In yesterday’s column, we put forward the issue of housing needs. As we put it, some have argued that you should not build up, you need to build out. Others have argued that not being able to build out means we must build up. Finally, there are those who have seemed to argue that we should do neither and let the university deal with growth impacts.
Now one commenter noted, “You left out the best answer that we should do some of all four options, go up to appropriate heights depending on the impacts of each project, go out to reduce impacts on existing neighborhoods, have UCD do its part to house its students and in some places, like the Families First site, keep the zoning as it is and force the owners to address the fact that the answer to the stranded asset problem isn’t a windfall monster redevelopment but a smaller repurposing of the perfectly good facility that exists there today.”
While it is an interesting answer, the crux of it is, “getting rid of Measure R is the key to rational planning.”
That is for most folks – myself included – a non-starter, and so doing all “four options” is not viable.
There is a conflict in the city’s planning right now, because in order to fill our housing needs, we either need to grow up – densify, which means more units per acre – or we need to grow out. Growing out is difficult with Measure R, and Measure R is not going away despite the desire of some in this community.
Alan Miller makes the point that “there is no restriction on downtown core building up.”
“As well, more reasonable and compliant versions of proposed projects may move forward,” he writes. “It’s not a matter of all or nothing, it’s a matter of compatibility. Where the compatibility line is drawn is arguable, unless in fact as defined by Guidelines and zoning, in which case the argument becomes over whether the city should continue to plan by ‘zoning by exception.’”
While Mr. Miller clearly makes a good point, the counter to it is that this approach is probably not going to solve our housing needs.
And as other posters like Mark West point out, it is not accurate to say that there is no restriction on building up in the core. He writes, “There are many zoning restrictions regarding building height in the core depending on the parcels in question. In many places, taller buildings in the Core would require ‘zoning by exception,’ just as would changing the current ‘parking minimums’ on projects, to ‘parking maximums’ as has been advocated here. Not all exceptions are ‘bad,’ but declaring a moratorium on them certainly would be.”
Tia Will also thinks it is important to distinguish between “housing needs” as opposed to our “housing wants.” She writes, “I believe that we have need for housing students, working individuals and their families especially those of modest incomes, and the homeless. I do not believe that we have a ‘need’ to house those who (are) high income or wealthy. We do not need to be ignoring codes and design guidelines in order to ‘help’ those who need no help and developers and investors who also have plenty.”
Last summer, when the Vanguard sat down with Kemble Pope and Steve Greenfield about Trackside, they explained that ultimately what they wanted to do was build a mixed-use infill project. Their hope was to bring more people to live in the core area in a more urban setting. Their target market is empty-nesters who live in Davis, but whose children have grown up.
They are also targeting young professionals who want a more urban lifestyle and a few of the units are targeting executive residences. They also mentioned visiting professors who are here for a year or two and who may just want to live in Davis a short time.
The developers here clearly had some bumps in the road, and a six-story building was a difficult starting place. But there are a few points that should be raised.
First, everyone agrees that the current use of the Trackside land is underutilized with single-story commercial buildings.
Second, while I think we can all agree that the specific market the developers are targeting is not the highest need – it is at least a market that is underutilized. Given this is a mixed-use project, clearly the configuration is not conducive to families. It is probably not the best use to make it student housing, and my guess is the neighborhood would not like a dense student housing project there either.
So, does this meet the needs for higher-end working individuals? That is certainly something we should debate and discuss.
The second issue is height. The developers have reduced the height here from six to four. The neighbors seem to want two and may be willing to go to two-and-a-half or three.
I agree with Tia on the biggest needs in this community being to house students. I agree with many that UC Davis should do its part to house students and I support their current plan to do so – at least in quantity, if not locations.
Bottom line is that Measure R is not going away in 2020. Michael Harrington believes he will introduce a new measure that would modify Measure R and make it permanent. I would say that has a decent chance of passing, depending on the details (and perhaps despite the details).
I do not believe that merely building up in the core is sufficient to meet current housing needs and that we are going to have to look at ways to meet needs within the current boundaries of Davis.
