Sky-rocketing rents, unaffordable housing, and lack of available housing are not just a Davis issue, they are a statewide issue. On the ballot for November, about a month away, is Proposition 10, a ballot initiative that would return the question of rent control to local communities.
Davis has a renters’ market that is mostly impacted by an increase in demand, mainly through enrollment growth at UC Davis and the inability to provide new housing in the short-term – originally by growth control measures and now by litigation.
While there are local factors worsening the rental market in Davis, this is not simply a local problem. The Berkeley Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society recently analyzed census data and found that 54 percent of Californians spend at least 30 percent of their income on rent and more than a quarter spend over half their income on rent.
Another survey, as reported in a recent LA Times article, found, “High housing costs have left millions of Californians poor. Nearly 1 in 5 California residents lives in poverty when housing and other costs of living are considered, helping give the state the distinction of having the nation’s highest poverty rate.”
Will it work? Depends on whom you ask. Supporters believe that the measure could bring relief for renters during this time when rents are increasing beyond the capacity of the average person to 
pay them.
Opponents counter that by capping rents and interfering with laws of supply and demand, they will shut off the engine of affordability – housing construction, which will limit supply of housing, further increasing costs.
Economists, even liberal economists – across the board – question whether rent control helps with housing affordability. The problem: “Economists generally believe that when government limits the price landlords can charge for housing, there will be fewer houses produced, which in turn drives up prices.”
“When you have a price ceiling, it induces a shortage,” said Christopher Palmer, an MIT economist and coauthor of a study on rent control in Cambridge, Mass. “The common wisdom is that rent control reduces the quantity and quality of available housing.”
But Prop. 10 might do more than enable rent control.
At its core, Prop. 10 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and a Bee editorial in support of the measure argues that Prop. 10 “isn’t really about rent control.” Rather it is about local control, “which is why we recommend Californians vote ‘yes.’”
They write: “If approved, Proposition 10 would upend more than two decades of public policy, under which cities and counties have been banned from enacting or expanding ordinances to restrict rents on housing first occupied after Feb. 1, 1995, and on any single-family homes. More than a dozen California cities, including Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, already have some version of rent control on the books.”
They argue that this would free city councils and boards of supervisors “to regulate rental prices on any type of housing within their boundaries, as well as limit how much a landlord can charge when a new tenant moves in.”
The Bee’s point: “Proposition 10 doesn’t automatically enact or strengthen rent control ordinances. Cities and counties must do that themselves — or can choose to do nothing at all.”
Thus, the Bee argues, voters need to see Prop. 10 “through a nuanced rather than a polarized lens.”
They argue: “City councils and boards of supervisors clearly understand the needs of their constituents best, and with solutions only starting to trickle out of the state Legislature, they deserve the freedom to experiment — responsibly — with creative ways to help vulnerable tenants and energize the housing market. They also deserve the chance to come up with the right plan before having to deal with local ballot measures imposing rent control.”
I have been skeptical of rent control for a number of reasons, including questions about whether it would work in a place like Davis, where the turnover for rent is constant.
The Bee recognizes such challenges as well: “There is some reason to believe these plans may not work. A new study from UC Berkeley economist Kenneth Rosen says as much. Rent control — particularly when it’s not paired with any incentives for developers — is no panacea.
“It can have a chilling effect on new construction, potentially making the state’s already pronounced housing shortage even worse. It can encourage tenants to stay in rental units rather than moving, further shrinking the housing supply. It also can put mom and pop landlords in a financial bind, gutting the long-term value of their rental properties and discouraging them from making investments in renovations.”
Recognizing that point, however, they note that their view on Prop. 10 is not driven “by a blind belief in traditional rent control.” They note: “To the contrary, we have historically opposed such strict limits. Therefore, if the ballot measure passes, we urge cities and counties to start small and be cautious if they do take up local measures to protect tenants.”
Instead they argue: “What’s most important is that these conversations about short-term strategies are happening at all. While increasing the supply of housing is the long-term solution, that will take years that California doesn’t have.”
And they have a point here as well. In recent years, we have shifted our position on growth in Davis, for the most part out of concern for the impact of lack of rental housing on UC Davis students and other renters. However, recent events show even local dedication by the city council and the university may not be enough.
Litigation is currently preventing the immediate development of between 3000 and 3600 beds in the city, and now it may delay the building of 5200 beds on campus. That’s a lot of capacity being held up, not by local governance, but rather litigation.
Is there a rent control ordinance that would work in Davis? I don’t know. But the Bee makes a good point that, by voting for Prop. 10, we are not saying we need rent control in Davis, we are saying that the local city council rather than the state legislature should make that call.
