Commission Looks At a Variety of Senior Housing Needs

The Senior Citizens Commission met on Thursday. Along with the Social Services Commission they have been working on a proposed set of housing guidelines that will become increasingly important in the city as we move toward a full blown discussion on Senior Housing Needs. It is important to identify such needs independently of developer driven housing demands that we have already begun to see come forward such as the one we saw last week in the Davis Enterprise which is pushing for an 800-unit complex at the Covell Village site. The city of Davis on the other hand, has projected the senior housing needs for the next five years or so at a much more modest 150 units.

However it is important to recognize that Senior housing has a very particularized array of specific housing needs, and these needs need to be understood and incorporated into the general discussion on housing.

For example:

"The Commissions support the expressed preference for a variety of housing options that allows individuals to remain in their own homes, more commonly referred to as aging-in-place."

Part of that means that houses can be built in such as a way that they can be adapted and modified to meet the needs of an aging population. That means doorways wide enough to potentially accommodate wheel chair access, that means that the general housing structure is made so that they can be modified to accommodate a senior occupant without having to rip the house apart.

The report goes on to say:

"The Commissions place importance on providing housing that can address the specific needs of seniors and other special needs populations within the city's general housing stock, while also recognizing the need for some specialized housing options."

Here are some of the key issues that highlight this report.

The issue of accessibility and visitability is crucial. A lot of older homes, people with wheel chairs simply would not have access to in order to even visit. They discuss making a checklist of desirable features that would provide better access and usability in the housing unit.

These features could include:

"zero threshold entry, exterior and interior paths of travel, accessible half or full bathroom, accessible common room on the ground level."

They also put in language to "ensure affordable rental projects include fully accessible and visitable units..."

Transportation is crucial of course:

"Continue to promote and encourage public transit as an affordable and environmentally-sound alternative to personal vehicles."

Issues that are raised include good access to public transit, provisions for electric and alternative fuel vehicles for shared resident use and the infrastructure to support the use of these vehicles. Finally ensure adequate greenbelt and bike path connectivity.

Affordability:

"Provide a variety of housing types and prices, including city subsidized, affordable and middle income housing requirements in an effort to provide housing opportunities at a range of income levels."

Housing options:

"Promote various housing models in new housing developments that could accommodate seniors and other special needs groups."

The report suggests that there needs to be a determination of the need for housing.

"Determination of housing type should be accomplished in response to the expressed desires of the community through local outreach and measurements of local demand...

Independent Market analysis--market analysis of the true community need for housing should be done by an independent consultant."

The analysis should speak to issues of affordability, marketability, senior or special needs preferences, and current waitlists.

A couple more key senior-specific issues when looking at development of senior housing facilities.

One is on-site support staff:

"The need for medical, clinical, or psychological supportive staff and program planning and referral staff should be considered...."

Other services:

"The need for meal services, health services, recreational services and other basic life services being provided on-site should be considered."

A big issue that came up with the Eleanor Roosevelt project had to do with the location and proximity to busing. It appears that busing is close. But as the commission pointed out that is deceiving. The distance requires a walk that is prohibitive for the less physically able. Moreover it requires navigation across a busy city street.

Thus they suggest two provisions:

"If public transit access is located in excess of 200 feet from the housing project, then an on-site shuttle service should be considered for use by residents.

All multi-unit housing projects should consider providing a shuttle for use by residents."

It is understood that this is cost prohibitive and that small facilities would have greater difficulty doing this, however, they believe the term "should consider" mitigates that consideration and they want these guidelines at least considered and these issues raised at the time of development.

Location is important and they identify the need for housing to be built near public transit lines if there is no on-site shuttle, near a neighborhood shopping center especially with a grocery store and pharmacy, and near a medical facility that could provide both general health services and prescriptions.

I think this gets back to the issue of the need for neighborhood grocery stores but also neighborhood pharmacies. If we are going to have an aging population in Davis, having convenient pharmacies will be increasingly important.

