by Alan Pryor
In yesterday’s Vanguard, Davis Thompson of Neighborhood Partners LLC published an article entitled, “Deceitful Attacks on Affordable Senior Housing at the Expense of Real Needs.” In this article Mr. Thompson alleges that opponents of Measure L wrongly continue to claim that there is no guarantee that any low income housing will be built. In his opening paragraph expressing his faux outrage, Mr. Thompson disparagingly states, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its trousers on.” Well, David Thompson’s truth trousers are apparently still around his ankles.
Let me explain
I will first acknowledge that Mr. Thompson has contributed greatly to Davis’ affordable housing stock from 10 to 30 years ago. He made his millions by brokering and developing senior housing deals at over a dozen projects he proudly lists in his article. But Mr. Thompson errs in claiming that this impressive list of accomplishments somehow “guarantees” that the current proposed low income housing at WDAAC will be built if the Measure L passes at the polls.
If Neighborhood Partners LLC, Mr. Thompson’s privately-owned for-profit firm, cannot raise enough government grant monies or government subsidized loans to construct the 150 low-income apartments, they will simply not be built. This is because neither Mr. Thompson nor his firm nor the WDAAC developer, Mr. Taormino has agreed to separately guarantee that they will be built by either issuing completion bonds or personally guaranteeing that the construction will occur.
The City of Davis has also said that they will not have any money at all to contribute to any future construction needs even if only a few million dollars are needed
to round out the government grants and loans otherwise sought by Mr Thompson’s firm. Given that the City will not make a contribution to construction costs and Mr. Thompson and Mr. Taormino will not guarantee availability of any construction financing, does it not just stand to reason that there are, in fact, no guarantees that these low-income housing units will ever be built?
Now Mr. Thompson proudly points to the long string of successes he has had completing projects in the past and claims he has never NOT completed a projected he attempted. Well, that’s laudable. But Neighborhood Partners’ last project developed in Davis was Eleanor Roosevelt Plaza which was built out in early 2008.
And almost all of Mr. Thompson’s previous projects he listed were only possible because of Redevelopment Agency money flooding out of Sacramento to local municipality which floodgates were wide open until the financial crisis hit us beginning in 2008. At that time Gov Brown turned off that money spigot completely and Mr. Thompson’s firm has not done a development project in Davis since. So, in the absence of future Redevelopment Agency money, it is certainly fair to ask if Mr Thompson or his firm can really raise the money to build the low-income units.
In not, neither Mr. Thompson nor his firm nor the developer David Taormino have otherwise contractually guaranteed that the affordable housing units ever will be built. We stated publicly early on that if either Mr. Taormino or Neighborhood Partners or Mr. Taormino will just sign a contract saying they or their firms guarantee completion of the low-income housing, then we will publicly withdraw our statements that there are no guarantees that the units will ever be built. However, neither Mr. Thompson or his firm or Mr. Taormino has issued such a guarantee ?
We can also look at the Development Agreement itself between the City and David Taormino, the developer of the WDAAC. Note the following clause in that agreement,
“If building permits for a minimum of sixty (60) units on the affordable housing site have not been issued within three years of recordation of the final map creating the parcel, the affordable housing site will be transferred to the City.”(Emphasis added)
Why would the City demand that the donated land revert to City ownership if the project is not built if sufficient guarantees otherwise exist that the project would be built.
Another consideration is that Neighborhood Partners is right now actively seeking financing for the exact same size of a low-income housing development in Woodland on an equally sized 4+ acre parcel. If there is a only a limited pool of construction grants issued every year, one could easily imagine that the greater “need” for low-income housing would be in Woodland vs. a more well-to-do Davis and that this might sway grant reviewers to focus on the former due to their increased low income population.
In summary, if neither of the developers or their firms will actually guarantee that any minimum number of low-income units will be built, we will continue to insist that there are no guarantees that the affordable housing component at WDAAC will ever be built.