Tough call here – I’m definitely on the fence.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Your opening premise is true at the start:
“Davis has a renters’ market that is mostly impacted by an increase in demand mainly through enrollment growth at UC Davis…”
But then quickly pivots to a false statement unsupported by the data:
“…and the inability to provide new housing in the short-term originally by growth control measures…”
As I have extensively documented on this site, Davis has grown, in both population and housing, at very similar rates to surrounding communities and California as a whole.
It is irresponsible for the Davis Vanguard to keep repeating this lie for political purposes.
Rik: Davis has not added a market rate multifamily housing since 2002. Sterling will be the first when it opens in 2020 in nearly two decades. There are currently about 8000 beds approved at UC Davis and Davis that are being held up by litigation. That part wasn’t meant to be controversial.
“That part wasn’t meant to be controversial…”
Although it is a constant Davis Vanguard mantra, it isn’t true. One solution is to stop repeating the mistruth and correct the record.
It is true. There hasn’t been a new market rate multifamily housing project since 2002 and there are 8000 approved beds in the city and on campus being held up by litigation.
David Greenwald: nope. Your oft-repeated premise that is echoed by the development interests in town is false and unsupported by the data. And you have not bothered to even present any data to support your claim.
I compiled population and housing unit stats in a detailed analysis for the past almost-50 years (using data from the U.S Census, California DOF, and building permit data). Brief summary below for the recent past:
1) comparison of average annual growth rates for housing units from 2010-2017:
– U.S: 0.59%
– California: 0.50%
– Yolo County: 0.50%
– Davis: 0.48%
– Woodland: 0.52%
– UC Davis enrollment growth: 2.43%
Conclusion: from 2010-2017, Davis has a housing growth rate almost identical to California as a whole, Yolo County as a whole, and Woodland. All have tracked at a slightly lower rate of growth than the U.S. How could this be the case if, as you state, Davis’ growth rate is because of the “inability to provide new housing in the short-term originally by growth control measures”?
UC Davis enrollment, on the other hand has skyrocketed at levels about 5 times the rate of housing growth in California, Yolo County, and Davis. And because UCD has not provided for its fair share of the student housing demand, this has put tremendous pressure on the city of Davis.
How about housing cost increases? Is there any evidence that Davis’ growth management policies have led to housing costs increases at rates higher than other communities? Keep in mind Gloria’s Partida’s article in the DV dated 10/1/2018 regarding her self-described “a quick un-statistical analysis” that “slow growth has kept prices of housing so high in Davis…”
I did a non-quick, very-statistical analysis and compiled data for broad range of local communities. Brief summary below:
2) comparison of average annual growth rates for rent and housing value* from 2011-2018:
California 3.66% 6.09%
Yolo County
Davis 3.03% 4.83%
Woodland 3.16% 6.11%
West Sacramento 3.68% 7.59%
Winters 3.56% 8.93%
Solano County
Dixon 2.88% 7.43%
Vacaville 3.10% 7.80%
Fairfield 3.75% 8.85%
Sacramento County
Sacramento 3.55% 8.88%
Elk Grove 3.31% 7.81%
Rancho Cordova 3.61% 6.66%
Folsom 3.47% 5.45%
Placer County
Roseville 3.78% 6.15%
*median estimated market rate rent and median estimated house value
A few conclusions:
– rents for all communities (including Davis) have increased at much lower rates than housing values.
– the rate of rent increase in Davis is 2nd lowest in the whole table, and the rate of housing value increase is the lowest in the table.
David, the fact that Davis has not added any market rate multi-family housing since 2002 has NOT been because of “growth control measures.”
Look at the multi-family housing proposals that have recently come forward and tell everyone which growth control measure(s) caused any of those proposals (or multi–family portion of a larger proposal) not to happen in the years between 2002 and 2017. Sterling? Nishi 1.0? Nishi 2.0? Lincoln 40? Plaza 2555? 3820 Chiles Road? Davis Live? University Mall? Trackside?
The #1 factor that caused the dearth of multi-family housing proposals between 2002 and 2008 was market forces that caused the potential Return on Investment (ROI) for the potential developers to be too low to proceed.
The point you have made is a classical example of the logical fallacy “Argument from final Consequences” … where your argument is based on a reversal of cause and effect.
Rik: You are spending a lot of time arguing a point that I’m not arguing. Whether Davis has grown in general since 2000 at a sufficient rate is aside from the point I am making which is that there has been a shortage of rental housing for students. The fact is, UC Davis agreed to build 9050 beds which is over and above their projected enrollment growth. The city has approved around 4000 beds. There are 8000 beds being held up in litigation. None of this, in my view, has anything to do with the point that you’re raising.
Matt:
Measure J/ R isn’t the only growth control policy.
You write: “The #1 factor that caused the dearth of multi-family housing proposals between 2002 and 2008 was market forces that caused the potential Return on Investment (ROI) for the potential developers to be too low to proceed.”
