by Fraser Shilling –
by Fraser Shilling –
I must admit to having been a bit on the fence on Measure P because of the bright and shiny promises that out-of-town developer Parlin LLC was making; promises that were backed up by people who had worked on environmental issues before. But what made me take that bright and shiny hook out of my mouth and really crystallized my thinking was seeing that the Sierra Club Chapter was supporting it. They claim that a big chunk of the land is already developed (by a house and barn), that an unenforceable 90% greenhouse gas reduction will take place (not counting all those cars driving to Sacramento), that it is bike and pedestrian accessible to shopping (really, how many people on the edge of town ride their bikes to the middle), and that it is “urban infill” (wow, I’m not even sure what to say). I won’t go into the all the lobbying that Parlin and some local politicos must have done to get this backing from the Sierra Club, but it made me glad I dropped that particular membership a while back.
The bottom-line is that Measure P will allow a developer with no track record here in town to make big green promises that attempt to make up for that fact that we are being asked to support another sprawling subdivision of unaffordable houses on the edge of town. With the continuing build-out of existing permitted development, we have no legal or moral obligation to add more houses, especially on the agricultural edge. And with the monster West Village development, all we will end up with is current taxpayers subsidizing even more sprawl and losing more property value. But as I started this story, the thing that really gets me is that these houses are not affordable and don’t meet Davis’ main needs. I have a pretty good job at UC Davis and with my spouse, our dual-income puts us in the vaguely-defined middle class. But I could not afford the $450,000 — $500,000 average house in this new development. I doubt that I could afford (or fit my family into) the smaller end of the range either. This development and the Measure (P) that would allow it to happen are not the right fit for Davis any more than Covell Village was (remember Measure X?). Please come out to the polls in November and help vote it down. Hopefully that will send the message that new housing has to be green and affordable to be sustainable.
Fraser Shilling, Ph.D is an environmental scientist at the University of California, Davis who studies wildlife movement, water quality, and ways that we can live more sustainably on the Earth.
[i]I could not afford the $450,000 — $500,000 average house in this new development. I doubt that I could afford (or fit my family into) the smaller end of the range either.[/i]
The way you talk about it, if you sold the house you have in Village Homes, you wouldn’t be able to buy it from yourself.
“The way you talk about it, if you sold the house you have in Village Homes, you wouldn’t be able to buy it from yourself.”
And your point is? Most people who purchased their homes prior to the housing bubble could not afford to purchase their own homes now. What does that have to do with the fact that the WHR homes, at $450,000 and up are not “affordable workforce housing” as the Yes on P campaign touts?
[i]And your point is?[/i]
The point is that outside of Davis, the local obsession with affordability is the punchline to a joke. “You’ll never guess why the polity in Davis doesn’t want to build houses. The argument is that if they did build, the houses wouldn’t be affordable! Get it?”
I’m not making it up that it’s a joke. I ran it by some colleagues from other universities, and they burst out laughing.
Maybe in listening to the veto-as-unaffordable argument, I am supposed be so far to the left as to reject the law of supply and demand. Or maybe I secretly should believe in supply and demand; maybe that’s the real point. After all, the “No on Measure P” flyer sent to me warns that WHR would “crowd the Davis real estate market.”
It would be one thing if Fraser argued that the houses in WHR are too large to be right for Davis. But that’s not what he said. He said that the lower end of WHR would still not be affordable, [b]and[/b] those houses would be too small for his family as well.
Thus, what it an injustice it would be to the working class if any of us dared to sell our houses in Davis. Our asking prices wouldn’t be affordable.
Its not the law of supply and demand that concerns the no growth advocates of Davis, although many who paid inflated prices in the last 10 years are worried about losing equity. The real issue is the law of the jungle. The law that says establish territory and don’t give any up to intraspecific competition. We see this in birds and rats as well as humans. Viewed through this lens the supply and demand issue combined with the environmental issue come into a clear overlapping 3d stereoscopic focus across generations of Yolo County property owners; the farmers want all land kept in agriculture and then each succeeding property owner wants development to stop once they have established their own territory unless its a development for their own offspring.
So it is no wonder that they claim things like we want to keep Davis livable or that we don’t need the housing in a declining market that is overpriced compared to the surrounding area or even that supply and demand doesn’t apply as they did when the market was hot. What drives these people is a much more base terrritorial behavior common to many animals. The most honest and irrational argument was articulated by Sue Greenwald when she claimed erroneously that California is over carrying capacity without the subtlety of Frazier’s more sophisticated attack upon the consumptive behaviors of families who live in big houses.
[i]What drives these people is a much more base terrritorial behavior common to many animals.[/i]
I’d like to say that you and I are on the same page, but when you make the argument so ad hominem and negative, I can’t. And I hope that you have some better to post anonymously than to just carry an enormous chip on your shoulder.
I don’t buy either Sue’s argument that California is overpopulated, or Fraser’s argument that WHR is some kind of needless luxury. But if I had to pick one argument as more palatable, I would say that Sue is less wrong in this case. Water and natural land are the main environmental reasons for people to choose other states over California. However, agricultural land is just as unnatural as cities, and it uses more water per acre. So where Sue is wrong is that growth in Davis is better for the environment than growth almost anywhere else in America. But this is not quite a maddening kind of wrong.
By contrast, if someone who lives in Village Homes badmouths WHR as unaffordable sprawl, that is blatantly hypocritical. WHR is higher density and more affordable than Village Homes, and they are about the same distance from typical city services.
As for the general theme of territorialism, if people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a house, they have bought into a certain quality of life and a certain expectation of future home values. They have the right to ask the city not to abuse their investment. What I do not like is a fabricated “progressive” ideology that amounts to a hard-line inability to share.
Greg, don’t take it personal! It’s just that some of us think a town of 65,000 is big enough–it is not about territoriality, not sharing, or preserving our equity. There are really nice homes in Woodland and Dixon that are close to Davis, and those actually are nice towns.
“Greg, don’t take it personal! It’s just that some of us think a town of 65,000 is big enough–it is not about territoriality, not sharing, or preserving our equity. There are really nice homes in Woodland and Dixon that are close to Davis, and those actually are nice towns.”
Thanks for confirming my thesis.
Of course if you live in Dixon or Woodland you might have a good argument.
Druid, I know there is a lot of humor on this blog, but do you REALLY believe:
Viewed through this lens the supply and demand issue combined with the environmental issue come into a clear overlapping 3d stereoscopic focus across generations of Yolo County property owners; the farmers want all land kept in agriculture and then each succeeding property owner wants development to stop once they have established their own territory unless its a development for their own offspring
So anyone who doesn’t want to live in Roseville is motivated solely by some primordial instinct? If so, don’t worry; by the time you’re out of you sophmore year, you’ll understand better.
“However, agricultural land is just as unnatural as cities, and it uses more water per acre….”
CA water resources are in crisis and our legislature is called into special session by our Governator. Yes, agriculture does use more water than residential development but the SOLUTION is not to build more dams, build more residential to replace good farmland. Central Valley agribusiness agricultural practices have to change to be more in sync with its desert-like natural conditions. The 1930’s era ridicuously low cost federal water supplied to Central Valley agribusiness needs to be scrapped and brought into the present. The political power of CA agribusiness is staggering and we will most likely see the CA legislature “kick the can down the road” once again. Populist resistance at the grassroots level is,for now, the best hope of holding the line against the further destruction of valuable farmland.
I voted “no” on P bc –
1) The townhouses at $450,000 are not “affordable workforce housing” as advertised
2) The low income affordable housing, most with rents at $1000 – $1200 per month, is not really affordable for low income
3) The project is so dense, children have no yards to play in, but must go to the “orchard”
4) We do not need housing at this time, bc of the slumped housing market, and bc there are already enough houses either on the market or in the pipline
5) The project will be a net fiscal negative to the city after 15 years
6) The process by which Measure P was put on the ballot was flawed – no commission input, made at midnight when everyone was tired, w the developer being asked by the Mayor when THE DEVELOPER wanted to put it on the ballot
7) The developer placed misleading information on the ballot, touting the development as being affordable, and generating millions of dollars in benefit for city services
8) To vote yes would send the message to other developers that to get ahead, they should falsify/overexaggerate claims on the ballot statement
The developer of WHR needs to go back to the drawing board and do better for Davis. That is the message I am sending with my “no” vote.
the best hope of holding the line against the further destruction of valuable farmland.
The best hope is to grow hay in other states that have more water. People want to live in California, hay wants to grow elsewhere. If California stopped growing so much hay, there would never be talk of state water shortages even with a much higher state population. In fact the state could still grow everything that it grows for human consumption; the monster water customer is hay fed to animals.
Moreover, the local farmland fetish doesn’t have much to do with farming. People don’t really care if anything grows on the land around Davis, as long as it doesn’t grow houses.
‘Moreover, the local farmland fetish doesn’t have much to do with farming. People don’t really care if anything grows on the land around Davis, as long as it doesn’t grow houses.’
Exactly. The question is what does the greater damage? All these people that have to commute into Davis for work or more homes? Of course, if you really cared about the environment, it would be the former. If all you cared about was your personal wealth, the later. This is the hypocrisy that has made Davis a regional ‘green’ joke.
Of course, those people commuting in our also tearing up your roads so now you also have some significant maintenance to take care of as well. As a 5 day a week commuter, that’s for picking up the tax tab for me.
If the market were okay you would easily be able to sell your home for $450,000 or more. We are not going to be in this bubble forever.
The commuting from out of town argument is a joke. Most of the people who live in Davis work outside of Davis. UCD is the largest employer in town, so unless they work for UCD or the city there are not many employers in Davis.
I found it rather interesting that one of the signatures on the No on P statement was Fred Buderi. He works in Vacaville and commutes everyday. He is planner I believe.
I’m tired of people just saying no to everything even when ideas are good ones. I voted yes and I hope my partner does too.
I think a lot of the people who are No on P just got their piece of the pie and don’t want anyone else to have it. No offense, but that really is how the argument comes across. I recall some years back when there was a lot of opposition to building WH. Now we have WH residents saying no to anything being built around them. I find it interesting that people will often do what is in their direct best interest and not what is in the best interest of their community or neighborhood.
“I think a lot of the people who are No on P just got their piece of the pie and don’t want anyone else to have it. No offense, but that really is how the argument comes across. I recall some years back when there was a lot of opposition to building WH. Now we have WH residents saying no to anything being built around them. I find it interesting that people will often do what is in their direct best interest and not what is in the best interest of their community or neighborhood.”
How arrogant of you to decide for me why I voted “no” on P! According to you my motives must be self-interest motivated only. But of course “yes” on P people are as pure as the driven snow? What hogwash!
I was on the fence about whether measure P would pass or not but now I really think it’s going down in flames. With many sceptical about the Sierra Club endorsement and The Enterprise coming out against it I think Parlin has invested alot of time and money for nothing. The Enterprise had it right, now’s not the time for more housing. It’s the economy stupid!
Commuter for Yes on P says: “If the market were okay you would easily be able to sell your home for $450,000 or more. We are not going to be in this bubble forever.
….just watched 4 experts on C-Span discussing the housing issue. Their forecast is that home values will continue to decline and then bottom out sometime in the not-too-distant future. Once it bottoms out, home values will remain flat without any significant increase in value FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
How about the city taking some of our Measure O money and buying Parlin’s property at the “firesale” price that he may be willing to take after Measure P goes down. After all, this is exactly what the voters thought their money would be used for when they passed Measure O(property immediately adjacent to the city rather than somewhere way out in Yolo county). The low property tax rate of this property makes it better suited as a city-owned property than a residential development.
Doesn’t that mean that the housing at WHR might be more affordable than the No on side is claiming?
“Doesn’t that mean that the housing at WHR might be more affordable than the No on side is claiming?”
I don’t think so. I believe that these experts were speaking of existing home value. I would imagine that Parlin came up with $450,000 as the minimum price in order to champion its “affordability”. This would be current fixed construction costs, etc. plus his profit. Actually, according to these same experts, if historical economic trends hold true, we may very will be in for a period of stagflation,in response to the multibillions that the Fed’s printing presses created, which would drive up prices while job creation and income levels remain stagnant.
Just 15 more days and this torrid affair of Davis politics will be over!