By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – Darryl Rutherford in my opinion, nailed it in his recent op-ed published in the Vanguard. I have long reached the conclusion that people who call themselves progressives in Davis are less interested in equity and more interested in opposing housing.
In short, they have become—whatever they might have been—simply the party of no.
As Rutherford put it, they “complain about any changes in Davis, lob personal attacks at those actually working to improve our city, and do everything they can to sway the public away from true racial, social, environmental, and economical progress.”
He added that “it didn’t take me long to realize that they were just anti-housing/anti-development advocates rather than actual progressives. They had no interest in furthering strategies that promote racial, economic, and environmental sustainability.”
In 2008, the vast majority of Davis residents cast their ballots both in primary and the general election for Barack Obama. Many proudly supported the first Black President of the United States.
But there was a disconnect between their advocacy at the national level and that at the local level. Two years before, many had turned their heads as thousands of UC Davis students marched on the police station demanding accountability for racial profiling.
In 2013, reacting to the death of Trayvon Martin, Obama said, “When Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. “
And yet, the land use policies that many progressives in Davis support help to lock young Blacks and people of color out of our community, out of opportunities for a better life through education and prosperity.
Whether intentional or unintentional, opposition to new housing means opposition to new affordable housing as well and it means preserving a status quo that denies people who cannot afford to buy into the Davis market with that sort of opportunity.
When Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law, came to speak in Davis in 2019 before a packed audience, he called out Davis on its own hypocrisy.
One person asked, “How can we maintain that small town feel and still deal with our housing issues?”
Richard Rothstein rose to the mic one more time, and stated that a “small town feel is a euphemism for segregated community.”
While this particular audience roared with approval, I wonder how many residents of this community have even thought about the issue.
The same month, scores of Mace Ranch residents showed up in opposition to the respite center being located on Second Street.
City staff predicted that any location would likely generate considerable opposition from near-neighbors. Original opposition argued that this would put homeless people into close contact with school children going to and from classes.
The overwhelming opposition was in the form of fear of safety concerns and concerns about visual blight and nuisances.
Pastor John Castlefranco explained that his congregation has been part of the rotating winter shelter program since its inception in 2005, and in their time of doing this, “we’ve never had any problems.”
Police Chief Darren Pytel added that the shelters have generated very few calls for service, stating that “we’ve had a lot of users of the program and we’ve had very few law enforcement problems with the shelters.”
Eric Dirkson, a Christian Minister said that he has worked with and gotten to know many folks who are experiencing homelessness.
“It’s important to remember that we’re dealing not with a problem, but with people,” he said. “If folks have a safe space to spend their time, crime does simply go down.”
He recommended that people volunteer and work with the homeless, “it will humanize this entire issue for you.”
Meanwhile there is the ongoing issue with Pacifico. The neighbors voiced some legitimate concerns about nuisance generated around the facility. But the solution proposed was not to crack down on the problems, but to repurpose the facility away from serving the needs of vulnerable residents facing a real possibility of homelessness.
The council took the position that they supported the concept of the residential treatment facility, that it was something they supported—but perhaps not there. The problem remains—if not there, where?
The opposition evoked a rare consensus from the leadership in both the DA’s and Public Defender’s Office.
In a 2019 op-ed, they noted, “Before we can hope to address homelessness, we have to understand the people who experience it.”
They write: “Many people who are homeless struggle with mental illness, addiction or a chronic health issue. All, however, struggle with the stigma and social disgrace associated with their homelessness condition.”
As they point out: “The debate in Davis over the Pacifico complex is emblematic of conversations unfolding in communities throughout the state. With homelessness issues surging to the forefront statewide, finding solutions to the issues of mental health and addiction become increasingly urgent.”
What we have seen in this community, whether it is dealing with people of color, affordable housing, homelessness, drug treatment or mental illness the view is—no. Not here. Now now. Not this.
This community, it seems, is progressive when the problem is over there, but not willing to shoulder the burden of solving the problems here and now. There is always a reason to oppose change. There is always a reason not to do something.
As Darryl Rutherford put it, “Keep in mind that these policies have not only excluded people marginalized by race and class, but they have also forced young professional families out of our town.”
Increasingly I see this as a community that is great at talking the talk, but very poor when it comes to walking the walk.
This article paints with a very broad brush. There’s no doubt that some of the loudest voices opposing recent development projects will likely oppose any development project, but suggesting that every No vote on a Measure J project is anti-black, anti-homeless, anti-poor, anti-young and only interested in boosting the market value of their house is simply not true.
Everyone bemoans the homeless problem, but I have yet to see a workable solution to it. The state is trying hard to figure one out, with only very limited success to date. The cost of housing is a statewide problem as well, with no easy solution on the horizon.
As one of the “haves,” here’s what’s clear to me: annexing land to develop new homes affordable only by well-heeled folks isn’t going to solve either problem. Maybe you get a handful of affordable units with every 100 high-priced ones, but that’s not going to solve the larger problems, and it will definitely impact existing residents by increasing traffic and reducing city service levels once the “sugar rush” of development fees is overtaken by the net loss attendant upon new housing.
