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
Here is the complete statement we sent to the Vanguard;
NP commends the city staff for proposing the comprehensive refinancing of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association.
The proposed plan allows DACHA to surmount obstacles that came about due to being first out of the box (such as the out of date and inoperable city pricing methodology NP was forced to live with and the subsequent $400,000 overcharge that became a regrettable financial burden to the co-op members). Thankfully, our recommendations for changes in the pricing policy were fully adopted by the Social Services Commission almost three years ago but too late to reduce the overpayment on the 20 homes already acquired by DACHA. This financing plan fully corrects the previously unworkable city policies. The co-op fortunately has now been given access to the same below market rate funding that other ownership models have already received.
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.
Presuming the Davis City Council will ensure there is no private gain to the DACHA members we see a path now for the DACHA members to replicate the Dos Pinos model. The Co-op model is a great option for Davis and years from now as Jerilyn Cochran of city staff said at the Redevelopment Agency meeting there will be a long waiting list for people wanting to live at DACHA.
NP paid a high price for publicizing the insider speculation going on with the affordable home ownership programs in Davis. Until we raised our voices, over 70 homes had been assigned (no income qualifications, no lottery) to friends and all limitations on gain were released after two years. Some people got the homes, never lived in them and two years later sold them for a $200,000 gain. Probably 15 million dollars in community equity evaporated away. The DACHA homes were the first to be protected forevermore as a resource for families in our community. Our efforts put an end to this hidden abuse. Since DACHA all homes now go through a lottery process, are available to specific income groups and will remain affordable to those income groups forever. We thank the Council at that time for agreeing to remove the scam program.
Here is the complete statement we sent to the Vanguard;
NP commends the city staff for proposing the comprehensive refinancing of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association.
The proposed plan allows DACHA to surmount obstacles that came about due to being first out of the box (such as the out of date and inoperable city pricing methodology NP was forced to live with and the subsequent $400,000 overcharge that became a regrettable financial burden to the co-op members). Thankfully, our recommendations for changes in the pricing policy were fully adopted by the Social Services Commission almost three years ago but too late to reduce the overpayment on the 20 homes already acquired by DACHA. This financing plan fully corrects the previously unworkable city policies. The co-op fortunately has now been given access to the same below market rate funding that other ownership models have already received.
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.
Presuming the Davis City Council will ensure there is no private gain to the DACHA members we see a path now for the DACHA members to replicate the Dos Pinos model. The Co-op model is a great option for Davis and years from now as Jerilyn Cochran of city staff said at the Redevelopment Agency meeting there will be a long waiting list for people wanting to live at DACHA.
NP paid a high price for publicizing the insider speculation going on with the affordable home ownership programs in Davis. Until we raised our voices, over 70 homes had been assigned (no income qualifications, no lottery) to friends and all limitations on gain were released after two years. Some people got the homes, never lived in them and two years later sold them for a $200,000 gain. Probably 15 million dollars in community equity evaporated away. The DACHA homes were the first to be protected forevermore as a resource for families in our community. Our efforts put an end to this hidden abuse. Since DACHA all homes now go through a lottery process, are available to specific income groups and will remain affordable to those income groups forever. We thank the Council at that time for agreeing to remove the scam program.
Here is the complete statement we sent to the Vanguard;
NP commends the city staff for proposing the comprehensive refinancing of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association.
The proposed plan allows DACHA to surmount obstacles that came about due to being first out of the box (such as the out of date and inoperable city pricing methodology NP was forced to live with and the subsequent $400,000 overcharge that became a regrettable financial burden to the co-op members). Thankfully, our recommendations for changes in the pricing policy were fully adopted by the Social Services Commission almost three years ago but too late to reduce the overpayment on the 20 homes already acquired by DACHA. This financing plan fully corrects the previously unworkable city policies. The co-op fortunately has now been given access to the same below market rate funding that other ownership models have already received.
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.
