“Atria Bills” Signed That will Stop Price-Gouging of Seniors and Increase Emergency Preparedness

Last winter, residents of Atria Covell ended up with duel complaints. First, for the second time in as many years, the seniors, most of whom are on fixed incomes, were hit with large rent increases. To make matters worse, a serious winter storm knocked out power and showed the Atria facility to have an appalling lack of emergency preparedness.

In a rally and protests it became very clear that Atria was extremely fortune that no one was seriously hurt.

In a rally last January, 30 residents of the Atria Covell Gardens community protested both the rental increase and the living conditions.

The most appalling story was a woman who lived in the facility with her husband who was on oxygen. After losing electricity, no one in administration contacted them to find out what their needs were. She in the end had to call the pulmonary company that supplied them with the oxygen and at 10:30 at night he brought out canisters that supplied the oxygen for purposes of travel or other issues of mobility for a two hour period.

According to her, two of the administrators,

"instructed me on how to use the portable tanks. But they also... said that they would never be able to help me again. Because they are not allowed to... The AL's cannot help you with oxygen."

This week hundreds of bills have finally made their way from the legislature to the desk of the governor. For many of these bills, it is their untimely demise as the Governor has unilaterally decided not to sign them.

However, the good news for elderly residents of California’s assisted living facilities celebrated Sunday as Governor Schwarzenegger signed two new consumer protection bills.

Barbara Turner is a resident of Atria Valley View in Walnut Creek, a facility similar to the one in Davis. Like Davis they also suffered through a power outage, theirs lasted three days.

“Last year, I received an 8½% rent increase, and other residents suffered through a 3-day power outage. We’re pleased that the legislature and the Governor have taken an interest in our issues, and we hope they will continue to protect seniors in the future.”

According to a release from the Campaign to Improve Assisted Living:

Both pieces of legislation address resident complaints about Atria Senior Living’s practices. Seniors residing in multiple Atria facilities have complained of rent increases that far exceed the cost of living, while some in Davis and Carmichael suffered blackouts this winter. Atria residents normally receive notices about rent increases by the beginning of November, and increases are effective at the beginning of January. Advocates say they will be watching to see how Atria responds to the new laws.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass sponsored the legislation.

“It’s like the wild west with many assisted living operators. They can charge whatever they want, and there’s very little accountability for the quality of care. Both of these new laws are an important first step to holding them accountable.”

Speaker Bass’s AB 2370 will give assisted living residents information on past rent increases before they move into a facility.

Meanwhile our own Assemblywoman Lois Wolk put together her own bill, AB 749, that will require Atria and other assisted living facilities to identify a backup source of power in the event of a blackout, and improve other emergency preparedness requirements.

Assemblywoman Wolk:

“Residential care facilities provide a vital service to California’s seniors. Yet, this is a largely unregulated industry. Within the past year, a winter storm left a facility in my district without power for over two days. They didn’t have heat, lights, elevators, or medical devices dependent on electricity. My bill will provide additional protection for residents of these facilities.”

The bill requires facilities like Atria to have a comprehensive emergency plan that will ensure that the facility can remain self-reliant for at least 72 hours. That plan must be made available to both residents and local emergency responders.

Davis' Assemblywoman Lois Wolk said:

"I worked with the senior residents, the senior home advocates, and the Governor's administration to come up with a solution that provides the security and peace of mind the residents deserve, without placing an unreasonable bureaucratic burden on the facility."

Gary Passmore of the Congress of California Seniors:

“These bills are an important step in protecting vulnerable seniors in assisted living facilities. Atria residents spoke up about these problems, and the legislature responded.”

While it is easy to be cynical of government, here is a situation where there were key and glaring problems facing our seniors who were vulnerable to price gouging by private care facilities and vulnerable to lack of state regulations requiring things like emergency preparedness and back up power generation. Here is one case at least where the leadership in this state stepped up and came up with a solution to these problems. For the resident of places like Atria Covell Gardens it means piece of mind both in terms of their financial situation but also in terms of basic public safety.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Models Conflict on Whether Davis Needs Senior Housing

Elaine Roberts Musser had an excellent column this week in the Vanguard. If you did not read it, you should. I am following up on it but I will not do it justice.

I start at a midpoint in her article which I think is actually the starting point for any discussion not just on senior housing but on development overall. I think it too often gets over-shadowed in the whole housing debate. The question is one of internal need.

Elaine Roberts Musser writes:

"Necessary to the process will be for developers to consider “internal” community needs rather than “external” needs of those who live outside Davis. (This is not an elitist attitude, by the way, but a recognition that the efforts of the City Council need to be directed toward addressing community problems first and foremost, if at all possible. This is the charge of the City Council.)"

What is interesting about internal need is that regional housing boards like SACOG do not use internal housing need, instead they use what is called a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) in order to figure out what the "fair share" of growth for a community is. Of course the problem is that at least in part those numbers are externally driven. SACOG like other "Councils of Goverments" is a pseudo-elected body made up of representatives from various governmental bodies. The very idea of a RHNA mandate for growth is a strict limit on local autonomy.

We started this week with a discussion on the reduction of sprawl at a state level. However, communities within that framework ought to have a good deal of say as to how, when, and how much they should grow. Some communities would like to grow quicker than others. I certainly believe that is something within their rights.

A true internal needs assessment for Davis is not surprisingly a matter of controversy. But there is quite a bit of locally driven demand from the university in the form of both faculty and staff as well as students. As I have mentioned at other points in time, the university could go a long way toward helping to alleviate the student housing crunch if they were willing to take up their own fair-share of proposed growths. According to statistics, UC Davis has among the lowest, if not the lowest, on-campus housing in the UC system.

Like any model, internal housing needs depends on the assumptions of the model. And here is where the article by Elaine Roberts Musser to me is so important.

The Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) determined that there would be "an “internal need” for somewhere between 200 to 400 units of senior housing between now and the year 2013."

Ms. Roberts Musser goes on to argue:

"The members I talked with and a person on city staff are indicating there is very little justification for the numbers arrived at, ostensibly because it is a difficult figure to quantify."

But here is the key point that I think underscores the problematic nature of such projections.

"The notion that all seniors want to downsize is fallacious. An AARP survey indicates otherwise. Actually 83% of those 45 and older would prefer to stay in their existing home, and not downsize."

This is consistent with a number of seniors or soon-to-be seniors I have spoken with. The other key point that many miss, is that a lot of seniors also do not want to live in what they think of as segregated communities or "Senior Ghettos" to use a more pejorative term (remember the original meaning of ghetto was simply a segregated community rather than a dilapidated one. Here is one definition: "a ghetto is an area, usually within a city, in which members of a particular cultural, ethnic, religious or national group live in high concentration, whether by choice or by force.")

Ms. Roberts Musser then raises the key point: if we re-orient the model to use the 83% figure, we come up with strikingly different results.

"If that statistic is applied to:

Tandem Properties’ alleged “internal need” of 800 units by year 2013, the “internal need” shrinks to 136 units;

HESC’s estimated “internal need” of 200-400 units by year 2013, the “internal need shrivels to between 34-68 units.

In fact, the current wait list for Shasta Point and Eleanor Roosevelt, both essentially low-income senior facilities, is virtually zero. As is the wait-list at Atria Covell Gardens, an assisted living facility for the elderly."

These assumptions are instructive however because they allow us to understand in concrete mathematical terms the nature of the debate and why I consistently hear from different individuals very different figures on the need for senior housing.

I want to bring up a second key point, one that was not raised in the Tuesday column, and that is about the nature of the Covell proposal.

Everyone knows the history of the original Covell Village proposal and the ensuing debate and campaign battle for Measure X. The Covell Partners, who I shall continue to reference as such, recognized some of the errors of their campaign and decided to scale-down their proposal.

Except that they really have not. What they have done is broken down the proposals by stages. The senior housing facility will only occupy the lower third of the property. Stages 2 and 3 would follow after successful approval of stage 1. They do not like to publicize this fact, but they have admitted it to various people that they have met with during the course of their outreach or focus group efforts.

In other words, if you were concerned about the Covell Village site because of the size and traffic impacts, then be mindful about how the big picture looks here.

