As the Davis City Council finally emerges from its summer doldrums, it will have many issues on its plate. However, one issue that it already decided will begin to have some major impacts. Back on July 9, by a 3-2 vote, the Davis City Council made critical changes to its Affordable Housing Requirements that would allow credit for Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny Flats or ADUs) to count toward inclusionary requirements on a 50 percent basis.
In the wake of the loss of RDA funding, the city has limited options, given Measure R’s limitations for new large housing projects on Davis’ periphery, city officials successfully argued.
Critics charge that there is no guarantee ADUs would be rented or would end up as affordable units. Moreover, ADUs may work well for college-age students and possibly other populations without families, but will not work well for family units.
“ADUs are not going to provide the ideal living environment for all the types of population in the community that we’re trying to target,” the city’s new Community Development Director Mike Webb acknowledged. “We also heard the recurring comment that these units don’t provide for the necessary space for family living. We’re not trying to suggest that they do. We are proposing an approach that really takes a multitude of different housing types into account and to really try to expand on those opportunities.”
The biggest impact of the affordable housing policy will be the upcoming Cannery Project. According to information from the city, the requirements move from 50 for-sale affordable and 50 on the project’s land dedication parcel, to 40 to 60 permanently affordable apartments and 28-40 accessory dwelling units.
Critics look at these changes and believe that the ordinance allows developers to ignore the for-sale, affordable housing components that they previously had to require. Instead, there are a smaller number of apartments that become affordable rental units and the rest of the requirement is filled up with 28 to 40 ADUs, which may or may not become rental units, but do not serve the families.
The city defends the design arguing that, as a whole, this is one of the most affordable projects that the community has done. It has a range of choices in housing and moves away from the large, single family homes, on large lots of land.
And the city has serious constraints. The loss of RDA money means that the city cannot invest in new affordable projects like they may have been able to in the past. The advent of Measure J and Measure R, while granting the citizens the right to vote, has restricted, in the minds of some, the ability of the city to develop new developments which would contain affordable units within them.
For illustrative purposes, the Affordable Housing Ordinance may also impact retroactively previously approved projects. For instance, less than a week after the council passed the ordinance, developers for the Willowbank Park Subdivision were in front of the social services commission, “requesting revisions to the Affordable Housing Plan (AHP) for the Willowbank Park Subdivision. It includes reducing the required number of affordable units based on changes to the subdivision and the amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance recently adopted by City Council.”
As noted, the ordinance will not even become final until this Tuesday, but they were already looking to reduce the subdivision’s affordable housing requirement total to four units, from six. Now, in part, that was due to a change in the design of the subdivision.
The project changed, where 9 townhouse units were replaced with five detached single-family units (a change that by itself would reduce the number of affordable units).
Staff noted, “Staff believes that the recommended revisions would be consistent with the City’s policies and requirements for affordable housing. It responds to the changed circumstances and requirements, while maintaining a requirement to build units on site.”
A motion to reduce the number of affordable units from 6 to 4 was narrowly defeated by the Social Services Commission, before they unanimously passed a motion to reduce the number to five affordable units and, in a separate motion, to require four of those units be developed onsite with another, through the payment of the in-lieu fee.
Further changes by staff, however, may reset the requirement when it comes before the planning commission this fall.
Changes to these types of requirements illustrate the concerns that affordable housing advocates have about the changes to the ordinance. Clearly, in the near future there will be limited opportunities to provide families with affordable housing options.
As Mindy Romero, a member of the Social Services Commission and the Chair of Yolo Mutual Housing Association, noted in July, ADUs simply do not meet the needs of people with families and people who are in the low income category.
Looking concretely at Cannery, she said, “(The Commission) calculated that with the proposed changes we would lose probably about 20 units at that site, that’s affordable homes for families living in Davis now.”
And once again, the problem is there is no assurance that ADUs will end up with as actual affordable units.
In a March letter from Alysa Meyer, the managing attorney at Legal Services of Northern California, she noted staff’s continued support for the ADUs despite a 5-2 vote against it by the Social Services Commission.
Ms. Meyer writes, “Legal Services of Northern California opposes providing a 50% credit for accessory dwelling units absent a program to monitor and ensure that at least 50% of the ADUs are affordable to and occupied by lower income households.”
“There is nothing in the report to indicate that the property owners intended to build the ADUs to provide affordable rental housing. Given the vast number of homeowners who turn out to public meetings to oppose any affordable multi-family rental project, it seems rather unlikely that homeowners would construct an ADU for the purpose of providing affordable housing to low income tenants,” she continues.
Staff has noted that they lack the resources to track and monitor second units to ensure they are affordable.
“In fact, permitting accessory units as inclusionary housing excludes families with children or people with live-in caregiver needs who need more space than an accessory unit provides,” Ms. Meyer argued.
The city is in a bind here, there is no doubt. There are fewer opportunities to build additional housing, and fewer resources with which to do that, but the city seems to have responded in a way that makes it less likely, rather than more likely, to have affordable housing for young families.
We agree with those who argue that we need more rental units for students and have consistently argued that UC Davis, especially as it continues to seek to expand, needs to provide for more of those housing requirements on campus. At the same time, everyone remains concerned about the lack of housing for parents with school-aged children.
In our view, this simply takes us in the wrong direction.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“At the same time, everyone remains concerned about the lack of housing for parents with school aged children.”
Not everyone, in fact the vocal opposition to housing, the religious fealty to protecting ag land, the supporters of measure R, those that condemn all peripheral development as sprawl, those that demand unattainable and vague definitions of innovation, people who value their own notions of quality of life more then embracing a larger community, opponents of more traffic and fear mongers who equate more people with more crime all demonstrate a lack of concern over lack of housing for young families expressed by their greater concern for other values.