Presuming the Davis City Council will ensure there is no private gain to the DACHA members we see a path now for the DACHA members to replicate the Dos Pinos model. The Co-op model is a great option for Davis and years from now as Jerilyn Cochran of city staff said at the Redevelopment Agency meeting there will be a long waiting list for people wanting to live at DACHA.
NP paid a high price for publicizing the insider speculation going on with the affordable home ownership programs in Davis. Until we raised our voices, over 70 homes had been assigned (no income qualifications, no lottery) to friends and all limitations on gain were released after two years. Some people got the homes, never lived in them and two years later sold them for a $200,000 gain. Probably 15 million dollars in community equity evaporated away. The DACHA homes were the first to be protected forevermore as a resource for families in our community. Our efforts put an end to this hidden abuse. Since DACHA all homes now go through a lottery process, are available to specific income groups and will remain affordable to those income groups forever. We thank the Council at that time for agreeing to remove the scam program.
Here is the complete statement we sent to the Vanguard;
NP commends the city staff for proposing the comprehensive refinancing of the Davis Area Cooperative Housing Association.
The proposed plan allows DACHA to surmount obstacles that came about due to being first out of the box (such as the out of date and inoperable city pricing methodology NP was forced to live with and the subsequent $400,000 overcharge that became a regrettable financial burden to the co-op members). Thankfully, our recommendations for changes in the pricing policy were fully adopted by the Social Services Commission almost three years ago but too late to reduce the overpayment on the 20 homes already acquired by DACHA. This financing plan fully corrects the previously unworkable city policies. The co-op fortunately has now been given access to the same below market rate funding that other ownership models have already received.
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.
Presuming the Davis City Council will ensure there is no private gain to the DACHA members we see a path now for the DACHA members to replicate the Dos Pinos model. The Co-op model is a great option for Davis and years from now as Jerilyn Cochran of city staff said at the Redevelopment Agency meeting there will be a long waiting list for people wanting to live at DACHA.
NP paid a high price for publicizing the insider speculation going on with the affordable home ownership programs in Davis. Until we raised our voices, over 70 homes had been assigned (no income qualifications, no lottery) to friends and all limitations on gain were released after two years. Some people got the homes, never lived in them and two years later sold them for a $200,000 gain. Probably 15 million dollars in community equity evaporated away. The DACHA homes were the first to be protected forevermore as a resource for families in our community. Our efforts put an end to this hidden abuse. Since DACHA all homes now go through a lottery process, are available to specific income groups and will remain affordable to those income groups forever. We thank the Council at that time for agreeing to remove the scam program.
What am I missing here? Given the info on Neighborhood Partners and DACHA, why is the city agreeing to fund the Rancho Yolo Plan who are being aided by none other than Neighborhood Partners?
All in the same night no less!
What am I missing here? Given the info on Neighborhood Partners and DACHA, why is the city agreeing to fund the Rancho Yolo Plan who are being aided by none other than Neighborhood Partners?
All in the same night no less!
What am I missing here? Given the info on Neighborhood Partners and DACHA, why is the city agreeing to fund the Rancho Yolo Plan who are being aided by none other than Neighborhood Partners?
All in the same night no less!
What am I missing here? Given the info on Neighborhood Partners and DACHA, why is the city agreeing to fund the Rancho Yolo Plan who are being aided by none other than Neighborhood Partners?
All in the same night no less!
off-topic, i know, but am i the only person who finds the acronym dacharather odd in this context?
off-topic, i know, but am i the only person who finds the acronym dacharather odd in this context?
off-topic, i know, but am i the only person who finds the acronym dacharather odd in this context?
off-topic, i know, but am i the only person who finds the acronym dacharather odd in this context?
I remember the disaster in terms of the speculation on low income homes that was happening in Davis, which Neighborhood Partners has tried to prevent. One of the more galling instances was a “low income” family that managed to secure two homes, each from separate developers. The wife bought one and the husband the other. They were able to carry the two mortgages for two years and was only found out when they put one of them up for sale at market rate. The family stood to receive $200K in gain off of their “investment.” To avoid criminal charges, they sold one of the homes back to the City at the same price they bought it for plus $18,000 in assorted fees. The City let them keep the other house. And there were many other unintended uses of the program.
