However, in many ways, the solutions have not solved the problem. For instance, it is my view that the re-parking prohibitions are an unmitigated disaster. I have not seen it free up parking spots, what it does do is preclude long term parking and people from therefore doing longer term shopping or entertainment stops. That I think is the opposite of what you want to achieve.
Last year we discovered that this policy worked so well that it reduced the amount of parking tickets and therefore cut into the city’s revenue.
This week we learn that the DDBA is in agreement that a solution to the parking in downtown is to meter the parking in the E Street Plaza. By itself, it is not a bad idea, I come from a city that has metered parking, but in order to provide enough of it, they had to build not one but two parking garages on both sides of the downtown and expand one of them.
The metering might provide some revenue, but I fail to see how it is going to deal with the broader problems of parking.
In isolation this problem would be somewhat of an annoyance. However, time is ticking so to speak because at some point there will be built Target out by Mace and Second Street with presumably a large amount of parking. That will take business from our downtown core. As some fear, the combination of parking problems and cheap merchandise at Target may imperil our downtown. And yet there does not seem to be a real sense of urgency among either the council or the downtown on this front.
Adding to the parking problems is the Amtrak Station that is attracting numerous out-of-town parkers who come here from the convenient and easy parking, leaving the residents of Davis high and dry.
We have a parking facility in the downtown, but in my view it is not located in the proper spot. It is on G and Fourth Street. That puts it on the east side of downtown and away from the main traffic flows and off the main track.
The parking situation calls for some more innovative solutions. We need to find a way to get parking into a central and convenient location, where it is easy for the traffic to access and easy for the pedestrians to walk to the rest of downtown.
This should not be an impossible problem. This past week, I had Matt Rexroad on the radio show, he mentioned problems with Woodland’s downtown, namely that it was one long strip. Davis has a good compact downtown that should be walkable if you can find the right location to locate your parking that is.
At the end of the day, parking perhaps even more than Target or even combined with Target might be the biggest threat to the vitality of our downtown and that would be a shame because the downtown has the potential to be a really great community asset.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
It’s interesting that parking downtown is perceived as a “problem” when just the opposite is true. Every successful downtown has a parking challenge. The only way to truly impact it is to encourage more people to walk or bike and/or to create some shuttle or form of public
transit. Don’t you find it interesting for example that in a place that prides itself on being a “bicycle capitol” there are no bike taxis or other forms of commercial bike traffic? You could build parking garages till you’re blue in the face and it won’t make a dent.
You should:
a.) Make people pay for parking as the DDBA has endorsed.
b.) Recognize that the limited parking is, in itself, a sign of success.
Davis has the most successful small town downtown in the entire Central Valley. It’s time to wake up and recognize that…of course it’s primarily due to the presence of 30,000 univ. students but it still works!
And don’t whine about the train riders. Yes, parking is impacted but the notion that they’re all from out of town is way overblown.
Thanks!
It’s interesting that parking downtown is perceived as a “problem” when just the opposite is true. Every successful downtown has a parking challenge. The only way to truly impact it is to encourage more people to walk or bike and/or to create some shuttle or form of public
transit. Don’t you find it interesting for example that in a place that prides itself on being a “bicycle capitol” there are no bike taxis or other forms of commercial bike traffic? You could build parking garages till you’re blue in the face and it won’t make a dent.
You should:
a.) Make people pay for parking as the DDBA has endorsed.
b.) Recognize that the limited parking is, in itself, a sign of success.
Davis has the most successful small town downtown in the entire Central Valley. It’s time to wake up and recognize that…of course it’s primarily due to the presence of 30,000 univ. students but it still works!
And don’t whine about the train riders. Yes, parking is impacted but the notion that they’re all from out of town is way overblown.
Thanks!
It’s interesting that parking downtown is perceived as a “problem” when just the opposite is true. Every successful downtown has a parking challenge. The only way to truly impact it is to encourage more people to walk or bike and/or to create some shuttle or form of public
transit. Don’t you find it interesting for example that in a place that prides itself on being a “bicycle capitol” there are no bike taxis or other forms of commercial bike traffic? You could build parking garages till you’re blue in the face and it won’t make a dent.
You should:
a.) Make people pay for parking as the DDBA has endorsed.
b.) Recognize that the limited parking is, in itself, a sign of success.
Davis has the most successful small town downtown in the entire Central Valley. It’s time to wake up and recognize that…of course it’s primarily due to the presence of 30,000 univ. students but it still works!
And don’t whine about the train riders. Yes, parking is impacted but the notion that they’re all from out of town is way overblown.
Thanks!
It’s interesting that parking downtown is perceived as a “problem” when just the opposite is true. Every successful downtown has a parking challenge. The only way to truly impact it is to encourage more people to walk or bike and/or to create some shuttle or form of public
transit. Don’t you find it interesting for example that in a place that prides itself on being a “bicycle capitol” there are no bike taxis or other forms of commercial bike traffic? You could build parking garages till you’re blue in the face and it won’t make a dent.
You should:
a.) Make people pay for parking as the DDBA has endorsed.
b.) Recognize that the limited parking is, in itself, a sign of success.
Davis has the most successful small town downtown in the entire Central Valley. It’s time to wake up and recognize that…of course it’s primarily due to the presence of 30,000 univ. students but it still works!
And don’t whine about the train riders. Yes, parking is impacted but the notion that they’re all from out of town is way overblown.
Thanks!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
l agree!
And l think the ‘experiment’ which will spread to all downown may make it worse in that Council’s plan is to allow unlimited metered parking…so you can have less turnover. l used to work downtown, with an X permit, but many of my fellow officemates would repark multiple times…they will be glad to pay the $1/hr…..
How effective have the red light cameras been, anyone know in terms of revenue, paying for themselves.
AND PLEASE no scrolling sign in S Davis. PLEASE don’t allow Don Saylor to railroad this in the name of our schools!
I either time my trips to be short, or just bike. Usually bike. No charge or time limit for bike parking.
I either time my trips to be short, or just bike. Usually bike. No charge or time limit for bike parking.
I either time my trips to be short, or just bike. Usually bike. No charge or time limit for bike parking.
I either time my trips to be short, or just bike. Usually bike. No charge or time limit for bike parking.
Very good commentary on a very big issue. I have always felt that the greatest failure of past City Councils was allowing a ridiculous number of houses to be built having the developers pay nothing toward traffic mitigation downtown. Parking structures are one good solution. Unlimited metered parking all over downtown would be another. An Amtrak parking structure on Olive would be a very good solution as well.
Someday, when we want to take the national headlines with an amazing downtown project, we will excavate our downtown streets and place the cars and parking underground, and turn the entire downtown into a pedestrian and bike plaza. Our cars will be dry in the winter, cool in the summer and out of the way year-round. Davis’ compact downtown is uniquely suited to this idea and I have made a number of drawings about how to enter this parking region and the tremendous increase in parking you get from parking the cars under the current sidewalks etc. At street-level, you create a lot of room for more restaurants, shops and retail space from public property- revenue that could help pay the long-term costs of the project. Yeah it would be expensive, but what an amazing place it would be…
Very good commentary on a very big issue. I have always felt that the greatest failure of past City Councils was allowing a ridiculous number of houses to be built having the developers pay nothing toward traffic mitigation downtown. Parking structures are one good solution. Unlimited metered parking all over downtown would be another. An Amtrak parking structure on Olive would be a very good solution as well.
Someday, when we want to take the national headlines with an amazing downtown project, we will excavate our downtown streets and place the cars and parking underground, and turn the entire downtown into a pedestrian and bike plaza. Our cars will be dry in the winter, cool in the summer and out of the way year-round. Davis’ compact downtown is uniquely suited to this idea and I have made a number of drawings about how to enter this parking region and the tremendous increase in parking you get from parking the cars under the current sidewalks etc. At street-level, you create a lot of room for more restaurants, shops and retail space from public property- revenue that could help pay the long-term costs of the project. Yeah it would be expensive, but what an amazing place it would be…
Very good commentary on a very big issue. I have always felt that the greatest failure of past City Councils was allowing a ridiculous number of houses to be built having the developers pay nothing toward traffic mitigation downtown. Parking structures are one good solution. Unlimited metered parking all over downtown would be another. An Amtrak parking structure on Olive would be a very good solution as well.
Someday, when we want to take the national headlines with an amazing downtown project, we will excavate our downtown streets and place the cars and parking underground, and turn the entire downtown into a pedestrian and bike plaza. Our cars will be dry in the winter, cool in the summer and out of the way year-round. Davis’ compact downtown is uniquely suited to this idea and I have made a number of drawings about how to enter this parking region and the tremendous increase in parking you get from parking the cars under the current sidewalks etc. At street-level, you create a lot of room for more restaurants, shops and retail space from public property- revenue that could help pay the long-term costs of the project. Yeah it would be expensive, but what an amazing place it would be…
Very good commentary on a very big issue. I have always felt that the greatest failure of past City Councils was allowing a ridiculous number of houses to be built having the developers pay nothing toward traffic mitigation downtown. Parking structures are one good solution. Unlimited metered parking all over downtown would be another. An Amtrak parking structure on Olive would be a very good solution as well.
Someday, when we want to take the national headlines with an amazing downtown project, we will excavate our downtown streets and place the cars and parking underground, and turn the entire downtown into a pedestrian and bike plaza. Our cars will be dry in the winter, cool in the summer and out of the way year-round. Davis’ compact downtown is uniquely suited to this idea and I have made a number of drawings about how to enter this parking region and the tremendous increase in parking you get from parking the cars under the current sidewalks etc. At street-level, you create a lot of room for more restaurants, shops and retail space from public property- revenue that could help pay the long-term costs of the project. Yeah it would be expensive, but what an amazing place it would be…
The DDBA has been moving toward better solutions of downtown parking since I was director there 1997-2007.
During my tenure, DDBA re-established the parking committee, as it previously had been a committee of the Davis Chamber, but they had not worked on it since a parking study was done in the mid-90’s.
Going back, there were many small solutions that helped alleviate the problems of parking – shortening time limits on the west side of downtown near UCD, to setting aside more spaces for employees at the garage at 1st and F, more parking enforcement officers, software on the parking vehicles to monitor time limits, etc.
And DPD, you’re right, Davis is not unique in its parking problems; as a paid consultant for many downtowns, it still is the #1 problem of all downtowns across the United States- it shows up in every survey I’ve ever seen.
San Luis Obispo, where DPD hails from, has metered parking near the retail stores, and a paid parking garage. And it works very well. The DDBA Parking Committee visited SLO to talk with their Public Works Department several years ago.
Another good example is Pasadena. Meters near the retail center; free parking garage for customers a few blocks away.
Downtown Davis’ parking “problem” is very complex- some students who only have one class on a given day (and don’t want to pay the UCD parking fees) will park on the west side of downtown and walk/bike to their classes, taking up downtown parking spaces.
Some employees, who either don’t want to pay the $96 annual X permit fee or their employer won’t pay it, play the two-hour shuffle, moving their cars every two hours to avoid a parking ticket. The X permit fee is less than the cost of three parking tickets, however, due to the limited amount of X permit spaces, it sometimes only serves as a “hunting” license for X spaces, especially if you’re an employee who starts work after 10 a.m.
Long-term parking at 4th and G garage is limited to three hours free; otherwise it’s $3 for a day, or $40 a month for a permit. Some folks feel it is too far away from the center of downtown, and won’t go there. It still has many empty spaces in it daily.
The train-rider problem is very minor, however, Davis’ train lot was built with federal and state funds, and must be used for train ridership- but the lot is open to anyone after 5 p.m. The fact that it is free to train riders (and the Sacramento Amtrak lot is not) does attract riders from other cities.
Palo Alto (another road-trip for the DDBA parking committee) has zones-near the center of downtown you can park free for two hours, but then you must move your car to an outer zone – so most downtown employees there get a permit – as I recall, it was over $350 per year, making Davis’ employee permit fee a bargain. This model became the start of the re-parking ordinance – Monterey and Petaluma (both successful downtowns) have similar ordinances in place as well.
And if you’re an employee for a business in downtown Sacramento, expect to pay more than $100 a month for a parking space in a garage.
I’m surprised that the proposed Third/Fourth/E/F parking garage, wrapped in retail, was not mentioned in this article. This is something that has been on the books for a while, however, it will be a very complex project, having to use redevelopment funds to acquire property in that block that does not belong to the city and relocating businesses within that block.