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
If the developers put 150% of the cash required to build the project in the bank the bank could fail so there would be no “guarantee” the project had the funds.
If the developers put enough gold and/or diamonds to pay for the project 5x over in five safe deposit boxes around the world a radioactive meteor from space could still smash in to the site so there is NEVER a “guarantee” that anything will be built.
With that said Alan baning the “no guarantee” drum while not “technically” lying (since few things are EVER “guaranteed” to happen) is really sleazy (and we are all still waiting to the hear the names of EVERY recent project where the developer built the affordable housing).
For those unfamiliar with the concept. This is a common situation and has a well established answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_bond
Collecting $ from bonds is often a long, laborious process…
More likely to be successful than collecting it from Thompson and Powell.
The primary reason to support (or oppose) this development centers on whether or not one believes there is an “internal need” for more senior-only, market-rate, suburban-style, peripheral housing. And, whether or not one believes that there is a “need” to add even more seniors to Davis. (Who will probably be Caucasian, as noted by those who keep track of such things.)
The Affordable component is a sideshow. As are any claims regarding what will happen regarding the lawsuit, or the houses that seniors are supposedly moving out of. (Which isn’t even a factor if the senior housing is occupied by “those with a connection” to Davis, but are from elsewhere. Assuming that the “Davis buyer” program even survives.)
“The Affordable component is a sideshow.”
I find this comment interesting. Would be the largest affordable housing site by area and units in Davis.
“Would be”, if it’s actually built. Alan P. has provided some compelling reasons that it might not be (especially anytime soon). Certainly enough reason to question why this would be at the forefront of the developers’ campaign.
In another article today, I noted that a large, Affordable housing site in Davis has remained empty for at least 15 years – after being designated as such. (And, that was during the time that RDA money was still available.)
Regardless, I suspect that Alan P. has more knowledge regarding Affordable housing programs than I do.
I’ll take your word for it regarding the largest “site by area and units”, if the Affordable component is actually built.
I suspect that there’s no final design in place for the potential/proposed Affordable component. But, I’m wondering if it would conceivably consist of a multi-story structure (for low-income seniors), while the market-rate seniors are comparatively “living large” (so to speak) in the one-floor houses at WDAAC.
New Harmony is 69 units, Moore Village is 59. Not sure there are any that are larger in the city. Why do you believe that the affordable component will not be built? Is there any project that has not had its affordable component built?
And again, money is needed for management/ongoing maintenance, as well. (Already an acknowledged concern by the city, as noted in the text I cited in the other article, today.)
Nothing quite like an Affordable housing development that’s mismanaged, and/or lacks ongoing funds. (There’s plenty of real-life examples of that, as well. But, at least there probably won’t be roving gangs of seniors terrorizing others, if it’s built.) And, the drugs that they use are prescription!
Definitions? “Soon”?
With the litigation on other projects, questions as to project approval for WDAAC via Measure R, and the lawsuit on this project, pretty much guarantees that NO affordable housing will be built, especially anytime soon.
So, you and Alan P are essentially correct.
Guarantees…
Howard: The students who have been advocating for student housing will have moved on by the time it’s built, and the low-income seniors who are (presumably) waiting for an Affordable component at WDAAC will be dead (by the time that’s built – if ever).
In reference to my other comment (regarding the Affordable housing site on Fifth Street in Mace Ranch), it’s been approximately 15 years since I first noticed a sign designating the (still-undeveloped) site.
Ron’s comment:
First highlight… problem goes away? On both levels? If the seniors are all dead, no problem… frees up housing stock… perhaps we should issue the little blue pills (not talking Viagra) to all folk over 60, to all seniors …
Second highlight… asked and answered…
Lawsuits and Measure R actually have nothing to do with the lack of construction at Sterling (as well as Chiles Ranch). Nor do they have anything to do with the lack of an Affordable housing project at 5th Street, in Mace Ranch. (15 years since I first noticed a sign designating the site as such, even with the availability of RDA funds during this time.)
