By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Land use politics defy conventional labels for the most part, and that seems to be getting even more strange as time goes on.
Where I grew up, land use for the most part was fairly straight forward. The right was aligned with developers, the left opposed new growth as anti-environmental, and there was a group in the middle—that tended to be left of center and supported some growth and development but wanted to avoid runaway sprawl.
When I came to Davis there was left and far left, slow and slower growth.
But as the cost of housing has skyrocketed, land use battles became more muddled. Suddenly housing became as much an equity issue as an environmental and sustainability issue. That has pitted the left against the left and even the fair left against the far left.
I was reading a tweet stream and an article in Reason yesterday, and it makes for even weirder politics, 
nationally.
The article notes the strange alignment of politics in Florida with Republican Governor Ron DeSantis apparently “actively urging cities to knock off zoning reforms that legalize more housing.”
This, as we have seen, has blue states like California either “proposing or passing laws that override localities’ ability to say no to new development.”
At issue, the Florida’s Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) sent a comment letter to Lauren Poe, Gainesville’s mayor, “recommending that the city withdraw a provisionally approved zoning amendment that allows two-, three-, and four-unit homes to be built in neighborhoods that were once zoned exclusively for single-family homes.”
Sound familiar?
The legalization of this so-called “missing middle” housing “results in a scattered, unplanned, unfocused, and untenable approach to providing affordable housing,” reads the department’s letter.
The letter adds, “This approach may result in fewer opportunities for providing access to affordable housing.”
“I find it interesting that probably the most progressive [city] commission in the state of Florida is pushing to allow more property rights to bring down housing prices,” counters Gainesville City Commissioner Adrian Hayes-Santos, who supported the city’s zoning reforms. “A Republican executive branch under DeSantis is trying to stop people having more property rights.”
Reason noted, “This same logic has undergirded ‘missing middle’ reforms in states like Oregon, California, and Maine, along with cities like Minneapolis.”
As Reason notes, the politics here are all over the map. Zoning reform “is becoming a bipartisan movement.”
They write: “(I)t’s not hard to see why. Free market advocates and conservatives see in it the promise of less regulation and enhanced property rights. Liberals and progressives like the idea of denser housing leading to more environmentally friendly, inclusive neighborhoods.”
Exactly.
So you have Gavin Newsom, the California Governor who has “endorsed a slew of YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) reforms and beefed up state departments tasked with cracking down on anti-development jurisdictions that thwart state housing laws.”
You have also had Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, a Trumpist Republican, who has “fired rhetorical broadsides against restrictive zoning laws and the local governments that enforce them.”
Reason notes, “The federal YIMBY Act, a modest bill that requires jurisdictions receiving some federal grants to report on barriers to new housing construction, has managed to attract co-sponsors like conservative Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) and progressive Sen. Brian Schatz (D–Hawaii).”
Opposition to such zoning reform “also appears to cut across partisan lines.”
For example, DeSantis is offering the same criticism of fourplex legislation that you hear out here in places like Berkeley, San Francisco, and, yes, Davis.
The article prompted California YIMBY Policy Director Nolan Gray to tweet, “Truly bizarre behavior from DeSantis’ administration: as most states are desperately trying to nudge municipalities to liberalize zoning, Florida is chastising Gainesville for leading on the issue. Whatever happened to conservatives supporting property rights?”
He added, “Democrats for property rights, Republicans for government planning…I’ll say it again, land-use politics are weird.”
As Conor Friederdorf pointed out in a Tweet on Monday, those complaining about greedy developers are missing a critical point: “We *don’t* have power to “dictate how we are housed” when the construction of more housing is forbidden.”
If you need a house, you have to pick an ally.
Developers: “We would like to take this land, build more housing on it, and sell a unit of it to you at a small profit.”
YIMBYs: Ok.
NIMBYs: “Build nothing.”
Leftists: “People power will allow you to dictate how you are housed.”
I would actually argue that the argument I hear most often from NIMBYs is that we need housing, but not this housing, not here, and not now.
Some would argue, if we just build affordable housing, then that would be all right.
But as Fridersdorf pointed out, “To the NIMBY-aligned leftists who believe that developers simply rake in huge profits in a rigged system: why not coordinate to start a development company, or invest in one, and use the huge profits to help the poor and homeless?”
