by Gloria Partida
The balancing act of trying to meet the needs of all the voices in the community can be challenging. It is at once rewarding and frustrating to search for solutions and the best ways to implement those solutions. There is then the wait to see if you got it right. Luckily, I come from a research background where this very process was my life for 30 years. What I learned was that before you got to the trial stage you had to have as much accurate information and observations as possible. Even still sometimes you had to go back to start. Good for science where the petri dishes were not showing up for public comment. Not so good for public policy making where real people’s quality of life is at stake.
This week I received an email, one of many, which asked that we build homes at comparable prices with Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. It further stated that affordable houses in Davis are nonexistent and that they would not support developers building $800,00 homes. Affordable housing has been the biggest challenge of my time on counsel. It requires a multitude of tools and approaches.
This request seems simple enough. We need someone with a plot of land in Davis that they are willing to value at an equal price as a similar plot of land in the surrounding area. Essentially taking less than the land is worth. Let us leave out the fact that the taxes assessed on the land would still be this same as what the taxes are on similar plots in Davis. Once built the person would than again need to be willing to ask for less money than the house was worth in Davis. If this all played out the lucky buyer would be foolish to not turn around and sell that home for what it was really worth and make a tidy bundle.
I have heard people ask over and again “why can’t we force people to not sell homes at the market rate?” It is odd that people never ask why we cannot force people to sell any other private property at a more affordable rate. More importantly I think the real question should be why IS the market rate for housing in Davis so high. So, I will start again. We need someone in Davis with a plot of land. Oh, I forgot to add in the city limits. Yes, I think we all know how supply and demand works. This does not mean I think we cannot do anything about adding affordable housing to our supply. I do think however that we need to stop asking for the same experiments. The number one being to force developers to add more inclusionary units than they can afford. This is one instance when tough love will not yield the result we want. It will just make developers go elsewhere where they can probably build the same project with more inclusionary units than they can build here.
Does this mean we should not ask for the most affordable units we can get? Yes, and Maybe.
I strongly believe that a place to put people in is top priority. Inclusionary units are without a doubt the most popular tool in the tool kit. However big A affordable units without a doubt give you the biggest bang for the buck. When we are talking about providing housing security for the most vulnerable, big A affordable delivers. It is without a doubt the sledgehammer of affordable housing solutions and produces just as messy results. Both solutions still require that plot of land and still only address rentals.
Last week Georgina Valencia addressed the question my email commenter asked. How do we, if not produce, at least keep for sale housing below market rate. In essence how do we prevent that buyer in my early example from making that tidy bundle. I appreciated that there were actual suggestions given in her article. Limited equity homes are not new. We have a good example in the Dos Pinos cooperative. Ensuring that equity restrictions remain on the stock of low-income homes we have is important. It is again another tool. It is one, however, that I have mixed feelings about. Home ownership is an important way that fiscal security is passed onto future generations. It is a path that has been by and large blocked for the lowest socioeconomic populations. Most of those populations are people of color. Owning a home and building equity is an important way for families to build wealth. Limiting equity limits the rate at which people can move into middle and upper classes. This is not to say that providing a stock of affordable for sale homes is not important. Again, it is another tool.
Maybe rather than build affordable for sale homes we need to get more people into smaller entry level homes by offering silent loans. This would make homes affordable because homeowners would not pay on a percentage of the purchase price. If the home became a rental, was sold, or was refinanced the City would have the loan repaid. This would solve the problem of trying to keep a limited equity stock and allow people to build equity. This would require a much bigger in lieu pot and less inclusionary units.
We are at a now at a place where we are asking what we have learned and are we using the right tools? We are working on our housing element and have received a $310,000 planning grant from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. This SB2 money will be used to complete financial modeling for specific development scenarios—to right-size the City’s inclusionary housing requirement for local market conditions as well as for various development types. The analysis will include the financial modeling of specific development scenarios to identify what tools will be the most effective in producing inclusionary units and ultimately ensuring a diverse housing stock. While we wait on this, I welcome questions and suggestions for helping us find solutions.
