The Mayor Sue Greenwald requested that someone analyze the relationship between the number of building permits and housing prices.
The price data come from RAND California through 2002 and since 2002, the data come from Trends in California Real Estate from the CA Realtors Association for July of each year.
The analysis looks at a number of different iterations here–current building permits, lagged building permits, all permits, or only single-family permits. None of these changes impact the overall findings.
The first chart here just shows the raw numbers.
There are some pretty interesting features of the raw numbers. You can see that housing permits peaked in the late 1990s with 1013 new permits in 1998 and 954 permits in 1999. Measure J comes in just after that and you can see the number of new permits really fall off after that point. You can also see the price of homes increases by a large margin after 1994. But as you can see, the price of homes in Sacramento increases as well over the same period of time. The last column is what is called the Davis premium–basically the ratio of housing prices in Davis divided by the housing prices in Sacramento.
Now that’s the key variable right there, because that is used as an indicator for the regional housing prices.
As you can see in this graph, the two median sales prices of homes in Davis and Sacramento County track almost perfectly. Davis is higher throughout the period, but the increase in home prices is matched by the increase of home prices in Sacramento County. In fact, the correlation coefficient for the two is .99. The correlation coefficient for the non-statistics person is basically a measure of how interdependent two variables are to each other. The value indicates how much of a change in one variable is explained by a change in another. .99 means that 99% percent of the change in the Davis median sales price is explained by the change in the Sacramento County Median Sales price. That means it is almost a perfect relationship between the two. Frankly in my background in the social sciences, you are often happy if you can explain 30 or 40 percent of the relationship.
The next graph looks at the relationship between building permits and housing prices, once we control for the housing prices in other areas in the region. To do this, we use the Davis premium and plot it against the number of building permits. We use the lagged variable to approximate the time it takes for a home with an approved permit to actually hit the market. But as I said earlier, it does not matter if you use the lagged variable or unlagged variable.
Let’s go back through this graph again. The Davis Premium is the median cost of housing in Davis divided by the median cost of housing in Sacramento County. The higher ratio means that Davis home prices are growing faster than Sacramento County home prices. The lower ration means that the Sacramento County home prices are growing faster than Davis home prices. Throughout most of the period the premium is between 1.4 and 1.6. That means that Davis home prices are 140% to 160% higher than Sacramento home prices. However, when we plot those ratios against the number of building permits we see that there is no relationship between the building permits and the relative price of housing in Davis. Even with two outliers, you have pretty much a flat ratio between the two.
Analysis and Implications
The argument on this blog has been that Davis is subject to the market forces of supply and demand just like any other community. That is correct, however, as some have contended the problem with such a simple view is that it does not take into account the much larger regional market. What we see in these data is that housing prices have gone up about the same rate in the fast growing market of Sacramento County as they have in the relatively slow growing market of Davis.
There is a differential between the cost of housing in Davis, but it is created largely by its desirability rather than its rate of growth.
It is important to note that these data do not resolve the issue of whether and how much Davis should grow. What it does suggest is that we cannot expect that more houses and more residential growth are going to result in a reduced cost of homes. Therefore, we should not tailor our growth policies in terms of number of units around the issue of affordability and the concern that middle class people are being priced out of Davis. We likely cannot change that by building more units unless we build so many units that we begin to reduce our quality of life.
If we built thousands of new homes, then we could possible begin to cut into the differential in housing prices between Davis and the surrounding communities. But how much would it take? And such an endeavor would likely result in a whole new set of problems. It is not as though much faster growing communities have fewer problems than we do in Davis. Nor is it true that they have better school systems than we do in Davis.
These data do have enormous implications for our land use policies however. They tell us that we are likely not going to gain affordability through growth. That means that if we are concerned about declining enrollment, we need to find ways to build the type of homes that young families want to live in. The natural starting point would be the university. The city of Davis clearly needs to work with the university in partnership to supply housing for young faculty members and staff–people who are likely to have children of school age. What we face in Davis is not unique to other college towns, we simply have to find ways to provide that kind of housing–not through faster growth, but through innovative approaches, that maintain the desirability of this town while providing real options for people who work at the university.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Well put-together and insightful. Thank you! The most obvious conclusion is the same as the one that the University has drawn. It cannot expect market forces to solve its problems about having lower-priced housing to attract key professors to Davis.
Well put-together and insightful. Thank you! The most obvious conclusion is the same as the one that the University has drawn. It cannot expect market forces to solve its problems about having lower-priced housing to attract key professors to Davis.
Well put-together and insightful. Thank you! The most obvious conclusion is the same as the one that the University has drawn. It cannot expect market forces to solve its problems about having lower-priced housing to attract key professors to Davis.
Well put-together and insightful. Thank you! The most obvious conclusion is the same as the one that the University has drawn. It cannot expect market forces to solve its problems about having lower-priced housing to attract key professors to Davis.
Thanks for the very accessible, mostly jargon-free analysis. You might be a little more careful about phrasing the explanation of inter-dependence. In my first read I thought you were saying that Davis prices are a function of Sacramento prices. This is not what you wrote, but it took me two reads to clarify your point.
It would be even better to look to earlier decades – at least as long as UCD has existed in its contemporary form. The analysis shown only looks at one cycle. I’m especially curious about the price relationship during periods of market decline.
thnak again.
Thanks for the very accessible, mostly jargon-free analysis. You might be a little more careful about phrasing the explanation of inter-dependence. In my first read I thought you were saying that Davis prices are a function of Sacramento prices. This is not what you wrote, but it took me two reads to clarify your point.
It would be even better to look to earlier decades – at least as long as UCD has existed in its contemporary form. The analysis shown only looks at one cycle. I’m especially curious about the price relationship during periods of market decline.
thnak again.
Thanks for the very accessible, mostly jargon-free analysis. You might be a little more careful about phrasing the explanation of inter-dependence. In my first read I thought you were saying that Davis prices are a function of Sacramento prices. This is not what you wrote, but it took me two reads to clarify your point.
It would be even better to look to earlier decades – at least as long as UCD has existed in its contemporary form. The analysis shown only looks at one cycle. I’m especially curious about the price relationship during periods of market decline.
thnak again.
Thanks for the very accessible, mostly jargon-free analysis. You might be a little more careful about phrasing the explanation of inter-dependence. In my first read I thought you were saying that Davis prices are a function of Sacramento prices. This is not what you wrote, but it took me two reads to clarify your point.
It would be even better to look to earlier decades – at least as long as UCD has existed in its contemporary form. The analysis shown only looks at one cycle. I’m especially curious about the price relationship during periods of market decline.
thnak again.
and I knew the sky was blue. just sometimes covered by clouds
–hopefully this study helps in discussions about growth—
Thanks sue!
and I knew the sky was blue. just sometimes covered by clouds
–hopefully this study helps in discussions about growth—
Thanks sue!
and I knew the sky was blue. just sometimes covered by clouds
–hopefully this study helps in discussions about growth—
Thanks sue!
and I knew the sky was blue. just sometimes covered by clouds
–hopefully this study helps in discussions about growth—
Thanks sue!
Excellent argument overall.
Here are a few things to think about from another perspective.
1. Davis home building operates in the extremes where it is so below the demand that the amount of new housing cannot affect or mitigate prices. More homes would have to be built.
2. Home prices rarely go down anywhere except after the market tops out or in the event of natural or manmade disaster (e.g., like the tornado that hit Oklahoma today or yesterday). However, changing the supply does affect price. This happened in Davis during the development of Mace Ranch, where homes in Mace Ranch during the late 1990s might have been $100K less than homes downtown. Prices may not go down, but their annual appreciation decreases. Upward pressures force homeowners to sell under certain thresholds (e.g., when the $200K and $300K levels were broken in the early 2000s). Sue’s argument glosses over these factors.
3. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison with the Bay Area housing growth because that housing price phenomenon also drove Davis home prices higher.
Excellent argument overall.
Here are a few things to think about from another perspective.
1. Davis home building operates in the extremes where it is so below the demand that the amount of new housing cannot affect or mitigate prices. More homes would have to be built.
2. Home prices rarely go down anywhere except after the market tops out or in the event of natural or manmade disaster (e.g., like the tornado that hit Oklahoma today or yesterday). However, changing the supply does affect price. This happened in Davis during the development of Mace Ranch, where homes in Mace Ranch during the late 1990s might have been $100K less than homes downtown. Prices may not go down, but their annual appreciation decreases. Upward pressures force homeowners to sell under certain thresholds (e.g., when the $200K and $300K levels were broken in the early 2000s). Sue’s argument glosses over these factors.
3. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison with the Bay Area housing growth because that housing price phenomenon also drove Davis home prices higher.
Excellent argument overall.
Here are a few things to think about from another perspective.
1. Davis home building operates in the extremes where it is so below the demand that the amount of new housing cannot affect or mitigate prices. More homes would have to be built.
2. Home prices rarely go down anywhere except after the market tops out or in the event of natural or manmade disaster (e.g., like the tornado that hit Oklahoma today or yesterday). However, changing the supply does affect price. This happened in Davis during the development of Mace Ranch, where homes in Mace Ranch during the late 1990s might have been $100K less than homes downtown. Prices may not go down, but their annual appreciation decreases. Upward pressures force homeowners to sell under certain thresholds (e.g., when the $200K and $300K levels were broken in the early 2000s). Sue’s argument glosses over these factors.
3. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison with the Bay Area housing growth because that housing price phenomenon also drove Davis home prices higher.
Excellent argument overall.
Here are a few things to think about from another perspective.
1. Davis home building operates in the extremes where it is so below the demand that the amount of new housing cannot affect or mitigate prices. More homes would have to be built.
