A reader who unfortunately doesn’t post here anymore wrote in yesterday regarding my quoting a planning commissioner several times who pointed out, “We don’t have a lot of land left in town for multi-family housing and I’m very concerned that every single site is apparently being used for dorms.”
I have focused on the perceived inaccuracy of the quote – but the reader believes that I have yet to address the “underlying idea that land is limited.” The reader writes, “It is only limited because of Measure R creating an insurmountable obstacle to annexation.”
For the record, I remain a strong supporter of Measure R. I believe that, while there are some problems which have resulted from the inability of the city to develop outward and it has increased the pressure to build higher density on existing parcels, which has therefore increased developer-neighborhood conflict, overall, giving the public the opportunity to directly weigh in is a beneficial step for our community and has prevented the explosion of the population we saw in the two decades prior to Measure J’s 2000 passage.
However, the Vanguard is a site of ideas and discussion and so I present this reader’s perspective for the purposes of advancing community discussion.
A few weeks ago we published an article that looked at the YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) movement – state legislation that could limit the ability of cities like Davis to utilize land use to limit growth – and also the question of affordable housing.
Robert Shiller, a 2013 Nobel Laureate in Economics and Professor of Economics at Yale University, wrote a piece on July 17, “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.
Unlike the Bay Area or Silicon Valley, Davis does not have natural boundaries. Instead, what is limiting growth is political or artificial.
This is the point that Ron Glick made during the B Street Residence discussion two weeks ago.
Ron Glick has been pushing this point on Measure R for a long time, and I think he has a point – if the city cannot grow outward because of constraints of Measure R and the housing needs continue to expand, the city will have to find more creative ways to pack more housing into the existing city limits, and that means infill projects and the conflict between the existing residents and new development
He noted that one of the reasons for the unaffordability of housing is lack of supply. While there are natural reasons for lack of supply that will constrain a market, there are also “artificial reasons why you get lack of supply,” and in Davis that is Measure R.
“What’s driving everything,” he said about the risk to people in the mobile home park, Sterling, Trackside, and the B Street project, “all of these things is Measure R because we can’t spread out.
“You talk about densification as though densification is some great thing, but every time you try to densify something, there are people down here saying don’t densify my neighborhood, please don’t densify my neighborhood,” he said.
He said it’s a de facto thing that “if we can’t spread out, what are we going to do? We have to do infill. As long as we have this limit line – conversion on ag land is $15,000, Sterling $1 million an acre.” He said that “because of Measure R, land inside the line is now worth 100 times land outside of the line.”
He argued if we had built Nishi and Covell Village “maybe there wouldn’t be so much demand.”
As I pointed out in a column two weeks ago, while I think Ron Glick has an important point that we should all pay attention to, the costs of Measure R have increased the speculative value of the land inside the effective limit line created by Measure R.
Look, I don’t agree with Ron Glick. I think Measure R is a good thing – we need to remember why we have Measure R and it is because we had decades of unconstrained growth on the periphery. I also don’t necessarily believe that Measure R will always block all new development. Nishi might have passed were it not for some critical mistakes – and, pre-Measure R, Wildhorse was able to pass a citizen’s vote.
The community has chosen to not support peripheral development. That means they have constrained the housing market to give developers a huge incentive to develop in existing neighborhoods – where they only have to deal with the city council and not the voters.
That means, in order to add housing, we must build higher and more dense projects than the existing land use. Sometimes that means we will see projects like Trackside, which go well outside the bounds of existing land use policies.
It also means we are going to have a few projects like Sterling and Lincoln40 that are created to serve the student population, which right now does not have sufficient housing.
While many, including the planning commissioner, have focused on the structure of Lincoln40, it was pointed out to me by someone familiar with the situation that right across the street from the proposed Lincoln40 site are the Lexington Apartments.
Unlike Lincoln40, the Lexington Apartments, while they have some bed rentals, mainly rent by the unit. We would have to check, but it is not believed that a single family lives in those apartments.
