By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The Chiles Ranch project was first approved on a bitterly contested 3-2 vote back in 2009 over strong objections from the neighbors. The council has twice now been asked to extend the development agreement and approvals.
When the Planning Commission heard the proposed project, the commission was unanimous in opposing the staff recommendations and recommended the city not grant additional time to the developer without several provisions of the DA being updated.
These include: Limitations to the ADU be removed and the project updated to conform to current state law, a cost-of-living increase applied to the affordable housing in-lieu fees, the use of the HUD definition of first-time homebuyers used in the DA, the fee for traffic calming be increased to a current amount, and provisions that all newly-installed landscaping is properly maintained after occupancy of the homes.
Staff notes that, in 2009 and 2017, the city had full discretion over the number of ADUs, and “during the approval process in 2009, the City Council decided it was appropriate to limit the number of ADUs in the subdivision to ten. Since that time, the State of California has changed the laws under which cities must operate with regard to ADUs. The City no longer has the authority to limit where and when ADUs can be built, provided the property owner can meet the provisions of the law.”
Staff therefore recommends removing conditions related to the ADUs.
Staff, however, does not agree with the COLA increase.
They note that the original project was for 108 dwelling units with a minimum of 22 units being affordable. In 2017, the project was revised down to 96 dwelling units with 12 affordable and in-lieu for 8 units.
Staff notes, “In lieu fees were not applicable to this project until this 2017 amendment. The $75,000 in lieu fee had been established at $75,000 in 2015 and had not changed in 2017.”
However, “Today, the affordable housing ordinance requires 10% of the units (or 10 units in this case) in a for-sale project be made affordable to qualified buyers. Therefore, the applicant is providing twice the required affordable housing than currently required.”
Secondly, “staff believes that the cost of living is not the appropriate adjustment to be added to a fee. Staff recommends the use of an inflationary factor instead. With the City adopted $75,000 fee as a starting place, the chart below applies an average inflationary factor of 1.67% arriving at $81,396 in 2022.”
On the first-time homebuyer definition, the staff notes that the city does not have a definition in its ordinances.
Staff writes, “City Council has previously directed that staff return with a City Municipal Code amendment to incorporate this definition – which staff intends to do with the Affordable Housing Ordinance update currently in progress. While the definition will be incorporated into City code, there is no harm in also incorporating it into the DA.”
Staff provides some language for a draft agreement.
On the traffic calming, “staff has determined that the applicant paid the requisite $15,000 fee in 2017 and that traffic calming devices have already been installed on 8th Street. Therefore, staff does not recommend any changes.”
In response to a tree and landscape maintenance program, “the applicant has offered a program wherein a fee is retained by the developer from each new homeowner.”
Staff has three additional recommendations.
First, “an amendment to the Green House Gas (GHG) provisions to include a prohibition of natural gas in the subdivision. The result would be an all-electric subdivision which would meet the City’s Reach building codes.”
Second, “the inclusion of a 12 foot wide root barrier against the hardscape (parallel to the sidewalk) to protect the utilities and street improvements from tree root intrusion and lifting in the right of way.”
Staff notes, “The developer has agreed to install these barriers.”
The third recommended amendment “requires the developer to reseal 8th Street (from the western boundary of the project to Mesquite Drive) with a slurry seal after the connections to the utility mains are constructed.”
In 2009, the council backed the Chiles Ranch project on a 3-2 vote. Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek opposed the project. At the time, the development agreement was a ten-year term, but the project never got built and came back in 2017 before the council, with a reduced size from 108 units to 96 units and a requested reduction in the number of affordable units from 22 for-sale down to 14.
In 2017, critics questioned the desire to remove the condos and have questioned the city policy that allows developers to use in-lieu fees as a means to avoid on-site affordable housing. The Planning Commission was split 3-3 on the issue of the proposed revisions.
But despite council approval now five years ago, the project still hasn’t been built.
Project Manager Lydia Della-Schlosser provided an explanation two weeks ago as to why the project had not been built.
She explained the delay: “Our original approvals were received in 2009, but at that time we paused due to the economic conditions of that period’s so-called Great Recession. In 2015, as the economy recovered from the economic cycle, we were fortunate to acquire the entitled land at Grande Village and the El Macero property.”