2. Home prices rarely go down anywhere except after the market tops out or in the event of natural or manmade disaster (e.g., like the tornado that hit Oklahoma today or yesterday). However, changing the supply does affect price. This happened in Davis during the development of Mace Ranch, where homes in Mace Ranch during the late 1990s might have been $100K less than homes downtown. Prices may not go down, but their annual appreciation decreases. Upward pressures force homeowners to sell under certain thresholds (e.g., when the $200K and $300K levels were broken in the early 2000s). Sue’s argument glosses over these factors.
3. It would be interesting to see a similar comparison with the Bay Area housing growth because that housing price phenomenon also drove Davis home prices higher.
Anonymous 9:37 AM:
Again, the issue is not whether the rate of price increase declined during the Mace Ranch build-out, the question is whether the Davis price premium over surrounding areas decreased, and it did not.
Anonymous 9:37 AM:
Again, the issue is not whether the rate of price increase declined during the Mace Ranch build-out, the question is whether the Davis price premium over surrounding areas decreased, and it did not.
Anonymous 9:37 AM:
Again, the issue is not whether the rate of price increase declined during the Mace Ranch build-out, the question is whether the Davis price premium over surrounding areas decreased, and it did not.
Anonymous 9:37 AM:
Again, the issue is not whether the rate of price increase declined during the Mace Ranch build-out, the question is whether the Davis price premium over surrounding areas decreased, and it did not.
On a related note, a past chair of SACOG used to point out that housing growth was more palatable to citizens when it was pointed out that housing growth tends to increase, not decrease, property values.
Ironically, decreased affordability is an argument that has been used to promote housing growth.
And it is true that housing in desirable metropolitan areas is more expensive than housing in small rural towns.
On a related note, a past chair of SACOG used to point out that housing growth was more palatable to citizens when it was pointed out that housing growth tends to increase, not decrease, property values.
Ironically, decreased affordability is an argument that has been used to promote housing growth.
And it is true that housing in desirable metropolitan areas is more expensive than housing in small rural towns.
On a related note, a past chair of SACOG used to point out that housing growth was more palatable to citizens when it was pointed out that housing growth tends to increase, not decrease, property values.
Ironically, decreased affordability is an argument that has been used to promote housing growth.
And it is true that housing in desirable metropolitan areas is more expensive than housing in small rural towns.
On a related note, a past chair of SACOG used to point out that housing growth was more palatable to citizens when it was pointed out that housing growth tends to increase, not decrease, property values.
Ironically, decreased affordability is an argument that has been used to promote housing growth.
And it is true that housing in desirable metropolitan areas is more expensive than housing in small rural towns.
interesting that there is so little discussion of the construction costs aspect of the situation
in recent years, materials have become expensive, land prices remain fairly high (although there are some amazing stories about land on the periphery of Sacramento where the value has dropped 50% to 75% since 2005 or so), labor costs in California tend to higher than elsewhere and necessary infrastructure is a substantial burden
if we had good quality data on these subjects, we could, by adding an industry average for profit, estimate what is the cheapest possible home that could be built in Davis, or, for that matter, anywhere in this region
and we could do it according to types, single lot houses, zero lot homes, condos, etc.
and my guess is that it would reveal the following:
first, that, given these constraints, it is not possible to build a single lot home consistent with the low densities of Davis that would be affordable to the middle class, just as it is not possible to do so in the central city neighborhoods of Sacramento
hence, the move towards higher densities, like the condo and zero lot home projects we see in midtown Sacramento, where, interestingly, the smaller units below $450,000 are selling right now
if Davis wants affordable housing, this is the direction in which it will have to go, but, as I’ve said, it strikes me as politically implausible, and the refusal to build it will result in the social and cultural stagnation of the city
second, I believe that the development of such data would reveal the deterministic aspect of the analysis presented in this article
given that Sacramento and Davis are in the same region, the desirability of Davis probably gets translated into higher land costs and higher construction costs, with a relationship similar to what we see in the final pricing of homes addressed in the article
in order for the relationship between the prices of Sacramento homes and Davis homes to change, something would have to change in regard to the underlying factors that establish them, which, while rare, does happen, for example, midtown Sacramento was not considered the equivalent of nearby neighborhoods like East Sacramento, Curtis Park and Land Park in quality, and discounted home prices reflected it, but now, homes sell for about the same price as elsewhere
Midtown became an urban, central city entertainment district with a thriving arts scene, hence, people related to it differently
so, something could happen in regard to the broader relationship between Sacramento and Davis, but, unfortunately, my fear is the likelihood is that Sacramento is just going to become more expensive, with homes less affordable here
–Richard Estes
interesting that there is so little discussion of the construction costs aspect of the situation
in recent years, materials have become expensive, land prices remain fairly high (although there are some amazing stories about land on the periphery of Sacramento where the value has dropped 50% to 75% since 2005 or so), labor costs in California tend to higher than elsewhere and necessary infrastructure is a substantial burden
if we had good quality data on these subjects, we could, by adding an industry average for profit, estimate what is the cheapest possible home that could be built in Davis, or, for that matter, anywhere in this region
and we could do it according to types, single lot houses, zero lot homes, condos, etc.
and my guess is that it would reveal the following:
first, that, given these constraints, it is not possible to build a single lot home consistent with the low densities of Davis that would be affordable to the middle class, just as it is not possible to do so in the central city neighborhoods of Sacramento
hence, the move towards higher densities, like the condo and zero lot home projects we see in midtown Sacramento, where, interestingly, the smaller units below $450,000 are selling right now
if Davis wants affordable housing, this is the direction in which it will have to go, but, as I’ve said, it strikes me as politically implausible, and the refusal to build it will result in the social and cultural stagnation of the city
second, I believe that the development of such data would reveal the deterministic aspect of the analysis presented in this article
given that Sacramento and Davis are in the same region, the desirability of Davis probably gets translated into higher land costs and higher construction costs, with a relationship similar to what we see in the final pricing of homes addressed in the article
in order for the relationship between the prices of Sacramento homes and Davis homes to change, something would have to change in regard to the underlying factors that establish them, which, while rare, does happen, for example, midtown Sacramento was not considered the equivalent of nearby neighborhoods like East Sacramento, Curtis Park and Land Park in quality, and discounted home prices reflected it, but now, homes sell for about the same price as elsewhere
Midtown became an urban, central city entertainment district with a thriving arts scene, hence, people related to it differently
so, something could happen in regard to the broader relationship between Sacramento and Davis, but, unfortunately, my fear is the likelihood is that Sacramento is just going to become more expensive, with homes less affordable here
–Richard Estes
interesting that there is so little discussion of the construction costs aspect of the situation
in recent years, materials have become expensive, land prices remain fairly high (although there are some amazing stories about land on the periphery of Sacramento where the value has dropped 50% to 75% since 2005 or so), labor costs in California tend to higher than elsewhere and necessary infrastructure is a substantial burden
if we had good quality data on these subjects, we could, by adding an industry average for profit, estimate what is the cheapest possible home that could be built in Davis, or, for that matter, anywhere in this region
and we could do it according to types, single lot houses, zero lot homes, condos, etc.
and my guess is that it would reveal the following:
first, that, given these constraints, it is not possible to build a single lot home consistent with the low densities of Davis that would be affordable to the middle class, just as it is not possible to do so in the central city neighborhoods of Sacramento
hence, the move towards higher densities, like the condo and zero lot home projects we see in midtown Sacramento, where, interestingly, the smaller units below $450,000 are selling right now
if Davis wants affordable housing, this is the direction in which it will have to go, but, as I’ve said, it strikes me as politically implausible, and the refusal to build it will result in the social and cultural stagnation of the city
second, I believe that the development of such data would reveal the deterministic aspect of the analysis presented in this article
given that Sacramento and Davis are in the same region, the desirability of Davis probably gets translated into higher land costs and higher construction costs, with a relationship similar to what we see in the final pricing of homes addressed in the article
in order for the relationship between the prices of Sacramento homes and Davis homes to change, something would have to change in regard to the underlying factors that establish them, which, while rare, does happen, for example, midtown Sacramento was not considered the equivalent of nearby neighborhoods like East Sacramento, Curtis Park and Land Park in quality, and discounted home prices reflected it, but now, homes sell for about the same price as elsewhere
Midtown became an urban, central city entertainment district with a thriving arts scene, hence, people related to it differently
so, something could happen in regard to the broader relationship between Sacramento and Davis, but, unfortunately, my fear is the likelihood is that Sacramento is just going to become more expensive, with homes less affordable here
–Richard Estes
interesting that there is so little discussion of the construction costs aspect of the situation
in recent years, materials have become expensive, land prices remain fairly high (although there are some amazing stories about land on the periphery of Sacramento where the value has dropped 50% to 75% since 2005 or so), labor costs in California tend to higher than elsewhere and necessary infrastructure is a substantial burden
if we had good quality data on these subjects, we could, by adding an industry average for profit, estimate what is the cheapest possible home that could be built in Davis, or, for that matter, anywhere in this region
and we could do it according to types, single lot houses, zero lot homes, condos, etc.
and my guess is that it would reveal the following:
first, that, given these constraints, it is not possible to build a single lot home consistent with the low densities of Davis that would be affordable to the middle class, just as it is not possible to do so in the central city neighborhoods of Sacramento
hence, the move towards higher densities, like the condo and zero lot home projects we see in midtown Sacramento, where, interestingly, the smaller units below $450,000 are selling right now
if Davis wants affordable housing, this is the direction in which it will have to go, but, as I’ve said, it strikes me as politically implausible, and the refusal to build it will result in the social and cultural stagnation of the city
second, I believe that the development of such data would reveal the deterministic aspect of the analysis presented in this article
given that Sacramento and Davis are in the same region, the desirability of Davis probably gets translated into higher land costs and higher construction costs, with a relationship similar to what we see in the final pricing of homes addressed in the article
in order for the relationship between the prices of Sacramento homes and Davis homes to change, something would have to change in regard to the underlying factors that establish them, which, while rare, does happen, for example, midtown Sacramento was not considered the equivalent of nearby neighborhoods like East Sacramento, Curtis Park and Land Park in quality, and discounted home prices reflected it, but now, homes sell for about the same price as elsewhere
Midtown became an urban, central city entertainment district with a thriving arts scene, hence, people related to it differently
so, something could happen in regard to the broader relationship between Sacramento and Davis, but, unfortunately, my fear is the likelihood is that Sacramento is just going to become more expensive, with homes less affordable here
–Richard Estes
Last week on Vanguard, this most insightful comment, which jives with David’s column, was made on one of the threads:
…land prices in Davis are largely determined (over the long run) by other factors: 1) the income of people who want to live in Davis and work in our area or the savings of retirees who want to live here; 2) the regional economy; 3) the quality of life in Davis; and 4) the relative advantages of our public schools.
