It is the story of Habit for Humanity in Marin County. “Housing advocates say Marin County’s Bill Duane exemplifies a vexing irony: People support affordable housing with their labor, money, and votes—just so long as it’s nowhere near them.” Now Marin County is one of the most reliably liberal counties in country, but what you might call a “limousine liberal” community. The article tells the story of a man who was a strong supporter of Habit for Humanity, even volunteered for it, until “the group announced plans to build two affordable duplexes just down the street from him.”
The article goes on to suggest:
“opposition to affordable housing in the county was so fierce in the 1990s that a Marin chapter of Habitat disbanded”
Furthermore they are not simply picking on Marin, they cite the same problem in other wealthly liberal communities such as Martha’s Vineyard and Boulder, Colorado.
The article caught my attention for the date on the publication was July 17, 2007, the same day that Davis successfully fought back county attempts at massive development on the Davis periphery. The same day, that many liberal activists descended on Yolo County in hopes of the creation of a Stem Cell research facility. And indeed, on that day, many of the same Stem Cell research advocates were claiming the same thing about our opposition to development, it was simply about NIMBYism. That the liberals in Davis, like their counterparts elsewhere are a bunch of white elitists trying to keep the minorities and the families out of Davis.
I scoffed at the notion at the time because those making that charge obviously do not know me or why I have become an activist in this community, it was to defend civil rights first. In fact, on most days I would be on their side, leading the fight for Stem Cell research. On most days, I would be leading the fight for affordable housing. Heck, I will tell you this, if Habitat For Humanity had a project in Davis, I would be the one helping to build the houses.
Unlike the Mother Jones article, the charges against Davis was unfair. We were not opposing true affordable housing, we were opposing more McMansions.
The problem with that argument on that day, is that the projects that are being proposed will not bring more diversity to Davis. They will not bring more affordable housing to Davis. They will bring more limousine liberals and suburban Republicans to Davis. Covell Village had a set aside ratio of “affordable houses” but the bulk of the project would be houses in the range of $600,000 per unit. That was not going to help new families move to Davis. It was not going to help the children of Davis families stay in Davis. And it was not going to help people of color come to Davis. The only thing it would do is reinforce existing housing patterns while at the same time causing more congestion on our streets and reduce open space and farm land in our surroundings.
At the end of the day, if I saw a truly modest housing proposal that actually provided affordability to families and people of color, I would likely support it. But I have not seen one yet. All I have seen is more of the same, and if given the choice between protecting agricultural land and open space and building more overpriced homes, I choose the former. And if we want a true stem cell research facility, not built near the causeway, but built in a place that is more appropriate, I am leading the fight. But we have not had one of those and I do not expect to get one of those in the near future.
In the meantime, do not be charging me with NIMBYism when I do not support your 2000 unit proposal chalk-full of $600,000 homes with a small percentage of limited equity affordable housing set aside as chump change. I am not falling for that trick. Give me a real proposal for affordable housing for families and then we can talk.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Check out this story in Friday’s Sac Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/317983.html
House design and density leading to $150K homes? Somebody should put this firm in touch with a couple of Davis developers.
Check out this story in Friday’s Sac Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/317983.html
House design and density leading to $150K homes? Somebody should put this firm in touch with a couple of Davis developers.
Check out this story in Friday’s Sac Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/317983.html
House design and density leading to $150K homes? Somebody should put this firm in touch with a couple of Davis developers.
Check out this story in Friday’s Sac Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/317983.html
House design and density leading to $150K homes? Somebody should put this firm in touch with a couple of Davis developers.
One of the biggest factors that makes housing affordable is location. If I heard what was said correctly on Thursday night at the Housing Element Committee meeting, the current owners of the 12-acre Simmons property paid $4 million for the parcel. It is rather difficult to build affordable housing when the land costs over $300,000 per acre.
The land cost of one of the other parcels discussed Thursday night could be much more amenable to affordable housing … specifically the Little League Fields at the head of H Street where it meets the Covell overpass. However, site like that one are very rare in Davis. Several other sites just south of I-80 along Chiles might be affordable, but the Housing Element Committee rightly questioned whether the noise levels and particulate emissions from traffic on I-80 would compromise the quality of life and even possibly the life expectancy of the people who ended up living in any housing built there.
I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing. Thoughts?
One of the biggest factors that makes housing affordable is location. If I heard what was said correctly on Thursday night at the Housing Element Committee meeting, the current owners of the 12-acre Simmons property paid $4 million for the parcel. It is rather difficult to build affordable housing when the land costs over $300,000 per acre.