When I looked at the Davis rental market – this is from 2010 with the last census when the population at UC Davis was 30,000 rather than 36,000 – 57 percent of all units in Davis were rental units and 88 percent of all rental units were rented by non-family units, meaning primarily students.
The 0.2 percent vacancy rate suggests a continued overcrowding of the rental market – and the primary driver for that is students.
People want to complain that the few available spots are going to cater almost exclusively to the students – but they are the driving force behind the scarcity in the rental market.
The point that Ron Glick is making here is that, without Measure R’s limitations on outward expansion, the space limitations would not exist and the need for bed leases and student housing in town might be lessened.
While I continue to disagree with that view, I think we must recognize that we cannot have it both ways – we can’t on one hand limit peripheral growth without expecting it to impact our infill choices as well.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I was, and yet have no regrets or resentment. Anyone who reads my comments knows this.
This statement is only partially true. MANY Bay Area cities have urban growth limit lines, surrounded by private land which is off-limits to development. (Primarily thinking of North Bay communities, since the South and East Bay are already beyond the point of saving.) Yeah – saving surrounding farmland (and preventing sprawl, which is still occurring throughout the valley) seems so “artificial”.
I believe that even Woodland has an urban limit line, which can’t be changed without voter approval.
Yes, we can (and should). Cities have a right to self-determination, regarding the appropriate amount of growth and development. (I believe this was ultimately confirmed by a court decision, in a case involving Petaluma.) Of course, Davis must deal with the root cause of the “need” for growth beyond SACOG requirements (UCD).
Woodland has a limit line – halfway to Davis. Just saying.
David: That is factually untrue, although development interests still appear to have way too much control in Woodland (as with other valley cities, as well). And, this impacts Davis, in more ways than one.
In any case, perhaps a Measure R-type initiative in Woodland’s future, as well? (Eventually, spreading to other valley cities?) One can hope. (Perhaps while we still have a choice, in the long run.)
Change has gotta come.
Measure R rocks, it’s the only thing that keeps developers from transforming Davis into Natomas or Elk Grove.
Ron, you apparently have no clue about SACOG but don’t let that stop you. Please, enumerate their onerous requirements to which you so frequently allude.
John: If you believe that I’ve made an incorrect statement, then point it out (and back it up). (For example, if you believe that there are no SACOG “fair share” growth requirements, then say so.)
So far, all I see is an unfounded, trolling-type statement. “Par for the course” from you, as far as I’m concerned.
Key word is “requirements”, Ron… ain’t none…
I ditto that.
Ok. There are no SACOG “fair share” growth requirements.
There are allocations. The city has to show that it has zoning capacity for the allocations. Neither SACOG nor the Department of Housing and Community Development can compel a city to grow. There are no growth requirements.
David,
Fund raising idea, T-shirts with “SACOG Police” logo.
Call ’em whatever you want. But, David had an entire article recently, regarding the increased importance of SACOG “allocations”, under the governor’s proposal.
Fortunately, Davis has not (yet) been one of the cities which have “ignored” these allocations. However, it may yet be another concern in the near future, regarding what Davis might have to consider and plan for (other than what some advocates suggest, via “planning via vacancy rate”). (Otherwise known as “crisis planning”, or “jump when UCD says so”.)
Are you talking about SB 35?
This article: https://davisvanguard.org/2017/07/analysis-californias-housing-crisis-sb-35-might-impact-davis/
Ok, I will. They’re allocations. They aren’t requirements. So you were wrong.
Cities don’t “ignore” the allocations. They update the housing element of their general plan, and that gets certified. If they don’t, they aren’t eligible for some grant funds. It is not mandatory that they build housing. SACOG and the housing commission cannot compel a city to grow. The law you are referencing, if it is passed and signed by the governor, would reduce a city’s ability to put obstacles in front of projects that meet current zoning. So as currently being discussed, it would not have any impact on a city that has chosen to limit peripheral annexation and development. It would affect infill projects.
I’m pretty sure that you can see the “conflict” between these two sentences (even under current law). And, I believe that there are some cities which do (in fact) “ignore” these allocations (which makes your first sentence completely false). And, that there will be ramifications for doing so, under the governor’s proposal.