If we don’t build many new homes, it’s likely that our home prices in the short run will be bid up. When a new development comes in, home prices in the rest of town will likely fall (or not rise as much as they might otherwise). But in the longer term, how much we build, I believe, is trumped by the factors I listed above.
Last week on Vanguard, this most insightful comment, which jives with David’s column, was made on one of the threads:
…land prices in Davis are largely determined (over the long run) by other factors: 1) the income of people who want to live in Davis and work in our area or the savings of retirees who want to live here; 2) the regional economy; 3) the quality of life in Davis; and 4) the relative advantages of our public schools.
If we don’t build many new homes, it’s likely that our home prices in the short run will be bid up. When a new development comes in, home prices in the rest of town will likely fall (or not rise as much as they might otherwise). But in the longer term, how much we build, I believe, is trumped by the factors I listed above.
Last week on Vanguard, this most insightful comment, which jives with David’s column, was made on one of the threads:
…land prices in Davis are largely determined (over the long run) by other factors: 1) the income of people who want to live in Davis and work in our area or the savings of retirees who want to live here; 2) the regional economy; 3) the quality of life in Davis; and 4) the relative advantages of our public schools.
If we don’t build many new homes, it’s likely that our home prices in the short run will be bid up. When a new development comes in, home prices in the rest of town will likely fall (or not rise as much as they might otherwise). But in the longer term, how much we build, I believe, is trumped by the factors I listed above.
Last week on Vanguard, this most insightful comment, which jives with David’s column, was made on one of the threads:
…land prices in Davis are largely determined (over the long run) by other factors: 1) the income of people who want to live in Davis and work in our area or the savings of retirees who want to live here; 2) the regional economy; 3) the quality of life in Davis; and 4) the relative advantages of our public schools.
If we don’t build many new homes, it’s likely that our home prices in the short run will be bid up. When a new development comes in, home prices in the rest of town will likely fall (or not rise as much as they might otherwise). But in the longer term, how much we build, I believe, is trumped by the factors I listed above.
DPD, this is one of the best fact-based analyses that I have ever read concerning the usual developer-argument that “we have to build more houses to reduce the price so moderate income people can afford to buy.” When I was on the City Council, Mayor Boyd used to go on and on with that argument during the 50+ meetings we had mostly devoted to the adoption of the 2001 General Plan.
The contrary mantra, from Eileen Samitz and others, was “we cannot build our way out of higher housing prices.” I personally went with that argument, as I knew generally that there were so many people who wanted to buy into the Davis infrastructure at almost any price. (We have taxed ourselves over the years at higher rates for that infrastructure, and someone renting or buying in Davis pays a premium to get access to those benefits.)
Well, today’s column was the first time I have seen an empherical study of that issue. It clearly supports the slow growth progressives in Davis.
Thank you!
Mike Harrington
Member, Davis City Council
2000-04
DPD, this is one of the best fact-based analyses that I have ever read concerning the usual developer-argument that “we have to build more houses to reduce the price so moderate income people can afford to buy.” When I was on the City Council, Mayor Boyd used to go on and on with that argument during the 50+ meetings we had mostly devoted to the adoption of the 2001 General Plan.
The contrary mantra, from Eileen Samitz and others, was “we cannot build our way out of higher housing prices.” I personally went with that argument, as I knew generally that there were so many people who wanted to buy into the Davis infrastructure at almost any price. (We have taxed ourselves over the years at higher rates for that infrastructure, and someone renting or buying in Davis pays a premium to get access to those benefits.)
Well, today’s column was the first time I have seen an empherical study of that issue. It clearly supports the slow growth progressives in Davis.
Thank you!
Mike Harrington
Member, Davis City Council
2000-04
DPD, this is one of the best fact-based analyses that I have ever read concerning the usual developer-argument that “we have to build more houses to reduce the price so moderate income people can afford to buy.” When I was on the City Council, Mayor Boyd used to go on and on with that argument during the 50+ meetings we had mostly devoted to the adoption of the 2001 General Plan.
The contrary mantra, from Eileen Samitz and others, was “we cannot build our way out of higher housing prices.” I personally went with that argument, as I knew generally that there were so many people who wanted to buy into the Davis infrastructure at almost any price. (We have taxed ourselves over the years at higher rates for that infrastructure, and someone renting or buying in Davis pays a premium to get access to those benefits.)
Well, today’s column was the first time I have seen an empherical study of that issue. It clearly supports the slow growth progressives in Davis.
Thank you!
Mike Harrington
Member, Davis City Council
2000-04
DPD, this is one of the best fact-based analyses that I have ever read concerning the usual developer-argument that “we have to build more houses to reduce the price so moderate income people can afford to buy.” When I was on the City Council, Mayor Boyd used to go on and on with that argument during the 50+ meetings we had mostly devoted to the adoption of the 2001 General Plan.
The contrary mantra, from Eileen Samitz and others, was “we cannot build our way out of higher housing prices.” I personally went with that argument, as I knew generally that there were so many people who wanted to buy into the Davis infrastructure at almost any price. (We have taxed ourselves over the years at higher rates for that infrastructure, and someone renting or buying in Davis pays a premium to get access to those benefits.)
Well, today’s column was the first time I have seen an empherical study of that issue. It clearly supports the slow growth progressives in Davis.
Thank you!
Mike Harrington
Member, Davis City Council
2000-04
Mike – I think we know who you are.
Mike – I think we know who you are.
Mike – I think we know who you are.
Mike – I think we know who you are.
of course, the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.
the way to make housing affordable is to stop building the sort of housing that yuppie commuters like.
and yes, that means density, townhouses, apartments, etc., as well as the university bearing more of the burden of providing student, faculty and staff housing.
as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.
it’s bot a mere question of growth vs. no growth, but rather what manner of growth works for what category of residents. the whole development debate in davis is between low density anti growthers and low density pro-growthers, but neither really breaks free from a mid-20th century model of development.
that paradigm is failing davis as a college town. has failed, for decades now.
of course, the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.
the way to make housing affordable is to stop building the sort of housing that yuppie commuters like.
and yes, that means density, townhouses, apartments, etc., as well as the university bearing more of the burden of providing student, faculty and staff housing.
as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.
it’s bot a mere question of growth vs. no growth, but rather what manner of growth works for what category of residents. the whole development debate in davis is between low density anti growthers and low density pro-growthers, but neither really breaks free from a mid-20th century model of development.
that paradigm is failing davis as a college town. has failed, for decades now.
of course, the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.
the way to make housing affordable is to stop building the sort of housing that yuppie commuters like.
and yes, that means density, townhouses, apartments, etc., as well as the university bearing more of the burden of providing student, faculty and staff housing.
as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.
it’s bot a mere question of growth vs. no growth, but rather what manner of growth works for what category of residents. the whole development debate in davis is between low density anti growthers and low density pro-growthers, but neither really breaks free from a mid-20th century model of development.
that paradigm is failing davis as a college town. has failed, for decades now.
of course, the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.
the way to make housing affordable is to stop building the sort of housing that yuppie commuters like.
and yes, that means density, townhouses, apartments, etc., as well as the university bearing more of the burden of providing student, faculty and staff housing.
as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.
it’s bot a mere question of growth vs. no growth, but rather what manner of growth works for what category of residents. the whole development debate in davis is between low density anti growthers and low density pro-growthers, but neither really breaks free from a mid-20th century model of development.
that paradigm is failing davis as a college town. has failed, for decades now.
The “cheapest possible home in Davis?” Look no further than the sea of Stanley Davis beauties in Old East Davis. They originally sold for about $10,000.
The “cheapest possible home in Davis?” Look no further than the sea of Stanley Davis beauties in Old East Davis. They originally sold for about $10,000.
The “cheapest possible home in Davis?” Look no further than the sea of Stanley Davis beauties in Old East Davis. They originally sold for about $10,000.
The “cheapest possible home in Davis?” Look no further than the sea of Stanley Davis beauties in Old East Davis. They originally sold for about $10,000.
“as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.”
Exactly.
Increasingly, the people who live here don’t work here and visa versa. It’s quite ironic. People were concerned about increased traffic and congestion with CV, but look what you have without it.
“as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.”
Exactly.
Increasingly, the people who live here don’t work here and visa versa. It’s quite ironic. People were concerned about increased traffic and congestion with CV, but look what you have without it.
“as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.”
Exactly.
Increasingly, the people who live here don’t work here and visa versa. It’s quite ironic. People were concerned about increased traffic and congestion with CV, but look what you have without it.
“as for social and cultural “stagnation,” it seems to this davisite that the transformation of davis from a college town to an affluent commuter suburbs has done exactly that. low density and a shift to luxury housing is what’s killing a lot of the dynamism of this community, because it choked off the old connection between the students and the city.”
Exactly.
