Once again affordable housing advocates came out in opposition to the city’s policy that would allow accessory dwelling units to count as affordable housing units for the purposes of the city’s Housing Element update.
City Staffer Katherine Hess explained to council, “The Housing Element does provide for credit for accessory dwelling units towards meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Not a one-for-one – although that is common throughout the state, but in the cases the recommended document has 35 of the 40 accessory dwelling units in Cannery counted toward meeting the RHNA and 25 of the 40 accessory dwelling units elsewhere in the city as meeting RHNA.”
Darrell Rutherford, the Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance, spoke out against the affordable housing provisions by the city stating, “I stand here tonight a little confused as to why a progressive community like Davis is no longer taking the lead within the greater Sacramento region in addressing our need for affordable homes.”
“Instead you’re taking a playbook from the county and city of Sacramento as well as a community like West Sacramento – all doing the same thing by revising their affordable housing ordinances to benefit the development community instead of doing what’s right for our community,” he said.
Mr. Rutherford added, “In this time of limited public funding available for affordable housing such as the RDA which seems to have been the panacea for financing affordable housing here in Davis, the city should be putting the onus back on the market rate developers to meet our affordable housing needs but instead we see you cutting back our obligations and putting the onus back on to the city to meet that need.”
Robb Davis spoke adding, “I understand the challenges that we as a city face in providing and maintaining our affordable housing stock in a post-RDA world. I also understand the need to create plans—in this case the update to the Housing Element—that are accountable to state and regional government guidelines and requirements.”
“But I am concerned that using approaches like counting accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as part of our affordable housing stock are less than honest and do not reflect a true commitment to meet our obligations,” he said. “Because there is no accountability structure in place to assure that such units are, indeed, rented at affordable rates, we cannot, with integrity count them as contributing to affordable housing goals. Further, ‘affordable by design’ does not equal de facto or real affordability. I have been troubled by this move since it came into effect.”
He added, “It leads to a clear watering down of our affordable housing commitments and does not advance creative problem solving in our post RDA reality.”
“Again, I realize the challenge you and staff face and I understand there may be negative implications for the city if we do not reach obligations. At the same time I feel it would be better to acknowledge the challenges we are currently facing and commit to a process of finding solutions given current constraints. I would ask you to move in that direction tonight,” he continued. “Ultimately, though we want to be accountable to broader state and regional entities we must first and foremost be accountable to ourselves and our vision for the kind of city we desire to be.”
Eliana Chavez, CEO of Mutual Housing California, noted that New Harmony was counted both last time and this time, showing the lack of affordable housing available in Davis. “You should see the waiting list that we have on all of our properties here in Davis,” she said. Older residents are not moving and there is a lack of newly-available units.
“Davis needs more affordable housing here not only for the students, but also for the families who want to be able to enjoy the Davis kind of lifestyle that they have here,” she said.
Jessica Merrill, Communications Director at the Sacramento Housing Alliance and a Davis resident, asked the council to strengthen the housing element “and its commitment to low income workers in need of affordable housing.”
She noted last summer’s change to allow ADUs to count for affordable housing at a two-to-one ratio, “We believe that this set a dangerous precedent that could snowball throughout the region.”
She argued that these “granny flats” are most often used as home offices and when they are rented, they are rarely done at an affordable rate.
“The ordinance requires no regulation on these units, no enforcement to ensure that they’re rented to low income people, or that persons of color aren’t discriminated against,” she added. “Davis was a regional leader in inclusionary housing – now Davis is at the bottom.”
Bernie Goldsmith was one of three representatives from “Raise the Wage Davis” looking to increase the minimum wage in Davis to $15 per hour.
He said he was “urging the council to please make affordable housing for low income workers part of their plan.” He said, “We have a class of people in this town that work very hard yet they’re paid so little and expenses are so high for them that we expect them to work, that they do and still subsist on handouts.”