From my perspective, it is going to take a long time to convince me that a senior facility at Covell Village really serves internal housing needs. In as much as I would be willing to support development, modest as that support would be, I would start with meeting internal needs for students and faculty through infill development. And I mean really infill development in properties that are already located within current city boundaries and that are already zoned residential. I do not see a need to develop Covell Village in the next general plan period. As the HESC showed us, we can meet our RHNA mandated growth by relying strictly on infill. I would suggest we bracket this discussion until after we have exhausted those possibilities.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Interview with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk--Part III

On Friday April 18, the Vanguard sat down and spoke with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, candidate for the State Senate, 5th District. In November she will face Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian. This is the final of a three-part interview. In this segment, the Assemblywoman discusses land use, housing, seniors, health insurance, and her legislative accomplishments and goals.

9. How can the 5th Senate District balance the need for housing and jobs to accommodate huge projected growth with the need to preserve agricultural land and environmental protection?

That’s a tremendous challenge and it’s a challenge we feel throughout the central valley. People are looking for housing, they’re moving to these areas, they haven’t stopped moving to these areas and we need to do a better job of planning. We need, and I hope we would have a resurgence of what we had years ago when we looked at regional planning, strong regional planning. The blueprint was a good example, but that’s only for the Sacramento region. We need that for the entire Senate 5th District. San Joaquin has done a very good job as well of beginning the process of a blueprint. They have strong transportation organization, but there needs to be an overall planning effort that connects transportation, land use, planning, all the agricultural preservation, and environmental preservation. All of the pressures that come from growth have to be looked at in a connective fashion—and we don’t do that. We don’t do a good job of that. We need to do more of that.

It is very difficult, but now is probably the best time to do that. The reason I say that is when you are in a recession that you are right now, and you don’t have the pressure of housing on you, the overheated market, you have an opportunity to take a step back if you are in local government, and look out several years. Look out five to ten years. Look out twenty years. Preferably, look out thirty years or more and do some fundamental planning for your region. We don’t do a good job of that in California. We should do more.

I have introduced 2501, that includes climate change in all water planning in the state at every level. I think that has to occur. That’s one response to what we know is coming and needs to be addressed. The other bill that was part of the flood protection package, was a change in general plan law, to require each community, city and county, to incorporate flooding in a comprehensive way into their general plans. Many communities still don’t do that, but they will have to do that by the end of next year, including the maps the maps that will be given to them of the different flood plains. So there are efforts to do that and there are some pieces of legislation currently that aim to do the same for transportation and air quality and housing. I support those, I think that they’re to put forward.

I recognize however, that much resistance comes from local communities because land use is a local prerogative. I would just encourage, as I did when I was on the city council and the board of supervisors, regional efforts that Davis can’t do it alone, Woodland can’t do it alone, it is important for Yolo County cities to be working together in partnership and to be working in the greater region on all of these issues—that’s essential. Sometimes it doesn’t work, but that’s what needs to happen. It’s a tension between the local government responsibility as a constitution for land use and the state’s overall overriding interest in making certain that the state as a whole deals with these challenges. There’s a tension there and it’s a healthy challenge.

10. Everyone it seems is for health care reform. What approach do you most advocate for and more importantly, how can you get it passed in the current climate or will you be looking toward 2011 with a Democratic Governor?

My greatest disappointment was that we were unable to enact health care reform. My position has always been, whatever health care reform comes to my desk in the Assembly, I will vote for—whether it is single payer, which I have supported, or the Speaker and Governor’s proposal, I supported that, and I co-authored John Laird and Darrell Steinberg’s bills to expand healthy families, to insure the children. My greatest disappointment is that this year, since we were unable to insure every citizen that we were unable to insure and expand healthy children, the healthy families program and thereby insure all children.

This will have to be done at the federal level. I am looking forward to the election in November. I think within a year after that, we will see a health care reform. It will be similar to the SKIP program, basically the federal government has to set a floor and then California will rise above that floor. Each state will or not depending on their needs and demands and values. I look forward to this election because I think that health care reform is on the national agenda. It is the number one for people. It has surpassed education in many polls statewide—not yet in my district. It is up there. It has risen dramatically. It has to be dealt with. I look forward to working on that before we have a new governor.

11. What other issues do you think are vital to your candidacy for the Senate and your record as a State Assemblywoman?

Well one of the areas has been my focus on seniors and elders. The elder abuse legislation which was landmark legislation to require banks and financial institutions to report elder financial abuse when they think it’s occurring. That took us two years, it was a difficult piece of legislation. We had a great deal of support for it. I’m very proud about that. I’m currently looking at end of life issues—nursing homes, assisted living facilities, issues. We are a growing and changing population. We’re growing older, we have a demographic surge, and people are living longer. They are not living next door to their relatives any longer. They need at times housing and medical care. They need continuums of care, they need services at certain times and not at others. They need the flexibility of being able to go back and forth between the housing and nursing home, homebound care, there are all permutations of the things that seniors need as they age.

I’d like to work on these, but we haven’t had a lot in that area. We haven’t had enough oversight. And it is a tremendous wave. The baby boomers are coming. We have to be prepared for that. What we saw in Davis was a very good example of that. We have two facilities we built in the 90s—one in ’89, the University Retirement Facility, which I was instrumental in getting approved and working toward. That was in the 1990s, it is twenty years later. When Atria took over Covell Gardens the rent increases were dramatic. That was very difficult for many of the existing residents. At that point, alternative were not and are not available. I think that’s a real lack in our community. We haven’t thought about the changes in our demographics that are coming upon us not just in Davis, but countywide and statewide, practically and statewide that would allow choices to be available to seniors.

Frankly, we have an expansion in the needs of children as well—childcare. Because of the changes in the family, there are very different demands that the family requires that we’re not confronting. Changes in home to school transportation for example, single-parent families have incredible demands on them, childcare, the need for preschool, there are a whole series of things that we have to do for children as well, that have to reflect changing times. So I look forward to working on those of those issues in the Senate.

(Follow up on the situation at Atria Covell Gardens regarding the power situation in January and rent).

I think there are two parts to that. I disagree with you that the Davis City Council couldn’t do anything. For the immediate, their fire department was absolutely wonderful in getting there, getting people out of the elevator who were trapped there, and being ready to be partners in whatever emergencies are provided, and that’s ongoing not just in crises, they’re always there.

I have introduced legislation to make certain that emergency plans have to be serious. If they provide services dependent upon electricity, in particular oxygen and a number of things that they have to have a backup generator. I’m sure that that will pass and be signed by the governor.

The issue of rents—whether adequate notice and adequate justification is given for these rents. There are a number of things that could be done better—mechanisms for appealing it if possible. Here’s the issue with Davis, yes there are problems that were highlighted by what happened. We don’t have enough facilities in Davis. It took a city council to approve ten acres of land for the University Retirement Community using the redevelopment agency and new development to make that happen. And it took a city council prior to mine—Mike Corbett, Anne Evans, and David Rosenberg—to approve Covell Gardens in 1988 or 87, recognizing the need for a senior facility. We need more of them. There was no place to go.

If you are 76 or 85 and you are faced with, and you’re relatively healthy and your rent goes up and you have a limited amount of income, you have no other place to go. Your choices were limited. That is something that the Davis City Council can directly assist with. I know that those are difficult conversations to have given the current view about growth, but if we’re committed to infill, what about infill projects? What about some vision in terms of creating alternatives for those seniors. There are going to be more and more people like that—are we going to send them away from Davis? That is what I was faced with as mayor in the 90’s. People were leaving the community because we did not have a university retirement community. And because Covell Gardens at the time was only senior housing. It did not have any assisted living. It changed over time. Where are those facilities? I don’t know of any in the planning process. That may be the case in Woodland as well, in fact, it may be true in California. We have to do a better job of anticipating demographic surge and the needs that that group presents and ready for it. That’s what a public official should be about, and especially at the local level where land use is in their control.

12. What accomplishment in your political career are you most proud?

I have a lot of them. I am very proud of the flood protection package, the Cache Creek Wild and Scenic bill, that Cache Creek will forever be wild and scenic. My grandchildren will be able to experience that creek and their grandmother had something to do with making it wild and scenic. Also the landmark bill on elder protection—elder financial abuse. I’ve accomplished a number of things that aren’t pieces of legislation. I’ve managed to solve a number of problems that resulted in making the school districts healthier financially. Getting the $4 million for Marguerite Montgomery was a wonderful success. I also years before saved $14 million for the Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District and I’m working now to help the Dixon School District achieve a reserve with their sale of property which needs legislation. A lot of these things gave me a great deal of satisfaction because they made lives and situations much better for people. I like to solve problems.