Part of what we are seeing is that in the last few years – the demand for housing has enabled the investors to overcome the obstacles to development in Davis. You are also assuming a number of things in your statement. First, clearly growth control policies played a role in Nishi taking as long as it did to come forward as a project, it’s first defeat and ultimate success now held up by litigation. Second, we don’t know what would have transpired without Measure R. Would multifamily housing have been proposed on peripheral property? (I’m not saying that’s preferable). Growth control measures led to available property being infill which is more expensive for a number of reasons as outlined in some of the fiscal analysis. I’m not saying your point is completely wrong, but to overlook the role of growth control measures (including J/R but also beyond J/R), I think is mistaken.
Matt Williams wrote:
Matt is correct in his point. And this should put to rest the oft-pushed Davis Vanguard/David Greenwald/Chamber of Commerce/developer talking point that growth management policies are stopping affordable housing.
David Greenwald wrote:
As far as David’s point that multi-family building has increased the last few years: it is wrong.
Looking at City of Davis building permit data for the past 10 years, multifamily development has declined dramatically in the most recent 5- year period compared to the previous 5 years, even while overall development has increased.
From 2008-2012, a total of 385 building permits were issued with over 50% of these for multi-family rental units.
– Single-family (detached and attached) 155 (40.3%)
– Multi-family ownership 21 (5.5%)
– Multi-family rental 199 (51.7%)
– Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) 10 (2.6%)
Then from 2013-2017, a total of 652 building permits were issued, an increase of 70% over the previous period, but with a dramatic decline in multifamily rental units at only about 12% of the total. Additionally, there were almost 3 times as many permits issued for single-family housing compared to the previous 5-year period.
– Single-family (detached and attached) 452 (69.3%)
– Multi-family ownership 74 (11.3%)
– Multi-family rental 76 (11.7%)
– Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) 50 (7.7%)
“As far as David’s point that multi-family building has increased the last few years: it is wrong.”
That’s not a point I made. In fact, I’ve pointed out that of the approved multi-family projects, only Sterling has broken ground.
David Greenwald said . . . First, clearly growth control policies played a role in Nishi taking as long as it did to come forward as a project, it’s first defeat and ultimate success now held up by litigation.
So, are you saying that the exception … Nishi … makes the rule? Are you saying that Sterling, Lincoln 40, Plaza 2555, 3820 Chiles Road, Davis Live, University Mall, and Trackside should all be ignored?
David Greenwald said . . . Second, we don’t know what would have transpired without Measure R. Would multifamily housing have been proposed on peripheral property? (I’m not saying that’s preferable). Growth control measures led to available property being infill which is more expensive for a number of reasons as outlined in some of the fiscal analysis.
So, are you saying that the decisions by the developers of Sterling, Lincoln 40, Plaza 2555, 3820 Chiles Road, Davis Live, University Mall, and Trackside to DELAY their development(s) all or some of the 16 years from 2002 to 2018 was because of the absence or presence of peripheral land COMPETITORS to their developments? How is having MORE competition going to speed up their decision to go forward? I would fully expect more competition to slow their proposals down. I don’t make that asswertion lightly. I had a personal conversation with a developer of one of the listed projects who told me that investors are very nervous about the increased competition for tenants that Nishi is going to bring.
David Greenwald said . . . I’m not saying your point is completely wrong, but to overlook the role of growth control measures (including J/R but also beyond J/R), I think is mistaken.
So, what are those growth control measures beyond J/R?
David Greenwald: you’ve repeating your same false assertion unsupported by the data for years. You manage to slip it in articles on a weekly basis.
Here’s just one example from 2014. There are dozens of these:
“It is reasonable to speculate that the great reputation of Davis schools, combined with a slow growth history, will continue to make it hard for teachers to live in Davis…”
https://davisvanguard.org/2014/08/can-davis-k-12-teachers-afford-to-live-in-davis-and-if-not-does-it-matter/
Rik: I don’t understand your point here. Davis is a slow growth community. You’re giving good lessons on how to lie with stats.
David: you specifically said ” in the last few years – the demand for housing has enabled the investors to overcome the obstacles to development in Davis” as a direct response to Matt’s point that “that Davis has not added any market rate multi-family housing since 2002 has NOT been because of “growth control measures.” and that it was due to “market forces”.
Question: since the point has been proven wrong by the data over and over again, will you right now finally put to rest the oft-pushed Davis Vanguard/Chamber of Commerce/developer talking point that growth management policies are stopping affordable housing?
Yes, they proposed and have had approved: Sterling, Nishi 2, Lincoln40, and Davis Live Housing about 4000 beds. However, only Sterling has gotten to the point of building.
The question still stands:
As Matt Williams said: “Look at the multi-family housing proposals that have recently come forward and tell everyone which growth control measure(s) caused any of those proposals (or multi–family portion of a larger proposal) not to happen in the years between 2002 and 2017. Sterling? Nishi 1.0? Nishi 2.0? Lincoln 40? Plaza 2555? 3820 Chiles Road? Davis Live? University Mall? Trackside?”
Since the point has been proven wrong by the data over and over again, will you right now finally put to rest the oft-pushed Davis Vanguard/Chamber of Commerce/developer talking point that growth management policies are stopping affordable housing?
I don’t think that anyone is arguing about the actual growth and construction numbers, it just sounds like Rik and Matt don’t think that Tandem and Ramos would have already built thousands of apartment units on the land they on on Covell if the voters in Davis gave the OK.
P.S. Question to Rik and Matt I’m wondering if they think rents would be higher or lower in town if development pushed the vacancy rate to around 5% a rate that most people call “healthy” (Don don’t answer this one for them)…
Ken asked . . . [Do you] think rents would be higher or lower in town if development pushed the vacancy rate to around 5% a rate that most people call “healthy”
When I taught Critical Thinking one of the important critical thinking tools was the following question, In a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world, but if there were, would you ______?
So, applying critical thinking to your question, In a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world, but if there were, would you rents would be higher or lower in town if development pushed the vacancy rate to around 5% a rate that most people call “healthy”?
The answer to that question is they would be neither higher nor lower . . . they would be about the same. The reason for that answer is my belief that the Davis housing market has local supply, but regional (even supraregional) demand. The upshot of that supply/demand situation is that any increase in local Davis housing supply is going to produce an equal or greater increase in demand from the region/supraregion.
Your question begs one in return, In a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing as a perfect world, but if there were, how many rental units would need to be added to the 14,000 rental units Davis currently has, in order to get the vacancy rate to around 5% a rate that most people call “healthy”? The 14,000 number comes from the the Downtown Davis Existing Conditions report prepared for the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee which says “According to 2016 figures, Davis has about 26,000 housing units with an average occupancy of 2.7 persons per household. 46% of the housing is owned and 54 is renter-occupied.”
Ken A said . . . it just sounds like Rik and Matt don’t think that Tandem and Ramos would have already built thousands of apartment units on the land they on on Covell if the voters in Davis gave the OK.
Actually Ken, my point was about Sterling, Nishi, Lincoln 40, Plaza 2555, 3820 Chiles Road, Davis Live, University Mall, and Trackside. I hadn’t given any thought to Covell Village … and I don’t know what the answer to your hypothetical is for Tandem.
For Ramos I have a bit more direct knowledge, although I know of no land owned by Ramos on/off Covell. However, I do know intimately about the proposed Ramos development of 125 residential units on Mace Blvd across from Montgomery, and the answer to your question with respect to that Ramos development is (1) it would have had no multi-family units and (2) it was proposed as a Yolo County development rather than a City of Davis development, and (3) Dan Ramos personally told me at a Innovation Park Task Force meeting in 2008 at Mori Seiki that if that development had actually been approved in 2007, as he was trying to have happen with his efforts with Yolo County in 2006, he and his partners would not have proceeded with the actual development, once it was approved.
I want to thank Matt for answering my question and let him know that I appreciate how he thinks things through and I wish he was on the city council.
When I asked Matt and Rik if they thought rents would be higher or lower if we had a “normal” vacancy rate Matt says “The answer to that question is they would be neither higher nor lower . . . they would be about the same.”
A friend a little older than me went to ASU in the mid 70’s and after nine years of MASSIVE inflation (and massive AZ apartment building) his little brother a little younger than me went to ASU and rents were “about the same” BEFORE concessions and his brother was able to get a free month with a six month lease and moved a few times on his last couple years.
I’m not a “pro” or “anti” development guy and at the end of the day things will probably be better for me and my family if they never build another home or apartment in town (home value, traffic and parking). With that said I don’t have any problems if the town adds some more housing (I don’t want Davis to look like Elk Grove or Phoenix) since it will not have a big effect on my life and will help a lot of people out that want to live in town.
David’s blog has given regular people the ability to point out distortions that tend to show up in both sides of most debates. When most people hear “about the same” they think “that is not that great” (since most people forget about inflation) but when you ask people “how would you like rents to be about the same as in 2008” they will jump for joy.