That would definitely put their money where their mouths are. But I think most of it is an excuse not to build housing, throwing up barriers to housing that is politically correct, when they know that there are real equity issues.
At the end of the day, I’m not pro-developer so much as a pragmatic realist. We need housing. The easiest path to that is to allow people willing to invest and build housing to do so. I’m fine with local communities attempting to moderate that housing and create community standards so long as it does not amount to a poison pill that kills the housing.
It’s all in how you look at it. One could easily say DeSantis is for the “property rights” of homeowners who bought a house in a single family zoned neighborhood with the expectation that it stays that way.
It’s all in how it’s worded.
True stories… with a ‘catch’…
My true “property rights” are bounded by the lines of my property… pretty much…
Some believe that they are “entitled” to control over the property of others… viewsheds, etc. They protest adjacent property being developed where they lose adjacency to Ag lands, for instance… even though their homes were built, cutting off the same ‘rights’, their neighbors had before … something about whose ox is being gored… situational ethics, as it were… “it’s all about me!” (oft disguised as ‘concern for loss of Ag land’, ‘sprawl’, or other PC ‘scuses).
In short, a lot of blatant hypocrisy, hidden under the mantle of ‘caring righteousness’…
It is prevalent, and not just re: development and housing… you see it in the righteousness of ‘social justice’, as long as everyone else bears the cost, burdens, but not “me”. Hypocrisy. Plain and simple. Tends to be ‘human nature’. At a ‘neanderthal human’ level.
You nailed it Bill. Keith seems to be arguing that his rights as a property owner supercedes my rights to build a home on MY property.
Suddenly, someone on the “left” is concerned about what the government tells them they can do on “their” property?
All property has restrictions on its use, as administered by the government. Those restrictions are already in place when someone purchases a property. The price paid for the property accounts for those restrictions (which may have added, or detracted value that would otherwise exist).
Some purchase property with the intention of petitioning for a change in usage – for the purpose of adding monetary value to the property.
Nice “dodge”, KO…
Guess “righties” believe they should rely on ‘situations’ when they act, like buying a property… and they should be permanently protected against any change in ‘situation’, if they perceive it might threaten the “me”… and want to re-dial the clock, if they figure they have been “injured” by changes… that goes beyond ‘conservative’, more towards ‘preservationist’… “I’ve got mine, to H with others”… [an unspoken MAGA theme]
The “lefties” want to provide more for others (collective guilt?), as long as only others bear the burden to be “equitable”, to ensure that they should be permanently protected against any change in ‘situation’ for themselves…
Both sets are hypocrites…
It is pretty well known that the far left feel they should be permanently protected against any change in their ‘situation’ (uber progressive) and the far right feel they should be permanently protected against any change in in their ‘situation’ (uber conservative) have one thing (among many) in common… they are the LEAST likely to devote time, treasure, talents to others, particularly those less fortunate than themselves… their ethics/morals are focused on their navel. ‘Nuff said.
Boy David, you sure twisted what I said. My rights as a property owner in a single family zoned neighborhood doesn’t stop you from building a home on your single family zoned lot. Go ahead and build a single family home as you please.
Keith O
Interesting implications of your statement: If a homeowner has property rights in the characteristics of the community, that means that the government has the right to regulate any use of property that impacts the use of property by other property owners. That means that the government is entitled to regulate any and all environmental damaging activities such as criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. So you are arguing in support of strong environmental regulations. There is no other possible interpretation.
I have no clue to what you’re trying to say here.
So in other words, HUH?
I would be perfectly fine living next door to your 4-plex scenario Mr. Olson, especially if the 4-plex consisted of affordable housing units. It’s selfish people [edit] I dislike.
“I’m fine with local communities attempting to moderate that housing and create community standards so long as it does not amount to a poison pill that kills the housing.”
Huh? I thought you support Measure J the ultimate poison pill.
Perfectly described, and crafted as a perfect prescription against planning/growth… ‘progressives’ support it under the guise of avoiding sprawl, GHG, loss of prime ag… ‘conservatives’ support it under the guise of those as well (plus the concern that their property values will decrease)… perfect… deliberately crafted that way… some of our CC members who espoused Measure J (can name at least four over the years), either were developers, or had multiple investment rental properties in Davis.