Increasingly, the people who live here don’t work here and visa versa. It’s quite ironic. People were concerned about increased traffic and congestion with CV, but look what you have without it.
“the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.”
The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s. The FARs on most Mace Ranch and Wildhorse homes are double what they are in my west Davis neighborhood, built in the 1960s.
“the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.”
The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s. The FARs on most Mace Ranch and Wildhorse homes are double what they are in my west Davis neighborhood, built in the 1960s.
“the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.”
The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s. The FARs on most Mace Ranch and Wildhorse homes are double what they are in my west Davis neighborhood, built in the 1960s.
“the size, density, and manner of housing built in the 90s and zeroes is also not the same as that built in the 50s, 60s or even 70s.”
The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s. The FARs on most Mace Ranch and Wildhorse homes are double what they are in my west Davis neighborhood, built in the 1960s.
hey Rifkin, i find it ironic that you get so mad when others assert things without backing them up, yet you sort of do the same thing:
:: “The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s.” ::
It would be nice if you added some referenced fact to your argument. My personal experience shows that todays houses are HUGE compared to old houses. Those east davis homes can hold like 4-5 people in smallish rooms, while the Wildhorse houses are more tightly packed, but relatively LARGE in comparison, with less outdoor space.
I would like to see a good, referenced comparison of density, and await your analysis.
hey Rifkin, i find it ironic that you get so mad when others assert things without backing them up, yet you sort of do the same thing:
:: “The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s.” ::
It would be nice if you added some referenced fact to your argument. My personal experience shows that todays houses are HUGE compared to old houses. Those east davis homes can hold like 4-5 people in smallish rooms, while the Wildhorse houses are more tightly packed, but relatively LARGE in comparison, with less outdoor space.
I would like to see a good, referenced comparison of density, and await your analysis.
hey Rifkin, i find it ironic that you get so mad when others assert things without backing them up, yet you sort of do the same thing:
:: “The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s.” ::
It would be nice if you added some referenced fact to your argument. My personal experience shows that todays houses are HUGE compared to old houses. Those east davis homes can hold like 4-5 people in smallish rooms, while the Wildhorse houses are more tightly packed, but relatively LARGE in comparison, with less outdoor space.
I would like to see a good, referenced comparison of density, and await your analysis.
hey Rifkin, i find it ironic that you get so mad when others assert things without backing them up, yet you sort of do the same thing:
:: “The housing built in the 1990s was much denserthan that built in the ’50s and ’60s and ’70s.” ::
It would be nice if you added some referenced fact to your argument. My personal experience shows that todays houses are HUGE compared to old houses. Those east davis homes can hold like 4-5 people in smallish rooms, while the Wildhorse houses are more tightly packed, but relatively LARGE in comparison, with less outdoor space.
I would like to see a good, referenced comparison of density, and await your analysis.
I have a few problems with the limited data and the analysis and want to challenge the conclusions so here goes.
1. Why does the ratio jump from 1.20 to 1.47 after 1995? Maybe 10 years isn’t long enough to see the real trend. Since you don’t include the growth rates for the other community its hard to say if the growth rate of Davis was sufficient to support your conclusion. The jump from 1.2 to the 1.6 peak is significant amounting to over $100,000 for each $250,000 of value.
2.If you look at the curves it seems that the ratio expands reaching a peak in 2001 lagging after construction tops out. It could be that there is a totally different interpretation for the leveling of the differential. It could be that affordability reached a maximum so that restricting supply could not cause the price of housing to appreciate further than the roughly 1.5:1 ratio. Maybe the inelasticity is not a function of demand but rather a function of the lack of supply. As you say, if you built enough new homes supply would eventually bring down the ratio to what it was prior to 96.
Its hard to tell from the graph but it looks as if the data for the years preceeding 95, and the controversy over Wildhorse, might show that the differential was even been less than 1.2:1.
So I guess I just don’t think you have made your case.
I would however like to make another analysis. In the Sac Bee Sue Greenwald said she thought the 1% growth rate was too high. Now a 1% growth rate is a doubling time of 72 years a rate less than that suggests a larger doubling period. When I moved to Califonia in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39million. The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
I have a few problems with the limited data and the analysis and want to challenge the conclusions so here goes.
1. Why does the ratio jump from 1.20 to 1.47 after 1995? Maybe 10 years isn’t long enough to see the real trend. Since you don’t include the growth rates for the other community its hard to say if the growth rate of Davis was sufficient to support your conclusion. The jump from 1.2 to the 1.6 peak is significant amounting to over $100,000 for each $250,000 of value.
2.If you look at the curves it seems that the ratio expands reaching a peak in 2001 lagging after construction tops out. It could be that there is a totally different interpretation for the leveling of the differential. It could be that affordability reached a maximum so that restricting supply could not cause the price of housing to appreciate further than the roughly 1.5:1 ratio. Maybe the inelasticity is not a function of demand but rather a function of the lack of supply. As you say, if you built enough new homes supply would eventually bring down the ratio to what it was prior to 96.
Its hard to tell from the graph but it looks as if the data for the years preceeding 95, and the controversy over Wildhorse, might show that the differential was even been less than 1.2:1.
So I guess I just don’t think you have made your case.
I would however like to make another analysis. In the Sac Bee Sue Greenwald said she thought the 1% growth rate was too high. Now a 1% growth rate is a doubling time of 72 years a rate less than that suggests a larger doubling period. When I moved to Califonia in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39million. The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
I have a few problems with the limited data and the analysis and want to challenge the conclusions so here goes.
1. Why does the ratio jump from 1.20 to 1.47 after 1995? Maybe 10 years isn’t long enough to see the real trend. Since you don’t include the growth rates for the other community its hard to say if the growth rate of Davis was sufficient to support your conclusion. The jump from 1.2 to the 1.6 peak is significant amounting to over $100,000 for each $250,000 of value.
2.If you look at the curves it seems that the ratio expands reaching a peak in 2001 lagging after construction tops out. It could be that there is a totally different interpretation for the leveling of the differential. It could be that affordability reached a maximum so that restricting supply could not cause the price of housing to appreciate further than the roughly 1.5:1 ratio. Maybe the inelasticity is not a function of demand but rather a function of the lack of supply. As you say, if you built enough new homes supply would eventually bring down the ratio to what it was prior to 96.
Its hard to tell from the graph but it looks as if the data for the years preceeding 95, and the controversy over Wildhorse, might show that the differential was even been less than 1.2:1.
So I guess I just don’t think you have made your case.
I would however like to make another analysis. In the Sac Bee Sue Greenwald said she thought the 1% growth rate was too high. Now a 1% growth rate is a doubling time of 72 years a rate less than that suggests a larger doubling period. When I moved to Califonia in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39million. The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
I have a few problems with the limited data and the analysis and want to challenge the conclusions so here goes.
1. Why does the ratio jump from 1.20 to 1.47 after 1995? Maybe 10 years isn’t long enough to see the real trend. Since you don’t include the growth rates for the other community its hard to say if the growth rate of Davis was sufficient to support your conclusion. The jump from 1.2 to the 1.6 peak is significant amounting to over $100,000 for each $250,000 of value.
2.If you look at the curves it seems that the ratio expands reaching a peak in 2001 lagging after construction tops out. It could be that there is a totally different interpretation for the leveling of the differential. It could be that affordability reached a maximum so that restricting supply could not cause the price of housing to appreciate further than the roughly 1.5:1 ratio. Maybe the inelasticity is not a function of demand but rather a function of the lack of supply. As you say, if you built enough new homes supply would eventually bring down the ratio to what it was prior to 96.
Its hard to tell from the graph but it looks as if the data for the years preceeding 95, and the controversy over Wildhorse, might show that the differential was even been less than 1.2:1.
So I guess I just don’t think you have made your case.
I would however like to make another analysis. In the Sac Bee Sue Greenwald said she thought the 1% growth rate was too high. Now a 1% growth rate is a doubling time of 72 years a rate less than that suggests a larger doubling period. When I moved to Califonia in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39million. The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
“When I moved to California in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39 million.”
What was the population of Davis in 1960?
“When I moved to California in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39 million.”
What was the population of Davis in 1960?
“When I moved to California in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39 million.”
What was the population of Davis in 1960?
“When I moved to California in 1960 I think there were around 15 million people today there are 39 million.”
What was the population of Davis in 1960?
Yes Don, Davis has grown, maybe faster than the rest of the state. Of course in 1960 California didn’t yet have Clark Kerr’s educational master plan. These things are not linear or static but so what? If we are going to educate the children of California and do the research required to make the important scientific and technological advances that we are capable of making this community is going to need to get over this no growth hysteria that is so unbecoming of a great university town.
Yes Don, Davis has grown, maybe faster than the rest of the state. Of course in 1960 California didn’t yet have Clark Kerr’s educational master plan. These things are not linear or static but so what? If we are going to educate the children of California and do the research required to make the important scientific and technological advances that we are capable of making this community is going to need to get over this no growth hysteria that is so unbecoming of a great university town.
Yes Don, Davis has grown, maybe faster than the rest of the state. Of course in 1960 California didn’t yet have Clark Kerr’s educational master plan. These things are not linear or static but so what? If we are going to educate the children of California and do the research required to make the important scientific and technological advances that we are capable of making this community is going to need to get over this no growth hysteria that is so unbecoming of a great university town.
Yes Don, Davis has grown, maybe faster than the rest of the state. Of course in 1960 California didn’t yet have Clark Kerr’s educational master plan. These things are not linear or static but so what? If we are going to educate the children of California and do the research required to make the important scientific and technological advances that we are capable of making this community is going to need to get over this no growth hysteria that is so unbecoming of a great university town.
Ron:
I think you missed a crucial point, the cost of housing went from just over 100,000 to over 600,000 during this period of time. Some have argued that local land use policies are to blame. These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made.