13. If you accomplish one thing as a State Senator what would it be?

I have two things. To insure every child in this state, that would be the first thing in the next two years. The second thing would be to develop a steward for the delta. A medical home for every child in the state of California.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Residents Protest Atria Covell Gardens Rate Hikes and Lack of Service

Atria Responds by Kicking Reporters and Public Officials Off Their Property

Around 30 residents of the Atria Covell Gardens assisted living facility came out this morning protesting not only the rental increase but also the conditions under which they live. They described in detail problems that occurred during the recent storms and power outage and the lack of action and concern from Atria Covell Gardens. During the course of the protest, resident expressed outrage at the severity of the double-digit rate hikes and the lack of service received during an emergency situation nearly a month ago.

In response, Atria asked members of the press, the media, and public officials to leave their property.

Carol Terry of the Grey Panthers said:

"We're appalled by what happened here and what we've heard about conditions under which people have had to live. We've heard about huge rent increases on people with limited incomes... We understand that for forty hours there was no heat, no light, no amenities of any kind. The staff did not check on the residents; the residents were left to their own devices... We don't know all of the details, but everything that we've heard is appalling, that a facility where people pay more than I have in social security money were treated in this way. We believe that there were legal covenants that perhaps were not sufficient to protect the residents and we will work with the legislature to make sure they are improved."

A resident said that she has been here for a number of years and it has really gone down hill since Atria's been running it.

Another resident, Sheila, told the crowd that she is 83 years old and her husband is 88. She talked about the amount of money that is going to the rent increases for her husband and herself. It totaled around $5000 last year, another $3000 this year, and she expects another increase next year. Pointedly she said, "I would call this elder abuse."

Gilda lives in Atria with her husband. Her husband is on oxygen. After losing electricity during the storm, the obviously caused a huge problem. No one in administration contacted them to find out what their needs were. She in the end had to call the pulmonary company that supplied them with the oxygen and at 10:30 at night he brought out cannisters that supplied the oxygen for purposes of travel or other issues of mobility for a two hour period.

According to her, two of the administrators,

"instructed me on how to use the portable tanks. But they also... said that they would never be able to help me again. Because they are not allowed to... The AL's cannot help you with oxygen."

Her husband is one of several people who require oxygen. Each person that is on oxygen is supposed to be responsible for them for themselves.

Another resident told the crowd that:

"Robert Godfrey, the executive direct, has told us that there will not be a generator here. They are not going to get a generator even though we found that we could not function until they went out and rented one."

Councilmember Lamar Heystek spoke to the crowd and told them that he was honored to be a neighbor of Covell Gardens.

"When we talked a month ago, we talked about a rent increase that compounded one from last year that exacerbates an already very difficult situation for our most precarious residents here at Atria Covell Gardens. With the recent blackout, with the recent power outages, with the recent failures that can be spread around, there's enough blame to go around for everyone, we really have to ask ourselves what does the rate increase, what does the rent increase actually buy?

Did that buy the residents of Atria Covell Gardens more security in the event of an emergency? As a city councilmember and as your neighbor, I do not believe that it has done that.

Has it been able to buy peace of mind, has it been able to buy some level of security, for the folks that live here, in the event of a national disaster? I don't believe that it has."

Councilmember Heystek saw two fundamental issues at stake.

"First of all whether or not this rent increase was justified. I think the people here can form some kind of consensus that they were excessive.

The second issue is whether or not the rate or rent increase has purchased better quality of life for the people that live in this facility. Or if we think that there is a prospect of an enhanced quality of life."

The councilmember urged more pressure on the senior citizens commission and the city council. The issue of emergency response will come before council on February 12."

There is a good deal of concern as to what can be done at this point to help the residents not only with the issue of rental increase but also the problem of emergency preparedness.

At the time, the Vanguard was extremely critical of the city's emergency response and there were a good deal of people who argued that this was not an emergency, it was an inconvenience. For a young and able body person such as myself, it is an inconvenience. For a person at an assisted living facility, it is an emergency. Not having electricity can be fatal for people who require it to survive. Not having heat can be very dangerous for elderly people. The failure of the owners of the facilities to properly prepare and deal with the emergency is mind boggling.

As I stood at the rally reporting on this event, I was asked to leave the property by one of the staffers who is photographed above. I was not alone. They told Councilmember Heystek to leave the property. And they told the TV camerapeople to leave the property.

I spoke to the Councilmember shortly after the event from the public sidewalk.

"I was told to leave the property," the Councilmember said. "She said not to be on the property. She told me and the reporter not to be on their property."

I asked him for his reaction to this event:

"My reaction to the activism of our seniors is a good deal of pride in our greatest generation.

My reaction to the lack of service, the lack of basic service on the part of Atria Covell Gardens is one of great disappointment and that is an understatement. Their lack of service during the blackouts, adds insult to injury to the back-to-back double-digit rate increases that have been seen by these residents.

I don't think the rate increases to these residents add to the enhancement of their quality of life. I hope that there's that prospect, I'm disappointed that residents were underserved yet are paying more to live here. It's simply greatly disappointing."

Unfortunately, the city feels that there is only a limited role that they can perform since Atria Covell Gardens is a private facility. The councilmember urged public pressure on the legislative process and on the company.

I was disappointed to see that the reaction by this company to their residents protesting was an attempt to keep the press, members of the public, and public officials off their private property, rather than concern for the welfare of their residents and any attempt to redress the grievances that were serious, manifold, and pervasive both in terms of the impact of the rental increase and the lack of service provided during a period of crisis.

We will all one day be seniors, hopefully, and I can only hope that we as a community can come together and demand that the aged population is treated with the dignity and care they have earned through their long lives of service to this community and this nation.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Coming to Terms with What Went Right and What Went Wrong with Emergency Response

Tuesday Night's Davis City Council meeting came and went without much of a deep discussion of what went wrong and wrong with the city's emergency planning.

City Manager Bill Emlen spent most of his time talking about what went right. He did acknowledge problems but they were larger expressed in vague generalities and pushed off for a future meeting in order to address these problems.

The fear of course is that the longer such discussions are put off the less accountability can be held and the more this can be largely swept under the rug.

I think many people have lost sight of why the lack of coordination and communication is a concern. It is not that for most of the residents of Davis this particular event was a large concern or an extremely dangerous situation.

Rather it is concern about the next event that may be far more serious. Furthermore it is out of concern for the most vulnerable residents.

To the credit of the Davis Enterprise, this has not merely been swept under the rug as so many other problems that have occurred in our community.

While Wednesday's coverage of the council meeting was short on specifics, it did in fact lay out some of the concerns of residents.

The problem of communication is concerning. There was little info provided by PG&E on the status of power. There was also little information provided to residents from the city.

City Manager Bill Emlen said at the meeting:

"When the power is out, communications change a lot. Going through an event like this really crystallized what that means."

But it is somewhat unclear what the city manager meant by that exactly.

A warming center was established at the downtown teen center. That sounds good in theory, but this occurred on Saturday night. What was done on Friday night when it was clear even from the meager reports from PG&E that there would not be power available until at least late afternoon on Saturday?

The Enterprise ran a story on Atria Covell Gardens and their failure to have a back up generator. Of course, the law does not require a backup generator at assisted living centers. So obviously the facility that is raising rent on seniors is doing fine since they followed minimal requirements. The fact that a number of residents fell and potentially could have been seriously injured not withstanding.

The issue came up at yesterday's joint meeting between the City Council and Senior Citizens commission.

According to the law, they do not have to have back up generators as long as the common areas were with heat. One again has to wonder why the folks are paying such an exorbitant rent and two large rent increases if they facility is not planning better for emergency situations.

To me following the law is not an excuse, law represents a minimal amount of legal responsibility rather than a ceiling on the obligations of any facility--particularly one charging as much for its residents as Atria.

The city cites the lack of serious injuries as good news, and it is. But perhaps they were more lucky than good in this regard.

The key point that needs to be emphasized over and over again is that the reason people are complaining is that without complaints nothing will change. We can do things better. But we have to take responsibility for what went wrong and then fix it.