Davis does have a walkable, successful downtown. Anonymous states that every successful downtown has parking “problems” – and that is so true. My own “test” of a successful downtown (besides the obvious people on the streets and in the stores and restaurants) is 1) hard to find parking spaces in the center of the downtown and 2) overflowing garbage cans!
People will put their quarters in the meters when there is something worthwhile to go to – restaurants and stores. I had many customers say to me that $3 for three hours is worth not having to worry about getting a ticket.
Funds from the parking meters will/should go to downtown pedestrian amenities – benches, landscaping, lighting, etc., and a program encouraging alternative transportation is essential as well.
UCLA professor Dr. Donald Shoup wrote a great book on this very subject, ”The High Cost of Free parking.” It is a must-read for anyone involved in downtown management.
The DDBA has been moving toward better solutions of downtown parking since I was director there 1997-2007.
During my tenure, DDBA re-established the parking committee, as it previously had been a committee of the Davis Chamber, but they had not worked on it since a parking study was done in the mid-90’s.
Going back, there were many small solutions that helped alleviate the problems of parking – shortening time limits on the west side of downtown near UCD, to setting aside more spaces for employees at the garage at 1st and F, more parking enforcement officers, software on the parking vehicles to monitor time limits, etc.
And DPD, you’re right, Davis is not unique in its parking problems; as a paid consultant for many downtowns, it still is the #1 problem of all downtowns across the United States- it shows up in every survey I’ve ever seen.
San Luis Obispo, where DPD hails from, has metered parking near the retail stores, and a paid parking garage. And it works very well. The DDBA Parking Committee visited SLO to talk with their Public Works Department several years ago.
Another good example is Pasadena. Meters near the retail center; free parking garage for customers a few blocks away.
Downtown Davis’ parking “problem” is very complex- some students who only have one class on a given day (and don’t want to pay the UCD parking fees) will park on the west side of downtown and walk/bike to their classes, taking up downtown parking spaces.
Some employees, who either don’t want to pay the $96 annual X permit fee or their employer won’t pay it, play the two-hour shuffle, moving their cars every two hours to avoid a parking ticket. The X permit fee is less than the cost of three parking tickets, however, due to the limited amount of X permit spaces, it sometimes only serves as a “hunting” license for X spaces, especially if you’re an employee who starts work after 10 a.m.
Long-term parking at 4th and G garage is limited to three hours free; otherwise it’s $3 for a day, or $40 a month for a permit. Some folks feel it is too far away from the center of downtown, and won’t go there. It still has many empty spaces in it daily.
The train-rider problem is very minor, however, Davis’ train lot was built with federal and state funds, and must be used for train ridership- but the lot is open to anyone after 5 p.m. The fact that it is free to train riders (and the Sacramento Amtrak lot is not) does attract riders from other cities.
Palo Alto (another road-trip for the DDBA parking committee) has zones-near the center of downtown you can park free for two hours, but then you must move your car to an outer zone – so most downtown employees there get a permit – as I recall, it was over $350 per year, making Davis’ employee permit fee a bargain. This model became the start of the re-parking ordinance – Monterey and Petaluma (both successful downtowns) have similar ordinances in place as well.
And if you’re an employee for a business in downtown Sacramento, expect to pay more than $100 a month for a parking space in a garage.
I’m surprised that the proposed Third/Fourth/E/F parking garage, wrapped in retail, was not mentioned in this article. This is something that has been on the books for a while, however, it will be a very complex project, having to use redevelopment funds to acquire property in that block that does not belong to the city and relocating businesses within that block.
Davis does have a walkable, successful downtown. Anonymous states that every successful downtown has parking “problems” – and that is so true. My own “test” of a successful downtown (besides the obvious people on the streets and in the stores and restaurants) is 1) hard to find parking spaces in the center of the downtown and 2) overflowing garbage cans!
People will put their quarters in the meters when there is something worthwhile to go to – restaurants and stores. I had many customers say to me that $3 for three hours is worth not having to worry about getting a ticket.
Funds from the parking meters will/should go to downtown pedestrian amenities – benches, landscaping, lighting, etc., and a program encouraging alternative transportation is essential as well.
UCLA professor Dr. Donald Shoup wrote a great book on this very subject, ”The High Cost of Free parking.” It is a must-read for anyone involved in downtown management.
The DDBA has been moving toward better solutions of downtown parking since I was director there 1997-2007.
During my tenure, DDBA re-established the parking committee, as it previously had been a committee of the Davis Chamber, but they had not worked on it since a parking study was done in the mid-90’s.
Going back, there were many small solutions that helped alleviate the problems of parking – shortening time limits on the west side of downtown near UCD, to setting aside more spaces for employees at the garage at 1st and F, more parking enforcement officers, software on the parking vehicles to monitor time limits, etc.
And DPD, you’re right, Davis is not unique in its parking problems; as a paid consultant for many downtowns, it still is the #1 problem of all downtowns across the United States- it shows up in every survey I’ve ever seen.
San Luis Obispo, where DPD hails from, has metered parking near the retail stores, and a paid parking garage. And it works very well. The DDBA Parking Committee visited SLO to talk with their Public Works Department several years ago.
Another good example is Pasadena. Meters near the retail center; free parking garage for customers a few blocks away.
Downtown Davis’ parking “problem” is very complex- some students who only have one class on a given day (and don’t want to pay the UCD parking fees) will park on the west side of downtown and walk/bike to their classes, taking up downtown parking spaces.
Some employees, who either don’t want to pay the $96 annual X permit fee or their employer won’t pay it, play the two-hour shuffle, moving their cars every two hours to avoid a parking ticket. The X permit fee is less than the cost of three parking tickets, however, due to the limited amount of X permit spaces, it sometimes only serves as a “hunting” license for X spaces, especially if you’re an employee who starts work after 10 a.m.
Long-term parking at 4th and G garage is limited to three hours free; otherwise it’s $3 for a day, or $40 a month for a permit. Some folks feel it is too far away from the center of downtown, and won’t go there. It still has many empty spaces in it daily.
The train-rider problem is very minor, however, Davis’ train lot was built with federal and state funds, and must be used for train ridership- but the lot is open to anyone after 5 p.m. The fact that it is free to train riders (and the Sacramento Amtrak lot is not) does attract riders from other cities.
Palo Alto (another road-trip for the DDBA parking committee) has zones-near the center of downtown you can park free for two hours, but then you must move your car to an outer zone – so most downtown employees there get a permit – as I recall, it was over $350 per year, making Davis’ employee permit fee a bargain. This model became the start of the re-parking ordinance – Monterey and Petaluma (both successful downtowns) have similar ordinances in place as well.
And if you’re an employee for a business in downtown Sacramento, expect to pay more than $100 a month for a parking space in a garage.
I’m surprised that the proposed Third/Fourth/E/F parking garage, wrapped in retail, was not mentioned in this article. This is something that has been on the books for a while, however, it will be a very complex project, having to use redevelopment funds to acquire property in that block that does not belong to the city and relocating businesses within that block.
Davis does have a walkable, successful downtown. Anonymous states that every successful downtown has parking “problems” – and that is so true. My own “test” of a successful downtown (besides the obvious people on the streets and in the stores and restaurants) is 1) hard to find parking spaces in the center of the downtown and 2) overflowing garbage cans!
People will put their quarters in the meters when there is something worthwhile to go to – restaurants and stores. I had many customers say to me that $3 for three hours is worth not having to worry about getting a ticket.
Funds from the parking meters will/should go to downtown pedestrian amenities – benches, landscaping, lighting, etc., and a program encouraging alternative transportation is essential as well.
UCLA professor Dr. Donald Shoup wrote a great book on this very subject, ”The High Cost of Free parking.” It is a must-read for anyone involved in downtown management.
The DDBA has been moving toward better solutions of downtown parking since I was director there 1997-2007.
During my tenure, DDBA re-established the parking committee, as it previously had been a committee of the Davis Chamber, but they had not worked on it since a parking study was done in the mid-90’s.
Going back, there were many small solutions that helped alleviate the problems of parking – shortening time limits on the west side of downtown near UCD, to setting aside more spaces for employees at the garage at 1st and F, more parking enforcement officers, software on the parking vehicles to monitor time limits, etc.
And DPD, you’re right, Davis is not unique in its parking problems; as a paid consultant for many downtowns, it still is the #1 problem of all downtowns across the United States- it shows up in every survey I’ve ever seen.
San Luis Obispo, where DPD hails from, has metered parking near the retail stores, and a paid parking garage. And it works very well. The DDBA Parking Committee visited SLO to talk with their Public Works Department several years ago.
Another good example is Pasadena. Meters near the retail center; free parking garage for customers a few blocks away.
Downtown Davis’ parking “problem” is very complex- some students who only have one class on a given day (and don’t want to pay the UCD parking fees) will park on the west side of downtown and walk/bike to their classes, taking up downtown parking spaces.
Some employees, who either don’t want to pay the $96 annual X permit fee or their employer won’t pay it, play the two-hour shuffle, moving their cars every two hours to avoid a parking ticket. The X permit fee is less than the cost of three parking tickets, however, due to the limited amount of X permit spaces, it sometimes only serves as a “hunting” license for X spaces, especially if you’re an employee who starts work after 10 a.m.
Long-term parking at 4th and G garage is limited to three hours free; otherwise it’s $3 for a day, or $40 a month for a permit. Some folks feel it is too far away from the center of downtown, and won’t go there. It still has many empty spaces in it daily.
The train-rider problem is very minor, however, Davis’ train lot was built with federal and state funds, and must be used for train ridership- but the lot is open to anyone after 5 p.m. The fact that it is free to train riders (and the Sacramento Amtrak lot is not) does attract riders from other cities.
Palo Alto (another road-trip for the DDBA parking committee) has zones-near the center of downtown you can park free for two hours, but then you must move your car to an outer zone – so most downtown employees there get a permit – as I recall, it was over $350 per year, making Davis’ employee permit fee a bargain. This model became the start of the re-parking ordinance – Monterey and Petaluma (both successful downtowns) have similar ordinances in place as well.
And if you’re an employee for a business in downtown Sacramento, expect to pay more than $100 a month for a parking space in a garage.
I’m surprised that the proposed Third/Fourth/E/F parking garage, wrapped in retail, was not mentioned in this article. This is something that has been on the books for a while, however, it will be a very complex project, having to use redevelopment funds to acquire property in that block that does not belong to the city and relocating businesses within that block.
Davis does have a walkable, successful downtown. Anonymous states that every successful downtown has parking “problems” – and that is so true. My own “test” of a successful downtown (besides the obvious people on the streets and in the stores and restaurants) is 1) hard to find parking spaces in the center of the downtown and 2) overflowing garbage cans!
People will put their quarters in the meters when there is something worthwhile to go to – restaurants and stores. I had many customers say to me that $3 for three hours is worth not having to worry about getting a ticket.
Funds from the parking meters will/should go to downtown pedestrian amenities – benches, landscaping, lighting, etc., and a program encouraging alternative transportation is essential as well.
UCLA professor Dr. Donald Shoup wrote a great book on this very subject, ”The High Cost of Free parking.” It is a must-read for anyone involved in downtown management.
I agree with Mike. Great comments. Laura, I remember why I miss you so much! Good perspective. Often we suffer from a “It’s a problem only in Davis!” perspective that shuts us off from learning from other cities. Great insights Laura and Mike. Appreciate your contributions!
I agree with Mike. Great comments. Laura, I remember why I miss you so much! Good perspective. Often we suffer from a “It’s a problem only in Davis!” perspective that shuts us off from learning from other cities. Great insights Laura and Mike. Appreciate your contributions!
I agree with Mike. Great comments. Laura, I remember why I miss you so much! Good perspective. Often we suffer from a “It’s a problem only in Davis!” perspective that shuts us off from learning from other cities. Great insights Laura and Mike. Appreciate your contributions!
I agree with Mike. Great comments. Laura, I remember why I miss you so much! Good perspective. Often we suffer from a “It’s a problem only in Davis!” perspective that shuts us off from learning from other cities. Great insights Laura and Mike. Appreciate your contributions!
DPD,
Parking is a problem. You were sure quick to blame the City Council. But then you most of the time you shoot from the hip without real solid facts. I’m glad you will not be serving on the City Council in a vicarious way.