“We expect these people to work invisibly in our communities to serve us food while eating our table scraps, to clean our yards, to care for the elderly that we cannot,” he said. “Yet we can’t somehow as a society lump together the resources to get them a decent living wage, a decent housing accommodation and other decent amenities that we would expect to give to anybody who works full time.”
“It’s my opinion that we as a city have an economic imperative to take care of the people who work for us,” he said. “We have a moral imperative to make sure that our policy is aligned to make sure that these people have a decent spot in our community.”
Shawn Raycraft, the other co-chair of the Raise the Wage Davis campaign, “I know personally what it is like to be working poor in this town. It is very very hard knowing that sixty percent of your check at the end of the month is going towards rent. That is a very difficult economic obstacle for anybody to worry about – much less somebody with a family.”
“Nobody who works hard and plays by the rules deserves to live in poverty,” he added.
Neil Ruud added, “One of the things that the city has been trying to do for a long time is encourage the students to stick around, to encourage people who work here to stay here, people that lived here to continue living here.”
“We’ve done a lot of things to encourage students to stick around,” he said, noting Davis Roots and other investments into the economy. “But it’s really not enough if students can’t afford to stick around and live here.”
Lucy Roberts said that she just moved back to Davis after living here from 2000 to 2006, “I wanted to let the councilmembers know that you’re not just regional leaders, this town is looked at by towns all across the country.” She said that in Winpark, Florida, “We study your policies, we look at the progressive work that you do and one of the things that you’ve always done… (I was) amazed that this city was progressive enough to include an element of providing affordable housing within the greater development.”
She added, “When I moved back and now see that you’re using these accessory units and considering that they are affordable housing, I just think that you’re stepping so far back. You’re sort of stepping into where other people are trying to get out of.”
She concluded, “I want to ask this city to maintain its spirit and its soul that so many people admire and are working toward. Part of that is honoring and respecting and acknowledging and working towards providing affordable housing.”
Please see the video from public comment:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
As long as Davis doesn’t change its fundamental policy of restricting growth of housing both the old way and the new way of doing business will fail to address the unaffordable nature of housing in Davis. Under the old way, represented by Dan and Lucas, a thousand housing units got built over many years for the lucky few who got them. Under this new method approved by the council majority we are counting housing that may not be affordable or available as meeting our goals. The fact of the matter is if we let supply expand to meet demand we would lower prices for everyone. My good friend Neil Ruud was mistaking the forest for the trees by suggesting we encourage people to stay here. We actually do everything we can to make Davis unaffordable for young people who want to stay. We drive them away through restrictive housing policies that support existing homeowners and their heirs over retaining our talented young people who would like to stay. As one long time resident told me once, she doesn’t like to get too close to new friends because it becomes too heart breaking when they leave to move to cheaper communities.
so i read toad with his usual pro-growth mantra.
but then i read the article and see this: “Instead you’re taking a playbook from the county and city of Sacramento as well as a community like West Sacramento – all doing the same thing by revising their affordable housing ordinances to benefit the development community instead of doing what’s right for our community,” he said.
wait a second – west sac and sac are not two slow growth cities. i thought you said the problem was davis’ growth policies when it seems that sac/ west sac have the same problem with fast growth policies.
how is that possible mr. toad?
I am from San Diego and the prices kept going up. Descent affordable did not catch up.
It seems to me that public sector that makes millions and millions (while the poor get a small break on the rent) wants to keep the money flowing to them building and managing more new luxury $500K unit apartments like New Harmony than really helping the poor rent modest low cost apartments.
Shawn Raycraft wrote:
> the other co-chair of the Raise the Wage Davis campaign, “I know
> personally what it is like to be working poor in this town. It is very
> very hard knowing that sixty percent of your check at the end of the
> month is going towards rent.
If Shawn is working full time at minimum wage 60% of a months pay is $830 and he needs to find a room he can rent for less (or look in to the many co-op options in town). Back when I was making about $5K/month I wanted to rent my own place for ~$800/month, but I rented a room in a 2 br apartment for ~$400/month so I could save money to buy a home some day.
