This is our sixth of eight questions. The candidates get exactly 250 words. The answer was due at 9 pm on Thursday.
Question 6: The city undertook the Davis Downtown Plan through a citizen-based commission. Discuss your thoughts on the plan – address issues like: (A) Form-based code, (B) Densification, (C) Mixed-housing and residential housing in the downtown, (D) Parking and your overall thoughts on the plan going forward.
District 2
Will Arnold
In addition to being a key part of our updated General Plan process, major advantages of our Downtown Plan include finding space in town for increased densification and increased building height, as well as mixed use capability so we can get folks living working and shopping in one place and all of the benefits that come with that. In addition, form based codes are more resilient and flexible, allowing for predictability in future development, helping business and encouraging walkability.
Shared spaces, pedestrian amenities and plazas are a key feature at the very foundation of our Downtown Plan. These permanent improvements to our downtown landscape will build upon those that we have already undertaken, including the 3rd Street corridor, creation of outdoor dining plazas and, most recently, with street and parking lot closures to accommodate COVID-19 business support for outdoor dining and sales. The Downtown Plan calls for re-envisioning space allocation in key areas and will allow for the periodic closure of key streets, and the consideration of possible longer-term closures.
Implementation of our Downtown Plan and infrastructure will be a top priority of 2021, immediately following the adoption of the Plan. Private reinvestment projects that will come on the heels of the plan adoption will catalyze the funding for public infrastructure.
Colin Walsh
On my website (https://www.walsh4davis.com/principles) I lay out detailed principals for how our city should be governed using the acronym TRACK. In short, those principals are Transparent, Responsible, Accountable, Community-Oriented, and Knowledge-Driven. All of those apply here.
- A) Form-based codes seek to control the physical form, with a lesser focus on permitted uses. They have the potential to diversify and intensify use over traditional zoning that restricts use, ideally keeping the physical form pleasing but expanding the uses allowed and having the potential to add vibrancy and flexibility that single use zoning does not. Either
zoning or form-based code, however, are susceptible to manipulation to allow for unexpected outcomes if a council does not follow the ideas behind TRACK. - B) Reasonable densification will create more business and housing opportunities, but it should not be done at the expense of the character of the town and independent retailers.
- C) Mixed-use and residential housing in the downtown would be welcome, but it needs to come with stronger Affordable housing requirements.
- D) “Parking” would be better understood as part of the whole transportation picture. The downtown needs to be easily accessible including public transportation, active transportation, and automobiles. “Parking” is only one piece.
Overall, I worry that the draft downtown plan that has gone into the EIR process lacks popular community support especially regarding some of the building height issues. Without these issues being better resolved I worry that we are headed for a contentious process.
District 3
Lucas Frerichs
I’m excited about implementation of the new Downtown Plan! Downtown is the heart of our community and District 3.
The Downtown Plan is an example of a really solid community engagement process. I appreciate the energy and dedication that the 15 DPAC members put into crafting it. I’m also grateful that 12 of the 15 DPAC members have endorsed my re-election effort.
The future of Downtown Davis is to densify responsibly, and to provide an increased combination of vibrant mixed uses, including various types of needed housing above ground floor retail and office spaces. Adding additional residents to Downtown Davis will benefit our community.
As Councilmember, I advocated for use of form-based codes to serve as a guide of what types of buildings can be built, and at what heights/# of stories. The new plan allows for buildings of up to seven stories as allowed uses, while we currently have mostly 1 & 2 story buildings with a smattering of 3 & 4 story buildings throughout downtown.
I also believe the key to building ANY project is proactive and sustained communication between developer/applicants and neighbors. The city should work to ensure this happens during the consideration of every project, regardless of location.
The next phase is pursuing the CEQA certification that overlays the boundaries of the plan. When finished, projects that come forward will qualify for CEQA clearance. This will provide certainty to applicants. There are several downtown property owners waiting for CEQA clearance, before moving forward with their projects.
District 5
Connor Gorman
I really liked the process around the Downtown Plan and hope we replicate it for major decisions in the future while simultaneously centering the needs of marginalized communities and those who are the most impacted by a given decision. I’m generally in favor of form-based code and also support densification and mixed use developments where appropriate, especially in and near the downtown and the UC Davis campus (I think this has a number of benefits in terms of housing, the environment, and downtown revitalization) as long as other conditions are met (both on the developer, like around affordability, and on the City, like making sure our Fire Department has a ladder truck).
Another possibility to explore further is a commercial vacancy tax and/or commercial rent control which could help incentivize (or require) the few landholders who own much of the downtown to treat their small business tenants better (both during and beyond the pandemic).
Finally, I’d be in favor of allocating more land to purposes other than vehicle traffic and parking while incentivizing (preferably through positive means rather than negative ones like fees) alternative modes of transportation (like walking, biking, and mass transit). In particular, I think larger sidewalks and bike paths are important and I also support examining other potential uses, like more public green space or seating areas. Plus, such spaces could benefit local businesses, though I’d want them to be accessible to everyone rather than being exclusively reserved for certain businesses (public land should remain public).