DPD,
Parking is a problem. You were sure quick to blame the City Council. But then you most of the time you shoot from the hip without real solid facts. I’m glad you will not be serving on the City Council in a vicarious way.
DPD,
Parking is a problem. You were sure quick to blame the City Council. But then you most of the time you shoot from the hip without real solid facts. I’m glad you will not be serving on the City Council in a vicarious way.
DPD,
Parking is a problem. You were sure quick to blame the City Council. But then you most of the time you shoot from the hip without real solid facts. I’m glad you will not be serving on the City Council in a vicarious way.
What has the council done?
What has the council done?
What has the council done?
What has the council done?
“what has the city council done?”
the answer is simple- it created a dramatic increase in demand(adding thousands of new residents to Davis) while doing little to increase the supply of parking places. Both issues fall squarely into the lap of the city council- they decided to approve more housing, and they are responsible for parking downtown.
“what has the city council done?”
the answer is simple- it created a dramatic increase in demand(adding thousands of new residents to Davis) while doing little to increase the supply of parking places. Both issues fall squarely into the lap of the city council- they decided to approve more housing, and they are responsible for parking downtown.
“what has the city council done?”
the answer is simple- it created a dramatic increase in demand(adding thousands of new residents to Davis) while doing little to increase the supply of parking places. Both issues fall squarely into the lap of the city council- they decided to approve more housing, and they are responsible for parking downtown.
“what has the city council done?”
the answer is simple- it created a dramatic increase in demand(adding thousands of new residents to Davis) while doing little to increase the supply of parking places. Both issues fall squarely into the lap of the city council- they decided to approve more housing, and they are responsible for parking downtown.
How about if we get rid of the special permits for parking around the city. Only in Davis do nimby home owners get to be nimfy, not in my front yard.
In the recent past parking near my house was restricted to residents only. The result was people started parking in front of my house. We have resisted asking for the same perk. But how many on the city council live in downtown and have restricted parking in front of their homes instead of time period parking. I know the mayor does. Why not give stickers to residents while allowing others to use these spaces for a certain amount of time if they are available?
The other 900 pound gorilla is the university where parking is too expensive for students who can’t afford to live in Davis and can’t affort to pay to park. The city should build some giant parking structures on the edge of town that are competitive with the university rates and provide a shuttle service into town, to the university and the train station.
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
How about if we get rid of the special permits for parking around the city. Only in Davis do nimby home owners get to be nimfy, not in my front yard.
In the recent past parking near my house was restricted to residents only. The result was people started parking in front of my house. We have resisted asking for the same perk. But how many on the city council live in downtown and have restricted parking in front of their homes instead of time period parking. I know the mayor does. Why not give stickers to residents while allowing others to use these spaces for a certain amount of time if they are available?
The other 900 pound gorilla is the university where parking is too expensive for students who can’t afford to live in Davis and can’t affort to pay to park. The city should build some giant parking structures on the edge of town that are competitive with the university rates and provide a shuttle service into town, to the university and the train station.
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
How about if we get rid of the special permits for parking around the city. Only in Davis do nimby home owners get to be nimfy, not in my front yard.
In the recent past parking near my house was restricted to residents only. The result was people started parking in front of my house. We have resisted asking for the same perk. But how many on the city council live in downtown and have restricted parking in front of their homes instead of time period parking. I know the mayor does. Why not give stickers to residents while allowing others to use these spaces for a certain amount of time if they are available?
The other 900 pound gorilla is the university where parking is too expensive for students who can’t afford to live in Davis and can’t affort to pay to park. The city should build some giant parking structures on the edge of town that are competitive with the university rates and provide a shuttle service into town, to the university and the train station.
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
How about if we get rid of the special permits for parking around the city. Only in Davis do nimby home owners get to be nimfy, not in my front yard.
In the recent past parking near my house was restricted to residents only. The result was people started parking in front of my house. We have resisted asking for the same perk. But how many on the city council live in downtown and have restricted parking in front of their homes instead of time period parking. I know the mayor does. Why not give stickers to residents while allowing others to use these spaces for a certain amount of time if they are available?
The other 900 pound gorilla is the university where parking is too expensive for students who can’t afford to live in Davis and can’t affort to pay to park. The city should build some giant parking structures on the edge of town that are competitive with the university rates and provide a shuttle service into town, to the university and the train station.
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
Good information Laura!!! Thank you for sharing. It is good to know that we do have folks working on the parking problem, by taking a look at what has worked in other communities and what has not.
I do think businesses downtown are missing out if there is a two hour parking limit. If you want to eat out and then do a little shopping, it will require more like three hours. Seniors especially will need the extra time, since they don’t always walk as fast as the rest of the general population.
I have absolutely no problem with paid meters. It is an idea whose time is long past overdue. I think the rates suggested are quite reasonable. I think paid meters all over town would be perfectly fine. Building another parking garage is way too expensive, and probably not necessary. While underground parking would be lovely, again it is just too costly right now.
In the future though, it is imperative that developers make sure to pay for their share of making sure there are enough downtown parking spaces. What I want to know is were the developers of the four story buildings recently built forced to take into account parking? If so, how? In other words, any developer that builds downtown must contribute the appropriate number of parking spaces to go along with the facility being built. For instance, the new orange and gray building on Russell has condos on the top floor (that is my understanding). Did it come with parking spaces? If so, how many? Enough to cover all tenants and patrons? If not, did the developer pay mitigation fees that would make sure parking spaces would be built to accommodate its tenants/patrons? If the idea is for the business owner to live on the premises, that business owner will still own a car most likely, and a space needs to have been allocated and paid for.
Shouldn’t Davis residents get top priority in using the Davis Amtrak Station? If so, then out of town guests should have to pay a hefty fee, while Davis residents could pay a reduced fee or park for free. Is this concept workable?
Another possibility to control who parks where is to issue parking registration stickers. Students have one kind, residents of Davis have another, seniors in Davis have an additional placard, employees have another. Thus students can be required to park peripherally, since they are young and able-bodied, already having parking options on campus. Seniors could be allowed extra time/reduced rates on certain days in prime downtown spots by using a special placard. Other residents can park downtown in metered spaces that allow for unlimited time. Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR SALARY.
There is supposed to be a downtown shuttle that will run between UCD campus and the downtown from 11am to 2pm, if I am not mistaken. That should assist in cutting down on student parking. Also it wouldn’t hurt to run a continuous shuttle from Target to the downtown and back, if the DDBA is smart. Encourage cooperation to make Target a vital part of the DOWNTOWN shopping route. It will encourage shoppers who visit Target to visit the downtown area, especially for breakfast or lunch.
Last but not least, the Senior Citizens Commission and Triad Task Force (action arm I created as part of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services) is working on transit mobility training for seniors, to encourage them to use public transit. The idea is to get groups of 4 to 5 seniors to take shopping or lunch trips into downtown, as a social activity, using Unitrans rather than driving a car. We are hoping to obtain the lion’s share of funding required as grant money, and pay for the rest with a fairly modest amount with city community development block grant funding or the like. What an innovative and exciting way to cut down on parking, don’t you think???!!!
Good information Laura!!! Thank you for sharing. It is good to know that we do have folks working on the parking problem, by taking a look at what has worked in other communities and what has not.
I do think businesses downtown are missing out if there is a two hour parking limit. If you want to eat out and then do a little shopping, it will require more like three hours. Seniors especially will need the extra time, since they don’t always walk as fast as the rest of the general population.
I have absolutely no problem with paid meters. It is an idea whose time is long past overdue. I think the rates suggested are quite reasonable. I think paid meters all over town would be perfectly fine. Building another parking garage is way too expensive, and probably not necessary. While underground parking would be lovely, again it is just too costly right now.
In the future though, it is imperative that developers make sure to pay for their share of making sure there are enough downtown parking spaces. What I want to know is were the developers of the four story buildings recently built forced to take into account parking? If so, how? In other words, any developer that builds downtown must contribute the appropriate number of parking spaces to go along with the facility being built. For instance, the new orange and gray building on Russell has condos on the top floor (that is my understanding). Did it come with parking spaces? If so, how many? Enough to cover all tenants and patrons? If not, did the developer pay mitigation fees that would make sure parking spaces would be built to accommodate its tenants/patrons? If the idea is for the business owner to live on the premises, that business owner will still own a car most likely, and a space needs to have been allocated and paid for.
Shouldn’t Davis residents get top priority in using the Davis Amtrak Station? If so, then out of town guests should have to pay a hefty fee, while Davis residents could pay a reduced fee or park for free. Is this concept workable?
Another possibility to control who parks where is to issue parking registration stickers. Students have one kind, residents of Davis have another, seniors in Davis have an additional placard, employees have another. Thus students can be required to park peripherally, since they are young and able-bodied, already having parking options on campus. Seniors could be allowed extra time/reduced rates on certain days in prime downtown spots by using a special placard. Other residents can park downtown in metered spaces that allow for unlimited time. Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR SALARY.
There is supposed to be a downtown shuttle that will run between UCD campus and the downtown from 11am to 2pm, if I am not mistaken. That should assist in cutting down on student parking. Also it wouldn’t hurt to run a continuous shuttle from Target to the downtown and back, if the DDBA is smart. Encourage cooperation to make Target a vital part of the DOWNTOWN shopping route. It will encourage shoppers who visit Target to visit the downtown area, especially for breakfast or lunch.
Last but not least, the Senior Citizens Commission and Triad Task Force (action arm I created as part of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services) is working on transit mobility training for seniors, to encourage them to use public transit. The idea is to get groups of 4 to 5 seniors to take shopping or lunch trips into downtown, as a social activity, using Unitrans rather than driving a car. We are hoping to obtain the lion’s share of funding required as grant money, and pay for the rest with a fairly modest amount with city community development block grant funding or the like. What an innovative and exciting way to cut down on parking, don’t you think???!!!
Good information Laura!!! Thank you for sharing. It is good to know that we do have folks working on the parking problem, by taking a look at what has worked in other communities and what has not.
I do think businesses downtown are missing out if there is a two hour parking limit. If you want to eat out and then do a little shopping, it will require more like three hours. Seniors especially will need the extra time, since they don’t always walk as fast as the rest of the general population.
I have absolutely no problem with paid meters. It is an idea whose time is long past overdue. I think the rates suggested are quite reasonable. I think paid meters all over town would be perfectly fine. Building another parking garage is way too expensive, and probably not necessary. While underground parking would be lovely, again it is just too costly right now.
In the future though, it is imperative that developers make sure to pay for their share of making sure there are enough downtown parking spaces. What I want to know is were the developers of the four story buildings recently built forced to take into account parking? If so, how? In other words, any developer that builds downtown must contribute the appropriate number of parking spaces to go along with the facility being built. For instance, the new orange and gray building on Russell has condos on the top floor (that is my understanding). Did it come with parking spaces? If so, how many? Enough to cover all tenants and patrons? If not, did the developer pay mitigation fees that would make sure parking spaces would be built to accommodate its tenants/patrons? If the idea is for the business owner to live on the premises, that business owner will still own a car most likely, and a space needs to have been allocated and paid for.
Shouldn’t Davis residents get top priority in using the Davis Amtrak Station? If so, then out of town guests should have to pay a hefty fee, while Davis residents could pay a reduced fee or park for free. Is this concept workable?
Another possibility to control who parks where is to issue parking registration stickers. Students have one kind, residents of Davis have another, seniors in Davis have an additional placard, employees have another. Thus students can be required to park peripherally, since they are young and able-bodied, already having parking options on campus. Seniors could be allowed extra time/reduced rates on certain days in prime downtown spots by using a special placard. Other residents can park downtown in metered spaces that allow for unlimited time. Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR SALARY.
There is supposed to be a downtown shuttle that will run between UCD campus and the downtown from 11am to 2pm, if I am not mistaken. That should assist in cutting down on student parking. Also it wouldn’t hurt to run a continuous shuttle from Target to the downtown and back, if the DDBA is smart. Encourage cooperation to make Target a vital part of the DOWNTOWN shopping route. It will encourage shoppers who visit Target to visit the downtown area, especially for breakfast or lunch.