I think most of the community just doesn’t understand the complexity of financing low income housing. There seems to be a desire to allow people to own the home and be able to benefit from the increase in equity. This seemed to dominate the discussions about creating a housing program over the last 4-5 years. However, in one of Sue Greenwald’s more spot on moments she pointed out that the purpose of creating opportunities for low income residents to achieve homeownership was to create an affordable home for families to live in for years, for the rest of their lives, not to use public funds to provide a windfall for the lucky few.
I remember the disaster in terms of the speculation on low income homes that was happening in Davis, which Neighborhood Partners has tried to prevent. One of the more galling instances was a “low income” family that managed to secure two homes, each from separate developers. The wife bought one and the husband the other. They were able to carry the two mortgages for two years and was only found out when they put one of them up for sale at market rate. The family stood to receive $200K in gain off of their “investment.” To avoid criminal charges, they sold one of the homes back to the City at the same price they bought it for plus $18,000 in assorted fees. The City let them keep the other house. And there were many other unintended uses of the program.
I think most of the community just doesn’t understand the complexity of financing low income housing. There seems to be a desire to allow people to own the home and be able to benefit from the increase in equity. This seemed to dominate the discussions about creating a housing program over the last 4-5 years. However, in one of Sue Greenwald’s more spot on moments she pointed out that the purpose of creating opportunities for low income residents to achieve homeownership was to create an affordable home for families to live in for years, for the rest of their lives, not to use public funds to provide a windfall for the lucky few.
I remember the disaster in terms of the speculation on low income homes that was happening in Davis, which Neighborhood Partners has tried to prevent. One of the more galling instances was a “low income” family that managed to secure two homes, each from separate developers. The wife bought one and the husband the other. They were able to carry the two mortgages for two years and was only found out when they put one of them up for sale at market rate. The family stood to receive $200K in gain off of their “investment.” To avoid criminal charges, they sold one of the homes back to the City at the same price they bought it for plus $18,000 in assorted fees. The City let them keep the other house. And there were many other unintended uses of the program.
I think most of the community just doesn’t understand the complexity of financing low income housing. There seems to be a desire to allow people to own the home and be able to benefit from the increase in equity. This seemed to dominate the discussions about creating a housing program over the last 4-5 years. However, in one of Sue Greenwald’s more spot on moments she pointed out that the purpose of creating opportunities for low income residents to achieve homeownership was to create an affordable home for families to live in for years, for the rest of their lives, not to use public funds to provide a windfall for the lucky few.
I remember the disaster in terms of the speculation on low income homes that was happening in Davis, which Neighborhood Partners has tried to prevent. One of the more galling instances was a “low income” family that managed to secure two homes, each from separate developers. The wife bought one and the husband the other. They were able to carry the two mortgages for two years and was only found out when they put one of them up for sale at market rate. The family stood to receive $200K in gain off of their “investment.” To avoid criminal charges, they sold one of the homes back to the City at the same price they bought it for plus $18,000 in assorted fees. The City let them keep the other house. And there were many other unintended uses of the program.
I think most of the community just doesn’t understand the complexity of financing low income housing. There seems to be a desire to allow people to own the home and be able to benefit from the increase in equity. This seemed to dominate the discussions about creating a housing program over the last 4-5 years. However, in one of Sue Greenwald’s more spot on moments she pointed out that the purpose of creating opportunities for low income residents to achieve homeownership was to create an affordable home for families to live in for years, for the rest of their lives, not to use public funds to provide a windfall for the lucky few.
I am troubled with this whole thing. Anything NP is involved with always seems to generate controversy, and the controversy generated always seems to be around the topic of misrepresentation. This was true with DACHA, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, and is happening now at Rancho Yolo. I don’t doubt Caesar Chavez will go the same way.
What is worse, the city keeps making the same mistake over and over again. In a recent article about Rancho Yolo in the Cal Aggie, Jerilyn Cochran is quoted as saying “…the group had been told by the owners that they would be willing to sell the park after the current manager finishes his work”; then states “whether the site will be available for sale is still a major concern…there is hope…But we really don’t know that yet”. Which is it Jerilyn? Get your stories straight!