Ron:
I think you missed a crucial point, the cost of housing went from just over 100,000 to over 600,000 during this period of time. Some have argued that local land use policies are to blame. These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made.
Ron:
I think you missed a crucial point, the cost of housing went from just over 100,000 to over 600,000 during this period of time. Some have argued that local land use policies are to blame. These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made.
Ron:
I think you missed a crucial point, the cost of housing went from just over 100,000 to over 600,000 during this period of time. Some have argued that local land use policies are to blame. These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made.
I didn’t miss the point I just see the data differently. The ratio expanded from a low of 1.2 to a high of 1.6. This is a significant increase in the differential. It belies the claim that the increases were linear and a 1:1 mapping.
I didn’t miss the point I just see the data differently. The ratio expanded from a low of 1.2 to a high of 1.6. This is a significant increase in the differential. It belies the claim that the increases were linear and a 1:1 mapping.
I didn’t miss the point I just see the data differently. The ratio expanded from a low of 1.2 to a high of 1.6. This is a significant increase in the differential. It belies the claim that the increases were linear and a 1:1 mapping.
I didn’t miss the point I just see the data differently. The ratio expanded from a low of 1.2 to a high of 1.6. This is a significant increase in the differential. It belies the claim that the increases were linear and a 1:1 mapping.
DPD said:
“These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made” (emphasis mine).
You certainly are arguing for much more in blog. If this were your only claim, I don’t know if Ron would have poked holes in your argument as he did.
But the differences in the ratio were not related to changes in housing policies. Moreover, the claim was not that this was an exhaustive view of the housing market in Davis, rather it captured a particular snapshot of the recent history that saw a huge increase in cost.
DPD said:
“These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made” (emphasis mine).
You certainly are arguing for much more in blog. If this were your only claim, I don’t know if Ron would have poked holes in your argument as he did.
But the differences in the ratio were not related to changes in housing policies. Moreover, the claim was not that this was an exhaustive view of the housing market in Davis, rather it captured a particular snapshot of the recent history that saw a huge increase in cost.
DPD said:
“These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made” (emphasis mine).
You certainly are arguing for much more in blog. If this were your only claim, I don’t know if Ron would have poked holes in your argument as he did.
But the differences in the ratio were not related to changes in housing policies. Moreover, the claim was not that this was an exhaustive view of the housing market in Davis, rather it captured a particular snapshot of the recent history that saw a huge increase in cost.
DPD said:
“These data show that Davis’ trend mirrored that of the region almost exactly. That’s the extent of the claim made” (emphasis mine).
You certainly are arguing for much more in blog. If this were your only claim, I don’t know if Ron would have poked holes in your argument as he did.
But the differences in the ratio were not related to changes in housing policies. Moreover, the claim was not that this was an exhaustive view of the housing market in Davis, rather it captured a particular snapshot of the recent history that saw a huge increase in cost.
DPD, I am assuming that these are the data Sue Greenwald promised to supply. If they are they don’t support any of the claims she has made about supply and demand. If they are not those data when can we expect them, after the election?
You claim they are just a snapshot so they don’t really tell us much, but still, they don’t even support the conclusions you make from them. Please tell me why the change from 1.2 to 1.6 is not significant?
DPD, I am assuming that these are the data Sue Greenwald promised to supply. If they are they don’t support any of the claims she has made about supply and demand. If they are not those data when can we expect them, after the election?
You claim they are just a snapshot so they don’t really tell us much, but still, they don’t even support the conclusions you make from them. Please tell me why the change from 1.2 to 1.6 is not significant?
DPD, I am assuming that these are the data Sue Greenwald promised to supply. If they are they don’t support any of the claims she has made about supply and demand. If they are not those data when can we expect them, after the election?
You claim they are just a snapshot so they don’t really tell us much, but still, they don’t even support the conclusions you make from them. Please tell me why the change from 1.2 to 1.6 is not significant?
DPD, I am assuming that these are the data Sue Greenwald promised to supply. If they are they don’t support any of the claims she has made about supply and demand. If they are not those data when can we expect them, after the election?
You claim they are just a snapshot so they don’t really tell us much, but still, they don’t even support the conclusions you make from them. Please tell me why the change from 1.2 to 1.6 is not significant?
Wrong Button that was me above.
Wrong Button that was me above.
Wrong Button that was me above.
Wrong Button that was me above.
DPD, there were changes in land use policies during this time frame. Ask anyone about the 1987 general plan and how they compare to growth rates within the community as the no growth policies bloomed following Wildhorse. Maybe this accounts for the sharp increase in the differential after 95.
DPD, there were changes in land use policies during this time frame. Ask anyone about the 1987 general plan and how they compare to growth rates within the community as the no growth policies bloomed following Wildhorse. Maybe this accounts for the sharp increase in the differential after 95.
DPD, there were changes in land use policies during this time frame. Ask anyone about the 1987 general plan and how they compare to growth rates within the community as the no growth policies bloomed following Wildhorse. Maybe this accounts for the sharp increase in the differential after 95.
DPD, there were changes in land use policies during this time frame. Ask anyone about the 1987 general plan and how they compare to growth rates within the community as the no growth policies bloomed following Wildhorse. Maybe this accounts for the sharp increase in the differential after 95.
DPD, great job poking in a hole in the “supply and demand” balloon that people keep trying to launch. As I said before in an earlier post, housing prices in Davis reflect what people perceive as a more desirable place to live. The University, the K-12 school system, the downtown area, the ease of moving around and all the other things we like about Davis are what make it desirable and different from surrounding towns. That’s why the price of houses is insensitive to increased housing stock. It’s a more desirable place to live than the alternatives that people complain about having to live in.
No amount of building housing will decrease the price as long as Davis is a desirable place to live. So it bears repeating: if we keep on approving all kinds of big retail and walled off neighborhoods and let the downtown go to hell, overbuild school facilities to placate the new petulant homeowners on the periphery of town thus putting our school district finances in a tailspin so that we have to allow lots of development to get ourselves out of the mess we got into in the first place then we’ll end up just like every other metropolitan sprawlopolis and housing will get more “affordable”.
And yes, the petulant home owners in Mace Ranch and elsewhere have all gotten screwed over by Prop. 13. I don’t think it is right and the best way to begin to undo Prop 13 would be to automatically recalculate corporate property every five years so that their property tax rate matches the average turnover in residential property. We could provide the same exception for small businesses as residential owners and equalize the property tax more fairly. And no, I don’t believe large corporations relocate based on property taxes. They locate based on important issues like transportation, desirability of the environment for employees, proximity to customers, etc. Taxation is way down the list.
DPD, great job poking in a hole in the “supply and demand” balloon that people keep trying to launch. As I said before in an earlier post, housing prices in Davis reflect what people perceive as a more desirable place to live. The University, the K-12 school system, the downtown area, the ease of moving around and all the other things we like about Davis are what make it desirable and different from surrounding towns. That’s why the price of houses is insensitive to increased housing stock. It’s a more desirable place to live than the alternatives that people complain about having to live in.
No amount of building housing will decrease the price as long as Davis is a desirable place to live. So it bears repeating: if we keep on approving all kinds of big retail and walled off neighborhoods and let the downtown go to hell, overbuild school facilities to placate the new petulant homeowners on the periphery of town thus putting our school district finances in a tailspin so that we have to allow lots of development to get ourselves out of the mess we got into in the first place then we’ll end up just like every other metropolitan sprawlopolis and housing will get more “affordable”.
And yes, the petulant home owners in Mace Ranch and elsewhere have all gotten screwed over by Prop. 13. I don’t think it is right and the best way to begin to undo Prop 13 would be to automatically recalculate corporate property every five years so that their property tax rate matches the average turnover in residential property. We could provide the same exception for small businesses as residential owners and equalize the property tax more fairly. And no, I don’t believe large corporations relocate based on property taxes. They locate based on important issues like transportation, desirability of the environment for employees, proximity to customers, etc. Taxation is way down the list.
DPD, great job poking in a hole in the “supply and demand” balloon that people keep trying to launch. As I said before in an earlier post, housing prices in Davis reflect what people perceive as a more desirable place to live. The University, the K-12 school system, the downtown area, the ease of moving around and all the other things we like about Davis are what make it desirable and different from surrounding towns. That’s why the price of houses is insensitive to increased housing stock. It’s a more desirable place to live than the alternatives that people complain about having to live in.
No amount of building housing will decrease the price as long as Davis is a desirable place to live. So it bears repeating: if we keep on approving all kinds of big retail and walled off neighborhoods and let the downtown go to hell, overbuild school facilities to placate the new petulant homeowners on the periphery of town thus putting our school district finances in a tailspin so that we have to allow lots of development to get ourselves out of the mess we got into in the first place then we’ll end up just like every other metropolitan sprawlopolis and housing will get more “affordable”.
And yes, the petulant home owners in Mace Ranch and elsewhere have all gotten screwed over by Prop. 13. I don’t think it is right and the best way to begin to undo Prop 13 would be to automatically recalculate corporate property every five years so that their property tax rate matches the average turnover in residential property. We could provide the same exception for small businesses as residential owners and equalize the property tax more fairly. And no, I don’t believe large corporations relocate based on property taxes. They locate based on important issues like transportation, desirability of the environment for employees, proximity to customers, etc. Taxation is way down the list.
DPD, great job poking in a hole in the “supply and demand” balloon that people keep trying to launch. As I said before in an earlier post, housing prices in Davis reflect what people perceive as a more desirable place to live. The University, the K-12 school system, the downtown area, the ease of moving around and all the other things we like about Davis are what make it desirable and different from surrounding towns. That’s why the price of houses is insensitive to increased housing stock. It’s a more desirable place to live than the alternatives that people complain about having to live in.