Last but not least, the Senior Citizens Commission and Triad Task Force (action arm I created as part of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services) is working on transit mobility training for seniors, to encourage them to use public transit. The idea is to get groups of 4 to 5 seniors to take shopping or lunch trips into downtown, as a social activity, using Unitrans rather than driving a car. We are hoping to obtain the lion’s share of funding required as grant money, and pay for the rest with a fairly modest amount with city community development block grant funding or the like. What an innovative and exciting way to cut down on parking, don’t you think???!!!
Good information Laura!!! Thank you for sharing. It is good to know that we do have folks working on the parking problem, by taking a look at what has worked in other communities and what has not.
I do think businesses downtown are missing out if there is a two hour parking limit. If you want to eat out and then do a little shopping, it will require more like three hours. Seniors especially will need the extra time, since they don’t always walk as fast as the rest of the general population.
I have absolutely no problem with paid meters. It is an idea whose time is long past overdue. I think the rates suggested are quite reasonable. I think paid meters all over town would be perfectly fine. Building another parking garage is way too expensive, and probably not necessary. While underground parking would be lovely, again it is just too costly right now.
In the future though, it is imperative that developers make sure to pay for their share of making sure there are enough downtown parking spaces. What I want to know is were the developers of the four story buildings recently built forced to take into account parking? If so, how? In other words, any developer that builds downtown must contribute the appropriate number of parking spaces to go along with the facility being built. For instance, the new orange and gray building on Russell has condos on the top floor (that is my understanding). Did it come with parking spaces? If so, how many? Enough to cover all tenants and patrons? If not, did the developer pay mitigation fees that would make sure parking spaces would be built to accommodate its tenants/patrons? If the idea is for the business owner to live on the premises, that business owner will still own a car most likely, and a space needs to have been allocated and paid for.
Shouldn’t Davis residents get top priority in using the Davis Amtrak Station? If so, then out of town guests should have to pay a hefty fee, while Davis residents could pay a reduced fee or park for free. Is this concept workable?
Another possibility to control who parks where is to issue parking registration stickers. Students have one kind, residents of Davis have another, seniors in Davis have an additional placard, employees have another. Thus students can be required to park peripherally, since they are young and able-bodied, already having parking options on campus. Seniors could be allowed extra time/reduced rates on certain days in prime downtown spots by using a special placard. Other residents can park downtown in metered spaces that allow for unlimited time. Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR SALARY.
There is supposed to be a downtown shuttle that will run between UCD campus and the downtown from 11am to 2pm, if I am not mistaken. That should assist in cutting down on student parking. Also it wouldn’t hurt to run a continuous shuttle from Target to the downtown and back, if the DDBA is smart. Encourage cooperation to make Target a vital part of the DOWNTOWN shopping route. It will encourage shoppers who visit Target to visit the downtown area, especially for breakfast or lunch.
Last but not least, the Senior Citizens Commission and Triad Task Force (action arm I created as part of the Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services) is working on transit mobility training for seniors, to encourage them to use public transit. The idea is to get groups of 4 to 5 seniors to take shopping or lunch trips into downtown, as a social activity, using Unitrans rather than driving a car. We are hoping to obtain the lion’s share of funding required as grant money, and pay for the rest with a fairly modest amount with city community development block grant funding or the like. What an innovative and exciting way to cut down on parking, don’t you think???!!!
“Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR PAYCHECK”
I meant to add to the above – unless they agree to take the bus!!!
“Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR PAYCHECK”
I meant to add to the above – unless they agree to take the bus!!!
“Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR PAYCHECK”
I meant to add to the above – unless they agree to take the bus!!!
“Then set up inexpensive employee parking of $100 per year for employees at the parking garage or on the periphery. Make sure ALL DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES PAY FOR A PARKING SPOT AS A WORK REQUIREMENT – IT COMES OUT OF THEIR PAYCHECK”
I meant to add to the above – unless they agree to take the bus!!!
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
Downtown is done, it, I agree, has been “mallified.” Whatever authentic was there has been shined up, yuppified and rubbed out. The Paint Chip, gone; La Casa del Cielo, gone; Wok and Roll, gone; Cafe Roma, gone; The Cantina, gone; Bogey’s Books, gone; etc., etc.:
The attitude downtown now is “get with the program” or get out. Any wonder why the Paint Chip got sold, and the longtime personable, neighborhood-connected owner is moving to the hill country up around Mt. Shasta? Ain’t no neighbors to connect with in this wannabe Sactown suburb no more nohow. Buncha self-centered geeks have taken over, is why.
So to make the scene complete: put a roof over the Downtown Mall and let the Asian-Invasion-bourgeousie types park up there.
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
Downtown is done, it, I agree, has been “mallified.” Whatever authentic was there has been shined up, yuppified and rubbed out. The Paint Chip, gone; La Casa del Cielo, gone; Wok and Roll, gone; Cafe Roma, gone; The Cantina, gone; Bogey’s Books, gone; etc., etc.:
The attitude downtown now is “get with the program” or get out. Any wonder why the Paint Chip got sold, and the longtime personable, neighborhood-connected owner is moving to the hill country up around Mt. Shasta? Ain’t no neighbors to connect with in this wannabe Sactown suburb no more nohow. Buncha self-centered geeks have taken over, is why.
So to make the scene complete: put a roof over the Downtown Mall and let the Asian-Invasion-bourgeousie types park up there.
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
Downtown is done, it, I agree, has been “mallified.” Whatever authentic was there has been shined up, yuppified and rubbed out. The Paint Chip, gone; La Casa del Cielo, gone; Wok and Roll, gone; Cafe Roma, gone; The Cantina, gone; Bogey’s Books, gone; etc., etc.:
The attitude downtown now is “get with the program” or get out. Any wonder why the Paint Chip got sold, and the longtime personable, neighborhood-connected owner is moving to the hill country up around Mt. Shasta? Ain’t no neighbors to connect with in this wannabe Sactown suburb no more nohow. Buncha self-centered geeks have taken over, is why.
So to make the scene complete: put a roof over the Downtown Mall and let the Asian-Invasion-bourgeousie types park up there.
“The Downtown?” Hey, let’s put a roof over the area between Fourth and First, E and G Streets and call it “The Downtown Mall.”
Downtown is done, it, I agree, has been “mallified.” Whatever authentic was there has been shined up, yuppified and rubbed out. The Paint Chip, gone; La Casa del Cielo, gone; Wok and Roll, gone; Cafe Roma, gone; The Cantina, gone; Bogey’s Books, gone; etc., etc.:
The attitude downtown now is “get with the program” or get out. Any wonder why the Paint Chip got sold, and the longtime personable, neighborhood-connected owner is moving to the hill country up around Mt. Shasta? Ain’t no neighbors to connect with in this wannabe Sactown suburb no more nohow. Buncha self-centered geeks have taken over, is why.
So to make the scene complete: put a roof over the Downtown Mall and let the Asian-Invasion-bourgeousie types park up there.
Black Bart said…
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.
What is it about that equation that you don’t understand?
Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them? I will be glad to do so if you need to see them again.
Black Bart said…
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.
What is it about that equation that you don’t understand?
Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them? I will be glad to do so if you need to see them again.
Black Bart said…
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.
What is it about that equation that you don’t understand?
Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them? I will be glad to do so if you need to see them again.
Black Bart said…
As for the nimbys who want to blame housing you have it exactly wrong, by not building enough housing many people are living in Woodland or West Sac and driving into Davis adding to congestion. I ran into a friend in Woodland the other day who told me he saved $200,000 by moving to Woodland after living in Davis for 20 years. He is the kind of person any community would want to keep. He told me he drives into Davis almost everyday. If there was an adequate supply of housing in Davis so that he could afford to live here he would probably bike into town.
Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.
What is it about that equation that you don’t understand?
Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them? I will be glad to do so if you need to see them again.
Matt said:
“Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.”
In large part Matt is right although he equivocates on the issue by naming amenities that UC Davis (including major stretches of bikeway) provides and not the City of Davis. It is true that many of these features contribute greatly to the quality of life in Davis which is a primary marketing factor.
Matt then goes one step too far by saying: “Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them?”
Matt’s a smart and informed guy but this is an amazingly absurd conclusion – not borne out by any earthly theory of economics.
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
Matt said:
“Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.”
In large part Matt is right although he equivocates on the issue by naming amenities that UC Davis (including major stretches of bikeway) provides and not the City of Davis. It is true that many of these features contribute greatly to the quality of life in Davis which is a primary marketing factor.
Matt then goes one step too far by saying: “Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them?”
Matt’s a smart and informed guy but this is an amazingly absurd conclusion – not borne out by any earthly theory of economics.
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
Matt said:
“Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.”
In large part Matt is right although he equivocates on the issue by naming amenities that UC Davis (including major stretches of bikeway) provides and not the City of Davis. It is true that many of these features contribute greatly to the quality of life in Davis which is a primary marketing factor.
Matt then goes one step too far by saying: “Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them?”
Matt’s a smart and informed guy but this is an amazingly absurd conclusion – not borne out by any earthly theory of economics.
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
Matt said:
“Bart, how many times will you hear the numerical facts (that your argument above is wrong), before you stop making it? The $200,000 differential between Davis home prices and Woodland home prices is because of the amenities that Davis offers that Woodland doesn’t.
1) The Mondavi Center
2) The University
3) The best school district in the whole Sacramento area
4) The extensive Greenbelt system that promotes safety for school children, bicyclists and walkers/joggers alike
5) Lower levels of crime than nearby communities
Need I go on? These amenities, and the community stability that they engender, produce a significant “willingness to pay” on the part of home buyers.”
In large part Matt is right although he equivocates on the issue by naming amenities that UC Davis (including major stretches of bikeway) provides and not the City of Davis. It is true that many of these features contribute greatly to the quality of life in Davis which is a primary marketing factor.
Matt then goes one step too far by saying: “Do I need to repost the historical home sale statistics to show you that building more houses has raised home prices in Davis, not reduced them?”
Matt’s a smart and informed guy but this is an amazingly absurd conclusion – not borne out by any earthly theory of economics.
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
Matt —
I appreciate all the work you’ve done to provide statistical analysis on housing prices in Davis. You have clearly gleaned a lot of data from various sources,and once needs data to understand this situation. However, I, and some others, have posted rebuttals that suggest there are real deficiencies in the stats that you have provided, and those deficiencies can very easily lead to false conclusions. As I have posted before, your conclusion flies in the face of supply and demand, one of the most universally accepted economic theorems. Until you can prove otherwise, the stats that you provided will not convince me, and I suspect, many others, that somehow Davis exists in a vacuum with respect to supply and demand.
Matt —
I appreciate all the work you’ve done to provide statistical analysis on housing prices in Davis. You have clearly gleaned a lot of data from various sources,and once needs data to understand this situation. However, I, and some others, have posted rebuttals that suggest there are real deficiencies in the stats that you have provided, and those deficiencies can very easily lead to false conclusions. As I have posted before, your conclusion flies in the face of supply and demand, one of the most universally accepted economic theorems. Until you can prove otherwise, the stats that you provided will not convince me, and I suspect, many others, that somehow Davis exists in a vacuum with respect to supply and demand.
Matt —
I appreciate all the work you’ve done to provide statistical analysis on housing prices in Davis. You have clearly gleaned a lot of data from various sources,and once needs data to understand this situation. However, I, and some others, have posted rebuttals that suggest there are real deficiencies in the stats that you have provided, and those deficiencies can very easily lead to false conclusions. As I have posted before, your conclusion flies in the face of supply and demand, one of the most universally accepted economic theorems. Until you can prove otherwise, the stats that you provided will not convince me, and I suspect, many others, that somehow Davis exists in a vacuum with respect to supply and demand.
Matt —
I appreciate all the work you’ve done to provide statistical analysis on housing prices in Davis. You have clearly gleaned a lot of data from various sources,and once needs data to understand this situation. However, I, and some others, have posted rebuttals that suggest there are real deficiencies in the stats that you have provided, and those deficiencies can very easily lead to false conclusions. As I have posted before, your conclusion flies in the face of supply and demand, one of the most universally accepted economic theorems. Until you can prove otherwise, the stats that you provided will not convince me, and I suspect, many others, that somehow Davis exists in a vacuum with respect to supply and demand.
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
Diogenes,
I have responded before and respond again here. The laws of supply and demand do indeed apply.
Specifically, “in economics, elasticity is the ratio of the proportional change in one variable with respect to proportional change in another variable. Price elasticity, for example, is the sensitivity of quantity demanded or supplied to changes in prices.
