Will Seabreeze Purchase Perpetuate South Vallejo Perils? — *2/22/15 – Response from Seabreeze*

By Robert Schussel, Ph.D


To read the response to this article from Anjela Ponce, President of Integrity housing, see the link at the end of this article.

Integrity Housing is proposing to purchase and invest approximately $1.5 million to rehabilitate
the Seabreeze Apartments using tax-exempt bonds. Pursuant to state law, the bond financing requires approval from the City to allow the transaction to move forward (even though the City has no financial responsibility for the bonds) . Services (Social worker, classes etc.) offered by the applicant are only offered until the bond is paid off (estimated to be 10 years).

Seabreeze apartments is a 184 unit residential complex located at 100 Larissa Lane (South Vallejo near 900 Porter St) . There are 64 one bedroom units and 120 two bedroom units . 71 units (38%) are being subsidized by HUD (Dept of Housing and Urban Development). These 71 apartments are reserved for families with 50% or less AMI (Area median income) whose household income for a family of 4 is $38,500 or less. The HUD contract is renewed annually. Integrity Housing is a nonprofit developer that owns and operates it properties. www.integerityhousing.org

A previous request to approve the purchase of Seabreeze Apartments by a different developer in March 2013 was not approved by the City Council. That project proposed converting all 184 units to be affordable to households at or below 60% of area median income (AMI), which was determined to not be in the best interest of the community.

Subsidized Housing is housing in which a government agency provides financial assistance to help keep housing affordable. As noted above, this means a household is paying no more than approximately 30% of their income for housing costs.

Affordable Housing means a household pays approximately 30% of their income for rent.

AMI (Area Median Income)
The 2014 AMI (100%) for a family of four in the Vallejo,
Fairfield area is $76,700. The AMIs are revised annually.

For Vallejo, a family of four (a 100% AMI) is estimated to be able to afford a rental of $1,918 per month. In Vallejo,the average current market rate rental is estimated to be approximately $1,400 for a family of four.Rental Rates

Below are the current rental rates and those proposed by Integrity Housing.
Currently, the only income restrictions are for the 71 HUD subsidized units.

Under the Integrity Housing agreement all of the units will have income restrictions that will probably be enforced for 10 years.

Staff stated that “the maximum income requirements for these units [market rate] include salary ranges for cerificated teachers with the Vallejo Unified School District ,Vallejo city employees including entry level police officers…..as well as many other local employers”.

However, a family of 4 could afford a rental of $1,533 (versus $1,380 market rate at Seabreeze) with an AMI of 80% and $2,205 (versus $1,400 market rate at Seabreeze) with an AMI of 115%.

Current rates 1 bedroom income requirement 2 bedroom income requirement
HUD (subsidized) $936 (22 units) $30,700 max $1,184 (49 units) $38,350 max
Market rate $1,195 (42 units) $43,000 minimum $1,400 (71 units) $50,400 minimum


Proposed rates 1 bedroom income requirement 2 bedroom income requirement
HUD (subsidized) $936 (22 units) $30,700 max $1,184 (49 units) $38,350 max
Market rate        
80% AMI $1,195 (18 units) $49,100 max $1,380 (31 units) $61,350 max
115%AMI $1,195 (24 units) $70,610 max $1,400 (40 units) $88,205 max


Services to be offered
For the 10 years or so while the bonds are being paid off, Integrity Housing has stated it will be offering services such as: Service Coordinator, After School Programs, Educational Classes and possibly Health and Nutrition Programs, and Social Programs. They state they will also offer Volunteer Assistance, Advocacy for residents and be ADA compliant.
However specificity for some services is lacking. Below are those areas that were emailed to Integrity Housing and Staff but not responded to in the Staff Report.

Security guards — hours and days they will be available?
Community meeting room –how large will it be and its availability to residents?
7 to 9 computers available to students and residents. What hours are computers are available?
Need a Statement–Computers will be serviced etc. so that they are in working order and have software that students and residents will need for homework/training
Training in the use of the computer and, how to do on-line searches etc. should be available.
A simple rule for determining whether more social worker time is required
(for example if a social worker  is scheduled to work a maximum 18 hours per work is  averaging 16 hours of sessions a week the scheduled maximum number of hours is increased by 5 hours.
Developing a day care program in cooperation with the other large complexes in the area.
Criteria to determine whether a Summer programs for children be made available for a given Summer


Comment and concerns
1. Once again an applicant waited until within the last few weeks of a deadline by the bond issuing agency to hold a hearing. This last minute strategy may be designed to limit the number of concessions the applicant needs to make.