No amount of building housing will decrease the price as long as Davis is a desirable place to live. So it bears repeating: if we keep on approving all kinds of big retail and walled off neighborhoods and let the downtown go to hell, overbuild school facilities to placate the new petulant homeowners on the periphery of town thus putting our school district finances in a tailspin so that we have to allow lots of development to get ourselves out of the mess we got into in the first place then we’ll end up just like every other metropolitan sprawlopolis and housing will get more “affordable”.
And yes, the petulant home owners in Mace Ranch and elsewhere have all gotten screwed over by Prop. 13. I don’t think it is right and the best way to begin to undo Prop 13 would be to automatically recalculate corporate property every five years so that their property tax rate matches the average turnover in residential property. We could provide the same exception for small businesses as residential owners and equalize the property tax more fairly. And no, I don’t believe large corporations relocate based on property taxes. They locate based on important issues like transportation, desirability of the environment for employees, proximity to customers, etc. Taxation is way down the list.
Dave,
Even DPD concludes that some large amount of home building would impact prices.
I will grant you that there will always be a differential as there is a premium in most college towns. My point is that the differential has grown as the supply increase has been constricted by no growth policies. If you are comfortable with that its your choice. I would like to see the us go in a different direction for the reasons I have already stated.
Dave,
Even DPD concludes that some large amount of home building would impact prices.
I will grant you that there will always be a differential as there is a premium in most college towns. My point is that the differential has grown as the supply increase has been constricted by no growth policies. If you are comfortable with that its your choice. I would like to see the us go in a different direction for the reasons I have already stated.
Dave,
Even DPD concludes that some large amount of home building would impact prices.
I will grant you that there will always be a differential as there is a premium in most college towns. My point is that the differential has grown as the supply increase has been constricted by no growth policies. If you are comfortable with that its your choice. I would like to see the us go in a different direction for the reasons I have already stated.
Dave,
Even DPD concludes that some large amount of home building would impact prices.
I will grant you that there will always be a differential as there is a premium in most college towns. My point is that the differential has grown as the supply increase has been constricted by no growth policies. If you are comfortable with that its your choice. I would like to see the us go in a different direction for the reasons I have already stated.
Dave Hart said: “Taxation is way down the list.”
What planet are you from? Tax advantages are often a primary reason businesses are located in, or relocate to, an area. Businesses often fight hard for tax exceptions/exemptions/credits in new locales.
Lower workforce costs and less regulation are also prominent reasons.
The other reasons you state are often cited and do come into play. But a business’s bottom line is its bottom line–cash flow and profits.
Ask Don Shor.
Dave Hart said: “Taxation is way down the list.”
What planet are you from? Tax advantages are often a primary reason businesses are located in, or relocate to, an area. Businesses often fight hard for tax exceptions/exemptions/credits in new locales.
Lower workforce costs and less regulation are also prominent reasons.
The other reasons you state are often cited and do come into play. But a business’s bottom line is its bottom line–cash flow and profits.
Ask Don Shor.
Dave Hart said: “Taxation is way down the list.”
What planet are you from? Tax advantages are often a primary reason businesses are located in, or relocate to, an area. Businesses often fight hard for tax exceptions/exemptions/credits in new locales.
Lower workforce costs and less regulation are also prominent reasons.
The other reasons you state are often cited and do come into play. But a business’s bottom line is its bottom line–cash flow and profits.
Ask Don Shor.
Dave Hart said: “Taxation is way down the list.”
What planet are you from? Tax advantages are often a primary reason businesses are located in, or relocate to, an area. Businesses often fight hard for tax exceptions/exemptions/credits in new locales.
Lower workforce costs and less regulation are also prominent reasons.
The other reasons you state are often cited and do come into play. But a business’s bottom line is its bottom line–cash flow and profits.
Ask Don Shor.
The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
I emphathize with the sentiment, but this borders on narcissism. People in California get educated all over the place (and in all kinds of ways other than in the UC system), and compete in the global economy. I’m sure that the UC would like to believe that California would economically collapse without it, but it just isn’t true.
I also believe that this issue is incorrectly framed to the point of banality. Instead of focusing upon the cliche notion about the need for the state’s children to compete in the global economy, the real challenge is whether we and our children can forge a relationship with other countries that does not require other nations to adopt neoliberal economic policies and accept the dictates of US foreign policy, dictates that frequently involved an acceptance of US bases and US military action, or otherwise be designated as a rogue nation.
Whether UC Davis assists in this endeavor, I can’t say.
But, to return to the local question, what types of affordable housing could have been built over this time period of escalating housing prices? If your view is that Davis could have constructed enough single lot homes to render the prices affordable, then I disagree for the reasons I’ve already mentioned: higher costs of construction throughout this region.
Nor, as Wu Ming has said repeatedly, are they environmentally defensible. Now, zero lot homes, condos, high density projects, these can built built more cheaply to achieve environmental benefits, but I’ve never heard you say that we should proceed in this fashion. My impression is that you’d like an affordable 2,500 square foot house with a backyard, and, if so, I don’t believe that it is good public policy to satisfy this craving, regardless of location.
And, of course, the question is, would any developers built these more affordable, environmentally desirable homes? Well, not so long as politicians allow them to built larger, more expensive ones, and not so long as developers attempt to control supply as did during 2003-2005, when they dribbled out homes to people who had to participate in lotteries to buy them.
These are the types of things that your Friedmanesque insistence upon a supply and demand solution ignore, the realities of how the homes are actually constructed and marketed in this region. The data presented in this post, which I believe should be considered a point of departure for further inquiry (as I attempted in my earlier comment here) and not a definitive resolution of the issues associated with the provision of housing in Davis (as Mike Harrington did in his unfortunate celebratory remark), opens the door towards trying to resolve the problem of the lack of availability of affordable housing by reference to real world factors.
On this last point, I think that we would probably agree. The data should not be exploited (as Harrington and others have done) to justify a pre-existing disposition to consider the defense of slow growth policies as more important than the provision of affordable housing by using it to create a false absolute: that no amount of housing construction can reduce prices in Davis.
It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.
–Richard Estes
The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
I emphathize with the sentiment, but this borders on narcissism. People in California get educated all over the place (and in all kinds of ways other than in the UC system), and compete in the global economy. I’m sure that the UC would like to believe that California would economically collapse without it, but it just isn’t true.
I also believe that this issue is incorrectly framed to the point of banality. Instead of focusing upon the cliche notion about the need for the state’s children to compete in the global economy, the real challenge is whether we and our children can forge a relationship with other countries that does not require other nations to adopt neoliberal economic policies and accept the dictates of US foreign policy, dictates that frequently involved an acceptance of US bases and US military action, or otherwise be designated as a rogue nation.
Whether UC Davis assists in this endeavor, I can’t say.
But, to return to the local question, what types of affordable housing could have been built over this time period of escalating housing prices? If your view is that Davis could have constructed enough single lot homes to render the prices affordable, then I disagree for the reasons I’ve already mentioned: higher costs of construction throughout this region.
Nor, as Wu Ming has said repeatedly, are they environmentally defensible. Now, zero lot homes, condos, high density projects, these can built built more cheaply to achieve environmental benefits, but I’ve never heard you say that we should proceed in this fashion. My impression is that you’d like an affordable 2,500 square foot house with a backyard, and, if so, I don’t believe that it is good public policy to satisfy this craving, regardless of location.
And, of course, the question is, would any developers built these more affordable, environmentally desirable homes? Well, not so long as politicians allow them to built larger, more expensive ones, and not so long as developers attempt to control supply as did during 2003-2005, when they dribbled out homes to people who had to participate in lotteries to buy them.
These are the types of things that your Friedmanesque insistence upon a supply and demand solution ignore, the realities of how the homes are actually constructed and marketed in this region. The data presented in this post, which I believe should be considered a point of departure for further inquiry (as I attempted in my earlier comment here) and not a definitive resolution of the issues associated with the provision of housing in Davis (as Mike Harrington did in his unfortunate celebratory remark), opens the door towards trying to resolve the problem of the lack of availability of affordable housing by reference to real world factors.
On this last point, I think that we would probably agree. The data should not be exploited (as Harrington and others have done) to justify a pre-existing disposition to consider the defense of slow growth policies as more important than the provision of affordable housing by using it to create a false absolute: that no amount of housing construction can reduce prices in Davis.
It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.
–Richard Estes
The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
I emphathize with the sentiment, but this borders on narcissism. People in California get educated all over the place (and in all kinds of ways other than in the UC system), and compete in the global economy. I’m sure that the UC would like to believe that California would economically collapse without it, but it just isn’t true.
I also believe that this issue is incorrectly framed to the point of banality. Instead of focusing upon the cliche notion about the need for the state’s children to compete in the global economy, the real challenge is whether we and our children can forge a relationship with other countries that does not require other nations to adopt neoliberal economic policies and accept the dictates of US foreign policy, dictates that frequently involved an acceptance of US bases and US military action, or otherwise be designated as a rogue nation.
Whether UC Davis assists in this endeavor, I can’t say.
But, to return to the local question, what types of affordable housing could have been built over this time period of escalating housing prices? If your view is that Davis could have constructed enough single lot homes to render the prices affordable, then I disagree for the reasons I’ve already mentioned: higher costs of construction throughout this region.
Nor, as Wu Ming has said repeatedly, are they environmentally defensible. Now, zero lot homes, condos, high density projects, these can built built more cheaply to achieve environmental benefits, but I’ve never heard you say that we should proceed in this fashion. My impression is that you’d like an affordable 2,500 square foot house with a backyard, and, if so, I don’t believe that it is good public policy to satisfy this craving, regardless of location.