“One typical application of the concept of elasticity is to consider what happens to consumer demand for a good (for example, apples) when prices increase. As the price of a good rises, consumers will usually demand a lower quantity of that good, perhaps by consuming less, substituting other goods, and so on. The greater the extent to which demand falls as price rises, the greater the price elasticity of demand. Conversely, as the price of a good falls, consumers will usually demand a greater quantity of that good, by consuming more, dropping substitutes, and so forth.
“The concept of elasticity has an extraordinarily wide range of applications in economics. In particular, an understanding of elasticity is useful to understand the dynamic response of supply and demand in a market, in order to achieve an intended result or avoid unintended results.“.
In Davis we have a two-part demand for housing. The price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the combination of 1) current Davis residents, 2) current Davis employees not living in Davis, and 3) people who are considering a job in Davis is relatively elastic. That is because thevast preponderance of Davis residents and Davis employees have incomes that are relatively stable, both in the short-term and in the long-term. That is the nature of government employment. Of course there are exceptions, but they are that … exceptions.
On the other hand the price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the “external” demand for Davis housing is very price inelastic. The reason is simple, a substantial portion of the people who want to come to Davis for the amenities I’ve described earlier, are willing to pay for that opportunity/luxury.
Time’s yours.
NOTE: the quoted text above on elasticity comes from Wikipedia.
Diogenes,
I have responded before and respond again here. The laws of supply and demand do indeed apply.
Specifically, “in economics, elasticity is the ratio of the proportional change in one variable with respect to proportional change in another variable. Price elasticity, for example, is the sensitivity of quantity demanded or supplied to changes in prices.
“One typical application of the concept of elasticity is to consider what happens to consumer demand for a good (for example, apples) when prices increase. As the price of a good rises, consumers will usually demand a lower quantity of that good, perhaps by consuming less, substituting other goods, and so on. The greater the extent to which demand falls as price rises, the greater the price elasticity of demand. Conversely, as the price of a good falls, consumers will usually demand a greater quantity of that good, by consuming more, dropping substitutes, and so forth.
“The concept of elasticity has an extraordinarily wide range of applications in economics. In particular, an understanding of elasticity is useful to understand the dynamic response of supply and demand in a market, in order to achieve an intended result or avoid unintended results.“.
In Davis we have a two-part demand for housing. The price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the combination of 1) current Davis residents, 2) current Davis employees not living in Davis, and 3) people who are considering a job in Davis is relatively elastic. That is because thevast preponderance of Davis residents and Davis employees have incomes that are relatively stable, both in the short-term and in the long-term. That is the nature of government employment. Of course there are exceptions, but they are that … exceptions.
On the other hand the price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the “external” demand for Davis housing is very price inelastic. The reason is simple, a substantial portion of the people who want to come to Davis for the amenities I’ve described earlier, are willing to pay for that opportunity/luxury.
Time’s yours.
NOTE: the quoted text above on elasticity comes from Wikipedia.
Diogenes,
I have responded before and respond again here. The laws of supply and demand do indeed apply.
Specifically, “in economics, elasticity is the ratio of the proportional change in one variable with respect to proportional change in another variable. Price elasticity, for example, is the sensitivity of quantity demanded or supplied to changes in prices.
“One typical application of the concept of elasticity is to consider what happens to consumer demand for a good (for example, apples) when prices increase. As the price of a good rises, consumers will usually demand a lower quantity of that good, perhaps by consuming less, substituting other goods, and so on. The greater the extent to which demand falls as price rises, the greater the price elasticity of demand. Conversely, as the price of a good falls, consumers will usually demand a greater quantity of that good, by consuming more, dropping substitutes, and so forth.
“The concept of elasticity has an extraordinarily wide range of applications in economics. In particular, an understanding of elasticity is useful to understand the dynamic response of supply and demand in a market, in order to achieve an intended result or avoid unintended results.“.
In Davis we have a two-part demand for housing. The price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the combination of 1) current Davis residents, 2) current Davis employees not living in Davis, and 3) people who are considering a job in Davis is relatively elastic. That is because thevast preponderance of Davis residents and Davis employees have incomes that are relatively stable, both in the short-term and in the long-term. That is the nature of government employment. Of course there are exceptions, but they are that … exceptions.
On the other hand the price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the “external” demand for Davis housing is very price inelastic. The reason is simple, a substantial portion of the people who want to come to Davis for the amenities I’ve described earlier, are willing to pay for that opportunity/luxury.
Time’s yours.
NOTE: the quoted text above on elasticity comes from Wikipedia.
Diogenes,
I have responded before and respond again here. The laws of supply and demand do indeed apply.
Specifically, “in economics, elasticity is the ratio of the proportional change in one variable with respect to proportional change in another variable. Price elasticity, for example, is the sensitivity of quantity demanded or supplied to changes in prices.
“One typical application of the concept of elasticity is to consider what happens to consumer demand for a good (for example, apples) when prices increase. As the price of a good rises, consumers will usually demand a lower quantity of that good, perhaps by consuming less, substituting other goods, and so on. The greater the extent to which demand falls as price rises, the greater the price elasticity of demand. Conversely, as the price of a good falls, consumers will usually demand a greater quantity of that good, by consuming more, dropping substitutes, and so forth.
“The concept of elasticity has an extraordinarily wide range of applications in economics. In particular, an understanding of elasticity is useful to understand the dynamic response of supply and demand in a market, in order to achieve an intended result or avoid unintended results.“.
In Davis we have a two-part demand for housing. The price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the combination of 1) current Davis residents, 2) current Davis employees not living in Davis, and 3) people who are considering a job in Davis is relatively elastic. That is because thevast preponderance of Davis residents and Davis employees have incomes that are relatively stable, both in the short-term and in the long-term. That is the nature of government employment. Of course there are exceptions, but they are that … exceptions.
On the other hand the price elasticity of the housing demand generated by the “external” demand for Davis housing is very price inelastic. The reason is simple, a substantial portion of the people who want to come to Davis for the amenities I’ve described earlier, are willing to pay for that opportunity/luxury.
Time’s yours.
NOTE: the quoted text above on elasticity comes from Wikipedia.
Anonymous said…
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
Excellent point anonymous. Take it to the next level by answering this question, “Where is the high demand coming from?”
Anonymous said…
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
Excellent point anonymous. Take it to the next level by answering this question, “Where is the high demand coming from?”
Anonymous said…
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
Excellent point anonymous. Take it to the next level by answering this question, “Where is the high demand coming from?”
Anonymous said…
The problem I see with the supply-demand argue, is not that supply and demand do not apply, it is that we do not know what the demand is. If demand is sufficiently high, it may not matter if we increase the supply by 1000 units a year. It may be like a pin prick in a blimp as opposed to in a balloon.
Excellent point anonymous. Take it to the next level by answering this question, “Where is the high demand coming from?”
Anonymous said…
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.
Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.
Anonymous said…
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.
Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.
Anonymous said…
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.
Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.
Anonymous said…
Of course there’s also the issue of Davis being the least diverse city in the entire region that also skews home prices, an unfortunate dynamic that you will never see mentioned on these pages. A wealthy white enclave will have higher home prices simply because of the limited market it serves. Policies that restrict supply act as a barrier, whether deliberate or accidental, to other races and persons of lesser means, resulting in greater homogeneity but less diversity and the characteristics or perceived characteristics that go with it (higher crime, etc.).
anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.
Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.
Interesting discussion on housing. I generally agree with Matt Williams, that the cost of Davis homes will remain higher than the surrounding area because of its amenities. However, I do believe the price of homes will go down somewhat if a large housing development is under construction. This happened during the Mace Ranch buildout. Homes in other parts of Davis sat on the market, while homes in Mace Ranch sold like hotcakes, because they were priced about $20,000 less than their counterparts in other areas of the city. This is because Mace Ranch homes were built right next to a toxic waste dump (a whole other issue, which DPD might want to look into, now that leakage has been reported that is halting construction of Target).
I also think you will find this phenomenon, of higher priced houses in college towns, is typical across the country. Especially if the University is located in a more rural setting as opposed to an inner city university. Folks like to live near colleges, especially public universities, because it usually brings with it nice perks at reduced prices, e.g. sports events and facilities, road improvements, good schools, entertainment.
Interesting discussion on housing. I generally agree with Matt Williams, that the cost of Davis homes will remain higher than the surrounding area because of its amenities. However, I do believe the price of homes will go down somewhat if a large housing development is under construction. This happened during the Mace Ranch buildout. Homes in other parts of Davis sat on the market, while homes in Mace Ranch sold like hotcakes, because they were priced about $20,000 less than their counterparts in other areas of the city. This is because Mace Ranch homes were built right next to a toxic waste dump (a whole other issue, which DPD might want to look into, now that leakage has been reported that is halting construction of Target).
I also think you will find this phenomenon, of higher priced houses in college towns, is typical across the country. Especially if the University is located in a more rural setting as opposed to an inner city university. Folks like to live near colleges, especially public universities, because it usually brings with it nice perks at reduced prices, e.g. sports events and facilities, road improvements, good schools, entertainment.
Interesting discussion on housing. I generally agree with Matt Williams, that the cost of Davis homes will remain higher than the surrounding area because of its amenities. However, I do believe the price of homes will go down somewhat if a large housing development is under construction. This happened during the Mace Ranch buildout. Homes in other parts of Davis sat on the market, while homes in Mace Ranch sold like hotcakes, because they were priced about $20,000 less than their counterparts in other areas of the city. This is because Mace Ranch homes were built right next to a toxic waste dump (a whole other issue, which DPD might want to look into, now that leakage has been reported that is halting construction of Target).
I also think you will find this phenomenon, of higher priced houses in college towns, is typical across the country. Especially if the University is located in a more rural setting as opposed to an inner city university. Folks like to live near colleges, especially public universities, because it usually brings with it nice perks at reduced prices, e.g. sports events and facilities, road improvements, good schools, entertainment.
Interesting discussion on housing. I generally agree with Matt Williams, that the cost of Davis homes will remain higher than the surrounding area because of its amenities. However, I do believe the price of homes will go down somewhat if a large housing development is under construction. This happened during the Mace Ranch buildout. Homes in other parts of Davis sat on the market, while homes in Mace Ranch sold like hotcakes, because they were priced about $20,000 less than their counterparts in other areas of the city. This is because Mace Ranch homes were built right next to a toxic waste dump (a whole other issue, which DPD might want to look into, now that leakage has been reported that is halting construction of Target).
I also think you will find this phenomenon, of higher priced houses in college towns, is typical across the country. Especially if the University is located in a more rural setting as opposed to an inner city university. Folks like to live near colleges, especially public universities, because it usually brings with it nice perks at reduced prices, e.g. sports events and facilities, road improvements, good schools, entertainment.
devil’s advocate, although I agree with you that specific houses for sale during the Mace Ranch buildout did have longer sale periods, the picture when you look at all of Davis don’t support your point.
Average Sale Price Per Square Foot
Time Period____Average_% Change
1st Quarter 1998 $121 N/A
1st Quarter 1999 $133 9.9%
1st Quarter 2000 $150 12.8%
1st Quarter 2001 $158 5.3%
1st Quarter 2002 $190 20.3%
1st Quarter 2003 $259 36.3%
1st Quarter 2004 $270 4.2%
1st Quarter 2005 $326 20.7%
1st Quarter 2006 $351 7.7%
1st Quarter 2007 $325 -7.4%
1st Quarter 2008 $314 -3.4%
Annual Households Growth
Time
Period_Growth__% Change
1998 999 4.8%
1999 926 4.2%
2000 566 2.5%
2001 206 0.9%
2002 307 1.3%
2003 265 1.1%
2004 135 0.6%
2005 250 1.0%
2006 104 0.4%
2007 44 0.2%
Differential between Price Growth and Supply Growth
1st Quarter 1999 5.1%
1st Quarter 2000 8.5%
1st Quarter 2001 2.8%
1st Quarter 2002 19.4%
1st Quarter 2003 35.0%
1st Quarter 2004 3.1%
1st Quarter 2005 20.2%
1st Quarter 2006 6.6%
1st Quarter 2007 -7.8%
1st Quarter 2008 -3.6%
As I’ve said before the differential between price growth and supply growth is totally inconsistent. That kind of variability can not be explained through fluctuations in “internal” demand, which in Davis is relatively constant. Virtually all of that variability is from “external” demand, which ties back to why the Mace Ranch homes “sold like hotcakes.” They were new, and extremely attractive to “external” buyers, who were less interested in a resale house. In effect there were two seperate market segments, houses that appealed only to “internal” buyers, and houses that appealed to both “internal” and “external” buyers.
devil’s advocate, although I agree with you that specific houses for sale during the Mace Ranch buildout did have longer sale periods, the picture when you look at all of Davis don’t support your point.