Guess who is going to do the feasibility study on Rancho Yolo? An article in the Davis Enterprise recently stated “The Redevelopment Agency also approved a $50,000 grant to fund an analysis of the benefits and disadvantages, the costs and potential financing for cooperative ownership of Rancho Yolo. The analysis will be conducted by Neighborhood Partners, which has been hired as a consultant on the project”.
This is precisely what happened at Eleanor Roosevelt. Jerilyn Cochran said the city did the flawed analysis which resulted in too few tenants, then when that made her look derelict in her duties, she claimed Neighborhood Partners did the analysis. Neighborhood Partners is the developer of the project. It is a conflict of interest for them to do a feasibility study of the very project they are promoting and which is going to make them a lot of money. Hello!
One has to wonder which City Council members and their friends of City Staff have been bought off by Neighborhood Partners? The Rancho Yolo project has already caused a huge rift between residents, exploited by NP. Trust me, Rancho Yolo is going to be another disaster, just like DACHA, just like Eleanor Roosevelt. Caesar Chavez is not likely to fare better.
And by the way, I have no doubt the lawsuit between DACHA and NP will be settled out of court – with a nondisclosure clause written in. So citizens will never hear all the facts surrounding the DACHA mess, and the part NP played in it. And the City of Davis (City Council majority) will go right on allowing NP to do one flawed project after another – at great cost to tenants, taxpayers and the city.
I am troubled with this whole thing. Anything NP is involved with always seems to generate controversy, and the controversy generated always seems to be around the topic of misrepresentation. This was true with DACHA, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, and is happening now at Rancho Yolo. I don’t doubt Caesar Chavez will go the same way.
What is worse, the city keeps making the same mistake over and over again. In a recent article about Rancho Yolo in the Cal Aggie, Jerilyn Cochran is quoted as saying “…the group had been told by the owners that they would be willing to sell the park after the current manager finishes his work”; then states “whether the site will be available for sale is still a major concern…there is hope…But we really don’t know that yet”. Which is it Jerilyn? Get your stories straight!
Guess who is going to do the feasibility study on Rancho Yolo? An article in the Davis Enterprise recently stated “The Redevelopment Agency also approved a $50,000 grant to fund an analysis of the benefits and disadvantages, the costs and potential financing for cooperative ownership of Rancho Yolo. The analysis will be conducted by Neighborhood Partners, which has been hired as a consultant on the project”.
This is precisely what happened at Eleanor Roosevelt. Jerilyn Cochran said the city did the flawed analysis which resulted in too few tenants, then when that made her look derelict in her duties, she claimed Neighborhood Partners did the analysis. Neighborhood Partners is the developer of the project. It is a conflict of interest for them to do a feasibility study of the very project they are promoting and which is going to make them a lot of money. Hello!
One has to wonder which City Council members and their friends of City Staff have been bought off by Neighborhood Partners? The Rancho Yolo project has already caused a huge rift between residents, exploited by NP. Trust me, Rancho Yolo is going to be another disaster, just like DACHA, just like Eleanor Roosevelt. Caesar Chavez is not likely to fare better.
And by the way, I have no doubt the lawsuit between DACHA and NP will be settled out of court – with a nondisclosure clause written in. So citizens will never hear all the facts surrounding the DACHA mess, and the part NP played in it. And the City of Davis (City Council majority) will go right on allowing NP to do one flawed project after another – at great cost to tenants, taxpayers and the city.
I am troubled with this whole thing. Anything NP is involved with always seems to generate controversy, and the controversy generated always seems to be around the topic of misrepresentation. This was true with DACHA, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, and is happening now at Rancho Yolo. I don’t doubt Caesar Chavez will go the same way.
What is worse, the city keeps making the same mistake over and over again. In a recent article about Rancho Yolo in the Cal Aggie, Jerilyn Cochran is quoted as saying “…the group had been told by the owners that they would be willing to sell the park after the current manager finishes his work”; then states “whether the site will be available for sale is still a major concern…there is hope…But we really don’t know that yet”. Which is it Jerilyn? Get your stories straight!