Finally, I think the issue of whether Trackside addresses housing needs should be discussed, but remember that we have an underutilized parcel, a group of investors willing to put money to better utilize it, and a parcel that has limitations. All of this needs to be fleshed out in the public realm.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You might want to redo the title unless the “House” of Representatives is looking into our housing shortage.
I caught that one. When you see errors like that, it means I’m tired. This has been a very long week.
That’s what I figured. I don’t usually correct your spelling or errors but that one was kind of funny.
Ok… can’t find my Funk and Wagnells… what’s a “keas tub?”
“at least in quantity”
David’s right hand was one key to the left of where it should’ve been.
Good catch
BP… with your explanation and hitting the space bar in the wrong place, I get it… thanks…
Your “one key to the left of where it should’ve been”, part is a nice double-entendre (intended or not)… gave me my ‘smile of the day’!
I’ll bet that David puts his left sock on first too.
Perhaps… and that means the right sock is also the one that is “left” to put on… you on a roll, BP!
What about “wealthy students” (including non-resident students that the University is recruiting)? One can argue that Lincoln40 (and possibly even Trackside, to a much lesser degree) would appeal to such students. Is that a reason to support such developments? (I don’t think so.)
Regarding those with modest incomes and the homeless, are we talking about subsidized housing? I understand that another subsidized housing development was approved (earlier this year) near 5th & Pena. I recall that the city also allowed an increase in density, upon approval. (Just east of the new live-work units that are nearing completion at that corner.)
Again, the only organization that can reserve housing for students is the University itself.
(I posted a similar comment last night, in response to Tia’s comments. But, it was probably too late for most to see it.)
I missed Tia’s answer on this. It’s what I’ve been advocating all the time. Many neighborhoods in this town would reject a low-income housing proposal. Why should we saddle even more debt on college students from lower income families with high rents? We on Olive Drive welcome affordable housing so why not place it here?
Kudos to Tia.
You have Ceasar Chavez — congratulations? That has given you the In-and-Out begging squad, and that sort of thing creates the “eyesore” image that BP spoke of that makes many want to redevelop Olive Drive.
While I don’t agree about wholesale redevelopment, actual subsidized affordable housing doesn’t solve the homeless issues in town, but often imports new people who live elsewhere who qualify. I support the trailer parks and Slater’s Court as true low income housing. Affordable Housing (subsidized) is a developer scam.
You already have affordable housing, I’d be careful about welcoming “Affordable Housing”.
And yet another issue, regarding the difficulties of targeting the groups that Tia is specifically suggesting.
It all becomes quite complex (and is yet another reason to encourage the University to address the concerns that it is creating).
If the University was a for-profit organization (and some might argue that it is close to that), the city would be in open revolt regarding its plans (and probably wouldn’t even support on-campus housing).
I concur with all the points that Alan makes in his 8:56 am comment. Unless it gets a government subsidy, the least affordable housing (spelled with a “little a”) in Davis is newly constructed housing. If we want a truly functional affordable housing program that focuses its housing affordability benefits on Davis residents, then ending the current Affordable Housing program as quickly as possible is the best approach.
“What about “wealthy students” (including non-resident students that the University is recruiting)? One can argue that Lincoln40 (and possibly even Trackside, to a much lesser degree) would appeal to such students. ”
You are parroting Odin without any evidence.
Let’s see if I can “squawk” out a quick response, all by myself.
There’s no affordable housing included, at Lincoln40. From recent articles, it sounds like there’s some pretty fancy amenities, planned, and the development will have to help pay for a new bicycle/pedestrian overpass.
Any new development in Davis (that isn’t subsidized) will ultimately be expensive.
Does “Ronny” get a cracker, now?
“Sounds like” is another way of saying that you haven’t done the research. I’ve been told it’s market rate, rented by the bed. Affordable housing is a red herring because right now most students don’t qualify for big “A” affordable housing. So Ronny needs to do his own research.
Don’t forget that Lincoln 40 actually destroys more affordable housing than it creates Affordable housing.
That’s misleading Grok. First of all, I consider the apartments to be small “a” affordable housing for students. But second, they pay into the in-lieu fund that will down the line help to build more affordable units than are demolished – they will be newer and nicer.
Chamber, currently Linocln40 proposes paying 2 million into the fund. How many Affordable units do you estimate that will build?
What do you base your opinion that the Lincoln 40 units will be affordable housing for students?
About 28 units
My discussion with the developers is that these will be about $500 or $600 per bed, slightly cheaper than on-campus
Chamber Fan:
$500-$600 per bed, or per bedroom? In other words, is that the projected cost for a shared bedroom?
Regarding “research”, I’d also express caution regarding the use of a developer estimate provided to you as “fact”.
Perhaps more importantly, I wonder how many students would actually tolerate sharing a bedroom with someone (other than a “significant other”) for the entire time that they are attending the University. Seems more likely that someone with the funds to do so would (at least) rent an entire room, or seek other arrangements. And again, a lot of the non-resident students that the University is targeting probably have sufficient funds.
I’ve got to “sign off”, for awhile. Please don’t “talk about me” while I’m gone. 🙂
[edited] sharing a bedroom, with no “significance” was SOP in the dorms and student apartments, at least through the 70’s.
[moderator] edited… no personal attacks, please
Chamber, your claiming you can get 28 Affordable housing units built for $ 2 Million. That’s about $70,000 a unit. I bet you would have a hard time doing more than buying property in Davis to put 28 units on for that little.
Chamber, your claiming you can get 28 Affordable housing units built for $ 2 Million. That’s about $70,000 a unit. I bet you would have a hard time doing more than buying property in Davis to put 28 units on for that little.
And that’s why we are never going to have affordable housing of any consequence, without significant additional supply of housing and apartments.
Adam Smith wrote:
> And that’s why we are never going to have
> affordable housing of any consequence,
The reason we are never going to have “affordable” housing of any consequence is that actually providing “affordable” housing is way way down the list of what the “affordable” housing providers were created to do (after provide a way for the politically connected to sell overpriced land, providing a way for politically connected unions to do overpriced work, providing a way for politically connected vendors to sell overpriced stuff, providing an ongoing large number of patronage jobs for friends family and donors kids).
P.S. I’m guessing that it will cost at least $1 million for the current Owendale (behind New Harmony) apartment renovation (cash for the contractors, cash for the movers, cash to Days Inn and $600+/month in cash for food to all the poor residents who don’t even want to move out and can’t understand why they are being “forced” to move so Mutual Housing California can totally renovate their units that are just barely over 10 years old)…
P.P.S. My friend’s mom is one of the original residents that is being “forced” to live in the Days Inn for a couple months, but I bet that some people are happy to move so they can have granite counters like their (poor) neighbors in New Harmony…
P.P.P.S. My friend’s mom says she has never spent over $100/month on food and is happy to be getting $600+/$50/day while she is living in the Days Inn…
With the high cost of developable land caused by the artificial scarcity of developable land and/or the added cost to wage a Measure R campaign… and the added development costs from Title 24 and other federal, state and local nanny environmental regulations… the loss of RDA from the governor raiding it to pay off his teacher union benefactors… there is no such thing as afordable new housing in Davis… and many other liberal communities.
I would suggest that all the development-ignorant stop attempting to micro-manage so far outside of their pay-grade for what they think everyone else should do. The ONLY way to build new housing that fits into an affordable box is to increase the supply of housing so land prices go down, and Measure R gets defeated so that the high expense of campaigns can go away.
Or more likely we see legislation passed at the state level that prevents this tyranny of the majority refusing the development of new housing in an “I got mine so to hell with you” ugly and selfish fit.
Sorry Frankly, but it’s so funny hearing you advocate for the state to step in on anything.
BP: Yeap. (I think that goes for Frankly’s advocacy of RDA, as well. I’m sure he’ll disagree with that.)
This is an example of where the hierarchy of governance within our representative democracy is supposed to work. RDA was a tool to help overcome the limitations of private capital used to develop for social benefit rather than profit. The pursuit of profit works for 90% of what we need for social health and welfare, but the remaining 10% requires some government program assistance.
Okay, you had me a little worried there. You aren’t voting for Hillary are you?
Frankly:
I’ve always viewed RDA as unnecessary, if cities didn’t continuously bend over to meet developer demands (by changing zoning to build on the outskirts of cities). If that wasn’t allowed to happen, redevelopment would occur where it’s needed.
I’ve also heard that RDA was sometimes subject to corruption (as are many government subsidies that are provided to private contractors).
Davis RDA was created to build a highway overpass, and fund the pass-through agreement.
Don:
In general, one might argue that those types of projects/issues were needed as a result of new development. Shouldn’t development pay for itself (without a government subsidy)?
One can also argue that the “infill” proposals that we’re seeing prove that establishing borders ensures that re-development occurs where it’s needed. (However, neighborhoods should not be sacrificed, in the process.)
Other cities (which haven’t really established borders) often have decaying older, centralized areas (which now “require” a government subsidy to address).
RDA was used to help create affordable housing in many communities.
Did you see the video of the Al Smith charity dinner? Hillary bumped into Trump as said “pardon me”.
Ron said:
I’ve always viewed RDA as unnecessary, if cities didn’t continuously bend over to meet developer demands (by changing zoning to build on the outskirts of cities). If that wasn’t allowed to happen, redevelopment would occur where it’s needed.
How’s that redevelopment working out in Davis? Seems like some Davisites are opposed to peripheral and redevelopment of infill locations.
Adam: “How’s that redevelopment working out in Davis?”
As I’ve noted elsewhere on this page, it can be argued that the “infill” proposals we’re seeing are evidence that establishing borders helps to ensure that redevelopment occurs where it’s appropriate. (At least the interest is there. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the city must respond.)
In other valley cities, no one would even be interested in redeveloping ugly, underutilized buildings (such as the one at Trackside).
We just have to ensure that neighborhood concerns are considered. In the case of Trackside, what’s so difficult about adhering to previously-established guidelines? No one seems to have an answer, to that.
If what you’ve been told is true, does that mean that primarily modest-income students would be living there? How do you know that? (Have you “researched” all possible living arrangements within the facility?)
And yet, affordable housing is apparently what Tia is advocating for, focusing for some reason on non-students.
The “real” red herring here is to pretend that developers and the city can/will create a development that will specifically target the groups that Tia is suggesting (unless it’s subsidized).
And again, I don’t see any reason that Trackside, Lincoln40, and other proposed developments wouldn’t appeal to wealthy students (including non-resident students) that the University is recruiting.
I recall that Tia has made similar arguments regarding the Cannery. And yet, somehow it was approved by the city. (Not disagreeing with her criticism, but it seems difficult to specifically target the groups that she is advocating for.)
How do I know that? I asked.
Chamber Fan: I think you misunderstood the question.
For example, I can envision scenarios in which wealthy students will rent an entire unit. (Or, perhaps with a “significant other”.) In any case, even a single bedroom is not likely to be “cheap”.
Considering the planned amenities, and the cost to help construct a bicycle/pedestrian overpass, it’s not an inexpensive development.
That’s a different issue. Most wealthy students have their parents buy a home and then allow their kids/ friends stay there.
Chamber Fan:
It’s impossible to make a comparison at this point (between those who purchase a home for their children, vs. those who might choose to rent a unit in a fancy new development). Probably both would occur.
It speculative on your part, plus there is nothing you can do to stop it. The downside of renting the apartment is there is no equity in it. It sounds like you are inventing reasons to oppose Lincoln40
Chamber Fan: “It (is) speculative on your part, plus there is nothing you can do to stop it.”
Seems like you’re making two conflicting statements, here.
Going back to the main point, it is difficult to create a development that would address the specific needs that Tia is advocating for. (And, Tia does not seem to realize that some students and their families are wealthy, including some of the non-resident students that the University is actively recruiting.)
The University system has changed, over the years. It functioned differently when the state provided more funding. Now, it is pursuing dollars via privately-funded grants, and from wealthier students. Although it is still technically owned “by the people”, it also provides a very lucrative career, for some.
A comment and a question.
Several days ago the Wall Street Journal published an article about how land use regulations are increasingly preventing construction of affordable housing. A key concept was that historically lower income people improved their economic status by moving to cities that had strong economies and job opportunities. Citing several examples, it pointed out that well-meaning land use regulations in cities such as San Francisco and New York have greatly boosted the price of housing in those cities beyond the reach of people wishing to move to for greater economic opportunity. One example cited was the effort by a developer in San Francisco to build some affordable units, but the cost was rising because of the city’s requirement for a minimum size outdoor space for each unit (the rationale being to ensure light and ventilation). The net result was that the developer would have to reduce the number of units he could build, making the project financially infeasible.
Question: On January 20, 2016 the University of California Office of the President announced with great fanfare that the President had launched a Student Housing Initiative. (There was an article on the UCOP website, published in the Enterprise on January 22.). The article stated that “Current estimates project that UC could add nearly 14,000 new beds over the next several years, and that one of the initiative’s central tasks will be accelerating that timeline.” It also said that an internal development team of top UCOP officials led by Chief Financial Officer Nathan Bostrom and the Chief Investment Officer would soon start visiting all 10 campuses to investigate the housing needs at each.
It appears that nothing has been announced or published on the Initiative since publication of the article in January. Even if UCD got only a portion of the referenced 14,000 beds, it would help alleviate the shortage of rental housing in Davis. Has anyone heard any update on the President’s initiative? Thus far I’ve been unable to find anything on the UCOP website. Perhaps the Vanguard might have better luck than the average citizen in obtaining an update from UCOP.
UC will do what UC does on their own timeframe. Even if they built all the housing they have proposed for the Davis campus and students and staff could move in tomorrow, it would be a drop in the bucket for what is needed in Davis. Waiting for the UC to solve the problem for us is a fool’s game, one that many posters on here love to play.
We have a 0.2% apartment vacancy rate when a ‘healthy’ market should be close to 5%. The only answer to the problem is to start building apartments and continue to build apartments until the problem is solved, ten, twenty or more years down the road. Doing nothing only benefits those who want to keep the fine air of Davis to themselves and not allow anyone else to come in. Their favorite chant is “close the gates, more of ‘those kind’ are trying to get in and spoil our quality of life.”
Mark wrote:
> The only answer to the problem is to start building
> apartments and continue to build apartments until
> the problem is solved
Lack of apartments is not a “problem” for most of the people that live in Davis and the reason that ~75% voted No on Wildhorse Ranch, ~60% voted No on Covell Village and ~51% voted No on Nishi…
I’m still a bit confused why we need a 5% vacancy rate. Shouldn’t the goal be 0% vacancy? I need this explained to me. Anything other than zero makes me wonder why people say we don’t have enough apartments.
1. The lower the vacancy rate the higher the cost to rent, scarcity drives up cost
2. The lower the vacancy rate, the more landlords can get away with low upkeep since they are guaranteed to rent
3. The lower the vacancy rate, the more students have to put up with poor service/ living conditions
4. The lower the vacancy rate, the more incentive to convert houses to mini-dorms
Should I go on?
Thanks. Good explanation, but 5% seems kinda high. I’m just wondering where this figure came from? Is it proven to keep rent down or just a developers fallacy?
I didn’t put out the 5% figure, so I don’t know what its based on
It’s a long-time industry standard for a healthy rental market. If it’s much lower, landlords can keep raising rents and still rent nearly every room.
Odin wrote:
> 5% seems kinda high. I’m just wondering
> where this figure came from?
I don’t know where it came from but since it is rare to see any rental market get under 5% when that does happen rents tend to spike up until more apartments are built (in most of the US the people don’t need to OK new apartment construction)
I just found the link below (from 2014) with some interesting charts that shows Ohio with a 6.26% vacancy rate has rents about half the price of Davis rents and the US with a 6.32% vacancy rate has rents about 50% lower than typical Davis rents.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/ohio/cleveland/
You want a market where the landlords have an expectation of steady but moderate rate increases, but enough competition to provide an incentive to keep their properties in good shape and provide decent customer service. The ideal vacancy rate is a complex question to answer directly, but it can be estimated by looking at the market indicators that investors use to determine if a market is appropriate for investing in the construction of more apartments. Investors generally won’t put their money into a market where they cannot expect a reasonable rate of return. A 3-6% vacancy rate range seems to be the tipping point, with a greater rate of vacancy indicating a poor market for investors, and rates below that range being a poor market for renters (and a great one for landlords).
Should City policies favor creating a reasonable market for renters, or maintain the current great market for stuffing money into the pockets of the landlords?
The answers above do a good job of illuminating the supply/demand impact on the pricing of rental rates. One additional aspect associated with the 5% level as desirable, is that it provides an “opportunity” to perform renovations/improvements to the existing rental housing stock. Once the vacancy rate drops below 5% the incentive for landlords to provide those desirable renovations/improvements goes down and the overall quality of the available rental stock deteriorates.
Matt wrote:
> Once the vacancy rate drops below 5% the incentive for landlords
> to provide those desirable renovations/improvements goes down
> and the overall quality of the available rental stock deteriorates.
This can happen on a limited basis on a couple “mom & pop” apartments but for the most part low vacancy means higher rents that pay for massive improvements to the housing stock and overall quality of the apartments (areas with low vacancy typically have mostly nice apartments and areas with high vacancy typically have high numbers of dumpy apartments). Some examples of “improving housing stock” here in town are the two big apartments across from the park on F Street that have had millions invested to make them look better in the past couple years and the College Square apartments on J street that is also having millions invested in it to make it nicer (I just noticed yesterday that they are replacing EVERY window at College Square just like Parkside and Academy Lane). That is OVER 500 apartments in Davis getting renovated and getting new windows in just the last couple years…
“Vacancy rate” also includes re-modelling/re-furbishing units, gaps in occupancy due to turnover, etc. the 5% number has been used as a barometer for 40 years, but the reality is that in some years it has been 0.25-0.75 % … less than 1%, and effectively, zero…
It’s important to note that the number we cite here, the 0.2% rate, is the apartment vacancy rate, not the complete rental market vacancy rate, as measured by the annual survey that ASUCD has been doing for many years.
Nathan used to be on my board of directors. He is a fantastic and bright guy. But this 14k beds initiative is not going to be a dent in the need… which is growing faster than they will get it done.
I believe the approximately 9000 beds that UCD has announced in its draft LRDP is part of this plan. It’s pretty easy to figure out that UCD probably will not get all 9000 beds approved by the Regents because it would be a very disproportionate share of 14,000 beds that UCOP announced.
Once again, there’s push to increase density, without considering how “dense” the city (or individual neighborhoods) should ultimately be. (Based on number of units, floor space, or some other measurement in a given geographical area.)
If Developers were not pushing unneeded development in inappropriate locations, and actually providing what is needed, the problem would be solved.
If the city would actually go back to a leadership role, aka John Meyer’s era, then there would be enough housing of the correct type to meet the demand.
When city planning staff were well educated in such manners, and the planning commission was not afraid to stand up to developers, and the city council was not full of those who receive massive donations from the local developers, realtors, and most other Chamber members whose livelihood is based on more and more unneeded building and who tend to push the developers agenda, no matter how inappropriate it was not so much work for us citizen activists…..
A really wonderful example of a huge boondogle which was pushed by the developer industry in town was the unneeded water project. Many elders are leaving town due to the huge costs of that project, and inability to live on their retirement pay, and when water is plentiful still in surrounding areas.
So many lies were brought forth by those who needed that to support massive projects like the Cannery…..hardly a needed project either….Overpriced trash on small lots….by the same ole developers who brought toxic mold to SoDa over a dozen years ago, .and where are the real affordable units?
Marina wrote:
> the same ole developers who brought toxic mold to SoDa
The “developers” did not “bring toxic mold to SoDa” (anytime you have water, heat and nutrients you will have mold) and I know that “developers” sure don’t want it in anything they develop…