she wanted them to do when they attended.

    This blog can be a very useful way to improve dialog and education. Those of you anonymous posters who slam others are not helping this tool reach its potential to do good for our community.

  206. I sure would like the anonymous people who malign my reputation to put their name on the line and show a little bravery. I don’t think you would say the things you say if you couldn’t hide.

    I will go through the false statement said about me one at a time. I did this once before on an earlier blog about my role on the committee. It is tedious, and here my comment are at the bottom while some people will only read the slander and never get to this rebuttal.

    Long Memory at 12:26 brings up the mistake Mike Corbett made in listing me as an FOR staff member without showing me the affiliation before printing. Why bring this up again when Mike clearly acknowledged his mistake? You must think that Mike and I are both lying and I would be so stupid as to falsely affiliate myself with an organization I care a great deal about

    Now you imply that I am “caught up in another sleazy tactic” because the Covell developer’s representative did something she shoudn’t have. Speaking of sleazy, have you examined the technique you just used to muddy my reputation?

    Anonymous (9:16) has a faulty memory of what I said in the Aggie or is purposely distorting it. You can look it up but in case you don’t, here is my quote in that Aggie story – “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,” said Kevin Wolf, proprietor of a Gidaro watch group website gidaroelectionwatch.org and Measure X supporter.

    So Anonymous, how do you construe that to saying “His (Kevin’s) ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers.” I will assume you have a bad memory and just wanted to believe that this is what I said. It would help to know who you are, because you probably wouldn’t be so careless with your memory or accuracy of statements if everyone knew the author. This is the second time I have had to rebut this same ridiculous claim. I guess you didn’t see my rebuttal the first time. Do you see the problem of slandering people behind anonymous comments? Probably not.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee discussed the problems that workshops like this have in not being truly representative of what the average Davisite thinks. We will get a sense of what the participants at the workshop thought but have forewarned each other that any attempt to make the summary be representative of the community overall will not work. Lydia should have remembered that discussion and left Eileen Samitz to be the one trying to Red Alert her No on X list to attend. The number of “votes” from the workshop on any subject will not be used by the committee to “represent” the Davis public. What Lydia did was politically foolish as was a lot of things done by consultants in the Yes on X campaign. I suspect she wasn’t trying to be sleazy or stuff the ballot box. She probably thought she was countering somewhat Eileen’s Red Alert that urged people to stand against Covell and for Lewis Homes. The only difference is that Eileen is much more politically savvy and wouldn’t tell people exactly how to vote, in part because she didn’t need to. They knew what she wanted them to do when they attended.

    This blog can be a very useful way to improve dialog and education. Those of you anonymous posters who slam others are not helping this tool reach its potential to do good for our community.

  207. I sure would like the anonymous people who malign my reputation to put their name on the line and show a little bravery. I don’t think you would say the things you say if you couldn’t hide.

    I will go through the false statement said about me one at a time. I did this once before on an earlier blog about my role on the committee. It is tedious, and here my comment are at the bottom while some people will only read the slander and never get to this rebuttal.

    Long Memory at 12:26 brings up the mistake Mike Corbett made in listing me as an FOR staff member without showing me the affiliation before printing. Why bring this up again when Mike clearly acknowledged his mistake? You must think that Mike and I are both lying and I would be so stupid as to falsely affiliate myself with an organization I care a great deal about

    Now you imply that I am “caught up in another sleazy tactic” because the Covell developer’s representative did something she shoudn’t have. Speaking of sleazy, have you examined the technique you just used to muddy my reputation?

    Anonymous (9:16) has a faulty memory of what I said in the Aggie or is purposely distorting it. You can look it up but in case you don’t, here is my quote in that Aggie story – “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,” said Kevin Wolf, proprietor of a Gidaro watch group website gidaroelectionwatch.org and Measure X supporter.