She said, “For many reasons, we chose to focus on Grande Village and the Villas at El Macero.” They did bring Grande Village and the Villas to completion. However, when they directed their focus back to Chiles Ranch in late 2019, “at that time, COVID came, and sort of threw us all back and because of the extensive uncertainty of how a worldwide pandemic would affect the overall economy and specifically the housing market, we made the business decision to not break ground on Chiles Ranch in 2020 … who would’ve predicted the housing market would take off as it did under these unprecedented times.”
She acknowledged, “In hindsight, we should have gone for it, but with so many unknowns, we chose to keep our risk low.”
If the council follows staff recommendations and approves the Second Amended Development Agreement, it would extend the expiration for two years until July 6, 2024.
.
Given the history on this project, IF council does approve extending the expiration date to July 6, 2024, they should add a proactive statement in the motion for extension that unequivocally states that the Development Agreement will expire on that date, and that no further extensions will be considered.
I’m not sure I understand this reasoning. Why would the city paint itself into a corner and take away it’s future options? They can always choose to deny an extension in the future. But IF (I’m not saying I’m in favor of granting the extension) the city grants an extension; the ability to extend it in the future keeps options open for any future issues that could be considered.
In general…at this point, I’m basically in favor of denying most market rate housing developments in Davis. IMO, in the case of DISC, the market rate housing component was a bitter but necessary pill to swallow to gain the (potential) benefits of a new business park in Davis.
IMO, I think all other housing development should focus on affordable housing options. Or in the very least some mix of 51% affordable and workforce housing mixed in with some market rate units. It’s not a personal hardline opinion but more of a guideline for me.
Some exceptions; I do think you can justify student oriented housing (actually simply affordable housing targeted for students….no more of this by the bed count…actual units) in a student quarter next to the university. I also think (and this won’t be popular) you could justify some really high end market rate homes….the justification is that nicer homes attract executives to live and work here….Sandhill Road popped up where it did because of Stanford but the executives and their families generally chose to live in Palo Alto and Woodside. Or another way to put it; if you want rich people to pay for things bring in new and even wealthier people to pay for things and bring in people and businesses to pay for things…..yeah, I know this isn’t a popular socio-economic development strategy. From a local environmental impact and infrastructure impact; what impacts the community more: 200 ultra high end homes over 10 years. or 2,000 moderate high end homes? Think about traffic, street use, parking, rec services, fire police…etc…
Add housing to the mid-market range helps with general housing prices. The fact is that few low-income households can afford to buy houses–they generally rent for a number of reasons. We have two problems in Davis in the housing market–high rents and high prices for middle income young families. Focusing on affordable housing only won’t solve either of those problems. We can focus on building rental housing (often multi-unit structures but probably need more duples/tripexes for low income families) and mid-market housing that is not income qualified.
The other problem with focusing on affordable housing that the resale provisions often take away the wealth building that is available to other home owners. This just keeps these families in the lower tier of asset holdings. And it is much more wealth, not income, that determines access to opportunities. A college student may earn less than an auto mechanic of the same age, but the college student will make choices on their expected wealth which is derived from income and asset ownership expectations.
We’ve disagreed about this for years. Building market rate housing is not going to help make market rate housing more affordable.
1. Builders generally only build when housing markets are rising.
2. New construction generally targets premium buyers which leads to (financial if not social) gentrification that leads to home value increases (the most specific example is attracting more affluent bay area home buyers to the area).
Even if you build smaller homes; the price per square foot will keep going up (those smaller homes will be sold at a premium when compared to existing smaller homes or on a per square foot basis….so you’re still pushing up the value/price of market rate homes).
Put simply, builders aren’t able nor willing to make a significant enough dent in the lack of inventory to effect market prices of homes.
Now all this seems contrary to my comment about approving and building ultra high value homes. But here’s how it works: if you build 100 $3M homes; the impact on the $850K homes in Davis is much less significant than building 1000 market rate homes for $1M. Also the impact on the community in terms of cost is much less (traffic, roads, services…etc..) . However the benefit of having these higher value homes available makes Davis a more desirable place for potential executives, financers…etc….the people that help make businesses grow…or get them to relocate.
They are two relate but separate problems. Housing and wealth generation. I’m all for housing for those in the community that need it. But wealth generation? That’s more for them to figure out. You can get more affordable housing produced if you’re not worried about “wealth creation” through home ownership. Also there can be a mix of affordable housing options for rent and for sale. The ones for sale are tied to those making 30% of the median household income. So (roughly speaking) a small affordable home for someone in this income range would be about $80K. Usually the affordability component of this kind of home lasts for 30 years (it’s how we lose affordable housing stock). After that, they can be sold at market rates. But, if it were up to me more of the affordable housing and workforce housing options would be publicly owned.