Guess who is going to do the feasibility study on Rancho Yolo? An article in the Davis Enterprise recently stated “The Redevelopment Agency also approved a $50,000 grant to fund an analysis of the benefits and disadvantages, the costs and potential financing for cooperative ownership of Rancho Yolo. The analysis will be conducted by Neighborhood Partners, which has been hired as a consultant on the project”.
This is precisely what happened at Eleanor Roosevelt. Jerilyn Cochran said the city did the flawed analysis which resulted in too few tenants, then when that made her look derelict in her duties, she claimed Neighborhood Partners did the analysis. Neighborhood Partners is the developer of the project. It is a conflict of interest for them to do a feasibility study of the very project they are promoting and which is going to make them a lot of money. Hello!
One has to wonder which City Council members and their friends of City Staff have been bought off by Neighborhood Partners? The Rancho Yolo project has already caused a huge rift between residents, exploited by NP. Trust me, Rancho Yolo is going to be another disaster, just like DACHA, just like Eleanor Roosevelt. Caesar Chavez is not likely to fare better.
And by the way, I have no doubt the lawsuit between DACHA and NP will be settled out of court – with a nondisclosure clause written in. So citizens will never hear all the facts surrounding the DACHA mess, and the part NP played in it. And the City of Davis (City Council majority) will go right on allowing NP to do one flawed project after another – at great cost to tenants, taxpayers and the city.
I am troubled with this whole thing. Anything NP is involved with always seems to generate controversy, and the controversy generated always seems to be around the topic of misrepresentation. This was true with DACHA, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, and is happening now at Rancho Yolo. I don’t doubt Caesar Chavez will go the same way.
What is worse, the city keeps making the same mistake over and over again. In a recent article about Rancho Yolo in the Cal Aggie, Jerilyn Cochran is quoted as saying “…the group had been told by the owners that they would be willing to sell the park after the current manager finishes his work”; then states “whether the site will be available for sale is still a major concern…there is hope…But we really don’t know that yet”. Which is it Jerilyn? Get your stories straight!
Guess who is going to do the feasibility study on Rancho Yolo? An article in the Davis Enterprise recently stated “The Redevelopment Agency also approved a $50,000 grant to fund an analysis of the benefits and disadvantages, the costs and potential financing for cooperative ownership of Rancho Yolo. The analysis will be conducted by Neighborhood Partners, which has been hired as a consultant on the project”.
This is precisely what happened at Eleanor Roosevelt. Jerilyn Cochran said the city did the flawed analysis which resulted in too few tenants, then when that made her look derelict in her duties, she claimed Neighborhood Partners did the analysis. Neighborhood Partners is the developer of the project. It is a conflict of interest for them to do a feasibility study of the very project they are promoting and which is going to make them a lot of money. Hello!
One has to wonder which City Council members and their friends of City Staff have been bought off by Neighborhood Partners? The Rancho Yolo project has already caused a huge rift between residents, exploited by NP. Trust me, Rancho Yolo is going to be another disaster, just like DACHA, just like Eleanor Roosevelt. Caesar Chavez is not likely to fare better.
And by the way, I have no doubt the lawsuit between DACHA and NP will be settled out of court – with a nondisclosure clause written in. So citizens will never hear all the facts surrounding the DACHA mess, and the part NP played in it. And the City of Davis (City Council majority) will go right on allowing NP to do one flawed project after another – at great cost to tenants, taxpayers and the city.
I suspect Ms. Cochran was miss understood by the Aggie reporter. Some Rancho Yolo tenants maintain that the owners of the park stated that they would sell the property if the current manager declines to continue in that role. No one has ascertained if this representation is factually correct. The fact is that the lease is up on 2010. If the market is good, maybe they will sell. If things are not good, why would they sell? So the actions of the tenants (who from everything I have read and seen suggests that they are ill-equipped to manage this very long and complex process) may very well be an exercise in futility. The only real beneficiaries of this process will be Neighborhood Partners. I need not restate what others already have.