Personally I think a lot of people would have done much to attempt to help other residents if they knew where to go and how to help. But there was no planning for this. People did not know where to go to help or if that help was even needed. As a result most people assume the best thing they can do is take care of themselves and stay out of the way.

One of the issues that came up briefly yesterday and also Tuesday night is being personally prepared for an emergency. Having emergency supplies in a kit that one can utilize. The best thing the city can do is help people be ready for the next emergency so we know what to do. We may not know exactly where to go, but once we get there we can know what to expect and where to get information from.

Disappointingly, and this is not to criticize anyone, many of the services that would be helpful during an emergency--i.e. local TV, local radio, even the police--themselves had problems with their generators. That is an area of concern right there.

We all understand that PG&E was extremely busy restoring power, but someone, somewhere could have coordinated their information network so that residents had the best available information. There is nothing worse than being in the dark (literally and figuratively) about such things.

In the end, many of criticize because we expect better. It is my hope that the city will yet have the discussion and raise the tough issues at the next city council meeting but in the meantime one had to be a bit disappointed that the city manager was so eager to praise and so reluctant to talk about where we can improve next time.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Seniors Flood Council Chambers and Council Struggles to Act on their Behalf

As we have reported the Senior living facility, Atria Covell Gardens has said that they will be raising rent for their seniors living in their facility effective the first of the year. This will be on average an 8% rental increase, with some residents experiencing over a 10% rental increase. The rental increase follows another 8% increase that took effect in January of this year.

At Tuesday night's Davis City Council meeting, roughly 50 residents of the facility came to city council to express their support of the council to intervene on their behalf.

Supervisor Mariko Yamada who has been at the forefront of advocacy for seniors and senior living issues spoke before the council:

"I not only want to express support for the council's efforts to look into this matter, county will certainly be a partner with you in that. In fact they did meet with the resident's association immediately after the first news report of first the eight percent increase but then learning it has been a double digit increase over the past two years. This is part of a larger corporate issue I think in terms of how seniors are housed in our communities. Atria is a national corporation, there are issues arising, problems with Atria nationwide. But it also speaks to other housing needs for seniors, at the county level we are bringing home a study on rent stabilization for manufactured home parks, as well as taking a look at other facilities such as CCRC's (Community Care Retirement Centers)... But I also think we need to take a look at senior housing needs throughout the area."

Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek urged the council to take immediate action--if it was within the realm of the law and expressed a willingness to meet during the holidays in order to accomplish this.

"I'm in town [next week] If staff gave us a place, I'd be happy to act before the end of the year because it is of an urgent nature, I mean your rent increases kick in at the beginning of January. And I say that sincerely because I think we can talk about doing things on a long range calendar... but I understand you would like some immediate attention and I hope that I can be part of a solution on an immediate basis."

Mayor Sue Greenwald also indicated a willingness to act immediately:

"Why don't we authorize Harriet [Steiner] to look into our legal options and if there are option, why don't we ask Bill [Emlen] to schedule an emergency meeting."

Councilmember Don Saylor indicated that neither he nor two of his colleagues would be in town during this time:

"I think there will be two of you in town during that time..."

He also expressed reticence to act immediately even if he were in town.

"Like everybody, I think we're all touched, nobody likes this situation and we're very touched by the presence of the people in the room tonight. But I think we have to act within the bounds of what we can do and be clear about that. While it's possible that we could be the first city in the state, or one of the first, to implement a rent control mechanism, it's not likely. And it's not going to happen in the next couple of weeks. I think that we ought to be looking at the things that we can do and working with the management of Atria to try to get them to participate in a voluntary mediation has potential, it's possible. I don't know if it's going to be successful. But it's certainly worth trying... So I think we should do the things we can, within the authority we have, and test the bounds by exploration. But I don't think we can do something within the next few weeks, no matter what we do."

Michelle Reardon, who sits on the Social Services Commission and also practices in geriatric counseling, suggested there may be little a local entity can do at this point. She expressed regrets that Atria was licensed by the Department of Social Services to be a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly. Once licensed she believed that the state and not the city had jurisdiction over "rent."

This brings forward a larger issue of about Senior Care Facilities and licensing. A quick search for Atria finds a troubled organization with a wide array of complaints against it.

Channel 13 in Sacramento reports on a residential protest at an Atria facility in Sacramento.

"Nobody at this senior home wants to go, they just don't know if they can afford to stay. They were told that their rents were being raised, the residents got together and figured out that the increases range from six up to eleven percent.

...

Arthur's rent is increasing more than $4,000 next year.

...

The reason they've been given was that the building is riddled with dry rot, but residents don't believe that's financial burden to bear.

Some increase is expected, three or four percent is average at other homes. But, the overall feeling here is that management is unfairly taking money these people spent their lives saving."

In the meantime, Atria faces federal investigations for the violations of workers' rights:

"At facilities around the country, Atria is now facing a large number of federal investigations over charges that the company violated federal labor law, including threatening, intimidating, spying on, and otherwise violating the rights of employees who have been active in forming a union for improvements at their facilities"

And when workers at these care facilities has attempted to unionize, Atria has resorted to standard intimidation, harassment, and disciplining of workers.

“I was fired because I want a voice on the job. Atria needs to listen to workers so that residents get the care, staffing, and services they deserve. We’re forming a union for a voice in care for residents and working conditions for workers,” said Radika Munna, a former employee at Atria Senior Living, during a candlelight vigil where community leaders gathered to support workers who have been harassed for their efforts to improve conditions for workers and residents by forming a union at Atria Shaker in Lynbrook, New York.

These complaints bring up the question of who licenses these facilities and how local communities and counties can insure that when they provide for Senior Housing, that these provisions are met in a responsible manner. Local governments should not lose control of their authority once they grant building permits and zoning changes. How does a community like Davis, insure that once they provide these facilities, that their residents receive the type of care, attention, and affordability that they deserve?

Obviously this is a much broader question than can be addressed now. But it is imperative that the City of Davis along with Yolo County and other advocacy groups look at what is happening nationwide with companies like Atria and take steps to insure that this never happens again.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Councilmember Heystek Requests City Help for Covell Gardens Residents

On November 27, the Vanguard reported on Atria Covell Gardens's increased rents that would raise rent by 8 percent for the second year in a row.

The facility's executive director, Robert Godfrey cited increased costs as the primary reason for these increases.

"I'm certainly empathetic... But it's an unfortunate reality to business right now. Lots of people we do business with are now charging us fuel surcharges, for example."

The Vanguard wrote in its commentary:

While I am empathetic to your cost concerns and understand that you are trying to run a business and make a profit, you also have to understand that you are running a business geared towards seniors. And when you run a business geared towards seniors, you are acknowledging that the residents there are on basically a fixed income. That means that they get only a 2.3 percent increase in their income--not near enough to cover an 8 percent increase, let alone for two years in a row.

When you are a business that relies on seniors for your profits, you have to recognize that the downfall of that market is that you cannot do things the way you would do them in other sectors of the economy. You cannot increase rents by more than their cost of living adjustments. Otherwise, what you will do, is put elderly people on the streets.

Finally, the Vanguard implored the Davis City Council and the City of Davis to step in to protect the vulnerable--and the most vulnerable are people on fixed incomes, some of whom do not have a lot of savings, and many of whom are not in great health.

At Tuesday's Davis City Council Meeting, Councilmember Lamar Heystek stepped in and did just that.

"I want to talk about an issue that I think all the council has heard about, it's the issue of the impending rent increases imposed by Atria Covell Gardens on the residents of that assisted living facility on Alvarado Ave. We've read about it in the Davis Enterprise, we've read about it on the internet, I have received phone calls and I have visited the facility to meet with the residents. Their concerns are very grave."

For Councilmember Heystek this was an alarming development.

"Their rent increase averages 8 percent across the units and they have reached [as high as] 12 percent. They have experienced a rent increase of 8 percent on average last year."

"I believe we have an issue that affects our most vulnerable citizens--they are our senior citizens."

Following the articles last month, the Councilmember has had contact with this in the community on this issue.

"Members of that assisted living community have approached me and asked that I bring this issue to the city council. I do not come with a solution to the problem, I don't have all the facts. I have tried to contact Robert Godfrey who is the executive director of the Atria Group."

"I do come with an idea, I believe it is our necessity and our duty to at least consider the problem as presented by the Covell Gardens Residents' Association and to act accordingly."