The land cost of one of the other parcels discussed Thursday night could be much more amenable to affordable housing … specifically the Little League Fields at the head of H Street where it meets the Covell overpass. However, site like that one are very rare in Davis. Several other sites just south of I-80 along Chiles might be affordable, but the Housing Element Committee rightly questioned whether the noise levels and particulate emissions from traffic on I-80 would compromise the quality of life and even possibly the life expectancy of the people who ended up living in any housing built there.
I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing. Thoughts?
One of the biggest factors that makes housing affordable is location. If I heard what was said correctly on Thursday night at the Housing Element Committee meeting, the current owners of the 12-acre Simmons property paid $4 million for the parcel. It is rather difficult to build affordable housing when the land costs over $300,000 per acre.
The land cost of one of the other parcels discussed Thursday night could be much more amenable to affordable housing … specifically the Little League Fields at the head of H Street where it meets the Covell overpass. However, site like that one are very rare in Davis. Several other sites just south of I-80 along Chiles might be affordable, but the Housing Element Committee rightly questioned whether the noise levels and particulate emissions from traffic on I-80 would compromise the quality of life and even possibly the life expectancy of the people who ended up living in any housing built there.
I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing. Thoughts?
One of the biggest factors that makes housing affordable is location. If I heard what was said correctly on Thursday night at the Housing Element Committee meeting, the current owners of the 12-acre Simmons property paid $4 million for the parcel. It is rather difficult to build affordable housing when the land costs over $300,000 per acre.
The land cost of one of the other parcels discussed Thursday night could be much more amenable to affordable housing … specifically the Little League Fields at the head of H Street where it meets the Covell overpass. However, site like that one are very rare in Davis. Several other sites just south of I-80 along Chiles might be affordable, but the Housing Element Committee rightly questioned whether the noise levels and particulate emissions from traffic on I-80 would compromise the quality of life and even possibly the life expectancy of the people who ended up living in any housing built there.
I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing. Thoughts?
We don’t have to restrict ourselves to only vacant parcels. We can look at parcels that are underutilized.
There are many parcels on Olive Drive that are vacant or underutilized
The north side of 5th & L is completely underutilized and ripe for mixed use/residential
The Cannery Park site
But the logic remains that you do need larger parcels to keep the prices down. Single family detached homes can be designed fairly densely, but I don’t think that is the only housing type we should be considering given its current disproportionate representation in Davis.
Still, it’s fairly speculative until you look at the cost of the property, the type of housing, how many lots will be subdivided and the cost of construction at any given point in time. But to think that small-scale infill will get us the needed affordable housing is not realistic.
If we take larger parcels of land (e.g. CV), design and zone it for higher intensity residential (along with other uses) that results in inherently and permanently more affordable housing, then you have made a tangible difference in affordable housing here. This is as opposed to the current ordinance that, I believe, requires a certain percentage affordable housing (initially subsidized by the more expensive surrounding development)but once the initial owner leaves after two years of occupancy, it can revert to market rate, in which case the owner has essentially won the lottery.
Smaller homes, varying housing product types, on smaller lots, in larger developments has the best chance of resulting in permanently more affordable housing.
We don’t have to restrict ourselves to only vacant parcels. We can look at parcels that are underutilized.
There are many parcels on Olive Drive that are vacant or underutilized
The north side of 5th & L is completely underutilized and ripe for mixed use/residential
The Cannery Park site
But the logic remains that you do need larger parcels to keep the prices down. Single family detached homes can be designed fairly densely, but I don’t think that is the only housing type we should be considering given its current disproportionate representation in Davis.
Still, it’s fairly speculative until you look at the cost of the property, the type of housing, how many lots will be subdivided and the cost of construction at any given point in time. But to think that small-scale infill will get us the needed affordable housing is not realistic.
If we take larger parcels of land (e.g. CV), design and zone it for higher intensity residential (along with other uses) that results in inherently and permanently more affordable housing, then you have made a tangible difference in affordable housing here. This is as opposed to the current ordinance that, I believe, requires a certain percentage affordable housing (initially subsidized by the more expensive surrounding development)but once the initial owner leaves after two years of occupancy, it can revert to market rate, in which case the owner has essentially won the lottery.
Smaller homes, varying housing product types, on smaller lots, in larger developments has the best chance of resulting in permanently more affordable housing.
We don’t have to restrict ourselves to only vacant parcels. We can look at parcels that are underutilized.
There are many parcels on Olive Drive that are vacant or underutilized
The north side of 5th & L is completely underutilized and ripe for mixed use/residential
The Cannery Park site
But the logic remains that you do need larger parcels to keep the prices down. Single family detached homes can be designed fairly densely, but I don’t think that is the only housing type we should be considering given its current disproportionate representation in Davis.