2. After the last TEFRA (tax exempt bond) hearing for Seabreeze, City staff had promised to develop specific requirements that an applicant must meet. Unfortunately it does not appear that this promise has been kept.

3. The applicant’s (Integrity Housing) obligations will only last for 10 years or so. After that time services to those in subsidized apartments end. This does not help our long term social and economic problems.

4. Much is being made that after the bond is paid off the applicant will be attracting higher income residents. However, other than vague statements no plan is being offered for how to attract those with higher incomes. The higher income residents that Seabreeze would like to attract are able to afford more expensive apartments that offer more amenities etc.—so why would they flock to Seabreeze?

5. Vallejo’s market rate housing is more affordable than most of the Bay area. What we lack is having higher earners to pay more taxes and help draw more businesses to our community. We should be putting more effort into projects that attract these individuals.

6. The lack of specificity for issues such as security is troubling. The City will have no recourse if these issues (see list above) are not dealt with prior to any approvals—once again the applicant will be able to do whatever they want and Vallejo will pay the price for any lack of due diligence.

7. Attachment B in the Staff Report showing an increase ($24K) in taxes from Seabreeze is misleading. $16,900 welfare tax exemption is not included. Also it is not known whether their taxes will be calculated on the sales price of the property or a lower figure based on revenues.


The Final Thoughts
I urge people to come to City Council on Tuesday and ask that the applicants request for tax-free bonds not be approved
Approving this Bond measure puts another nail in the coffin of economic development for South Vallejo for another 10 years. When businesses see the large concentration of below average incomes in an area they are reluctant to build retail or other developments there. South Vallejo will not be able to attract development as long as the City is willing to concentrate lower income individuals in large housing complexes, a housing model that is not good for the residents either.

Does Vallejo want to be the capitol of tax exempt financing? Normally tax exempt bonds are meant to increase the housing supply. Tax exempt bonds should not be used to increase the selling price of Seabreeze and give the seller a greater profit with public monies. This arrangement is good for the investors, and lousy for the citizens.
The City needs to demand that services to residents continue as long as subsidized housing exists in this property.

Finally. Is having 38% of the residents in a building be at 50% AMI or lower, good for the residents or our community? City Council needs to develop public policy guidelines that requires low income housing be distributed throughout the City rather than be concentrated.—201 Maine is a good example of why concentrating lower income people is not good for a community.

I would hope that City Council will limit the percentage of subsidized units ( ideally to 25% or less) in a housing complex and start to require a higher percentage be residents who have above average AMI’s. Experiences in other cities suggest that when mixed income housing is done properly it is better for the community overall.



*Response from Integrity President Anjela Ponce_2_22_15_LINK*


'Will Seabreeze Purchase Perpetuate South Vallejo Perils? — *2/22/15 – Response from Seabreeze*' have 25 comments

  1. February 21, 2015 @ 7:11 am Thais

    There are several claims being made here without proper reference. That just serves to discredit the point being made.
    Also, what’s the need for low income housing in Vallejo?
    What’s the percentage of Vallejoans that meet that criteria (<50%AMI) versus the number of units being offered to them?
    Where are the low income individuals supposed to go to? It doesn't seem to me that the author is very concerned about the poor…
    Lastly, do mixed uncome neighborhoods always work or could they lead to middle class flight?
    How would adding low value homes to a neighborhood maintain or increase home values?


    • February 21, 2015 @ 9:24 am Answer man

      You said There are several claims being made here without proper reference . What are they.

      Here are the income numbers .
      Number of households with income < $10k: Below 10K=approx. 7%
      Vallejo: 7.3% (2,972)
      State: 5.7% (695,403)
      Number of households with income $10-20k:
      Vallejo: 8.4% (3,416)
      State: 10.1% (1,232,937)
      Number of households with income $20-30k:
      Vallejo: 7.4% (2,981)
      State: 9.7% (1,186,065)
      Number of households with income $30-40k:
      Vallejo: 10.0% (4,049)
      State: 9.1% (1,108,669)
      Number of households with income $40-50k:
      Vallejo: 7.7% (3,136)
      State: 8.5% (1,039,666)
      Number of households with income $50-60k:


      • February 21, 2015 @ 6:30 pm Thais

        Answer Man, there is not a single source referenced in the article (except for an inxistent attachments), so all claims lack empirical evidence and, thetefore, the points made in the article can be considered based on the author’s own biases.
        References are the sources used to hather information for this piece.
        Thank you for the numbers. This is data that could’ve been included in the article (depending on the source).