Councilmember Heystek looked first toward a voluntary solution, a means by which to bring the members of the two parties together to have discussion and dialogue through the city's mediation service. While this approach is voluntary, it has the potential at least to allow the resident to air their grievances and also the management to explain their rationale for the increase and the methodology by which it was created.

"I ask that the city council... request staff to invite both the represents of both the management of Atria Covell Gardens and the Covell Gardens Residents' Association to engage in the City of Davis' Community Mediation Service. I believe that this process is fair. It's a process that is bilateral in nature. It would allow Atria to convey the financial considerations that justify the rent increase, to convey the methodology by which the rent increases of individual units have been calculated. It would allow the residents to provide their testimony to the rent increase in a formal venue mediated by a neutral party. It would allow both parties to negotiate the terms of the rent increase and negotiate terms by which future rent increases could occur."

This also leaves open the door to other forms of action. However, Mr. Heystek clearly felt impelled to at least attempt to do something to help the situation.

"I believe it is important that we act, people turn to us because they believe we have the power to act. The least we can is ask staff to invite both parties to a fair mediation session. And so I make that request of council and I make that request of staff."

The council as a whole agreed and thought this was a great idea to take advantage of the services offered in this city and perhaps draw some national attention to this sort of problem.

These rent increases are set to take effect at the first of the year and Councilmember Heystek suggested that if these voluntary efforts are not effective, they ought to consider other avenues to deal with this very serious problem.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Atria's Increased Rents Imperils Seniors on Fixed Incomes

On November 24, 2007, Margaret Walker, President, associated residents of Covell Gardens, Davis, a senior living facility in Davis wrote a letter to the Davis Enterprise protesting the decision by Atria Senior Living company based in Lexington, KY to raise rent by 8 percent for the second straight year.

Ms. Walker writes:

"The residents of Covell Gardens senior living community are dismayed by the management's announcement of a rent increase of 8 percent, to take effect in January. This follows an 8 percent increase in January 2007. We are an economically diverse community and this increase will cause a hardship to many. Those on a fixed income will face a noticeable decrease in their quality of life as they struggle to meet these higher costs. The Social Security increase will be only 2.3 percent.

We feel we are part of the Davis community. Some have owned homes here, many have family living nearby. The pleasures of living at Covell Gardens are many, but we must protest the exorbitant proposed increase in cost.

The owner, Atria Senior Living, is a private company based in Lexington, Ky. It is legal but unethical for them to impose this burden on senior citizens who are living on a fixed income. "

Another resident, Arthur Zalkan was quoted as saying:

"We expected an increase... But we didn't expect Atria to gouge us--and that's what they're doing."

The facility's executive director, Robert Godfrey responded by citing increased costs and there is no doubt that is accurate.

The Davis Enterprise story quotes him:

"I'm certainly empathetic... But it's an unfortunate reality to business right now. Lots of people we do business with are now charging us fuel surcharges, for example."

To turn this around on Mr. Godfrey, while I am empathetic to your cost concerns and understand that you are trying to run a business and make a profit, you also have to understand that you are running a business geared towards seniors. And when you run a business geared towards seniors, you are acknowledging that the residents there are on basically a fixed income. That means that they get only a 2.3 percent increase in their income--not near enough to cover an 8 percent increase, let alone for two years in a row.

When you are a business that relies on seniors for your profits, you have to recognize that the downfall of that market is that you cannot do things the way you would do them in other sectors of the economy. You cannot increase rents by more than their cost of living adjustments. Otherwise, what you will do, is put elderly people on the streets.

This is not a knock on Atria. I am sure that Covell Gardens is a fine place, well run, but when you deal with people on fixed incomes, you must understand that large increases in costs put them in peril.

There are ways to deal with increased costs in the short term, and one way, is to instead of increasing the rent by 8 percent some years and likely zero in other years, use the years where costs are not going up to bank for when costs are soaring.

The second thing that comes to mind is that the city of Davis needs step in to protect the vulnerable--and the most vulnerable are people on fixed incomes, some of whom do not have a lot of savings, and many of whom are not in great health.

Again, the upside of the senior market, is that it appears to be a growth industry but the downside, is that sometimes if you serve seniors, you are the one that needs to bite the bullet during lean years because they cannot. Atria should have known that they could not get away with back-to-back 8 percent rent increases. That was never a wise plan.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Should Davis Develop the Northwest Quadrant?

I caught part of the General Plan Housing Element's discussion of the Northwest Quadrant last night. It was actually a very good discussion that clarified in my mind at least a number of issues that still are lingering from the county's discussion in July. The biggest issue it actually clarified for me is the pragmatic and practical reasons why the city and not the county should determine growth on city edge's. At the very least we see why the county did things backwards.

If the county really felt the need to grow in the Northwest Quadrant and other areas on the Davis periphery it should have started with talks with the city of Davis. I understand full well that one of the things that Supervisor Mariko Yamada wanted to do was have a Yolo County Council of Governments along the same lines as SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). However that proposal was rejected. Short of creating a formal mechanism, the existing structure exists at the two-by-two level to engage in those talks. It seems to me that the bigger problem here is less the lack of communication and more the fear that they would not like answer.

However, the need for these talks was underscored for me last night by some of the discussion of developing the Northwest Quadrant. Even some of the more development friendly members of the committee felt that given the time frame that the committee was charged with, looking ahead seven years, there is no way that the city should be developing there.

Several other issues also came up--lack of commercial development on the west side of town, distance from the city core, lack of adherence to smart growth principles, etc. The idea here is that this development is far from downtown, meaning people would have to drive a good distance just to get to the center of town. That forces people to drive more in order to shop and eat, which leads to traffic, congestions, pollution, more carbon emissions, more infrastructure problems.

In fact the feeling seemed to be as they considered four separate parcels in the area that the city needs to look at this area as a whole rather than piecemail and needs to plan commercial development alongside residential.

That seems like a very reasonable approach. All of which underscores why the county had no business talking about developing in this part of town because frankly the county was not considering any of these factors. And that is the problem in general, the county was thinking in terms of generating revenue (a dubious notion at best) and the county was not thinking about what growth in these areas would do to the city in terms of infrastructure, commerce, transportation, and even future development. Again, if this was something the county really desired they should have discussed it in advance in great detail, well before it came before them in terms of their General Plan update.

Two other issues to broach, one was the notion discussed by the public, which included some developers and non-developers about how the northwest quadrant should be developed. One of the ideas that came forward was that the citizens of Davis allow growth in these areas in order to gain permanent agricultural mitigation. In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.

The logic here was that we parcel and piecemail this development in order to avoid huge developments at any one time. The idea being that pressure is building for development and if we do not act as a spigot, we will get flooded. This analogy makes little sense to me. First of all we are talking about allowing a tremendous amount of growth to reach that point. Second, who is to say that the pressure would not continue to build even when there is land in permanent mitigation to change that land use status. I think we have to be careful about leaning too heavily toward mitigation as the solution to development pressures. I also think the amount of growth we are talking about might be over 50 years, not the next 7.

The other point that gets raised here is senior housing. What we now are seeing are several separate proposals for senior housing. The city of Davis has a Senior Citizens commission and part of their purview ought to be direct community discussion about the need for senior housing. I think one of the good things that came from last night's discussion was the acknowledgment from the Housing Element Steering Committee members that their job was one of looking at land use not approving specific projects. I agree with that approach. Just as I agreed in July that talk about a stem cell facility was premature, the question then was whether land use designations should be changed and whether land should be included for future development in the general plan. That is precisely the question here as well.

Discussion about whether and to what extent senior housing needs to be developed should take place in the Senior Citizens Commission. I think it would behoove the council and the steering committee even to have that kind of community dialogue occurring while housing is considered--particularly in the controversial Covell Village area.

One of the issues that has to be resolved at the council level and probably will not be resolved until after the new council elections is whether we should be planning for RHNA mandated growth or whether we should be planning for 1 percent growth that was developed and implemented by the city council. That conversation started to occur two weeks ago but needs to continue. The Council Majority seemed to want to postpone it until they got a report from the Housing Element Steering Committee but it seemed last night that the steering committee really needs to have direction from council in deciding what property to include in their plan.

At the end of the day, I think there needs to be more broad-based discussion in the community about where, when, and what type of growth ought to take place.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Proposing Senior Housing and Peripheral Growth in Davis

Many Davis residents were stunned earlier this year to hear that the county might be considering a massive senior housing development on the periphery of Davis. This development at Oeste Ranch would provide 2000 plus units of senior housing.