Average Sale Price Per Square Foot
Time Period____Average_% Change
1st Quarter 1998 $121 N/A
1st Quarter 1999 $133 9.9%
1st Quarter 2000 $150 12.8%
1st Quarter 2001 $158 5.3%
1st Quarter 2002 $190 20.3%
1st Quarter 2003 $259 36.3%
1st Quarter 2004 $270 4.2%
1st Quarter 2005 $326 20.7%
1st Quarter 2006 $351 7.7%
1st Quarter 2007 $325 -7.4%
1st Quarter 2008 $314 -3.4%
Annual Households Growth
Time
Period_Growth__% Change
1998 999 4.8%
1999 926 4.2%
2000 566 2.5%
2001 206 0.9%
2002 307 1.3%
2003 265 1.1%
2004 135 0.6%
2005 250 1.0%
2006 104 0.4%
2007 44 0.2%
Differential between Price Growth and Supply Growth
1st Quarter 1999 5.1%
1st Quarter 2000 8.5%
1st Quarter 2001 2.8%
1st Quarter 2002 19.4%
1st Quarter 2003 35.0%
1st Quarter 2004 3.1%
1st Quarter 2005 20.2%
1st Quarter 2006 6.6%
1st Quarter 2007 -7.8%
1st Quarter 2008 -3.6%
As I’ve said before the differential between price growth and supply growth is totally inconsistent. That kind of variability can not be explained through fluctuations in “internal” demand, which in Davis is relatively constant. Virtually all of that variability is from “external” demand, which ties back to why the Mace Ranch homes “sold like hotcakes.” They were new, and extremely attractive to “external” buyers, who were less interested in a resale house. In effect there were two seperate market segments, houses that appealed only to “internal” buyers, and houses that appealed to both “internal” and “external” buyers.
devil’s advocate, although I agree with you that specific houses for sale during the Mace Ranch buildout did have longer sale periods, the picture when you look at all of Davis don’t support your point.
Average Sale Price Per Square Foot
Time Period____Average_% Change
1st Quarter 1998 $121 N/A
1st Quarter 1999 $133 9.9%
1st Quarter 2000 $150 12.8%
1st Quarter 2001 $158 5.3%
1st Quarter 2002 $190 20.3%
1st Quarter 2003 $259 36.3%
1st Quarter 2004 $270 4.2%
1st Quarter 2005 $326 20.7%
1st Quarter 2006 $351 7.7%
1st Quarter 2007 $325 -7.4%
1st Quarter 2008 $314 -3.4%
Annual Households Growth
Time
Period_Growth__% Change
1998 999 4.8%
1999 926 4.2%
2000 566 2.5%
2001 206 0.9%
2002 307 1.3%
2003 265 1.1%
2004 135 0.6%
2005 250 1.0%
2006 104 0.4%
2007 44 0.2%
Differential between Price Growth and Supply Growth
1st Quarter 1999 5.1%
1st Quarter 2000 8.5%
1st Quarter 2001 2.8%
1st Quarter 2002 19.4%
1st Quarter 2003 35.0%
1st Quarter 2004 3.1%
1st Quarter 2005 20.2%
1st Quarter 2006 6.6%
1st Quarter 2007 -7.8%
1st Quarter 2008 -3.6%
As I’ve said before the differential between price growth and supply growth is totally inconsistent. That kind of variability can not be explained through fluctuations in “internal” demand, which in Davis is relatively constant. Virtually all of that variability is from “external” demand, which ties back to why the Mace Ranch homes “sold like hotcakes.” They were new, and extremely attractive to “external” buyers, who were less interested in a resale house. In effect there were two seperate market segments, houses that appealed only to “internal” buyers, and houses that appealed to both “internal” and “external” buyers.
devil’s advocate, although I agree with you that specific houses for sale during the Mace Ranch buildout did have longer sale periods, the picture when you look at all of Davis don’t support your point.
Average Sale Price Per Square Foot
Time Period____Average_% Change
1st Quarter 1998 $121 N/A
1st Quarter 1999 $133 9.9%
1st Quarter 2000 $150 12.8%
1st Quarter 2001 $158 5.3%
1st Quarter 2002 $190 20.3%
1st Quarter 2003 $259 36.3%
1st Quarter 2004 $270 4.2%
1st Quarter 2005 $326 20.7%
1st Quarter 2006 $351 7.7%
1st Quarter 2007 $325 -7.4%
1st Quarter 2008 $314 -3.4%
Annual Households Growth
Time
Period_Growth__% Change
1998 999 4.8%
1999 926 4.2%
2000 566 2.5%
2001 206 0.9%
2002 307 1.3%
2003 265 1.1%
2004 135 0.6%
2005 250 1.0%
2006 104 0.4%
2007 44 0.2%
Differential between Price Growth and Supply Growth
1st Quarter 1999 5.1%
1st Quarter 2000 8.5%
1st Quarter 2001 2.8%
1st Quarter 2002 19.4%
1st Quarter 2003 35.0%
1st Quarter 2004 3.1%
1st Quarter 2005 20.2%
1st Quarter 2006 6.6%
1st Quarter 2007 -7.8%
1st Quarter 2008 -3.6%
As I’ve said before the differential between price growth and supply growth is totally inconsistent. That kind of variability can not be explained through fluctuations in “internal” demand, which in Davis is relatively constant. Virtually all of that variability is from “external” demand, which ties back to why the Mace Ranch homes “sold like hotcakes.” They were new, and extremely attractive to “external” buyers, who were less interested in a resale house. In effect there were two seperate market segments, houses that appealed only to “internal” buyers, and houses that appealed to both “internal” and “external” buyers.
My bad! The above post was from me.
My bad! The above post was from me.
My bad! The above post was from me.
My bad! The above post was from me.
Matt has posted these statistics before, and these are the ones that I believe can easily lead to false conclusions. The relationship of housing prices and supply of housing is very complex, and is impacted by many variables. One cannot simply examine two variables and make the conclusions that Matt has repeatedly stated.
There is no need to debate that Davis housing prices have increased, despite increasing supply. That is obvious, butit is also true for entire region for the last few years (until very recently)- that includes Elk Grove, Vacaville, etc where supplies actually increased much faster than here in Davis. There is also no need to debate that Davis is relatively attractive compared to other regional cities, although we may differ in degree.
It seems to me that the appropriate questions are the following -how does the relationship of housing supply and price changes in Davis compare to the surrounding area?
Are Davis housing prices higher or lower than they would have been if no supply had been added? Are they higher or lower than if more supply had been added?
There are many other considerations that affect price, and can offset the impacts of supply. One significant one is that the cost to build a home has increased a lot over the last few years because of the cost of materials and labor. That has an impact on the new and resale market, although the impact it usually and sometime significantly lagged in the resale market.
In conclusion, we can agree that Davis is a relatively attractive place to live, and because of that may experience higher sustained demand than some other cities in the region. However, that does not mean that the level of housing supply in Davis doesn’t impact the price of housing in Davis. In my view, there is no doubt that it does. Matt may feel differently. The statistics that Matt highlights don’t prove either case.
Matt has posted these statistics before, and these are the ones that I believe can easily lead to false conclusions. The relationship of housing prices and supply of housing is very complex, and is impacted by many variables. One cannot simply examine two variables and make the conclusions that Matt has repeatedly stated.
There is no need to debate that Davis housing prices have increased, despite increasing supply. That is obvious, butit is also true for entire region for the last few years (until very recently)- that includes Elk Grove, Vacaville, etc where supplies actually increased much faster than here in Davis. There is also no need to debate that Davis is relatively attractive compared to other regional cities, although we may differ in degree.
It seems to me that the appropriate questions are the following -how does the relationship of housing supply and price changes in Davis compare to the surrounding area?
Are Davis housing prices higher or lower than they would have been if no supply had been added? Are they higher or lower than if more supply had been added?
There are many other considerations that affect price, and can offset the impacts of supply. One significant one is that the cost to build a home has increased a lot over the last few years because of the cost of materials and labor. That has an impact on the new and resale market, although the impact it usually and sometime significantly lagged in the resale market.
In conclusion, we can agree that Davis is a relatively attractive place to live, and because of that may experience higher sustained demand than some other cities in the region. However, that does not mean that the level of housing supply in Davis doesn’t impact the price of housing in Davis. In my view, there is no doubt that it does. Matt may feel differently. The statistics that Matt highlights don’t prove either case.
Matt has posted these statistics before, and these are the ones that I believe can easily lead to false conclusions. The relationship of housing prices and supply of housing is very complex, and is impacted by many variables. One cannot simply examine two variables and make the conclusions that Matt has repeatedly stated.
There is no need to debate that Davis housing prices have increased, despite increasing supply. That is obvious, butit is also true for entire region for the last few years (until very recently)- that includes Elk Grove, Vacaville, etc where supplies actually increased much faster than here in Davis. There is also no need to debate that Davis is relatively attractive compared to other regional cities, although we may differ in degree.
It seems to me that the appropriate questions are the following -how does the relationship of housing supply and price changes in Davis compare to the surrounding area?
Are Davis housing prices higher or lower than they would have been if no supply had been added? Are they higher or lower than if more supply had been added?
There are many other considerations that affect price, and can offset the impacts of supply. One significant one is that the cost to build a home has increased a lot over the last few years because of the cost of materials and labor. That has an impact on the new and resale market, although the impact it usually and sometime significantly lagged in the resale market.
In conclusion, we can agree that Davis is a relatively attractive place to live, and because of that may experience higher sustained demand than some other cities in the region. However, that does not mean that the level of housing supply in Davis doesn’t impact the price of housing in Davis. In my view, there is no doubt that it does. Matt may feel differently. The statistics that Matt highlights don’t prove either case.
Matt has posted these statistics before, and these are the ones that I believe can easily lead to false conclusions. The relationship of housing prices and supply of housing is very complex, and is impacted by many variables. One cannot simply examine two variables and make the conclusions that Matt has repeatedly stated.
There is no need to debate that Davis housing prices have increased, despite increasing supply. That is obvious, butit is also true for entire region for the last few years (until very recently)- that includes Elk Grove, Vacaville, etc where supplies actually increased much faster than here in Davis. There is also no need to debate that Davis is relatively attractive compared to other regional cities, although we may differ in degree.
It seems to me that the appropriate questions are the following -how does the relationship of housing supply and price changes in Davis compare to the surrounding area?
Are Davis housing prices higher or lower than they would have been if no supply had been added? Are they higher or lower than if more supply had been added?
There are many other considerations that affect price, and can offset the impacts of supply. One significant one is that the cost to build a home has increased a lot over the last few years because of the cost of materials and labor. That has an impact on the new and resale market, although the impact it usually and sometime significantly lagged in the resale market.
In conclusion, we can agree that Davis is a relatively attractive place to live, and because of that may experience higher sustained demand than some other cities in the region. However, that does not mean that the level of housing supply in Davis doesn’t impact the price of housing in Davis. In my view, there is no doubt that it does. Matt may feel differently. The statistics that Matt highlights don’t prove either case.
Diogenes, I don’t disagree with anything you have said … especially your final sentence. The discussion we are having is not one that can be proved either way. I’ve offered these statistics as counterpoint to the totally unsupported claims that others (not you) have made here. The claims of price decreases during the Wildhorse/Mace ranch buildouts were simply not true. The numbers show that.
Similarly, we have virtually no idea what the numerical increase in supply amount is that by itself would cause a housing price decrease.
I find the numbers discussion far less interesting than the market segmentation discussions; however, each time the incorrect claims of price declines are made I will share the numbers that refute those incorrect claims. That may be very inelastic of me, but cest la vie.
Diogenes, I don’t disagree with anything you have said … especially your final sentence. The discussion we are having is not one that can be proved either way. I’ve offered these statistics as counterpoint to the totally unsupported claims that others (not you) have made here. The claims of price decreases during the Wildhorse/Mace ranch buildouts were simply not true. The numbers show that.