It has been stated by others and seen by this writer – NP is a company comprised of two very nasty bullies who must have something pretty big on at least two council members – Saylor and Asmundson. The third, Souza, is just best buddies with Mr. Watkins and cannot vote against his friend. Of course what he should do is recuse himself from all votes having to do with his near and dear.
Mayor Greenwald and Council member Heystek are to be congratulated for standing up to them and standing up for what is right.
There is clearly a question as to whether the Rancho Yolo project will happen. If the City is lucky, the owner will decline to sell. the likely cost of the land alone would be so great that the promises of the “partners” will not come to pass. What is probably is that “rents” would soar. How could they not? The cost of the buying land that is currently financed at a much lower price cannot possibly be less than today. I have heard the land would sell for upwards of 18million dollars. This would not include the cost of upgrading parts of the park. 18 million or even 10 million financed by 100 very low to middle income senior households is simply not doable.
Neighborhood Partners has not fully responded to the DACHA audit (yes I thought so too about the name) and yet the City continues to do business with them. They should have demanded that NP fully comply with the audit or suffer the consequences… no more money from the City. Look at their projects across the City. The majority are a mess. The City could and should demand that they behave like a not for profit when demanding that they get the funding and projects that NPO’s get. But the City allows them to make money like a for profit and ultimately it is the City who is at fault and it is the City who is not protecting our tax dollars and our seniors! NP has failed on project after project. Why should they do anything different? The City continues to reward their questionable actions. I hope the Social Service and Senior Commissions continue to fight them, but in the end, the Council of three will do what is best for themselves and for their friends.
I suspect Ms. Cochran was miss understood by the Aggie reporter. Some Rancho Yolo tenants maintain that the owners of the park stated that they would sell the property if the current manager declines to continue in that role. No one has ascertained if this representation is factually correct. The fact is that the lease is up on 2010. If the market is good, maybe they will sell. If things are not good, why would they sell? So the actions of the tenants (who from everything I have read and seen suggests that they are ill-equipped to manage this very long and complex process) may very well be an exercise in futility. The only real beneficiaries of this process will be Neighborhood Partners. I need not restate what others already have.
It has been stated by others and seen by this writer – NP is a company comprised of two very nasty bullies who must have something pretty big on at least two council members – Saylor and Asmundson. The third, Souza, is just best buddies with Mr. Watkins and cannot vote against his friend. Of course what he should do is recuse himself from all votes having to do with his near and dear.
Mayor Greenwald and Council member Heystek are to be congratulated for standing up to them and standing up for what is right.
There is clearly a question as to whether the Rancho Yolo project will happen. If the City is lucky, the owner will decline to sell. the likely cost of the land alone would be so great that the promises of the “partners” will not come to pass. What is probably is that “rents” would soar. How could they not? The cost of the buying land that is currently financed at a much lower price cannot possibly be less than today. I have heard the land would sell for upwards of 18million dollars. This would not include the cost of upgrading parts of the park. 18 million or even 10 million financed by 100 very low to middle income senior households is simply not doable.
Neighborhood Partners has not fully responded to the DACHA audit (yes I thought so too about the name) and yet the City continues to do business with them. They should have demanded that NP fully comply with the audit or suffer the consequences… no more money from the City. Look at their projects across the City. The majority are a mess. The City could and should demand that they behave like a not for profit when demanding that they get the funding and projects that NPO’s get. But the City allows them to make money like a for profit and ultimately it is the City who is at fault and it is the City who is not protecting our tax dollars and our seniors! NP has failed on project after project. Why should they do anything different? The City continues to reward their questionable actions. I hope the Social Service and Senior Commissions continue to fight them, but in the end, the Council of three will do what is best for themselves and for their friends.
