If there is to be a discussion on the renewal of Measure J, it will have to be when the measure is before the voters. An overwhelming number of citizens called in to express their support for the renewal of Measure J/R without major changes. Council unanimously supported the same approach.
A key factor for the city council was the fact that two projects in 2018 passed—alleviating concerns which had circulated portions of the community about Measure R, which between 2000 and 2017 had seen just three projects come forward and all three fail. But that changed in 2018 with the passage of Nishi and West Davis Active Adult Community by overwhelming margins.
As Councilmember Will Arnold put it, “Had we still never seen a successful project go through the Measure J process to be approved, my concerns about the value and efficacy of Measure J would be 
significant.”
However, with two projects passing in 2018, he said “that doesn’t mean Measure J is perfect but it does mean it’s not fatally flawed.”
Councilmember Arnold also expressed another clear theme from the council—any changes to Measure J will have to come from the voters rather than council.
“Because Measure J was a community driven proposal and ultimately was passed and then reaffirmed overwhelmingly by the voters,” he said, “it’s my opinion that any changes to Measure J of any substance needs to be that same community-driven process.”
He added, “I would be very reticent about the council proposing any significant changes.”
Those views were echoed by Lucas Frerichs.
“There is no question that the measure isn’t perfect per se,” he said. “But I really believe it’s working.”
Councilmember Frerichs noted that there have been four project—five votes, where two of those projects have passed and two have failed.
“That’s really set a high bar certainly,” he said. “But I think recent successes show that with the right project approval is possible.”
“There are a variety of ways to get at the issues of growth and potential issues of sprawl,” he said. About “endless sprawl,” he said “that has not happened in Davis, it’s not happened in Yolo County and it’s not going to.”
He suggested that we have placed a high bar on peripheral growth, and residential infill development in his view is the way to go—and he believes that only minor amendments to Measure J are the way to proceed.
Councilmember Frerichs also noted that they should push to attempt to name this either Measure J or Measure R to avoid the confusion of spreading the measure further across the alphabet.
If there was a councilmember that offered and articulated a different view it was Gloria Partida, who at times has indicated the desire to re-examine Measure J. At this point she agrees with the no 
substantive change approach, although she said, “I have some serious reservations about this particular measure.”
She added, to follow the lead of her colleagues, “I agree that if I hadn’t seen the last two projects pass, I would be feeling a lot different about this particular measure.”
She noted the 16 years between major projects, but felt that at this late date, it would not be a wise course to make substantive changes without considerable feedback from the voters.
“I think this is a people’s measure,” she said.
While not a fan of sprawl, Mayor Pro Tem Partida stated, “I also think we need to acknowledge some pretty negative impacts that we have created” with the city’s overall policy on development.
“Our cost of housing has increased so much that it’s impossible for people who grew up here to stay here,” she said. “It’s also made it impossible for graduates of UC Davis to stay here as I did 30 years ago.
“These types of initiatives cause a lack of diversity in communities,” she said regarding racial and socio-economic issues. “It’s a sad irony that most of the progressive cities in America are also the most segregated.”
Gloria Partida also pushed back on the notion that this community has preserved agricultural land.
“We have driven our people onto other ag land and caused them to commute into Davis,” she said, noting her difficulty turning left from Picasso onto Pole Line because everyone is commuting from North North Davis. “When we say we’re trying to preserve our life and the environment through this measure, we must acknowledge that mostly (what) we’re preserving is the footprint of the city. Unless we are working to provide some infill housing and really work on mitigating the effects of the increase of the population here, I think we need to do a better job there.”
Gloria Partida did push for a five- rather than ten-year period as one consideration to come back and revisit some of these issues, but that suggestion did not have any legs with her colleague.
Instead, Dan Carson noted his preference to bring back Measure R in “substantially the form that we see it here.”
He too added, “We have had a recent demonstration that the voters were willing to support good projects… both won by substantial margins,” which he said gave lie to the previous prevailing wisdom that no project can pass.
Mayor Lee also desired to renew it “as is” and noted, “What’s clear is that we are all quite comfortable with the staff recommendation” to place it on the ballot as it. He did suggest any proposed changes come forward sooner rather than later.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There is some ambiguity in the narrative…
Did the CC approve the actual language for the measure, or just comment and express preferences, and/or intents?
First part of the article appears to indicate the language is a “done deal”… but then,
So, is it still open for discussion, or,
It can’t be both… which is it?!?
It’s both, clearly.
“Like”, Alan… guess I inadvertently posed a koan…
Bill,
Based on this article, my interpretation of your second quoted text is that “the discussion” will need to occur within the context of a vote to renew the current measure – and term – as presently exists.
My question, how does one have an informed discussion, much less debate, when no background and insufficient historical context has been provided. First off, I don’t believe it will be forthcoming in time, and secondly, why would we want to introduce this necessary and fundamental information during the final days of a campaign?
Clearly, the existing ordinance has not served as an effective tool for “planning” and has not forced our commissions to demand, nor City Staff to produce, the quality of background and “existing conditions” reporting necessary for informed discussion or debate on subjects of future growth and development.
What’s the rush to cement the ordinance for another decade when we know we have “issues” facing the City and future direction of our local economy and the community – issues that may have direct bearing on community level decisions?
I do not see this as “a rush”. We have known for 10 years that this issue would be upcoming on the November ballot if the council did not act in advance. There is still plenty of time between now and November for full consideration and vetting of the minimally modified proposal. Commissions, citizen groups, and interested stakeholders have plenty of opportunities for zoom meetings in the interim.
The one point that gives me pause, is the unique circumstance of the pandemic and its financial effects leaving us uncertain of our future needs. However, I would point out that future uncertainty is always the case. We did not stop making local decisions prior to any war, or after 9/11, or any of the previous epidemics we have experienced in our lifetime. Although the current epidemic is numerically larger and more widespread in nature, I do not see it as a reason to halt local choices.
I might word what Doby said slightly differently if I were making that same point, but Doby’s basic point is a solid one. Planning with Measure J/R has not caused the Davis community to look at the resilience and/or sustainability of its “existing conditions.”
The problem is that if we use Cannery as a recent example of the alternative process without Measure J/R, Doby’s same problem exists. Planning without Measure J/R has not caused the Davis community to look at the resilience and/or sustainability of its “existing conditions.”
We need to look considerably beyond Measure J/R to get an understanding of the resiliency and sustainability problems our “existing conditions” illuminate.
More succinctly, as of today, nobody can tell me WHETHER or WHY we NEED more space for growth or HOW such growth might help to make Davis a better and more sustainable version of itself in the future. We simply haven’t been afforded that conversation as a community.
Here is the simple explanation for me. See here.
In most communities the age of Davis they have seen their old downtown go through a cycle of decline from peripheral options. Then the next step is a revitalization of the old downtown.
But Davis has several problems accessing this same opportunity.
1. The downtown is too small for the population.
2. There is not enough quality commercial real estate to renovate. We require much more ground-up construction… which lacks the government-side funds otherwise needed for renovating “historic” buildings.
3. Our problem is exacerbated by the shift in demographics that has reduced the number of working professionals and families… those that have money and spend it.
The ONLY remedy is to develop peripherally. It needs to be mostly commercial. It needs to cause the downtown to be underutilized where the opportunity for redevelopment grows as the property values of downtown fall relative to the full supply of commercial real estate.
I believe that we have a common metric of $2-5 million in net tax revenue benefit for every 100 acres of peripheral land developed commercial. Of course it depends on the types of businesses. But this is the all-in benefit including the secondary and tertiary flows from the businesses and their employees.
Davis is 10 square miles. Palo Alto is 26 square miles. Davis has a larger population than Palo Alto. Palo Alto also has over half of their city council people with CVs loaded with private sector business experience. Davis is 100% loaded with council members with either direct public sector experience, or having grown up in a house headed by public sector employees.
Davis is blowing it big time. All that opportunity to launch an economic development strategy in collaboration with UCD. That ship might have already sailed… and the culprit for the missed opportunity is Measure J/R.
Should we assume that Ms. Partida is not a fan of ARC, then? (And, the need for 1,200 residential units it would create, above-and-beyond the 850 on-site residential unit?)
(And, that’s just in Davis alone, according to the SEIR.)
I believe she is one of the strongest proponents on the council
Go “figure”, then.
By the way, her other comments (regarding “North, North Davis”) conflict with what Lucas said, regarding “lack of sprawl” in Yolo county.
Sounds like Ms. Partida drives to work (within Davis), as well (making a “left turn” from Picasso onto Road 102) during commute hours.
Didn’t she also mention that she’s from Los Angeles – the home of (both) sprawl AND high housing prices? Did she learn nothing from that?
Springlake is probably an exception to the overall rule. But the sprawl has been pushed to places like Natomas and Elk Grove rather than Yolo County. I also don’t think Lucas was exactly correct about West Sacramento, they’ve already jumped the deep water channel.
What’s a huge sprawling development among friends?
You mean like the old Davis neighborhoods?
Spring Lake isn’t an “exception”. It’s the “rule” in places outside of Davis.
Based upon the price difference alone, that trend is going to continue (e.g., when additional employment is created in Davis).
Sounds like Ms. Partida’s “left turns” are going to get a lot more difficult as a result of her ARC advocacy.
It’s an exception in the sense I used it – a large peripheral subdivision in Yolo near Davis.
You’re wrong about that, as even you noted (e.g., in West Sacramento).
They’re not “done”, and never will be (as long as demand is “created”). That includes areas outside of Spring Lake, as well. (Which still isn’t anywhere near complete, itself.)
And then there’s Winters, etc.
But, southern Woodland is Davis’ primary “bedroom community” (as Gloria noted), and this will continue as long as more employment is created in Davis. (The price difference precedes Measure J/R, as well.)
And yet somehow, Gloria doesn’t seem to grasp the very trends that she noted (and is advocating for), herself. While simultaneously “complaining” about it.
“You’re wrong about that, as even you noted (e.g., in West Sacramento).”
I waste so much time arguing about stupid stuff. I clearly stated near Davis.
That’s why Gloria (and I) are referring to “North, North Davis” – which is still nowhere near “complete”.
It would be helpful if you published information regarding what Woodland has already approved, as well as the areas that they’ve earmarked for future development.
Davis is not an island, and decisions made there have an impact beyond its borders.
Ron,
Beg to differ, based on this article, I believe Mayor Pro Tem Partida clearly understands and acknowledges the challenges, trends and consequences. Only difference is she is willing to give voice to her concerns by citing specific consequences of Davis unwillingness to address it’s planning needs AND – I might add the need to coordinate at a regional level, rather than simply allowing outside development and impacts (without any mitigation provisions for Davis) to unfold unimpeded. Or, perhaps I overlooked the cumulative, projected EIR traffic impacts on City of Davis as result of Spring Lake development.
The Mayor Pro Tem is asking the right questions. But without benefit of any subject matter appropriate background and existing conditions reports to inform the discussion, it appears there will be none.
That’s a pretty long sentence.
You’re dead wrong, as is Gloria. ARC, for example, creates a need for housing beyond its own borders. This is fact, not opinion.
Functional regional planning is a fantasy.
Maybe so.
Gloria is advocating for developments that create the problems that she claims to be concerned about. (That goes for Affordable housing, as well – as ARC has “none”.)
So you think Gloria should support 2000 units at ARC instead?
I agree with Doby. Gloria is seeing the adverse impacts on the residents of the City from Measure J/R.
Ron O: I don’t see what your solution is to building more housing to accommodate a growing population. And don’t say “population control” because that is ALREADY in place through increased education of women–it’s a like a slow turning of a ship and CANNOT be done instantly, so we need to address TODAY’S housing demand.
Ron,
That was two sentences, in case you didn’t notice.
It surely appears you prefer to live in a world of tautologies and self re-enforcing problem definition as if there is no larger context or meaning to the conversation.
You have consistently argued that Davis is overemployed and resolutely refused to partake in any conversation about the consequences to the City of Davis or the community of having the vast majority of those jobs located in Yolo County – rather than Davis. Be nice if the City Manager, Finance Director or FBC would explain why that makes a difference in the City’s budgeting and inability to combat a rising tide of expenses. I digress…………
Davis needs more commercial development and more jobs if it is to have any hope of achieving some measure of balance between residential and commercial uses within the City, and between its expenses versus the revenues it generates. And as you well know, commercial development is a far riskier investment for the developer. Guess you’ll just have to take my word for that, because we have no reports to verify that interpretation.
It would be one thing if the University were actively engaged in help to deliver major corporate occupants to a new center. It be another if the City of Davis were offering massive fee reductions and flat-out development subsidies because it recognized the critical need for this type of high-quality, jobs-producing commercial properties within the city.
It must be convenient to dwell in a world of tautologies – unimpeded by official research, analysis and commentary nor the need to defend your positions in context of an informed debate.
David: Given her concerns, I’d say “yes”.
But what’s more likely (since they’d have to essentially “start over” at this point) is that she’ll advocate for the next peripheral development that comes along.
That’s the one that would likely use the “in lieu of” funds for Affordable housing that ARC isn’t going to accommodate. And then, we’d have an Affordable housing developer advocating for sprawl, as well. (As occurred with WDAAC.)
By that point, the so-called “fiscal profit” will disappear, as a result of all the new housing (including the Affordable housing – which is likely a real money-loser for the city).
Wash, rinse, repeat.
My comment above was made in response to David’s question:
(Seems like the cut-off period to edit comments is especially unforgiving, today.)
Ron in my view you probably don’t need more than 850 or at least not significantly more. Keep in mind it’s a slow and long employee ramp up. So that gives time for the community and region to absorb the added employees w housing. Since we have to add housing in at least three housing elements between now and build out that should not be a big problem
Your view conflicts with the SEIR.
Got it. You acknowledge what will occur as a result, but just more “slowly”. And as that occurs, the promised “fiscal profit” will be diminished by the costs of serving that additional housing (beyond the development, itself).
And, that’s just the housing in Davis, not to mention the need created beyond its borders to serve that development. (Again, it’s in the SEIR. You can find the numbers, there.)
So getting back to your question, I’d say “yes” – that Gloria should advocate for more than 2,000 new residential units “somewhere” in Davis. (Again, not including those outside of Davis.)
But by that point, the supposed purpose (“fiscal profit”) of a development like ARC will be lost.
The city would simply be “larger” (and even more susceptible to the impact of downturns in private employment). That’s also a reason that some purposefully seek employment in the public sector (e.g., on campus or in state government – in Sacramento).
“ Your view conflicts with the SEIR”
Like I said based on buildout time I don’t think you need to add housing. The SEIR doesn’t suggest the need to increase the housing
My view is based on the SEIR.
the purpose of ARC is to create jobs, improve the economy and generate ongoing revenue for the city.
You’re right, in that the SEIR doesn’t address how that additional need (in Davis alone), would be addressed.
Given your concern regarding the existing “housing shortage”, what do you think will be the impact of creating a need for an additional 1,200 units (in Davis alone), as a result of ARC?
The cost to serve housing (those in addition to the 850 units on-site) is not addressed in the fiscal analysis.
At this point, I think you’re looking for stuff to worry about. Between potential changes to how and where people work, as well as the long build out, we can address additional housing needs when they arise – if they arise.
Again, the additional need is noted in the SEIR. Seems to me that this is where your “disagreement” lies (in the form of 1,200 units, in addition to the 850 on-site units).
But, as with the SEIR itself, neither you (nor Gloria) apparently want to address how that need would be addressed.
To what degree do you think that housing need would be generated, if you’re claiming that the SEIR number is “wrong”?
Even worse when someone in a position of power (like Gloria) discounts this, while simultaneously claiming that it’s a primary concern. And then, even has the “nerve” to complain about (existing) inbound traffic!
Wow – that takes some “confidence”, to put that forth.
Internal conflicts (with one’s own arguments) don’t get much clearer than this.
The SEIR states that total expected demand for housing created by ARC is 3,763 units, with approximately 54.6% expected to be in Davis. (The SEIR lists that number as 2,053 units in Davis, but it seems like this is off by a couple of units.)
The more I read and participate on the Vanguard, the more I realize that some of those who claim to be concerned about “housing shortages” aren’t actually concerned about that at all.
Might be worth it for me to quote from the discussion at the Planning Commission. The consultant explained how they calculated those numbers. The regional number is based on the average for a mixed use project. The key there will be transportation – get people from home to work without clogging the roads. Then there is a portion that will be met on site, that’s the 850. The remainder is the 1200 units – but remember that is filled over 20 to 25 and I think probably longer. That’s three or four Housing Element cycles. I don’t see that as an intractable problem. (They actually benefit here by pushing the housing in the first three cycles).
Even if true, so what? You’re stating that the problem will occur over time, instead of right away? That’s your “solution”?
As I recall, that’s also your “solution” regarding the (approximately) 6,000 parking spaces.
And, until another sprawling housing development is built as a result, the housing market will further tighten. Seems ironic that the housing advocates have no problem with that.
Nor do they have a problem with locally-generated greenhouse gasses, it seems. (At least, when it comes to development proposals.)
“Even if true, so what?”
It’s the difference between making one big payment and breaking it into four smaller ones. My solution is to point out that we don’t need to solve all of it now. Housing is going to be needed in the future – regardless. This simply becomes part of that equation.
Also (regarding your “solution”), do you like the idea of having a perennial, multi-decade “construction zone”? And, all of the resulting traffic and disruptions?
But again, you’re purposefully ignoring the additional housing need that would be created as a direct result of the proposal – which won’t be addressed by the proposal. I find that odd, to put it politely (when considering your claimed concerns).
And again, this additional need (and resulting cost) is not addressed in the fiscal analysis.
Even worse when someone in a position of power ignores this, while simultaneously complaining about the predictable impacts.
“Also (regarding your “solution”), do you like the idea of having a perennial, multi-decade “construction zone”? And, all of the resulting traffic and disruptions?”
Most of that will be internal once the initial construction occurs.
“But again, you’re purposefully ignoring the additional housing need that would be created as a direct result of the proposal – which won’t be addressed by the proposal. I find that odd, to put it politely (when considering your claimed concerns).”
I’m not ignoring anything. I simply don’t see the same urgency to find everyone a home 20 to 30 years out.
“And again, this additional need (and resulting cost) is not addressed in the fiscal analysis.”
Nor should it be.
Right – the trucks, tractors and construction workers will fly to the site, via drones. “No way” would it impact Mace.
The housing shortage created by this proposal will accumulate, along the way. It won’t “suddenly” occur in 20-30 years.
Yes, it should (to provide a complete picture of the fiscal impact). The net “fiscal profit” is supposedly the reason for this to arise, in the first place.
I wonder how many peripheral developments would be approved by now, if some on the council were given free reign. Might even change the makeup of who gets elected in the first place – and led to bigger fiscal challenges, as a result.
Look around at other communities, if you doubt that.
Also, are you in the habit of “recommending” future housing shortages, let alone those that occur along the way?
You’re not going to prevail on arguments that make no sense (and conflict with your stated concerns). Despite your talent to obscure your internal conflict.
As I’ve explained several times and this is the last – I do not believe there will be a shortage of housing based on this project as it will be built over the course of three or four housing elements and therefore to the extent that people live in Davis but not on site, housing that is built between now and then will accommodate them. I’m done. Please stop twisting my words.
Where? (And – in addition to demand that would occur without the development?)
I’m not twisting it, at all. I’m just asking questions, and pointing out internal conflicts with stated positions.
But if you’re done, that’s fine with me.
Does that mean you’re not going to write more development advocacy articles, say – tomorrow, and the next day . . .? (That would be great!) And, perhaps you’ll also stop advocating for a discussion of “changes” to Measure R, will claiming to support it?
By the way, did you “keep count” regarding the number of supporters/commenters of Measure R renewal, “as is”? Versus those who want to undermine it? (Usually, you “tout” such numbers when they correspond well with something that you advocate for.)
Hey, RG, from the public comments, looks like it’s just you and I fighting the good fight to bring this straitjacket down. With the students half-gone and usually only a few of them active in normal times, fighting the Davis-fully-inflated-property-value-infill-pressure-and-rent-maximization initiative is going to take quite an effort.
I appreciated Gloria’s comments (especially that appreciated the ‘quirky, hippie-dippy feel of Davis), though to my ear they were an argument against Measure JunioR. Similar to when I often read DG’s comments about Measure JunioR, they often sound like an argument against, yet then he says he’s for it. It’s like everyone wants the benefits, but fails to acknowledge the inevitable consequences. Don’t get me wrong, I’d probably be out there fighting half the crap projects that would come forward if Measure JunioR were sunk since we always seem to get a more crap-development-friendly Council than the the electorate. But I have no doubt that the consequences of Measure JunioR have and will continue to harm Davis far more than it has helped.
I agree that we really haven’t adequately assessed the consequences.
Can I short Davis now that it is clear that the City leadership supports ongoing economic decline?
Where were the Student Democrats last night, to comment against all the property owners in town, to fight for more student housing and lower rents, both of which are strangled by Measure JunioR?
Oh, but we will insist that everyone is fully represented during these “challenging times”. That’s not what I’ve found in various groups I am in — in some circles more can participate as they don’t have to leave their homes — but simultaneously there are people dealing with personal issues or those challenged by or having insufficient technology.
So I ain’t buying it.
Have you not noticed all of the student housing that’s been approved (on-campus, and off)? (David has previously published the total number, which I believe is in the range of 10,000-15,000 beds.)
But, good luck with that “lower price” thing. Unless it’s mandated.
Then again, who knows what the long-term impacts of the coronavirus will be (e.g., on student enrollments – especially non-resident enrollments). University enrollments were already on a significant nationwide decline, prior to the coronavirus.
Alan,
Since all of the public meetings I have attended including the Health Council, City Council, Board of Supervisor meetings have all included in a phone-in option, I “ain’t buying” your conclusion. How many of these students not in attendance or other people in your acquaintance don’t have access to a phone? This process, if anything, seems more inclusive to me than in-person meetings since not everyone does have access to a car or child care.
The access issue really is that many students have left town. And with that they’ve pretty much lost their connection to the public and official processes in the City. If you go out, the town is like early August–it’s empty and almost totally devoid of students. So we’ve lost the student voice for now.
I agree with Richard. Geography is much more of a factor than technology.
Probably none, considering even the Davis vagrants have phones.
I was more talking about the disruption to people’s lives that has caused a change in priorities, information flow and engagement.
Most of these students-for-hire have been nothing but an annoyance to me as they read a pre-written script from a development interest. So I was half being facetious. But as a party of interest in housing and rent prices, awareness of the renewal of Measure JunioR is important, and many students are either out-of-town or not plugged in.
“Can I short Davis now that it is clear that the City leadership supports ongoing economic decline?”
Don’t do it Jeff. With UC pumping billions into the local economy notices of Davis’ decline have been greatly exaggerated. Of course the city budget will eventually hit a wall but when is anyone’s guess. Davis can stay irrational longer than it can stay solvent.
As long as the CC performs as it did last night remaining silent on the Brightnight no bid contract give away and surrendering on Measure R renewal we can expect the continued structural deficit and road decline to slouch towards bankruptcy. Still it will likely be many years before Calpers and the bond raters pull the plug.
Last night there were no profiles in courage. Only Gloria showed the slightest interest in saying what most of the CC members know to be true about Measure R.
Jeff you did make me laugh.
My apologies to John Maynard Keynes, Mark Twain, Joan Didion and John F. Kennedy.
Kudos to Gloria!
Related to the University, the post COVID-19 changes might have an impact on the student population… and hence might impact housing demand.
Which one of the four people you apologized to, did you steal that from?
Kaynes: “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
You can — there are many realtors in town who will help you list your house for sale.
That would be shorting a real estate investment. Not a good move since the Davis NIMBYs have ensured continued appreciation as the university keeps growing. Although with all the city tax increases, the roads and parks declining along with the tiny bit of shopping and entertainment being wiped away by high rents and the COVID-19 response, and the potential for university attendance to be re-imagined… you might be on to something.
This issue of the Journal Economic Perspectives has 3 articles that discuss how restrictive housing policies have led to higher housing costs and discrimination against groups with less wealth.
https://www.aeaweb.org/issues/496#10.1257/jep.32.1.3
Richard do you have any new information? Of course restrictive housing policies lead to higher prices and discrimination. Isn’t that the point? With the loss of restrictive covenants Davis found a way with Measure J.
I wonder how many of those who spoke for straight renewal last night live in a home purchased before 2000?
As my neighbor said Measure R is great for those already at the table.
It’s a good thing ‘groups with less wealth’ doesn’t include ‘people of color’, or DG would have to change his stance on Measure JunioR.
He (and Gloria) might first want to “change their stance” regarding the “connection to Davis” program at WDAAC – let alone the age requirement.
Then again, membership in the “people of color” category is not politically consistent (e.g., regarding Asians).
People from the Bay Area usually have the most “desirable” color – green ($). (Regardless of other politically-expedient membership categories.)
That, too.
As my gran-pappy used to say, ‘That’s a horse of a different color’
The color of justice, and the portal for Davis housing.
The “Wizard” noted that, as well.
It’s increasingly the portal of housing everywhere, as communities pursue developments/jobs which increase demand, even as it prices-out those who don’t sufficiently benefit from that. That’s been going on for years.
And truth be told, most new housing is a lot fancier/larger than gran-pappy’s housing, in general.
Davis housing prices are a pittance, compared to the Bay Area. In fact, they’re not even that different than some other places in the region.