Seniors Need Options For Downsizing
by Susan Steinbach
I will vote in favor of Measure L, the West Davis Active Adult homes planned for Covell Blvd near Sutter Davis Hospital. I hope others join me.
From the very beginning, the project developers have sought input from the Davis community on the needs of seniors. One of the most confounding issues for seniors is finding right-sized housing, with single level access and universal design features (wider doorways and hallways, level entrances, lower counter tops, roll-in showers, etc.) Try finding that in the city of Davis!
Like myself, many seniors are in homes that they’ve owned for decades, homes that no longer accommodate their needs. Their homes have become too big to maintain, clean, or keep up landscaping, 
homes that they can’t make it up the stairs safely – homes that are better suited for young families that need more space.
I have watched several senior neighbors and friends struggle to stay in their homes when they’ve become debilitated by injury or illness, but the design of their homes does not support their comfort or mobility. What a shame that builders don’t recognize that principles of universal design can support anyone: an elder, a child with a broken leg, a mid-life career person recovering from surgery.
WDAAC will meet many of these needs, and in a way that prevents the subdivision from becoming another Cannery, which has manifested many shortcomings. The planned 150 affordable apartments is another bonus, meeting the needs of lower income seniors.
Our fair city needs other options than URC, Carlton Plaza, Atria Covell Gardens and Eleanor Roosevelt Circle. Please join me in voting yes on Measure L .
Lawsuit Basis is Specious
by Jim Cramer
Opponents of the West Davis Active Adult Community and Measure L argue that the WDAAC will perpetuate the racial profile of Davis that is skewed towards whites. I find this argument specious on two accounts: Davis’ racial profile is determined by other factors, and the WDAAC is racially indeterminate.
Davis certainly had a history of housing discrimination prior to the 1960s, and Davis’ racial profile certainly is more white than the rest of the county or state. Since the 1960’s our racial profile has been determined largely by three factors. First, the structure of job opportunities here is highly skewed towards high educational qualifications, where blacks and Latinos are underrepresented.
Second, house prices have consistently been substantially higher in Davis than in surrounding areas since at least 1970, and blacks and Latinos historically have had less wealth and fewer family financial resources than whites.
Third, the cultural climate in Davis is not friendly towards blacks or Latinos. Students of color in my classes at UCD often talked about racial profiling and harassment by police and shop keepers in town, making them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The WDAAC will have no impact on these three factors that determine our racial profile.
As currently proposed, the WDAAC restricts many housing units (say, X of them) to people with ties already to Davis. If this were not the case, those X units would be available to people of any race. But if it remains true, people moving into those X units will vacate X other housing units in Davis, and those X vacated units will be available to people of any race. Either way, X units are racially open. If Measure L is defeated and WDAAC is not built, no additional units will be available to anyone.
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
uh, huh . . .
Let’s say X is a logical argument. The above argument is logically open.
There is a lot of evidence to support the assertion that the theory that the WDAAC project is trying to push–that seniors will be vacating existing housing in Davis and that these will be available for lower-income families –is complete bunk.
For example:
1) “Furthermore, recent survey data from Freddie Mac indicate that, “relatively few older [ages 55 and older] homeowners think it is very important to downsize in their next move” (Becketti and Yannopoulous 2016, 6)…. The desire to age in place is also backed by evidence showing that the large baby boomer generation is not reducing housing consumption even though many are retiring or experiencing life changes that might precipitate downsizing” in The Urban Land Institute, Seniors’ Access to Home Equity Identifying Existing Mechanisms and Impediments to Broader Adoption [https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88556/seniors_access_to_home_equity.pdf]
2) Then there is the matter, that even if seniors are interested in “downsizing” to smaller homes, moving into a high-end priced project like WDAAC might not reduce their housing costs at all: “Downsizing to a smaller and less expensive house isn’t the right course for many people, some experts are now saying. For one thing, your new home may not be sufficiently less expensive. Smart About Money, a program of the nonprofit National Endowment for Financial Education, says if downsizing doesn’t reduce your home expenses by at least 25 percent, it isn’t worth the bother.” [https://www.marketwatch.com/story/downsizing-home-size-but-not-home-value-2014-04-28]
3) See this too: “However, despite conventional wisdom more retirees are choosing to upsize, rather than downsize. Consider this, according to a 2014 Merrill Lynch study, of the pre-retirees who said they expect to downsize when they retire, half didn’t move to a smaller home. In fact, according to the report, three in ten retirees upsized into a larger house.
4) There are plenty of in-depth academic studies that supports this evidence. I can follow up and list some if anybody is interested.
5) I have done some back-of-the-envelope calculations based on the square footage figures provided by the WDAAC developer for different units and using existing market prices in Davis for new construction averaging around $425/sq. ft. in the Cannery (in comparison the current existing median home sales price in Davis is around $393/sq. ft.) Conclusion: WDAAC prices (if it was on-line today) would be ~$625k-$800k depending on unit size. The custom homes will be substantially more than that.