I suspect Ms. Cochran was miss understood by the Aggie reporter. Some Rancho Yolo tenants maintain that the owners of the park stated that they would sell the property if the current manager declines to continue in that role. No one has ascertained if this representation is factually correct. The fact is that the lease is up on 2010. If the market is good, maybe they will sell. If things are not good, why would they sell? So the actions of the tenants (who from everything I have read and seen suggests that they are ill-equipped to manage this very long and complex process) may very well be an exercise in futility. The only real beneficiaries of this process will be Neighborhood Partners. I need not restate what others already have.
It has been stated by others and seen by this writer – NP is a company comprised of two very nasty bullies who must have something pretty big on at least two council members – Saylor and Asmundson. The third, Souza, is just best buddies with Mr. Watkins and cannot vote against his friend. Of course what he should do is recuse himself from all votes having to do with his near and dear.
Mayor Greenwald and Council member Heystek are to be congratulated for standing up to them and standing up for what is right.
There is clearly a question as to whether the Rancho Yolo project will happen. If the City is lucky, the owner will decline to sell. the likely cost of the land alone would be so great that the promises of the “partners” will not come to pass. What is probably is that “rents” would soar. How could they not? The cost of the buying land that is currently financed at a much lower price cannot possibly be less than today. I have heard the land would sell for upwards of 18million dollars. This would not include the cost of upgrading parts of the park. 18 million or even 10 million financed by 100 very low to middle income senior households is simply not doable.
Neighborhood Partners has not fully responded to the DACHA audit (yes I thought so too about the name) and yet the City continues to do business with them. They should have demanded that NP fully comply with the audit or suffer the consequences… no more money from the City. Look at their projects across the City. The majority are a mess. The City could and should demand that they behave like a not for profit when demanding that they get the funding and projects that NPO’s get. But the City allows them to make money like a for profit and ultimately it is the City who is at fault and it is the City who is not protecting our tax dollars and our seniors! NP has failed on project after project. Why should they do anything different? The City continues to reward their questionable actions. I hope the Social Service and Senior Commissions continue to fight them, but in the end, the Council of three will do what is best for themselves and for their friends.
I suspect Ms. Cochran was miss understood by the Aggie reporter. Some Rancho Yolo tenants maintain that the owners of the park stated that they would sell the property if the current manager declines to continue in that role. No one has ascertained if this representation is factually correct. The fact is that the lease is up on 2010. If the market is good, maybe they will sell. If things are not good, why would they sell? So the actions of the tenants (who from everything I have read and seen suggests that they are ill-equipped to manage this very long and complex process) may very well be an exercise in futility. The only real beneficiaries of this process will be Neighborhood Partners. I need not restate what others already have.
It has been stated by others and seen by this writer – NP is a company comprised of two very nasty bullies who must have something pretty big on at least two council members – Saylor and Asmundson. The third, Souza, is just best buddies with Mr. Watkins and cannot vote against his friend. Of course what he should do is recuse himself from all votes having to do with his near and dear.
Mayor Greenwald and Council member Heystek are to be congratulated for standing up to them and standing up for what is right.
There is clearly a question as to whether the Rancho Yolo project will happen. If the City is lucky, the owner will decline to sell. the likely cost of the land alone would be so great that the promises of the “partners” will not come to pass. What is probably is that “rents” would soar. How could they not? The cost of the buying land that is currently financed at a much lower price cannot possibly be less than today. I have heard the land would sell for upwards of 18million dollars. This would not include the cost of upgrading parts of the park. 18 million or even 10 million financed by 100 very low to middle income senior households is simply not doable.
Neighborhood Partners has not fully responded to the DACHA audit (yes I thought so too about the name) and yet the City continues to do business with them. They should have demanded that NP fully comply with the audit or suffer the consequences… no more money from the City. Look at their projects across the City. The majority are a mess. The City could and should demand that they behave like a not for profit when demanding that they get the funding and projects that NPO’s get. But the City allows them to make money like a for profit and ultimately it is the City who is at fault and it is the City who is not protecting our tax dollars and our seniors! NP has failed on project after project. Why should they do anything different? The City continues to reward their questionable actions. I hope the Social Service and Senior Commissions continue to fight them, but in the end, the Council of three will do what is best for themselves and for their friends.