Rochelle Swanson
I am proud to have been a part of the early formation of the Downtown Plan. The goal being a plan reflective of community driven vision and certainty for investment and improvement. As the plan goes through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) phase, there will more opportunity for input. Ideally the adopted plan will successfully improve over previous layers of regulations and guidelines and will set a tone for an update to the full General Plan.
I support form-based codes because they lay out building types and scale for more predictable planning by providing a framework that lets prospective investors know the parameters for a particular project along with the overall desired flow of development.
The greater heights encourage mixed use projects which I believe is critical to a sustainable vibrancy of the Downtown. Densification and residential housing will enable a true live-work-play community. Not just more housing, but thoughtful placement which creates a steady presence of customers to businesses, ease of proximity to Amtrak, less reliance on driving and more opportunity for creating events that pull the community together. Dynamic activity in the downtown will also encourage more than local participation and will become a greater attraction for visitors. As the downtown area transforms, it will be important parking and street use is integrated to minimize traffic and support biking and walking, which includes maximizing the Amtrak parking lot. I want to see greater community inclusion as we go through these final stages of adoption.
Josh Chapman
As a member of this committee and a downtown retailer, I am fully supportive of the Downtown Plan. My top priority throughout this process was making sure our Downtown becomes a more desirable location for residents with more jobs, mixed use housing, and a sense of identity that will allow more locals to live, work and play right here in Davis.
Downtown has tremendous potential to develop as a major regional destination. It needs a distinct identity and a mix of uses that would give it a competitive edge over other downtowns in the region and attract visitors from the greater Sacramento area as well as people commuting on I-80 between the Sierras and the Bay Area.
Form-based code provides predictable results in the planning and re-development process. Once EIR and CEQA are adopted this will provide predictability and a sense of certainty for developers looking to build projects downtown. This aspect of the plan is so important because it streamlines the process and negates the conflicting documents that are currently guiding our planning process.
Downtowns across the country are transforming from commercial centers into mixed-use neighborhoods. The benefits are many, including higher levels of safety, with more people present at all times of the day, and a more stable economy, due to a larger and more diverse consumer base.
A redeveloped, multi-story, mixed-use, downtown has been envisioned stretching back to the 1960’s. Regrettably, the execution has always fallen short. I want to help make this new plan a success!
Kelsey Fortune
This should be done for the entire city in the form of an updated general plan. Davis needs to be forward looking, and our community is well equipped with engaged and knowledgeable citizens to make an appropriate plan.
Form-based code gives developers concrete direction of what Davis is looking for as well as making the process faster for allowable changes and new infill development and allowing for appropriate flexibility within acceptable specifications.
Densification is the most sustainable way for Davis to move forward. Specifically building more in underutilized spaces and areas near downtown and campus without historical significance. This means working with neighborhoods to decide what would fit in currently and moving forward.
Mixed use is an amazing use of space. Allowing people to live where they work and play provides businesses a built in customer base and makes living without a private vehicle increasingly possible.
We allocate almost one third of downtown to streets for free. Let’s reallocate some of this space to businesses and pedestrians. I prefer decreasing reliance on private vehicles overall to specifically pricing parking downtown. If parking is priced in the future, I disagree that these funds should be spent only on improvements within the downtown neighborhood. Pricing parking does not only impact downtown. Things like public transit and bike path infrastructure across town would be obvious complementary uses for funds raised from parking fees.
Davis cannot remain the same in an ever-changing world. Let’s plan for the future we want.
For those interested in this topic, the Vanguard will host a Webinar on Monday, October 26. More details and to register – click here.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
They all support the downtown plan, except Colin has reservations, but only one of them (Kelsey Fortune) actually addressed parking. The plan calls for paid parking. We’ve already seen the pushback on that topic.
My guess is the downtown plan will pass the next council, and then implementation will be, as Colin put it, contentious. I don’t think the public has bought into the idea of multi-story buildings downtown and parking meters. Everyone likes plazas and wants to close off streets, but that is generally not great for existing businesses. Basically future councils will pick and choose which parts of this plan they actually support when it comes time to review individual projects, and I see little reason to believe that it will streamline redevelopment proposals. And if someone would like to explain to me how affordable housing would be implemented in any downtown redevelopment that includes a residential component, and still be viable for actual development, please do so.
One of our biggest problems is that existing businesses are so risk averse that they really have no idea what is best for them going forward. Our downtown is slowly dwindling away because those businesses have been able to adapt to the changing environment. We can either be beholden to an obsolete, mythological view about how the downtown was/should be, or we can make a better, more informed choice about how to proceed.
I disagree with you Richard. We have known since the ’60’s that the downtown was insufficient to support the shopping needs of the City’s residents, yet we did nothing to either expand the core area (as was proposed in in our first CASP) or to expand retail beyond the downtown (and the few small neighborhood centers). We prioritized subsidizing the property values (and rents) of a few downtown property owners (by limiting their competition) instead of meeting the needs of the City, its residents and its business owners. It is not the owners of downtown businesses who have failed to adapt, but rather the landlords and those politicians and City Staff members who ‘bend to their demands’ who are at fault.