Similarly, we have virtually no idea what the numerical increase in supply amount is that by itself would cause a housing price decrease.
I find the numbers discussion far less interesting than the market segmentation discussions; however, each time the incorrect claims of price declines are made I will share the numbers that refute those incorrect claims. That may be very inelastic of me, but cest la vie.
Diogenes, I don’t disagree with anything you have said … especially your final sentence. The discussion we are having is not one that can be proved either way. I’ve offered these statistics as counterpoint to the totally unsupported claims that others (not you) have made here. The claims of price decreases during the Wildhorse/Mace ranch buildouts were simply not true. The numbers show that.
Similarly, we have virtually no idea what the numerical increase in supply amount is that by itself would cause a housing price decrease.
I find the numbers discussion far less interesting than the market segmentation discussions; however, each time the incorrect claims of price declines are made I will share the numbers that refute those incorrect claims. That may be very inelastic of me, but cest la vie.
Diogenes, I don’t disagree with anything you have said … especially your final sentence. The discussion we are having is not one that can be proved either way. I’ve offered these statistics as counterpoint to the totally unsupported claims that others (not you) have made here. The claims of price decreases during the Wildhorse/Mace ranch buildouts were simply not true. The numbers show that.
Similarly, we have virtually no idea what the numerical increase in supply amount is that by itself would cause a housing price decrease.
I find the numbers discussion far less interesting than the market segmentation discussions; however, each time the incorrect claims of price declines are made I will share the numbers that refute those incorrect claims. That may be very inelastic of me, but cest la vie.
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to look at year over year median price differentials between Davis and Woodland to see if the home premium for living in Davis increased as a percentage of total cost over time and as more housing stock was added to Woodland and less was added to Davis. This might add some interesting info to this question of demand.
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grew compared to housing supply in Davis. Since the university is the largest employer it might tell us what I already suspect, that job growth has been greater than housing stock growth, leading to an even greater demand for housing in spite of whatever increase in supply was brought on. These are not easy things to calculate especially for people who want to figure out a best growth rate.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until housing prices come down to where enough people can afford to live here who have young families or work at the university or make the median income and can afford the median priced home.
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to look at year over year median price differentials between Davis and Woodland to see if the home premium for living in Davis increased as a percentage of total cost over time and as more housing stock was added to Woodland and less was added to Davis. This might add some interesting info to this question of demand.
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grew compared to housing supply in Davis. Since the university is the largest employer it might tell us what I already suspect, that job growth has been greater than housing stock growth, leading to an even greater demand for housing in spite of whatever increase in supply was brought on. These are not easy things to calculate especially for people who want to figure out a best growth rate.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until housing prices come down to where enough people can afford to live here who have young families or work at the university or make the median income and can afford the median priced home.
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to look at year over year median price differentials between Davis and Woodland to see if the home premium for living in Davis increased as a percentage of total cost over time and as more housing stock was added to Woodland and less was added to Davis. This might add some interesting info to this question of demand.
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grew compared to housing supply in Davis. Since the university is the largest employer it might tell us what I already suspect, that job growth has been greater than housing stock growth, leading to an even greater demand for housing in spite of whatever increase in supply was brought on. These are not easy things to calculate especially for people who want to figure out a best growth rate.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until housing prices come down to where enough people can afford to live here who have young families or work at the university or make the median income and can afford the median priced home.
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to look at year over year median price differentials between Davis and Woodland to see if the home premium for living in Davis increased as a percentage of total cost over time and as more housing stock was added to Woodland and less was added to Davis. This might add some interesting info to this question of demand.
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grew compared to housing supply in Davis. Since the university is the largest employer it might tell us what I already suspect, that job growth has been greater than housing stock growth, leading to an even greater demand for housing in spite of whatever increase in supply was brought on. These are not easy things to calculate especially for people who want to figure out a best growth rate.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until housing prices come down to where enough people can afford to live here who have young families or work at the university or make the median income and can afford the median priced home.
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
grown not grew
oops!
grown not grew
oops!
grown not grew
oops!
grown not grew
oops!
,you guessed it,
I need an editor!
,you guessed it,
I need an editor!
,you guessed it,
I need an editor!
,you guessed it,
I need an editor!
Black Bart said…
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to …
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grown compared to housing supply in Davis.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
Bart, let me address your questions in reverse order. My first answer will be a question, “Do you have children of your own?” Based on your answer, I’ll tailor what I say next to your specific life experience.
My second answer is, “No I don’t find it interesting. People buy and sell houses all the time. Families come and families go. We have a very mobile society. My last home before Davis was Nashville, with Dallas before that, and then Philadelphia, where I was raised. In this world of multi-national corporations, yoiu never know where your career might take you. I also don’t find it interesting because towns grow and evolve. New towns spring up to accomodate new families, and with Zero Population Growth being so widely embraced by intelligent people, there are less children than there used to be. It is part of life.
My third answer is also in the form of a question, “How much do you weigh and how tall are you?” Again, your answer will drive the next step of my response to your point.
Your UC Davis Emplyees growth question is indeed interesting, and I’ll try and track down that info.
Finally, regarding your initial point, I had to call in some “favors” just to get the Davis info. I don’t have any contacts in Woodland, but will post your question on Matt Rexroad’s blog and see if he can get a Woodland source to provide the info.
Black Bart said…
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to …
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grown compared to housing supply in Davis.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
Bart, let me address your questions in reverse order. My first answer will be a question, “Do you have children of your own?” Based on your answer, I’ll tailor what I say next to your specific life experience.
My second answer is, “No I don’t find it interesting. People buy and sell houses all the time. Families come and families go. We have a very mobile society. My last home before Davis was Nashville, with Dallas before that, and then Philadelphia, where I was raised. In this world of multi-national corporations, yoiu never know where your career might take you. I also don’t find it interesting because towns grow and evolve. New towns spring up to accomodate new families, and with Zero Population Growth being so widely embraced by intelligent people, there are less children than there used to be. It is part of life.
My third answer is also in the form of a question, “How much do you weigh and how tall are you?” Again, your answer will drive the next step of my response to your point.
Your UC Davis Emplyees growth question is indeed interesting, and I’ll try and track down that info.
Finally, regarding your initial point, I had to call in some “favors” just to get the Davis info. I don’t have any contacts in Woodland, but will post your question on Matt Rexroad’s blog and see if he can get a Woodland source to provide the info.
Black Bart said…
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to …
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grown compared to housing supply in Davis.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
Bart, let me address your questions in reverse order. My first answer will be a question, “Do you have children of your own?” Based on your answer, I’ll tailor what I say next to your specific life experience.
My second answer is, “No I don’t find it interesting. People buy and sell houses all the time. Families come and families go. We have a very mobile society. My last home before Davis was Nashville, with Dallas before that, and then Philadelphia, where I was raised. In this world of multi-national corporations, yoiu never know where your career might take you. I also don’t find it interesting because towns grow and evolve. New towns spring up to accomodate new families, and with Zero Population Growth being so widely embraced by intelligent people, there are less children than there used to be. It is part of life.
My third answer is also in the form of a question, “How much do you weigh and how tall are you?” Again, your answer will drive the next step of my response to your point.
Your UC Davis Emplyees growth question is indeed interesting, and I’ll try and track down that info.
Finally, regarding your initial point, I had to call in some “favors” just to get the Davis info. I don’t have any contacts in Woodland, but will post your question on Matt Rexroad’s blog and see if he can get a Woodland source to provide the info.
Black Bart said…
One idea that might shed some light beyond Matt’s statistics and my anecdotes is to …
Another variable worth looking at is how has employment at the University grown compared to housing supply in Davis.
For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …
By the way Matt don’t you find it interesting that people keep writing in every few threads about moving with their kids to Woodland whild declining enrollment is hurting our schools? I was at a park in Woodland with the kids recently and the park was full of young families with their kids and I asked myself what is it about Davis that the people there have such animosity toward families with children that they don’t want to build homes that these young families can afford? I was thinking this as I was talking to a woman who was in the park with her kid who works you guessed at UC Davis.
Bart, let me address your questions in reverse order. My first answer will be a question, “Do you have children of your own?” Based on your answer, I’ll tailor what I say next to your specific life experience.
My second answer is, “No I don’t find it interesting. People buy and sell houses all the time. Families come and families go. We have a very mobile society. My last home before Davis was Nashville, with Dallas before that, and then Philadelphia, where I was raised. In this world of multi-national corporations, yoiu never know where your career might take you. I also don’t find it interesting because towns grow and evolve. New towns spring up to accomodate new families, and with Zero Population Growth being so widely embraced by intelligent people, there are less children than there used to be. It is part of life.
My third answer is also in the form of a question, “How much do you weigh and how tall are you?” Again, your answer will drive the next step of my response to your point.
Your UC Davis Emplyees growth question is indeed interesting, and I’ll try and track down that info.
Finally, regarding your initial point, I had to call in some “favors” just to get the Davis info. I don’t have any contacts in Woodland, but will post your question on Matt Rexroad’s blog and see if he can get a Woodland source to provide the info.
Matt, I tried to engage in an honest and sincere discussion but your response seems to have a condescending tone. I will say this, lots of intelligent people have lots of kids and your zero population growth remark is silly and defies the statistics. If you look at world population graphs they will tell you that zpg has not worked in most of the world. Of course this shows up in California where the birth death rate is stable if you don’t count immigration. Problem is Matt, that immigration happens despite what you or Lou Dobbs thinks. If you want to just count numbers like Erlich did before he got smart and divided resources used in a country by its population to get per capita consumption then we can start to talk about impacts. Of course on that score California is near the top in per capita resource consumption and by restricting housing growth you add to it by making all those UC employees drive farther than they would otherwise need to in order to get to work.
What is most revealing however, is your lack of compassion for anyone who doesn’t already have the advantages you do. It reveals that all this nonsense about preserving whatever you so cherish is nothing more than selfishness disguised by some sort of wonkish gobblygook. It seems that your position is really that you want to restrict housing to preserve your own image of what Davis should be and hunker down and keep the rest of the more than 6 billion people in the rest of the world from crashing the gates of Davis. Sadly, your perspective is shared by many of Davis’ homeowners who care about nothing but themselves and their property values. Yeah Matt open the floodgates lets build lots of houses and let those tired, poor huddled masses in to live in a nice community with good schools. As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now “The horror the horror.”
Matt, I tried to engage in an honest and sincere discussion but your response seems to have a condescending tone. I will say this, lots of intelligent people have lots of kids and your zero population growth remark is silly and defies the statistics. If you look at world population graphs they will tell you that zpg has not worked in most of the world. Of course this shows up in California where the birth death rate is stable if you don’t count immigration. Problem is Matt, that immigration happens despite what you or Lou Dobbs thinks. If you want to just count numbers like Erlich did before he got smart and divided resources used in a country by its population to get per capita consumption then we can start to talk about impacts. Of course on that score California is near the top in per capita resource consumption and by restricting housing growth you add to it by making all those UC employees drive farther than they would otherwise need to in order to get to work.
What is most revealing however, is your lack of compassion for anyone who doesn’t already have the advantages you do. It reveals that all this nonsense about preserving whatever you so cherish is nothing more than selfishness disguised by some sort of wonkish gobblygook. It seems that your position is really that you want to restrict housing to preserve your own image of what Davis should be and hunker down and keep the rest of the more than 6 billion people in the rest of the world from crashing the gates of Davis. Sadly, your perspective is shared by many of Davis’ homeowners who care about nothing but themselves and their property values. Yeah Matt open the floodgates lets build lots of houses and let those tired, poor huddled masses in to live in a nice community with good schools. As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now “The horror the horror.”
Matt, I tried to engage in an honest and sincere discussion but your response seems to have a condescending tone. I will say this, lots of intelligent people have lots of kids and your zero population growth remark is silly and defies the statistics. If you look at world population graphs they will tell you that zpg has not worked in most of the world. Of course this shows up in California where the birth death rate is stable if you don’t count immigration. Problem is Matt, that immigration happens despite what you or Lou Dobbs thinks. If you want to just count numbers like Erlich did before he got smart and divided resources used in a country by its population to get per capita consumption then we can start to talk about impacts. Of course on that score California is near the top in per capita resource consumption and by restricting housing growth you add to it by making all those UC employees drive farther than they would otherwise need to in order to get to work.