“The advent of Measure J and Measure R while granting the citizens the right to vote, has restricted in the minds of some, the ability of the city to develop new developments which would contain within them, affordable units…There are fewer opportunities to build additional housing, fewer resources with which to do that, but the city seems to have responded in a way that makes it less likely rather than more likely to have affordable housing for young families…this simply takes us in the wrong direction.”
Of course. In what ways could the city respond that would “make it more likely to have affordable housing for young families”? We’re headed in the only possible direction, not in the wrong direction.
Davis has a poor history in its running of for-sale affordable housing schemes and should get out of the business of trying. How many affordable housing units developed since the city’s program started are still available at lower than market prices and how many got sold off with windfall profits for first buyers, including many who were more connected and lucky than poor?
How can there be anyone left who thinks Measure J/R has NOT “restricted…the ability of the city to develop new developments (with) affordable units”? Which affordable housing advocates think that the city can afford to continue without the millions of RDA dollars we threw at this effort in past years?
Why should we expect developers to generate the same levels of affordable houses in today’s economy and while we’re imposing more and more amenities, community improvements and state-of-the-art environmental items?
Who do we think pays for the city’s demands on developers, and what do we think it does to the affordability of the rest of a development as well as the rest of the city’s housing inventory?
An expensive enclave that thinks it can keep up its young-family friendly atmosphere without building housing is living in a dream world. We already (and still) have too many schools for our already vanishing supply of children.
Affordable housing advocates would do better to provide maps to Woodland, West Sacramento and Dixon where large numbers of much less expensive housing already exist. Squeezing a few dozen “affordables” out of Davis’ last housing development is the final pursuit of a well-intentioned initiative that failed long ago because it’s at conflict with so many other of the town’s other policies.
This is so simple, but the current affordable housing program/paradigm/policy does nothing to enhance the affordability of housing for the largest number of people.
Build more apartments. That is the beginning, middle, and end of an effective affordable housing policy.
David, can you find out what the rental/vacancy rate is at the New Harmony site is, in South Davis? It has been open a few months and does not seem full at all. Thanks.
David, can you find out what the rental/vacancy rate is at the New Harmony site is, in South Davis? It has been open a few months and does not seem full at all. Thanks. That would help to address Don’s continuing issue…..
don: how does building more apartments provide housing for families? my kids are grown now, but there’s no way i would have tried to have a family in an apartment and if that meant going to another community where housing costs were lower, then so be it.
Simple. If there aren’t enough apartments, where are the students living?
woodland, dixon, sacramento
[quote]woodland, dixon, sacramento[/quote]
Some. Hundreds, probably thousands of them, are living in groups renting houses, duplexes, and other ‘affordable housing’ in Davis.
it would be interesting to quantify that. btw, do you know what a rental is on a 1000 sq foot house in davis?
New Harmony: “Now Accepting Applications for Waiting List.”
[i]Build more apartments. That is the beginning, middle, and end of an effective affordable housing policy.[/i]
You make Davis weird, not special.
We need high-density housing for students and young people. But this vision of packing people close together for no reason other than to prevent any development of surrounding farm land, some that is low quality farm land, and keeping all retail contained in the small-scale footprint of downtown… is myopic, and… well, weird.
I just cannot understand the attraction to that design plan. We can make housing affordable by building soviet-style box apartments and packing them in. But who would want to live there?
Affordability is just one piece of the puzzle for a quality development. But it should be affordability for a range of renters and buyers that matches the demographic of a diverse community.
And I know you and I disagree on this point… the number of students attending UCD will start to fall in the coming years, and will continue to fall. Here is why:
– Education cost inflation continually exceeding the rate of inflation by orders of magnitude
– Broke state budgets due to out of control public sector labor costs including mounting pension and healthcare costs
– Drop in family discretionary income due to a jobless recovery, drops in compensation, higher healthcare costs and increased taxation
– Emerging alternatives to traditional college that provide a higher-quality product for a lower price-point
People that claim that traditional college is safe and that student populations will continue to grow have their head in the sand.
An article in the Sac Bee today about the Turtle House, owned by Mike Harrington, stated that the lease for the house is $140,000 per year. With 14 roommates this means that each student is paying around $830 per month to rent a room. We can build affordable housing, but it doesn’t mean that landlords will offer affordable rents.
[quote]You make Davis weird, not special. [/quote]
Yep. Keep Davis weird. Works for Austin, doesn’t it? Actually, what you are saying is that college towns are weird. Probably true.
[quote]We need high-density housing for students and young people. But this vision of packing people close together for no reason other than to prevent any development of surrounding farm land, some that is low quality farm land, and keeping all retail contained in the small-scale footprint of downtown… is myopic, and… well, weird. [/quote]
What makes it for “no reason other than to prevent blah blah blah”
The purpose of building more apartments is to provide rental housing for the thousands of students who are here. It is to try and get the vacancy rental rate up closer to 5%.
[quote]I just cannot understand the attraction to that design plan. We can make housing affordable by building soviet-style box apartments and packing them in. [/quote]
Again: name one apartment building here that is “soviet-style.” The apartments in South Davis are good examples of what we need more of. Hundreds more of.
[quote]But who would want to live there? [/quote]
Students. Duh.
[quote]Affordability is just one piece of the puzzle for a quality development. But it should be affordability for a range of renters and buyers that matches the demographic of a diverse community. [/quote]
Student renters are crowding out all of the other range of renters and buyers. There aren’t enough apartments. There isn’t enough campus housing.
[quote]And I know you and I disagree on this point… the number of students attending UCD will start to fall in the coming years, and will continue to fall. [/quote]
You are completely, dead wrong on this issue. There is zero basis for this theory of yours. Moreover, it would be incredibly irresponsible to apply this nonsense to our growth and housing policies.