I’m pretty sure you still don’t understand this at all.
If they don’t make sure their housing element of their General Plan is in compliance, they aren’t eligible for some grant funds.
I’m going to shout now, because I’ve said this several times and you really don’t seem to be getting it.
IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY HAVE TO BUILD ANY HOUSING.
SACOG CANNOT COMPEL A CITY TO BUILD ANYTHING.
SACOG CANNOT COMPEL A CITY TO GROW.
It just means they have to account for the allocations in their housing element of their general plan and get that certified. Davis is in compliance. Nearly every city is in compliance.
There are no cities that “ignore” the allocations.
It isn’t the governor’s proposal.
That proposal would not require cities to annex and develop land.
Every time you discuss SACOG and the housing allocation, you get it wrong. Every time.
Don: “Shout” all you want. I’ve been encouraging the Vanguard to write an in-depth article regarding SACOG “allocations” for some time. Maybe you’re the guy who should do it.
So, some apparently aren’t (which makes your initial statement false). Which ones?
Don: “That proposal would not require cities to annex and develop land.”
So, what happens when a city “runs out of” available spots? (That’s an honest question. Has it even been “tested” in a city like Davis, so far?) Are you stating that SACOG is “prohibited” from considering land outside current city limits?
Note that I only made a passing reference to SACOG, before folks like you “jumped” on it.
So again, if you’re going to state that I have it “wrong”, then perhaps you should only focus on the ONE word that you and others are disputing – “requirements”, vs. “allocations”. (O.K. – it’s “allocations with consequences”.) Whatever.
That’s a lot different than the statement you made, below:
Take a “chill pill”, for goodness sake. (And write a frickin article, if you consider yourself such an “expert”.)
“Davis does not have natural boundaries. Instead, what is limiting growth is political or artificial.”
I am going to shock you all by saying that I see this differently. The “natural barrier” that much of Davis has surrounding it is agricultural land. I see this as a “natural” boundary just as much as a political or “artificial” boundary. Although I will admit to not understanding what the latter means distinct from political and thus the quotes.
I completely agree with Keith and appreciate Ron sharing his comments. The reality is measure R does not prevent growth, it allows the community to determine if a project is appropriate and has the features to make it worth it to pave over ag land and open space. It is that simple. Anyone who was living in Davis in the 1990’s is likely to remember the “land grab” and out of control growth that was happening due to developers and complicit City leaders at the time who did not have a vision for Davis and did not consider the damage un-paced growth was doing to Davis.
Basically, any project that came forth was approved no matter what the impacts on the community, enviroment, and particularly Davis’ infrastructure. Davis schools were completely overcrowded, there were enormous traffic and circulation impacts and city services were overwhelmed, plus city taxpayers were paying the long-term costs of all of this out of control growth.
So Davis citizens understood the problem and did something about it understand that our community needed to get a checks and balances factor into the City’s planning equation. That is the genesis of Measure J which was renewed as Measure R now. Measure R is democracy in action and its purpose is to protect the community from unbridled growth and motivate developers to bring forth better projects that are better planned and offer benefits and design that need to be good enough to make it worth it to pave over ag land or open space.
Repealing Measure R would bring numerous additional problems. These new residents would want to drive, park, flush the toilet, send their kids to school, etc.
Jim: Sarcasm?
David: I know this question was not directed to me, but I’m pretty sure that Jim was engaging in sarcasm. (And yet, I still find his comments amusing.)
But, to be honest, even the “trivial” concerns he brings up have ramifications. (Anyone remember “the drought”, at this point?) 40 million people in California, now. (2-3 “lifetimes” ago – maybe less than a million?) Has “technology” improved so much, that this is now permanently supportable?
At times, I’m relieved that I’ll be dead within a few decades (at most), from now. 🙂 (But, in reality, this timeframe is true for anyone currently living.)
Not sarcasm at all. If you want to increase both the population and the footprint of the town you will have even more infrastructure issues than just increasing the population through infill.