    • February 21, 2015 @ 1:33 pm Bong Hit

      Use the Marina Vista welfare housing as a model to examine the impacts of this project. It shouldn’t take a masters degree to come up with some possible outcomes for this low income project. Negative impacts to the schools, negative impacts on local crime, negative impacts to the local economy and negative impacts to Vallejo’s marketing efforts. It’s a no brainer – Vallejo will welcome this with open arms.


      • February 21, 2015 @ 6:25 pm Thais

        Hey Bong Hit, I posed a bunch of quesions and made only two remarks. Neither of the statements said the development was a good idea – or otherwise. I have no idea why you brought the masters degree thing up, but I agree is that anyone without much education or money could testify to how poverty affects their lives in Vallejo or elsewhere.


        • February 21, 2015 @ 8:17 pm Bong Hit

          Mammy’s little baby loves short’nin’, short’nin’,Mammy’s little baby loves short’nin’ bread.


    • February 21, 2015 @ 4:12 pm tramky

      Not very concerned about the poor? What is that about? Given the amount of subsidized housing in Vallejo, this town is more ‘concerned about the poor’ than most. With the cheap real estate, household chaos, less-than-stellar schools, and VERY expensive but understaffed police force to match.


      • February 21, 2015 @ 6:15 pm Thais

        Hi Tremki, I wrote “It doesn’t seem to me that THE AUTHOR is very concerned about the poor…” and I maintain that opinion. I’m not sure why you brought the city up since I did not say anything about it.


        • February 23, 2015 @ 5:25 pm Doug

          THAIS, you are most likely not aware of some of the Authors other works and involvements. He has also pointed out in the past, on this very subject matter, in writings, in public meetings, in private meetings and more, explicit concerns about this development and explicit types of programs and services that need to be part of the package in order to help the populous that would be living there. Just because the author didn’t put that out there “again” does not mean he doesn’t care about the poor.


  2. February 21, 2015 @ 2:13 pm the macroneurotic

    Thank you, Dr. Shussel, for your considered, well reasoned, clear presentation of the housing situation in Vallejo. I never thought about such things before I moved here, and I’m grateful to you for educating me in what can happen when we don’t pay attention… I’ll go to the meeting on Tuesday


  3. February 21, 2015 @ 7:09 pm Publicus

    Concentrating subsidized housing is not good for the poor….if helping them is the goal. Communities with concentrations of subsidized housing equal concentrations of poverty which leads inexorably to failing schools, crime, failure of hope and a reduced quality of life. All the statistics prove it. Dr. Schussel is correct that current HUD policies are for mixed income complexes which Seabreeze was designed to be. The new owners want it to be all subsidized so they make more money. Vallejo has higher unemployment, lower job creation and fewer essential services. South Vallejo is considered one of the food deserts where healthy food is not easily come by. So if you think more subsidized housing is good for the poor, get a grip. It is a huge profitable industry that feeds on people’s sympathies but all the public money flows to the wealthy real estate investors that don’t live any where near Vallejo.


  4. February 21, 2015 @ 7:34 pm Publicus

    The answer to the question about whether mixed income neighborhoods work of whether they lead to middle class flight is a good one. The answer is one of percentages. Statistically, a neighborhood can easily accommodate 10% poverty level without much negative effect. After that, things fall apart. When the statistical level of poverty gets above 30%, HUD considers it toxic. Remember, all subsidized housing is by definition occupied by people below the poverty line. But people can be officially poor and not living in subsidized housing. Some older folks living on social security in homes they have owned forever, a divorced mother living off child support in the family home or families renting out rooms or garages to make ends meet. So if you look at the 2010 Census, the downtown census tract is 59% subsidized housing with a poverty percentage that is much the same. The adjacent older neighborhood is only 10% subsidized housing but well over 30% poverty level. White slough is near 50% subsidized housing and a similar poverty rate. All you have to do is drive off Mare Island Way, to find numerous boarded up, vacant, and deteriorating historic homes with water views that are of no use even to their investors amongst group homes for substance abuses and cheap substandard rentals occupied by registered sex offenders and felons who are roaming the neighborhood looking for “opportunities”. That is what causes middle class flight. When the poverty level is below 10%, those that are poor behave like their middle class neighbors but when the poverty level gets above the tipping point, bad behavior rules and the middle class is driven out.