Then Neil Ruud added:
> One of the things that the city has been trying to do for a long
> time is encourage the students to stick around, to encourage
> people who work here to stay here, people that lived here to
> continue living here.
Has the city really been “encouraging students to stick around”? or “encouraging people that lived here to
continue living here”? Has anyone reading this received a call or letter from the city “encouraging you to stick around”?
Any idea if Neil is related to Ronald Ruud the founding partner of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo (who has sucked up millions and millions from the taxpayers of California since he founded his law firm)?
Neil is from Sonoma County and his parents are not attorneys.
that doesn’t exclude the possibility that he’s related. parental relations are only one possibility.
No more speculation about his family relationships, please.
To tie in affordable housing and a PUD we need to remember that we will not be getting free money from PG&E to give millions to the politically connected solar companies (we will have to raise rates in Davis to give millions to the politically connected solar companies):
“Mutual Housing California is adding solar panels to its projects in Davis. Four of Mutual Housing’s affordable housing projects in Davis are all reaching for the sun. Within the next few months, all of them will be outfitted with solar voltaic panels in a partnership with Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which is administering more than $47 million for low-income housing projects to do so statewide.”
Question is where did PGE get those funds to pass out? A state grant maybe? Maybe they are mandated to add solar to their mix and that’s how they are meeting their own needs? If we had PGE’s 10% profits we could put solar on every south facing roof in Davis.
Last night there was mention of GMAT, an affordable housing project and $150K rent revenue; is that the new name for the DACHA houses? What is the status of Pacifico Coop?
And it seemed the CC glossed over the $120K/unit for New Harmony, the massive South Davis project. It is so large and out of perspective with the surrounding (e.g., Owen Wood) housing….
Who provides oversight on how much the affordable housing program spends on these projects?
But its dense. Once again density is great unless you are living in it or near it.
When we’re short 8- 10,000 beds, density is what is needed. Any affordable housing will be a drop in the bucket when you have thousands of students soaking up every bit of affordable rental housing here and spreading out into neighboring communities.
SODA wrote:
> Last night there was mention of GMAT, an affordable housing project
> and $150K rent revenue; is that the new name for the DACHA houses?
In December 2012 The Enterprise wrote: “The city has since bought the homes outright and re-purposed them as affordable rental units, now called the GAMAT Homes. Fourteen of the 20 houses are occupied and each tenant is up to date in rent, the city reports.
Vanguard advertiser Steve Boschken was renting the vacant GAMAT Homes in 2013 and it would be nice if he can give David an update and let us know if the $150K is “gross” rent from the 20 homes or the rent after paying expenses.
We should keep in mind that none of the 20 GAMAT homes owned by the city of Davis are paying any property taxes and using the Zillow values of the 20 homes the state is missing out on ~$120K EVERY YEAR (that will go up 2% every year under Prop 13).
I’m pretty sure that in addition to paying $0 taxes to the state that 20 GAMAT homes (and hundreds of Mutual Housing California apartments) are also exempt from paying the parcel/unit taxes to the schools so in addition to giving the tenants a break on their rent the schools (including the Los Rios Community College district) are getting thousands less per year (I’m wondering if Toad can find out if the schools get anything from subsidized housing).
> What is the status of Pacifico Coop?
> What is the status of Pacifico Coop?
It is listed on the Yolo County tax rolls as owned by the city of Davis with an assessed value of $0 and (as far as I can tell) no tax or parcel tax money getting paid.
I have been riding by this place for years on the bike trail and it looks like if anything over the years nothing has improved since the Enterprise wrote: “Pacifico, a 112-bed co-op at 1752 Drew Circle in South Davis, has a 63 percent vacancy rate and the building is deteriorating due to the lack of revenues” back in 2010.