These will be guidelines as the commission pointed out throughout the discussion, they will not be requirements. But I think all housing projects should keep these issues in mind for both seniors, but also for people with a variety of disabilities. This is a good start the housing discussion we are going to need to have over the coming months and years as our population continues to age.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Enterprise Pushes For Senior Housing On the Covell Site

Last night, the Davis Enterprise ran a full-1200 word front page special on the push by the Covell Partners to re-package their failed 2005 project as Senior Housing. The push which began with a new proposal before the HESC (Housing Element Steering Committee), continued with a letter writing campaign that eventually nullified the HESC workshop, and continued this fall with a number of handpicked Seniors coming before the city council asking for a senior housing facility at the site formerly known as Covell Village.

The Enterprise article features Janice Bridge, the former School Board Member, who has been on the fore of pushing for a senior housing project. Of course those with a fairly good memory will recall that Janice Bridge was one of the leaders of the Covell Village project as well, serving as Secretary of the group Neighbors for Covell--a very different project that did not offer the senior housing and scale-down options that just three years later Ms. Bridge is now pushing for.

The argument made by Janice Bridge is that their 4000-square foot house is too big for them and they need a smaller house.

'If you could move us old fogeys out of our house and into an age-appropriate space, then instead of creating a new development that is family-oriented that needs new parks and new schools, the kids could go to the parks and the schools that are being underutilized in our area,' said Janice Bridge.

Bridge and her husband, Adam, live in a 4,000-square-foot home on B Street. The house served them and their three children well, but now that the kids are grown up and out, the house is too big.

'I am sitting in a house that is 4,000 square feet,' Bridge said. 'For me, my home is not appropriate for the lifestyle I want to lead. This house should have lots of active kids running up and down the stairs like it did 20 years ago. I look around and all I see are more houses like this one.'

The Enterprise goes on to write that the Covell Village developers have been meeting with almost 600 people who are "curious about or interested in a plan to build a senior-oriented community north of Covell Boulevard between J Street and Pole Line Road."

Interesting that it is not until about halfway through the article that the real agenda appears(although as soon as I saw the article's headline last night, it was obvious where this was going).

The Enterprise continues:

The community would include 'micro-neighborhoods,' a care-continuum, services for seniors and recreation options for a healthier, more active lifestyle than many senior communities offer, according to Project Coordinator Lydia Delis-Schlosser.

The concept has not yet been submitted to the city, but the developers - who also proposed Covell Village on the site, a 1,864 housing unit project that voters rejected in 2005 - hope to submit something to the city soon.

'If we're comfortable with how we're progressing with meeting the needs of the community, then we would like to submit a pre-application in about a year,' Delis-Schlosser said.

According to this article, the plan includes about 800 units and will be built out over 10 years. Sounds reasonable, until you realize it is only on the southern-third of the property, something that does not appear to be mentioned in the article.

The Enterprise continues:

'The biggest benefit to non-seniors is these big houses are opened up,' said developer Bill Streng, one of the owners of the property. 'My block used to have 20 kids, and now it only has four.'

The biggest benefit to seniors, Streng said, is a neighborhood that would have all their needs in one place. Seniors, like everyone else, have different needs and desires, and Streng said he and his partners want to address them all in one place.

'This is something John (Whitcombe) and I want to do, aside from financial reasons, you want to have something to leave,' said Streng, who is 82. 'The more we study and the more we see, the more we want to do it.'

The problem with this article is that it once again appears to slant the article. The article does quote Elaine Roberts Musser (senior citizens advocate and Chair of the Senior Citizen's Commission) a few times.

They bury her skepticism of the project until the very end of the article:

Good transportation is key for seniors, said Roberts Musser, so a senior development would have to include plenty of options - other than personal vehicles - for getting around.

But Roberts Musser would also like the City Council to consider how to pay for all this. The question is, will Davis be able to support a large, senior neighborhood?

'Honestly, and this is personal, but my feeling is I would like to have us worry more about commercial development right now, whatever generates tax revenue,' she said. 'We're so strapped right now. I'm not willing to build more residential when we really haven't built up our tax revenue.'

The problem with this article is that it portrays quite heavily the perspective of Janice Bridge and the Covell Partners. However, there is a whole other side of the story that is either buried in the case of Elaine Roberts Musser or completely untold.

Back in November the Vanguard ran a story on this and suggested that many seniors are not interested in this kind of housing. Much of this push appears to be developer driven. Indeed, Janice Bridge is not a developer, but does anyone else find it interesting that one of the strongest advocates for Covell Village I is now the leading spokesperson again, this time as a citizen pushing for Senior Housing as a means to downsize?

