By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Record high housing prices. Shortages of both for sale and rental housing. M. Nolan Gray, the research director for California YIMBY and a professional city planner, is the author of the book, Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It.
Gray cited data that home prices fell slightly from May to June of this year, but overall median home prices still are up another hundred thousand over where they were a year ago.
Gray in a recent op-ed in the Daily Breeze notes, “Even with the recent dip, housing costs in the Golden State are at all-time highs, a crisis that has kicked homelessness into overdrive and forced an estimated 173,000 Californians to leave the state.”
He argues, “But the truth is that Southern California is unaffordable, stagnant, segregated and sprawling by design.”
Gray believes that much of the housing problems are attributable to the result of a century of bad zoning policy.
For example, “Los Angeles has some of the strictest zoning laws in the nation, including making it illegal to build apartments in 75% of residential areas.”
He writes that this particularly true in “the most high-opportunity areas of the region.”
Gray notes “arbitrary rules like minimum lot sizes force the construction of fewer, more expensive homes, effectively allowing the state to segregate cities based on income.” He adds “for all of Southern California’s egalitarian ambitions, these segregationist laws are still on the books and enforced across the region.”
Traffic is also exacerbated by poor planning and zoning rules.
He writes, “If prices are any indication, many Californians might like to ditch their car and live in walkable neighborhoods. Yet in nearly every municipality in Southern California, it’s illegal to build shops without a parking lot or apartments without a parking garage, even in areas where transit is easily accessible.”
He cites Donald Shoup of UCLA, who argues that these mandates “can add as much as $80,000 to the cost of a new home, all while adding to the region’s traffic woes.”
These rules have pushed new growth in the region toward “far-flung exurbs” such as the Mojave. The result is “Southern California is now the national leader in grueling, 90-minute ‘supercommutes.’”
We have noted that our own planning rules in Davis have been ostensibly designed to protect open space and agricultural land. We are also mindful of climate change and GHG emissions, and yet those very policies are forcing commutes to UC Davis which is adding to the VMT. So we are harming our environment in order to preserve our lifestyle.
For Gray, he argues that “these destructive zoning policies are a choice.”
He notes recent efforts to scale back on parking mandates and build more ADUs.
He writes, “These reforms mark important progress, reining in the worst excesses of zoning. But why not take it a step further? The California Dream isn’t quite dead yet, but if we are going to keep it alive, it’s time for deeper conversations about what we want out of city planning.
“In a state as big and complex as ours, there are few policy panaceas,” he writes. “But if we want to build an affordable, thriving, integrated and sustainable Southern California, moving beyond zoning wouldn’t be a bad start.”
The state has been starting to look at zoning. They have attempted to prioritize housing near transit. They have also attempted to start cutting back on single-family zoning to allow more multi-unit housing in formerly exclusive single-family neighborhoods. But as we have seen at the state level, those reforms are modest and the pushback is severe.
If that was actually the case, those in power in the city would have opposed DiSC for two reasons:
1) It would have created a housing shortage, encouraging more commuting from surrounding cities.
2) It was a freeway-oriented development with a massive amount of parking spaces, intended to encourage commuting.
I don’t think so. For example, a commute from the sites that have/had been proposed for development (such as DiSC and Shriner’s) are several miles from campus. In addition, traveling through the city (via “stop-and-go” traffic) is less efficient than freeway miles.
But more importantly, the price differential and willingness of surrounding cities to accommodate sprawl is a major factor, and shows no sign of changing. The leaders (and even the communities themselves) are more supportive of sprawl – compared to Davis at least.
Of course, UCD could also accommodate its own workers on campus. As I recall, they already do so on a limited basis, and are planning to accommodate more.
In any case, the majority of David’s article above “complains” about single-family zoning. And yet, he simultaneously appears to be supporting such zoning on peripheral land. Go figure.
In reference to David’s quote from another source above:
That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work. Folks leave when there’s better opportunities (on a personal level) elsewhere.
In fact, that’s the reason that the Sacramento region attracted so many from the Bay Area in the first place. But the region is now “high on the list” for a decline in housing prices. (Again, exactly how it’s supposed to work.)
On a more basic level, I’d also suggest that David define the actual problem he’s alleging, along with the actual solution.
For example, he now seems to be suggesting that Davis should purposefully accommodate (more?) UCD workers. (I thought The Cannery was supposed to accommodate that.) How many more, and what type of housing is he proposing? How would he ensure that the “targeted” population is the one actually purchasing or renting that housing (as opposed to someone working in Sacramento, for example)?
And are UCD workers considered to be part of the “city’s workforce” in the first place?
Given that current UCD workers already live somewhere, what is he proposing to make them “move” from wherever they already are? And, how would he ensure that their resulting “vacancy” would not simply be filled by some other UCD worker? Are all of these employees required to be on campus every workday, or do some of them have an option to telecommute?
And if he’s talking about an increase in employees instead, how many more is he talking about? And what type of positions will they have (e.g., what can they “afford”, in terms of housing)? And, again, how would whatever Davis could presumably provide compare to what’s available in surrounding communities, both in terms of price and amenities (such as garages and yards)? These are some of the type of questions and concerns that newcomers to the area would have.
There’s actually no evidence of a “shortage” at all. I (or anyone else) can point out current housing that’s already for sale, not to mention pending developments such as Chiles Ranch.
We’re just in the beginning stages of a housing downturn. Watch for “supply” to increase (and prices to decrease) without even building a stick more housing. It’s already happening throughout the region and beyond.
A good argument for overriding local control and having the state write the guidelines for what can be built where. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/marc-andreessens-opposition-housing-project-nimby/671061
Just the other day you claimed it was about democracy now you want to blame it on zoning. In Davis its much more about democracy blocking needed housing than it is about zoning blocking it. I guess you are more okay with Measure J blocking development than you are with zoning. LOL! Why? Could it be that by blaming zoning you don’t need to take responsibility for the impacts of the policy you support?
Ron, I assume you are “conversing” virtually with David here, but I am beginning to think that “democracy” is a poor cover for bad land use regardless of who is voting. Let’s take a vote “for more traffic” is how most housing is evaluated and voted on around here. I have been a strong Measure J supporter, I’m not connected in any way to developers or the building industry, have lived here for 45 years and am increasingly fed up with the discussion regarding housing. I’m ready to let the state just tell us at the local level what is going to get built and where because all of the super-smart-insider-know-it-alls that are against building but can’t explain their position other than to hide behind excuses that pander to selfish or narrow interests (traffic, lowering my property values, destroying farmland, big builders are corporate villains, gotcha games with developer agreements) so, of course, there is no shortage of excuses for voters to vote no. If that’s what democracy looks like, it’s badly damaged.
Well, that may be coming….
https://twitter.com/California_HCD/status/1557063305490886656
Continued:
Dave, I wrote a letter to the editor of the Enterprise complaining about the low level of discourse in our most recent annexation election, Measure H. A no on H person, someone who I considered a friend, cussed me out for it.
And yet, San Francisco has recently lost more than 6% of its population.
If there was any logic to the state’s efforts, HCD should direct the city to tear down housing, as a result. 🙂
(And that’s without even getting into the commercial vacancies.)