Mark’s comment above is an excellent example of why I suggested that he be one of the panelists in the Free Webinar: October 26, Downtown Davis Plan Panel Discussion
No comment. I think this just speaks for itself.
I assume you meant unable to adapt. Mostly we’ve seen retirements, businesses move due to sudden lease increase (Watermelon Music), and conversions to eateries, and the infusion of commerce and tax revenues from dispensaries. I’d be curious how the sales tax revenues were tracking before the pandemic. From the city’s standpoint, I don’t think it matters much whether a site is filled with restaurants or retail. It does have a significant impact on parking.
Did Larry Guenther not respond?
Correct – he did not respond. I think that’s the first time in two campaigns.
Yes Jim, I missed the deadline. Here’s my response. I did not read the other candidates responses before posting this.
Form-based code: yes. Most issues residents have had with recent projects are issues of building mass and scale. Densification and mixed-use: yes. To significantly reduce our carbon footprint, we have to drastically reduce automobile use. To do that we need viable public transit. For that, we need density. Additionally, density and mixed-used zoning allow walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. This allows more varied goods and services downtown (or elsewhere) and makes a more resilient economy. Parking: address the parking situation in several ways, including re-vamping the X-permit system. User-paid parking in lots and not on streets is completely backwards. One of the biggest issues the lead consultant brought up was placemaking. Simply stated, if the downtown becomes a place people want to be, our re-imagined downtown will be a success. If it is not a welcoming environment, it will fail. As a member of the Downtown Plan Committee, it seemed to me that people were not central to the discussion. Building form and placement are important, but so are things like exterior spaces and connectivity. Christopher Jones’ video on E St. plaza is illustrative of both real community engagement and people-centered design and implementation. One great thing about our downtown as it exists, is the urban canopy. In many places downtown, one sees more tree canopy than building facade. This makes a welcoming, enjoyable place to be. The current plan would allow removal of existing trees through ministerial permit. Will we have a great downtown, or just a tall downtown?
Yes David. First time in two campaigns. Mea culpa.
“The future of Downtown Davis is to densify responsibly,…”
Responsibly densify? Sounds like an oxymoron to me yet they all seemed to agree. The result, a community of magnificent spatial inequality, with the masses squeezed into smaller spaces and rent servitude, surrounded by 40 acre plus estates beyond the city limit.
Back in the day CC members used to talk about smart growth. That was another oxymoron. I think the rule should be anytime something you know is wrong is coupled with a word to soothe the opposition you should beware.
Perhaps you need to get out of town a bit… There are many neighborhoods filling east coast cities where neighboring homes share external walls. Even the ‘mansions’ for the wealthy in many of these cities were often constructed this way. These communities of row houses are far denser than what we have here in Davisville, yet still offer comfortable living (with yards) to residents. You don’t have to build 10 stories tall to utilize land more efficiently than we do locally.
Fair point Mark but I think you are missing my bigger point. The push to densify inside the city limit and preserve farmland outside the city limit has created spatial inequality of dense living and 40 acre estates. Even at the density of my house a 40 acre parcel could hold a hundred or more single family homes. At the densities developers use today one 40 acre parcel could have close to 400 homes.
I didn’t miss your point, Ron, I disagree with it. I have no problem with 40 acre estates in the county. Requiring a minimum acreage (20-50 acres) in order to build a house outside of an existing city is how rural counties stay that way. The real problem comes when counties ignore those minimums and allow exceptions for neighborhoods of mini-estates to form on the outskirts of existing cities. El Macero is an easy example, but there are many more examples nearby. City housing should be dense, and country housing should be sparse, it is the ‘inbetweeners’ that need to be blocked and if already existing, annexed.
I guess we do disagree. I’d prefer more tweeners of .2acre lots where people could enjoy having a little space and a garden. I wish more people could have what I have. I believe the impediment to doing so is a romanticism to preserve a rural lifestyle for a few at the expense of having a suburban lifestyle for many. The idea of cramming more and more people into the same space is okay according to many in order to preserve large estates but this vision neglects to recognize how densifying Davis changes Davis.
Amazing how many deliveries we’re doing to Spring Lake these days. And Dixon is about to add 1000 homes right along the freeway on the south side of town. The overwhelming preference of people buying homes is a house with a yard.
That may be their preference, just like things like SUVs and Minivans are certain people’s preferences, but that may not be sustainable.
The single family detached home has been a mainstay of family formation since the end of WWII when suburbia as we know it today started in Levittown, New York.
The irony here is that most of the current CC members live in in single family detached homes and a majority of the CC candidates do as well. Yet somehow they fail my ultimate test of leadership, that is to lead by example, instead envisioning a future for others that they don’t live themselves.