Hypocrites.
Maybe we could save LOTS of $$$ by just using staff to evaluate development proposals, skip the Commissions and CC, and just go to a Measure JeRkeD vote. More efficient, and arguably, more fair, more just.
Or, get rid of the JeRkeD vote… and, can the JeRkeD vote process override “denials” by CC? If not, why not? Justice?
Guess there is always ‘referendum’, which has always been available to contest CC approvals… the argument being that the referendum process is too cumbersome… yet, it is a ‘one way street’, apparently…
Measure J resulted in the elimination of additional need for housing, when voters rejected both versions of DISC.
While also saving a nice piece of prime farmland beyond a logical city limit.
Unfortunately, “Leapfrog 100% Housing DISC” is now being proposed – as predicted (and entirely predictable).
Though truth be told, I figured that they wouldn’t try something like this for now – without DiSC being approved. (Which had already “morphed” into a partial housing development, itself.)
Takes a lot of (let’s just say “confidence”) to propose this now.
Several thoughts about our local situation come to mind as a result of this article.
The first is that moving from our current siloed (each community acting alone) planning to a more collaborative regional planning approach would more than likely result in more housing actually getting built.
For example, the RHNA numbers developed by the California department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) start out with state-level goals, which are then subdivided into multi-County regions, then down to individual Counties, and finally to the individual cities. To the best of my knowledge (and I could be wrong) that process of apportioning the goals to more discrete units is undertaken and completed by HCD, with possible help from regional agencies like SACOG. The numbers assigned to the individual cities arrive with no room for either negotiation … or more importantly no room for collaboration between cities within a region or County. I believe eliminating collaboration is a missed opportunity that results in less housing actually getting built.
Here in Yolo County we have three cities that have very different visions regarding what they currently are and what they want to be in the future. West Sac has a growth vision, both in economic development and population. Similarly, Woodland sees itself as a regional economic hub for Yolo County’s agricultural farms and businesses. If HCD allowed the cities within a County to collaborate in achieving the County-level aggregate RHNA goal for housing, I believe more housing would be built. The reason is simple. It is easy to see West Sac and Davis collaborating so that West Sac absorbs a larger proportion of the RHNA number and Davis absorbs less.
Further, the current process of excluding UCD from HCD’s “build more housing” process is a barrier to the production of more housing. UCD generates more housing demand than any other single entity in Yolo County. Not including UCD in the RHNA process is (in my opinion) a huge mistake. And it isn’t just about the housing demand UCD generates. UCD gets a substantial portion of its funding directly from ther State of California coffers. That State funding stream is far in excess of the available funding that any individual city in Yolo County can tap into. If we bring UCD into the HCD/RHNA process as a full participant, more housing will be built.
—————–
With the above said, I believe the complexity of the land use politics in Davis are significantly affected by the fact that there are at least four major demographic segments to housing demand in Davis
(1) There are the people who came to the region in order to work for the State government or a company that serves government. Once they had that job they then decided on Davis as a wonderful bedroom community to live in and commute to their job. Most of the people in this segment have the financial means to be home owners.
(2) There are the UCD students, faculty and staff, whose daily activities are on the UCD campus, and who choose to live in Davis. Most of the people in this segment are renters.
(3) There are the workers who fill some of the 14,000 jobs within the City Limits who choose to live in Davis. This segment is (probably) a mix of home owners and renters, but probably more renters than home owners
(4) There are the residents who are over the age of 55, most of whom are retired. Most of the people in this segment are home owners.
That diversity produces political diversity.
Matt
The split of UCD affiliated residents is interesting. The students are all renters, but probably up to 80% of the faculty and staff are homeowners. The probably means the UCD split is 40% owners/60% renters or so.
I agree a regional planning scheme would be a better approach. But I think it should go beyond just housing to looking at the overall economic vision. We’ll need that in order to figure out how to reduce commuting distances so as to reduce GHG emissions (65% of Davis emissions are intercity travel.)
Not all, from what I’ve heard. Sometimes, wealthy parents buy houses for their kids to live in while attending UCD.