I have myself asked:
-Why the big A affordable money can not be combined with private projects to get more inclusionary units. It seems that there should be a way to combine those efforts and resources.
-How can we more effectively use in lieu fees? Should we forgo the inclusionary units for larger in lieu fees?
-Is it possible for new projects to satisfy their affordable unit numbers by offering low and very low units at an older development?
-Can we make it easier for single family homes to densify and become smaller more affordable multiunit for sale homes?
I would also welcome a plot of land you happen to have laying around. I did mention to my emailer that it was difficult to pass measures outside of the City limits. To which the response was we didn’t need big tech. I’ll weigh in on this another day but that big tech came with a lot of housing affordable and otherwise.
Gloria Partida is the Mayor of Davis
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
I don’t think you do, when you subsequently make comments like this:
Big tech “creates” housing problems – the “opposite” of solving them.
Unless you want to ignore the additional demand (beyond the onsite housing) that DISC would have created, for example. It was in the EIR, so it’s pretty difficult to ignore.
Or – if you want another example, Silicon Valley (and the entire San Francisco peninsula).
I don’t think that you’ve addressed the question that Georgina had, for the council. Why doesn’t the city take action to maintain the law regarding existing, for-sale housing stock?
“I don’t think you do, when you subsequently make comments like this:
To which the response was we didn’t need big tech.”
Explain
” Why doesn’t the city take action to maintain the law regarding existing, for-sale housing stock?”
They did
You already know that the EIR for DISC showed that the proposal would have increased demand for housing beyond that which was proposed, on-site.
We’ve gone over this many, many times already.
A similar situation has occurred regarding the communities that comprise (and are adjacent to) Silicon Valley.
What did “they” do, to address the problem that Georgina brought up? (In other words, the city’s failure to enforce the requirements enacted that were enacted, subsequent to the grand jury report.)
Seems to me that they’ve unofficially “abandoned” those requirements. Was there some kind of council decision to do so, without actually changing those requirements?
Yes.
Might there be some (external) Affordable housing organization willing to look into the legality of that “decision”?
I am now more confused on your first point. What does increasing traffic have to do with law of supply and demand as discussed in this column by the Mayor?
On the second point, the problem that happened with the for-sale housing was that there were ways around the deed restrictions – and originally they did not have owner-occupancy requirements and originally they could get around the deed restrictions by waiting a certain amount of time. Now all newer for sale affordables (most are rental not ownership) have appreciation caps and owner occupancy requirements which prevent what happened originally which was someone purchased the home, rented it out, and then flipped it at market rate after x-amount of time. None of that can happen now – everything in the last ten years has income qualification, owner occupancy and appreciation caps to prevent the abuse.
Where did I say anything regarding “increasing traffic”?
This is about the point where I know you’re just putting forth disingenuous comments.
It’s pretty obvious (even without an EIR) that if you add more jobs to a community, it increases demand for housing. In the case of DISC, the number of promised jobs far exceeded what would be provided on-site. (Again, you already know this – why are you pursuing this line of commenting?)
Of course, this also assumed that the proposal was viable – beyond the stages that were subsidized by the housing.
Regarding the changes to the “for-sale” housing that the city enacted (after the grand jury report), why aren’t they enforcing those requirements on remaining stock? (That was the entire point of Georgina’s article.) I’m still wondering if the city is exposing itself to potential legal challenges, regarding its failure to enforce its own requirements.
My bad. Brain didn’t fire all of the way on that one. Meant to say housing.
Regardless, I have made the point many, many, many times that we have to build a certain amount of housing regardless of what we add and that housing that we have to add, in my view would have accommodated the increased demand over the next 30 years from a project like DISC. Since that project doesn’t exist, not sure the point of rehashing it.
“Regarding the changes to the “for-sale” housing that the city enacted (after the grand jury report), why aren’t they enforcing those requirements on remaining stock? (That was the entire point of Georgina’s article.)”
The only point I would make – again – is that the Grand Jury report came out in 2017, and I think the problems that it cited were from 2005. In other words, I don’t believe those are current problems particularly since 90 percent of the affordable housing approved in the last decade has been rental not ownership. Not sure why these dates keep getting lost in this discussion.
Georgina’s article indicates that this is an ongoing/current problem, regarding the remaining “for sale” Affordable housing stock:
Guest Commentary: Affordable Housing…Who’s Tending the Shop? | Davis Vanguard
But you comment doesn’t situate the timeframe for this.
The first date we have: “my research that uncovered a Grand Jury report entitled “The City of Davis Affordable Housing Program” released 5.11.17. ”
In other words, the Grand Jury report came out nearly four years ago.
And then, ” The City did respond by creating the Affordable Housing Task Force and amending the 1990 ordinance and further amended the housing policies in 2005.”
So basically this was a problem that was discovered and address in 2005. Has there been a problem since 2005?
Bottom line: this was a very serious problem when it came to the attention of council in 2005. But has there been a problem since 2005?
So, your contention is that DISC would have no impact on housing demand. Again, that’s not what the EIR (or common sense) indicates.
You’re claiming that the amount of housing that the city would be “required” to be built would fully satisfy demand either way (with, or without DISC). This makes no sense.
In other words, you’re claiming that demand is not impacted by decisions such as adding jobs to a given community.
That is not how how supply/demand works. I only hope that Gloria doesn’t believe this. Unfortunately, she (unlike you) actually does seem to believe that. In your case, I don’t think you are that ignorant.
I think your characterization of my position is flawed. Basically my view is that the amount of housing that we will build over the next 30 years can accommodate a project like DISC. That is not the same as stating that DISC would have no impact on housing demand.
I don’t think it is.
If one is concerned about long-term “housing shortages”, the supply of housing would need to be increased (above-and-beyond what would otherwise be needed), to accommodate a proposal like DISC.
That’s also what SACOG would require, since they consider the number of jobs in a given community when establishing RHNA housing requirements.
In contrast, you are claiming that the increased supply is already known/established. If so, then adding more demand (than would otherwise occur) will create a long-term housing shortage. (Or more likely, an increase in housing prices, with surrounding communities absorbing the increased housing.)
You’ve got that part right. It would absolutely increase demand. And unless there’s a corresponding increase in supply (above-and-beyond what would otherwise be needed), then you would be advocating for a long-term housing shortage.
Let’s pick another example since this seems to be causing you problems. If you are planning the next 30 years of growth, you anticipate that the university will expand. Will university expansion lead to more demand for housing? YES IT WILL. But if you plan accordingly, your growth model can and should accommodate that growth without increasing it. That’s what I’m saying about DISC. You build in your growth models anticipating things like growth at the university or a new economic development project.
I am having “no” problems with this.
The growth model that you are (apparently?) referring to does not include increased demand from a proposal like DISC.
And even if it was included, then one should be able to “reduce” the amount of housing planned (in its absence) – using your “model”. (I’m “on board” with that approach.)
At this point, I have clearly stated my position and will now bow out of further repetitive discussions.
One more point: “The growth model that you are (apparently?) referring to does not include increased demand from a proposal like DISC.”
Wrong. In fact, it does. Link
I see that you’re (also) in the habit of referring to lengthy documents, in response to specific claims. In this case, a plan (and not a “requirement”) from 2007, which doesn’t even discuss DISC.
But even if it did include the impacts/demand created by something like DISC, any growth assumptions in this document can now be adjusted downward, in light of the failure of all “innovation center” proposals.
The point being that both the General Plan and the most recent Housing Element were in fact created with the notion that there would be plans for a peripheral business park. While they didn’t have the specific project, the fact that this was in the planning even 20 years ago, demonstrates that housing estimates were designed precisely with the notion that a future peripheral business park could be developed in the future.
I guess this wasn’t the case, after all.
Here we go with the circular jobs/housing debate again.
The Sacramento metropolitan area, which includes Yolo County, is expected to grow in both jobs and housing demand. Davis is part of that regional growth. You won’t stop housing demand by blocking business parks, you’ll just move the jobs to nearby communities. If they’re high-end jobs, many of those folks will choose to buy in Davis because of the amenities and the schools here. If they’re lower-end jobs, people who work at them will seek to live in lower-cost communities. Some will prefer Woodland or Dixon because they can have larger houses and yards for lower cost.
Projects like DISC are part of the expected jobs growth in the region. They’re factored into the projections, regardless of whether they end up in Davis, Woodland, or West Sac. There will never be a perfect jobs/housing balance for any specific city in the region; the market for jobs and for housing does not end at the city limits.
Don: I would agree with some of what you state, but would note that there’s a difference in demand for housing from having a (claimed) job-creator next door, vs. one in another nearby community.
Regardless, your underlying argument would note that “higher-end” housing-seekers would choose Davis regardless of where the job-creator is located. And, “lower-end” housing seekers would choose housing outside of Davis. (Again, regardless of where the job-creator is located, within a given radius.)
Which calls into question the underlying assumptions regarding the type (and amount) of growth in any given community, given that none of them are islands.
Might be some truth to that.
Of course, since DJUSD “recruits” students from surrounding communities, the argument that Davis schools will cause some to locate there is not necessarily true. (In fact, those folks benefit by not paying the exorbitant DJUSD parcel taxes, while benefiting from Davis schools.)
Then again, one only needs to look at the San Francisco peninsula to see what the blind pursuit of “economic development” has done to housing prices over a wide geographic region. Though there’s some significant changes going on regarding that, due to telecommuting kick-started by Covid. (Along with the pursuit of technology companies to entirely different regions, such as Austin.)
I see nothing wrong with jobs moving to entirely different regions, where housing costs are better-balanced with salaries.
In any case, don’t forget about the Zoom meetings regarding the proposal that failed in Davis (and “moved” to Woodland), subsequently including 1,600 housing units.
Seems like Woodland understands “supply/demand”, regarding the housing demand created by these things. (I guess that only university towns such as Davis fail to grasp the concept. Or maybe it’s just a sub-population of commenters on the Vanguard, along with the mayor.) 😉
Webinars planned for Woodland’s proposed Research and Technology Park – Daily Democrat – ZooHouse News
Of course, one might also conclude that the housing is subsidizing the commercial component in Woodland as well, but that might be considered to be a very cynical view. 🙂
FAIL 😐
I agree that the best time to develop a future business park is — in the future.
Excellent column that lays out the challenges of providing affordable housing in a market that has higher value than its surrounding cities and where supply has been constrained by the voters.
Our true ‘affordable’ housing stock consists primarily of older apartment units in east Davis. Probably affordable polices for Davis should focus on rental assistance to get the biggest bang for the buck. Limited-equity co-ops, of course, are nice but are always going to be a tiny percentage of the market. There just aren’t very many builders willing to build things that don’t provide a customary return on investment. The idea of ‘silent loans’ is intriguing and might be a very efficient use of resources.
Thank you for writing this. It’s good to see your thinking on this topic.
“We need someone in Davis with a plot of land. Oh, I forgot to add in the city limits. Yes, I think we all know how supply and demand works. This does not mean I think we cannot do anything about adding affordable housing to our supply. I do think however that we need to stop asking for the same experiments. ”
Davis passed Measure D in November guaranteeing that we do in”deed” repeat the failed experiments of the last 20 years for ten more. So best wishes in trying to find a new path forward even though you did nothing to try to change the trajectory of affordability when you actually had the chance to lead on a real change in direction of housing policy.
. . . and but a handful of those magic plots of land within the resulting all-but-fixed city limits.
Balancing the Needs Of All Voice in This Community is a Challenge
University of California Davis has a computer department and I’m sure they’re playing with artificial intelligence which I like to call (synthetic intelligence) it is simply sounds better. How would synthetic intelligence balance and needs from all the voices in the community.
I for one would be very interested 😳
Artificial intelligence needs no housing, other than perhaps a data center. 🙂
There is an abundance of artificial intelligence in the Vanguard comment section.
Pretty funny, but I think that might be an insult to computer-generated intelligence. 🙂
From article:
The primary question Georgina brought up was directed at the city itself (regarding the failure to maintain the remaining stock of Affordable “for sale” housing). So far, I’m not aware of any response.