However, it also represented a very basic incursion onto the city's sphere of influence by the county. The city and county specifically have a pass-through agreement which allows Davis to retain control of any development on their own periphery. As such, any development requires a Measure J vote by the public. In exchange for the county not developing on the city of Davis' periphery, the city of Davis passes through somewhere on the order of $2 million of redevelopment money to the county. This represents the income the county would have--at least potentially--if they were to develop.

Earlier this year, the county appeared to drop this specific development proposal as county staff argued it would not be a revenue enhancer.

Davis residents should not assume the issue is dead however. First, the county is pushing for joint-study areas between the city and county. These study areas would look into zoning changes. Currently most of these areas are zoned for agricultural use, however if they get zoned for residential or even commercial development this would greatly change the calculus of such a fight and many fear would make it inevitable that sometime down the line, these areas would get developed.

Second, we are getting some word that the Davis General Plan Housing Element subcommittee may be taking up the issue of senior housing. One proposal is a massive development of a senior village.

At a recent joint meeting of the Social Services and Senior Citizens commission, one of the members of the Housing Element Steering committee informed the members of those committees that at the next meeting of the housing element steering committee they will take up this issue. This announcement by Donna Lott, seemed to cause much rancor among the membership of these commissions.

This proposal would provide Davis with middle income housing for Seniors. However, city staffer Jerilyn Cochran suggested that Davis already had sufficient senior housing and pointed out that the city had taken large losses on housing such as the Eleanor Roosevelt project.

Is this an attempt by the Housing Element Subcommittee to take up the issue of Oeste Ranch? That seems like a good possibility.

The advantage of course with the housing element taking up such issues is that any proposal by the city of Davis is at least in the short-term regulated by Measure J and thus a vote is required.

I have no problem with providing more affordable housing to Senior whether they be lower income or middle income. However, the Oeste project seems a particularly bad idea. In general, I am opposed to peripheral development, however in specific, I think this project has several drawbacks.

First, it would represent leapfrog development--development on a parcel of land with another undeveloped parcel in between existing developments. The problem with such developments is that it puts pressure on the city to approve development for the undeveloped parcel as well. The rationale there is that, it's really just infill as it is bounded on three sides of the city.

Second, while the location is near Sutter Davis Hospital, it is far from the core of town, meaning that the residents would be well-isolated from the rest of town which is far from an ideal situation.

Third, while some seniors like to live in senior housing, many would prefer to live in more mixed housing with a variety of demographics. So there are questions about the viability of the development.

Fourth, as Ms. Cochran suggests, Davis has a good amount of senior housing already, and so there must be questions as to whether Davis is really in need of a housing development that would provide for upwards of 4500 new residents. Would this development be accommodating existing residents or would it be drawing in people from outside of the area? Not that it is horrible to draw people from outside of the area, but with limited space and resources, we must first make sure that we are providing enough services for existing residents.

This once again appears to be a situation worth following if you are concerned about peripheral development and what the housing element steering committee is doing.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Group That Rebuilds Senior Homes Coming To Yolo County

Yesterday in at the UC Davis Buehler Alumni and Visitors Center, a non-profit group, Rebuilding Together held a fundraiser that was designed to raise support and inform the local community about the group and their services. Rebuilding Together announced that they are coming to Yolo County to help rebuild and retrofit the homes of senior citizens in order to increase their safety and prevent serious injuries.

One of the key issues facing seniors is the need to perform the types of minor home modifications that will prevent falls and other accidents that lead to serious injury.

Elaine Roberts Musser, who also serves as the chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, put together this program. In her introduction she stressed the importance of preventing falls. "Falls prevention is the key to preventing a downward spiral from which some seniors do not recover." Falls may lead to serious injuries that lead to a quick deterioration of the quality of life and tremendous financial cost.

According to the release:

"The need for home accessibility modifications is of great concern among healthcare providers and EMS workers. The local Emergency Medical System is burdened by the number of fall related calls they respond to each month. Healthcare workers do not know who to refer their clients to for the installation of safety devices. Seniors are experiencing the same difficulty as identified in an Area Four Agency on Aging survey that showed the need for home repairs/modifications is their #2 concern. It is difficult for seniors to find an installer that is trained and they can trust.

Low-income, elderly homeowners prefer to age in their homes, but they must overcome major hurdles to maintain that option. Physical and financial difficulties make it hard for homeowners to install the safety devices necessary for independent living. In addition, locating a trained installer is problematic and in many cases, impossible.

The National Safety Council has determined that falls cause or lead to 17,100 deaths per year in the U.S. Eight of ten fatalities are a result of an initial fall, and half of all falls occur inside the home. More than fifty percent of people who have a hip fracture never return to their prior level of mobility and independence. The average cost of institutionalization is $46,000 per year or more, an expensive alternative. The problem is growing, as one in five Californians will be over 60 years of age by the year 2010."

One of the key speakers at the event was Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Yamada stressed the need for greater attention to be placed on senior issues overall and the issue of home safety in general.

One the key ways to protect seniors is at the front end through by performing retrofits to make the homes that seniors live in safe. Rebuilding Together is a key to these type of situations.

As Yamada pointed out:

"The statistics on elder falls isn't pretty. Falls are the number two trauma call in our five-county emergency services region. Four out of ten nursing home admissions are fall-related, with half never regaining previous mobility and a quarter facing death in twelve months Yet, about two-thirds of these falls were preventable.

Elder falls--not heart disease, stroke or even Alzheimer's--are the number one reason for seniors' loss-of-independence. In much the same way as parents take steps to "child-proof" their homes to protect kids from hurting themselves, all of us should take responsibility to "fall-proof" our own and our parents' homes, to avoid needless injury and reduce the strain on our emergency services network."

Heidi D’Agostino, Yolo County Code Compliance & Business Licensing Officer, and Dan Stroski, Yolo County District Attorney’s office, will also be featured speakers. Both have been involved in recent sting operations by the Yolo Unlicensed Response Apprehension Team (YoU RAT). Comprised of the District Attorney’s Fraud Investigators Office, Yolo County Code Enforcement, other local law enforcement, the California State Contractors Board and the Department of Insurance Investigators, YoU RAT identifies unfair business practices that occur with unlicensed contractors, businesses and trades in Yolo County. Unlicensed contractors often prey on the elderly and vulnerable by not performing the work they are paid for, or by doing substandard work.

Mr. Stroski spent a good deal of time explaining the YoU RAT operation which involves going into homes and performing stings whereby the locate and identify potential suspects who may be practicing contracting without licenses. The licensing rules are put into place to protect citizens. One of the most vulnerable groups of citizens are seniors who provide easy targets for the more unscrupulous of these individuals.

He said one day in West Sacramento they netted 28-31 people in a single day. In the seven months of existence, they have nabbed 71 unlicensed contractors who were practicing without licenses.

In many cases their goal is less to incarcerate them than to get them into compliance which means to have a license and to obtain worker's compensation insurance, so as to ensure that their employees are covered and that they are not liable for workplace damage. In many cases they have waived a good portion of the fine if they simply get themselves in compliance.

Jail is generally according to Mr. Stroski reserved generally for those who are committing fraud by portraying themselves as licensed through phony license numbers. This kind of misrepresentation is felony fraud. Also at times these charges can come with elder abuse enhancements, if they are trying to take advantage of seniors.

According to Heidi D'Agostino, "not just everybody should be in the homes of our senior citizens." Licensing requires FBI background checks, fingerprinting and other certifications.

Carrie Grip, the Executive Director of Rebuilding Together then presented information about their group along with a video about the Sacramento Branch of Rebuilding Together.

Rebuilding Together is a nonprofit organization that preserves homes to ensure that seniors and individuals who are disabled can live independently in their own residences. They provide home modifications such as gab bars, specialized railings, wheel chair ramps, smoke detectors, shower assist devices and more. This work is completed by teams of volunteers who are trained in the proper installation of safety devices such as these.

Rebuilding Together is a national non-profit group that came to Sacramento in 1991. In their first year in Sacramento, 70 people came and helped to rebuild the homes of seniors. Since then, over 1300 repairs have occurred in the Sacramento area costing $4.5 million. They often have 1000 volunteers a day who work on up to 15 homes.