Although that’s no doubt a very small percentage, being a renter (even a student renter) does not necessarily equate to low wealth. Some students come from wealthy families.
I’d like to know how non-resident (e.g., international) students are able to afford full tuition, assuming they’re actually charged that amount.
Ron, that is a rather typical comment from you. First you start out with “from what I’ve heard” without any context that illuminates the context or source of what you have heard. You could have heard it from your own mirror on the wall or from almost anyone. Then you transition to one of your favorite words “sometimes.” Again an amorphous reference without any meat on the bone.
Then you go three for three with an example that does not support the point you are trying to make. When parents buy a house for their kid (rarely more than one kid) to live in, the kid is responsible for getting fellow students to share the rent with him/her … and it is rent. In all the examples I have encountered, the parents own the house but do not occupy it. Their kid and his/her fellow students are the non-owner occupants of the house.
Matt: I’ve actually heard it from more than one source. I believe even Don Shor mentioned it once, but not sure.
Via your response, you seem to be acknowledging that this in fact, does occur. Which leads me to ask “why” you’re challenging my comment. Even if those kids are then renting-out rooms to other students, what does the fact that they were able to purchase it in the first place tell you about the assistance and wealth of their parents? (Even more so, if the parents themselves don’t occupy it?)
And as I recall, you also/previously noted that there are some students driving around in some pretty fancy cars.
There’s also “local” students living at home within the region, which is likely a bigger number than those whose parents’ purchase houses for them.
For that matter, UCD students salaries (after graduation) are likely higher (on average) than those who don’t. In a sense, those who attend a UC system are ultimately “elites”, themselves. (Though I suspect this may be changing, as “qualification requirements” are increasingly watered-down.)
I’d still like to know how non-resident (International) students are able to pay full tuition costs – assuming they’re actually doing so.
.
Ron, you are moving the goal posts (changing your argument). You originally said that “sometimes” the students are not renters, but rather owners. Now you morph that argument to “wealth of the parents.” The wealth of any individual student’s parents is the same regardless of whether that student rents a room/bed on campus, rents a room/bed off campus from a local landlord, or rents a room/bed from their parents. In all three scenarios they are renting. In the third scenario the house they are renting with other student friends of theirs is not owner-occupied. It is renter occupied. So your “sometimes” is false and misleading.
Changing your argument is another of your tried and true rhetorical/argumentative devices.
.
Which of course has nothing at all to do with whether they are renters or not.
.
I suspect, but do not know for a fact, that their international parents have sufficient international wealth to be able to write a check for the tuition.
That was true in the past, circa 1970’s, but not so much today… know of a family who had two children attending UCD, and seriously thought of that… with the thought it would be a shared rental with other students, fixing the mortgage/cash flow … prices were ~ $60 k for a 3 bdrm/2 ba, house… investment, plus avoiding rental costs…
We considered it when one of our kids went to SLO… but the $/sqft was higher than what we could get for selling our rental house… it didn’t ‘pencil out’ for us at that time.
Given current prices, I sincerely doubt anyone with a ‘lick of sense’, would buy a Davis house, depend on finding stable rent-paying roommates, and do what “you have heard”… either extremely cash-rich, and/or complete financial idiots…
‘Nuff said…
`
What makes you assume that they’re paying rent to their parents? For a house that those same parents bought for their own kids in the first place?
I’d appreciate it if you’d stop making incorrect generalizations about my comments. Second time in this thread, alone.
True – this is where I did expand the comment into a more general one – “wealth”. Which is related to the underlying comment regarding students whose parents purchase houses for them.
There’s also probably parents who rent entire houses for their kids to attend UCD – whether or not they have roommates. And in that case, the students themselves are (still) not directly renting anything. Their parents are (depending, I suppose – on who actually writes the check).
This would be an interesting topic. I’m not making any assumptions with this, though someone whom we both know told me that they sometimes aren’t subject to the full tuition costs. (I did not gather any more information regarding that.) In any case, it’s a lot of money at full tuition.
Also – that’s an incorrect statement, regarding what I originally wrote.
