Guest Commentary: What Yes Does

Residents of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle regularly meet with the Social Services Coordinator

by David Thompson

With your YES vote for Measure L, these low income seniors will get to stay and live in Davis. Otherwise, there are few places for them to go.

Davis Low Income Seniors are People by the Numbers

How many low income seniors will get a home in Davis?

This energy flowing through my senior years comes directly from the Davis Community through the Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, thank you. Davis is a uniquely qualified community to establish new models of senior housing. Please vote yes on Proposition L to house more seniors.”

Diane C. Evans, Davis

150 apartments will be built in Davis for low-income seniors
150 apartments is the minimum that will be built not the maximum
170 low income seniors and caregivers will live in those 150 apartments
129 of those 170 seniors will be single elderly females*
63 of the 170 seniors (37%) will be minorities*
37% of the 170 seniors (22%) will be seniors with defined disabilities*
The average age will be 75 years old*
One third of the apartments will be for seniors with incomes below $13,000 a year
All the 150 senior apartments can accommodate a live in caregiver
All 150 apartments are handicapped accessible with roll in showers

How many low-income senior are there on wait/interest lists in Davis?

“I am one of many active seniors whose name is on the long Davis senior housing wait lists. As the years tick by, my name moves up a place or three; but, having I started at 89th on the list, my chances are very slim to nonexistent that I will move into one of these units. Having lived and worked in Davis for over 20 years, Davis is my home. I am an example of many Davisites on these waiting lists. Please vote for Measure L — a new sustainable community that will enhance Davis.”

Cecily Bailey, Davis

Number of affordable senior units in the table above should be 228 not 208

127% is the 12 month growth of the wait lists – from 186 in 2016 to 423 in 2017
Wait lists for Davis affordable senior housing run from three to five years
There are already 60 additional low income seniors on the interest list for the DSHC affordable apartments at WDAAC
This brings the total of the five lists to 483 low income seniors
YES on Measure L would increase low income senior apartments from 228 to 378

WDAAC* Number 1 in Affordable Housing in Davis

“I do not understand the massive false attacks by the No on L people on the critical needs of low income seniors and the 150 affordable senior apartments that will be their home if Measure L passes.”

Joan Axelson, Davis

27% of all the doors at WDAAC will be opened by low income seniors
The largest parcel of land ever given for affordable housing (approx 4 acres)
The most valuable parcel of land ever donated for affordable housing (approx $4 million)
The highest value of improvements ever for affordable housing
The largest number of affordable apartments ever built within a Davis development
The highest % of low income apartments of any development in Davis
The developer has exempted all the DSHC low income seniors from ever paying HOA (Home Owner Association) monthly fees

If No on Measure L passes what is the future for low income Davis seniors?

“Without the passage of Measure L, these 150 units of affordable senior housing will not be built in the foreseeable future and our current lack of housing options and income inequality will continue.”

Elizabeth Lasensky, Davis

Waiting lists are growing in numbers and getting longer due to low income seniors being a fast growing part of the Davis population
We have only 228 low income senior apartments in Davis to meet the tsunami
Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC) was the last low income senior project proposed in Davis and that was years ago in the mid 1990’s.
If DSHC does not get built at WDAAC no other low income senior housing is planned
Even if another low income senior project was immediately proposed it would be a minimum of seven to eight years before seniors could move in
There is now only one convalescent home that takes in low-income seniors in Davis. Courtyard Health Care is 112 units. Sierra Health Care on Poleline Road, with 128 beds closed down about four years ago. This halved the number of beds for low income seniors in Davis. Elderly patients at Sierra Health were transferred to Woodland and as far away as Grass Valley.

Please Vote YES for Measure L

* These statistics replicate the current low income senior population at Eleanor Roosevelt Circle, 675 Cantrill, Davis.

For more information, go to and to;

David J. Thompson is with Neighborhood Partners, LLC. Davis

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts


  1. Rik Keller

    It’s a real shame that David Thompson has been compelled to do a full-court press to promote the WDAAC project while the actual project developers have recently been completely absent from the conversation. What we get is material like this that says we ought to approve the project for the 5% of the site that will be donated for affordable housing with no guarantees that it will ever be built, while the developers get their luxury sprawl enclave on the vast majority of the site. Davis deserves better than this cynical manipulation.

    1. Howard P

      Davis deserves better than this cynical manipulation.

      True.  Yet the words above that quote belie that… am thinking the H-word.

      There has been much manipulation and rhetoric on both sides… each only blames the other… a pox on ‘both houses’…

      1. Howard P

        But, have to give it to the virulent “no” folk… they have likely correctly judged that if you sling enough spaghetti, it looks unappetizing, and many “tweeners” will vote “no”… masterfully played…

        I was never a “yes” vote.  Absent all the BS and rhetoric.  Wrong place, wrong ‘constituency’ as to preferential sales.  On general principle, not the racial/ethnic BS thing.  Part of me wants the measure to succeed… out of spite.  But I very, very rarely vote out of spite.

