Via the stalkeriffic Contra Costa Times (altho' it also appeared on the front page of PSN), Janette Williams looks at the new face of retirement living at MonteCedro.
A couple of comments:
- In the PSN/CCT story, the subsidy is $3.5 million a year, altho' at the last town council meeting, MonteCedro representatives said that the subsidy for low income residents would be $1.5 million a year. What's up with that?
- We note that, rather than speed-dialing some Voice of Altadena, this time PSN went to Michele Zack. Zack is a local historian and town council member, and actually has some standing to comment on the issue at hand. Now, if they'd only spell her name correctly.
UPDATE 2 PM: See comments section for further explanations and clarifications from Michele Zack and Martha L. Tamburrano, CEO of Episcopal Home Communities, owners of MonteCedro
michele Zack said…
In every one of at least a half dozen meetings I’ve attended on Monte Cedro, trying to get specifics on its “benevolent care” aspect has been a chief concern of mine.
The figure that always comes up is $1.5 million, although its developers have been careful to note that this figure is not set in stone, and depends on continued charitable contributions as well as the the health of its investment portfolio. Fair enough.
What I have encouraged is more specificity about the way this amount would be administered. For example, is the plan to spread the subsidy around to make monthly fees affordable for a larger number of people, or to focus it on fewer who are in assisted living? How many entrance fees (of $400,000 to $800,000) will be waived for local people, as Project Manager Jim Doyle suggested to me would be one form of subsidy.
I can tell you assisted living would eat up the 1.5 very quickly, perhaps 15 people would benefit. Yet if it is used to subsidize rents to the tune of $1,000 to $2,000 a month, it will go much further. Then what happens if a person receiving a subsidy moves from independent to assisted living. . . well you begin to understand why the Monte Cedro folks need some wiggle room.
What we all have to understand is the main mission of Scripps, which was chiefly charitable, will change, and for many reasons — once it becomes Monte Cedro. This had been happening any way; the model it was based on relied on a whole different set of social circumstances and was becoming less viable. Sad, but true; being realistic about such things, and adjusting to the new reality usually makes the most sense. There was no “luxury retirement market”, for example, when Scripps started as an institution in 1912 or so (on land donated for this purpose, supported by various charities and the assets of its residents.)
Perhaps that is one reason for the name change. It will really be a different animal. I did not fight this project (I could find no objectors among Scripps residents I talked to, or in the immediate neighborhood which I canvassed before my last election, the summer of 2007), and so I voted for it. However, I tried to be as clear and public as I could to make sure people understand the “mission shift” going on.
I appreciated the S-N story, even if it garbled what I said about traffic and parking into one unclear thought. The truth is, we will have more traffic, but since Lake Avenue is so close and there will be a better circulation plan, this should not have a huge impact on our neighborhood. Second, the old Scripps had little on-site parking, and it was all on grade. MonteCedro is investing millions in underground parking, which even with its greater density should decrease numbers of cars parked on the street, or at worst be a wash (not worse).
Still, even with its nice plan and the pretty certain economic boost Monte Cedro will bring, I can’t help but mourn a little the loss of an institution that has served Altadena’s regular citizens for 100 years. Most will not be able to afford pay full freight to live in Monte Cedro, and only a relative few (20-50 people, I believe is the current estimate, out of 278 units) will lucky enough to receive a subsidy.
Michele (with one L) Zack
Thursday, October 09, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Martha L. Tamburrano said…
The PSN article incorrectly stated the amount of benevolence to be provided at MonteCedro. The benevolent funds of The Episcopal Home Communities are providing $3.5 million in subsidized care this year at Scripps Kensington in Alhambra. In the future, the benevolent funds will be used first to support the residents at Scripps Kensington in Alhambra.
Second, the funds to subsidize the care of those former Scripps residents who wish to return to MonteCedro will be transferred to the MonteCedro Benevolence Fund at the time they move.