All of the above is irrelevant to the renter-occupied vs. owner-occupied duality. Unless the owners (the parents) actually occupy the residence it is not owner-occupied … and the distribution of rental amounts is irrelevant. When I was a renter in a group house on Pomona Drive, the rents paid by the four roommates were all different. That did not change the fact that the house was (A) non-owner-occupied and (B) a rental.
How is the generalization incorrect? Did you of did you not change the subject (move the goalposts)? If the shoe fits, wear it.
You are making my argument for me. In your example the house is (A) non-owner-occupied and (B) a rental.
Go back and read your original comment in which you first quoted Richard’s statement, “The students are all renters,” and then replied, “Not all, from what I’ve heard. Sometimes, wealthy parents buy houses for their kids to live in while attending UCD.”
Time’s yours.
Again, my comment had to do with another category – those who are neither renters, nor owners. You’re the one who is attempting to make my comment “fit” into the category that you’re discussing.
Though it’s also possible that students themselves own the house.
We’re talking about what is no doubt a low percentage.
I suspect that there’s a much higher percentage of students who are neither “owners”, nor “renters”, but live in the home that they occupied before adulthood with their parents.
No, I didn’t. You felt compelled to comment, nonetheless. Not only that, but you misquoted me.
I find your responses here both odd and unnecessary.
Here’s one such generalization you made from above:
You are making my argument for me. In your example the house is (A) non-owner-occupied and (B) a rental.
Not what I said, in my initial comment, as already pointed out. You’re the one who is repeatedly attempting to “move the goalposts” of my original comment, at this point.
That’s right – students who live in houses that their parents purchased for them are not necessarily “renters” – as already noted. I shouldn’t have to point it out yet again.
I will add another comment, here. I have no empathy for students who could have lived at home for the first couple of years of their education, but who chose to pay rent for the “full college experience”, while simultaneously complaining about rent. And that goes for their parents as well – if they made that choice.
Richard, I agree wholeheartedly that regional planning should encompass much more than housing.
Regarding the UCD affiliated residents the 2020 Census reports that there are 17,581 residents in the 20-24 years-old population cohort. Two factors need to be taken into consideration. (1) there are quite a few UCD students who are 25 or older (Grad students especially) and (2) some of the 17,581 are students whose university residence is in another city, but they are counted in the Davis census. I believe (but do not know) that those two considerations are pretty much a wash, so the 17,581 number is a reasonable approximation of the student portion of the UCD affiliated residents.
As to the faculty and staff residents, the 2014 Housing Element cited a 2010 UCD provided number of just over 4,700 of their employees who live in Davis.
Combined that adds up to 22,281 with approximately 80% coming from students and 20% coming from faculty and staff. If we apply your 100% of students are renters and 80% of faculty and staff are owners to those proportions, then the renters to owners ratio is closer to 15% owners and 85% renters rather than 60/40.
I can’t imagine any nearby city being willing to partner with Davis in any way, given the reputation of the city about growth and the fact that nearly all projects end up on the ballot or embroiled in lawsuits. Likewise UCD. Who wants to work with us?
Moreover, here are the actual RHNA numbers for Yolo County. Davis has always had much lower RHNA numbers than any neighboring city.
People that buy single family homes can’t expect that they will be surrounded by such homes in perpetuity. My problem with zoning ordinances is that they all too often lead to cities that must be navigated by auto, thus leading to urban sprawl.
People come from somewhere. A community is responsible for housing the people it creates (by birth). It is the responsibility of the source to house the population it spills to other places. A destination city should be compensated (land) for every outsider it accommodates.
The order of priority for justice:
1) A person has a right to live in a community they service (Social justice for community workers. The word “right” here means, that if they can’t afford it, the community has a responsibility to house them.)
2) A local community has a right to refuse incomers who are not their service workers. (Social justice for local autonomy: A government has no right to assign how many incomers a community must accommodate.)
3) A local community has a right to be land-compensated from the source for each incomer it accommodates. (Social justice for hospitality. A government should enforce such compensation so a community cannot refuse to shrink when it is exporting unhoused people.)
Meanwhile, at least one truly-progressive publication hasn’t totally sold itself out to YIMBY/developer claims.
https://48hills.org/2022/09/the-states-local-housing-goals-are-nothing-more-than-a-farce/
If someone buys a home in a single family zoned neighborhood they have every right to expect that it stay that way. We’ve discussed this several times before on the Vanguard. This is nothing new.