“That may be their preference, just like things like SUVs and Minivans are certain people’s preferences, but that may not be sustainable.”
Sustainable? In what time frame is anything sustainable?
One of the biggest fallacious axioms of Davis politics is that we have to reduce auto use to reduce our carbon footprint. Thus we need to make Davis less livable by cramming more people into the same space. This is looking backward at a desire for a policy that can be empirically seen as never having been popular. Densification is a second failed axiom. This can be evidenced by the number of young families buying new homes in Spring Lake. People voting with their feet or sleep as the case might be.
Together the CC candidates all fail because the policy goals of a city detached from reality create a landscape of people choosing single family homes and cars in nearby towns and commuting into Davis. A reality in opposition to what our would-be leaders envision. We need leaders that can see the world as it is and adapt changing technologies to give people the lifestyle they actually want while at the same time making the world a better place for everyone. We need leaders that can visualize a future based on current and future best practices and not dominated by failed academic arguments of the past.
To reduce carbon footprint and increase sustainability we should be looking forward to a world with electric vehicles of many types powered by renewable energy generated predominantly by rooftop solar on single family homes with children to fill our schools, parks and bike paths .
Renewable energy generation is now cost competitive with carbon. Last week I read it in Barron’s the weekend magazine of The Wall Street Journal. The same day I heard Al Gore say it to Fareed Zakaria on his Sunday talk show. Made me wonder if Al Gore reads Barron’s. LOL!
To reduce our carbon footprint we should also get the City to stop paying to fly CC members and staff off on vacations disguised as business or training. To reduce carbon footprint we should have solar powered electric busses that are convenient for moving people from the periphery into downtown. To reduce carbon footprint we should re-examine our solid waste program in response to current conditions with an eye towards sequestering more carbon and more methane capture with fewer vehicle miles traveled. To reduce carbon footprint we should incentivize people switching to electric tools instead of small gas engines.
Sure, if you like a 10 yd by 5 yd, yard (like many I’ve seen, Alexandria VA, SF, Daly City, etc…. works for many people… makes sense… but not a ‘product’ I’d choose… but it is efficient as to land use, and a good product (fit) for very many folk… also tends to be more energy-efficient, as less external walls and glazing for climes that run hot and cold…
Malvina Reynolds wrote about a design challenge, if not done correctly…
I don’t believe Davis should mandate that product, but certainly should be completely open to it, and not impede it…
🙂
Yes Jim, I missed the deadline. Here’s my response. I did not read the other candidates responses before posting this.
Form-based code: yes. Most issues residents have had with recent projects are issues of building mass and scale. Densification and mixed-use: yes. To significantly reduce our carbon footprint, we have to drastically reduce automobile use. To do that we need viable public transit. For that, we need density. Additionally, density and mixed-used zoning allow walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. This allows more varied goods and services downtown (or elsewhere) and makes a more resilient economy. Parking: address the parking situation in several ways, including re-vamping the X-permit system. User-paid parking in lots and not on streets is completely backwards.
One of the biggest issues the lead consultant brought up was placemaking. Simply stated, if the downtown becomes a place people want to be, our re-imagined downtown will be a success. If it is not a welcoming environment, it will fail. As a member of the Downtown Plan Committee, it seemed to me that people were not central to the discussion. Building form and placement are important, but so are things like exterior spaces and connectivity. Christopher Jones’ video on E St. plaza is illustrative of both real community engagement and people-centered design and implementation. One great thing about our downtown as it exists, is the urban canopy. In many places downtown, one sees more tree canopy than building facade. This makes a welcoming, enjoyable place to be. The current plan would allow removal of existing trees through ministerial permit. Will we have a great downtown, or just a tall downtown?
So somebody gave all the city council candidates a New Urbanism pep talk about a magical tool called “Form Based Codes”….ooh…it sounds like some mystical text from the ultra secret society Stonecutters for running local government from behind the scenes.
.
Anyway….hey I love mixed use properties as much as the next guy….actually more…..the only time I’ve ever spoke with a city Council person about city stuff (I’ve talked to one about playgrounds but that doesn’t count) was with the mayor a few years ago at the Farmers Market (he had a booth there to explain some city planning stuff). I basically complained that I missed being able to walk everywhere…that I missed the simple pleasure of walking a few blocks and getting a cup of coffee or a bite to eat (something I was used to having lived in San Francisco for 10 years).
But in all seriousness….it seems to me that some of the City Council candidates have a Field of Dreams kind of philosophy to city planning and growth….”If we build our Utopia….they will come”. But is this true? Right now downtown is a mess of pizza, burger and burrito places with a couple of Thai places, a few yogurt shops…and a book store. And I like all that stuff…. It’s a student’s paradise (well it would be if there were more bars). But let’s be honest; if the real adults (okay…seasoned adults) want to go out and enjoy themselves for more than a quick bite to eat it’s a drive to Sacramento, all the way to the Bay Area or maybe to Dixon for dinner. Let’s face it…downtown Davis is dominated by mostly by stores that cater to the student end of the socio-economic market spectrum. Do the candidates believe that if there’s suddenly denser planning of mixed use retail, office and residential…that downtown will magically transform on it’s own? I guess the question I have is: is there really that much pent up demand for expensive (semi) urban professional housing (condos on top of commercial). Is there such huge demand for more commercial and office space downtown?