Also, if there is enough affordable housing produced; especially workforce housing options…then that would actually have a greater and more immediate impact on the lower end of the market rate housing.
Davis just needs more housing inventory. We can’t control the regional market nor can we make much difference in the disparity between Davis prices and those of the surrounding community. Some levels of control can be implemented with respect to percentages of affordable housing, workforce housing, etc., but I have my doubts about how effective those will be overall.
We really need an informal colloquium of housing industry experts such as yourself, commercial brokers, local builders who have actually built affordable housing, etc., to advise the council and commissions about the limits and potentials for gaining more housing of different types in this market. It makes no sense to call for a fixed percentage of “affordable housing” in a new development if that instantly makes the new development unworkable for builders.
Any project that is going to provide enough housing for some of it to be lower cost is going to have to be big enough to allow for more profit on the other homes. That means a peripheral housing development. It’s absurd to try to shoehorn affordable units into downtown redevelopment projects. So if people really want broader demographics, opportunities for wealth creation, housing for “workforce”, etc., it’s going to be via land annexation and development. That is going to be a fight because some will argue against any such city expansion. But pipedreams don’t get people housed nor do they benefit the community.
How much more? Put out a number that would supposedly-meet “demand”. (In addition to what SACOG is requiring?)
Include types and corresponding prices, since it’s directly related to demand (and the economic class that you’re attempting to accommodate – who don’t already live in Davis).
Surrounding communities are already accommodating new residents. Davis isn’t going to compete with them on “value” for the money.
What, exactly is the “problem” you’re trying to solve?
Seems like “build, baby build” without any analysis or thought process whatsoever.
The housing market is starting to crash. Everyone who was in a position to buy a home did so before interest rates rose. And if they didn’t do so then, well – they’re not going to do so anytime soon. (At least, not without living in a cheaper area.)
Again, no goal, no plan, no analysis, no thought whatsoever. And actually, no “problem” to solve.
I only wish that were true.
First, I like Don’s proposal for an informative forum. We need for reality checks on these and other matters in this community.
I don’t disagree with Keith E’s point that most new housing is directed to the premium market. But today’s premium housing becomes next year’s (OK, next decade’s) middle market housing. This is exactly how another durable goods market, for cars, works. There’s no reason why these two markets should differ in behavior. (Having worked across many markets, the dynamics are generally similar.) I disagree that building new premium housing attracts exclusively out of town wealthy buyers. Those new houses are sold also to many Davis residents who are in smaller, older houses that now become available to middle market buyers. A similar dynamic can work from the opposite direction if more multi-unit rentals are built for students who then move out of the duplexes that they current rent. That also opens up those segments as well. Those two elements accomplish reducing prices for that market segment. (Builders/developers generally ignore their impacts on overall market prices. I can point you to the papers by Andy Ford at WSU on the real estate boom-bust cycle.)
How used durables play through the market is often overlooked by policy makers and analysts. This will be a bigger issue as the state tries to encourage the roll out of EVs while also trying to give equitable access to EVs. The problem is that lower income households tend to buy used cars that are substantially less expensive than new ones. That means the subsidy for those lower income households must be much bigger than for simply inducing a new car buyer to make a different decision.
“I don’t disagree with Keith E’s point that most new housing is directed to the premium market. But today’s premium housing becomes next year’s (OK, next decade’s) middle market housing. ”
This is the critical point.
I also don’t disagree with him that we need more affordable – that’s why the RHNA for affordable is about 50 percent of the total housing we need over the next 8 years. But how do we get affordable without market rate?
But that middle market housing never becomes relatively “affordable”. The gentrification effects and builder behavior that never meets supply continue to drive prices beyond relative affordability. What do I mean by this? The median home sales price in Davis right now is about $850K. So, take a modest house built 15 years ago and say it’s worth $700K. It would take a down payment of $140K plus a household income of $150K to pay/qualify for a mortgage. Now compare that to Davis’ actual median household income of about $75K. So the modest homes built decades ago never really become relatively affordable. Thus, my belief that market rate housing is not part of the solution to affordable housing (market rate or otherwise) in Davis. Builders aren’t going to help a community’s market rate housing become more affordable. They have no reason to. They build when the market is hot and don’t (or build less) when it isn’t.
