Guest Commentary: Response to Davis Enterprise on Senior Housing

Special to The People’s Vanguard of Davis

By Elaine Roberts Musser

____________

It was with some disquiet that I read Claire St. John’s Jan. 2, 2009 article in the Davis Enterprise, entitled “Senior Living”. I immediately fired off a clarification of my position to the Enterprise that same day. I wanted to make clear the reader understood 1) I was speaking as an individual and not in my capacity as the Chair of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission; 2) the issue of how much senior housing is considered necessary in the future was left completely out of the article.

Because I have no 350 word limit as is required in the Enterprise, it would be my privilege to take this opportunity to more fully express my individual opinion. I was asked by Claire St. John what I thought were the most pressing senior needs in Davis. The list I gave included four items: 1) senior housing; 2) transportation; 3) elder abuse prevention; 4) greater fiscal responsibility with respect to city finances.

A lengthy discussion ensued about each item on the list, and what was being done on a city and county level to address these four issues - since I wear both a city and county hat. (I am Chair of the Triad Task Force, the action arm of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services.) I mentioned transit mobility training and roving legal clinics at the county level, and talked of my concerns about the city budgeting process. I offered to Claire contact information for various people, to facilitate follow-up discussions - in an effort to assist the research process about her proposed article on senior needs.

However, Ms. St. John’s article only dealt with senior housing, and in my opinion left out the critical element the two of us had thoroughly discussed. How much senior housing is necessary? I doubt anyone would disagree that between now and the year 2013 that some more senior housing options would be nice, as was suggested in the article. Especially to give some desired competition to already existing and very expensive assisted living or continuum of care facilities in Davis. But what specific number of senior housing units would be essential is the million dollar question, the big fat elephant in the room!

In the article, only one number was discussed. The plan under contemplation at the old Covell Village site would have about 800 units of senior housing over ten years. This is an all or nothing approach. Are we only left with two possible options: 800 units or zero growth? In fact a city staff report put the internal need for more senior housing at an estimated maximum of 150 units between now and the year 2013, which from my perspective seems considerably more realistic than 800.

Claire St. John’s article relies heavily on the notion of “downsizing”, i.e. moving to a smaller home to cut down on maintenance needs. Ironically, statistics show that people prefer to remain in their home until the day they die. Often there is an emotional attachment to one’s residence. It is where children are raised and grow up. I doubt very many seniors would want to sell their home for the good of the community just to free up housing for younger families, as was put forward in the article as a reason for development of more senior housing. Nor do many seniors want to live in an age-restricted complex, preferring to live among younger folks.

Some months ago, I strongly advocated for the Davis Senior Citizens Commission to create a set of housing guidelines. The idea was to give developers and the City Council some guidance as to what seniors were interested in, and delineate their concerns. I felt it was time to reverse the trend of new housing in Davis being developer-driven. Such principles that involve sensible planning might also cut down on the divisiveness that seems to come with every discussion in Davis about growth. These guidelines are very close to being finished, but still require a bit of tweaking.

The gist of the guidelines, without getting into specifics, is as follows: 1) provide housing options for seniors of all income levels, with an eye toward meeting “internal” rather than “external” demand; 2) taking into account the fiscal impact of an increase in cost of city services that will entail. Too often residential growth has been initiated under the policy “ build it and they shall come”. Ultimately the developers reap a handsome profit. However, the inherent costs of such a careless strategy have not been fully borne by developers, but rather city taxpayers are forced to make up the difference, which has been substantial.

We are now facing a city budget crisis of epic proportions. Much of that cost is for road repair, and city employee benefits. Costs intrinsic to residential development. To put it bluntly, a massive influx of seniors would further strain the county social welfare system, city fire and ambulance services, city and county medical facilities, etc., above and beyond normal city and county services. Shouldn’t we be trying to further commercial development first, to bring in more tax revenue to pay for existing city services, let alone pay for any new ones created by more development?

Another issue raised in the article is of deep personal concern. “Part of their concept is a community…managed by residents. Maintenance would be paid for out of a homeowners association fund.” As a Board member of the Center for CA Homeowners Association Law (CCHAL), I can tell you from personal experience as an attorney, homeowners associations are rife with opportunities for elder abuse. A homeowners association is not the panacea many assume it is. In fact homeowners associations, and the management companies and debt collection agencies they hire, can perpetrate some of the worst cases of abuse on record. It can include taking away a person’s home and selling it for as little as $1.20; and can result in the death of the homeowner from the stress of any foreclosure proceedings.