Not to kick someone when they are down, but do we really want the city to run more affordable housing when the Pacifico Co-Op has been half empty (50%+) or MORE for the past TEN YEARS when most apartments in town have had less than a 2% vacancy over the same period.
I had a kid live there for a short time in 2006 and I see the room advertised for @$450 for the smallest bedroom and almost $600 for the largest. This place isn’t a food example of affordable housing. The rooms are really tiny. The small one has room for a bed and dresser. It has a lot of common space but it requires people live communally. Unfortunately a lot of people are there just because of the price of the room and have no interest in participating in chores and other responsibilities. The residents have no input as to who moves into their floor so it can be kind of like renting a hotel room in which you have to share the bathroom and kitchen and clean up after yourself and others. Vacancy rates here are not indicative of the demand for affordable housing.
Also, regarding harmony house and other affordable apartment buildings, some units rent for full price which, I assume would be the $1000 mentioned but most of the units are set aside for persons earning 25%. 50% or 60% of the Yolo County median income. You pay a reduced rent based on income and the availability of the set aside units. Harmony house looks forbidding from the freeway because it’s back is toward the freeway. When you park in the rear and walk to the front of the complex it is quite nice. There was a strip of land close to the freeway that I doubt anyone else had much interest in developing , that’s why mutual housing got the land. So it looks ugly to you but you’re looking at the residents parking lot and backside. The freeway is so close, the design actually works because the complex feels like it has turned its back on the freeway and the mass of the building blocks much of the noise of the freeway.
I had to update the operating system on my iPad to read this blog. To he screen kept jumping, loading partially, jumping some more and finally crashing.
My similar problem (jumping while scrolling) went away when I made the most recent iPad system update.
Last year medwoman asked me what I would do for low income housing in Davis and I told her that I would give the poor that needed money help with their rent, (not employ an army of army of people to find land to buy from the politically connected and then hire politically connected contractors, architects and developers to construct fancy apartment that we pay the politically connected millions to run (take a look at just a few of the people that we are paying to help the poor):
http://www.mutualhousing.com/about-us/staff/
The Mutual Housing California web site says they are renting 2 bedroom units at the Fancy New Harmony (visible from I80) for $1.009/unit. Below is a link to a nice 2 bedroom unit in medwoman’s neighborhood for $1,095/unit.
http://sacramento.craigslist.org/apa/4350151337.html
It seems to me that the city and the poor would be better off if we just hired a smart honest guy that cares about helping people (maybe Bernie Goldsmith will take the job for $15/hour) to help people in need with their rent rather than out current system of making an army of “non profit” workers and the politically connected rich while giving the poor a small break on their rent.
You do understand most of the units are rented at below market rates to people who cannot afford to pay market rates because their income is below the Yolo County median income? Some of the units are rented at full price kind of like airplane seats get rented for different prices. Why don’t they just make they all cheap for poor people? Well, they thought maybe they didn’t want to build “projects” that were eyesores when they were built and became slums in five years.
I really wonder what it would take to get the City of Davis to scrap the current Affordable Housing policies in their entirety and start from scratch to build a policy that actually is cost-effective and provides housing. The history of affordable housing here is really bad, with instances bordering on corruption, lawsuits, massive waste of taxpayer dollars, and little to show for any of it in terms of actual affordable housing.
The basic problem is that the affordable housing advocates are thinking in terms of families, as evidenced by the quotes above. But the greatest need for affordable housing is from young adults. Until the rental market gets stabilized, it is hopeless to build little units for a small number of lucky families that basically win some kind of lottery to achieve home ownership. In fact, it is discriminatory.
Is the current set of muddled policies too firmly engrained, with too many special interests supporting them, for any council member or council candidate to take this on?
Don wrote:
> I really wonder what it would take to get the City of Davis to scrap
> the current Affordable Housing policies in their entirety and start from
> scratch to build a policy that actually is cost-effective and provides housing.
We would need the poor to start donating as much to the politicians as the people that make millions from the current “affordable housing” program.
I agree with you Don.
The broken mindset is related to home ownership. We should be talking about affordable rents.
This will sound harsh to some people hypersensitive with the concept of home ownership.
A house is not a home. A home is where the family lives. And many people rent their home.
Buying a house creates a lot of joy for most people/families. But it is the largest and most complex financial transaction that most people will ever be involved in. And, in most cases, there is a direct correlation with the amount of income made and the intellectual sophistication/growth of the person wanting to purchase a house. Note I said in most cases… certainly there are plenty of exceptions.
I have had this argument before related to the housing bubble. CRA, Freddie, Fanny, Fed low discount rates, and politician’s stupid “ownership society” rants and policies… these all contributed to this mindset that every single person was entitled to home ownership. So the market responded and dumbed-down the paperwork and simplified the transaction. But the transaction still remained as complex and risky as ever… even more so.
Before someone should be able to secure a mortgage to purchase a home; that person needs to have developed a level of understanding for the details of the transaction. I am in agreement with policies to try to keep home access affordable, but not home ownership. For home ownership, it is simply a supply and demand issue… and a need for people to grow their income to the point that they can afford to buy at market rates.
How to keep rents affordable… that is the challenge.
Please define affordable. Does anyone know how many subsidized homes we are talking about? Once again most of the affordable units ARE RENTALS. Apples and oranges.
They are not thinking in terms of families and anyway it’s easier to find three bedrooms rentals than one bedroom places. They have built mostly one and two bedroom apartments with some three bedrooms. The demand for one bedrooms apartments is very high. The people on this site are thinking in terms of families but probably they aren’t in the market for a low income apartment.
I agree, Don. The Davis Quirky Way of providing affordable housing is a mess, and should be started over. This will take some study and time to determine an effective and appropriate way to plan, build and maintain for sustained affordability.
How much have we spent in public funds over the past 30 years? What are the public costs for home ownership vs. rental models? What are the costs to regular new home buyers when the city requires developers to incorporate affordable ownership into a new development? Should the city continue to own and operate (or contract out) houses? What has the city of Davis done in three decades that has worked; what has failed?
Lots of question to evaluate. In the meantime, Davis should freeze its affordable housing program until we can figure out how to stop throwing good money after bad. I would think we could do much better that our history suggests, even with our comparatively high housing prices and our aversion to housing developments.
Once again you are focused on home ownership but the vast majority of affordable units are in apartment complexes. Knowing the numbers would be interesting but I don’t think the city manages any units nor do they actually own any of them. Mutual housing just for rid of their outside management company and began managing their own property in December. This is a big improvement over the private management companies. Maybe you could clarify why you think we are wasting money and why we should put a freeze on the program?
***I just posted video of the public comment from yesterday – it’s at the bottom of the article ***
““We have a class of people in this town that work very hard yet they’re paid so little and expenses are so high for them that we expect them to work, that they do and still subsist on handouts.”
Proof again that liberals see the world as permanently class-stratified rather than a dynamic system of opportunity that provides for growth in income and prosperity.
Who are these people and why are they stuck?
Getting them unstuck should be the project and policy, not just helping them get by. Jobs that pay less than $20 per hour should all be transition jobs if they are such a determining factor for the level of family income.
But raise the minimum wage to $15 and it will harm the very people that those pushing it claim to be wanting to help. It will essentially knock off the lower rungs of the ladder toward greater prosperity and only employ those immediately able to leap up. It also tends to increase the prices for the products and services they tend to purchase.
In fact, the initial Democrat support of a minimum wage was to prevent job competition from uneducated immigrants. The increased earning potential has the effect of causing greater competition for jobs previously left for the least skilled and educated. It was a move to “make the riff raff go back home”.
The beneficiary of minimum wage hikes tends to be the well-educated children of the well-off… those that already have a strong launch to climb the ladder of prosperity get a boost. These are kids that generally already live with mom and dad, or that have their housing paid for while they attend school.
The parents of these kids might support a minimum wage hike for financial self-interest.
University employees support it because if little Johnny and little Suzy student can make more money, they can continue to pay the hyper-inflationary tuition costs.
I get a kick out of reading the “unbiased” (right) economist reports that rising the minimum wage has no impact on jobs.
Meanwhile, since we have had a minimum wage, we have the largest population of unemployed+discouraged workers since the Great Depression, and the rate of poverty has not improved.
“Who are these people and why are they stuck?
Getting them unstuck should be the project and policy, not just helping them get by. Jobs that pay less than $20 per hour should all be transition jobs if they are such a determining factor for the level of family income.”
I feel you may be a bit out of touch with the new economy in the US. Low wage jobs have seen the most growth since the “recovery” from the 2008 downturn; mid-wage jobs were lost and low wage jobs replaced them. Minimum wage and low-wage jobs are no longer stepping stones to better jobs, they are the new life-long prospect of workers (cooks, waitresses, retail, home-care aids, office clerks, etc). Jobs are out there, but they’re not “good” jobs, and they’re not “transitioning” most people anywhere.
So I think your idea that minimum wage and affordable housing is just for easing the burden of the parents supporting their college kids is actually laughable. I will allow that parent-supported college students may be filling up Davis rental homes and squeezing working class families out of the Davis housing market, but either way, the solution is not to bury your head in the sand and pretend that people can realistically transition out of low wage jobs into better jobs that will allow them to be home-owners or rent in Davis.
Actually in rereading (for the 3rd time), I want to clarify my comment. I think we are in more agreement, (not on the minimum wage piece) but that people need a route away from poverty through better jobs. However, as our economy becomes increasing service oriented, with more jobs than ever in the low-wage sector, trying to move people “out” of these jobs may make less sense than just compensating the jobs with a living wage. When it comes to housing either there has to be an increase in the minimum wage OR a boost in affordable housing options. Because just hoping people will move into better jobs that don’t exist is not realistic.
I”m wondering if anyone with an iPhone Mac and PC can see if they are having the same problem as I am.
For some reason I can’t see the most recent Vanguard posts on my MacBook and iPhone but I can see them on my PC.
I noticed this a couple weeks ago but am only posting now after it has been happening for a while.
On the last two topics I can see three more posts on the PC than the iPhone and MacBook (all on the same wireless network).
I have been having the same problem but forgot to bring it up.
Thanks for reminding me SOD
SoD, are you using Firefox on all three devices? It is reported that Apple has pretty much stopped development on Safari and the newer versions of WordPress have problems running on it. I am told that Firefox and Google Chrome are more up to date browsers.
Matt wrote:
> SoD, are you using Firefox on all three devices?
I have Firefox and IE on the PC, but just Safari on the MacBook, iPhone and iPad (I finally updated the iPhone (5) and iPad (2) to the new OS in early Feb thinking it might solve the problem). It sounds like Safari might be the problem.
I just installed Google Chrome on the iPad and I still can’t see a post I made to the Co-Op story about 10 minutes ago (and I can’t see it on the MacBook or iPhone running Safari).
P.S. It would be great if someone can e-mail David (on his private e-mail) so he can get his web guy to look at this.
Done, see note below.
I had to update the operating system on my iPad to read this blog. To he screen kept jumping, loading partially, jumping some more and finally crashing.
I started having problems with my iMac about 10 days ago, being unable to post a comment or to read any new comments after I posted using other Apple devices (iPad and iPhone).
After spending 45 minutes trying to fix with AppleCare (trying other browsers, various adjustments and restarts, system checks), I was referred to The Vanguard’s tech support.
From very recent discussions with David’s site folks, I understand there are upgrades being made to fix this incompatibility issue, limited to Apple Vanguarders.
I suggest this conversation get moved somewhere (someplace handy) so Mac users can keep describing our various experiences for tech support without dragging down the stimulating affordable housing commenters.