And, of course, the question is, would any developers built these more affordable, environmentally desirable homes? Well, not so long as politicians allow them to built larger, more expensive ones, and not so long as developers attempt to control supply as did during 2003-2005, when they dribbled out homes to people who had to participate in lotteries to buy them.
These are the types of things that your Friedmanesque insistence upon a supply and demand solution ignore, the realities of how the homes are actually constructed and marketed in this region. The data presented in this post, which I believe should be considered a point of departure for further inquiry (as I attempted in my earlier comment here) and not a definitive resolution of the issues associated with the provision of housing in Davis (as Mike Harrington did in his unfortunate celebratory remark), opens the door towards trying to resolve the problem of the lack of availability of affordable housing by reference to real world factors.
On this last point, I think that we would probably agree. The data should not be exploited (as Harrington and others have done) to justify a pre-existing disposition to consider the defense of slow growth policies as more important than the provision of affordable housing by using it to create a false absolute: that no amount of housing construction can reduce prices in Davis.
It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.
–Richard Estes
The notion of a 1% growth rate defies reality not that reality ever bothered those that want to deny the role UC Davis plays in the state and the world. This idea that we can build a moat of farmland around Davis and keep the rest of the world out is a selfish disservice to the children of California who need a good education to compete in the global economy.
I emphathize with the sentiment, but this borders on narcissism. People in California get educated all over the place (and in all kinds of ways other than in the UC system), and compete in the global economy. I’m sure that the UC would like to believe that California would economically collapse without it, but it just isn’t true.
I also believe that this issue is incorrectly framed to the point of banality. Instead of focusing upon the cliche notion about the need for the state’s children to compete in the global economy, the real challenge is whether we and our children can forge a relationship with other countries that does not require other nations to adopt neoliberal economic policies and accept the dictates of US foreign policy, dictates that frequently involved an acceptance of US bases and US military action, or otherwise be designated as a rogue nation.
Whether UC Davis assists in this endeavor, I can’t say.
But, to return to the local question, what types of affordable housing could have been built over this time period of escalating housing prices? If your view is that Davis could have constructed enough single lot homes to render the prices affordable, then I disagree for the reasons I’ve already mentioned: higher costs of construction throughout this region.
Nor, as Wu Ming has said repeatedly, are they environmentally defensible. Now, zero lot homes, condos, high density projects, these can built built more cheaply to achieve environmental benefits, but I’ve never heard you say that we should proceed in this fashion. My impression is that you’d like an affordable 2,500 square foot house with a backyard, and, if so, I don’t believe that it is good public policy to satisfy this craving, regardless of location.
And, of course, the question is, would any developers built these more affordable, environmentally desirable homes? Well, not so long as politicians allow them to built larger, more expensive ones, and not so long as developers attempt to control supply as did during 2003-2005, when they dribbled out homes to people who had to participate in lotteries to buy them.
These are the types of things that your Friedmanesque insistence upon a supply and demand solution ignore, the realities of how the homes are actually constructed and marketed in this region. The data presented in this post, which I believe should be considered a point of departure for further inquiry (as I attempted in my earlier comment here) and not a definitive resolution of the issues associated with the provision of housing in Davis (as Mike Harrington did in his unfortunate celebratory remark), opens the door towards trying to resolve the problem of the lack of availability of affordable housing by reference to real world factors.
On this last point, I think that we would probably agree. The data should not be exploited (as Harrington and others have done) to justify a pre-existing disposition to consider the defense of slow growth policies as more important than the provision of affordable housing by using it to create a false absolute: that no amount of housing construction can reduce prices in Davis.
It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.
–Richard Estes
“It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.”
Bravo! Not everyone wants a 2500 sqft house. I’d be happy for a place half that size on a small lot as long as I wasn’t paying 2/3 of our salary for it.
This brings to mind a quote I heard recently on a favorite blog (CalculatedRisk) about the relationship US corporation have with their US employees: “We want you as consumers but not as employees”.
When Davis and the topic of elitism come up, I think “We want you as consumers but not as residents” would be a good summation of how many of us non-residents have been made to feel.
Some of us just like to own a home where we work and become invested in the community. What we hear repeatedly instead is that non-faculty UCD employees aren’t good enough to join in Davis’s reindeer games. Under those conditions, you wouldn’t feel very participatory either.
“It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.”
Bravo! Not everyone wants a 2500 sqft house. I’d be happy for a place half that size on a small lot as long as I wasn’t paying 2/3 of our salary for it.
This brings to mind a quote I heard recently on a favorite blog (CalculatedRisk) about the relationship US corporation have with their US employees: “We want you as consumers but not as employees”.
When Davis and the topic of elitism come up, I think “We want you as consumers but not as residents” would be a good summation of how many of us non-residents have been made to feel.
Some of us just like to own a home where we work and become invested in the community. What we hear repeatedly instead is that non-faculty UCD employees aren’t good enough to join in Davis’s reindeer games. Under those conditions, you wouldn’t feel very participatory either.
“It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.”
Bravo! Not everyone wants a 2500 sqft house. I’d be happy for a place half that size on a small lot as long as I wasn’t paying 2/3 of our salary for it.
This brings to mind a quote I heard recently on a favorite blog (CalculatedRisk) about the relationship US corporation have with their US employees: “We want you as consumers but not as employees”.
When Davis and the topic of elitism come up, I think “We want you as consumers but not as residents” would be a good summation of how many of us non-residents have been made to feel.
Some of us just like to own a home where we work and become invested in the community. What we hear repeatedly instead is that non-faculty UCD employees aren’t good enough to join in Davis’s reindeer games. Under those conditions, you wouldn’t feel very participatory either.
“It is possible to construct affordable housing in Davis, regardless of this data, if there is the community will to do so. And the community should be honest and admit that it is making a conscious decision not to construct it, instead of relying upon dubious interpretations of economic data to evade responsibility for its actions.”
Bravo! Not everyone wants a 2500 sqft house. I’d be happy for a place half that size on a small lot as long as I wasn’t paying 2/3 of our salary for it.
This brings to mind a quote I heard recently on a favorite blog (CalculatedRisk) about the relationship US corporation have with their US employees: “We want you as consumers but not as employees”.
When Davis and the topic of elitism come up, I think “We want you as consumers but not as residents” would be a good summation of how many of us non-residents have been made to feel.
Some of us just like to own a home where we work and become invested in the community. What we hear repeatedly instead is that non-faculty UCD employees aren’t good enough to join in Davis’s reindeer games. Under those conditions, you wouldn’t feel very participatory either.
I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?
If you don’t want housing on a piece of land, why don’t you get your friends together and buy it, or the development rights?
It’s expensive, yes. Which is fine, as long as you’re not paying for it , right? Just steal all that value from the farmer! It’s so much easier to just use the coercive apparatus of government to confiscate development rights, isn’t it?
(But to feel good about yourself, you need to “demonize” the landowner. We can’t be stealing from regular people, now can we? Let’s call him a “developer,” and say he’s greedy just like a Je… Whoops. Almost slipped. But you neo-socialist always need to target some minority, right?)
But if you sold your Davis house and moved to a similar house in Woodland, you could clear a couple hundred thousand dollars, and pitch it into the kitty. Then YOU, not the landowners (and indirectly other citizens) you victimize, would bear the cost.
The answer is that you are immoral, pure and simple, no better than common thieves. Far worse, in fact, because of the magnitude of the theft you sponsor. You make the Enron crowd look like choir boys. The fact that you view yourselves as morally superior makes you contemptible.
And the notion that housing would not be far cheaper in a free market environment is utterly laughable. The fact that you assert that restricting the supply of housing has no effect on prices demonstrates only that either (1) you are inexcusably ignorant, or, more likely, (2) shameless in the cynical lies you will propagate to advance your own political power and status.
The price of a good sized lot in Davis is $450,000. In a free market, it would be the cost of the undeveloped land, say $1000, plus the cost of infrastructure and a reasonable profit, say, $30,000.
Presto, the $800,000 house becomes a $381,000 house. And if you take out the costs you like to impose on homebuilders (You people require that they have to have lots of parking spots and big roads! So much for the planet!), we could cut the cost of building by at least another 25% (now its about a $300,000 house). Much more, really, if builders could build bare-bones homes for low income people. But they can’t, because you won’t let them.
So, you have relegated people who should be living in large homes to living in little run down tract homes, at best. You have relegated people who should be living in decent homes to being renters. And by far the worst, you have relegated those who might be renters to either being homeless, or living in horribly crowded and sub-standard environments.
You neo-socialists are very lucky that the horrific injuries you inflict on so many are hidden from view, or you’d be tarred and feathered en mass… if you were lucky.
I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?
If you don’t want housing on a piece of land, why don’t you get your friends together and buy it, or the development rights?
It’s expensive, yes. Which is fine, as long as you’re not paying for it , right? Just steal all that value from the farmer! It’s so much easier to just use the coercive apparatus of government to confiscate development rights, isn’t it?
(But to feel good about yourself, you need to “demonize” the landowner. We can’t be stealing from regular people, now can we? Let’s call him a “developer,” and say he’s greedy just like a Je… Whoops. Almost slipped. But you neo-socialist always need to target some minority, right?)
But if you sold your Davis house and moved to a similar house in Woodland, you could clear a couple hundred thousand dollars, and pitch it into the kitty. Then YOU, not the landowners (and indirectly other citizens) you victimize, would bear the cost.
The answer is that you are immoral, pure and simple, no better than common thieves. Far worse, in fact, because of the magnitude of the theft you sponsor. You make the Enron crowd look like choir boys. The fact that you view yourselves as morally superior makes you contemptible.
And the notion that housing would not be far cheaper in a free market environment is utterly laughable. The fact that you assert that restricting the supply of housing has no effect on prices demonstrates only that either (1) you are inexcusably ignorant, or, more likely, (2) shameless in the cynical lies you will propagate to advance your own political power and status.
The price of a good sized lot in Davis is $450,000. In a free market, it would be the cost of the undeveloped land, say $1000, plus the cost of infrastructure and a reasonable profit, say, $30,000.
Presto, the $800,000 house becomes a $381,000 house. And if you take out the costs you like to impose on homebuilders (You people require that they have to have lots of parking spots and big roads! So much for the planet!), we could cut the cost of building by at least another 25% (now its about a $300,000 house). Much more, really, if builders could build bare-bones homes for low income people. But they can’t, because you won’t let them.
So, you have relegated people who should be living in large homes to living in little run down tract homes, at best. You have relegated people who should be living in decent homes to being renters. And by far the worst, you have relegated those who might be renters to either being homeless, or living in horribly crowded and sub-standard environments.
You neo-socialists are very lucky that the horrific injuries you inflict on so many are hidden from view, or you’d be tarred and feathered en mass… if you were lucky.
I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?
If you don’t want housing on a piece of land, why don’t you get your friends together and buy it, or the development rights?
It’s expensive, yes. Which is fine, as long as you’re not paying for it , right? Just steal all that value from the farmer! It’s so much easier to just use the coercive apparatus of government to confiscate development rights, isn’t it?
(But to feel good about yourself, you need to “demonize” the landowner. We can’t be stealing from regular people, now can we? Let’s call him a “developer,” and say he’s greedy just like a Je… Whoops. Almost slipped. But you neo-socialist always need to target some minority, right?)
But if you sold your Davis house and moved to a similar house in Woodland, you could clear a couple hundred thousand dollars, and pitch it into the kitty. Then YOU, not the landowners (and indirectly other citizens) you victimize, would bear the cost.
The answer is that you are immoral, pure and simple, no better than common thieves. Far worse, in fact, because of the magnitude of the theft you sponsor. You make the Enron crowd look like choir boys. The fact that you view yourselves as morally superior makes you contemptible.
And the notion that housing would not be far cheaper in a free market environment is utterly laughable. The fact that you assert that restricting the supply of housing has no effect on prices demonstrates only that either (1) you are inexcusably ignorant, or, more likely, (2) shameless in the cynical lies you will propagate to advance your own political power and status.
The price of a good sized lot in Davis is $450,000. In a free market, it would be the cost of the undeveloped land, say $1000, plus the cost of infrastructure and a reasonable profit, say, $30,000.
Presto, the $800,000 house becomes a $381,000 house. And if you take out the costs you like to impose on homebuilders (You people require that they have to have lots of parking spots and big roads! So much for the planet!), we could cut the cost of building by at least another 25% (now its about a $300,000 house). Much more, really, if builders could build bare-bones homes for low income people. But they can’t, because you won’t let them.
So, you have relegated people who should be living in large homes to living in little run down tract homes, at best. You have relegated people who should be living in decent homes to being renters. And by far the worst, you have relegated those who might be renters to either being homeless, or living in horribly crowded and sub-standard environments.
You neo-socialists are very lucky that the horrific injuries you inflict on so many are hidden from view, or you’d be tarred and feathered en mass… if you were lucky.
I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?
If you don’t want housing on a piece of land, why don’t you get your friends together and buy it, or the development rights?
It’s expensive, yes. Which is fine, as long as you’re not paying for it , right? Just steal all that value from the farmer! It’s so much easier to just use the coercive apparatus of government to confiscate development rights, isn’t it?
(But to feel good about yourself, you need to “demonize” the landowner. We can’t be stealing from regular people, now can we? Let’s call him a “developer,” and say he’s greedy just like a Je… Whoops. Almost slipped. But you neo-socialist always need to target some minority, right?)
But if you sold your Davis house and moved to a similar house in Woodland, you could clear a couple hundred thousand dollars, and pitch it into the kitty. Then YOU, not the landowners (and indirectly other citizens) you victimize, would bear the cost.
The answer is that you are immoral, pure and simple, no better than common thieves. Far worse, in fact, because of the magnitude of the theft you sponsor. You make the Enron crowd look like choir boys. The fact that you view yourselves as morally superior makes you contemptible.
And the notion that housing would not be far cheaper in a free market environment is utterly laughable. The fact that you assert that restricting the supply of housing has no effect on prices demonstrates only that either (1) you are inexcusably ignorant, or, more likely, (2) shameless in the cynical lies you will propagate to advance your own political power and status.
The price of a good sized lot in Davis is $450,000. In a free market, it would be the cost of the undeveloped land, say $1000, plus the cost of infrastructure and a reasonable profit, say, $30,000.
Presto, the $800,000 house becomes a $381,000 house. And if you take out the costs you like to impose on homebuilders (You people require that they have to have lots of parking spots and big roads! So much for the planet!), we could cut the cost of building by at least another 25% (now its about a $300,000 house). Much more, really, if builders could build bare-bones homes for low income people. But they can’t, because you won’t let them.
So, you have relegated people who should be living in large homes to living in little run down tract homes, at best. You have relegated people who should be living in decent homes to being renters. And by far the worst, you have relegated those who might be renters to either being homeless, or living in horribly crowded and sub-standard environments.
You neo-socialists are very lucky that the horrific injuries you inflict on so many are hidden from view, or you’d be tarred and feathered en mass… if you were lucky.
“I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the argument going on here. Not one person here does not believe in supply and demand. Not one. The argument that I showed witn the data is not an argument against supply and demand. It is an argument that the housing market and the system in Davis is not a closed system. It is impacted by regional factors. That is why the number of housing permits do not impact the price, rather the regional factors do. That is the core of the argument, so please do not make the assumption that this means that supply and demand do not apply. Rather what we are saying is that it is regional supply not local supply.
“I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the argument going on here. Not one person here does not believe in supply and demand. Not one. The argument that I showed witn the data is not an argument against supply and demand. It is an argument that the housing market and the system in Davis is not a closed system. It is impacted by regional factors. That is why the number of housing permits do not impact the price, rather the regional factors do. That is the core of the argument, so please do not make the assumption that this means that supply and demand do not apply. Rather what we are saying is that it is regional supply not local supply.
“I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the argument going on here. Not one person here does not believe in supply and demand. Not one. The argument that I showed witn the data is not an argument against supply and demand. It is an argument that the housing market and the system in Davis is not a closed system. It is impacted by regional factors. That is why the number of housing permits do not impact the price, rather the regional factors do. That is the core of the argument, so please do not make the assumption that this means that supply and demand do not apply. Rather what we are saying is that it is regional supply not local supply.
“I’m wondering if any of the people who don’t believe in supply and demand have any respect for property rights, or respect for other people in general?”
This is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the argument going on here. Not one person here does not believe in supply and demand. Not one. The argument that I showed witn the data is not an argument against supply and demand. It is an argument that the housing market and the system in Davis is not a closed system. It is impacted by regional factors. That is why the number of housing permits do not impact the price, rather the regional factors do. That is the core of the argument, so please do not make the assumption that this means that supply and demand do not apply. Rather what we are saying is that it is regional supply not local supply.
DPD it is regional but it is also local supply and demand. Of course the mayor doesn’t think local supply and demand is a factor and of course she makes that claim without presenting evidence.
Anon 12:05 is right about many things if you take out the name calling rhetoric and look at the property rights issues that make sense. If the land is not subject to the Williamson Act tax relief and the owner has a right to develop by zoning and you don’t want them to develop then you should buy the land. If not you should get out of the way.
DPD it is regional but it is also local supply and demand. Of course the mayor doesn’t think local supply and demand is a factor and of course she makes that claim without presenting evidence.
Anon 12:05 is right about many things if you take out the name calling rhetoric and look at the property rights issues that make sense. If the land is not subject to the Williamson Act tax relief and the owner has a right to develop by zoning and you don’t want them to develop then you should buy the land. If not you should get out of the way.
DPD it is regional but it is also local supply and demand. Of course the mayor doesn’t think local supply and demand is a factor and of course she makes that claim without presenting evidence.
Anon 12:05 is right about many things if you take out the name calling rhetoric and look at the property rights issues that make sense. If the land is not subject to the Williamson Act tax relief and the owner has a right to develop by zoning and you don’t want them to develop then you should buy the land. If not you should get out of the way.
DPD it is regional but it is also local supply and demand. Of course the mayor doesn’t think local supply and demand is a factor and of course she makes that claim without presenting evidence.
Anon 12:05 is right about many things if you take out the name calling rhetoric and look at the property rights issues that make sense. If the land is not subject to the Williamson Act tax relief and the owner has a right to develop by zoning and you don’t want them to develop then you should buy the land. If not you should get out of the way.
I think than Anon at 12:05 overstates the case somewhat, but it does appear to be true that cities around the state have no problem subsidizing upper income housing developments with development funds and fee waivers, while refusing to provide similar inducements for middle and lower middle income housing projects.
Just look at downtown SF and Sacramento.
–Richard Estes
I think than Anon at 12:05 overstates the case somewhat, but it does appear to be true that cities around the state have no problem subsidizing upper income housing developments with development funds and fee waivers, while refusing to provide similar inducements for middle and lower middle income housing projects.
Just look at downtown SF and Sacramento.
–Richard Estes
I think than Anon at 12:05 overstates the case somewhat, but it does appear to be true that cities around the state have no problem subsidizing upper income housing developments with development funds and fee waivers, while refusing to provide similar inducements for middle and lower middle income housing projects.
Just look at downtown SF and Sacramento.
–Richard Estes
I think than Anon at 12:05 overstates the case somewhat, but it does appear to be true that cities around the state have no problem subsidizing upper income housing developments with development funds and fee waivers, while refusing to provide similar inducements for middle and lower middle income housing projects.
Just look at downtown SF and Sacramento.
–Richard Estes