Understanding inflation and time value of money takes a different way of looking at the world (that unfortunately less and less people do with the crazy growth in student loan and consumer debt). It is also important to remember that there are always multiple variables so building more apartments will not ALWAYS result in a slower increase or drop in rents, but it “almost” always does and if the vacancy rate goes from under 1% to over 5% the rents are ALWAYS lower (adjusted for inflation)…
When Rik says “Davis has grown, in both population and housing, at very similar rates to surrounding communities and California as a whole” he is correct but misses the fact that looking at the “surrounding communities and California as a whole” ignores that many communities in the state have had drops in both jobs and population due to automation and job loss (I forget the name of the designed in Davis tomato picker and a friend lives near an abandoned sawmill on the way to Quincy) while other areas have had bigger increases in jobs with less increase in population (it costs more to rent a typical ROOM in Foster City or San Mateo than an APARTMENT in Davis). It is irresponsible for Rik to keep repeating a true fact to try and trick people into believing that more development in Davis (or San Francisco, or Foster City) would not lower rents. Coming out and saying “growth in Davis is similar to the rest of CA is like saying the average temperature in Auburn, CA is about the same as San Diego, CA” (Auburn and San Diego do have almost the same average temperature, but it is hotter in Auburn in the summer and colder in the winter”…
P.S. If Rik wants to understand the Davis housing market he should look at areas with growing colleges and he will learn that when a college grows faster than housing rents go up fast (he can make it to Berkeley in under an hour without traffic and he will learn that most kids are paying MORE for a room than the average 2 bedroom apartment costs to rent in Davis…
You realize that my detailed tables didn’t just compare Davis to California, but to lots of other communities—with the same conclusion.
What metric/comparison would you suggest to compare Davis to in order to determine whether its land use policies have constrained growth relative to other places?
Would you also suggest looking at increases in housing values/rent rates for example?
I don’t disagree with the premise that massive UC Davis enrollment growth rates combined with the University not taking responsibility for its fair share of student housing has put exogenous demand pressures on the housing market in Davis. And the result has impacted the family/workforce population the hardest.
Ken A: I’;; publish a full table/chart soon showing housing unit growth rates across the region.
SPOILER ALERT: the city of Davis had a higher rate of housing unit growth from 2010 to 2017 (0.48%) than the SACOG region as a whole (0.43%) as well as 4 of the 6 individual counties in the region. Yolo County as a whole (0.50%) was the second fastest growing county in the SACOG region. Only Placer County topped it (0.93%).
Rik
Since 2000 the Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical Area population has grown at 1.53% per year while Davis has grown at 0.79% per year. That translates to a shortfall for Davis of 15,878 over that period. (I can’t post a formatted table or a picture with the full data here.)
Richard McCann: see my analysis and data in a comment above that shows that Davis has had almost identical rate of growth for housing units from 2010-2017 compared to the U.S., California, Yolo County, and Woodland.
I don’t have a comment on your data right now because you have not provided complete figures, a breakdown by community. nor an indication whether this is referring to population (which is affected by changing household sizes/composition by community) or housing units.
Why not address the demand side?
Kick people out?
Or, build a moat and/or wall…
Yes, we are approaching 8 billion people so it’s not possible to build our way out.
“Why not address the demand side?”
What specific measures would you employ?
Think twice, before pursuing “economic development”. As noted by another commenter on this page, some communities have actually been losing population, when the jobs aren’t there.
And, some companies are actively undermining efforts by communities to limit growth and development, via the YIMBY movement and the statewide measures that are reducing/eliminating local control regarding land use. (Are those really the companies that communities should pursue?)
Actually, I see that Jim was mentioning the much larger problem of global population growth. This is where I see some monumental failures, on the part of some environmental groups. (Very little focus from them on that issue.)
Too much focus on “what type of light bulbs we use”, vs. the never-ending increase in the number of light bulbs that are demanded.
As incomes and education increase, population growth invariably decreases.
I really like the head in the sand solutions that are being tossed around here…
I’ve read that the U.S. still has one of the highest rates of population growth in the developed world.
In countries that actually have a stable population, there seems to be a lot of “bemoaning” about it from some economic interests (along with predictions of “gloom and doom”). Go figure.
“As incomes and education increase, population growth invariably decreases.”
Since the population continues to increase I’m not sure what the point of this comment is. In 1972 we had half as many people so if our rate of increase is half what it was in 1972 (it’s actually higher than that BTW) we are still adding the same number of new people every year.
The other trend is the shift in percentage of urban vs. rural dwellers. In 1972 only 37% of people lived in urban areas while now 55% does.
“what specific measures would you employ”
Free and readily accessible highly statistically effective contraceptives.
( Only spoken partially tongue in cheek)
Getting back to the question asked… rent control is not the answer… IMO as a former landlord, and as a former renter.
Like Howard I have been both a landlord and a renter (with rent control and without). The people that really benefit from rent control are the people that want to rent for the rest of their lives and live in the same rental for decades (when I lived in SF in the 90s we were paying 300% more than the couple next door that had lived in the unit since the 70’s).
Just like with affordable aka subsidised housing if one guy is paying $650/month for a bay view unit he is being subsidized by someone else (the people next door paying $1,950/month).