Rebuilding Together would like to expand their fall prevention services into Yolo County and are partnering with the Triad Task Force, a public/private collaboration of agencies and county service providers – the action arm of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services (YCCA&AS). Together they propose a program to assist not only older, low income adults, but all disabled individuals of every income level in becoming safer in and around their homes, by offering home safety education and evaluation, and minor or major home modifications at reasonable fees, or no cost for those of low income.

Ms. Grip told the audience,

Rebuilding Together is excited to expand its Home Safety Services program into Yolo County. We look forward to working with health care providers, emergency medical workers and civic representatives to address the issue of home related falls. The impact of a simple modification such as a grab bar will decrease the number of home injuries and improve independence for local residents.

The interesting part of this effort is that it is truly a cooperative effort between a number of different types of agencies and non-profit groups. Ted Puntillo who is a former Davis City Councilmember and now the Yolo County Veterans Sercices Officer spoke of a specific case of rather horific conditions a local gentleman who is a retired veteran and a long time worker. The efforts that would put into helping this individual were rather exemplary and it makes one realize the needs that so many seniors have.

As Michelle Samuels said,

"I think we've all heard it takes a village to raise a child, but it also takes an active and coordinate effort to sustain that village."

The City of Davis has generously donated $25,000 to modify homes in Davis.

There are several ways that individuals can help this organization. They are going to have a workday in Yolo County on September 29, 2007. They really need volunteers for that effort and of course money and resources.

Individuals interested in helping this cause are encouraged to contact Rebuilding Together.

Their website is: http://www.rebuildingtogethersacramento.org

Or call them at: 916/455-1880

One quick note of commentary: I think this information largely speaks for itself, but I was very impressed with the program and the efforts of this group and I strongly encourage people to donate their time and volunteer to help rebuild the homes of seniors, especially those with the skills to do so. I came away from this program with a much fuller understanding of this problem and sympathy for this cause.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Residents Face Double-Whammy of Water Rate Hikes in Coming Decade

The Davis City Council held a public meeting last Tuesday to discuss a planned rate increase for both water and sewage rates. The public had an opportunity to come out and protest these rate hikes--a few did, but not in sufficient numbers to warrant any additional action by the city council.

As a result the rate for Davis residents will rise merely for the new sewage system by at least 7 to 8 percent per year for the next 10 years--or double the projected rate of inflation.

Davis Public Works Director Bob Weir projected that these rates would end up costing the average single-family residence at least $102 per month in utilities.

The upgrade in the sewage system is necessitated by changes in state and federal laws regarding wastewater outflow. These laws currently place the city out of compliance in terms of organic and particulate matter in the water discharge.

In the meantime these rate hikes are just the tip of the iceberg for Davis residents. The other half of the story is the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.

This project as we have discussed previously is a $300-$450 million project.

According to the water supply page:

"The partners are pursuing this project to secure a new, high-quality surface water supply from the Sacramento River. Currently, groundwater serves as the sole supply of water for the partners. A new, treated surface water source is needed to improve water quality for Woodland, Davis and UC Davis to meet future wastewater discharge requirements. The partners also want to ensure that an adequate and diversified future water supply is available."

The project is currently in the environmental documentation phase, and Draft EIR has been prepared and available for review for a 50-day period ending May 31. Any public willing to submit comments may do so at the May 16, 2007 Davis City Council Meeting.

The project relies on a diversion of water from the Sacramento River, it will then be piped into an intake water treatment plant and connected with the cities. It has three primary goals: (1) "Provide a reliable water supply to meet existing and future needs;" (2) "improve water quality for drinking water purposes;" and (3) "improve the quality of treated wastewater effluent discharged by the Project Partners."

According to the EIR, there will be up to 46.1 thousand acre feet of water per year from the river for water use.

They argue that there will be no significant impact on fish, aquatic resources, and habitats, hydrology, or water quality in the Sacramento River or downstream delta. That may be accurate on the basis simply of the impact of this specific project's usage, but the broader concern would have to be the stress on this system as more and more community scramble to gain control over water from the Sacramento River in lieu of pending water shortages and changes in the climate due to global warming. Any one project's impact may be low, but it would be interesting to see what the combined or overall impact might be.

They argue that there will be short-term construction impacts such as dust and noise. However, they do not discuss the impact of building the pipeline across those miles of habitat.

Summer water purchases will not result in significant environmental impacts, however, as the presentation earlier this year suggested, there is likely not going to be water available to Davis during the summer months anyway. So it is unsurprising that the summer water purchases would not result in significant environmental impacts.

While I am far from a water expert, it seems to me that this EIR is inadequate. During the public meetings and workshop earlier this year, Mayor Greenwald suggested we have an independent agency and experts examine the water project for necessity. According to the EIR, the City of Davis is the lead agency for complying with the CEQA act. As I suggest, there seem to be a number of issues that are simply not addressed adequately in the report.

The key questions I have continue to have are the overall impact of a delicate ecological system of the delta. This EIR looked only at the impact of this particular project on the delta rather than any sort of cumulative impact. Second, would be the issue of availability of water.

As discussed previously, the main argument for proceeding with this project now is to gain a foothold on Davis' share of water from the Sacramento River before other communities that will likely jump on board. The problem with that viewpoint is that if there actually becomes a crisis, there is no guarantee we would be able to retain those water rights.

The final problem with the water supply issue that we are planning for urban growth for a city of 100,000 people within the next 40 years. A realistic view of the resources in California coupled with expected climate change, simply does not support those kind of population growths in this part of the state where water is seasonal and increasingly unreliable.

It would be nice if other alternatives for water supply would have been more thoroughly explored during the recent process, but that does not seem to be a priority.

In the meantime, the city of Davis is looking to embark on two very expensive projects and those on fixed incomes will take a huge hit. That means seniors and other people least able to handle increased costs of living will be the first to feel its impacts. The city needs to seriously examine how they structure these rates--right now they are proposing flat rates, which would be devastating to low income and fixed income people. That should be a top priority in rate structuring.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Eleanor Roosevelt Project Draws Mostly Positive Reviews, but Concerns About Lack of Transportation Remain

While it was not the grand opening of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, yesterday was a day when the public could tour the facility. In many ways, the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle project is a remarkable one--with 60 units of affordable Senior housing, a cooperative main facility that can provide for a number of uses, and state of the art construction. A number of projects constructed by the Neighborhood Partners have drawn heavy scrutiny from many in the community, but most people seem hopeful that Eleanor Roosevelt Circle will succeed despite a few hiccups along the way.

At the ceremony yesterday, County Supervisor Mariko Yamada spoke at length about her commitment to services for seniors. Then Davis City Councilman Don Saylor spoke about his mother-in-law and her bonding in the Davis community. Both Yamada and Saylor praised the project and the facility.

However, the project has also drawn some heavy criticism in the community.

One strong critic is Mayor Sue Greenwald who complained that this project was supposed to be primarily a moderate-income project.

The Davis Enterprise quoted Greenwald as saying:

"I am very disturbed by the whole MO," Greenwald said, pointing out that the project was approved to provide moderate-income housing to seniors. "It's bait-and-switch, where we end up with a project that's all supportive housing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it was not planned."

David Thompson, one of the principal partners along with Luke Watkins, disputes that claim:

"Nowhere in any of the documents I have that were approved by the city is there either a mention of, description of or promise that: The project would be all “moderate income housing” or that it would be a “continuing care facility”."

Mr. Thompson sent me a number of documents used in 2002 when the City Council first approved this project and his claim appears to be accurate.

The original conception for this project however was a moderate income project as proposed by Margaret Milligan.

Mr. Thompson said that Ms. Milligan asked them for assistance beginning in 1998 however they "advised her it was not going to be economically possible to do anything without using city land in some way and if we did that we'd need to meet city standards for affordable housing." By 1999, they understood that they would have do at least half of the units as very low income.

Neighborhood Partners did make a mistake that they have acknowledged.

"We make mistakes, so I'm going to admit the mistake I think we have made," Mr. Thompson repeated to me as he told the council.

They are rectifying that mistake in part by taking Section 8 vouchers which was approved by City Council on March 21, 2007. Mr. Watkins also informed me yesterday during the tour that the 120% income housing would be lowered from $975 per month to $875. The cost of those units always seemed very high given that these are 600 square foot units.