        I don’t believe the project should depend on a “vote of the people”… the people should just choose CC members wisely, and demand that the electeds appoint the right folk to the PC.

  2. Rik Keller

    Howard P: you are welcome to go to and read all the arguments against the project that have been posted for months. Despite things like David Greenwald of the Vanguard sitting down with the developers to try to get them to produce a response—the only result of which was a comical markup with multiple color highlighters with vague allegation of “lies” with no substantiation—and the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Yes campaign, there has never been a rebuttal of the No arguments.

    Instead, we get massive special interest spending that tries to obscure the true nature of the project, paired with cynical attempts to paint project opponents as “against seniors”. Davis deserves better than that.

    1. Craig Ross

      My view is that Davis deserves better than the nasty mudslinging camapaign we have seen by the opposition to Measure R projects first Nishi, now this one.  Is this a perfect project?  No.  But all I’ve seen is attacks from Rik Keller – he goes after the project, goes after Greenwald, goes after everyone.  It’s really disgraceful.

      1. Tia Will


        I am wondering if you were not in attendance at the CivEnergy forum when, despite direct pleas from both the host, Bob Fung and the moderator, Linda Deos, the first speaker , Jason Taormino went directly after both Alan Pryor and Rik Geller calling them liars, users of Trumpian tactics and stated outright that they did not care about Davis seniors or Davis?

        I ask, because while Rik has used unflattering invective, this is definitely a case where both sides have engaged equally although you choose to site only one. Can’t help but think you may not be aware.

        1. Craig Ross

          I watched the forum on video on the CivEnergy site, but did not attend.  As I thought I said, I found both sides engages in the forum in unnecessary comments and invective, if not Jason doing slightly more.  But in the public realm, I don’t think it’s that close.

    2. Howard P

      Rik… am more interested in “facts” than often “specious arguments“… the arguments have not informed my vote… the facts have.  Doubt whether you can understand that.  I voted no.

      I truly do not care about your specious arguments, faux facts.  What you have spewed will definitely inform me that I’ll take any of your opinions, or what you purport as “facts” with two tankers full of salt, now, and into the future.  My choice.  My informed choice.

      In my view, you have no credibility, except to the notion that even a stopped clock is right twice a day (today, actually, three times)…

      I atack your views and your arguments, but not you as a person. You’ll probably view it as a ‘personal attack’… feel free to choose the ‘report comment’ button.

  3. Eric Gelber

    All the 150 senior apartments can accommodate a live in caregiver

    Serious question: How, given that these will all be one-bedroom apartments?

    I agree that we can’t focus only on the positives of the affordable housing and close our eyes to the flaws of the remainder (the vast majority) of the project.

  4. David Thompson

    Dear Eric:

    Good morning.

    There are at present 25 caregivers attending to the needs of different residents of Eleanor Roosevelt Circle (ERC).

    Some of those caregivers, who are full time, live with the senior resident in the apartments.

    150 apartments at West Davis Active Adult Community will be a welcome addition to meeting the needs of frail and disabled low income seniors in Davis.

    This type of program at ERC keeps frail seniors in a more healthful community and positive environment than being in a convalescent home. This program also substantially reduces the cost for Yolo County of low income seniors living full time in a convalescent home.

    Just ask Citizens Who Care who also deliver on-site services to seniors at ERC.

    David J. Thompson

    Neighborhood Partners. LLC.

    1. Eric Gelber

      Thanks, David. But that doesn’t really answer my question as to how live-in caregivers (as opposed to on-site attendants) are accommodated in one-bedroom apartments, other than in cases of, perhaps, spouses or same-sex family members. Seniors with disabilities often rely on paid live-in caregivers to enable them to remain in their homes. Your statement was that all 150 apartments can accommodate live-in caregivers.

    2. Eric Gelber

      More: Seems to me that a large senior affordable apartment complex should include some number of two-bedroom units for which priority is given to tenants who need a live-in caregiver as a reasonable accommodation. Those units could also be rented by seniors with eligible roommates if they were not needed for disability accommodation purposes.

  5. Alan Pryor

    This “Guest Commentary” should probably be fairly characterized as a “Paid Advertisement” given how much money the Vanguard have taken from the developers and Neighborhood Partners.

    And I note that this is functionally a hit piece doing all of the things the Vanguard accuses the No on L side of doing. For instance, in the Exclusive Opening Thoughts column this morning, Greenwald  made the following general observations about the tactics used by all of the opponents of Measure J/R projects,

    You have to attack them.  They are terrible by nature.  You have to attack the integrity of the process.  You have to attack the integrity of developers….


    But it feels like we have devolved to the point where Measure R battles are wages not over big ideas but with a mudslinging approach whereby every project in order to defeat it faces microscopic scrutiny and severe mudslinging.  The tactic is throw mud everywhere you can and hope to defeat it.