Still, it’s fairly speculative until you look at the cost of the property, the type of housing, how many lots will be subdivided and the cost of construction at any given point in time. But to think that small-scale infill will get us the needed affordable housing is not realistic.
If we take larger parcels of land (e.g. CV), design and zone it for higher intensity residential (along with other uses) that results in inherently and permanently more affordable housing, then you have made a tangible difference in affordable housing here. This is as opposed to the current ordinance that, I believe, requires a certain percentage affordable housing (initially subsidized by the more expensive surrounding development)but once the initial owner leaves after two years of occupancy, it can revert to market rate, in which case the owner has essentially won the lottery.
Smaller homes, varying housing product types, on smaller lots, in larger developments has the best chance of resulting in permanently more affordable housing.
We don’t have to restrict ourselves to only vacant parcels. We can look at parcels that are underutilized.
There are many parcels on Olive Drive that are vacant or underutilized
The north side of 5th & L is completely underutilized and ripe for mixed use/residential
The Cannery Park site
But the logic remains that you do need larger parcels to keep the prices down. Single family detached homes can be designed fairly densely, but I don’t think that is the only housing type we should be considering given its current disproportionate representation in Davis.
Still, it’s fairly speculative until you look at the cost of the property, the type of housing, how many lots will be subdivided and the cost of construction at any given point in time. But to think that small-scale infill will get us the needed affordable housing is not realistic.
If we take larger parcels of land (e.g. CV), design and zone it for higher intensity residential (along with other uses) that results in inherently and permanently more affordable housing, then you have made a tangible difference in affordable housing here. This is as opposed to the current ordinance that, I believe, requires a certain percentage affordable housing (initially subsidized by the more expensive surrounding development)but once the initial owner leaves after two years of occupancy, it can revert to market rate, in which case the owner has essentially won the lottery.
Smaller homes, varying housing product types, on smaller lots, in larger developments has the best chance of resulting in permanently more affordable housing.
Residential development adjacent to freeways should not be excluded outright by the Committee. The ARB recently produced a memo that states the buffer should be a minimum 300 feet and recommends 500 feet, I believe.
Residential development adjacent to freeways should not be excluded outright by the Committee. The ARB recently produced a memo that states the buffer should be a minimum 300 feet and recommends 500 feet, I believe.
Residential development adjacent to freeways should not be excluded outright by the Committee. The ARB recently produced a memo that states the buffer should be a minimum 300 feet and recommends 500 feet, I believe.
Residential development adjacent to freeways should not be excluded outright by the Committee. The ARB recently produced a memo that states the buffer should be a minimum 300 feet and recommends 500 feet, I believe.
Here is an example of the kind of development I’m thinking of that would work well in Davis:
http://www.newurbanbuilders.com/doemill/
Here is an example of the kind of development I’m thinking of that would work well in Davis:
http://www.newurbanbuilders.com/doemill/
Here is an example of the kind of development I’m thinking of that would work well in Davis:
http://www.newurbanbuilders.com/doemill/
Here is an example of the kind of development I’m thinking of that would work well in Davis:
http://www.newurbanbuilders.com/doemill/
The homes look nice, but we don’t want Davis to have poor planning the way Chico has. What once was shall never be again in Chico. They lost control over the growth and it’s like a Natomas in some areas.
The homes look nice, but we don’t want Davis to have poor planning the way Chico has. What once was shall never be again in Chico. They lost control over the growth and it’s like a Natomas in some areas.
The homes look nice, but we don’t want Davis to have poor planning the way Chico has. What once was shall never be again in Chico. They lost control over the growth and it’s like a Natomas in some areas.
The homes look nice, but we don’t want Davis to have poor planning the way Chico has. What once was shall never be again in Chico. They lost control over the growth and it’s like a Natomas in some areas.
“I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing.”
How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.
“I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing.”
How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.
“I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing.”
How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.
“I’m interested if any of the posters on this Blog have sites in addition to Little League Fields that you believe have the potential for affordable housing.”
How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.
Rich Rifkin said…
“How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.”
It is interesting that you raise that suggestion Rich. The El Macero Country Club (which is a private organization) has explored the possibility of building some affordable housing on its land along Mace. As with any private partnership with 460-plus share holders (about half of whom live in Sacramento) you can imagine that any final decision on such a project will take quite some time, but it has been in the works for a fair amount of time now. However, I should say that with a disclaimer, since neither I nor my wife are members of the Club.
Now with respect to your closing sentence. I would be very happy to put El Macero’s ethnic, racial and religious diversity up against Davis’ any time. Any rumors (either yours or otherwise) about “El Macero’s terrible diversity problem” are just that . . . rumors.
Rich Rifkin said…
“How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.”
It is interesting that you raise that suggestion Rich. The El Macero Country Club (which is a private organization) has explored the possibility of building some affordable housing on its land along Mace. As with any private partnership with 460-plus share holders (about half of whom live in Sacramento) you can imagine that any final decision on such a project will take quite some time, but it has been in the works for a fair amount of time now. However, I should say that with a disclaimer, since neither I nor my wife are members of the Club.
Now with respect to your closing sentence. I would be very happy to put El Macero’s ethnic, racial and religious diversity up against Davis’ any time. Any rumors (either yours or otherwise) about “El Macero’s terrible diversity problem” are just that . . . rumors.
Rich Rifkin said…
“How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.”
It is interesting that you raise that suggestion Rich. The El Macero Country Club (which is a private organization) has explored the possibility of building some affordable housing on its land along Mace. As with any private partnership with 460-plus share holders (about half of whom live in Sacramento) you can imagine that any final decision on such a project will take quite some time, but it has been in the works for a fair amount of time now. However, I should say that with a disclaimer, since neither I nor my wife are members of the Club.
Now with respect to your closing sentence. I would be very happy to put El Macero’s ethnic, racial and religious diversity up against Davis’ any time. Any rumors (either yours or otherwise) about “El Macero’s terrible diversity problem” are just that . . . rumors.
Rich Rifkin said…
“How about the golf course in El Macero, Matt, where you live? That might help with El Macero’s terrible diversity problem, too.”
It is interesting that you raise that suggestion Rich. The El Macero Country Club (which is a private organization) has explored the possibility of building some affordable housing on its land along Mace. As with any private partnership with 460-plus share holders (about half of whom live in Sacramento) you can imagine that any final decision on such a project will take quite some time, but it has been in the works for a fair amount of time now. However, I should say that with a disclaimer, since neither I nor my wife are members of the Club.
Now with respect to your closing sentence. I would be very happy to put El Macero’s ethnic, racial and religious diversity up against Davis’ any time. Any rumors (either yours or otherwise) about “El Macero’s terrible diversity problem” are just that . . . rumors.
There is no such thing as affordable housing solutions- it doesn’t exist locally in a free market and you can’t solve it by fiat. As long as Davis is a desireable location, more people will want to come here than can be accomodated. I don’t really care if they are young families, diverse races, children of local families or limousine liberals… You cannot accomodate them all and as soon as you turn anyone away, it drives up prices.
Like the vast majority of homeowners in Davis, I don’t want to see more construction of new developments around Davis. If people cannot affford the prices in Davis, try Woodland or West Sacramento.
There is no such thing as affordable housing solutions- it doesn’t exist locally in a free market and you can’t solve it by fiat. As long as Davis is a desireable location, more people will want to come here than can be accomodated. I don’t really care if they are young families, diverse races, children of local families or limousine liberals… You cannot accomodate them all and as soon as you turn anyone away, it drives up prices.
Like the vast majority of homeowners in Davis, I don’t want to see more construction of new developments around Davis. If people cannot affford the prices in Davis, try Woodland or West Sacramento.
There is no such thing as affordable housing solutions- it doesn’t exist locally in a free market and you can’t solve it by fiat. As long as Davis is a desireable location, more people will want to come here than can be accomodated. I don’t really care if they are young families, diverse races, children of local families or limousine liberals… You cannot accomodate them all and as soon as you turn anyone away, it drives up prices.
Like the vast majority of homeowners in Davis, I don’t want to see more construction of new developments around Davis. If people cannot affford the prices in Davis, try Woodland or West Sacramento.
There is no such thing as affordable housing solutions- it doesn’t exist locally in a free market and you can’t solve it by fiat. As long as Davis is a desireable location, more people will want to come here than can be accomodated. I don’t really care if they are young families, diverse races, children of local families or limousine liberals… You cannot accomodate them all and as soon as you turn anyone away, it drives up prices.
Like the vast majority of homeowners in Davis, I don’t want to see more construction of new developments around Davis. If people cannot affford the prices in Davis, try Woodland or West Sacramento.
The only way to have affordable housing is to allow growth! Thats it,
The market will decided what the home sells at.
The only way to have affordable housing is to allow growth! Thats it,
The market will decided what the home sells at.
The only way to have affordable housing is to allow growth! Thats it,
The market will decided what the home sells at.
The only way to have affordable housing is to allow growth! Thats it,
The market will decided what the home sells at.