"We definitely overlooked that someone at 120 percent income has many options in the market."

The issue of moderate income is not the only aspect of the project drawing controversy however.

As reported after my tour of the facility back in January, the issue of transportation is still of great concern.

Elaine Roberts Musser, who chairs the Senior Citizens commission, wrote a scathing letter to the Davis Enterprise yesterday.

She is not without praise of the project, remarking on the facility itself. She also said both in person and in writing that she thinks the Social Services Coordinator is an excellent position and that it is very important to have someone who can help the seniors, especially those who are frail or will become frail. The support of this individual can help many of the disabled seniors live more independently.

On the other hand, the transportation issue is of concern to both Ms. Musser and myself. Quite frankly, while the bus system does pick people up across the street on fifth and drop them off in front of the Police Station, the feasibility for seniors is less than desirable. That is a long walk for many of the seniors who are in poor health. Moreover, merely getting to places in Davis requires changing buses, never mind the difficulty of going to Sacramento or West Sacramento for some of the service needs.

The facility needs its own bus that the seniors can use. When I spoke to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Watkins back in January they cited the difficulty with getting a bus as a tremendous expense and certainly one can appreciate that. To be honest, this is not merely a complaint with Neighborhood Partners, I think the County and City need to step up and help subsidize such a transportation. Then again, I think the city is a bit wary at this point of paying more expenses for the Neighborhood Partners who are unfortunately involved in a rather ugly law suit on another of their projects, DACHA (Davis Area Community Housing), where they are actually suing their tenants.

However, it is clear that this is a concern that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Ms. Musser and I both observed Stephen Souza nearly getting hit by a car that was not paying sufficient attention in the roundabout, and as Ms. Musser noted, Mr. Souza moves a great deal faster than a lot of the seniors. Frankly this is too nice a project to have an issue of transportation bring it down, but this clearly needs to be resolved.

Dr. Michael K. McCloud was the key note speaker and at one-point he joked that it was time for Eleanor Roosevelt II, David Thompson turned to me horrified at the notion and made sure that I would mention this by telling me that I should not quote him. I think problems and concerns aside, and they are legitimate ones, that most hope that this facility will succeed because this community needs more senior housing and more affordable housing. Hopefully some of the past problems that have beset the Neighborhood Partners projects have been at least mitigated.

It is worth noting that one of the goals for this project stated by David Thompson yesterday was that it would be able to house the parents of Davis Residents. There is of course little way to ensure that. But Davis certainly is in need of middle income and lower income Senior Affordable Housing. And it is noteworthy that Luke Watkins has not only put his mother-in-law in the facility but his mother as well--and they live next door to each other.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

A further examination of the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle Affordable Housing Project

A few weeks ago we had a critical article on the Senior Affordable Housing project, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle. The developers of that project--Luke Watkins and David Thompson requested a chance to address some of the concerns raised in that article. So last week I toured the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle facility and met with Mr. Watkins and Mr. Thompson for several hours.

The facility itself is very nice. Each unit is either completely accessible to disabled citizens or is designed to be easily modified to accommodate disabled citizens. This was an important feature because Seniors may move into these facilities and not need the accessibility, however, if they live there for a period of time that may become a need in the future.

The facility has an on-site manager who works 40 hours per week and lives on the premises. There is also a full-time maintenance person and a social services coordinator, who also works 40 hours a week.

The original purpose of the project was to serve the needs of the moderate income with affordable housing. For a variety of reasons, they could not have the entire facility set aside as moderate income housing for seniors and still get the funding to complete the project. The moderate income are those 120% of median income or around $60,000 per year. So what has happened is that now one-third of the units are set-aside for disabled seniors, and the rest are either low and moderate income seniors, with the moderate range set aside for about 13 units.

Unfortunately, I'm not certain how good a deal that actually is for moderate income people. It's about a 605 square foot place for about $975 per month. Now they do get a good deal of other benefits from living in this community, however it seems to me that that's a fairly small apartment for that amount of money. On the other hand, it's certainly a better deal for low income people who would pay as little as $226 per month.

The sense I got from this is that the varying communities served by this project are the result of needs for funding. You really have three groups--disabled seniors, moderate income seniors, and low income seniors.

This leads into the first problem identified in the original article, which was the narrow definition for senior in the bylaws--requiring it be 62 or older when there are perhaps a number of 55 year olds and older who would like to take advantage of this affordable housing project.

According to Mr. Watkins and Mr. Thompson, this designation was necessitated by federal laws. The federal senior designation for a senior housing project is 62 years of age or older and by using that designation they can discriminate by age, thereby preventing younger people from residing in the apartments.

On the other hand, the 55 years of age or older definition would be a state definition. However, that would require only one person in the unit to be 55 years of age or older. The HUD regulations allow as many as three people to reside in a given one-bedroom apartment, which means that 55 years of age or older would only require one person to be a senior and the rest of the inhabitants of the apartment could be a spouse and a kid, both of whom could be substantially younger than 55 years old. They wanted to avoid such a situation. Unfortunately, that appears to leave a number of people in the 55 to 62 range out of the project at least for the time being and that is unfortunate.

There have been concerns raised about the vacancy rate. The developers maintain that one of the problems is that seniors were reluctant to sign up for housing that they had not seen yet since they would be committing to live there for the long term. Mr. Watkins and Mr. Thompson believe they will be able to fill out the remainder of the apartments shortly. Particularly in March when they believe a number of Section 8 vouchers will become available and that will enable them to fill all but the 120% of median spots.

A question that remains how many of these will be occupied by local residents, however the developers in this case pointed out that many might go to parents of current Davis residents, who wish to reside near their families. That did not seem to be the indication given by recent announcements from Mayor Greenwald who was imploring local people to sign up for housing before the announcements would be made regionally and perhaps statewide.

The remaining concern is about the availability and more importantly accessibility of transportation. As the developers point out, there is a Unitrans busline that is literally across the street (right in front of the Davis Police Station). However, as Senior advocates tell us, that proximity may work for a young person such as myself, but it entails problems for disabled seniors for whom that distance is quite far and waiting outside in the elements is problematic.

A second problem is that Unitrans only runs around town, and one would need to transfer to Yolo Bus in order to go to Sacramento or Woodland to meet shopping needs or to go to federal and state agencies. That would require as much as a two hour trip out and another two hour trip back--which would essentially take up the entire day for what might be a menial errand for a person with more direct transportation.

Senior advocates also point out that the other senior facilities have their own transportation. Mr. Watkins and Mr. Thompson however, counter that those facilities are larger than the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, which has only 61 units, and they believe a good percentage of those people will likely own their own cars. Thus, they argue that the cost of having in-house transportation would be prohibitive and would require them to cut back on other services since the cost of rent is basically capped by affordable housing regulations. They suggest that the Seniors could utilize Davis Community Transit, which would require a reservation, but should provide their needs.

This is an instance where I disagree with the project developers. From what I understand, Davis Community Transit is difficult to reserve and does not travel outside of the city of Davis. While a number of residents may own cars, as they intend to live at the facility for a good amount of time, those numbers will likely decline as the residents continue to age.

While the cost may be prohibitive, the developers and the city ought to be able to work out some sort of arrangement to provide reliable transportation for the Seniors at this facility.

One thing is clear, this project is a very complex array of issues many of which stem from the need to obtain and secure funding. It is unfortunate that the project cannot accommodate people under the age of 62, there would seem to be a number of people with needs that could utilize these services. We will be watching how this project fares over the future. It is clear that we need more facilities to accommodate the needs of seniors and disabled residents that are affordable to people making lower and middle incomes.

There is one lasting impression I have from the meeting with Luke Watkins and David Thompson and that is repeatedly they cited that their project meets more needs of more types of diverse people than existing projects. Some of that might be dismissed as propaganda, but it does bring to mind that a progressive city such as Davis is not nearly as accommodating to its seniors and middle income populations as it should be. Transportation will always be a problem for seniors, and while we agree that the ERC is closer to the bus lines than other projects, the overall transportation in the city is suboptimal.

Moreover, and this is a repeated problem, the city must get serious about affordable housing. When a 605 square foot apartment renting for $975 a month is "affordable," there is a severe problem with our definitions. As the city embarks on the housing element, we need to keep in mind that if we do not want this city to become an exclusive gated community, we need to take affordability seriously.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting