A provocative Politico article that came out this week, entitled “Trump Doesn’t Understand Today’s Suburbs—And Neither Do You.” But this isn’t about Trump—it’s about us.
As the article notes, “Suburbs are getting more diverse, but that doesn’t mean they’re woke. Thomas Sugrue says if you want to understand where American politics is going, look how suburban whites are sorting themselves out.”
While Thomas Sugrue, director of metro studies at NYU points out, “Trump has misread the reality of today’s suburbs,” he argues “most of the rest of us have, too.”
What he argues is, “It’s not simply that suburban America is increasingly diverse, nor that a majority of Black Americans live in the suburbs, nor even that a majority of new immigrants settle in suburbs, not cities. Instead, it’s that America’s suburbs are ground zero for a major schism among white suburbanites — one remaking the electoral map before our eyes, and revealing why that old suburban playbook just doesn’t work anymore.
“We’re seeing a suburban political divide quite different from the one that played out after World War II, when well-to-do, middle-class and even some working-class whites living in suburbia found common ground by looking through their rearview mirrors with horror at the cities they were fleeing,” says Sugrue.
Another time, we will talk about the national implications of this. But I want to discuss Davis—because it remains a curious study. Fifteen years ago when I started getting active, Davis was an upper class white community. It was nominally liberal.
But the history of Davis has been contentious, in part because of the battle between different forces—university versus town. Progressive in the form of environmentalism, but also slow growth and exclusive.
The Vanguard in July 2006 emerged because of this duality. This is a city that, two years after it shut down its Human Relations Commission (temporarily) due to advocacy for police oversight, turned around and by overwhelming numbers supported Barack Obama in his bid to become the first Black president in America.
Davis has progressed a lot in 15 years. We have seen the installation of that same civilian police oversight body in 2018 that caused the HRC to be shut down in 2006. We saw over 1000 people marching for Black Lives in June. We saw 2000 people sign a petition to put the school board’s appointment on the ballot because they appointed another white person to the board.
On the other hand, Blacks in Davis are four times more likely to be stopped by police than whites, continuing the trend from 15 years earlier and the common complaint among Black people especially of being pulled over for DWB (Driving while Black or Brown). Meanwhile, as cities across the country have placed “Black Lives Matter” on their streets, Davis had to recently remove theirs when others wanted to put contrary messages.
But, as the Politico article notes, perhaps the big issues are on the land use front.
It turns out Davis is not alone in this regard.
“White liberal suburbanites have played a critical role in the process of housing segregation and the resistance to low-income housing,” says Sugrue. “We can’t just think about it as torch-bearing angry white supremacists. If they were the only obstacles to equality in suburban housing, we would have come a lot farther than we have.”
Here Sugrue notes, “In modern American history, race and class have been fundamentally intertwined. It’s impossible to understand economic inequality and how it plays out without understanding its racial dimensions.”
He continues: “Race became, for many Americans, an easy marker for class, and class often became a way to obscure the racial dynamics at play in shaping housing markets. And along with that goes a rhetoric of colorblindness shared by many white Americans, regardless of their political orientation: ‘I don’t see people by the color of their skin,’ or ‘I would have anybody be my neighbor — red, white, black, yellow or purple.’ I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that as a way of professing supposed indifference to race.”
But this point is critical: “White liberal suburbanites have played a critical role in the process of housing segregation and the resistance to low-income housing.”
This is the original critique of the Vanguard—the dark underbelly of Davis, if you will. We think of racism and white supremacists, but what we don’t think about is “obstacles to equality in suburban housing” and the upper middle class white liberal communities. As Mayor Gloria Partida has pointed out, some of the most progressive communities are the most racially segregated.
Sugrue points out that “one area of really important bipartisan convergence is the politics of homeownership — the notion that property values need to be protected and, in particular, the politics of NIMBY, or ‘not in my backyard.’”
He argues that “there are liberals who profess to be progressive on matters of race — who profess and support the idea of a racially diverse society, who say that they would like their children to go to racially mixed schools — but when it comes to the questions of changing the landscape of their neighborhoods or changing the color of their neighbors or their kids’ school classmates, these folks start to sound a lot like conservatives, even if they’re ostensibly liberals.”
This, he argues, manifests itself in “significant opposition to the construction of multifamily housing.”
He argues that “it’s not even couched in the rhetoric of class.”
It’s not, “I don’t want multifamily housing in my neighborhood because I don’t want lower-class people living here.”
Instead, it’s, “This is going to change the character of the neighborhood,” or “It’s going to jeopardize my property values,” or “It’s going to bring congestion.”
Sound familiar?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
So it wasn’t about democracy and letting the voters decide as we’re being told and more about a white person got the position. Thank you for being honest about this.
I’ve never suggested anything other than that. I have always said it was the confluence of “bad process” with “bad outcome” and I quoted Cindy Pickett who said it was not the process, it was the outcome. Can you please acknowledge that I have been upfront about this from the start?
Yes, I acknowledge you have been upfront about why an experienced and qualified white female should be removed. Most others haven’t though, can you acknowledge that?
I don’t know that’s true. I know for example that Bill Marshall has stated his reasons for supporting the petition drive which differ from mine. Who do you believe has been disingenuous?
I’ve read many comments where people have said it wasn’t about who was chosen, it was about the voters should decide.
Im sure I can provide quotes if you like, but I thought you didn’t want to go down that rabbit hole.
Probably not (re the rabbit hole). I’ll drop it.
To be very clear… had the remainder of the vacant term been less than a year, with an election already about to come up (no need for a special election), I would have felt differently about the process…
I’m surprised, and a bit disappointed, that Klineberg didn’t file of any of the seats… if she had, and won, there would have been no cloud as to process, nor outcome… at least in my mind…
The way things turned out, 2 of the 3 seats are ‘gimmes’ now…
Gimmies? Not sure what you mean by that.
Alan… in the DJUSD election, as of 5 PM Fri, Aug 7, there is only one candidate in two of the districts… I call that a “gimme”…
“So it wasn’t about democracy and letting the voters decide as we’re being told and more about a white person got the position”
David and Keith seem to be making the same error. The assumption that everyone who signed that position did so on the basis of race. This is not true. I know some who signed on the basis of process, and I myself signed on the basis of the change in our circumstances due to COVID-19. I felt the decision of who would sit on the board for two years at this critical time should be decided by a vote, not by four people.
Actually, that’s exactly what resulted from the petition. Four people, instead of five during this “critical time”. With no female representation, to boot. 😉
Regardless of the motivations of individual signers, the effort was initiated for the reason that both David and Keith state. Those behind the petition have pretty much acknowledged that.
“In every American community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects, ten degrees to the left of center in good times, ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally. Here, then, is a lesson in safe logic.”
Phil Ochs 1966
Liberal got changed to progressive in places like Davis after Bush beat the hell out of liberal Dukakis in 1988.
At this point that is not correct. These days liberal refers to the mainstream portion of the Democratic Party. Progressive refers to the activist wing opposed to the establishment. Under such labels people like Biden and Kamala Harris would be liberal, people like Bernie Sanders would be progressive.
Radical Ideas That Threaten Institutions In Turn Become Institutions That Reject Radical Ideas
I thought the Bernie wing were the Democratic Socialists. In Davis progressive emerged in the 90’s when Bush 41 beat the liberals so badly nobody wanted to identify with the term.
Back in the 2000’s I liked to ask what progressive about the progressives? The can more easily be defined by what they are against than what they are for. They are against most everything. They are for high property values.
I’ll be impressed with the College Democrats when then start to fight Measure D/J/R rather than carry water for any and all developers.
“Fight the Real Enemy!” — Sinéad O’Conner
This article completely ignores the impact of gentrification, as has occurred in places like San Francisco. There’s a recent film titled, “The Last Black Man in San Francisco”.
In previous decades, redevelopment money was used to raze entire black neighborhoods in places like San Francisco. The same type of thing occurred in Sacramento in the strip that is now the capitol mall, though that neighborhood apparently had a significant Japanese-American presence.
In Los Angeles, redevelopment money was used to literally raze a hilltop, and the neighborhood of old mansions and apartments located there (Bunker Hill). Which was occupied by those with insufficient money to live anywhere else. That area is now high-rise commercial/office buildings (which may ironically now have their continued existence somewhat “challenged”, due to Covid).
We could go into the disproportionate impact that Covid is having on minority communities, but that’s another topic.
Then, there’s the overwhelmingly-white (and male) growth of the technology industry in San Francisco and the peninsula in recent decades, creating astronomical housing prices due as a result. There’s many stories of these new, somewhat-despised, white “techies” pushing out (and/or coming into conflict) with existing residents, in places such as the Mission district.
Ron O
…and so what? That’s happening on a smaller scale in a few cities around the country. San Francisco is the most extreme case because it’s so small geographically, but go to LA, and its happening in pockets whereas the vast majority of the city is unaffected by that particular movement.
On the other hand, housing segregation is rampant in virtually every well-off suburb in this nation. It’s pretty clear where the much bigger problem is that affects many more millions of people.
I always wondered how the Vanguard came to emerge.
I initially figured that its purpose was to be at the forefront of discriminatory housing programs, like the one proposed for WDAAC.
But, I was apparently wrong.
I now believe that it’s purpose is to claim that an (approximately) 6,000-parking spot development is “green”. And, to argue that concerns regarding dense infill is based upon skin color, or concerns regarding housing values (which RISE, when dense infill is allowed). But, which make a place increasingly unlivable, for remaining single-family dwellers.
To clarify, “opposition” to discriminatory housing programs.
That’s the part I was wrong about.
Oh, and the Vanguard is also about “counting” Asians (e.g., Asian students) as “people of color”, but only when’ it’s politically-convenient to do so.
[bold]
Were there proposed ‘contrary’ messages? I have not read about what the other proposed messages were going to say. Is there any insight/reporting on this?
Note: Davis could have allowed the other (contrary?) messages to be painted on our streets.
Apparently there were – I don’t know what they were however.
Then how do you know they were contrary? Someone told you they were, in their judgement? Are we as a City going to be told what the proposals were and who proposed them, or are we as a people too sensitive to bear that reality?
I went by what Gloria and the Police Chief said. Seemed like a solid basis.
That information should be released to the public.
You can request it.
Didn’t Gloria help paint the Black Lives Matter sign on 2nd Street?
I agree, but why would they come forward now when the public had little to no input into the painting of 2nd Street from what I can gather.
I just did. Everyone reads the Vanguard, no?
You need to actually make a formal request for it with a city office
I need to make the request because you won’t – the mayor and police chief’s word is good enough for you.
No, I won’t be making a formal request, just putting it out to the universe.
What I also find so odd about this is somehow the BLM street art was okayed but now it’s not okay so as to stop other’s art from being displayed in the same way?
Actually, applying paint, or even chalk to public roadways, with ‘messages’ is a real, potential, problem… in the public street right of way, signing and striping (pavement markings) should inform folk as to their task… not distracting them…
Theoretically (by ordinance)… the Police Chief and/or Public Works Director/City Engineer are the folk who approve anything on the public street right-of way… for safety reasons… David has not ‘copped’ to how this was approved… but it should have been by permit… with the permittee taking responsibility and liability (holding the City harmless) for whatever they do… I strongly suspect that was not done in this case… I doubt whether the City was reimbursed for the costs of removal… so, Davis, you taxpayers, like me, ‘paid for that’… if there was no insurance, no liability release, the City could have paid for a ‘distracted collision’, BIG TIME, particularly if there was no written/authorized permit. The narrative, to date, has not disclosed what the provisions were, nor who authorized it.
That should be more a matter of concern, as opposed to who applied what messages/”art” (‘art of politics’?) within the public r/w…
When you have a righteous message:
1) The coronavirus will not infect anyone who gathers.
2) The City will not be held liable for accident caused by political street art.
Because Chris, the Progressive God, says so.
The first comment seriously mistates anyone’s view and the second is absurd.
Are you disputing the Word of Chris?
I don’t know about that, De Blasio has banned all protests because of COVID unless it’s a BLM protest because he feels they have a righteous message.
I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, Blocked and Reported (I like it because it’s two young progressives who criticize the extremists of the movement on stuff like cancel culture and several areas of clear hypocrisy), and they were just laughing at the idea that when you gather hundreds or thousands of people in protests that you don’t spread Covid-19. I know, I know, no one has claimed that . . . right! But lots have people have minimized it or made excuses for it.
I can name a few.
Alan: “The coronavirus will not infect anyone who gathers.”
Keith: “I don’t know about that, De Blasio has banned all protests because of COVID unless it’s a BLM protest because he feels they have a righteous message.”
Not the same thing is it?
You do know that Alan was being sarcastic don’t you?
KO, you do know that progressive extremists have no sense of irony or humor, don’t you?
Truly scary!
When Keith O, Alan M, and I are on a similar track, that’s like putting three ‘nitro’ groups on toluene (a ‘benzene ring’)… aka, tri-nitro toluene (aka, “danger, Will Robinson!”)… @ UCD, chem lab, we were only allowed to do experiments/exercises that put two nitro groups on…
I am pure oxygen.
A bit over-dramatic? Sounds like the beginnings of a civil war or a zombie movie – White Suburbanites vs. The Zombie Student Pestilence
Actually I thought it was a bit understated.
If so, we may want to declare Russel and A Streets as the de-militarized zone.
This article is really smarmy in its style. I recognized the style right out the gate because it’s so common these days. It describes white suburbanites, then makes assumptions about all of them, prescribes racism to them, lumps them all together, and then condemns all of them for what some of them may feel. It’s a bullsh*t rhetorical tactic that does nothing to further any righteous cause.
I agree. It falls into the same category as (what I refer to as) the “indignation articles”. (Which conveniently ignored what some students were saying about other residents.)
Neither of which is very important, except that it sometimes indicates underlying tensions (actual concerns) which aren’t based upon skin color. Not limited to one side.
No it isn’t. I’m certainly not saying there isn’t truth in what the article implies — there is. What I am pointing out is that articles like this are great if you want to get likes from people who think like you do, but actually push away more potential allies than an honest article would.
The problem I have with this sort of thinking – which the Vanguard swims in – is the difference between the heart of the civil rights movement and much progressive thinking today. In the 60’s it was the victims and the allies vs. the a***holes and the racists. Today its ‘you should feel bad about yourself and your race’.
That may ring-true to guilt-ridden people but alienates far more potential allies who would have showed up had the movement not pointed their plastic fingers at them, and who just won’t show up politically for this movement. Sure it may seem like it in the progressive lands in which we swim: Berkeley, Davis, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, from all the noise reflected from there into everyone’s screens. I’m talking about the 99% of people who aren’t making all the noise, who aren’t showing up.
What is more of an attractant:
1) Join us, fellow human, in fighting racism and racists.
2) You should feel bad for having light skin.
???
Alan: That’s all true, but I’m seeing something else in these articles – which causes me even more concern.
The use of race/skin color (when it’s supportive of development), but the downplaying of race (when it’s not supportive of development – e.g., gentrification caused by “economic” pursuits, discriminatory housing proposals, watering-down of Affordable housing requirements, etc.). Along with the selective use of Asians in regard to that, in the “people of color” category.
It’s not unlike “greenwashing” (e.g., claiming that car-oriented freeway-oriented peripheral developments are “green”).
This is not unlike what development interests attempt to do. (“Tie-in” to the “issue of the day”.)
But one thing it’s not about is honesty.
Alan, I also agree with you.
I sometimes think the real dark underbelly of Davis is the continual race baiting that takes place there.
Yet, the same venue insists, as to kids in town, whites don’t comprise 50% of the kids… so, depending on the issues, Davis is either ‘wonder bread white’ (every slice the same), or so diverse that we need to make sure all our institutions reflect that… both?
Go figure…
“Race baiting” – “the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people.”
The term race baiting has a specific meaning but has been misused and co-opted by those on the right (and by some commenters on the Vanguard) to discredit discussions of racism in America. Examples of actual race baiting are George H.W. Bush’s airing of the infamous Willie Horton campaign ad to prey on fears of Black men, or Ronald Reagan’s references to Welfare Queens to divert attention from discussions of poverty.
I’d ask that commenters here avoid misusing the term and adopting the tactics of Fox News, the National Review, etc. and, instead, engage in serious discussion of discrimination and racism, both nationally and locally.
That’s one definition, here’s another:
FYI – Here’s an article discussing the use of the term race baiting to discourage serious discussion of race and racism: https://medium.com/@rosekellywhite/what-is-race-baiting-90cbe8357258
Hmmm . . . two different definitions of a term by people of diverging ends of the political spectrum.
Is it any wonder we have a problem with the race?
The Problem with the Race by Chris Chandler – June 2020 Version
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T21rDRYRJNw
The definitions are not really different. They both apply to the Willie Horton ad, for example, and don’t apply to serious discussions of race issues.
Here’s an Urban Dictionary definition of race baiting often used as a tactic by left wing news stations like CNN:
Your quote is not contained in your cite…
Bill: you didn’t scroll down far enough.
You are wrong.
I suggest you consider Eric’s suggestion to
Don S and Keith O… I don’t consider comments made on the source (footnotes as it were, not by author), to be a “source”… amounts to “hear say”… but will acknowledge you both opine I’m “wrong”…
This was in yesterday’s print edition of the Enterprise, relevant to this issue:
Martha West, Letter to the editor: Racial/ethnic preferences in Davis
This article raises the issue that I’ve discussed more with others recently and Mayor Partida raised as well. And I would like David to own up to the implications of his support for this measure given its implications:
Measure J/R/D has reinforced racial housing segregation in our community. It has created barriers to building new housing that would be more affordable to lower income working families which are disproportionately non-white. Housing prices are 85% higher than in Woodland and West Sac according to Zillow and Redfin, which is an increase from the 50% differential 20 years ago. We don’t have to have redlining or deed restrictions–we just have to vote down new developments and disparage large multi family projects to discourage Council members from voting for them. We use all of those phrases in this article to cover up our unwillingness to welcome others who we find uncomfortable to be around and to reject the added housing required to bring people from these backgrounds to live with us.
Vote against Measure D as a signal that we want that ordinance revised to be more inclusive.
I agree. And even when, as was the case with the most recent example, a new housing development managed to overcome the Measure J/R obstacle, it was housing that includes buyer qualification requirements that will maintain the City’s racial imbalance through a disparate impact on non-preferred buyers, and that otherwise promotes segregation by intentionally excluding families with children. Davis’ predominating anti-development sentiment, including Measure J/R, has resulted in the lack of adequate A/affordable housing and thereby perpetuates systemic racism.
I’ll second that sentiment.
That is simply not true. I’ve been over this with you, as has another commenter who has been banned on here. That commenter went over this in detail, with you. (Last time I tried posting a link to that Vanguard article, the moderator deleted it.)
If you’re going to compare this (median price), at least do it on a per-square foot basis. Zillow does NOT show Davis prices 85% higher in Woodland OR West Sacramento. Not even close. I haven’t checked Redfin.
Comparing median prices has its own inherent problems, as smaller houses (such as those in Davis) may have a higher per-square foot basis than larger houses.
Median housing price differences existed PRIOR to Measure J, as well.
There is a copy of a recent advertisement from a realtor, which shows about a 58% difference with Woodland, per square foot.
Davis recently “recalled” a school board member, presumably to allow “voters” to decide who should occupy the seat (rather than allow representatives to do so). And yet, some want to deny voters the opportunity to make far more important decisions, regarding the conversion of prime farmland to housing or other developments.
If you’re concerned about “creating” housing shortages, vote against DISC!
So your argument is that Davis is only 58% higher instead of 85% higher than Woodland. Not a convincing argument that Davis isn’t overpriced.
If you are against housing shortages vote against housing? A curious argument.
Ron O
Here’s the updated prices for the three communities from Zillow with both the average price and price per SF. An important point: people don’t pay for houses on a per square foot basis, buying a portion of a house–they pay for a whole house. And its the whole house cost that drives the difference in affordability. Regardless, the price per SF premium is still very large, and has grown significantly over the last two decades. (I calculated the premium as about 50% in the late 1990s when I had an exchange with Stan Forbes who tried to claim there was no price premium.) I have no idea why you’re arguing over how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin–there is irrefutable evidence of a substantial price premium for Davis over other Yolo County cities.
City Price Premium $/SF Premium
Davis $721,238 $379
Woodland $413,809 74% $227 67%
West Sac $397,728 81% $255 49%
https://www.zillow.com/davis-ca/home-values/
https://www.zillow.com/woodland-ca/home-values/
https://www.zillow.com/west-sacramento-ca/home-values/
So, those percentages are the median listing price differential between Davis and the communities you’re comparing them to. Not exactly “85%”, as you first claimed.
Yeah, they do. Larger houses cost more.
Show your calculation, without using a single example as “proof”.
Regardless, you’re now acknowledging that there isn’t much differential between “then” and “now”. As if a possible association is “proof” of anything in the first place.
Well, you’re already acknowledging a premium of 50%, prior to Measure J. Assuming that your claim is correct in the first place.
I have a copy of a recent advertisement from a real estate agent, showing an approximate (average) price difference of 58% per square foot (between Davis and Woodland) for properties sold in 2020. $398 for Davis, and $251 for Woodland.
But regardless of the numbers, there’s a simple solution for those who don’t want to pay Davis prices. And, many are taking advantage of that, and will continue to do so even if Davis approves another sprawling development.
Aren’t there any lessons to be learned from The Cannery, regarding this?
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if smaller houses cost more on a per-square-foot basis than larger houses.
And since many homes in Davis aren’t that large, that may also account for some of the “premium”. Both “then”, and “now”.
And even if it were true, there’s a simple solution to it: Move to West Sacramento, Woodland, Natomas, Elk Grove, Dixon, etc.
The same reason that people move from the Bay Area to Davis, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, etc. (Or, WDAAC or whatever else they build in Davis.) Davis is a BARGAIN, compared to the Bay Area. (Even for “people of color” who own houses, who move from there.)
Does everyone have the right to live anywhere, and dictate development policy (read SPRAWL) as a result?
If so, please let me know when my affordable house in Marin is ready for me. (They’ve preserved a lot of public AND private land, there. The nerve of them!)
No. But everyone has the right to disagree with existing policy and advocate for change.
I don’t believe, Eric, that allowing vast amounts of sprawl will bring about the change you seek. Especially since the region is a target for those moving from the Bay Area.
But, there are places in the region that are certainly continuing to accommodate it. Not exactly “cheap”, either.
Some of them a lot “whiter” than Davis no doubt, despite allowing that sprawl. (I suspect that the new development south of Highway 50 in Folsom meets that description, as does much of the Roseville/Lincoln area.)
Of course, our state infrastructure (freeways, water supply, etc.) won’t keep up. And yeah, it does contribute to greenhouse gasses, habitat destruction, etc.
There is another trend occurring, though. “Techies” moving to Lake Tahoe (and other “nice” areas), to work remotely. I wonder if those communities “fret” regarding how “white” those techies are, moving into their already-white communities.
RO, ideally, the Council will regulate good projects so it won’t be sprawl like South Folsom. True is, I doubt it. But Measure JaReD has too many downsides. I’ll probably fight every project that comes before the Council if JaReD ever is repealed, because it came about because numerous councils never saw a project they didn’t like – and I blame them. But I blame greedy property owners for perpetuating JaReD – less stock, more for me! South Folsom, if anyone hasn’t looked, is a travesty in unmitigated sprawl. A tumor on the foothills. Hopefully, the Donkey Headed Adversary of Humanity (Covid-19) will kill it.
Those who advocate for the creation of housing shortages might be the “greedy” ones. DISC is an example of that, to the tune of 1,200 housing units (in Davis alone), that would not be built at the site.
As is the entire Bay Area, as a result of the tech industry.
To an increasing degree, the state is telling municipalities within regions that are experiencing population growth and housing shortages that they must provide their share of that needed housing, and that some of it has to be affordable. The adverse impact of slow growth policies, and their disproportionate impact on people of color, is finally becoming an issue. I expect Measure J/R/D will pass handily. But the next council needs to focus on getting the planning process underway to provide for more housing for families and lower-income households.
Ron O
You keep jumping around as your supporting arguments disappear. We are talking specifically about DAVIS, not the Sacramento region. It is DAVIS that stands out compared to neighboring communities. We are not arguing for sprawl that surpasses Woodland and West Sac–they face the same County growth limits that Davis faces. It is the policies that differentiate DAVIS from other Yolo cities that is at issue here. Measure J/R/D is one of those key policies.
What are you referring to?
No, they don’t. Woodland, for example, has a very generous “urban limit” line. Spring Lake (despite its massive size, and lack of completion) is by no means the end of Woodland’s growth plans.
Nor is the business park (with 1,600 housing units) the end of Woodland’s growth plans.
What “county growth limits” are you referring to?
I am less familiar with West Sacramento, but I suspect that they are also “not done”.
Ron O
Your solution is disingenuous and is the same as the segregationists in the South who claimed that if Blacks wanted to live in a white neighborhood, they should just look elsewhere with the same house that would accept them. Davis’ current policies are presenting a barrier to those with less wealth from being able to buy a home in Davis because our policies create a price premium above other communities.
White households have TEN times the wealth than Black and Latino ones. Wealth drives the ability to pay for housing. Any policy that creates a large disparity in housing prices creates segregation.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-fact/median-value-wealth-race-ff03112019
BTW, Marin City has a large amount of affordable housing….
I’m not sure what “solution” you think I’m proposing, or even what “problem” you think I’m trying to address.
We live in a capitalistic system, in which housing prices differ between every single city, county, region, and state.
Your argument is with capitalism, itself. And perhaps with the failure of salaries to keep pace with housing prices, in relatively-expensive areas. Or, perhaps with the creation of “artificial demand” (e.g., the technology industry), which ends up pricing-out others who don’t work for that industry.
By the way, some of the people who own property in the Bay Area (and are looking to move out), for example, are people of color. The Bay Area is a vast place, with widely-varying housing prices (but all of which are more expensive than Davis).
And bring DISC with you.
I don’t know that you need to go there . . . no need to attribute to racism what can be easily ascribed to greed.
Yes, I think we end up with a racially-biased outcome, and that is real, but I doubt most people in Davis have a racist intent in voting for Measure JRD (Jarred?), but it does lead to a whiter Davis.
If you read the Politico article – it’s not clear that the tendency is even conscious and it has been painted over so heavily the otherfactors.
Systemic racism doesn’t necessarily imply individual racist motives. I’d analogize to physical barriers preventing access by people with disabilities. Prior to laws, like the ADA, requiring the removal of such barriers, people with physical disabilities had difficulty accessing public buildings and services, private businesses, places of employment, etc. Such exclusion was not necessarily intentional; rather, it was systemic. Access laws brought attention to those societal barriers and required their removal, to the benefit of not only the disabled, but also the general population.
David has an economic interest in Measure R renewal because developers advertise on his site.
Turns out there is such a thing as “black flight”, due to the same reasons that “white flight” exists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_flight
So, myself, EG, RG, RMc, all agree we hate Measure D (for different reasons, it seems), and yet, we couldn’t get our collect Sh*t together to put an argument against it on the ballot.
Shame!
It’s actually worse than that. You can’t be against Measure R but then use Measure R to vote against projects you don’t like.
Actually, yes one can…
By doing so you end up validating the system and enabling the system you claim to oppose. It’s internally illogcal.
Kind of like calling the cops when one is an advocate for defunding the police.
Only if you conflate defunding the police with abolishing them.
Maybe “they” should have thought of that when “they” came up with a saying that didn’t say what “they” meant. As in — defund = zero money = abolish, uh . . . but that’s not really what we meant.
I think it means more less money and redirecting money.
de·fund /dēˈfənd/ verb
prevent from continuing to receive funds.
——————————————————————
I’m saying it’s a poor saying if you are trying to get a clear message across. I don’t know why, but the current progressive movements have very poorly chosen slogans. Mob rules?
Why not? There are all sorts of of inconsistent positions. Look at the people who are for Measure R renewal but against projects like U Mall. The only consistency in that argument is being against new housing.
On the other side I find I’m often against both R and infill because R drives infill.
Actually, you can.
I don’t believe in our election system, but that doesn’t mean I don’t vote. Your logic, DG, is absurd.
No, that’s wrong. We are left with the policy tools that are available to us. You’re making the puritanical argument that you can’t ever make a pragmatic decision if you’re “perfect solution” isn’t available. Sorry, but I’m no longer a college sophomore who has to live by that philosophy. It was silly for you to even offer that up.
On the other hand, you haven’t responded to my request that you reconcile your support of Measure J/R/D with how its perpetuated and even reinforced racial segregation in Davis.
Richard and Eric
While I agree this measure has contributed to a lack of affordable housing and racial disparity, I do not see its absence without some form of stricter criteria on developers/builders as any better. Some people oppose peripheral housing because they do not desire affordable housing. I oppose a more laissez-faire approach because if left to their own devices, developers have demonstrated that they will present projects designed to maximize profit ( ” It won’t pencil out” ) over those which will meet demonstrated community needs ( Trackside and The Canary as two examples).
I agree with the need for criteria related to demonstrated community need. But I don’t see that as a reason to maintain Measure J/R, which doesn’t require adherence to any identifiable standards or criteria.
There’s no reason why we can’t require other aspects of the developments, but as I’ve pointed out as a professional economist (and you are want to do on other issues as a medical doctor) that increased housing supply will lead to reduced housing prices as wealthier households move out of older existing houses that then become available to less wealthy households. This process has been very well documented on the chain of car purchases.
Not sure I follow. How will the houses sold by wealthier households be available to less wealthy households? Houses appreciate in value, cars depreciate; so, how can they be compared?
It’s *ahem* almost unbelievable that a “professional economist” would compare used car prices to housing markets.
Cars drop like a rock in value, the moment you drive them off the lot.
I think this comment is going to be “revisiting” Richard, over-and-over again. I love it! 😉
First, most home buyers “buy up” to a more expensive home (not universally true, but general statement). That means that the household buying the house of that buyer most likely is also “buying up.” And those second buyers are most likely selling their house to someone who is also “buying up.” Often at the start of this chain is a renter. We were once involved in a chain of a half dozen house purchases that were all happening on the last day of the month, following this sequence. That’s the chain of house buying, which is how it is also works with the car market. The analogy is common in many capital goods markets that have a liquid used market.
Houses actually depreciate–the land underneath them appreciates. It’s the structure that decreases in value over time and eventually requires replacement. That’s why we have a home remodeling industry. Fixer uppers are the best illustration of how this works in the housing market. Truly affordable housing is the existing housing that has is older and the original buyers who had more money sell to
Ron, you have no idea how professional economists work through the transactions and mechanisms of the market, which is why you have such little understanding of how markets work. You don’t tell Tia how to practice medicine; don’t tell me how to practice my profession. Accept that there is a limit to your knowledge.
As a “professional economist”, why don’t you address the other side of that equation? As in the increased demand created by DISC?
Actually, the same thing occurs when folks leave the city (e.g., for nearby communities or elsewhere), as well. Spring Lake is an example of that.
Though it’s not going to “reduce” Davis housing prices. Davis appeals to Bay Area residents, as well.
Have we learned nothing from The Cannery?
Our current housing crisis is not created by increased demand from new commercial projects. It is created by our constraining supply against current existing demand. The amount of demand that DISC may add over the next 50 years is relatively small compared to the CURRENT supply gap. DISC is not creating the 75% price premium.
There’s lots of anecdotes about the Cannery. I would like to see the composition of residents as to previous location and current work place. Yes, the Bay Area also has its own self created housing crisis that we are feeling the impact of as well. Yet we still have a housing crisis HERE that we need to address. We can’t be the ostriches with our heads in the sand. The solution is in building more housing here.
I was pointing out that Richard is factually incorrect. Not the first time, regarding this same subject.
According to Richard himself, the price differential was 50% before Measure J/R came into existence. (Though he hasn’t even provided support for that.)
This comment is apparently in reference to the EIR for DISC, which shows increased demand for an additional 1,200 units (above-and-beyond) the 850 on-site units, in Davis alone.
And, 1,700 units outside of Davis.
Both of these issues have been addressed numerous times.
Where is the so-called “concern” of housing advocates, regarding the creation of this proposed shortage?
A simple solution to any housing shortage is to add supply.
Maybe not so simple.
There’s two sides to the “supply-demand” equation.
I’m advocating for the side that doesn’t create a shortage.
Ron O
First, the housing shortage already exists as evidenced by the 75% premium in housing prices. Price is the single best indicator of shortage.
Second, the City does not have sufficient jobs for many segments of the population, and our economic activity base is insufficient to support our government fiscal demands. We need to create jobs that fill the needs of our current residents and of those who are in populations that we currently exclude through our housing policies.
Third, we cannot wait for UCD to solve our problems. UCD is an employer in this city–we do not ask any other employer to solve the housing problem. UCD is also a consumer in this city–we don’t ask any other consumer to solve our housing problem. Finally, UCD is the core motivator for the purpose and values of this city, and that benefit has been provided to us largely as the expense of other California residents outside of Davis. We don’t ask other benefactors to solve our housing problem. UCD has committed to providing a much higher proportion of housing on campus over the next several years. We have to solve the rest of the housing problem.
BTW, the proportion of students to City population has remained roughly proportional at 50% since 1960 (I posted the data a couple years ago), and its still about the same. We’ve always had a significant number of students living in our community and will continue to do so.
You’re still making up numbers that aren’t supported? I thought you acknowledged your error already, during our earlier communications above.
I have a real estate agent’s advertisement in front of me right now, showing a 58% difference per square foot in average SOLD prices, between Davis and Woodland for 2020. $251 per square foot in Woodland, and $398 per square foot in Davis.
You’ve claimed (without evidence, by the way) that there was already a 50% difference in housing prices before Measure R existed.
For that matter, one cannot arrive at conclusions regarding associations. There’s all kinds of variables that haven’t been accounted for.
You’ve also been over this repetitively with another commenter, for which the moderator will not allow a link (since he’s been “banned” on here).
Housing prices differ between EVERY city, county, region, and state throughout the nation. If you or anyone else has a “problem” with that, then you have a problem with capitalism itself.
Davis has access to an excess number of jobs, via UCD (and proximity to Sacramento). We’ve been over this repeatedly, as well. That’s why there’s a net influx of commuters through the city.
If you’re referring to DISC, one of the FBC commissioners referred to the assumptions in the EPS analysis as a “fairytale”, and a “fundamentally flawed” analysis. Another commissioner noted that the proposal could create a net deficit. 3 of the commissioners couldn’t even agree that it would create ANY net fiscal profit for the city. All of the commissioners noted that capital replacement costs are not included in the analysis, and agreed that there are concerns with the assumptions (which “presumably” would be worked-out after it’s approved). How’s that working out with WDAAC?
You’ve noted many of the same concerns as the FBC commissioners, as has the commission that you’re on (e.g., no incentive to actually complete the proposal, beyond the stages which include housing).
DISC will create its own housing shortage, as noted in the SEIR. We’ve been over this numerous times, as well.
And yet, some folks will then jump on me, for continuing to respond to this repetitive nonsensical type of claim.
Assuming that your figures are correct (and at this point, I doubt pretty much anything you claim), what does this have to do with the topic of this article?
I’ve never admitted an error. I’ve updated numbers from an earlier date. I’ve provided the links and a table showing my numbers. You can find them again. I have no idea where your advertisement got its numbers.
I’m not able to retrieve the data I collected 20 years ago at the moment, but I’ll see if I can dig it up later. The 50% premium was based on the same metric–on a per house basis, not per square foot as your trying to do. I’m keeping an apples to apples comparison while you’re trying to distort the comparison by using two different bases. You’re being intentionally disingenuous.
I’m not referring to DISC as the sole source for new jobs, and I’m not debating DISC. Please don’t try to change the subject. We need new jobs from multiple sources to meet the needs I’ve identified. The City needs an economic visioning process to identify these needs more clearly.
UCD isn’t providing the range of jobs that we need here, and more importantly, it provides little direct fiscal benefits to the City. We need to create that by capturing the spin off companies here in Davis, and capturing more of the services provided to both those companies and UCD.
And you didn’t respond to my points about our relationship to UCD. Instead you bring up DISC, which isn’t what we’re talking about. Address the points I made.
And what does DISC have to do with the topic of this article? It’s a commercial development. I guess it creates jobs which then will be filled by employees. UCD has students who live here. It seems like the relationship is similar. So my train of comments is focused on the CURRENT driver of housing demand that is driving the CURRENT housing shortage and price premium that is CURRENTLY creating racial segregation. DISC is a hypothetical project that doesn’t even have a set timeline. Rejecting DISC will do NOTHING to solve the CURRENT problem. So I’m discussing what we have to do to solve the CURRENT problem. I’m waiting for you to reveal by your bigotry by trying to claim there’s no problem.
Please provide at least one example where I have provided incorrect figures. That does NOT mean where I’ve provided figures in one form and you have tried to provide a different interpretation of similar but irrelevant data.
Ron O
I was not factually incorrect. I previously provided the link showing the 85% premium a couple months ago. I updated the links that show the premium is 74% to 81% now. You chose a source that you did not provide that claims to have a different premium. I have no idea of the method used there, while I am familiar with Zillow’s method. (I’ve used it for other professional projects.) You then chose a different basis for your other calculation, which I don’t agree is appropriate because you are making an incorrect assumption that the composition of the housing supply is the same among the three cities.
I am not familiar with any case where you have shown that I’m factually incorrect, while the reverse has almost always been true.
Again, that’s factually incorrect.
That is also incorrect.
See earlier comment, above.
And again, one would need to compare “then” and “now” to even show any possible association, let alone cause. It would also need to include more than one comparison point.
The nonsense you put forth undermines your credibility, repeatedly.
Above, you tried to compare used car prices with used housing prices (as if both should “drop”).
At the moment, I don’t have time to repeat everything that’s already been posted (earlier/above).
I will just repeat this, for now:
Again, you have to compare prices on a per-square-foot basis, since houses differ in size (for example).
And from that, then you can compare it with whatever other period of time that you choose. You may, or may not be able to show an association, at that point. Which is not necessarily a cause.
But again, housing prices differ between every city, county, region, and state within the nation. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with capitalism, itself.
Are you sure you want to keep posting the same factually incorrect claims? If so, I’ll deal with more of it later.