Mike: that is completely false. You cannot grow your way into affordability. You cannot build enough to reduce demand on regional basis. What you can control is size of the house and parcel.
Mike: that is completely false. You cannot grow your way into affordability. You cannot build enough to reduce demand on regional basis. What you can control is size of the house and parcel.
Mike: that is completely false. You cannot grow your way into affordability. You cannot build enough to reduce demand on regional basis. What you can control is size of the house and parcel.
Mike: that is completely false. You cannot grow your way into affordability. You cannot build enough to reduce demand on regional basis. What you can control is size of the house and parcel.
hmmm… sad thing about having a common name like Mike. The first comment is mine, the following one about supporting growth is not. Anonymous is correct in that you cannot build your way into affordability.
Its like being unhappy about the price of beer in downtown Davis. We rally together and demand that we make beer more affordable for the poor. We force the bar owners to lower their prices- they cleverly respond by reducing the size of the beer glasses when the lower the price. Yes the masses can now have beer, but it is a tiny little glass that is mostly head (you know, one of those new houses in east Davis), we then realize the only way to make it work it to open a great big new bar that focuses on low prices- well, we then get people from all over the region coming out to downtown Davis to do their drinking because its now affordable…
hmmm… sad thing about having a common name like Mike. The first comment is mine, the following one about supporting growth is not. Anonymous is correct in that you cannot build your way into affordability.
Its like being unhappy about the price of beer in downtown Davis. We rally together and demand that we make beer more affordable for the poor. We force the bar owners to lower their prices- they cleverly respond by reducing the size of the beer glasses when the lower the price. Yes the masses can now have beer, but it is a tiny little glass that is mostly head (you know, one of those new houses in east Davis), we then realize the only way to make it work it to open a great big new bar that focuses on low prices- well, we then get people from all over the region coming out to downtown Davis to do their drinking because its now affordable…
hmmm… sad thing about having a common name like Mike. The first comment is mine, the following one about supporting growth is not. Anonymous is correct in that you cannot build your way into affordability.
Its like being unhappy about the price of beer in downtown Davis. We rally together and demand that we make beer more affordable for the poor. We force the bar owners to lower their prices- they cleverly respond by reducing the size of the beer glasses when the lower the price. Yes the masses can now have beer, but it is a tiny little glass that is mostly head (you know, one of those new houses in east Davis), we then realize the only way to make it work it to open a great big new bar that focuses on low prices- well, we then get people from all over the region coming out to downtown Davis to do their drinking because its now affordable…
hmmm… sad thing about having a common name like Mike. The first comment is mine, the following one about supporting growth is not. Anonymous is correct in that you cannot build your way into affordability.
Its like being unhappy about the price of beer in downtown Davis. We rally together and demand that we make beer more affordable for the poor. We force the bar owners to lower their prices- they cleverly respond by reducing the size of the beer glasses when the lower the price. Yes the masses can now have beer, but it is a tiny little glass that is mostly head (you know, one of those new houses in east Davis), we then realize the only way to make it work it to open a great big new bar that focuses on low prices- well, we then get people from all over the region coming out to downtown Davis to do their drinking because its now affordable…
While there are NIMBYs in Davis, I would like to think that more people are for smart growth. California will be growing in population whether we like it or not. And whether you like it or not Davis is going to pick up some of that growth.
I think the question should be, “how smart will our growth be?” Davis once led the way for sustainable communities with Village homes and have not done any growth of real merit since.
If we are one of the most educated cities in America, lets put our heads together and lead they way as an example of smart growth.
While there are NIMBYs in Davis, I would like to think that more people are for smart growth. California will be growing in population whether we like it or not. And whether you like it or not Davis is going to pick up some of that growth.
I think the question should be, “how smart will our growth be?” Davis once led the way for sustainable communities with Village homes and have not done any growth of real merit since.
If we are one of the most educated cities in America, lets put our heads together and lead they way as an example of smart growth.
While there are NIMBYs in Davis, I would like to think that more people are for smart growth. California will be growing in population whether we like it or not. And whether you like it or not Davis is going to pick up some of that growth.
I think the question should be, “how smart will our growth be?” Davis once led the way for sustainable communities with Village homes and have not done any growth of real merit since.
If we are one of the most educated cities in America, lets put our heads together and lead they way as an example of smart growth.
While there are NIMBYs in Davis, I would like to think that more people are for smart growth. California will be growing in population whether we like it or not. And whether you like it or not Davis is going to pick up some of that growth.
I think the question should be, “how smart will our growth be?” Davis once led the way for sustainable communities with Village homes and have not done any growth of real merit since.
If we are one of the most educated cities in America, lets put our heads together and lead they way as an example of smart growth.