Come up with an effective and equitable solution to these problems and I’m likely to support it. In the mean time, if I’m presented with a development proposal that creates more problems than it solves, I’m likely to vote no.
“And yet, the land use policies that many progressives in Davis support help to lock young Blacks and people of color out of our community, out of opportunities for a better life through education and prosperity.”
David you need to check your privilege. You write this as if you are not part of the problem. You have long opposed peripheral development the solution to many of our housing problems. It is also a way to add single family homes that would help maintain “that small town feeling” as opposed to densification that changes the human ecological landscape. Besides allowing people to generate or maintain intergenerational wealth peripheral development can also generate money that can be used to build Affordable Housing. Of course single family housing has long been the choice of young families looking raise children that could replenish our schools.
Rothstein may be right about the unconscious biases of his audience but he missed another real possibility, that limiting the footprint of Davis changes Davis while seeking to preserve Davis. You have admitted as much yourself yet somehow you still cling to your youthful romantic notion of the sanctity of farm commodity production land at the expense of the housing needs of a growing community.
I do find it ironic when people who live in single family homes that were built on what was farmland on the periphery of Davis are opposed to building single family houses on farmland on the the current periphery. Its a further irony that people who use our roads, that have been widened since they arrived here, complain about traffic impacts newcomers will bring.
Its a my poop don’t stink mentality and its pervasive.
I agree with Jim Frame that this article paints with a very broad brush. Instead of looking at the whole picture and specifically at the totally ineffective method Davis (and most all the communities like Davis) use to pay for affordable housing, the article simply accepts the wholly ineffective Inclusionary Housing method without a question. The problem with that method is threefold:
(1) It relies on the developers to provide out of their own pockets the funds necessary to make the affordable housing units affordable.
(2) The supply of developer funds on any individual project are limited and the shell game that the developers use to come up with the funds are tacked onto the sale price of the Market Rate houses.
(3) Under the terms of the Interim Affordable Housing Ordinance 15 Affordable units are created at the same time as 85 “unaffordable” (Market Rate) units are created. That is at best upside down. Davis does not need more “unffordable” units. Adding those units does nothing to make Market Rate housing in Davis more affordable. A DJUSD school teacher doesn’t have enough salary dollars to be able top afford one of those new Market Rate houses. Most young families either (A) can’t afford them, or (B) prefer to pay less for a new home with more living space in Woodland or Dixon or West Sacramento. Further, as Keith Echols has shown us time and time again (but the Vanguard never hears) the construction price per square foot of the new homes provides a reason for the real estate marketplace for resale of existing homes to raise the sale price per square foot of the those existing homes … making them even less affordable.
That is the problem we face … a completely “broken” Inclusionary Housing model. What can we do about that? First we need to reset our goals for new affordable housing. We need new projects to provide 85% affordable units and 15% market rate units (ideally 100% affordable units). In order to get builders to undertake a project like that (as David Thompson and Luke Watkins have done over and over again over the years) Federal and State sources of funding need to be actively pursued by the City. Out elected leadership and City Staff leadership need to make that pursuit of funds Priority #1! It will be hard work, but it will be worth it. The City of Folsom actively and successfully pursued funds like that for a recent affordable project in their city. Instead of coming up with excuses, our leadership needs to learn what strategies will succeed and then put those strategies into action.
Until we actually start doing something positive to address the problem, articles like today’s are simply wailing and gnashing of teeth and even a bit of self-flagelation.
I don’t think your 85-15 model is particularly realistic. You’ve cited what are largely land dedication sites that have been built out over time ignoring the fact that those are subsidized by the market rate on the remainder of the development. Where are you supposing the money is going to come from to do affordable on the type of scale you are suggesting?
David, the State of California ran a $100 billion surplus last fiscal year. I believe the year before that was an over $50 billion surplus. Tapping into that abundance of State money is a good place to start.
Building 85 unaffordable houses in ordser to get 15 affordable houses isn’t realistic either … especially when the addition of the 85 unaffordable houses creates a market condition that makes the existing 10,000 houses in Davis less affordable. That is moving in the wrong direction.
“Building 85 unaffordable houses in ordser to get 15 affordable houses isn’t realistic either”
I think you’ve cooked the argument a little bit. The reality is you pretty much have to build market rate housing in order to subsidize affordable housing. Should the state devote more money to affordable housing and reinstate the increment tax? Absolutely. But even under RDA, you were looking at a 65-35 breakdown, not an 85-15 (in favor of affordable).
How many of the units at Dos Pinos were market rate?
Dos Pinos was the affordable housing requirement of a larger development that included market rate homes, apartments and also the shopping center.
David, your answer focuses only on the problems with what I have proposed. As Eldridge Cleaver famously said, “if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!” I believe Ron Glick has said that about you as well.