Finally, The Episcopal Home Communities desires to maintain benevolent care in the amount of $1.5 million on a long term basis at MonteCedro. Benevolent funds are derived, not from government subsidies or any public programs, but from charitable giving from The Episcopal Home Communities’ generous donors. The extent of benevolence the organization will be able to sustain is entirely dependent upon the continuation of the generosity of our current and future donors.
Martha L. Tamburrano
President & CEO
The Episcopal Home Communities
Thursday, October 09, 2008 at 02:31 PM
Lisa Hastings said…
First of all, there is no law which specifies the amount of funds a “non-profit” must designate for charitable purposes. So, Monte Cedro can do pretty much whatever they wish with their charitable program. If this was such a concern then why didn’t Michele Zack ask the Monte Cedro crowd to agree to something IN WRITING before she voted to approve the deal? Bottom line, they can do whatever they want with their charitable program. It’s really none of our business.
Next, the building plan is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood: FOUR story buildings in a primarily one-story residential neighborhood. Yes, the Scripps home had a few buildings that were four stories but they did not take up the entire property as the Monte Cedro complex will. And, by the way, 14 old homes (1920s++) will be torn down to make room for the huge buildings. Furthermore, Michele Zack never asked us about our opinion. We live directly across the street from the site and we presented to the County Planning Commission 24 (TWENTY FOUR) signatures of residents living across the street from the project who oppose the four story design. The commission poo-pooed our concerns and responded that they would have liked to have seen a 5 (FIVE) story design.
So, the Monte Cedro crowd now has permission to tear down 14 old homes, build HUGE FOUR story buildings in a residential area, and do whatever they want with their charitable program. My neighbors and I will be busy planting more trees on our properties so that by the time the project is built we won’t have an ugly view of huge buildings where once we had a clear view of the mountains and of the sky.
Sunday, October 12, 2008 at 11:21 PM
Lisa Hastings said…
I would hope that in light of the current economy that the developers will re-think their project and come up with something more low-key and in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood. Unfortunately, the opposition to this huge project was not organized until the last minute when it was too late so the land use committee, town council, and county planning commission approved the project in spite of our efforts to make them all know that we, the neighbors, including Michele Zack’s constituents, don’t want a huge four story, high density project in our low-profile neighborhood. However, in the end, providing “much needed housing for senior citizens” mattered more to the town council and the county than did the overwhelming opposition of the neighbors. Not only is this project too ambitious and huge for our neighborhood, I would challenge the popular opinion that this housing design is beneficial for senior citizens. In the past, segregating large groups of any population into a large complex of high density housing was known as “institutionalization.” I don’t claim to be an expert on senior citizens, so this is my opinion only. Also, this “non-profit” complex will charge the senior a 90% refundable upon moving or death deposit (no interest paid) of $400,000 to $800,000 to move into the complex, plus monthly fees of $2500 to 4,500 on up. These are the financial figures the developers presented to the town council. This is good for seniors? This is good for Altadena?
Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Lisa Hastings said…
I would hope that in light of the current economy that the developers will re-think their project and come up with something more low-key and in conformance with the surrounding neighborhood. Unfortunately, the opposition to this huge project was not organized until the last minute when it was too late so the land use committee, town council, and county planning commission approved the project in spite of our efforts to make them all know that we, the neighbors, including Michele Zack’s constituents, don’t want a huge four story, high density project in our low-profile neighborhood. However, in the end, providing “much needed housing for senior citizens” mattered more to the town council and the county than did the overwhelming opposition of the neighbors. Not only is this project too ambitious and huge for our neighborhood, I would challenge the popular opinion that this housing design is beneficial for senior citizens. In the past, segregating large groups of any population into a large complex of high density housing was known as “institutionalization.” I don’t claim to be an expert on senior citizens, so this is my opinion only. Also, this “non-profit” complex will charge the senior a 90% refundable upon moving or death deposit (no interest paid) of $400,000 to $800,000 to move into the complex, plus monthly fees of $2500 to 4,500 on up. These are the financial figures the developers presented to the town council. This is good for seniors? This is good for Altadena?
Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 10:20 AM