Sunday’s op-ed piece by Eileen Samitz offers too many misstatements for me to address here. However, a few of the more glaring inaccuracies must be addressed:
* With no smaller, single-story houses available, The Cannery does not “work for all ages” or “young families” or “retired” people as she states.
* Contrary to her statement, the needs of seniors, those with disabilities, singles and young families have not been addressed.
* Choices for Healthy Aging has not asked that “almost half of the project be small, single-story units for seniors.” A small number, perhaps 5 to 10 percent, would be acceptable to us.
* Without including any smaller, single-story houses, the project is not “multigenerational and inclusive of all ages.” Nor is it designed for “aging in place.”
* Proposing a project of this size with no concession to the demographic that needs smaller, single-story houses contradicts the significance of its “universal design” or “livable” features.
With a few changes, CHA and others would gladly support The Cannery project. Our requests are not extreme. We are not asking that any of the current lots be reconfigured. We are not asking for price subsidies or affordable concessions. We are not asking for restrictions to seniors or those with disabilities; all houses would be available on the open market.
We are only asking that a small fraction of the houses be smaller, single-story homes. There are not enough of these houses currently in Davis.
We want what the developers have promoted: a truly multigenerational project with a mix of houses for young families to seniors who want to downsize to single-story houses so they can age in place. We are just asking that The Cannery be built as advertised, not with its current “bait and switch” approach.