[quote]Here is why: - Education cost inflation continually exceeding the rate of inflation by orders of magnitude - Broke state budgets due to out of control public sector labor costs including mounting pension and healthcare costs - Drop in family discretionary income due to a jobless recovery, drops in compensation, higher healthcare costs and increased taxation - Emerging alternatives to traditional college that provide a higher-quality product for a lower price-point People that claim that traditional college is safe and that student populations will continue to grow have their head in the sand. [/quote]
My head is not in the sand. Some colleges will experience enrollment plateaus and even declines. UC Davis will not, for reasons that are apparently hard for you to fathom.
What you seem to be saying is that we should just let the shortage of thousands of beds that we already have in Davis fester, because it will magically solve itself as UC Davis enrollment declines? Great plan. Maybe you should run for city council on that platform.
We know for a fact that UC Davis has added 8,000 students over a decade without a comparable increase in housing units.
We know the 2020 Initiative plans to add 5,000 more students, with only enough beds for a portion (40 – 50%? of that).
We know that UCD is on track to make that projection, having added over 600 students this year alone.
So knowing all that, we know we need more beds for students, on campus and in town. We have thousands of students who are overwhelming our housing market.
We know this because the apartment vacancy rate for the last fifteen years has been below 2% for 11 of those years.
The problem is going to get worse, not better. Even if enrollment flattens in 2020, we will still have a shortage of beds because of the backlog of housing insufficiency.
So anybody who tells us that we aren’t going to need more housing for students in the future has their head not just in the sand. That person is living in a fantasy land. Because we have a shortage of housing NOW.
[url]http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/17/data-show-increasing-pace-college-enrollment-declines[/url]
“Build more apartments. That is the beginning, middle, and end of an effective affordable housing policy. “
completely disagree.
“We need high-density housing for students and young people. But this vision of packing people close together for no reason other than to prevent any development of surrounding farm land, some that is low quality farm land, and keeping all retail contained in the small-scale footprint of downtown… is myopic, and… well, weird. “
not if it’s done correctly. you’re actually missing a key component and that is tighter clustered development, more local economic, means less commuting, it’s an environmental issue, development of farm land is only part of that equation. read up on smart planning principles.
look at page three of this staff report: link ([url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20130827/08-Mission-Residence.pdf[/url])
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/college-enrollment-expect_n_2488151.html[/url]
[url]http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/186357812.html?ipad=y[/url]
right back at you: link ([url]http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10013[/url])
difference is mine’s local and based on global factors. you’re committing an ecological fallacy of trying to use aggregate data to predict individual level outcomes.
should said based on “local not global factors”
Frankly: from your link. [b]”The survey results show there continues to be a flight to quality, with large, higher-rated universities generally experiencing enrollment growth.”[/b]
I rest my case.
frankly looked at the title and didn’t read his own article. hilarious.
[url]http://www.discoverpraxis.com/[/url]
Davis Progressive did not read the three articles, like Don he looked for a sentence that validated his worldview. Sort of the same thing mortgage brokers and investors were doing in 2006.
And I challenge the point that UCD is a higher-rated university for undergraduates.
how is 38th best out of hundreds of colleges, not a higher rated university? link ([url]http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/university-of-california-davis-1313[/url])
UC Davis is a large university, high-rated, and considered world-class in several categories. All these links you’re providing are irrelevant.
Since you’re looking things up, here’s enrollment info for the UC system: [url]http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2012/statsumm2012.pdf[/url]
Do you not believe UC Davis is a high-rated university?
Do you not believe the Chancellor will achieve her goals?
[quote]like Don he looked for a sentence that validated his worldview.[/quote]
I made my point. You’re wrong about enrollment at UC Davis.
[url]And I challenge the point that UCD is a higher-rated university for undergraduates.[/url]
Then you are wrong about that, too.
UC Davis rankings: [url]http://www.ucdavis.edu/about/facts/rankings/index.html[/url]
Selected items:
1st among national universities in number of faculty papers written in the field of ecology and the environment, agriculture, entomology, food science and nutrition, and plant and animal sciences (ScienceWatch)
Tied for 1st among research universities (with UC Berkeley and Penn State) as the top producer of U.S. Fulbright Scholars, 2012-13
5th among U.S. universities in the number of international scholars (“Open Doors 2010 Report on International Educational Exchange”)
7th among public universities and 27th among public and private universities ((The Best Colleges’ Top 50 Colleges and Universities in America for 2013)
8th among public research universities nationwide and 38th among public and private research universities (U.S. News & World Report’s 2013 “America’s Best Colleges”)
14th in research funding among U.S. ranked public universities and 22nd for public and private universities (National Science Foundation 2011 R&D Expenditures)
[quote]btw, do you know what a rental is on a 1000 sq foot house in davis? [/quote]
We pay $1,600/month for a house that’s about 1100-1200 square feet (in West Davis). About 3 years ago, we paid $1,500/month for a duplex (about 1100 square feet in North Davis), and when we moved the owners were raising the rent to $1,700/month.
I am one of the people (like other posters…Ginger, for one if I remember correctly) who will probably never be able to afford to buy in Davis, but we have chosen to stay here because of the quality of the schools (which my daughter is now very well-integrated into and she’s succeeding).
Most of the people in the applicant pools for both houses we have rented were students (vet med students, not undergrads). When we were out looking at rental houses, the ones we previewed were filled with students (in some cases undergrads, in some cases grads).
I think having more apartments for students would free up more single-family houses and duplexes for families. I agree (with whoever said it above) that most families do not want to live in an apartment. Unless I am living in a big, bustling city like NY, Seattle or San Francisco, I would really hate living in an apartment. I would much rather rent a duplex or a single-family house.