It seems to me that first you need job/commercial growth in Davis. Then you get the commercial retail growth. Then you get residential growth. Job growth in Davis comes from opening up business parks. Few businesses that come out of universities end up in downtown office space. Most end up in Class B (and usually C) office space in big business parks. I will say this again…in my experience start up companies seek CHEAP OFFICE SPACE…(they also need to be close to their source of capital, others in their industry and customers). Yes those office parks aren’t pretty and they don’t fit the New Urbanism utopia that seems to be envisioned by the candidates. But I will say that these ugly business parks generate revenue for the city. They create more commercial opportunities in the city. They bring more professionals into the city to live….that’s when you start building out those mixed use…downtown…walkable form based code planned areas. So….jobs first…then revenue…then a nice walkable, renewable, sustainable, inclusive, organically planned and designed form based code community….maybe Davis will get it’s Whole Foods back which brings me to my South Park reference: the episode “The City Part of Town” (the entire episode was about the gentrification of part of the town with lots of hip mixed use urban planning in order to attract a Whole Foods to town).
Form-based codes was a big part of the Downtown Plan, fyi.
I’m all for New Urbanism (and form based code). I’ve been a proponent of it for 15 years…..right after I profited by adding to the urban/suburban sprawl of a bunch of cities in the Central Valley.
I just thought it was funny how “form based code” showed up in 3 or 4 of the candidates answers….like it was some cool new urban planning magic.
But my primary point is how their utopian new urbanist vision seems to be their answer to fix everything. I share their vision….cause I like being able to walk and take public transit everywhere. But I believe that vision is the end result and not the cause of the change needed. So I seriously ask…is there really existing pent up demand for office space downtown? Is there pent up demand for retail space downtown? Is there pent up demand for professional residential space downtown (condos)? Again, I don’t oppose this kind of growth…in fact I look around at many of the one story building downtown, 5th street and along F street and can envision higher urban density and transit corridor density. But I think you need the controlled sprawl of some new business parks (and I have issues with the DISC project but at least it’s a step in the right direction….a poor step…but a step) to feed the financial growth necessary to achieve the new urbanist vision.
The question specifically asked about form-based code
Where did I ask about form based codes?….why would I ask about it? I just pointed out how funny it sounded coming from many of the candidates.
No.
Not anywhere, actually (due to Covid / telecommuting). There’s a glut of it.
No.
Maybe – like Trackside. More like retirees, probably.
I don’t actually know what a “professional” is, in this case. A university professor, without a family?
There are a few dining options for adults in town that don’t require driving to another city. Symposium comes to mind. Hopefully it will still be there when the pandemic ends.
As for the future of downtown people already avoid the place for anything other than coffee, alcohol, pizza or burritos or getting nails done. The services in West Davis are far superior to downtown. Trader Joes, Pete’s Coffee and Noah’s Bagels, walking distance to Willett, Chavez, Emerson, DHS, medical services, a hospital. gas stations and auto mechanics.
yes…I like the Mustard Seed.
uh…yay The Market place?
The area is still a suburban sprawl.
Market place serves the neighborhood with short commutes, bikes or by foot. If every neighborhood is considered sprawl where are people supposed to live?
We have a severe housing shortage. If we can build housing to move students and young professional closer to campus and downtown (where they want to be), then houses that are currently falling apart and renting to students will come on the market for “real adults,” as you so kindly put it, to purchase. The majority of the staff at the university do not live in town, they commute. Can you imagine Davis if those families could actually live where they work and spend their free time in Davis? Nobody is talking about just bringing more students; it’s not our choice. We’re talking about making room for more of your “real adults” which will bring in the kind of retail and restaurants “real adults” are looking for.
Also a quick reminder that Davis wouldn’t be what is it without the university. Davis can support locally owned small businesses is primarily because of the university. If we could generally stop pushing against the students and embrace them as a major part of our community, we would be much more successful.
Be glad I can’t vote against you (I can’t vote in your district). Your 5:11 post is degrogatory, incorrect, and immature, at best… but, stay healthy, good luck in the election, and seek maturity… you have control over two of those…
Odd. I didn’t see anything derogatory, incorrect, or immature in Ms. Fortune’s reply.
I think it is the most sensible thing I’ve read from Ms. Fortune to date. I don’t see what put the bee in your bonnet Bill.
I’m not sure that building apartments for students would make landlords divest single family homes because our supply deficit is so great but it is at least a step in the right direction.
Nor did I, but I saw plenty of those things in WM’s reply – seriously, dude, WTF ?!?
I see nothing wrong with Kelsey’s post.
Maturity and age clearly do not always correlate.