The developers of Covell Village have suggested we need a seniors-only facility. As the Vanguard suggested in November, many seniors do not want to live in a seniors-only community. They enjoy a more mixed community where families with children and even students also live.

That thought was backed up with a slew of email received from senior readers of the Vanguard, many of whom whole heartedly agree.

The question is what type of housing would work best for seniors. Some have suggested instead of facility like an Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, a series of smaller condominiums and townhouses may be the best fit. An added advantage there might be that we could build a small amount over time which would serve the senior population.

The big issue here is that we are again facing the prospect of developer driven development. It is clear that the Covell Village partners are driving the discussion here and in so doing, we are not getting perhaps a clear picture of what seniors in this community actually want.

Thus my first suggestion would be to find out what seniors actually want. How many people are looking to downsize from their current homes? How many people would like to live in a Senior-only community? How many people would be willing to trade for a smaller existing home with another resident?

This type of inquiry should occur not at the behest of a developer, but rather with leadership from groups like the Senior Citizen's Commission. Let us determine what the internal housing demand really is for seniors, what seniors really want, the numbers that we are really talking about, and the time frame that we are really looking at.

Unfortunately, once again, the Enterprise really only brings us one side of the story. They bring us the Janice Bridge story, which many have to view with skepticism given her past support for a very different Covell Village project. What would she have done had Covell Village I passed, pushed for a Senior Housing facility in the Northwest Quadrant?

The Enterprise could have interviewed others from the Senior Citizens Commission to give us a very perspective, perhaps someone like Tansey Thomas,a commissioner, would offer her a very different take. But unfortunately, we do not get that perspective.

For those who want to try to argue that this is a fair and balanced article, consider this, there was a total of 1269 words in the article only the last 79 words of the article expressed any kind of skepticism or alternative viewpoint to the dominant position. The only even remotely skeptical comments are buried at the end. That's fair and balanced? That's objective?

The Vanguard gives you the other side of the story here, talk to seniors, you find a variety of different perspectives on this issue, unfortunately we do not get to hear them in the Enterprise, maybe we will in the comment section of the Vanguard.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

City Opts to Refinance DACHA to Keep Co-Op Viable and Limited Equity

In June of 2006, members of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association (DACHA) came forward with a series of complaints about the operations of the Cooperative.

DACHA is a 20-unit scattered site, limited equity cooperative. It was meant to provide ongoing affordability and be an alternative to affordable for-sale units. It was a non-profit and consultant development and transitioned from initially having a board to a member-led and run board.

In the staff report, Jerilyn Cochran cited a large number of challenges and observations with DACHA from a very early time. These included a number of varying agreements, meaning that different members had different agreements. The financing structure was varied, done in an expeditious manner trying to get people aboard in an inexperienced co-op, but this ended up creating financial instabilities.

There was an unaffordable share price of $18,000 to begin with. This was unaffordable for many low and moderate families to come up with. In addition, the original board was not representative of the members.

The developer fees involved here, as Ms. Cochran described, are not unusual except that in an affordable housing project, this adds to costs and compounds the problem of unaffordability. The developers in this case are Neighborhood Partners--David Thompson and Luke Watkins.

Furthermore, there were inadequate reserves and poor record keeping from the beginning. They had problems with sustaining another housing organization--it currently costs $52,000 to sustain the co-op, that is a huge cost that others do not have. And finally, from the city's standpoint, there has been a tremendous amount of staff time required in monitoring and technical assistance with this model.

The 2006 audit found that this was not sustainable in the long-term. Around this time, the members got an invoice from Neighborhood Partners from which they had no money to pay and they questioned the validity of the invoice. The contract was terminated by the members. There have been conflicting accounts of who offered and who declined mediation.

Neighborhood Partners in December of 2006 filed a lawsuit against the members of DACHA.

The city was asked to review the financing, sustainability and affordability of the project. The city found major sustainability issues. They do not have the money to pay the loan obligations. They do not have the money to adapt to the balloon and adjustable rate financing once that comes due. The financing is not helping to contribute to the sustainability of the project.