    So Anonymous, how do you construe that to saying “His (Kevin’s) ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers.” I will assume you have a bad memory and just wanted to believe that this is what I said. It would help to know who you are, because you probably wouldn’t be so careless with your memory or accuracy of statements if everyone knew the author. This is the second time I have had to rebut this same ridiculous claim. I guess you didn’t see my rebuttal the first time. Do you see the problem of slandering people behind anonymous comments? Probably not.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee discussed the problems that workshops like this have in not being truly representative of what the average Davisite thinks. We will get a sense of what the participants at the workshop thought but have forewarned each other that any attempt to make the summary be representative of the community overall will not work. Lydia should have remembered that discussion and left Eileen Samitz to be the one trying to Red Alert her No on X list to attend. The number of “votes” from the workshop on any subject will not be used by the committee to “represent” the Davis public. What Lydia did was politically foolish as was a lot of things done by consultants in the Yes on X campaign. I suspect she wasn’t trying to be sleazy or stuff the ballot box. She probably thought she was countering somewhat Eileen’s Red Alert that urged people to stand against Covell and for Lewis Homes. The only difference is that Eileen is much more politically savvy and wouldn’t tell people exactly how to vote, in part because she didn’t need to. They knew what she wanted them to do when they attended.

    This blog can be a very useful way to improve dialog and education. Those of you anonymous posters who slam others are not helping this tool reach its potential to do good for our community.

  208. I sure would like the anonymous people who malign my reputation to put their name on the line and show a little bravery. I don’t think you would say the things you say if you couldn’t hide.

    I will go through the false statement said about me one at a time. I did this once before on an earlier blog about my role on the committee. It is tedious, and here my comment are at the bottom while some people will only read the slander and never get to this rebuttal.

    Long Memory at 12:26 brings up the mistake Mike Corbett made in listing me as an FOR staff member without showing me the affiliation before printing. Why bring this up again when Mike clearly acknowledged his mistake? You must think that Mike and I are both lying and I would be so stupid as to falsely affiliate myself with an organization I care a great deal about

    Now you imply that I am “caught up in another sleazy tactic” because the Covell developer’s representative did something she shoudn’t have. Speaking of sleazy, have you examined the technique you just used to muddy my reputation?

    Anonymous (9:16) has a faulty memory of what I said in the Aggie or is purposely distorting it. You can look it up but in case you don’t, here is my quote in that Aggie story – “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,” said Kevin Wolf, proprietor of a Gidaro watch group website gidaroelectionwatch.org and Measure X supporter.

    So Anonymous, how do you construe that to saying “His (Kevin’s) ranting Aggie article accused No on X leaders of taking money from developers.” I will assume you have a bad memory and just wanted to believe that this is what I said. It would help to know who you are, because you probably wouldn’t be so careless with your memory or accuracy of statements if everyone knew the author. This is the second time I have had to rebut this same ridiculous claim. I guess you didn’t see my rebuttal the first time. Do you see the problem of slandering people behind anonymous comments? Probably not.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee discussed the problems that workshops like this have in not being truly representative of what the average Davisite thinks. We will get a sense of what the participants at the workshop thought but have forewarned each other that any attempt to make the summary be representative of the community overall will not work. Lydia should have remembered that discussion and left Eileen Samitz to be the one trying to Red Alert her No on X list to attend. The number of “votes” from the workshop on any subject will not be used by the committee to “represent” the Davis public. What Lydia did was politically foolish as was a lot of things done by consultants in the Yes on X campaign. I suspect she wasn’t trying to be sleazy or stuff the ballot box. She probably thought she was countering somewhat Eileen’s Red Alert that urged people to stand against Covell and for Lewis Homes. The only difference is that Eileen is much more politically savvy and wouldn’t tell people exactly how to vote, in part because she didn’t need to. They knew what she wanted them to do when they attended.

    This blog can be a very useful way to improve dialog and education. Those of you anonymous posters who slam others are not helping this tool reach its potential to do good for our community.

  209. “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,”

    Kevin Wolfe.. Connecting Michael Harrington’s and Stan Forbe’s opposition to Measure X with the
    unsolicited phone banking of Gidaro ,successfully scuttling their Council campaigns, slandered two respected members of the Davis Community. I will have to go back over the article to see if the phrase “taking money” is appropriate. Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.

  210. “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,”

    Kevin Wolfe.. Connecting Michael Harrington’s and Stan Forbe’s opposition to Measure X with the
    unsolicited phone banking of Gidaro ,successfully scuttling their Council campaigns, slandered two respected members of the Davis Community. I will have to go back over the article to see if the phrase “taking money” is appropriate. Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.

  211. “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,”

    Kevin Wolfe.. Connecting Michael Harrington’s and Stan Forbe’s opposition to Measure X with the
    unsolicited phone banking of Gidaro ,successfully scuttling their Council campaigns, slandered two respected members of the Davis Community. I will have to go back over the article to see if the phrase “taking money” is appropriate. Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.

  212. “It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help No on X spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes,”

    Kevin Wolfe.. Connecting Michael Harrington’s and Stan Forbe’s opposition to Measure X with the
    unsolicited phone banking of Gidaro ,successfully scuttling their Council campaigns, slandered two respected members of the Davis Community. I will have to go back over the article to see if the phrase “taking money” is appropriate. Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.

  213. Mike Harrington was never a “spokesperson” for the No on X Campaign. At the time of Kevin’s allegations of corruption in the No on X Campaign, Mike was, in fact, not really involved in the campaign that much. Kevin distorted the connection between Gidaro and Mike in order to fool people into supporting Measure X. What Kevin did was slanderous, but it backfired. This is information is now common understanding in the community, despite Kevin’s pathetic attempts explain otherwise.

  214. Mike Harrington was never a “spokesperson” for the No on X Campaign. At the time of Kevin’s allegations of corruption in the No on X Campaign, Mike was, in fact, not really involved in the campaign that much. Kevin distorted the connection between Gidaro and Mike in order to fool people into supporting Measure X. What Kevin did was slanderous, but it backfired. This is information is now common understanding in the community, despite Kevin’s pathetic attempts explain otherwise.

  215. Mike Harrington was never a “spokesperson” for the No on X Campaign. At the time of Kevin’s allegations of corruption in the No on X Campaign, Mike was, in fact, not really involved in the campaign that much. Kevin distorted the connection between Gidaro and Mike in order to fool people into supporting Measure X. What Kevin did was slanderous, but it backfired. This is information is now common understanding in the community, despite Kevin’s pathetic attempts explain otherwise.

  216. Mike Harrington was never a “spokesperson” for the No on X Campaign. At the time of Kevin’s allegations of corruption in the No on X Campaign, Mike was, in fact, not really involved in the campaign that much. Kevin distorted the connection between Gidaro and Mike in order to fool people into supporting Measure X. What Kevin did was slanderous, but it backfired. This is information is now common understanding in the community, despite Kevin’s pathetic attempts explain otherwise.

  217. I was pretty neutral about Kevin Wolf’s involvement in the Yes on X campaign (maybe it was all just an honest mistake….) But his hysterical reaction to the “slander” against him his quite telling. The slam on Harrington and Forbes he cites in his defense is rather quite damning: in a word, “sleazy.” Likewise, his desperate backpedaling from calling the workshop participants “representative” smacks of damage control of the blowback from Ms. Delis-Schlosser’s big mistake. (At least I will say this about the recent shenanigans: it is heartening to see that the millionaire developers are blowing their money on ridiculously inept PR people.) Even more revealing is his suggestion that poor Ms. Delis-Schlosser was simply defending North Davis Land Co. from the manipulations of Eileen Samitz. What a joke. Samitz is a volunteer whose emails go out to people who have expressed an interest in slow-growth, and most of the emails are strictly informational. When her opinion is given, it is always marked as such, and she never tries to pull the kind of bait-and-switch routine so obvious in the Nouvelle Covell email (substituting Covell development for the senior-housing interests of the list members.) I for one often disagree with her, but I know I can trust her not to intentionally misrepresent what a vote means….