“If someone buys a home in a single family zoned neighborhood they have every right to expect that it stay that way.”
Based on what? The city can rezone any time they want. There is nothing in the law that prevents the city from doing so. The only thing that is starting to change with respect to that is that states are starting to take away the power of local government to exclusively zone neighborhoods for single family homes.
I think a family that saved for years in hopes of buying a home in a SF zoned neighborhood has every right to expect that the rug shouldn’t pulled out from under them and have a four plex go in next door.
But they don’t have that right under the law as I just pointed out.
And the voters have a right to change both the politicians, and state law itself. Here’s one such group attempting to do so:
https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/
Though truth be told, I don’t think it’s very likely that vast areas of single-family housing housing will change. (That’s still what they primarily build in the Sacramento region – even now.)
In the article I posted above, the following is noted (which shows the “challenge” for YIMBYs – even in San Francisco):
In addition, there’s likely other roadblocks that cities can come up with, such as this:
https://www.marinij.com/2022/08/06/dan-walters-santa-monica-tries-new-tack-to-fight-housing-mandate/
Davis is quite different in its approach to dealing with the state, and is more along the lines of “thank you sir, can I have another”? 🙂
My guess is that within 5 years or so, the entire state effort will reveal itself as the doomed failure that it is. The housing market is in a significant downturn, and the state has been experiencing a declining population – especially in the places where they’re trying their hardest to force growth. San Francisco’s population has dropped by more than 6%, and their commercial market is in a shambles – due to telecommuting.
My fifth comment for the day.
Well maybe when you someday buy a home, if you haven’t already, and you and your wife decide to buy in a SF zoned neighborhood just to find later that your neighbor was tearing his house down and building a four plex right next to you, with four families and all of the accompanying vehicles, noise, garbage cans, etc.
Then come talk to us and see how you feel.
That’s neither here nor there.
There are two main points here. One is that there are no legal guarantees or rights to speak of here. The second is that life only offers the appearance of immutability of circumstances, the reality is that the world is going to change around your home whether you want it to or not in ways that you can never predict. The idea that there is some sort of right to unchanged circumstances is ludicrous and frankly in the realm of fantasy land. That doesn’t make it or good bad, it’s just the way things are.
KO’s idea that a property owner should have some form of control over how their neighbors use their property is no different than saying that a property owner should have control over who his neighbors are. SF zoning was created to restrict who was allowed to live in an area, so why would we want to continue that discriminatory practice? White privilege should not be the basis of our housing or land use policies.
KO… (But no ‘knock out’ here) [but nice feint]
I did ‘due diligence’ when I bought property… so your scenario is bovine excrement.
Now, which affects the use and the value of your property more… the scenario, however remote, that you described, or the apparent recommendation by the eco-controllers, who propose a change in the ordinances to require that post 2025, all house sellers must convert all gas fired appliances (cooktop, heater/furnace) water heater, dryer, etc.) to electrical before close of escrow? [It’s out there!] I’d rather deal with an adjacent property owner who wants to “have a four plex go in next door.”
All electric, means complete and total trust in “the grid” and the owners thereof… given the two, give me the four-plex next door.
Else, I’ll make sure I have a supply of propane, Coleman fuel, wood, which burn ‘dirtier’, to heat my home, dry my clothes (in inclement weather… we generally use a clothes line in good weather), and cook, particularly then there are the inevitable electric power disruptions…
Once again I didn’t say any of those things that Mark West is projecting. All I have said is if one buys a home in a SF zoned neighborhood they have the expectation that the neighborhood would stay that way.
No, SF zoned neighborhoods were created so only single family homes would be built on the lots. That a homeowner could expect that the home next door to him would never be turned into a four plex. It was never about who, it was only about what type of housing could be built.
I’ve lived in several SF zoned neighborhoods and they were quite diverse. So that’s strike three.
Actually single family zoning was in fact created to keep people of color out of white neighborhoods: “According to multiple sources, single-family zoning originated in 1916 in the Elmwood neighborhood of Berkeley, California as an effort to keep minorities, specifically a Black dancehall and Chinese laundries, out of white neighborhoods.” Suggest you read Richard Rothstein.
Thought I’d see what type of other articles are out there, regarding this. The article below was apparently written in reference to SB 50, a couple of years ago.
Some selected paragraphs, below:
https://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2020-01-17/article/48117?headline=The-Gaslighting-of-Single-Family-Zoning
A couple of other points that the author above noted:
You don’t blame the drinking fountain itself for the fact that the use thereof was at one time segregated by race.
And although the author does not go into detail in the article, he states that the reason for the war on single family housing is not actually related to racism at all. Instead, it’s the usual business interests pushing this (e.g., those that support these politicians). This has been written about more extensively in other articles – some of which I’ve posted links to on here.
Seems to me that the underlying interests (and the politicians they support) have really “put one over” on the public this time. In other words, they’ve painted opponents as “racists”, which has to be one of the most vile, but effective politically-motivated claims to date. They’ve really “struck gold”, regarding that claim (so far at least).
As a side note, there seems to be a local group of “progressives” who normally claim to be very concerned about disparate impacts, but who (somehow) had “no problem” with the Davis-based buyer’s program at WDAAC. (It would be interesting to obtain the opinion of the similarly-minded state politicians and their YIMBY friends regarding that program.)
An “urban myth” with more than a scintilla of truth… yes exclusionary desires fueled the spread of SF zoning… but to say it was ‘the creator’, is not founded in fact… it’s actually a lie. The most pernicious sort of lie, spread by those who have “agendas”/causes. Because there is a kernel of truth, but it was not the main ‘driver’. Political ‘science’ uses this a lot, BTW.
In medieval times, plague was attributed to Jews, as they tended to be less likely to contract it. No concept that observant Jews were less susceptible, due dietary, hygienic, cleanliness practices. Rats, and the lice/fleas they carried (the latter being the actual vectors) were “unclean” and therefore ‘excluded’ from observant Jewish households… Jews were also less likely to contract trichinosis, again, due to ‘observant practices’.
Same goes for the myth that SF zoning was “invented” for racial exclusionary purposes… yes, it was used for that, but not the origin. A convenient lie/part truth, as it were.
Also BTW… SF zoning did NOT serve those who truly wanted ethnic/racial exclusion from ‘their’ neighborhoods… that’s why CC&R restrictions were oft imposed, where ‘persons of color’ could only live in neighborhoods if they were employed by the owner as a “domestic” (aka, housekeeper, servant, whatever). I have seen many of those, affecting a lot of “Old North Davis”, College Park, etc.
There is a “dark underbelly” that is part of Davis’ past, including its reaction to Pearl Harbor, and anyone Asian, particularly Japanese. We need to “own” that history, and constantly speak out as to “never again”. Yet we still see signs of it… after 9/11, a lot of those who were, or suspected to be, Islamic, had vandalism, epithets, threats, etc. directed towards them. Early in the pandemic a couple of years ago, we’ve seen that directed towards Asians, particularly Chinese… we even had the “Fool in Chief” at the time, fanning those flames.
Tom Lehrer ‘nailed it’ in his song, “National Brotherhood Week”.
This article reads like a classic example of projection from the author who grew up in one of the most anti-growth communities in California with the predictable high prices restricted supply generates. In the article the author claims he is against poison pills but supports measure J the ultimate poison pill claiming that direct democracy for those few who get to vote is superior to representative government.. He is for infill densification and affordable housing without recognizing that infill won’t provide adequate new housing supply to finance enough affordable housing. He values preservation of commodity production land over housing for humans but is okay with the university building housing on research fields a policy that exacerbates the exclusion of a younger more diverse population from the Measure J votes he supports. He is a warrior for social justice but supports a policy of favoritism in marketing that perpetuates social inequality and lack of diversity.
The absurdity of the article is that it barely makes any sense at all.
There is a case to be made that old alliances are shifting in the current political landscape but that is always the case. Others like Joel Kotkin have made this argument in a much more cogent fashion. Of course Kotkin, a data driven geographer, isn’t burdened by the kinds of issues that weigh on the willingness of the Davis Vanguard to speak truth to power.