Ms Fortune…
I sincerly apologize for my Sunday, 6:02 post… without going into the triggers, my words were poorly chosen. Except the part,
Those, I do not retract…
WM, though I am not the target of your apology, I appreciate greatly that you recognized that one was warranted.
Ah…this myth rears it’s head again! No simplistically adding to the supply does not reduce demand and therefore prices in the housing market. I’ll letcha in on a little secret that I’ve kept trying to tell people here….BUILDERS DO NOT BUILD HOMES WITH THE INTENTION OF DRIVING DOWN HOME PRICES. They will constrain the supply to get maximum value for their homes.
This is also irrelevant. The University isn’t going anywhere….even if all the students ended up living in Dixon.
True to a large extent but if margins are large enough some degree of diminishing returns are acceptable to producers.
Generally speaking it’s difficult to mass produce housing at a rate that makes it worth it to significantly reduce profit margins. A move towards pre-fab housing would help the construction side of this problem. But then there’s the sales side of it. It takes time to sell a house. In 2018 the average Days on Market for a home in Yolo County was 46 days back in 2018….and that’s the lowest it’s been in the last 3 years. The highest was in Jan 2020 at 80 days (it’s currently at 55 days).
True story… and in the late 70’s, early/mid 80’s, under the aegis “slow growth”, local builders/developers got the City Council (and some key Planning staff) to tightly constrain the supply, exactly for that reason… a “wink-wink, nod-nod” arrangement … called “housing allocations”… very transparent to those paying attention… completely opaque to everyone else… why I hate Linkedin’s motto, “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know”… very ‘slow growth’ except for the ‘chosen’ and connected few… avg subdivision size then was 10-14 units… Senda Nueva was the most classic example…
Builders build with the intention of making money.
I’m well aware that supply and demand are separate. I’m an economist. In the econ 101 sense of the issue if we can shift the supply curve by building new units, then we move along the demand curve, which will result in an increased equilibrium where more people live in Davis and the average price is lower. That doesn’t mean that everyone doesn’t still make money and it doesn’t mean that the new units will be affordable or even rent for below the current average price, but the average rent will decrease relative to business as usual if we actually build housing. Obviously the rental market is more complex, but the underlying effect of lower average prices (or higher average quality) will hold, even with significant market power.
“The University isn’t going anywhere….even if all the students ended up living in Dixon.”
Exactly. What I’m saying is the existence of Davis as it is depends on the existence of the University. If students lived in Dixon, they would primarily drive to school. This would be bad for congestion and emissions. That is not the direction I would like to see Davis move. Additionally, the first students to leave Davis for neighboring towns are graduate students. Graduates students who do become a part of the community. Graduate students who, as consumers, are much more similar to long time residents than undergraduates, reducing the bimodality of the consumer distribution. Graduate students who frequent the same places “real people” do, because we are real people.
Keith, I’m curious what you see for Davis going forward. Feel free to shoot me an email at fortunefordavis.com or join me for a chat.
Has anyone noticed that lumber prices have recently tripled? So with the higher costs of building it makes one wonder how much new units will actually cost to build and how much the higher lumber costs will make rent go up on these units?
https://www.nsnews.com/news/lumber-hits-record-high-prices-due-to-low-supply-and-high-demand-1.24210332
What I’m telling you is that “Econ 101 supply and demand” doesn’t directly work when simply assuming builders will build to a point that will increase supply and bring prices down. You’re never going to be able to shift the supply curve. Show me a CA community in the last 10 years where supply went up and prices went down due to the increased supply. New housing usually makes housing prices go up. Why? Because it’s done under constrained conditions. If the constraints aren’t already there, the builders will simply build homes at an optimal rate for return. That optimal rate is limited by the time it takes to build homes (a move towards prefab housing would help…but major homebuilders are still sticks and bricks construction), the capacity of urban infrastructure, the cost of labor and the time it takes to sell a home (currently about 55 days…at it’s lowest during the boom times in 2018 46 days). You’d have to build Levittown level housing to make an impact on pricing and rents and there just isn’t the infrastructure or will to do so.
As for students and Davis. Lol…I’m kind of notorious here for my attitude about that. But above all that I do not believe that anyone has any right to live anywhere (if so, I…..and probably many others…would be living in Maui). So I do not believe that students or just about anyone require any special consideration to live here. If traffic and pollution are a problem for students commuting to school, then maybe UCD should come up with some affordable housing options for it’s revenue source. Maybe they can support and fund more public transportation. I used to commute by public bus from one town to the next as a teenager.
And I’m not dogmatic about it. The area between 1st to 3rd streets and A & B streets could be mowed down (some of it would be a shame, there are some nice houses and tree lined areas there) for mixed use with high and medium density housing. All of which require minimal support for cars and car traffic (because it’s in walking distance of UCD and downtown). But again, new residential units would be at premium market rates so not ideal for students.
Keith Olson,
I’ve got a buddy with a prefab home business (in a factory a metal lattice skeleton is sprayed with a concrete mixture to create walls…then the parts of the home are shipped to the build location). I’m hoping the rising cost of lumber helps his business.
My son is having a very large deck added to his house. The reason I knew that lumber prices were skyrocketing is he got a call from his contractor with the bad news that his deck was going to cost much more than originally estimated due to the leap in lumber costs.
I’m not saying prices are going to decrease in the next 10 years. We have fallen way too far behind and so has California as a whole. I’m saying that property value increases of 5% each year that are passed on to renters is unreasonable. Especially considering that renters’ income increases rarely keep up with inflation.
I also never said anyone has the right to live anywhere. I’m just saying we need to build housing, and we need a plan to get to a healthy housing market (3-5% vacancy rate).
The reason we don’t see building additional housing decrease rent in California is because it is politically infeasible to build the amount of housing necessary to actually see decreases in rent. Additionally, I was speaking about prices in relation to business as usual. If we build nothing, prices will increase even more than they already do.
Finally, can you share exactly what makes Davis’ housing market so special that basic economic theory does not apply?
Kelsey: Your premise is not necessarily true/complete:
https://abc7news.com/sf-rent-prices-dropping-covid-19-housing-realtor.com-report/7032535/
This trend is not limited to San Francisco.
As a side note, a modest rent control law is already in place (statewide – as I believe you’re acknowledging), and there’s a measure on the ballot to strengthen it. Even now, cities can enact their own restrictions, such as those found in some Bay Area cities.
Davis housing prices are moderated by surrounding communities, as well. Davis is not an island.
There are two sides to the supply/demand equation.
Yes, I’m well aware of the housing shortage/constraints in CA. It’s one of the reasons why I started a residential development company back in 2004.
You specifically brought up students in your comment. Why do we need to build housing? The inability for some people to afford to buy or rent homes is not a reason.
You’re still not grasping what I’m saying. Unless homes are built on a massive scale to impact supply (which we both agree is difficult if not impossible); all incrementally building home will do is INCREASE home prices. Homebuilders will seek to build homes in a GROWING market…growing both in people AND in price. At such incremental rates of homebuilding…..Homebuilders will slow the rate of new homes being built until it meet their ROI expectations. Demand is generally so strong and constant that it almost always makes sense to wait it out and then drop more homes on the market when things pick up.
It’s not Davis, it’s California. It’s that people have done their best to protect the value of their homes for decades. That means no growth, limited growth to go along with decades of population growth. The problem has snowballed because after years of this it’s too expensive to massively and impractical to massively build homes. So homebuilders are going to protect home prices….I mean it’s pretty basic….you’re going to always try to sell your product for as much as you can. You’re not going to undercut other homebuilders by much if at all. You’re almost always going to sell premium homes (or as many add ons as you can sell with a home). People that want cheaper homes can go buy an existing home. So yeah…at the 1000 foot high level…yeah, supply and demand still work…..if you dump a huge number of homes on the market…home prices will drop…but that’s not going to happen.
Maybe I need the help of an Economist. I’ve asked for help from buddies of mine that are current and former Urban Planners and Developers…one of them even has a Masters in Urban Planning…none could give me a good answer. So here it is. First let me start with the premise that housing is a cost the community (none of my urban planning buddies have argued this). Any goal for any growth by a community is to enrich the existing community. So in general, I believe in first job growth, then commercial growth and finally if necessary residential growth. So that’s the key issue “necessary residential growth”. How can you quantify weather or not growth is necessary/beneficial? About the only thing I’ve heard about is mostly anecdotal research….generally some big business tells the city that it needs housing options for it’s workers. So the city decides that it should approve some housing. So if UCD professors need places to live…..is to the city’s financial benefit to incur the cost of adding additional housing (infill growth probably being less costly to the city)? But in general most city planning goes pretty much like…we anticipate the growth of X number of people over the next 20 years. Therefore we will plan for X number homes to be approved with the anticipation of annexing X number of acres in the current sphere of influence. There’s little rhyme or reason as to WHY city would plan to approve X number of homes and take in X number of people into the community. What I’m looking for is a quantifiable reason to plan for growth…one tied to projected economic growth. Because right now it all seems rather haphazard. My knowledge and my buddies’ Urban Planning knowledge maybe a decade or more out of date….or as they call it these days “Community Planning”…..so maybe something new has been figured out….or could be figured out.
Reason to build in Davis:
1) A healthy housing market. Vacancy rates of ~1% are not healthy.
2) The environment. If people live where they work, less cars are necessary.
I agree growth right now is haphazard. I am pushing for an updated general plan that is actually forward looking and aims specifically for outcomes we are looking for, not only prescribing specific actions.
(We still have parking minimums for new development! Why???)
In general, lack of required parking does not equal “no cars”. It just makes it harder for everyone to park, and foists the impact (increased demand) onto existing neighborhoods and business districts (rather than the developments which create the impact). That’s why developers love this trend – “someone else pays” for their impacts.
At a certain point, perhaps lack of parking does encourage some to forgo ownership of cars (e.g., in San Francisco). But, they just rely on services like Uber (or car-sharing services), instead.
Truth be told, a development like DISC (for example) wouldn’t work without its 5,600 parking spaces. (And even that’s probably “too few”, compared to similar developments.)
Ultimately, people and development = cars.
No city is “self-contained”, with people living their lives entirely within walking/biking distance of their home. Especially cities in the valley.
I might add that a lot of existing residents (in any given town) “did” pay for their impacts, in the form of parking minimums (with the cost passed onto them, via the developers).
Some (not necessarily me) might say that new residents should do so, as well (for the same reasons that they were initially required).
On a related note, Davis is never going to be a major employment center (e.g., downtown) – unless one counts employment at the adjacent university. (The “elephant in the next room”, so to speak.)
Sacramento is a major employment center, for many residents throughout the valley. With lots of bus lines which provide pretty good access. I believe that most of the government employers there provide subsidies for public transit use, as well.
Before anyone points it out to me, I realize that no driver is actually paying for “all” of their (environmental) impacts.
Nor is anyone who relies upon modern cities to function, regardless of how many solar panels they have on the roofs of their cars. 😉 And yeah – that goes for you bicyclists, as well (e.g., road paving, deliveries, groceries, construction and maintenance of buildings, etc., etc.).
Which always brings me back to the basic premise of “Planet of the Humans”.
And that’s great. Most cities have a 20 year plan. Which lays out their plans and conditions for growth (and not the absurd measure J circus show for growth). But what specifically are the outcomes you’re looking for? Again, simply saying that little or no vacancy rates is bad by itself is not acceptable answer. Again, what are the conditions you’re looking for to approve growth?…and most importantly how does it improve the city (it’s current residents).
The city should only update those portions of the General Plan that are required by law. Anything else will be a waste of time and money.
Well, I’d argue that it would be mostly a waste of money while Measure J is still in effect. Constantly trying to get development passed the voters is an incredible waste of time. Revising the General Plan would be like…this is a good idea of how we want to grow…BUT…it’s all up to the whim of the voters on any given year.
Why is that unhealthy? And I really am looking for a quantifiable economic answer.
I think I already mentioned that I’m fine if people take mass transit into work if it’s an environmental issue as opposed to the community taking on the burden of more housing.
Unhealthy if you are a buyer. Great if you are a seller.
Why should Davis residents care if more people can move to Davis and buy homes? I’ve asked for a quantifiable reason.
No reason to if you only care about yourself. But if you care about other people, friends and family, who you would like to see nearby but can’t afford it here you might prefer a different market.
If you want a community that is welcoming, where young families can form and settle, you might want a different market.
If you want a market where fewer people live in poverty because of high rents you might want a different market.
If you want a market where people aren’t stuffed together because of high rents you might want a different market.
If you want a community where your children can afford to stay you might want a different market.
So….uh…just keep building homes until everyone can afford to live here? What’s your rational?
Communities change…people move in, people move out. Some people get priced out…it happens.
I assume my children like everyone else will live where they can afford to live. If I want to guarantee that they can live in the same town….I guess I can have them live with me…that’s my choice (actually it’s not….my children are in elementary school).
Stuffed together because of high rents? If nothing is being built, how are they being stuffed together? And if there is some urban density built….guess what….some people like living that way (I did in my late 20’s through my mid 30’s….until I had kids).
But hey… the self righteous tone of your post must have felt good writing. I mean…again not a rational response…but it probably felt defiantly good against my desire for cold quantifiable data (yes, I admit…I’m an unfeeling sentient robot sent from the future with world domination plans starting with small town urban growth)
LOL, you made me laugh. Some here might claim you’re a robot Russian agent.
I agree with you, self righteous liberals feel everyone has the right to live wherever they want regardless if they can afford it or not. That’s not the way things work, you live where you can afford to live.
P.S. You have a great name 😉
Not self righteous but bitter. It took us a long time to be able to afford to buy a home here and I’ve had too many friends leave. Family people with kids or hoping to have them, well educated, employed, socially engaged, tax paying friends, the kind of people most communities seek to accommodate.
I also have relatives that I’d like to have move here but can’t afford it. So yeah I called you out for your c’est la vie attitude. Sorry if you find being confronted by my indignant tone as self righteous. You do seem like a guy who can handle a little heat and I appreciate your expertise on housing markets. Its just that on this point, of the need for more housing, I vehemently disagree with you.
One of the things I’ve been asking for in my overly convoluted and sometimes irreverent posts is quantifiable evidence for residential growth. You’re right to ID these people as likely the kind of people that would add to the community. But from the 50,000 foot level you have the basic new housing bad because it’s a cost to the community (which it is). So you’re not going to convince the NIMBY’s that residential growth is a good idea unless you give them a good reason. The problem is that no one has been able to quantify a reason. And that’s what I’ve been looking for.
My urban growth philosophy has always been: job growth, then commercial growth and then residential growth if beneficial (and that’s where the quantifiable part comes in).