  218. I was pretty neutral about Kevin Wolf’s involvement in the Yes on X campaign (maybe it was all just an honest mistake….) But his hysterical reaction to the “slander” against him his quite telling. The slam on Harrington and Forbes he cites in his defense is rather quite damning: in a word, “sleazy.” Likewise, his desperate backpedaling from calling the workshop participants “representative” smacks of damage control of the blowback from Ms. Delis-Schlosser’s big mistake. (At least I will say this about the recent shenanigans: it is heartening to see that the millionaire developers are blowing their money on ridiculously inept PR people.) Even more revealing is his suggestion that poor Ms. Delis-Schlosser was simply defending North Davis Land Co. from the manipulations of Eileen Samitz. What a joke. Samitz is a volunteer whose emails go out to people who have expressed an interest in slow-growth, and most of the emails are strictly informational. When her opinion is given, it is always marked as such, and she never tries to pull the kind of bait-and-switch routine so obvious in the Nouvelle Covell email (substituting Covell development for the senior-housing interests of the list members.) I for one often disagree with her, but I know I can trust her not to intentionally misrepresent what a vote means….

  219. I was pretty neutral about Kevin Wolf’s involvement in the Yes on X campaign (maybe it was all just an honest mistake….) But his hysterical reaction to the “slander” against him his quite telling. The slam on Harrington and Forbes he cites in his defense is rather quite damning: in a word, “sleazy.” Likewise, his desperate backpedaling from calling the workshop participants “representative” smacks of damage control of the blowback from Ms. Delis-Schlosser’s big mistake. (At least I will say this about the recent shenanigans: it is heartening to see that the millionaire developers are blowing their money on ridiculously inept PR people.) Even more revealing is his suggestion that poor Ms. Delis-Schlosser was simply defending North Davis Land Co. from the manipulations of Eileen Samitz. What a joke. Samitz is a volunteer whose emails go out to people who have expressed an interest in slow-growth, and most of the emails are strictly informational. When her opinion is given, it is always marked as such, and she never tries to pull the kind of bait-and-switch routine so obvious in the Nouvelle Covell email (substituting Covell development for the senior-housing interests of the list members.) I for one often disagree with her, but I know I can trust her not to intentionally misrepresent what a vote means….

  220. I was pretty neutral about Kevin Wolf’s involvement in the Yes on X campaign (maybe it was all just an honest mistake….) But his hysterical reaction to the “slander” against him his quite telling. The slam on Harrington and Forbes he cites in his defense is rather quite damning: in a word, “sleazy.” Likewise, his desperate backpedaling from calling the workshop participants “representative” smacks of damage control of the blowback from Ms. Delis-Schlosser’s big mistake. (At least I will say this about the recent shenanigans: it is heartening to see that the millionaire developers are blowing their money on ridiculously inept PR people.) Even more revealing is his suggestion that poor Ms. Delis-Schlosser was simply defending North Davis Land Co. from the manipulations of Eileen Samitz. What a joke. Samitz is a volunteer whose emails go out to people who have expressed an interest in slow-growth, and most of the emails are strictly informational. When her opinion is given, it is always marked as such, and she never tries to pull the kind of bait-and-switch routine so obvious in the Nouvelle Covell email (substituting Covell development for the senior-housing interests of the list members.) I for one often disagree with her, but I know I can trust her not to intentionally misrepresent what a vote means….

  221. ALL OF YOUR DUCKS ARE NOT IN A ROE

    Anon 9:25 “Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.”

    Chuck Roe was not a Covell Village partner. He had nothing to do with that project. Nice credibility.

  222. ALL OF YOUR DUCKS ARE NOT IN A ROE

    Anon 9:25 “Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.”

    Chuck Roe was not a Covell Village partner. He had nothing to do with that project. Nice credibility.

  223. ALL OF YOUR DUCKS ARE NOT IN A ROE

    Anon 9:25 “Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.”

    Chuck Roe was not a Covell Village partner. He had nothing to do with that project. Nice credibility.

  224. ALL OF YOUR DUCKS ARE NOT IN A ROE

    Anon 9:25 “Your article was felt to be slanderous by many and, in personal conversation, Covell Village Partner Chuck Roe would not support your insinuations.”

    Chuck Roe was not a Covell Village partner. He had nothing to do with that project. Nice credibility.

  225. I was fairly certain that the tall gentlemen with the quiet and pleasant demeanor that I spoke with as he pitched the
    CV project with fantastical representations of homes that they would never build(they would be selling the lots to future builders) was Chuck Roe. We did not exchange formal greetings so I could be mistaken.