Conclusion: 1) this “freeing up housing” theory is likely to happen at a much lower rate than the project wants us to believe. 2) housing that is freed up is likely to be at the high end of market prices in Davis and is more likely to be snapped up by out-of-town investors for high-priced rentals or upper income households for ownership. It is not going to do anything for the almost 2/3 of commuters working in Davis or for the almost 1/2 of Davis residents who also work in town with household incomes below $40,000 per year (see 2014 City of Davis Housing Element for those stats).
When Rik says “housing that is freed up is likely to be at the high end of market prices in Davis and is more likely to be snapped up by out-of-town investors for high-priced rentals” I’m wondering if Realtors are telling him that this has been happening, or he knows of “high end” homes in town that have been “snapped up by out-of-town investors”?
Out of over 100 “higher end”home sales in the last 10+ years in Lake Alhambra, Willowbank, El Macero Oakshade, and North Davis Farms where I personally know buyers and sellers I have only heard of a few (literally three) sales to investors who rented the homes. Most sales to investors I hear about are smaller (not high end) places in the core area where the investors often (but not always) add a bedroom to get more rent.
P.S. I wonder if Rik thinks that this place will show up for rent on Craig’s List after it sells:
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/39627-Lupine-Ct_Davis_CA_95616_M12204-98552?view=qv
Ken A.: Gloria Partida said in her recent article that 8 months of talking to residents in the City Council campaign led her to believe that out-of-towners buying up housing is a giant concern. The WDAAC project’s “Taking Care Of Our Own” program is based on that premise. Talk to them about whether this is true or not. If it is, there is nothing that would suggest that the same dynamic/pattern would not apply to this housing they are claiming would be “freed up”.
That concerns stems from the Cannery project which was billed as workforce housing, but priced above what most workforce/ families could afford and ended up quickly being marketed to the Bay Area. BTW, I don’t see that as some sort of parochialism so much as a belief that there are existing internal needs that are unmet by these sorts of projects.
I’m wondering if David can tell us:
1. What he thinks a “workforce” family makes per year and
2. What is the price home that he thinks most “”workforce” families can afford?
Ken A: you can get the answers to your questions by looking up the City of Davis Middle Income Ordinance and supporting studies. Note: it is still in Davis Municpal Code but was suspended in 2009 because of efforts of a coalition of development and business interests led by the Chamber of Commerce.
Note also that the 2014 City of Davis Housing Element states that almost 2/3 of commuters working in Davis and almost 1/2 of Davis residents who also work in town had household incomes below $40,000 per year in 2010 (based on the most recent Census data available).
Rik may have missed that I did not ask about the “City of Davis Middle Income Ordinance” I asked David a couple questions.
I really wish people on this blog would stop conflating “workforce housing” with low-income or even affordable housing. Anyone who works is in the workforce, regardless of income. The issue of workforce housing has to do with carbon footprint, vehicle-miles-traveled, etc. — not providing housing for lower-income people. Those are two separate things.
The Cannery was touted as providing workforce housing and increasing student enrollment at DJUSD because young families were going to buy there. So far as I can tell, mostly it’s providing retirement housing. But that’s just based on my interactions with those new-home buyers there who come to my shop to find out how to garden now that they’ve moved away from the coast. I’d be surprised if it’s making much difference for the enrollment numbers at DJUSD.
WDAAC is not intended to be workforce housing, regardless of the income of the people who buy there, since seniors are mostly not in the workforce any more.
So when developers propose housing that is primarily for students, we get the complaint that it isn’t “workforce housing.” When they propose housing that is primarily for seniors, we get the complaint that it isn’t “workforce housing.” Evidently builders are supposed to build miniature communities that perfectly reflect these arbitrary housing needs, needs which are supposedly created exclusively by internal growth pressures — and provide a lot of low-profit housing for lower-income people as well. And then the market, which is grossly distorted in Davis to begin with, will magically sort all of this out as the houses sell.
Seniors need housing. Students need housing. Young adults need places to rent. Working families need housing. No single project is going to cater to all of those needs. At present, the rental market is so unbalanced that there is a tendency to buy and hold houses as rental investments, a fact which crowds out young families and will continue to do so until the apartment vacancy rate moves upward. But many of the people who oppose this project also opposed all of the rental housing projects. They just seem to want developers to fund everything and build housing projects that meet every need in perfect balance. Or they just want to block housing projects overall, and consider this an effective tactic.
Don Shor: City of Davis policy “conflates” workforce housing with affordable housing for people with moderate and low incomes. Measure R and supporting studies state that housing for the workforce is the primary internally-generated need.
This is because, as stated in the 2014 City of Davis Housing Element, almost 2/3 of commuters working in Davis and almost 1/2 of Davis residents who also work in town had household incomes below $40,000 per year in 2010 (based on the most recent Census data available).
I didn’t have any luck with Google finding the “City of Davis Housing Element states that almost 2/3 of commuters working in Davis and almost 1/2 of Davis residents who also work in town had household incomes below $40,000 per year in 2010” I’m wondering if Rik can post a link.