    We see words used like: “dishonest,” “misguided,” “illegal,” “ignorant,” “racism” or “discrimination” “exclusionary” – these are regularly used by the project opponents – does this lead to good discourse?  A healthy process?  Good planning?

    Do anybody honestly think the Yes on L supporters and their benefactors are any better at taking the high ground and are above the “mud-slinging fray”? I believe the developers and supporters of WDAAC have been even more abrasive and used far more derogatory terms against the opponents of the project than we have ever leveled against them.

    Guess I’ll have to write my own hit piece disparaging all the dirty tactics used by the Vanguard and their cohorts, the Taorminos and Neighborhood Partners. Hmm…wonder if the Vanguard will print it?

    1. Craig Ross

      I believe you took this to a lower place than Colin Walsh took things during the Nishi campaign.  I could put together a monograph of all the disparaging terms you and Rik especially have used during this campaign.  I wonder if you lack self-awareness to realize this.  In contrast, I have not seen these kinds of terms used by the yes side WITH THE ONE EXCEPTION of Jason Taormino during the forum.

        1. Craig Ross

          Appreciate you proving my point.  Here’s an exercise for you – show me the last post you made that didn’t have an attack, insult or pot shot in it.

      1. Alan Pryor

        Craig – You only have to look at the very first comment of this campaign – leveled at me personally – by David Greenwald right after he read the No on L Argument Against (and even before he published it.),

        “Wow, Alan, I just read your ballot argument against L and frankly it sucks.  It’s basically boilerplate, anti-development mumbo-jumbo. It fails to capture any of my reasons why I couldn’t support the project.  It’s amazingly tone death to the valid arguments raised on the Vanguard against the project.  There are plenty of reasons not to vote for this project, but you amazingly fail to identify a single one.”

        But even after repeatedly asking, Greenwald refused to said “why” any of the No on L arguments “sucked” . Not exactly starting off the debate on a high note, is it?

        So yes, I dispute his words that we are responsible for the acrimony in the debate. I allege that the Yes on L campaign (including the Vanguard) have unfairly repeatedly accussed us of many more mistruths and called us liars many, many more times than us. And I allege they have repeatedly refused to substantiate their charges that we are lying with but simply repeat the charges over and over and over again so as to pretend they are true.

        Guess I’ll have to write a paper about it. Hmm, wonder if the Vanguard will publish it?

        1. Craig Ross

          Alright let’s start with just today and just posts by Alan Pryor…

          7:43 am: ” Eileen has been amazingly consistent in what she supports or opposes…   She’ll fit right in at WDAAC”

          10:38 am: ” People change over 12 years. Just as Eileen Samitz has morphed into a large single family home-lover : student apartment-hater, David Greenwald has changed into a developer-loving mouthpiece.”  (At 7:43you said she has been been amazing consistent in what she supports or opposes…  which is it?”

          10:38 am: ” I do not know what has changed in Ms. Samitz’s life to cause her position to change on large single family properties in Davis. In Mr. Greenwald’s case, it happens to coincide with his starting to take in tens of thousands of developer advertising dollars.”

          10:50 am: ” I am guessing your doors only open to the “right” side to only allow all your knuckle-dragging allies through, eh? (Oops…I am being impolite and politically incorrect in disparaging our simian friends by comparing them with conservatives of Howard P’s ilk?)”

          11:05 am: “Howard, all I said was his change in heart coincided with his intake of developer advertising dollars…That would make it a coincidence, Coincide = coincidence, right?  But you’re the one who immediately raised the spectre of corruption. Do you know more about developer corruption in Davis media than you are letting on?”
          11:05 am: “Hmmm. You seem to be an even more steady mouthpiec for developers in Davis than Greenwald. Are you a paid shill?”
          2:38 pm: “This “Guest Commentary” should probably be fairly characterized as a “Paid Advertisement” given how much money the Vanguard have taken from the developers and Neighborhood Partners.”
          2:38 pm: ” I note that this is functionally a hit piece doing all of the things the Vanguard accuses the No on L side of doing.”
          4:22 pm: ” Then you have had you eyes closed and your ears plugged.”
          6:00 pm” I allege that the Yes on L campaign (including the Vanguard) have unfairly repeatedly accussed us of many more mistruths and called us liars many, many more times than us. And I allege they have repeatedly refused to substantiate their charges that we are lying with but simply repeat the charges over and over and over again so as to pretend they are true.”
          Maybe you have alleged that they have called you liars many more times, but the record just from today suggests otherwise.

  6. Jim Hoch

    It’s only been 24 hours but my Nextdoor poll has almost 70 votes. Too close to call as the margin of error is 100%


    I will vote against Measure “L” – to deny WDAAC


    I will for for measure “L” – To approve WDAAC


    What is Measure “L”?

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for