Read the article in the Davis Enterprise today following up on the President’s speech on rating colleges based on affordability. Also read the comments by Yudof that half of the number of UCD students have their full tuitions paid by Pell Grants, Cal Grants or UC’s Blue and Gold Opportunity Plan. However, that is only half of the story… because it is middle class attendees that are also funding this other half by paying 100% of the tuition costs. And those middle class parents are increasingly unable to afford the total cost of college, and are increasingly seeing quality and less costly alternatives for an equivalent undergraduate degree.
UCD will weather this bubble storm better than a lot of private colleges based on cost comparison, and better than some of the public colleges based on market prestige, but the alternatives will begin to take away market share for those middle class paying customers, and it will have a ripple effect on the entire financial model for the business.
When we add to this the fact that state and federal contributions will continue to shrink due to the spending and debt problems that continue to grow, we have a perfect storm (i.e., bubble) that will hit and alter the industry of higher learning to force colleges to shrink. The only way for these colleges to prevent a drop in enrollment will be to reduce their costs. But UCD has structural costs that will be impossible to change… especially given that there is no UC leadership with any real business experience.
The point here is that we don’t need to overbuild apartments, and we need to be increasing commercial development because our one-company town will be eventually adversely impacted by the company growing smaller.
Here is another consideration:
[quote]”According to a survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers, students who interned were 38% more likely to get a job after graduation. That finding is corroborated by the Heldrich survey, in which 47% of students said that doing more internships would have helped them in their job search.”[/quote]
So, maybe another way to “save” UCD from this inevitable decline in enrollment is to open up more commercial development to increase the number of intern/work opportunities.
If Davis is a place where students have a higher probability of getting a good job after graduation because of a plentiful supply of quality intern/work opportunities, it will do a lot to help insulate the university from cost-competitive pressures.
However, if the NIMBY, stasis, change-averse continue to get their way, Davis will increasingly be caught in that growing degradation of perceived value and affordability where more middle-class families will pursue alternatives.
[quote]The point here is that we don’t need to overbuild apartments[/quote]
How many apartments have we added in the last fifteen years? Nobody is proposing ‘overbuilding’ apartments. We are thousands of beds short. Thousands. We need to catch up, not “overbuild.”
UC Davis has many options for maintaining enrollment at the 2020 levels once we get there. It is a very attractive school to foreign students, graduate students, and transfer students.
We need local political leaders to work with UC Davis to provide sufficient housing for the current and increase in enrollment through 2020. At that point enrollment may plateau. There is no rational basis to think it will decline.
Any and all development that fails to deal with the 600+ new students added to the Davis population every year for the next 6 – 7 years will fail to meet the stated goals. You won’t get housing for young families, because student renters will crowd them out. The only way you’ll get housing for lower-income people will be by building units and then discriminating for them as you run these lotteries. Or, like UC Davis, you can build housing and then discriminate as to who you rent or sell to (West Village, Aggie Village).
“What you seem to be saying is that we should just let the shortage of thousands of beds that we already have in Davis fester,”
What you keep saying, Don, is that UCD has already has thousands of students more than can be housed on campus and in Davis (and Woodland, Winters Sacramento and Vacaville?). Yet, the university announces a 2020 plan that dumps thousands more into the same area with no plan for housing them, you point out.
My as yet unanswered question is why do you assume that UCD’s arbitrary, inconsiderate, unthinking announcement puts a legitimate, serious burden on the City of Davis?
Why should we change our short-term and long-term community planning in order to accommodate a UCD 2020 plan that’s unreasonable on the face of it? What’s wrong with assuming that today’s method of meeting the current shortfall (vacant houses and apartments in neighboring towns) isn’t adequate to take care of the university’s expansion plans?
Wouldn’t we rather have more professors and their families living in Davis rather than even more students? Does it help to turn Davis into a community by landlords more than it already is?
Just Saying: To answer three of your questions: because we don’t have any choice. That’s what you get when you host a large university in a small town.
As to this: [quote]What’s wrong with assuming that today’s method of meeting the current shortfall (vacant houses and apartments in neighboring towns) isn’t adequate to take care of the university’s expansion plans? [/quote]
That isn’t not, largely, what’s happening. Most of them are living in non-apartment rental units (i.e., houses) in town.
“You won’t get housing for young families, because student renters will crowd them out.”
Are you sure that leadership in a place people call The People’s Republic of Davis couldn’t come up a city ordinance that would solve his problem? Any city that seriously considers sending its employees to check paper bag inventory/usage records at grocery stores and its police to houses to check wood supplies, stove types and burning practices could consider how many people in rentals make for allowable health and safety requirements.
I agree with Don Shor: more apartments is at least a partial solution.
“To answer three of your questions: because we don’t have any choice. That’s what you get when you host a large university in a small town.”
I guess we’ll never agree on this point. And, this doesn’t answer three of my questions, just ignores them. Even a university community gets to make choices that might conflict with university ideas–to assume it doesn’t is a cop out and will result in bad decisions for the overall community.
We should be making plans together with UCD rather than simply asking “How high?” when it wants us to jump.
—
“That is not, largely, what’s happening. Most of them are living in non-apartment rental units (i.e., houses) in town.”
This is surprising; i just assumed that if there was no place for all students in Davis, significant numbers would be living elsewhere now. You usually have your facts documented, so where can we check on how many of the “excess students” live in neighboring communities.
If pretty much every student is living on campus or in Davis now, how are your figures for shortages defined and calculated?
Finally, will you be supporting the only innovative solution offered so far, limiting single-family dwelling occupancy to family members unless over 3,500 square feet?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”This is so simple, but the current affordable housing program/paradigm/policy does nothing to enhance the affordability of housing for the largest number of people.