They also found marketability issues. There are issues with the unit size, the share price, the uncertainty of the co-op and the carrying charges. The impact of the lawsuit is contributing to the problem.

There are also issues of good faith with the members. The members have lost faith in the co-op. There are a number of reasons for this. There have been inconsistent rules applied to the different members. There are unstable carrying charges--there was no understanding that there would be perpetual carrying charges or that the debt would be perpetual, they could never pay down the debt.

Further they were misled about the model itself. This was the source of complaint in mid-2006. Some of the members were qualified with inadequate income. They did not make enough money to move into DACHA. The members have had to spend a lot of time moving into this project especially compared with other types of ownership.

The city then last Tuesday proposed refinancing goals as a major step toward getting that project sustainable and restoring good faith.

The first goal would be that this not increase the current costs to members. Next, is affordability and the idea to assure the long-term affordability of this project to its members. Furtherm there would be assurances that no one would be evicted due to refinancing. They would establish adequate reserves, refinance substandard loans while releasing obligations to others.

They will evaluate the cooperative model after stabilization. The terms will be no more favorable than other projects. Three percent interest rate is standard for city projects. Provide a justifiable basis for refinancing and then finally establish clear preservation goals for the project.

This refinancing would be $4.1 million, 30 year fixed rate at 3 percent per year. This would provide annual income of $214,428 to the redevelopment agency for a total of $6,432,840 going to the agency of the terms of the 30-year agreement.

The results of this refinancing are as follows. It will establish affordability and reserves for its members. It will stabilize the debt and carrying charges. It will reduce the share prices. Part of the problem with marketability is the high share prices starting at $18,000 now it is up to $27,000 which is a tremendous amount for a new person buying into DACHA to pay. So part of this finance would help stabilize there prices for future and existing members.

This will help them evaluate the model in more favorable circumstances in the future. It will allow continuing limited equity which will enable the units to stay affordable. There would be regular repayments to the city and redevelopment agency. This will also enable a good deal more control by the city and redevelopment agency over DACHA.

Critics of the Neighborhood Partners charged that the membership was sold into this arrangement based on false, promised, misleading statements, and an unworkable structure.

From my standpoint, this refinancing is probably the best solution. In June of last year, the members of DACHA stated that they were led to believe that this was a means to own a home outright. That was clearly never the intention of DACHA, whether that was what the membership was led to believe in order to gain their initial buy-in is an open question.

For their part, David Thompson and Luke Watkins issued forth a lengthy statement to the Vanguard that is excerpted here.

"NP commends the city staff for proposing the comprehensive refinancing of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association. Their plan is good for the DACHA families."

"We are also glad to see the staff pointing out the problem of the diminishing size of the affordable home units which reduced the value being obtained. We brought this problem up almost three years ago and provided detailed information to the Social Services Commission and staff on the shrinking size of the affordable units. We do hope that the city will now set a formula for minimum standards that works both for the developer and affordable housing.

As part of the process we look forward to DACHA honoring its contractual obligations to NP for the work we have done. DACHA staying as a limited equity housing co-op was one of our major goals and this financing allows that to occur. As the original demand of the co-op members was to own the homes by dissolving the co-op we commit ourselves to ensuring that if anything does occur that these homes will be made available by lottery after a very public process. We will make sure that the law on limited equity housing cooperatives is maintained and that no co-op member will have any private gain from the dissolution of the co-op. DACHA must remain a community asset."

Critics such as Mayor Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek, as well as key members of both the Senior Citizens and Social Services Commissions, clearly have very serious concerns about the handling of this project from the start. Frankly, the fact that Neighborhood Partners turned around and sued DACHA looks very bad for the partners, as they are in essence suing low-income residents who have put up their meager assets and bought into this project. There are further concerns that this arrangement is being extended to Rancho Yolo at the same time the city is in essence bailing out the Neighborhood Partners on DACHA.

Leaving the question of what was promised and offered to the members as a condition of buying into the co-op aside, I think the plan that has emerged from the city staff is is a good solution for all involved. The city will keep DACHA as a limited equity housing co-op which will enable it to retain the income restricted requirements giving us a permanently affordable housing option which is much needed in this community. However, it also relieves a good deal of burden from the membership themselves--giving them housing at an affordable price. It enables those who were not intending to live in a co-op a chance to get out and recoup most of their costs while allowing others to either stay or buy into the co-op at an affordable price in the future.