If you do want to increase the footprint for student housing my recommendation would be to build from Sutter to the Binning tract instead of all directions.
The single biggest problem with Measure R is where it occurs in the development process. Currently, a proposal is fully fleshed out, a developer has to show substantial financial commitment, and an EIR has to be prepared, and then finally the vote comes after substantial investment. Why would any developer want to spend all that time and money to make a proposal that might get past a fickle electorate? Instead, a Measure R-type vote should come at the beginning and be oriented solely toward 1) expanding the urban limit line and 2) the type of zoning within the expansion area. The electorate doesn’t have the time (this is by far the most important factor) or the expertise to evaluate whether a development has enough solar rooftops or dog runs which gets the activists up in arms. Those arguments should be left to the Planning Commission and City Council to has out. That’s why we have elected officials.
The other option is for the city to acquire a significant chunk of land, say from the golf course to the hospital, and solicit proposals for high density housing from developers.
The City doesn’t need to ‘acquire’ the land, just annex it. It is a very good idea, but the ‘no’ crowd will object, but then again, they object to any change so we may as well do it.
Richard,
That does not need to be a problem, since it depends on the approach the developers decide to take. Developers always have the opportunity to do a pre-application first where they can get a feel for if their proposal is something that is on the right track for the community to support it and that it could potentially work and be compatible. I think that that is a good starting point for any large project proposal particularly, especially any project requiring Measure R. Also, it is best if the developers to do outreach to the community to get input as to what the community would like to see in the project.
That’s something I have suggested developers try, but their fear is that if they don’t have a fully formed project, they’ll get beat up.
All you have to do is look at the response to the MRIC EIR certification to understand how folks will react to a preliminary proposal going to a measure R vote.
Mark: I guess you’re referring to the “bait and switch” proposal. (I’m pretty sure that Eileen supported a commercial development, at that site.)
If a proposal is “fully formed”, they’ll get beat up for not vetting their concept with the public (particularly ‘some’, and you can easily guess who they are), earlier… a no-win, no project scenario… OK… no projects… got it…
There’s no legitimate need (or purpose) regarding comments such as this.
My concern is that without Measure R, Davis could expand outward in an uncontrolled fashion, thereby fundamentally losing the character and advantages that makes it so different from virtually all of the other towns I’ve visited in the western U.S. Just last week I was in Flagstaff, which has a population virtually the same as Davis. But, whereas Davis has slightly less than 10 square miles, Flagstaff has almost 65. Granted, there are topographical differences between the 2 cities, but Flagstaff is so spread out that getting around town without a car is virtually impossible. Without the ability to control the periphery that Measure R affords, Davis could end up looking like Elk Grove, Natomas, or most of the other dull, dreary towns one passes through while driving on U.S. 99 or I-5 in the Central Valley. Yes, Measure R is not perfect, but it eliminates the often shoddy projects that result from the all-to-common cozy relationship among land speculators, developers and elected officials in most cities with which I’m familiar.
So far, it has eliminated every project that has been proposed since it was enacted. It has completely stopped all peripheral development without discrimination.
If you don’t like the decisions your elected officials are making, elect someone better.
Mark: How many significant proposals arose during the multi-year recession (driven primarily by a collapse in the housing market, as a result of greed and lack of controls)? (Which became a threat to the economy of the entire country, and had a worldwide impact.)
Yeah, right – “slow-growthers” are in control (not). All evidence (worldwide) points to developer power and influence. (Who’s in the White House?)
But hey – let’s continue the attack on the small “victory” in the burg of Davis. By all means, let’s not let that stand, and continue to undermine it at every opportunity.
Do your own research, Ron, I’m not your lackey.
You were very charitable, Mark, in your wording… really…
It was a rhetorical question.
Howard, you’ve lost any remaining claim regarding “objectivity”. Why do you make comments like this, if not purely for trolling purposes? (Actually, that’s another rhetorical question.)
Fundamentally, isn’t this a lot about psychology, social conditioning…. how people were raised? The first house I lived in Canoga Park – now West Hills, but the flat part – had a backyard, but this was only fun when friends came over. (Continued…)