Build more apartments. That is the beginning, middle, and end of an effective affordable housing policy.”[/i]
It is indeed that simple. I support Don’s approach 100%. Build more apartments. That should be the beginning, middle, and end of an effective affordable housing policy.
As Yale economist Rober Shiller noted in his recent article “Owning a Home Isn’t Always a Virtue” published in the New York Times on July 13th (and republished in the Davis Enterprise).
[quote]CERTAINLY, many of us have a basic drive to create our own habitats. We enjoy personalizing our living spaces, inside and out. But there are also important practical advantages to renting to consider — especially when asking if government should support or discourage homeownership.
For example, renters are more mobile. That means they are more likely to accept jobs in another city, or even on the other side of a large metropolis. In addition, it’s hardly wise to put all of one’s life savings into a single, highly leveraged investment in a home — as millions of underwater borrowers today can attest.[/quote]
That last sentence bears repeating . . . [u]it’s hardly wise to put all of one’s life savings into a single, highly leveraged investment in a home — as millions of underwater borrowers today can attest.[/u]
[quote][i]”To answer three of your questions: because we don’t have any choice. That’s what you get when you host a large university in a small town.”[/i]
I guess we’ll never agree on this point. And, this doesn’t answer three of my questions, just ignores them. Even a university community gets to make choices that might conflict with university ideas–to assume it doesn’t is a cop out and will result in bad decisions for the overall community.[/quote]
That’s what we’re doing right now: making choices that ignore the reality, and making decisions that are bad for the overall community. We’re discussing a large housing development that literally provides no rental housing for students. We’re discussing affordable housing options for low-income families – which, by definition, excludes rental housing for students. Nowhere is anyone discussing the most pressing housing need that Davis has faced for over a decade.
[quote] We should be making plans together with UCD rather than simply asking “How high?” when it wants us to jump.[/quote]
I agree. I am waiting for some evidence that our political leaders are discussing this housing issue with UCD officials. And I am waiting for some evidence that UCD officials are aware of the housing problem they have created for the city of Davis.
[quote]
[i] — ”That is not, largely, what’s happening. Most of them are living in non-apartment rental units (i.e., houses) in town.” [/i]
This is surprising; i just assumed that if there was no place for all students in Davis, significant numbers would be living elsewhere now. You usually have your facts documented, so where can we check on how many of the “excess students” live in neighboring communities. If pretty much every student is living on campus or in Davis now, how are your figures for shortages defined and calculated? [/quote]
It is difficult to get precise numbers of how many students live anywhere other than on campus and in apartments. Those units are surveyed. The others aren’t.
Here are some numbers that compare Davis and Woodland, that might be a good starting point to see the impact students are having on ‘renter-occupied housing units’ other than apartments.
[img] http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/WoodlandDavishousingunits2010.jpg%5B/img%5D
[url] http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/WoodlandDavishousingunits2010.jpg%5B/url%5D
[quote]Finally, will you be supporting the only innovative solution offered so far, limiting single-family dwelling occupancy to family members unless over 3,500 square feet?[/quote]
That would make everything worse.
[i] it’s hardly wise to put all of one’s life savings into a single, highly leveraged investment in a home — as millions of underwater borrowers today can attest. [/i]
That is the incorrect way to look at it.
If a family buys a home they can afford in an area that has an adequate supply of jobs, that mortgage becomes simple rent replacement but with the added benefit of the family putting down roots in the community and enjoying equity accumulation instead of landlord investors with no tie to the neighborhood other than making profit.
People that do not own their property tend to care less about that property and the community it resides in. Ownership brings with it many added benefits; including owners’ greater vesting in the community.
Do we really want to be a community of transients? Or, more accurately, a community of young transients plus older, retired permanent residents?
The point is that we need balance. That is the essence of smart planning and development. Balance in the number of single-family and high-density homes covering providing an adequate supply to cover a reasonable demand. Balance in the number of rentals versus homes for sale. Balance in the amount of retail and the amount of small, medium and large business.
We are out of balance, and some of you can only support building apartments. How is that a smart, balanced approach?
Don, as stated above, I support your more apartments mantra, but student apartments on the northern edge of Davis when the campus is on the southern edge of Davis?? That does not compute.
[quote]We are out of balance, and some of you can only support building apartments. How is that a smart, balanced approach?[/quote]
Because we are so far out of balance, with such an under-supply of rental housing, that the renters overwhelm your goal of a diverse and balanced community.
[quote]Do we really want to be a community of transients? Or, more accurately, a community of young transients plus older, retired permanent residents? [/quote]
Until we build more rental housing, that is exactly what we’ll be. Because the student renters will crowd out all except the older, retired permanent residents (many of whom own small rental units in town).
If we really need thousands of apartments for students, build them just outside the city limits as close as possible to the campus. Build enough to encourage them to move out of the single-family home that supposedly were built for single families.
Do not build more apartments across town at the expense of building other types of housing the community needs or wants.
—
“Finally, will you be supporting the only innovative solution offered so far, limiting single-family dwelling occupancy to family members unless over 3,500 square feet?
“That would make everything worse.”
What will it make worse? It would resolve one of your critical justifications for building student apartments on the other side of town, the takeover of our city’s family housing.
And, we’ll have a massive student housing project west of 113 to more than take up the slack. And, freeing up the houses would make lots of affordable housing available for sale, far more that the drips and drabs we gain in new developments. (I’m probably wrong about the last one since Davis never, NEVER will be an affordable community.
[quote]Don, as stated above, I support your more apartments mantra, but student apartments on the northern edge of Davis when the campus is on the southern edge of Davis?? That does not compute.[/quote]
Um, almost everything else as you drive down Covell is apartments or condominiums, including SunTree Apartments which is literally the next property to the west.