---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

Eleanor Roosevelt: Well-intentioned project has become a fiasco

On July 7, 2005 the Davis Enterprise reported on the ground breaking ceremony for Eleanor Roosevelt Circle — described as an affordable housing project for senior citizens. This was the result of years of planning and work. It was an idea that was needed—senior housing that was affordable for middle income people. It was a 60-unit project, with 21 units set aside for disabled and homeless or “at-risk-of-homelessness” seniors.

The projected was funded through a mixture of federal and state funding.

By April of 2006, it was already clear that there were unforeseen problems.

The Davis Enterprise quotes Cindy Unger, vice chairwoman of the Davis Senior Housing Cooperative, which oversees Eleanor Roosevelt Circle,

"The definitions in that HCD grant are a little more than I think we bargained for…. It talks about homeless people. Originally, we were talking about low-income. Now they have to meet a disabled, homeless and elderly requirement… The HUD (Housing and Urban Development) requirement was specifically for seniors, but the HCD did not specify age… Housing and Community Development told me (the developers) were walking a very fine line."

Developer David Thompson countered:

The project is being built exactly as it was planned and approved. "ERC was intended to be for low- and very low-income seniors. However, funding for senior housing is very difficult to obtain and very competitive. We were asked to find as much funding from external sources as possible."

Councilmember Don Saylor said: "These are Davis people already here. There will be on site case management and they will receive services needed in the places they normally get them."

But in fact, the project is not required to provide services, as Thompson stated in April.

Councilmember Stephen Souza said at the meeting that he was excited to get the project under way. While Saylor added: "This project will provide a housing source in the community for the people who have little option and who need it."

Unfortunately instead of being a decent but imperfect solution to the problem of affordable senior housing, this is turning quickly into a fiasco. For the second time in two months, Mayor Sue Greenwald reported at the last City Council Meeting that there are massive numbers of vacancies in Eleanor Roosevelt Circle. And that if they are not filled by current Davis Residents, they will open them up to the entire state.

The project is beset by numerous problems including problems of an undesirable location and distance from public transportation. In addition, there is no assisted living. And while it is classified as “affordable,” it is classified for a high end of affordability and provides a relatively small dwelling for what is still a decent chunk of money.

Moreover, as disabled advocate Anne Evans suggests, the requirements imposed in order to gain the grants are so restrictive that they cut off a large group of people who might otherwise be interested in taking advantage of the system.

“I have been interested in affordable senior housing - since I became disabled several years ago with breast cancer. I was not allowed to put in an application for the senior units because most places required seniors to be at least 62 years of age.”

Many other cities have units available for disabled seniors 55 and older. However, the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle complex was set up to feature different income levels—but not younger disabled seniors. And most of the units are available to seniors with higher incomes. So while Davis is now having to draw from outside of the area, there are a group of Davis residents not served by the project.

The problem here is that you are talking about only a small number of units for truly low income people and once you get up to the upper end, you are talking about nearly $1000 for a ~ 600 foot one bedroom apartment. That is a very small dwelling. You can get other apartments in Davis that are considerably larger than that for not much more than $1000.

So we now have a facility that received a tremendous amount of state and local funding, that remains nearly vacant. The proposal was supposed to help people within this community stay in our community as they age, and now city government are having to go statewide with their advertising efforts to recruit prospective tenants to fill the vacancies.

The City Council needs to order an audit on this project and evaluate exactly what went wrong. As we have reported in recent weeks, there is a great and expanding need for affordable housing. The housing market is rapidly pricing many lower and middle income people out of the area. This project should have been a boon for the senior community, serving a vital niche and instead it has become an absolute fiasco.

It seems clear that future project approvals need to look more carefully at a number of factors. First, they need to look at the people who will be serviced by the project to ascertain if the requirements are serving the people who actually need them.

Second they need to look at the location of the project. This location is problematic at best in terms of desirability of living but also availability of transportation.

Third, they need to look at what services are provided in the project. There are no assisted living services. So that generally closes off people with special needs. There is limited disabled facilities. So another group of seniors is closed off too.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting