The Vanguard and local residents have focused on the local housing problem in Davis – the lack of student housing and lack of both big “A” Affordable Housing and also small “a” affordable housing. But Davis is hardly alone or even the worst off community in the state – unaffordability is a growing concern statewide and there is a movement afoot that might have direct local impact.
The New York Times on Monday reported, “A full-fledged housing crisis has gripped California, marked by a severe lack of affordable homes and apartments for middle-class families. The median cost of a home here is now a staggering $500,000, twice the national cost. Homelessness is surging across the state.
“The extreme rise in housing costs has emerged as a threat to the state’s future economy and its quality of life. It has pushed the debate over housing to the center of state and local politics, fueling a resurgent rent control movement and the growth of neighborhood “Yes in My Back Yard” organizations, battling long-established neighborhood groups and local elected officials as they demand an end to strict zoning and planning regulations,” the article reports.
Legislation from Senator Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, is one of 130 housing measures introduced this year. It “would restrict one of the biggest development tools that communities wield: the ability to use zoning, environmental and procedural laws to thwart projects they deem out of character with their neighborhood.”
Two of the latest infill projects in Davis, on B Street and the Trackside project, among others, could be directly impacted by such legislation.
The Times reports, “It is now the subject of negotiations between Mr. Brown and legislative leaders as part of a broader housing package intended to encourage the construction of housing for middle- and lower-income families that is also likely to include the more traditional remedy of direct spending to build more housing units.”
The Sacramento Bee notes the work of Brian Hanlon who is suing cities and counties that he says 
“aren’t complying with state housing law that says it’s illegal to deny or scale back affordable housing projects that meet local zoning designations and other land-use rules.”
Now he’s decided lawsuits are not sufficient, so with backing from Silicon Valley, Mr. Hanlon “is starting a new political and housing advocacy venture in Sacramento called California YIMBY – or ‘Yes in My Back Yard,’ a riff on the ‘not-in-my-backyard’ phrase that characterizes neighborhood opposition to development projects.
“It’s an emerging political movement demanding more housing construction across California, affordable or not. Pro-growth advocacy groups have formed groups from Santa Monica to San Francisco to Sacramento.”
On Friday, the New York Times reports, “Over the past two years the rising cost of housing in the San Francisco Bay Area and elsewhere has created a budding movement of pro-development ‘Yimby’ (yes in my backyard) groups that advocate for building more housing in hopes of easing exploding rents and home prices. On Friday a group of 200 or so activists from around the country, as well as Britain and Canada, will convene in Oakland for the ‘Yimbytown’ conference.”
The Times notes, “The conference is another sign of momentum for the Yimby movement, which has clashed with the Bay Area’s liberal establishment. A year ago most Yimby groups were tiny ragtag operations, but today they are pushing bills in Sacramento and have attracted enough money from Silicon Valley and elsewhere that many activists have been able to quit their day jobs to do politics full time.”
On July 5, The Atlantic points out that traditional adversaries are forming common cause: “Out of a desire for more-equitable housing policy, some city dwellers have started allying with developers instead of opposing them.”
The article notes, “Many progressives object to developers’ business model, which depends on building new units and charging as much as possible for them, even if that makes them unaffordable for longtime residents.
“But there are signs that this adversarial relationship is starting to give way to a more cooperative dynamic. In cities across the country, some residents that might once have protested new construction are welcoming developers, pushing governments to allow them to build more and more housing.”
The article notes, “With more housing, the thinking goes, the cost of rent in thriving cities like San Francisco, Boston, and Portland will not rise so quickly, which will allow more people from different economic backgrounds to live there and share in the prosperity of the local economy.”
That is precisely what some people believe needs to happen in places like Davis.
Yesterday Next City talked about “6 Ways Affordable Housing Developers Are Fighting NIMBYism.”
The publication notes, “Despite an acute affordable housing crisis in many U.S. cities, getting new homes built for low-income people remains a giant challenge.” Moreover, “There’s no one-size-fits-all solution that will instantly change such residents’ minds.”
First, be proactive. “Corianne Scally, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute who has extensively studied NIMBYism, has found that neighborhood opposition typically occurs very early in the development process. As a result, she says affordable housing practitioners need to engage ‘early and often.’”
Some of the recent projects have attempted to engage early – many have told the Vanguard that their efforts have produced disappointing results.
Second, Use Respect, Not Stereotypes. “At those community meetings and in subsequent interactions, it’s critical to show respect for residents and their anxieties. “We have to try to avoid self-righteousness as much as we can,” says Richard Thal, executive director of the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corp. in Boston.”
“For most of us, if we’re honest with ourselves, if someone was building a multifamily development in our neighborhood, we’d be nervous,” say Chris Estes, president of the National Housing Conference. Next City reports, “He’d prefer affordable housing advocates stop using the word NIMBY altogether: It’s a stereotype that can be just as pernicious as the one about ‘those people’ who populate affordable housing.”
From our viewpoint, calling people names like “NIMBY” is a good way to make people defensive rather than open to change.
Third, Activate Supporters. “Rallying those who are in favor of the project might seem obvious, but it’s a frequently overlooked tactic, says Michael Spotts, a senior analyst and project manager with Enterprise Community Partners.”
One of the biggest criticisms of the failed Nishi Project was they used student interns and paid workers rather than community members to do the primary engagement.
Fourth, Craft the Message Carefully. “The National Housing Conference recently held a communications conference in Minneapolis focused on affordable housing messaging. They acknowledged that the term ‘affordable housing’ often conjures images of crime-ridden public housing complexes — and they also discussed the fact that many Americans struggle with affordability but aren’t eligible for assistance, and therefore don’t necessarily support it for others.”
It is interesting that one of the downfalls of Nishi turned out to be the lack of affordable housing. What most people perhaps don’t know is that affordable housing in Davis starts at the low levels, at people making $30,000 a year, and goes up to $70,000. There was an article over the weekend that, in Silicon Valley, there are people making six figures who qualify for affordable housing. Not exactly the stereotype that people might think.
Fifth, Leverage What We’ve Got. “Personal stories of community members who need affordable housing can be incredibly powerful, say advocates. But again, tailor the story to the audience.”
Sixth, Think Bigger, and Encourage Neighbors to Do So, Too. “Neighborhood opposition to affordable housing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It’s enabled by many things, including a regulatory environment that often forces developers to repeatedly consult local government and citizens.”
They point out, “A new movement, aptly dubbed YIMBY (or Yes in My Backyard), is afoot to change that environment. According to Laura Foote Clark, executive director of San Francisco’s YIMBY Action, the group is focusing on removing some of the low-density zoning that limits multifamily housing in many parts of San Francisco, and streamlining the permitting process.”
Finally, Robert Shiller on Monday asks, “Why Do Cities Become Unaffordable?”
He notes, “Inequality is usually measured by comparing incomes across households within a country. But there is also a different kind of inequality: in the affordability of homes across cities. The impact of this form of inequality is no less worrying.
“In many of the world’s urban centers, homes are becoming prohibitively expensive for people with moderate incomes,” he continues.
“The consequences are not just economic. People may be forced out of cities where they have spent their entire lives. Leaving amounts to losing lifelong connections, and therefore can be traumatic,” he continues. “As such people depart, an expensive city gradually becomes an enclave of high-income households, and begins to take on their values. With people of various income levels increasingly divided by geography, income inequality can worsen and the risk of social polarization – and even serious conflict – can grow.”
Why do residents of some cities face extremely or prohibitively high prices? “In many cases, the answer appears to be related to barriers to housing construction.”
While there are natural barriers, many are also political. “A huge dose of moderate-income housing construction would have a major impact on affordability. But the existing owners of high-priced homes have little incentive to support such construction, which would diminish the value of their own investment. Indeed, their resistance may be as intractable as a lake’s edge. As a result, municipal governments may be unwilling to grant permits to expand supply,” he writes.
Where is all of this headed? The first place it appears to be headed is to Sacramento, where the legislature may pass some of these bills like Senator Wiener’s.
The San Francisco Chronicle on Friday writes that “perhaps the most remarkable sign of the crisis is that the Legislature is at long last on the brink of doing something about it.”
They note, “State Sen. Scott Wiener’s bill to rein in some of the worst antibuilding excesses of the state’s cities and towns survived its latest committee vote in the Assembly last week. Scores (of) more housing-related measures are in the works, but Senate Bill 35 is the most relevant — and controversial — because it goes after the stubborn roots of the state’s daunting dwelling shortage.”
SB 35, they write, “would streamline approval of urban, multiunit developments that meet zoning, affordability and other standards in communities that aren’t meeting local housing needs. While the state has been carefully assessing those needs for decades, its lack of means to enforce them allows local officials to regard perpetual shortfalls with a shrug.”
“All cities in our state need to create housing if we are going to meaningfully address California’s housing shortage,” said Senator Wiener. “We need to be producing 180,000 units of housing a year in California, but we are producing less than half that, which is inflicting real damage. Our housing shortage is harming our environment, economy, health, and quality of life.”
SB 35 would change the authority of RHNA (Regional Housing Need Allocation). Under SB 35, “if cities aren’t on track to meet those goals, then approval of projects will be streamlined if they meet a set of objective criteria, including affordability, density, zoning, historic, and environmental standards, and if they meet rigorous standards for construction labor.”
The situation reminds me somewhat of Prop. 13. The legislature knew that the cost of rising taxes was a problem, but they delayed a solution for too long and the voters solved it through the very draconian Prop. 13.
SB 35 might be the bill that completely alters the landscape, not only in California but in Davis.
As the Chronicle puts it, “Wiener’s bill gives lawmakers another chance to do their jobs and begin to address California’s most pressing problem.”
The LA Times adds, “Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has proposed putting some sharp teeth to the law. His bill (SB 35) would require cities that have fallen behind on their housing goals to streamline approval of certain residential projects, barring them from requiring any additional environmental review or city council vote.”
It may well be coming and it will change a lot here in Davis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Affordability is driven by population. We have a population crisis, not an affordability crisis. If we do what is promoted than we will have a transportation crisis, an energy crisis, a water crisis, etc. it will be a cascading series of crisis.
The YIMBY movement is primarily an astro-turf movement driven by developers.
We have a housing problem now and what’s the Democrat answer, open the floodgates to more illegals.
Do not hijack this conversation.
Don’t play naive because you’re not.
Do not sidetrack this conversation away from housing and zoning issues.
I got this email the other day and it really applies here to: “I’d just like to point out that a productive discussion on our dire fiscal circumstances, that should have been instigated by your article yesterday on tax measures, once again failed to materialize. The discussion was once again distracted by random comments & questions around PERB, sugary beverages, etc. It’s really astonishing that we appear utterly incapable of focusing on and then fixing our structural budget problems”
We have important community issues that we cannot discuss here because too many people have their own side agendas and drive the conversation way off course.
Yes, by all means, let’s turn away from the true cause and look behind door #3
I don’t agree with you, but I’m not going to get sucked into a distraction debate. Why don’t you want to talk about local land use? Bottom line – in Davis, this legislation will mean what?
Want to talk about immigration: one comment on here: https://davisvanguard.org/2017/04/monday-morning-thoughts-report-finds-immigration-arrests-reporting-crime/ Have at it.
Too late… the obsessed captain has put to sea…
I think you have it wrong, we have a supply crisis not a population crisis.
Ha ha, one creates the other.
From Population Review:
“Our current estimate for California’s population is nearly 39.5 million. At the last official United States census carried out in 2010, the population of California was declared at 37,253,956 which made the state the most populous in the country.”
Estimated population for CA is 50 Million in 2050. You cannot build your way out of that growth curve. Are these people going to drink water? Flush the toilet? Drive around? Commit crimes? Use air conditioning? Have health problems?
I could go on…
That’s six percent growth over seven years – less than 1 percent a year. Ironically the same growth rate as Davis caps out at.
But over a much larger base and everyone wants to live in a very small section of the state. It would be more accurate to say that Davis is experiencing 1% growth and everybody insists on living in Old North Davis.
But you’re missing the point, 1% growth in California over an eight year period is not explosive growth and not indicative of a population problem.
“not indicative of a population problem” Then why are prices going up if the population is not increasing? Cities in California with stable populations are not increasing look at Trona as an example. You can buy a house for $25/square foot.
When people moved out of cities into suburbs the price of housing in cities when down. not people are move into cities prices in the exurbs are decreasing in many places. Look at San Bernadino or Palmdale in the LA area as an example.
Using state metrics is not going to show you what is really happening.
I agree. It would be nice if we could focus on the subject at hand, which is SB35. Perhaps Keith can write a separate article regarding door #3 then folks can comment on immigration all they want.
The premise of SB35 is that if someone wanders by you need to build them a house. I question the premise. The reality is that all highly populated areas in this world are expensive. Toyko, Lagos, KL, Shanghai, San Paulo, does not make any difference. If you want to say, “here are examples of cities experiencing large population influxes that have affordable housing” then I am all ears.
I agree. It would be nice if we could focus on the subject at hand, which is SB35. Perhaps Keith or Jim could write a separate article regarding door #3 then folks can comment on immigration all they want.
I’ve written and posted many articles on door #3, most of them don’t get a lot of comments.
You haven’t written an article citing where Door #3 is a huge contributer to our housing shortage. But that wouldn’t fit the agenda, would it?
Immigration is off topic for this article.
The real topic is migration, not just immigration. From a “flushing the toilet” perspective it does not matter whether they come from Mexico or Kentucky.
You are correct, it is a migration issue, but you don’t stop that migration by blocking housing construction. The people are here and need a place to live. We can build appropriate housing for them, or we can cram too many people into too few, expensive, rooms creating even more problems. The solution is to not block housing but to be more efficient with that housing, both in terms of land use and other resources. We need to stop building sprawling communities of detached, single family homes, and instead, build taller and denser developments.
So, what is your solution, Jim Hoch? So far I see pithy comments but no ideas.
Shocking that the man who is against affordable housing is against SB35.
I have read Jim’s comments as an attack on the ‘Affordable Housing’ program as it is currently manifested, but not against the idea of housing affordability (he is welcome to correct me if I am wrong).
I am not against “affordable housing” I am against “Affordable Housing”. “affordable housing” provides benefits to many people while “Affordable Housing” is a gift of public funds to select individuals.
What would I do? I’ve clear on this so many times I hate to post again. I would get rid of the low density, energy inefficient trailer park and put in 3-4 story buildings for both seniors, students and families there.
40 acres would allow 2500-4000 people to live in a park like setting and provide an economic base for downtown.
Rancho Yolo is neither low density, nor is it energy inefficient. It is a single-family home neighborhood much like where I assume you live, but with higher density and lower-cost housing.
And again, I consider your derogatory comments about Rancho Yolo to be despicable.
“Rancho Yolo is neither low density, nor is it energy inefficient”
How many people per acre? What is the LEED certification on those trailers?
“I consider your derogatory comments about Rancho Yolo to be despicable”
Good, so you understand how I feel their railing against students riding bikes down 5th street.
In 2017, the federal government subsidized homeownership to the tune of $140.7 billion dollars; it is estimated 75% of this allocation went to households earning over $100,000.00. In 2017, the federal government subsidized rental assistance housing to the tune of $46.0 billion dollars, all of which went to households poor enough to “qualify” for this assistance.
So who are the biggest recipients of public funds?
Please do “go on”. You’re speaking my language! (Actually, the language of logic and common sense.) Your phrase regarding the “cascading series of crisis” is spot on.
Unfortunately, most don’t seem to want to acknowledge the root of the problem. (That often seems to be the case, regarding various problems – treat the “symptom”, not the cause.)
You’re missing the bigger picture here: SB36 “would restrict one of the biggest development tools that communities wield: the ability to use zoning, environmental and procedural laws to thwart projects they deem out of character with their neighborhood.”
What do you think that would do to Davis land use policies?
Good question. (Although I tend to think of Jim’s initial comments as the “bigger picture”.)
But no answer?
BTW I notice these articles never mention the position or activity of our own state representatives. Is that intentional?
Another aside. If you go to YIMBY ACTION and look at their board you see:
Sam Moss
Executive Director of Mission Housing, a Non-profit Affordable Housing Developer
Laura Fingal-Surma
Small Project Developer, Noe Valley Homeowner, Passionate Urbanist
Her LinkedIn profile says “Provide comprehensive building services”
All these “YIMBY Activists” are developers. What a shock….
What did you expect Jim? Did you miss my reference to Prop 13? You allow a problem to explode and it gets solved by self-interested people.
“it gets solved by self-interested people” Or “created” by the same
Thank you again, Jim!
You open the door
David: You do, at least.
What seems to be missed in conversations about ‘affordable housing’…
What is “affordable” and for whom?
What type of housing? Ownership or rental?
Type of housing… protective, basic needs or VERY comfortable (ex., lots of ‘amenities’)?
We don’t seem to have a ‘niche’ in Davis, for basic housing, protecting one from the elements, providing basic services (which probably now would be minimally defined as heating/cooling, electricity/gas, internet access, etc.). “Tiny houses”? No big yards? More MF simple housing? Focus on rental?
Seems like some folk expect universal “ideal” ownership housing with Cadillac amenities, at Schwinn prices. Other folk expect, “let them eat ‘camping'”. I believe there is something in between. Towards the ‘basics’.
[Irrespective of citizenship/immigration status]
It is simply mindboggling to me that this issue has been completely ignored in the discussion thus far: . It “would restrict one of the biggest development tools that communities wield: the ability to use zoning, environmental and procedural laws to thwart projects they deem out of character with their neighborhood.”
This would turn Davis land use policies on their head and yet everyone is focused on other stuff.
California passed the Housing Accountability Act in 1982 to address the same issues that are the target of SB35. Local jurisdictions have found ways around that act and the subsequent laws with the same name (most recently 2016), so it is no surprise that the State is looking for a stronger tool. We have a choice of making sound decisions on the type and location of housing ourselves or having those decisions made for us by an outside entity. Anyone remember Mace Ranch?
Sticking your head in the sand is not a solution.
Am also struck with usage of terms… ‘NIMBY’ is derogatory and discouraged… ‘Developer’ and/or ‘pro-growth’, are “descriptive” and ok, even ‘pro-moted’…
I guess I’m not as struck by that, why are you thinking they are parallel?
Usage, and comments on usage (or lack thereof on the latter two), here.
To be more clear… ‘NIMBY’ has morphed, as a term for folk not wanting certain uses in proximity, to also include “no-growth”/”anti-growth”… the way other words have morphed, and your filter would ‘catch’ many…
One is a word originally used to describe a piece of firewood, then a cigarette, then… another used to mean happy, carefree, then… I could go on…but won’t…
“as part of a broader housing package intended to encourage the construction of housing for middle- and lower-income families that is also likely to include the more traditional remedy of direct spending to build more housing units.”
The key for me in this statement is “housing for middle and lower income families”. Yesterday, I wrote about targeting housing for identified “needs” as opposed to nice to haves and was roundly criticized for my preference for meeting “needs” before wants, even by some who adamantly champion that approach when it comes to usage to taxes.
Although I am not a part of any group or movement ( since I prefer to consider each project on its own merits), philosophically I am a YIMBY, with one very important caveat. I distinguish between “need ( student, low income, elderly, homeless, transitional) housing”, and “nice to have ( large single family homes on big lost, luxury apartments ) housing”. You will not find me in opposition to projects that I feel meet the “need” category such as Nishi, Sterling, or the Lincoln 40 ( the latter of which is in very close proximity to my home & in my direct line of sight). What I am in opposition to is luxury building to meet the wants of relatively wealthy investors and developers and the few who can afford their projects while creating tangible harm to those in closest proximity while having gained exception for their projects outside the zoning and design guidelines. Within those guidelines, I say “Have at it.”
It seems to me the push for this change is coming from creating housing that has greater affordability
What do you think SB35 is going to do? The law will also bypass zoning and design guidelines and might create tangible harm to those in closest proximity while having gained exception for their projects. Would you like an affordable housing building that bypassed zoning and design guidelines near you? Better get on the line with your democrat legislaters to stop this law or get ready for the possibility of affordable high-rise buildings coming to a neighborhood near you.
There’s s the caveat that those provisions only kick in if you fall below the RHNA numbers – which Davis is not below this year, but was previously.
Given the trajectory of the previous legislation I would expect the full “bend over Davis” provision to be inserted in 2019 after they have established the principle that they can tell everyone what to do.
“Would you like an affordable housing building that bypassed zoning and design guidelines near you? “
Far better that than housing that does the same, but is unaffordable to all but the very affluent. At least a community need is being met by the former, but not by the latter.
“‘needs’ before ‘wants'” Who gets to decide which is which? People think they have a “need” for a place in SF which to me is a “want” and they could move to Detroit instead.
Why stop at Detroit, maybe they can go live in Indonesia and work in a sweat shot?
Jim: I agree with this, and am stating this as someone who was priced out of my home town. (Without any “resentment”, but perhaps a little bit of sorrow.)
Hell, Detroit (and a million other places) could probably benefit from revitalization. (In fact, I believe this might already be occurring, in some areas.)
Believe it or not, California isn’t “all that”, nor is it the center of the universe. (Of course, we all know that Davis is an “exception”, and is “extra-special”.) 🙂
I wish to live in Santa Barbara and demand that they build affordable housing for me.
Santa Barbara actually is a special place. Until I was well into adulthood (and ventured into such areas on my own), I never thought there were any truly nice areas in Southern California. (I was “brainwashed”, I guess.)
Maybe someday I’ll stop “looking down” on areas that are not on the west coast. (But, I’ll probably need some time to “discover” that, on my own.)
But, god forbid “Indonesia”, I guess. (According to one commenter, at least.) 🙂
I Need to live in San Simeon and I understand there is vacant housing there.
Based upon their comments to me, my Bay Area friends and family look “down upon” the central valley as a place to live, including (but to a lesser degree) Davis. So did I, until I moved here. (I still prefer the Bay Area, myself. But, other factors have kept me here.)
Jim – just saw your comment. Yes – “Hearst Castle” is one of the places that I “discovered”, as an adult. What a setting! (Much of the appeal is that there’s very little development around it. That’s what wealth can sometimes accomplish/preserve. And now, it benefits all who visit and appreciate it.)
LOL, contact Senator Scott Wiener and get him going on that. Hearst Castle is calling your name.
Ron and Keith,
I understand there are seven houses in San Simeon. I’ll let you use my indoor pool if you bring snacks.
I think I like the outdoor pool, more. (In all seriousness, we all get to enjoy that view, these days.)
Never mind the seven houses. They can build tons of affordable (or “Affordable”) housing on the surrounding open hills/open space. Many with “ocean views”.
But – I wouldn’t “recommend” it.
I like San Simeon, but I wouldn’t want to live there. My kids like the zebras near Heart Castle
“I like San Simeon” This is the time to visit. With CA1 closed to through traffic I understand there are fewer people than normal.
“Believe it or not, California isn’t “all that”, nor is it the center of the universe.”