    • February 23, 2015 @ 4:15 pm Tom

      Flight! Who the heck wants a bunch of losers from the projects sitting out front all day yelling and cursing?


  5. February 21, 2015 @ 8:14 pm wharf rat

    Here is the tax info on Seabreeze
    Billed 09/11/2014 Roll Type Secured Tax Roll Year 2014/15
    Occurrence 1 Bill Origin Original Sup Event n/a
    Assessment Year 2014/15
    Inst Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Due Current Status Delinquent Date
    1 $70,818.45 $70,818.45 $0.00 Paid 12/10/2014
    2 $70,818.45 $0.00 $70,818.45 Outstanding 04/10/2015
    Total $141,636.90 $70,818.45 $70,818.45
    Tax Charge Information
    1st Installment 2nd Installment
    Fund Rate Status Amount Status Amount
    59 1 PCT Tax Limitation 1.000000% Paid $58,928.82 Outstanding $58,928.82
    318 SC PLD State WTR PJ Zone Ben#1 0.020000% Paid $1,178.57 Outstanding $1,178.57
    461 Vjo USD A 2002 GOB Refunding 0.063583% Paid $3,746.87 Outstanding $3,746.87
    462 Vallejo USD Measure A S 2002 0.008530% Paid $502.66 Outstanding $502.66
    464 SCC GOB Series 2005 Refunding 0.012988% Paid $765.36 Outstanding $765.36
    467 Vallejo USD Measure A S 2004 0.010855% Paid $639.67 Outstanding $639.67
    475 Vallejo USD Measure A – S2006 0.005876% Paid $346.26 Outstanding $346.26
    476 SCC GOB Series 2006b 0.002079% Paid $122.51 Outstanding $122.51
    484 SCC GOB 2012 Series A 0.013374% Paid $788.11 Outstanding $788.11
    485 SCC GOB 2012 Series B 0.003873% Paid $228.23 Outstanding $228.23
    487 SCC 2014 GOB Ref Series A 0.001308% Paid $77.07 Outstanding $77.07
    488 SCC 2014 GOB Ref Series B 0.003094% Paid $182.32 Outstanding $182.32
    7805 Greater Vjo Recre Dist Pcl Tax Fixed Paid $3,312.00 Outstanding $3,312.00
    Payment Information
    Payment Type Installment Posted Date Payment Amount
    Payment First 12/09/2014 $70,818.45
    Assessor’s Assessment Number
    0000101099 100 Larissa Lane

    Unsecured Taxbill Information
    Current Status Paid Billed 06/25/2014 Roll Type Unsecured Account
    Liens No Interest Date 11/2014 Bill Origin Original
    Tax Roll Year 2014/15 Sup Event n/a Assessment Year 2014/15
    Date Paid Off 08/12/2014
    Tax Total Billed Total Amount Paid Balance Due Delinquent Date
    $1,072.84 $1,072.84 $1,072.84 $0.00 08/31/2014
    Unsecured Tax Charge Information
    Fund Rate Status Amount
    59 1 PCT Tax Limitation 1.000000% Paid $924.35
    318 SC PLD State WTR PJ Zone Ben#1 0.020000% Paid $18.48
    461 Vjo USD A 2002 GOB Refunding 0.068503% Paid $63.32
    462 Vallejo USD Measure A S 2002 0.012495% Paid $11.54
    464 SCC GOB Series 2005 Refunding 0.018196% Paid $16.81
    467 Vallejo USD Measure A S 2004 0.013046% Paid $12.05
    475 Vallejo USD Measure A – S2006 0.007109% Paid $6.57
    476 SCC GOB Series 2006b 0.002762% Paid $2.55
    484 SCC GOB 2012 Series A 0.013843% Paid $12.79
    485 SCC GOB 2012 Series B 0.004748% Paid $4.38
    Unsecured Tax Payment Information
    Payment Type Posted Amount Payment Type Posted Amount
    Payment 08/12/2014 $1,072.84


  6. February 21, 2015 @ 9:26 pm wharf rat

    Will Seabreeze become like this complex and if so what will it cost our City , this is beyond a sweet deal ”it’s criminal” fiscally suicidal subsidises need to end .
    looks like the property is broken down by each unit / apartment ,if anyone can translate please do , all entries are like the one below , net tax = 0
    Assessor’s Assessment Number
    0052-180-120 750 Sereno Drive
    750 Sereno Drive Unit 101
    750 Sereno Drive Unit 102
    750 Sereno Drive Unit 1101
    750 Sereno Drive Unit 1102

    Example of the above APN number data ”one of many”
    Tax Collector’s Office (707) 784-7485
    Secured and Supplemental Tax Bills
    Select Roll Year Event Year Occur Due Date Bill Amt Bill Type
    2014/15 2014/15 1 04/10/2015 $0.00 Secured
    Unsecured Tax Bills
    Select Roll Year Asmnt Year Event Num Due Date Amount Due Bill Type
    No current unsecured tax bill records where found.
    ”The property owners info —- http://www.edenhousing.org/property/sereno-village
    Is the name a stretch or what , note the rent ranges this must be all subsidised at these prices .
    Additional real estate info , note the tax assessment and the property value increase per year
    looks like a very good investment and practically tax exempt [ or please advise if not so” ] .
    ”Zillow info below , looks like 2014 was the first year taxes were paid and it was 5,927 on over fifteen million dollars of property value and this complex opened in 2,002
    Tax History
    YEAR PROPERTY TAXES TAX ASSESSMENT —”note; eleven years of NO property taxes
    then last year a mere pittance no
    2014 $5,927 $15,442,012 wonder we went bankrupt , how many
    2013 $0 $15,372,222 others like this are out there”
    2012 $0 $15,070,806
    Full tax info available on County website … and a big thanks to the good Doctor yet again ..


  7. February 24, 2015 @ 7:17 am Billy Goat

    It’s infuriating that even though Seabreeze was turned down 2 years ago when they proposed a similar idea — now they are back, with new owners — and with the City behind them!!! Hellllllo City staffers — are you listening? We told you 2 years ago that it was a bad idea to expand the number of subsidized units there– and that’s still true. These kinds of projects should not even come forward. They are PROVEN to be bad for the neighborhood — even HUD’s current policies don’t support this kind of development. But developers love them. And hey, what about lost tax revenues? If you look up Schussel’s article on lost taxes, you’ll see that Vallejo loses $1.46 million dollars a year via these tax-exempt housing projects. BAAAAAAD idea!


  8. February 24, 2015 @ 10:18 am Publicus

    Something changed in the last two years….the City Council majority is now bought and paid for by the City Unions. So staff has every reason to believe that they can shove this disaster through now. Staff does not care about the quality of life for the good citizens, just their own paychecks.

    Here is a little known factoid….the VHA made up their own Federal Census Tract number for South Vallejo and fudged the data. The VHA put one of the big Seabreeze projects in the real South Vallejo census tract and the other project in their made up census tract. Made the numbers look like the percentages of subsidized housing were lower than they actually are. Both Projects are in the same census tract which is, in reality, the same census tract as Mare Island so if somebody thinking to invest on Mare Island were to check, they would find that there is lots of subsidized housing in that census tract. Maybe that would dissuade investors on Mare Island. But that’s how they roll down there in City Hall.


  9. February 25, 2015 @ 3:32 pm Publicus

    Seabreeze prevailed on a vote of 6 to 1 with only Robert McConnell voting “no”. Even our own beloved Katy drank the Koolaide. The Mayor lectured the good citizens on why subsidized housing was so very great and that they were cruel, small minded and provincial not to embrace more subsidized housing with open arms even though the neighborhood where he lives is less than 1% subsidized. We, in West and South Vallejo get it all. At least Mayor Intintoli lived in our neighborhood even though he was a big supporter of subsidized housing. A sad day for Vallejo and good reason never to vote for anyone who is supported by a City staff Union ever, ever again.


  10. February 25, 2015 @ 3:54 pm Publicus

    Jim Spering, former Mayor of Suisun, current member of the Solano Board of Supervisors and head of the MTC section of ABAG’s Plan Bay Area, knows what subsidized housing does to a community. And he dealt with it effectively. He had the crime filled, subsidized housing complex on the north side of Suisun Bay bulldozed when he made the whole City of Suisun into a Redevelopment Area. He got all kinds of awards for the mixed use Roma Plan. The extremely low income former residents were given Housing Choice Vouchers and told to take them to any landlord who would accept them. Easy, beasy…. Same as SF and Napa. You aren’t welcome in our community but Vallejo will embrace you with open arms. Remember, Oz used to be a member of the Solano Board of Supervisors so all those “good ol’ boys” are working together to implement their plan to make Vallejo the dumping ground of the North Bay. No wonder Oz lives in Hiddenbrooke… it is a nice, safe gated community. Vallejo will not get out of this mess until Oz is gone and we have an actual City Council that works for the good of the middle class not the poverty class and is smart enough not to get spun by hopeful sounding platitudes like “hand up not a hand out” like Katy was.