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2021/01/guest-commentary-affordable-housing-whos-tending-the-shop/
From Georgina’s article (see link above):
Apparently, no one – on a council dominated by those who claim to be concerned about affordable housing.
Maybe you ought to read the Grand Jury report itself and look at the timeline of when this occurred.
The focus of Georgina’s article was on preserving the 90 or so left, as of 2017:
Seems strange that you and Gloria don’t seem very interested in this.
I think you need to do more research before having this conversation.
I’m quoting from Georgina’s very-recent article.
What part of that do you think is incorrect? Or, is the city now implementing the recommendations that she suggested, since that article was published?
I have answered that question numerous times. I think you should read the Grand Jury report and the city’s response.
Again, the city’s response is inadequate, according to Georgina’s article.
Based on what?
Based upon the continuing loss of those units.
Why do you ask questions like that, when Georgina’s article already notes it (as quoted)? That was the primary PURPOSE of her article.
Note that it includes specific recommendations to address that problem, as well.
Has there been any units lost after 2005?
I don’t know when the units are considered to be “officially” lost, but that seems more like a question for the council. Is there a point at which this formally occurs?
If there were 90 in 2005, and 90 today – then no. But that begs the question regarding the reason for Georgina’s article, does it not? Is she, in fact “wrong”?
Here is another comment from Georgina’s article. (In addition to the comment regarding the “continued” loss, quoted earlier.)
This is what I found from the actual Grand Jury report, which I kept asking you to read.
“In 2005 the City Council amended the Affordable Housing Ordinance, altering the rules in several ways for access to affordable ownership units” (Page 4)
Then:
“In 2006, the affordable housing ordinance was further amended to require all owners to sign the deed and occupy the unit for the entire ownership period. The City is continuing to review the affordable program and held a
workshop in January 2010 to review all aspects of the program to meet the City Council’s goal for housing.”
THEY CONCLUDE: “The Grand Jury confirmed that the current affordable housing programs are operating as planned, with income confirmation, open bidding by developers for projects and lotteries of eligible buyers to ensure selection fairness. Tenants/owners informed the Grand Jury that they are satisfied with management of the units and are finding financing at interest rates low enough to keep the units affordable.”
You are argue it’s a question for the council, but this is stuff that was addressed in my view a long time ago, I was there in 2006 and 2010 when this stuff was taking place. So I’m not sure what your basis is for carrying on this argument without having looked at the report yourself – and this is an ongoing problem I have with your approach – you don’t do your homework first. There was a reason why I kept asking you to read the report.
Bottomline you don’t know if any affordable units have been lost since 2005 and yet you based your comments on “the continuing loss of those units” without even knowing if that statement is correct. I don’t believe it is. Not since 2005.
This doesn’t actually answer the question you asked me:
Are the number of remaining units the same today, as they were in 2005?
Why do you suppose that Georgina wrote that article? She is the one claiming a continuing loss. She literally stated that, as I quoted.
If you had a problem with that article, why not bring it up when she posted it? I’m quoting it, and am not making any separate or different claims.
She also notes that no monitoring is actually occurring. And if that’s the case, how would anyone know how many actually remain?
Your problem is apparently with her article, not me.
My question was have we lost any and yours is are the remaining units the same today – that seems to be the same question. We should actually have more than we did in 2017 because we actually added a few units at places like Grande and Verona.
You never take my articles at face value, but strangely you took her at it without doing your own research. I mentioned this issue in the initial article – here.
By the way, are the “Coming Soon” signs still up for this (see link below)? (Something like that.)
Or, have they fallen down by this point? 😉
Last time I looked, the sign(s) looked worse for wear, but were still standing.
https://foutshomes.com/chiles-ranch/
Ya know, there is an entire development of senior mobile homes, which are “affordable” (since a single entity owns the underlying land, I assume). Same thing with any housing on campus (including the one adjacent to Davis Commons, I believe).
9:30 pm: Comments on this thread are closed.