That is a subjective assessment. I do find California to be “all that” and I have lived in three other states for prolonged periods of time. “All that ness” is clearly a matter of personal preference.
Tia:
Fair enough, although not all of California has equal parts of “thatness”, I suppose. (How about Bakersfield? Actually, I’ve never been there, but already “look down” upon it!)
More importantly, is living in “thatness” a “need”, or a “want”? And, however it’s defined, should it be “accommodated”, and for whom and to what degree?
For example, does someone like me (perhaps) “deserve” assistance to be able to live in my original home town, in the Bay Area?
(Man, I hope “thatness” doesn’t become a frequently-used word, now.) 🙂
Bakersfield has excellent Basque food and easy access to the Kern River and Lake Isabella. It’s a much larger town than Davis. If you like country music or collect weapons…
They also have straws.
Jim: I’ve forgotten – are straws an asset, or a drawback?
In all seriousness, the underlying point I was trying to make is that people often have a negative view of places that they aren’t familiar with (myself included). I used to view the entire valley that way (including Davis, which I’d barely heard of – or thought about), before moving to Davis.
Moving out of the Bay Area was the right decision for me, at the time. (Even though I didn’t want to.) And, if I really wanted to, I could probably move back, now. (However, since leaving, I can also see the drawbacks of living in the Bay Area more clearly, now.)
I see some parallels between my history, and the arguments that occur regarding Davis these days.
My preference on who decides needs vs wants would be the City Council after a General Plan update and thorough assessment of the demographics of the community as it exists now instead of years from now. If we are capable of doing a fiscal needs assessment, surely we could do the same for population needs.
David,
Do you know how Dodd and Curry are positioned on this?
Jim
I would like to know this, as well.
Bill Dodd voted yes on the Senate Floor (it passed the senate 25-12).
Aguiar-Curry voted for it in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
Thanks, David.
I noticed that your article contains a link regarding the “negotiations” between the governor and legislature.
It looks like there still needs to be a vote in the Assembly and then reconciling with the governor.
I love reading the Vanguard for some alternative perspective on local and state issues, but these comments can crack me up sometimes. The idea that the affluent middle-aged landowners of Davis somehow “know what’s best for the community” is no different than when this country was first settled. I think I’ve got something that would make you all happy:
City Council Resolution #83:
Thankfully, the state legislature is taking steps to work beyond incapacitated city governments and local obstructionists. This is what a ruling body exists for in government – to recognize a class of citizens are being hurt by “the way things are” and enacting policy to help them.
It is ridiculous that someone making $60,000 a year and paying down student loans should have to pay almost 1/2 of their takehome salary to share a 2 bedroom apartment. Moreso, it’s ridiculous to think these people can just “wave the magic job wand” and magically be transported to another part of this country, make the same salary, and all of a sudden magically afford that area too. Reality check: it’s a little more complicated than that. These are people that are involved in this community and want to stay here for the long term…and we want to make it better. Let us.
. . . build our way to affordability? Funny, I never thought that way – even when I was (no doubt) younger than you, and had essentially nothing.
$2,500 per month, each?
I’ve forgotten – would $60K per year qualify for Affordable housing?
There are different categories of affordable, but I believe they go up to 120% of median, $72K
For a single person?
I happen to believe that $60,000 ($30 /hour) is a decent salary and not in any way considered a low wage earner. Someone can rent one bedroom in a two bedroom apartment in Davis and still live comfortably on 60 g’s.
(I realize that “take-home” pay is different than gross, which of course doesn’t correspond with the $2,500 figure in my comment above. Ran out of time to edit.) I’ll blame that on being “middle-aged”. 🙂
You know, you can actually look stuff like this up.
The answer is yes.
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-manager-s-office/housing-and-grants-management/affordable-housing-program/ownership
Compare your example with someone who is homeless, ‘making’ $1000/month (if they get SSI)… my heart bleeds for people in the situation you describe…
Is “take home” before or after student loan payments?