I would strongly advise the City Council to tread very carefully, when planning future housing in general, and senior housing in particular. My hope is our commission’s guidelines will serve as a set of talking points, to begin appropriate discussion on projected residential development of senior housing. If the City Council finds these guidelines useful, I would encourage the planning commission to come up with a similar set of guidelines for overall residential development. It serves for better long range planning, should cut down on incivility in community discussion, and will better provide for actual community needs.

Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who concentrates her efforts on elder law and aging issues, especially in regard to consumer affairs. If you have a comment or particular question or topic you would like to see addressed, please make your observations at the end of this article in the comment section.

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

The Campaign for Senior Housing at Covell Village Continues

Given the election last week and slew of issues surrounding the election that came up, the Vanguard is just now getting around to what turned out to be a very interesting and important meeting on Wednesday night.

Three years ago this month, a proposed development at Covell Village was defeated by a massive grassroots effort. The overwhelming defeat of Measure X by nearly a 60-40 margin has not slowed efforts to develop the property that is bordered by Pole Line and Covell Blvd.

Instead, the would-be developers of the property have changed tactics and changed the form of the would-be development. Now they are looking at a senior development.

Slowly and methodically, they are building toward a community consensus on the need for senior housing. They have done this by meeting with key stakeholders in the community and also senior groups, selling the case that the community of Davis is in need of more senior housing and that their property offers the ideal location for that development.

Earlier this year, we got a window into their tactics when an email sent to various prospective supporters was leaked to the Vanguard. The email contained instructions on how to raise the profile of Covell Village at the Housing Element Steering Committee's (HESC) workshop. They laid out in that email, very specific instructions for both demonstrating the need for senior housing as a priority as well as showing support for expanding city boundaries. However, the leak of that email to the Vanguard and the general public, thwarted efforts at that point to change the HESC's assessment of the feasibility and need for housing at Covell Village.

What is clear however is that while opponents of Covell Village sleep, the developers remain hard at work. We flash forward to Wednesday night, where a well organized group of seniors came forward to speak at city council during a discussion of the HESC's report and the next steps that the council would take with that report.

From this meeting, the group was clearly well-coached. They laid out the need for senior housing. This was done with two key points that were made. Seniors generally do not need large homes which are too bid for them to care for and inefficient in terms of energy usage--heating, electricity, and cooling. Second, that seniors wish to remain in the community but sometimes cannot due to lack of senior housing options in the community. They made these points and yet there was never one mention of Covell Village--the obvious focal point of this strategy.

At a certain and critical level, the seniors are correct on these two issues. Allowing seniors to downsize would free up larger housing for new home owners. And many Davis residents would like to stay in Davis, and the community ought to accommodate them.

However, from my experience not as a senior but talking to many seniors, the questions that need to asked and discussed are not whether we need more housing options for our seniors, but how best to provide them.

Here is where consensus breaks down. One idea is the senior-based community that would provide housing for seniors in a close-knit and segregated community. However, 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.

Second, it is the fear of many if we build a large senior-development that we would end up accommodating large numbers of people from across the region. There is nothing wrong with doing that, but if our goal is to provide for our current housing needs for local demand, building a large development may not serve that need very well. Even a somewhat smaller Eleanor Roosevelt Circle ended up serving more people from outside the city than from inside the city.

Third, 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.

My fear is that if we were to say build a senior housing facility in the next five years, it would get filled up largely with people from outside of the area. I am not against people from outside of the area moving in, but there is a problem with that happening if our purpose is to first provide for our local senior housing needs.

To put it in concrete terms, Janice Bridge, the former school board member and proponent of Measure X, got up on Wednesday evening to suggest that she will be looking for senior housing in the next 10 to 15 years. Let us say we build Covell in the next five years. It fills up with people from outside the community since she is not quite ready to move in there. Where is she going to live?

These are some of the reasons that the community needs to figure out its housing needs independently of a developer driven campaign to create the impression that senior housing in this form is a critical need. Again, I am not suggesting that we do not need senior housing, what I am suggesting is that we need to find out what the real need is and we need to figure that out from a more independent source.

In the meantime, opponents of Covell Village better be aware that as they sleep at night, the Covell Partners are hard at work fostering strong community consensus behind their latest project. They have learned from past mistakes and are slowly and methodically bringing stakeholders into line. By the time Measure Y gets on the ballot, it might be too late to change things.

---David M. Greenwald 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