Re: Frankly
Where do you think the balance for the current situation should be? What is most important to build at the moment?
Options:
1. High density apartment, which is managed by corporations
2. High density house, which has renters and is managed by individual owners who have “roots in the community”
3. Low density house, which is regulated to be occupied by single-family with no renters
4. [i]other[/i]
Of these options I prefer 2 because it feels more organic. A student studying away from home is still living in a household.
Don wrote:
> Some. Hundreds, probably thousands of them, are
> living in groups renting houses, duplexes, and other
> ‘affordable housing’ in Davis.
Even if we build thousands of new apartments most of the students currently in homes and duplexes will still rent homes and duplexes since living in a house with an attached 2 car garage for your car and bikes (and other stuff like sailboards, snowboards and wakeboards) is a lot different than living in an apartment…
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Um, almost everything else as you drive down Covell is apartments or condominiums, including SunTree Apartments which is literally the next property to the west.”[/i]
Are you saying that there are no apartments in Davis that are occupied by non-students?
Matt wrote:
> I support your more apartments mantra, but student
> apartments on the northern edge of Davis when the
> campus is on the southern edge of Davis??
> That does not compute.
Then Don wrote:
> Um, almost everything else as you drive down
> Covell is apartments or condominiums, including
> SunTree Apartments which is literally the next
> property to the west.
The farther you get from Campus in Davis the less students you get. The Suntree apartment is a low income apartment with few (if any) students.
The Silverstone Apartments (that used to be called Green Meadows Apartments) is just across the field from the Cannery and has a low percentage of students (compared to all the apartments on Russell that are close to 100% students).
[quote]Are you saying that there are no apartments in Davis that are occupied by non-students?
[/quote]
Why would you think I was saying that?
Edgar Wai said . . .
[i]”Where do you think the balance for the current situation should be? What is most important to build at the moment?
Options:
1. High density apartment, which is managed by corporations
2. High density house, which has renters and is managed by individual owners who have “roots in the community”
3. Low density house, which is regulated to be occupied by single-family with no renters
4. other
Of these options I prefer 2 because it feels more organic. A student studying away from home is still living in a household.”[/i]
Good to see you again Edgar. I agree with you that 2. is a desirable choice, but I suspect that the reality of home rentals to UCD students in Davis is
2. High density house, which has renters and is owned by individual absentee landlords who live in the Bay Area or elsewhere in California, and have no current “roots in the community.” The only thing organic about those kinds of arrangements is that the absentee landlord owners have relationships with local maintenance companies who are able to respond to crises. They may also have a relationship with a local property management company like King Properties who collects and deposits rent checks.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Why would you think I was saying that?”[/i]
Because you chose to make your targeted comment about my targeted comment about student apartments.
JustSaying: [quote]Affordable housing advocates would do better to provide maps to Woodland, West Sacramento and Dixon where large numbers of much less expensive housing already exist. Squeezing a few dozen “affordables” out of Davis’ last housing development is the final pursuit of a well-intentioned initiative that failed long ago because it’s at conflict with so many other of the town’s other policies. [/quote] And this is why Davis has the reputation for being full of elitist snobs. Let’s keep the riff-raff out of the housing market and shuffle them off to places where, let’s be honest, they’ll probably be happier. With their own kind.
Nevermind that a lot of that riff raff are currently paying extremely high rental rates for the privilege of staying in this town and NOT Woodland, West Sacramento, or Dixon.
DP [quote]btw, do you know what a rental is on a 1000 sq foot house in davis?[/quote] We pay 2k for a three bedroom, about 1200 square feet (this includes rent). This hasn’t been a student rental in the past which allows it to command a bit more.
BTW…houses in Davis don’t generally rent per the square foot; they rent more with number of bedrooms in mind (students splitting costs per bedroom) and go for about 500-600 per bedroom.
K. Smith [quote]I think having more apartments for students would free up more single-family houses and duplexes for families. I agree (with whoever said it above) that most families do not want to live in an apartment. Unless I am living in a big, bustling city like NY, Seattle or San Francisco, I would really hate living in an apartment. I would much rather rent a duplex or a single-family house.[/quote] Us, too. I definitely draw the line at living in an apartment. I’d rather do what JustSaying suggests and leave Davis to rent in Woodland, West Sacramento and Dixon. I need my children to be able to run out back and play, to ride their bikes while I sit on the lawn or watch from the porch, etc.
Edgar Wai [quote]High density house, which has renters and is managed by individual owners who have “roots in the community” [/quote] Lots of renters also have roots in the community, btw. I’m the parent that is always volunteering in the classrooms, that chairs fundraising activities for the schools and local foundations/groups, that is involved in many community-building events. My husband as well.
[quote]What will it make worse? It would resolve one of your critical justifications for building student apartments on the other side of town, the takeover of our city’s family housing. [/quote]
I guess we all tend to focus on the demographic that we know. People who advocate strongly for some kind of set-aside provision for low-income housing, as reflected in our current Affordable Housing policies, are most concerned about housing for families with children. Hence the concern, I guess, about allowing ‘granny flats’ to be counted — even though it is obvious that those would be lower rent cost and thus ‘affordable’ in the literal definition of the word.
Anything that restricts the ability of young adults to rent or live in any particular place has an inordinate impact on the non-student renters, the people who work in our businesses, and the staff personnel at UCD who might wish to live here. My focus is a result of watching many employees of mine have to pay excess rent, or seek housing outside of Davis. They are young, single, non-student adults. And watching my son and his friends try to move out of their parents’ homes, finding themselves competing in the student rental market here.