Since two guys with GEDs living in an apartment working full time at In’N Out at the base salary make OVER $40K (and will be making $40K EACH in a couple years if they go in to management) it is hard to believe that 2/3 (66%) of the people driving in to Davis every day come from HOUSEHOLDS that make less than $40K (seems too high to be “per capita” but way low for “household”).
Did Gloria say specifically what “concern” the people have with “out-of-towners buying up housing”?
Gloria recently posted that she did not grow up in Davis and was an “out-of-towner” when she moved here.
Since Davis was ~90% smaller 60 years ago so almost every older person in town (and almost everyone that posts to the Vanguard) was an “out-of-towner” at one time.
Jim Cramer seems to be under the mistaken impression that because the WDAAC project did not go back in time and cause discriminatory impacts, it cannot be held liable for perpetuating these racial/ethnic imbalances. This is a very illogical line of thinking. The existing pattern of a heavily white population to which the “Taking Care Of Our Own” proposes to restrict 90% of its sales is exactly what leads to the discriminatory effect of the project that will perpetuate this strong underrepresentation of minority groups compared to surrounding area and California as a whole.
1) Mr. Cramer says “Opponents of the West Davis Active Adult Community and Measure L argue that the WDAAC will perpetuate the racial profile of Davis that is skewed towards whites. I find this argument specious on two accounts: Davis’ racial profile is determined by other factors, and the WDAAC is racially indeterminate.”
I would refer Jim to this legal journal analysis of fair housing claims regarding “disparate impact (legalese for discriminatory effect):
“Local preferences imposed by predominantly white communities in racially diverse areas virtually invite FHA-effect claims. [ 279. See Winfield, 2016 WL 6208564, at *6 (“There is an obvious causal link between a policy whose very purpose is to maintain the existing racial and ethnic makeup of local communities and the corresponding perpetuation of the racial and ethnic makeup of those communities.”)]… Regardless of the type of defendant, a plaintiff’s prima facie case would only require proof that, in a housing market with substantial minorities, a local preference is being employed in a predominantly white building or community.” [Segregative-Effect Claims Under the Fair Housing Act (2017) https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1618&context=law_facpub%5D
2) Mr. Cramer says “Davis certainly had a history of housing discrimination prior to the 1960s, and Davis’ racial profile certainly is more white than the rest of the county or state. Since the 1960’s our racial profile has been determined largely by three factors. First, the structure of job opportunities here is highly skewed towards high educational qualifications, where blacks and Latinos are underrepresented.
As to the the history of housing discrimination: agreed as far the statement goes. However, this discrimination has not stopped. The patterns that were established by outright discriminatory practice previously have been perpetuated by more subtle methods including “exclusionary zoning” in which a preponderance of larger-lot single family homes has the de facto effect of excluding persons of color. These types of impacts are supposed to be addressed under the Fair Housing Act also.
As to the “structure of job opportunities being highly skewed towards high educational qualifications”: almost 2/3 of commuters working in Davis and almost 1/2 of Davis residents who also work in town had household incomes below $40,000 per year in 2010 (see 2014 City of Davis Housing Element for those stats). This is precisely the group of working family households that is one of the most under-served in Davis.
3) “Second, house prices have consistently been substantially higher in Davis than in surrounding areas since at least 1970, and blacks and Latinos historically have had less wealth and fewer family financial resources than whites.” See #1 and #2 above. The ongoing exclusionary zoning in Davis geared toward suburban style, single-family homes has perpetuated imbalances. And the WDAAC project represents more of the same, but with a specifically exclusionary overlay that is explicitly facially discriminatory.
4) “Third, the cultural climate in Davis is not friendly towards blacks or Latinos. Students of color in my classes at UCD often talked about racial profiling and harassment by police and shop keepers in town, making them feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. The WDAAC will have no impact on these three factors that determine our racial profile.”
This is further evidence of ongoing discriminatory patterns in Davis that bolsters the claims of the lawsuit.
@DS:
People need to stop touting.
Exactly.
And this is my issue with all of it. “It” being programs and subsidies and touting. Developers will build to the market. So fine, design for what you believe the market is. The problem I have with Double You Dee Ay Ay See is that it is sprawl on the periphery that would never pass a Measure R vote except for the cynical touting of one of the following categories: children, seniors and puppies — any of which make the cold-hearted voters of Davis’ eyes glaze over and hearts melt.
Simplify this mess — subsidy of lower income just makes lower-middle unaffordable and shuts them out, and the subsidy takes money out of the system overall, sucking from all. Design for what you think will meet the market, and get rid of Measure R. But, oh, pray tell, then the Council would have to actually take responsibility for turning down sprawl against housing goals — on the periphery . . . and we can’t have that :-/
“Simplify this mess — subsidy of lower income just makes lower-middle unaffordable”
That’s not true. The way a land dedication is funded has absolutely no impact on market rate housing.
I’m hoping David can explain how forcing a developer to give away millions of dollars of land, build and sell homes below market price or build and rent apartments at below market rents are not paid by the people buying and/or renting “market rate” units.