  226. I was fairly certain that the tall gentlemen with the quiet and pleasant demeanor that I spoke with as he pitched the
    CV project with fantastical representations of homes that they would never build(they would be selling the lots to future builders) was Chuck Roe. We did not exchange formal greetings so I could be mistaken.

  227. I was fairly certain that the tall gentlemen with the quiet and pleasant demeanor that I spoke with as he pitched the
    CV project with fantastical representations of homes that they would never build(they would be selling the lots to future builders) was Chuck Roe. We did not exchange formal greetings so I could be mistaken.

  228. I was fairly certain that the tall gentlemen with the quiet and pleasant demeanor that I spoke with as he pitched the
    CV project with fantastical representations of homes that they would never build(they would be selling the lots to future builders) was Chuck Roe. We did not exchange formal greetings so I could be mistaken.

  233. Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age? This fellow was quite a bit younger. I seem to remember him at a Council meeting, sitting with the Whitcomb family.

  234. Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age? This fellow was quite a bit younger. I seem to remember him at a Council meeting, sitting with the Whitcomb family.

  235. Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age? This fellow was quite a bit younger. I seem to remember him at a Council meeting, sitting with the Whitcomb family.

  236. Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age? This fellow was quite a bit younger. I seem to remember him at a Council meeting, sitting with the Whitcomb family.

  237. “Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age?”

    Bill is 80 or 81 years old. John Whitcombe is about 66.

    I am not completely sure of this, but I believe there was a marriage between the Whitcombe and Roe families.

    Either way, I know that Chuck Roe was not an investor or a partner or in any way a developer of the Covell Village proposal. Chuck told me a few years ago that he is “sticking to the downtown area.”

  238. “Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age?”

    Bill is 80 or 81 years old. John Whitcombe is about 66.

    I am not completely sure of this, but I believe there was a marriage between the Whitcombe and Roe families.

    Either way, I know that Chuck Roe was not an investor or a partner or in any way a developer of the Covell Village proposal. Chuck told me a few years ago that he is “sticking to the downtown area.”

  239. “Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age?”

    Bill is 80 or 81 years old. John Whitcombe is about 66.

    I am not completely sure of this, but I believe there was a marriage between the Whitcombe and Roe families.

    Either way, I know that Chuck Roe was not an investor or a partner or in any way a developer of the Covell Village proposal. Chuck told me a few years ago that he is “sticking to the downtown area.”

  240. “Isn’t Bill Streng a man well into middle age?”

    Bill is 80 or 81 years old. John Whitcombe is about 66.

    I am not completely sure of this, but I believe there was a marriage between the Whitcombe and Roe families.

    Either way, I know that Chuck Roe was not an investor or a partner or in any way a developer of the Covell Village proposal. Chuck told me a few years ago that he is “sticking to the downtown area.”

  245. Nope, it was not Bill.. I’m fairly certain that it was Chuck Roe, son-in-law of John Whitcomb. It was the general understanding(evidenced by the “We shall overcome” Whitcomb family portrait… plus Bill Streng..on the Enterprise front page at the time) that the Covell Village Partners were almost exclusively a family enterprise.

  246. Nope, it was not Bill.. I’m fairly certain that it was Chuck Roe, son-in-law of John Whitcomb. It was the general understanding(evidenced by the “We shall overcome” Whitcomb family portrait… plus Bill Streng..on the Enterprise front page at the time) that the Covell Village Partners were almost exclusively a family enterprise.

  247. Nope, it was not Bill.. I’m fairly certain that it was Chuck Roe, son-in-law of John Whitcomb. It was the general understanding(evidenced by the “We shall overcome” Whitcomb family portrait… plus Bill Streng..on the Enterprise front page at the time) that the Covell Village Partners were almost exclusively a family enterprise.

  248. Nope, it was not Bill.. I’m fairly certain that it was Chuck Roe, son-in-law of John Whitcomb. It was the general understanding(evidenced by the “We shall overcome” Whitcomb family portrait… plus Bill Streng..on the Enterprise front page at the time) that the Covell Village Partners were almost exclusively a family enterprise.

Leave a Comment