So if we take our limited space and say ‘this is reserved for low-income families’, and ‘this is reserved for UCD students and staff’, and ‘this has to be occupied by certain types of people only’ — you make it worse. You are, in effect, discriminating. Whether you’re discriminating for a social benefit or not, it has undesirable consequences for someone else when you restrict who can live somewhere.
WHOOPS. When I said:
[quote]
We pay 2k for a three bedroom, about 1200 square feet (this includes rent). [/quote] I meant that the $2,000/month includes WATER. Of course it includes rent. 🙂
“Um, almost everything else as you drive down Covell is apartments or condominiums, including SunTree Apartments which is literally the next property to the west.”
Why should we make this choice across town to the north now when we’ve got peripheral open land next to campus on the south and the west? Just because we already got strip-mall development of apartments? Does not compute, as was noted.
—
“…I prefer 2 (High density house, which has renters and is managed by individual owners who have ‘roots in the community’because it feels more organic. A student studying away from home is still living in a household.”
I prefer student apartments regardless of whether they’re owned by locals or by corporations somewhere else that have investment money. Students taking over our family housing is problem for the community even if the practice provides a nicer atmosphere for the richer students who can afford the option. I wonder if your characterization that single-family rental houses have significant “roots in the community” owners isn’t more wishful thinking than reality.
[quote]Why should we make this choice across town to the north now when we’ve got peripheral open land next to campus on the south and the west? [/quote]
We need both. It would be great if UCD would double West Village. But don’t hold your breath; they’re in the midst of major capital expenditures replacing old housing stock.
Housing is a shared responsibility.
[quote]
The Suntree apartment is a low income apartment with few (if any) students….
The Silverstone Apartments (that used to be called Green Meadows Apartments) is just across the field from the Cannery and has a low percentage of students [/quote]
This is useful information. What’s your source? I’ve not been able to find anything that breaks down the demographics of different housing units.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Why should we make this choice across town to the north now when we’ve got peripheral open land next to campus on the south and the west? Just because we already got strip-mall development of apartments? Does not compute, as was noted.”[/i]
Bingo!!
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”I prefer student apartments regardless of whether they’re owned by locals or by corporations somewhere else that have investment money. [b]Students taking over our family housing is problem for the community[/b] even if the practice provides a nicer atmosphere for the richer students who can afford the option. I wonder if your characterization that single-family rental houses have significant “roots in the community” owners isn’t more wishful thinking than reality.”[/i]
Again you are right on the mark. Mixing houses full of renting students in the middle of a neighborhood of owner-occupied single family homes is an incongruity.
From the article: [quote]Critics charge that there is no guarantee ADUs would be rented or would end up as affordable units. Moreover, ADUs may work well for college-age students and possibly other populations without families, but will not work well for family units…. Clearly, in the near future there will be limited opportunities to provide families with affordable housing options.[/quote]
I am curious why affordable housing advocates, such as those cited in the article and Davis Greenwald, focus so exclusively on providing affordable housing for low income ‘family units’. Lots of lower-income people need housing, and they don’t all have kids.
David wrote:
> There are fewer opportunities to build additional
> housing, and fewer resources with which to do that,
> but the city seems to have responded in a way that
> makes it less likely, rather than more likely, to
> have affordable housing for young families.
Affordable housing in Davis on average gives lower income families in Davis a place to live for a few hundred dollars less than a similar “market rate” apartment in town, but for MORE per month than a similar “market rent” apartment in Dixon, Woodland or Sacramento.
Looking at the just finished New Harmony Apartments and the (failed co-op) city owned GAMAT homes we (as taxpayers) have paid on average of $400K for each unit to help ~75 families save about $300 each month (over $30 MILLION spent SO FAR on just New Harmony and GAMAT).
This current program helps very few people that need affordable housing but it is a great way to give millions back to campaign donors (who built both New Harmony and GAMAT) keep plowing tons of cash to donors (who are expected to kick some back) who manage and maintain GAMAT and New Harmony.
I don’t have the exact cash flow numbers for GAMAT and New Harmony (It would be great if David can get them with a FOIA request), but if they are like most of the (campaign donor built, union maintained, and campaign donor managed) projects I have seen over 30 years the actual cost of running them per year is more than just giving poor people $300 cash every month to help them rent an apartment.
Ginger wrote:
> We pay 2k for a three bedroom, about 1200 square feet
> (this includes water). This hasn’t been a student rental
> in the past which allows it to command a bit more.
On average homes (aka “mini-dorms”) in Davis that rent to students rent for more per month than homes rented to families. The student homes/mini-dorms have higher turnover and wear and tear, but the landlords that want to deal with it typically make more with students.
I’ve mentioned before that my 1,550 sf 3 br 2 bath home in East Davis rents for $1,900 and I pay for the gardener (since I wanted to make sure someone takes care of the $10K in landscaping that is just a few years old).
Is it true Mike Harrington owns Casa Tortuga that goes for$11,666/month and he doesn’t want new housing? Go figure? At least he obviously believes in supply and demand. The smaller the supply the higher the demand for his property.
When I talked about high density house with rooted residence owner, I didn’t mean it as a characterization of what we have, but the type of household I think would be fitting for a small town with a large university.
My thinking is that the demographic of a household should more or less the demographic of a community. So a household would have their similar share people of all ages, marital status, employment status, etc. There will not be a subsection of town with a disproportional number of lower income residences. That was what I meant by “organic”.
The underlying philosophy that allows this type of housing pattern to emerge, is that house/land ownership is not for the owner to possess that piece of space to exclude the others, but to take on a fair share of the responsibility (with that land) to support the community as a whole.
In this philosophy, if Davis has an influx of refugees, each household would open and help absorb the influx. In such a community, the [i]city[/i] would not need to do anything to address housing problem because each household accepts and acts according to demographic changes.