No explanation regarding these delays.
As a side note, I always figured that anyone who criticizes Measure R should simply vote as the council would have done. (And yet, some on here acknowledge that they do not do so, but STILL criticize Measure R.) A complete lack of logic on full display.
You do not deserve those explanations…
Your very dull point,
says a lot… particularly the highlighted parts… have to assume you have no mirror…
G’nite, Ron…
Howard: I don’t criticize Measure R. You do, at times. And yet, you have twice acknowledged that you planned to vote “no” (on Nishi 1.0, and WDAAC).
It sure is strange to criticize Measure R, while simultaneously voting “no” on any of the resulting proposals (including WDAAC).
And yet, you choose to argue with WDAAC opponents. (More lack of logic.) The “conflict” you display regarding this seems to be internal in nature. (Perhaps you can keep it that way, in the future?)
I suspect developers differ as to their ability to obtain affordable housing financing. The best bet is to go with a team that has a proven record in that regard.
I’d suggest that the best way to look at WDAAC is that it’s primarily a market-rate, suburban-style peripheral development for seniors. Anyone voting for it on the basis of the portion of the site dedicated for a future Affordable component is likely to be disappointed, especially if they’re expecting it anytime soon.
Alan P. covered the reasons for this pretty well, in his article above. In fact, he noted that it may simply not be built at all, even if the primary proposal is approved.
That’s correct. It is not primarily an affordable housing project. I’m not sure why anybody might think it is.
Building permits have to be issued within three years, so David Thompson’s group has strong incentive to move in a timely manner on the project or else they lose the land.
Alan threw some shade at David Thompson, kept referring to how long it’s been since the firm last did a project, and then finished up with some unfounded speculation. Alan wants a contract in place. He isn’t going to get that. The three year time frame provides the incentive. David Thompson and his partners have a long track record and are well respected in their profession and in the community.
Don: Without repeating everything Alan noted, a couple of the important points he made include a lack of RDA money these days, as well as a competing proposal in Woodland.
Regarding Thompson, I can’t see where he would have anything to lose, if funding doesn’t come through. His group would be in the exact same position that they are, now. However, he apparently would have a vested interest in supporting the proposal, on the basis that he might come through within 3 years afterward.
As I said, nothing for Thompson to lose by supporting the proposal – even if funding doesn’t come through.
Again, no one has explained the 15-year time period in which the Affordable housing site in Mace Ranch (on Fifth Street) hasn’t been developed. If Thompson is so successful (e.g., compared to others), why wasn’t that turned over to his group? (Assuming it hasn’t been, already.)
Also – why not turn Pacifico over to his group to manage/maintain, as well?
These other sites are completely irrelevant to the discussion of WDAAC. I hope you aren’t going to bring them up again and again for no reason.
A lot of time spent on the Affordable housing sideshow, here.
Again, if one believes that approving what is primarily a market-rate, peripheral, suburban-style, senior-only development (in which a questionable attempt is being made to limit sales to those with a “connection” to Davis) should be the city’s highest priority (on the limited amount of land that would realistically be subject to a Measure R vote), then this is probably the development for you.
Nobody anywhere has suggested that it should be “the city’s highest priority.” The developer has proposed a project. The council and voters get to approve, or not. They believe there is market demand for it, even if limited largely to people with a connection to Davis. I suspect they are right based on what we’ve observed with housing sales in Davis due to the restricted supply, and anecdotally I have heard from seniors and realtors that there is definitely such demand. This is not a huge project by the standards of any normal community, it isn’t intended to meet every market segment. It’s just a senior housing project.
“Hope” all you want. The reason I brought those other Affordable sites up is because they depend upon the same public pots of money for construction, operation, and maintenance. And, when a significant pot is cut-off (e.g., RDA money), it impacts all such proposals. Especially during a time of increasing competition/need for Affordable housing (due to rising rent throughout the region and state).