I thought you had your hands full “blaming” Davis homeowners for the run-up in prices.
If I wanted to increase demand for housing (in Davis OR Woodland), I would have supported DiSC.
At least Keith E puts forth some basic analysis.
Keith E
We have gentrification of middle market housing in Davis because the lack of new housing has squeezed the high end buyers into that housing. That’s why those prices are so high. (And this is a general problem across California now, just Davis was on the leading edge.) The modest homes haven’t had an opportunity to become affordable–we need to build the high end housing that point out will be the focus of the new home market, and high end buyers will turn their attention away from the middle market. And as I pointed out, Andy Ford has studied how developers don’t consider their impact on the real estate market (and we saw this myopia play out in 2008). If unleashed, they will build lots of high end housing here that will draw demand away from existing middle market housing, thus relieving price pressures. (And eventually the premium housing prices will also level out.) This happens over and over in these markets.
Well, yes…the constrained supply compared to demand is the primary driver that pushes prices up. But within the constrained housing market the activities of builders and gentrification exasperate the problem making any increase to housing supply and it’s impact on pricing negligible. Or to put it another way INCREMENTAL increases in housing supply that target the upper end of the primary market (in Davis that would be the $1.2M houses….not the $2M+ houses) make housing affordability worse because gentrification effects (and builder marketing) cause home prices to raise (in an already constrained market)….”a rising tide lifts all boats”.
So you’re not going to build your way into affordability. The housing market is what it is.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Houses built 20, 30 40+ years ago are the modest homes. They’ve had plenty of time to become affordable. The continued constrained supply and builder behavior keep these older homes from being relatively affordable.
Builders don’t care about how they impact the market. They REACT to the market in their own self interests (and any rational business should). As for the 2008 recession, take it from someone that was in the middle of it. Builders tried to quit building as much as possible. Did they seek to flood the market with lower priced homes? Nope. They sat on land (or had the land developers and land banks sit on land). There was a shadow inventory of lots. Most saw the unfinished projects but there were even more paper lots that most weren’t aware of.
Builders do not build and build. Go to any new development for sale to the public. You’ll see some model homes. Then the builder will take security deposits for lots and then build them out after the the home has been presold. They don’t build the homes first and then sell them. Builders avoid spec building if possible. It’s too much financial risk. So when the market cools or takes a downturn; there’s not a glut of newly built homes left to be sold. There’s a bunch of unfinished lots….or paper lots waiting for the market to swing positive again and for home buyers to return and builders to start building again. And once the builder starts building those upper end of the primary market homes….it’s the gentrification tide lifting all the ships again.
You seem to believe that existing Davis residents are going to go through the hassle and extreme expense of moving from the homes that they’re comfortable in (and have likely paid-off), to move into a McMansion in Davis that they can’t afford.
While ignoring the fact that Davis isn’t the only locale that non-residents are moving to. In other words, Davis isn’t the center of the universe. For that matter, Davis residents sometimes move to (*gasp*) other places, as well.
High-end buyers from the Bay Area are moving to places like Folsom. “Middle” income buyers are moving to places like Woodland (and Roseville, etc.).
I’m sure they would. In fact, that’s what’s led to sprawl. Though it depends upon what you mean by “high end”. (More than $1 million, I assume.)
These days, $600K is pretty much the minimum entrance price for new housing anywhere in the region. (This is the price in communities which are already aggressively pursuing sprawl.)
How much do you suppose a Woodland, Dixon, Elk Grove or Natomas house (costing $600,000) would go for in Davis? I’m going to guess just below $1 million, for a typical new single-family dwelling with a 2-car garage. (Again, assuming that the sprawl floodgates were opened.)
Not to worry – the whole house of cards is on the verge of collapsing.
My “advice” – which seems to be followed by most people? Buy high, and sell low.
Yes, that is how it works. I know people who have done exactly that. They, of course, don’t call it a McMansion, and they can afford it precisely because they’ve paid off their previous home. You or I might not choose to do this, but the reality is that the average person in the US moves 11 – 12 times, and the general trajectory at least in the past was to build equity in one type of home, trade up to a higher value one or one with amenities appropriate to changing life needs, and ultimately to cash out at the end and move into a retirement community or something. It’s historically how white people build wealth and partially fund their retirements.
Getting back to Chiles Ranch, anyone want to take a guess as to how much the tiny houses there will end up selling for? (I take it that the “small number of homes with tandem garages” refers to those with more than one garage space. Gee, how “convenient” it is to move one car, to get to another. “Green”, too – given that much of the emissions and wear occurs just by starting a car.)
Well, with careful planning and scheduling within the household . . . (never mind).
I’m going to guess that vehicular access in general will rival The Cannery.
Good thing that they don’t need to set up a “deposit program” (e.g., to help win an election), like they did with WDAAC. (Given that we now know how THAT turned out.)
Personally, I’d choose one backing to the cemetery, if I could. Quiet neighbors (in back, at least).
https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/chiles-ranch-project-information
I have known people who have done that, as well as those who never (or rarely) moved. There’s an enormous cost and stress involved with moving, especially if you’re trying to “sell” and “buy”. This cost is avoided, for those who rarely move.
Most of the people I have known (who move) do so when they’re younger and still pursuing career changes, and/or expanding the size of their family. And quite often, they don’t stay in the same city when moving.
Surprised to hear that anyone moves 11-12 times, but it’s certainly expensive to do so if one is “selling” and “buying” a house. (I suspect that you’re including renters in that statistic.)
Most of the people I know end up regretting houses that they’ve sold (e.g., due to the rise in value).
There’s also tax considerations involved (capital gains for any “profit” over $500K for a couple). Until recently (with the passage of Proposition 19), anyone moving to a new home would also likely pay much higher property tax.
I also know people who have happily held onto their homes for decades, who have more net worth than those who moved-around frequently. However, the rise in value (for them) is nothing more than a theoretical figure (or something to pass on to their kids). Unless (as you note) they fritter-away their money at a nursing home, or pursue one of those ill-advised reverse mortgages.
The trend (in general) is for older people to “age in place” (in their own homes).
There are non-white property owners. I’ve noticed that (in general), non-white families tend to be more cohesive than white families, resulting in greater wealth. (You can see this in San Francisco, where there’s multiple generations of Asian families living together, until the younger ones are truly ready to strike out on their own.) I believe this is also (generally) true for Hispanic families.
I suspect that this difference is due to the (traditionally- white) “independence” that’s associated with America, itself. (In other words, it’s a losing method, compared to some other cultures.) Perhaps this partly explains the reason for the relative decline of the “white” population in California (and ultimately, beyond).
Forgot to add:
Regarding “McMansions”, I suspect that this phenomenon (e.g., in the Sacramento region) is primarily due to folks cashing-in on their relatively modest Bay Area home, and purchasing in a place like Folsom. Some may also do so in Davis, but (so far) I don’t think it’s as big of a destination. (Certainly closer to the Bay Area and Sacramento if still employed those locales, though.)
It’s not due to them being able to “afford” more – it’s simply trading one for the other.
Davis does have its share of McMansions (e.g., Lake Alhambra, parts of South Davis), but they’re probably not bought/sold that often. Davis is actually a pretty good place to retire to, in many ways.
And as long as you don’t mind the miserable heat of the Sacramento region, why not?
Keith E
Both the research by Andy Ford and what happened to the US housing market over the 2005-2008 period (as well as the early 1990s) contradicts the assertion that developers do not overbuild. The Case Shiller real estate index shows that rising prices are not inevitable, and in fact, real estate prices were largely flat until the late 1990s, and that we had a large deflation after 2006, not recovering until 2018. (We’re due for another one.) The Davis market has been shielded to an extent by the growth limits we’ve self imposed (and are likely illegal under the 2005 state law.)
https://www.multpl.com/case-shiller-home-price-index-inflation-adjusted/table/by-year
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPCS20RSA
Developers put projects into the pipeline years ahead and their inertia carries into a housing glut.
Your quoted response and another one admit that the middle market has been restricted by these growth limits, which implies that these can reappear with relaxing those limits.
Don confirms that many people in Davis buy up. Anecdotes about some people staying in their own house does not contradict the overall data that people are now selling and moving on average every 12 years. (A recent economics journal article attributed the slow down from an average of 7 years to Property 13 tax benefits.) Other assertions about where other places that people might be moving are both unsupported anecdotes from nonexperts and just reflective of how the closed Davis market steers people away from where they really want to live. Keith E, Don S and I all have become well informed through research and experience in the real estate market.
Sounds like there will be HOA fees, despite the small size of the lots.
There’s room for ADUs? Really?
Are these going to be permanently affordable?
If not, the point of doing this is . . .?
Seems to me that the risk for the developer increased, as a result of allowing the development agreement to expire.
Hope they “rebuild” the barn, as a community gathering spot (as planned). There’s no getting-around the history of this property.
It will be interesting to see what the sales prices will be, for the market-rate housing. Families moving to the area would compare the price, size, vehicle access, and amenities of these units vs. what they can buy in surrounding cities (especially Woodland).
I’m sure they’d sell, but only to those who are “unique” in some way. (Smaller-size households with only one car, those who desire the “panache” of a Davis address, etc.)
This large property could certainly accommodate an enormous amount of Affordable housing.
Usually renewal of entitlements, for a project that doesn’t get built in the allowed time is ministerial, but not in Davis. Here its a total horror show with every human capable of voicing an opinion, no matter how crazy and no matter that they have no financial risk, weighing in. This should be a 5-0 vote with nothing more than minor changes to be in compliance with current law unless the project owners want major changes. But then again this is Davis.
I generally agree with the updated conditions on the entitlement. I agree with Keith E that there shouldn’t be an expiration of the entitlement–I’m not sure what the rationale would be for setting a deadline other than trying to push the developer to act. But it sounds like they are ready to build.
It sounds like at the Planning Commission that the applicant offered the two year extension. The updated conditions seem reasonable, especially since in a lot of ways the developer benefits from the delay given the appreciation of housing costs.
Yeah, this concept (below) has as much chance as a “snowball in Hell”… but I’d pose it anyhow…
Can we clarify what “affordable housing” is, and stick to it?
Examples…
Does it need to be ‘ownership’ housing, or can it be rentals?
Does it need to be SF (trad), or APT/Condo?
Manufactured housing? Be it rental, ownership, or own structure, lease ground?
Many folk, including families, are fine in various combinations of those… those who expect to ‘move around’ to pursue career advancement are better off in rentals… those who are ‘stayers’ might be better off in ownership units…
Is “housing” the key to affordability, or does it need to be a particular type? This discussion(s) have been all over the place… yet no one seems to define their concept of “affordable housing” as it relates to actual needs/wants (and those are different)…
Some say ‘ownership’ is the only path to “building wealth”, particularly for POC/traditionally ‘poor’/’working class’/young professional folk… contrary to experiences that could be well documented… a myth/urban legend/anecdotal/etc.
WTF are we talking about (concretely/specifically) when we discuss “affordable housing”?
If you cannot clearly define the issue, you can’t solve it… too many ‘boundary conditions’, undefined…
AND… the true issue at hand is the CC consideration of a specific request for a specific project… the discussion has meandered all over the place… whatever… enjoy your jousting at windmills… some with the same lance used time and time again by some… is there an adult in the room?
But I’m just a stupid engineer, so this comment (likely offending many) will likely not ‘make the cut’ as to “moderation”…
Forgot to add… what ‘amenities’, SF/person, accessibility, zero GHG, “sustainable”, etc, etc. etc. is needed to build affordable housing, be it rental or ownership? I wonder…
Those are all “boundary conditions”… and I’m not talking ‘urban limits’… am talking about ‘criteria’…
If we demand zero “sprawl”, zero net carbon, high speed internet, other amenities, affordable for folk making <= $50 k per year, etc., etc…. well, do you want fries with that for same price?
Good luck with that…
Probably more likely,
To be noted, although he was “baited”, Ron O did not disclose where he lives, nor where he may/may not own ‘housing’… of any type… he was talking theoretically, and his opinion… no facts… technically…
I disagree with his opinion that DiSC would have increased demand for housing (particularly affordable housing, which would fit with the ‘drift’ of comments on this thread)… but that’s my opinion… and my origins are from Mars… my grandfather and namesake was born there… true story… and I once took a comet from Mercury, and went to Mars… also, absolutely true story… those are facts, not opinions… I dare anyone to challenge that… some posters know I’m telling true story…
Funny how some demand “facts”/details/data from folk who have bents/opinions/biases different from their bents/opinions/biases… yet they are very reluctant to give facts to support their bents/opinions/biases… go figure… it is what it is… goes to credibility…
G’night, all… be well… pax/pachem/shalom, etc.