SoD [quote]On average homes (aka “mini-dorms”) in Davis that rent to students rent for more per month than homes rented to families. The student homes/mini-dorms have higher turnover and wear and tear, but the landlords that want to deal with it typically make more with students.
I’ve mentioned before that my 1,550 sf 3 br 2 bath home in East Davis rents for $1,900 and I pay for the gardener (since I wanted to make sure someone takes care of the $10K in landscaping that is just a few years old).[/quote]
I’m no expert on the rental market in Davis, other than what I’ve been told and my own personal experiences. I stand corrected. 🙂
The homes I’ve rented haven’t had the wear and tear that often comes with students, so that’s what (I’ve been told) command a bit of a premium. Maybe I’m overpaying at 2k/month for my little 3/2? Hasn’t seemed like it in my research but again…I’m no expert.
Frankly, while i think you are on the right track about housing in Davis I think you are on the wrong track about UC Davis shrinking anytime soon. In the 90’s, UC made a huge investment in Davis, buying thousands of acres and giving the Davis campus more space to grow than any other UC campus. The demand for a UC education is still huge and when UCD has trouble filling its rooms it recruits internationally. Until we actually see enrollment declining your predictions can’t be considered more than speculation. Sure Jerry Brown wants more on line classes and Obama wants two year law degrees but these are tentative steps that do not portend the future of Davis. Where McGeorge is cutting back UCD law still has 10 applicants for every seat. I have no doubt it is the same throughout UCD and will be into the future. Until the numbers show otherwise there is no reason to assume your view is in anything less than the distant future.
“Lots of renters also have roots in the community, btw. I’m the parent that is always volunteering in the classrooms, that chairs fundraising activities for the schools and local foundations/groups, that is involved in many community-building events. My husband as well.”
I think this is good. I think the landlords should be just as much if not more involved. Otherwise there would be an imbalance of the property ownership, namely that the people who are involved in and care the most about the community do not have ownership in the community, but are subjected to someone else who have less involvement in the community.
Ginger wrote:
> I’m no expert on the rental market in Davis…
Neither am I…
> The homes I’ve rented haven’t had the wear and
> tear that often comes with students, so that’s
> what (I’ve been told) command a bit of a premium.
I do have friends in the rental business in town and what they tell me is that “on average” four students will pay more in rent than a husband, wife and two kids to rent an “average” home in town.
> Maybe I’m overpaying at 2k/month for my little 3/2?
If you like the place and can afford it you are fine (hopefully the home or the location is a little “above average” for Davis)…
Mr. Toad wrote:
> Where McGeorge is cutting back UCD law still has 10
> applicants for every seat. I have no doubt it is the
> same throughout UCD and will be into the future.
I looked it up last week and UCD has just about 10 applications for every spot in the freshman class. As a one of the top 3 schools in Northern California UCD is not going to have any trouble staying full for years to come.
I bet UCD could double the cost next year and still have 5+ applications for every spot in the freshman class (since even at double the current cost it would still be about half the cost of Stanford or Pepperdine)
“And this is why Davis has the reputation for being full of elitist snobs. Let’s keep the riff-raff out of the housing market and shuffle them off to places where, let’s be honest, they’ll probably be happier. With their own kind. Nevermind that a lot of that riff raff are currently paying extremely high rental rates for the privilege of staying in this town and NOT Woodland, West Sacramento, or Dixon.”
Sorry, Ginger, if my comment seemed personal or snobby. I meant to point out that any desire or attempted scheme to have affordable housing in Davis is doomed to hopelessness and failure.
I’ll try to do it another way. The Zillow “home value index” for the four communities is as follows: Davis $525,300, Woodland $246,100, West Sac $216,000 and Dixon $278,400. The current Trulia “average price per square foot” figures are: Davis $328, Woodland $162, West Sac $118 and Dixon $149.
The Rentometer website provides these median rents for three bedrooms: Davis $1775, Woodland $1,200, West Sac $1,200 and Dixon $1,375.
There is no affordable house buying program that can bring Davis homes in line with the average prices in the nearby Towns. Why pretend that making housing “affordable” for a dozen or so families here is an accomplishment when home prices are half the Davis costs in the surrounding communities?
P.S.–If you’ve heard that we have a town full of elitist snobs, maybe we do. But, we didn’t earn the reputation because we try to keep the socalled riff-raff out of the housing market. The housing prices are high, twice that of nearby towns. No amount hand-wringing will change that unfortunate truth.
[i]Frankly, while i think you are on the right track about housing in Davis I think you are on the wrong track about UC Davis shrinking anytime soon.[/i]
Mr. Toad: It depends on how much the university can do between now and the next 5-10 years for preparing to compete with the alternative education-delivery models being developed. I think graduate school is likely where traditional universities are going to have to focus to stay viable. The undergraduate experience will start to go the way of the dinosaur because of the history of hyper college cost inflation, the financial bleeding of the middle class, the lack of public funding, and an onslaught of tech education technology and models that do a better job for a lower cost.
Back to the affordable housing challenge…
I pulled down data on all California cities. Taking those with populations of 100,000 – 40,000, and removing those hyper-dense cities that are just a continuation of LA, Davis really does stand out like a problem child.
Divide the median housing cost by the square miles for each of these 102 remaining cities, and Davis comes in 88th in terms of a ratio of the median home price to the square miles of the city. Following Davis are places like Newport Beach, Alameda, Palo Alto, and South San Francisco. Even land-locked, mountain surrounded, mega-expensive Santa Barbara does a better job coming in at 84. We sure seem to want to run in elite crowds for our housing supplies!
See the following:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/MHCratio.jpg[/img]