What is most revealing however, is your lack of compassion for anyone who doesn’t already have the advantages you do. It reveals that all this nonsense about preserving whatever you so cherish is nothing more than selfishness disguised by some sort of wonkish gobblygook. It seems that your position is really that you want to restrict housing to preserve your own image of what Davis should be and hunker down and keep the rest of the more than 6 billion people in the rest of the world from crashing the gates of Davis. Sadly, your perspective is shared by many of Davis’ homeowners who care about nothing but themselves and their property values. Yeah Matt open the floodgates lets build lots of houses and let those tired, poor huddled masses in to live in a nice community with good schools. As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now “The horror the horror.”
Matt, I tried to engage in an honest and sincere discussion but your response seems to have a condescending tone. I will say this, lots of intelligent people have lots of kids and your zero population growth remark is silly and defies the statistics. If you look at world population graphs they will tell you that zpg has not worked in most of the world. Of course this shows up in California where the birth death rate is stable if you don’t count immigration. Problem is Matt, that immigration happens despite what you or Lou Dobbs thinks. If you want to just count numbers like Erlich did before he got smart and divided resources used in a country by its population to get per capita consumption then we can start to talk about impacts. Of course on that score California is near the top in per capita resource consumption and by restricting housing growth you add to it by making all those UC employees drive farther than they would otherwise need to in order to get to work.
What is most revealing however, is your lack of compassion for anyone who doesn’t already have the advantages you do. It reveals that all this nonsense about preserving whatever you so cherish is nothing more than selfishness disguised by some sort of wonkish gobblygook. It seems that your position is really that you want to restrict housing to preserve your own image of what Davis should be and hunker down and keep the rest of the more than 6 billion people in the rest of the world from crashing the gates of Davis. Sadly, your perspective is shared by many of Davis’ homeowners who care about nothing but themselves and their property values. Yeah Matt open the floodgates lets build lots of houses and let those tired, poor huddled masses in to live in a nice community with good schools. As Marlon Brando said in Apocalypse Now “The horror the horror.”
Matt said:
“anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.”
Let me be more precise then. You ameliorate the high percentage of Caucasian households by selectively including the Sacramento area in your figures. Look at Yolo County figures and which community has the highest percentage of Caucasion households? Davis, by far.
Matt also said: “Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.”
You are right! Although even elasticity can be stretched, as it so often is in Davis, to the breaking point.
Cheerio!
Matt said:
“anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.”
Let me be more precise then. You ameliorate the high percentage of Caucasian households by selectively including the Sacramento area in your figures. Look at Yolo County figures and which community has the highest percentage of Caucasion households? Davis, by far.
Matt also said: “Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.”
You are right! Although even elasticity can be stretched, as it so often is in Davis, to the breaking point.
Cheerio!
Matt said:
“anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.”
Let me be more precise then. You ameliorate the high percentage of Caucasian households by selectively including the Sacramento area in your figures. Look at Yolo County figures and which community has the highest percentage of Caucasion households? Davis, by far.
Matt also said: “Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.”
You are right! Although even elasticity can be stretched, as it so often is in Davis, to the breaking point.
Cheerio!
Matt said:
“anonymous, the statistics do not support your conclusion. In bioth the 2000 Census and the 2006 Claritas update, Davis has a lower percentage of “White” households than the Sacramento/Yolo CMSA. 70.8% vs 71.3% in 2000 and 67.0% vs. 67.3% in 2006.”
Let me be more precise then. You ameliorate the high percentage of Caucasian households by selectively including the Sacramento area in your figures. Look at Yolo County figures and which community has the highest percentage of Caucasion households? Davis, by far.
Matt also said: “Regarding your statement about “any earthly theory of economics,” I refer you to my response to Diogenes. The last time I checked on earthly economics theory, elasticity was in the mix.”
You are right! Although even elasticity can be stretched, as it so often is in Davis, to the breaking point.
Cheerio!
Bart, if you felt I was condescending, I apologize. That wasn’t my intent. I was trying to personalize your identification with the thought process, but in the absence of that personalization, let me use hypothetical answers.
Lets say your answer to the first question was, “Yes, I have a 3 yr old, a 10 year old and a 15 year old.” All three of your children have wants and needs. Do you and your spouse always give them what they want? If the 16 year-old walks in the front door withn her boy friend and starts to go up the stairs with him to her bedroom and you and your spouse ask her, “Where are you going?” She answers, “I’m going to my bedroom. I want to lose my virginity in a simultasneous/multiple orgasm frenzy.” What do you do? Wants are not always attainable. I’m still trying to attain lhe second part of her want. Wants are also not always good for you. In the hypothetical example, the daughter’s first want appears to fall into that category.
When it comes to wants, I think Jagge/Richard said it best.
Now, on to my second question. Lets say you answered 5’10” and 200 pounds. Is that a reasonable description? Taking it another step, is it a reasonable metaphorical description of Davis? Your prescription for the body of Davis is, “For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …” So starting at 200 pounds, you add pounds to that 5’10” frame. The growth numbers I provided from 1998 and 1999 tell me that 5% added per year won’t reduce prices, but lets start there. With a 5% gain you weigh 210, then 221, then 232. When do you look in the mirror and say to yourself, “I’m not the same Bart I was at 200 pounds!”? If we move the growth rate up to 10% your gains are to 220, 242 and 266.
Now to torture this metaphor, your digestive tract only has capacity for about 230 pounds, so you have to undergo radical and costly surgery when you reach 230 pounds. Similarly, the cost of food and water goes up to support the weight gain, and the water pipes of your home burst somewhere around 230 to 240 pounds, so you have to spend a substantial part of your paycheck on upgrading your water system.
Do you ever think you would look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, “I know I wanted this, but did I really understand the consequences? And, were there better alternatives?”
Unlike Oprah, who can shed the pounds she gains, once the pounds are put on, they realistically can’t be taken off.
Again, I apologize for my misguided attempt to personalize the thought process. That wasn’t my intent. I hope my image of you as 5’10” and 200 pounds with three kids was flattering.
Bart, if you felt I was condescending, I apologize. That wasn’t my intent. I was trying to personalize your identification with the thought process, but in the absence of that personalization, let me use hypothetical answers.
Lets say your answer to the first question was, “Yes, I have a 3 yr old, a 10 year old and a 15 year old.” All three of your children have wants and needs. Do you and your spouse always give them what they want? If the 16 year-old walks in the front door withn her boy friend and starts to go up the stairs with him to her bedroom and you and your spouse ask her, “Where are you going?” She answers, “I’m going to my bedroom. I want to lose my virginity in a simultasneous/multiple orgasm frenzy.” What do you do? Wants are not always attainable. I’m still trying to attain lhe second part of her want. Wants are also not always good for you. In the hypothetical example, the daughter’s first want appears to fall into that category.
When it comes to wants, I think Jagge/Richard said it best.
Now, on to my second question. Lets say you answered 5’10” and 200 pounds. Is that a reasonable description? Taking it another step, is it a reasonable metaphorical description of Davis? Your prescription for the body of Davis is, “For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …” So starting at 200 pounds, you add pounds to that 5’10” frame. The growth numbers I provided from 1998 and 1999 tell me that 5% added per year won’t reduce prices, but lets start there. With a 5% gain you weigh 210, then 221, then 232. When do you look in the mirror and say to yourself, “I’m not the same Bart I was at 200 pounds!”? If we move the growth rate up to 10% your gains are to 220, 242 and 266.
Now to torture this metaphor, your digestive tract only has capacity for about 230 pounds, so you have to undergo radical and costly surgery when you reach 230 pounds. Similarly, the cost of food and water goes up to support the weight gain, and the water pipes of your home burst somewhere around 230 to 240 pounds, so you have to spend a substantial part of your paycheck on upgrading your water system.
Do you ever think you would look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, “I know I wanted this, but did I really understand the consequences? And, were there better alternatives?”
Unlike Oprah, who can shed the pounds she gains, once the pounds are put on, they realistically can’t be taken off.
Again, I apologize for my misguided attempt to personalize the thought process. That wasn’t my intent. I hope my image of you as 5’10” and 200 pounds with three kids was flattering.
Bart, if you felt I was condescending, I apologize. That wasn’t my intent. I was trying to personalize your identification with the thought process, but in the absence of that personalization, let me use hypothetical answers.
Lets say your answer to the first question was, “Yes, I have a 3 yr old, a 10 year old and a 15 year old.” All three of your children have wants and needs. Do you and your spouse always give them what they want? If the 16 year-old walks in the front door withn her boy friend and starts to go up the stairs with him to her bedroom and you and your spouse ask her, “Where are you going?” She answers, “I’m going to my bedroom. I want to lose my virginity in a simultasneous/multiple orgasm frenzy.” What do you do? Wants are not always attainable. I’m still trying to attain lhe second part of her want. Wants are also not always good for you. In the hypothetical example, the daughter’s first want appears to fall into that category.
When it comes to wants, I think Jagge/Richard said it best.
Now, on to my second question. Lets say you answered 5’10” and 200 pounds. Is that a reasonable description? Taking it another step, is it a reasonable metaphorical description of Davis? Your prescription for the body of Davis is, “For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …” So starting at 200 pounds, you add pounds to that 5’10” frame. The growth numbers I provided from 1998 and 1999 tell me that 5% added per year won’t reduce prices, but lets start there. With a 5% gain you weigh 210, then 221, then 232. When do you look in the mirror and say to yourself, “I’m not the same Bart I was at 200 pounds!”? If we move the growth rate up to 10% your gains are to 220, 242 and 266.
Now to torture this metaphor, your digestive tract only has capacity for about 230 pounds, so you have to undergo radical and costly surgery when you reach 230 pounds. Similarly, the cost of food and water goes up to support the weight gain, and the water pipes of your home burst somewhere around 230 to 240 pounds, so you have to spend a substantial part of your paycheck on upgrading your water system.
Do you ever think you would look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, “I know I wanted this, but did I really understand the consequences? And, were there better alternatives?”
Unlike Oprah, who can shed the pounds she gains, once the pounds are put on, they realistically can’t be taken off.
Again, I apologize for my misguided attempt to personalize the thought process. That wasn’t my intent. I hope my image of you as 5’10” and 200 pounds with three kids was flattering.
Bart, if you felt I was condescending, I apologize. That wasn’t my intent. I was trying to personalize your identification with the thought process, but in the absence of that personalization, let me use hypothetical answers.
Lets say your answer to the first question was, “Yes, I have a 3 yr old, a 10 year old and a 15 year old.” All three of your children have wants and needs. Do you and your spouse always give them what they want? If the 16 year-old walks in the front door withn her boy friend and starts to go up the stairs with him to her bedroom and you and your spouse ask her, “Where are you going?” She answers, “I’m going to my bedroom. I want to lose my virginity in a simultasneous/multiple orgasm frenzy.” What do you do? Wants are not always attainable. I’m still trying to attain lhe second part of her want. Wants are also not always good for you. In the hypothetical example, the daughter’s first want appears to fall into that category.
When it comes to wants, I think Jagge/Richard said it best.
Now, on to my second question. Lets say you answered 5’10” and 200 pounds. Is that a reasonable description? Taking it another step, is it a reasonable metaphorical description of Davis? Your prescription for the body of Davis is, “For me it is pretty easy you just start building and keep building until …” So starting at 200 pounds, you add pounds to that 5’10” frame. The growth numbers I provided from 1998 and 1999 tell me that 5% added per year won’t reduce prices, but lets start there. With a 5% gain you weigh 210, then 221, then 232. When do you look in the mirror and say to yourself, “I’m not the same Bart I was at 200 pounds!”? If we move the growth rate up to 10% your gains are to 220, 242 and 266.
Now to torture this metaphor, your digestive tract only has capacity for about 230 pounds, so you have to undergo radical and costly surgery when you reach 230 pounds. Similarly, the cost of food and water goes up to support the weight gain, and the water pipes of your home burst somewhere around 230 to 240 pounds, so you have to spend a substantial part of your paycheck on upgrading your water system.
Do you ever think you would look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, “I know I wanted this, but did I really understand the consequences? And, were there better alternatives?”
Unlike Oprah, who can shed the pounds she gains, once the pounds are put on, they realistically can’t be taken off.
Again, I apologize for my misguided attempt to personalize the thought process. That wasn’t my intent. I hope my image of you as 5’10” and 200 pounds with three kids was flattering.