One downside of rent control that few talk about is that most landlords in rent control areas do whatever they can to avoid renting to anyone that they think will want to stay in the rental for years (so it becomes harder and harder for the people that benefit from rent control the most to find any place to rent at all)…
Actually, that’s how it will supposedly work at Nishi. With actual subsidized housing, everyone who pays taxes is paying for the guy’s bay view.
And they look for any reason to kick the long-termers out, and good luck getting any significant maintenance done — and on the other side renters often leave but leave their name on the lease but the whole unit turns over, and then landlords have to try to prove the leasee is no longer actually living there . . . the games are endless.
Alan has summed up my thoughts very well.
Alan said “Actually, that’s how it will supposedly work at Nishi. With actual subsidized housing, everyone who pays taxes is paying for the guy’s bay view.”
That depends on the specifics of the price points of the project as well as the housing market. In some cases, the gap between the rent of the affordable units and the market rate units is paid for by a premium on the market rate units that the developer passes on In other cases, the market won’t support higher rents and the developer gets a lower rate of return. Or a combo of the two edge conditions
And then occasionally there are projects like Nishi, where I figured out in running some numbers that the “affordable” units will likely achieve a higher rate of return than the market rate units. This is because the all of the affordable units are rented by the bed—doubled up in each room—while the market rate units are almost entirely 1 bed per bedroom. Fake affordable housing.
““City councils and boards of supervisors clearly understand the needs of their constituents best.”
Good illustration of two sides to every story. City council members and BOS are also are better connected locally and thus may develop friendships & loyalties that help inform their decision making affecting how they “understand the needs” of their constituents and which constituents needs they favor.
I don’t know why David keeps repeating this. Communities can already enact rent control.
If enacted, the biggest impact of Proposition 10 would be the ability for communities to apply “vacancy control”. (In other words, landlords would not necessarily be able to jack up the rent when a tenant leaves.)
Proposition 10 has very little chance of being approved. It is opposed by some deep-pocketed interests. I understand that it’s already expected to lose.
I’m still wondering why Sterling is proceeding so slowly. (No lawsuit, there.)
Under current laws the city of Davis can only put rent control on older multifamily buildings (like the ones in Old East Davis that already have the lowest rents in town) and not control any of the newer big apartments or any of the single family homes and mini-dorms.
P.S. I was just at the post office yesterday and there was some work going on at the Sterling site…
I wonder how many “newer, vs. “older” multi-family buildings/units there are in Davis. (With 1995 being the cut-off date, I understand.)
Won’t be, with the proposed proposition, if it passes… no cut-off date… also, the Prop only enables entities to create rent control ordinance(s), but does not require them… just limited to issue of the previous “cut-off” date…
The other part of your question, which should be included (friendly suggestion), is, of those built since 1995, how many are “affordable housing” which are inherently somewhat rent controlled…
That said, how many units were prior to ’95, with the addition of how many are ‘rent-controlled (as affordable housing)’, is a damn good question. I’d like to know the answer, as well… and no, am not “playing nice”… but I give credit where credit is due…
I’m going to assume that Proposition 10 fails, as expected. But, again, cities can (and have) enacted rent control under current laws, with the limitations that have already been discussed. (That’s the part that seems to confuse some people – not you or any other commenter on here.)
Good point, regarding Affordable housing. (By the way, I read somewhere else recently that most Affordable rental housing does not remain that way, permanently. I might be able to find that article again.)
I’ll bet $2.00 that prop 10 passes… narrowly… no odds, no more of a bet… are we “on”?
I’ll take Howard’s bet (I’ll mail the $2 to David and he can do the same). Prop 10 will win in SF and probably win in Davis, but in a (typically) low turnout midterm older homeowners are the majority of the voters.
Just like many (but not all) on the far left (who go to “fight for $15” marches) also pay their nanny or cleaning ladies $10/yr, many on the far left don’t want anyone telling them what they can charge for rent at the home in Berkeley where they grew up after mom kicks the bucket in a few years.
For issues like Prop 10 you have almost every Democrat saying they support it to the pollsters but I’m betting that like with similar issues you will see a big disconnect from the polling in very “blue” areas with a lot of homeowners (who have a lot to lose if it passes).
I see a new business opportunity, for the Vanguard. (Broker.)
Perhaps Ken and Howard should each include an extra .50 cents as a “processing fee”. 🙂
Man, y’all are cheap! I have $100 bet with Don on Prop. L (although he gets to pay in cactus — I should have negotiated for the wholesale value to make it even stakes).
Up the stakes, will ya?!!!!
Ron & Ken… will send $4, plus a buck (for David being escrow officer) to cover those bets…
Actually, the prop doesn’t “enable” anything except the scope of a rent control ordinance… as I read the prop, agencies could include all rental properties, or the ordinances could specify a date of construction, or, (for SF rentals) date of putting their homes into ‘service’ as a rental.
Good article in the LA Times explaining:
Good facts. Thanks…
Cost of implementing rent control? $5-10 million.
Table form:
Don, thanks for posting the table, but it is important to note that it is easy to pick an area with rapid growth (like Elk Grove) and show that Davis is growing slowly but it is also easy to pick an area (like Lassen County) that is shrinking so so Davis growth is too fast.
What many people forget is that if demand (for anything) grows faster than the supply the price goes up faster than inflation and if the demand (for anything) grows slower than the supply the price goes down (adjusted for inflation). We know that UCD plans to increase enrollment and will not be building housing for ALL the new students so without new housing in town prices will continue to rise faster than inflation.
P.S. With the minimum wage going to $12/hr in less than 90 days at least there should be enough working class people to take YoloBus in to Davis (aka the town of students and older people) to make $7 coffee drinks for the students living in their former Davis apartments…
“We know that UCD plans to increase enrollment and will not be building housing for ALL the new students so without new housing in town prices will continue to rise faster than inflation.”
This isn’t accurate. They now agreed to the MOU in writing where they agree to provide new housing for all the additional enrollment.
Sounds like we can have another bet, does David want to bet me that five years from now UCD will have built one bed for every new student?
That’s a different sort of question. Especially if the litigation delays building by two years.
With the minimum wage going to $12/hr in less than 90 days at least there should be enough working class people . . . to make $7 coffee drinks for the students living in their former Davis apartments…
Make that $8. All my coffee drinks / restaurant items went up in the first quarter of 2018 when the minimum wage went up. As well, I counted 10 such places, all independent small businesses, that cut their hours by 1 to 4 hours in Sacramento and the East Bay. Those managers I talked to all cited the increase in labor costs. So who is winning?
1) That is population, not housing units. Look at the following data. Davis’ growth rate for housing units is almost identical to the others.
Comparison of average annual growth rates for housing units from 2010-2017:
– U.S: 0.59%
– California: 0.50%
– Yolo County: 0.50%
– Davis: 0.48%
– Woodland: 0.52%
– UC Davis enrollment growth: 2.43%
2) You have not broken out the MSA by community to show the “shortfall” in, for example, the city Sacramento, Yolo County, Woodland, etc.
Ken A.
Here’s an interesting comparison I compiled regarding rent and housing value increases. The rate of rent increase in Davis is 2nd lowest in the whole table, and the rate of housing value increase is the lowest in the table.
Comparison of average annual growth rates for rent and housing value* from 2011-2018:
California 3.66% 6.09%
Yolo County
Davis 3.03% 4.83%
Woodland 3.16% 6.11%
West Sacramento 3.68% 7.59%
Winters 3.56% 8.93%
Solano County
Dixon 2.88% 7.43%
Vacaville 3.10% 7.80%
Fairfield 3.75% 8.85%
Sacramento County
Sacramento 3.55% 8.88%
Elk Grove 3.31% 7.81%
Rancho Cordova 3.61% 6.66%
Folsom 3.47% 5.45%
Placer County
Roseville 3.78% 6.15%
Rik, send me that table data as a table and I will post it as an image. A picture is worth 1000 words.
Matt: I’ll do you one better!: I’ll get you table/chart of that PLUS a table/chart showing all of those jurisdictions (plus more) with housing unit growth from 2010-2017.
SPOILER ALERT: the city of Davis had a higher rate of housing unit growth from 2010 to 2017 (0.48%) than the SACOG region as a whole (0.43%) as well as 5 of the 6 individual counties in the region. Yolo County as a whole (0.50%) was the fastest growing county in the SACOG region.
I don’t think that anyone is arguing about the actual growth and construction numbers, it just sounds like Rik and Matt don’t think that Tandem and Ramos would have already built thousands of apartment units on the land they on on Covell if the voters in Davis gave the OK.
P.S. Question to Rik and Matt I’m wondering if they think rents would be higher or lower in town if development pushed the vacancy rate to around 5% a rate that most people call “healthy” (Don don’t answer this one for them)…
P.P.S. I’m wondering ig Rik can post a link to his data source since the Davis humbers he is posting are lower than the rent numbers from the UC Davis housing survey (probably the best rent survey in the region) “and” also the home appreciation number is lower than what Zillow is reporting.
https://www.zillow.com/davis-ca/home-values/
Don Shor: I tried to replicate the calcs in that table and it turns out there are some MAJOR calculation errors.
Additionally, I have data for housing units for the Sacramento MSA (El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, and Yolo counties) from 2010-2017 and there was only a 0.44% annual average growth rate.
Where is that table from? It looks highly suspect.
I just put data the Richard McCann posted into a table. Not sure where he got the numbers. Maybe he can post again. I’m happy to post tables of anything anybody provides and can make an image link if that is helpful. The formatting of the reply function of this blog doesn’t keep tables intact.
Thanks Don. Yeah, I’ve tried to do different formatting things for clarity that have not survived the “post comment” button intact!
There is something screwy going on with the calcs for the “shortfall” that is greatly exaggerating the number. (I also take issue with this concept of “shortfall” in the first place, but that’s another story.)
I plan to publish a set of numbers soon that will put these growth numbers across the regional context.
Meanwhile, in Sacramento:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article217675615.html
Maybe John Cox will defeat Mr. Newsom of My Friends Wives and we can see some ideas for fixing the mess that is California’s housing shortage.
But while I am here, let’s be intellectually honest that a big part of the problem has been the flood of poor and uneducated people coming into the country from our southern border over the last several decades. We have exploded the demand for affordable housing at the same time that the elite sophisticates have exploded the cost for building housing… or anything else for that matter.
And then the over-reaction to the Great Recession has not helped… banking regulations have constrained lending for housing development.
Everywhere we look it is easy to see root causes are directly and indirectly connected to the unintended consequences of previous policies brought to us by the same people now coming to the table with stupid ideas like rent control.
And, maybe the moon will rotate from west to east.
And maybe you are horribly off-topic.
Time will clarify all 3 maybes… the latter is at 90% assurance, though.
And the others believe God is a small fuzzy unicorn.
To all Vanguard readers — to discuss this and all the other ballot propositions, join us for Pancakes & Politics tomorrow morning from 10am to 2pm. We’ll discuss each of the ballot propositions and local offices; all we ask you to do is look up the arguments on both sides of a single ballot item . . . and even if you don’t you’re welcome to come and discuss. Sign up & join us via the link below . . . and we eat pancakes!
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/10/pancakes-politics-november-election-discussion-saturday-10am-2pm/
I sooo enjoy and appreciate this! (And – thanks to Matt for pointing out some of this, as well.)
Does anyone understand “significant digits” particularly when using very small numbers? Includes accuracy of data…
You make a good point about the accuracy of the data. I’m using the best available, but these are necessarily estimates from the governmental agencies. I wouldn’t concern yourself with differences in annual growth rates that are a tenth of a percent or two apart.
The larger point that is demonstrated is that Davis has had a recent housing growth rate similar to many other surrounding communities and that, contrary to the incessant claims of the Davis Vanguard and others, our growth management policies such as Measure R have not restricted the provision of housing.
It is also important to note the the City of Davis’ growth management policies revolve around a 1% annual cap on housing production that has exemptions for affordable housing, so Davis can reach more than 1% growth in housing units in any year. In the 6-county SACOG region from 2010-2017, out of the more than 20 jurisdictions I’ve looked at, only one–Roseville–had an annual housing unit growth rate that exceed 1% and the regional average was 0.43%. At 1.39%, Roseville added housing at a rate more than three times that of the SACOG region as a whole. But it is also worth noting that, despite this very high relative growth rate. Roseville also saw annual average rent and housing value increases from 2011-2018 at higher rates than Davis. The rent increase in Roseville was among the highest, if not the highest, that I looked at.
Thanks, Rik.
It should also be noted that each multi-bedroom “megadorm” unit counts the same (toward the one percent growth cap) as a more traditional (fewer/single bedroom) unit.
In any case, the one percent growth cap policy (based upon units) allows annual population growth to exceed the one percent growth cap (and even more so, for multi-bedroom megadorm proposals). And, as you pointed out, that doesn’t even include the increase in Affordable units.
And, that’s assuming that the city abides by the one percent growth cap in the first place.
Also – the fact that many of the multi-bedroom megadorm units are designed to be double-occupied means that the population will grow even faster than outlined in my comment, above.
The double occupancy is factored into the bed count
It is not factored into the one-percent growth cap. Nor are the number of bedrooms, per unit.
On a related note, has the city ever updated its development fee schedule, to better-account for the types of multi-bedroom, and double-occupied proposals it’s receiving? (You’ll probably recall that there was some previous discussion about doing so.)
Correction on the above I made in another post further up the thread: Yolo County was the second fastest growing county in the 6-county SACOG region (2nd to Placer). I’ll have a full chart posted in a day or two…
I thought Rik may have missed this above and it would be great to see where he is getting his data (reading both Realtor Sites and Bubble Blogs in 2006 it was amazing how they had different numbers from different sources)
P.P.S. I’m wondering ig Rik can post a link to his data source since the Davis humbers he is posting are lower than the rent numbers from the UC Davis housing survey (probably the best rent survey in the region) “and” also the home appreciation number is lower than what Zillow is reporting.
I’ll post the data sources as notes. (The rent and housing values are from the Zillow indices that have a very thorough methodology)