    • February 25, 2015 @ 8:21 pm Bong Hit

      People don’t understand math. Marianne gave us a first hand account of what goes on in the schools. Kids can’t do math and then they grow up to be adults that can’t understand math. These subsidized housing projects don’t pay property taxes. Look at Marina Vista, they pay a few thousand dollars each year yet the fiscal costs in terms of police services, medical services, schooling costs, economic degradation costs total in the millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the investors get a annualized return of 6%, 7%, 8%. It’s a toxic prescription for Vallejo taxpayers.


  11. February 25, 2015 @ 7:11 pm Just the Facts, ma'am

    Understand government (“why did staff bring it back?”) The projects proponents (ANY project proponent) has the legal right to bring a project in front of a city council for consideration.

    Second, Shussel supported the project with his proposed changes, which were then adopted (or maybe I heard wrong?) Maybe Shussel could write another article explaining why?


    • February 25, 2015 @ 10:16 pm Robert Schussel

      Very briefly
      1) It turns out that the City requires 20% of the units to low income (AIM 50% or less) so that a minimum 20% subsidized must exist.
      2) The applicant’s plan is reduce the number of subsidized units from 38% to 20% over time and increase the rents and get more higher income renters.
      3) The hope is to pay off the bonds in 3 to 5 years. As soon as the bonds are paid off the only requirement is 20% subsidized units. They believe more diversity in income, (think higher AIMs) are best for everyone.
      4) Their services remain in place as long as they are the owners.
      5) The contract will be more specific with the City. For example initially they said they will have security. More specific language now, security will be from 5PM to 6AM seven days a week.
      6) Not related to the hearing–they are looking at the vacant lot next to Seabreeze as a potential place to put in a grocery store–a huge win for everyone if they can putt it off.


    • February 25, 2015 @ 10:16 pm Robert Schussel

      Very briefly
      1) It turns out that the City requires 20% of the units to low income (AIM 50% or less) so that a minimum 20% subsidized must exist.
      2) The applicant’s plan is reduce the number of subsidized units from 38% to 20% over time and increase the rents and get more higher income renters.
      3) The hope is to pay off the bonds in 3 to 5 years. As soon as the bonds are paid off the only requirement is 20% subsidized units. They believe more diversity in income, (think higher AIMs) are best for everyone.
      4) Their services remain in place as long as they are the owners.
      5) The contract will be more specific with the City. For example initially they said they will have security. More specific language now, security will be from 5PM to 6AM seven days a week.
      6) Not related to the hearing–they are looking at the vacant lot next to Seabreeze as a potential place to put in a grocery store–a huge win for everyone if they can putt it off.


      • February 27, 2015 @ 8:11 am Shelee

        It would be helpful in the clarifying contract language that there be a maximum subsidized % stated. As I understand it the 20% minimum is just that, a minimum required by the state and local jurisdiction. Of course the “plan” is to reduce right now to get the deal done. However, the developer has no timeline requirement and they “hope” to get to the 20% by attrition. What recourse does Vallejo have if the developer fails to get to the minimum within a specified amount of time? A stated goal is not the same as a contractual requirement. Are we once again stuck with subsidized populations twice the required minimum?

        While I commend the developers desire for bringing in support services for the residents, I don’t see enough detail on exactly how they will execute that contractual promise. Their other properties are primarily senior complexes, how they deliver actual services to those folks is worth further investigation. Now it is up to the City Attorney’s office to strengthen the contractual language so that the city has some legal recourse should the “plan” not live up to the promises made.

        Regarding the hope of them putting a deal together to bring a medium sized market to the area……don’t hold your breath, that is not what this company specializes in. It is admirable that the CEO is “willing” to look into it but that resonated as an empty promise made to dangle the proverbial carrot in our face.


  12. February 27, 2015 @ 3:23 pm keva

    Also, they said they will provide the service for “As long as they own the property”….what happens if they sell the property in 2 years? ..they even included re-finance language in the contract….

    the original language is better…”for as long as there is subsidized housing…” they gave example of holding property for 30 years…30 years will be better than “as long as we own the property..”


Would you like to share your thoughts?

Your email address will not be published.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Vallejo Independent Bulletin

Copyright © 2015 - All Rights Reserved