Bottom-line, you are doing a good job of stirring the pot, but all you are getting is steam … rather than progress toward a definable goal.
The problem with what you have proposed is it’s impractical and unworkable.
I don’t believe that government subsidies for Affordable housing are actually “tied” to market-rate housing in any way, shape, or form.
No doubt, some Affordable housing projects in the state were built without a market-rate component, and without requiring additional sprawl.
But one thing I would agree on is that the state’s RHNA requirements are indeed unrealistic and unworkable. (Not just my opinion.) Personally, I don’t view that as a “problem”, as I’m looking forward to seeing the entire effort collapse.
I’m also looking forward to the state applying a “builder’s remedy” in one or more of the wealthier near-coast communities, as I’m pretty sure doing so will be the “spark” that ignites a “flame” of outrage, along with some creative legal challenges. (We’re already seeing signs of that.)
The state is ultimately not going to win a war on its own cities. State government essentially can’t even exist without support from cities, as it is deeply tied to them financially, etc.
It’s as if there’s a civil war, in which the federal government is at war with ALL of the states (rather than just the “south”).
Again you comment on the problem without referencing any solution. What solution do you believe is practical and workable? And what are the necessary steps (dare I say “what is the plan”?) the City needs to take to make that practical, workable solution a reality?
As Cleaver said, “If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!”
Form a 2 x 2 x 2 committee (city, county, UC). Goal: identify and begin planning to create shovel-ready project sites for affordable housing.
Identify sites for development of stand-alone affordable housing projects.
Initiate grant applications for planning costs.
Establish a planning process to address issues of overlapping jurisdictions, service areas for police/fire, water and sewer, etc.
Put out RFP’s for multiple sites for non-profit housing builders.
Initiate grant applications for projects.
Thank you Don. I would add Solano County and make it a 2x2x2x2. The land south along Old Davis Road should be part of the picture.
It is worth repeating several of your points … Initiate grant applications for planning costs.
Establish a planning process to address issues of overlapping jurisdictions, service areas for police/fire, water and sewer, etc.
Put out RFP’s for multiple sites for non-profit housing builders.
Initiate grant applications for projects.
Allright, David, you put this in writing, so you need to own up to jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Everyone, I hope, would want to consider themselves “progressive” because the alternative is “regressive” or at least “not helpful”. You have this wrong. The only part of it that you have right is that there are a small group of people in this town who CALL themselves or may even view themselves as “progressive” but offer no vision or political strategy to build housing that is equitably accessible. No is their mantra. And they will make alliances with anyone, no matter how bankrupt or vile their politics, who are on the No platform.
We need to take a short trip in he wayback machine to remember that in the 1970s housing was relatively inexpensive. Rents were low and cost of ownership was low as a percentage of income across the board. A young family just starting out with a moderate, even a single, income could afford to buy a home. On top of that, the suburban sprawl model of development in Sacramento was distinctly unappealing (our own El Macero that was outside city limits, built around an irrigated golf course, totally and proudly automobile-centric and exclusive) and progressives accepted “good” development as something like Village Homes. A little more expensive but so much more worth it.
Here we are, the same family even with both partners working at good jobs will struggle to qualify for a loan or pay market rate rent. Real income for the bottom 80 or 90% has fallen, the cost in real terms for all housing is relatively higher. Many of us could not afford to buy the home we live in if we had no equity. This is why actual progressives support development and are willing to entertain tradeoffs in architectural or landscape amenities just to get more housing built. We are mindful of and appreciate the contribution of scholars like Richard Rothstein, “Color of Law”, the gross injustices of red-lining and the need to not just correct but make amends for institutional racism.
But to get out of the hole we are in, we need economic resources that are beyond what the invisible hand of the market can provide. Housing on a massive scale can only be accomplished by the federal government fiscal policy. Housing may be the most fundamental reason why it matters who is in Congress and who is in the White House and whether who is there can be moved to act. Meanwhile, fighting amongst ourselves is futile as a solution. We can’t swing it on our own.
Well said Dave. Very well said. Especially the final paragraph. David appears to be holding onto the bedlief that we can somehow do it on our own. The Cannery is clear evidence that we can’t.
Why on god’s green earth would you want this? Your solution is to flood the market (and which market?) with houses to make housing more affordable? So you would advocate for some form of Levitt Town to be built in and adjacent to communities? Also, you seem to believe that government can magically fix housing affordability?
I’m all for everyone having housing. But I don’t think that means everyone gets to live where ever they want to live. Should there be more affordable housing options? Absolutely. Let the invisible hand do it’s thing. For the most part let the markets be. Sure manipulate the bottom end of the market by providing affordable housing and even better public housing options in communities. But a massive build out of housing to increase supply would be reckless for communities and the environment.
“Housing on a massive scale can only be accomplished by the federal government fiscal policy.”
Absolutely true but the state could do more especially for poor college students on campus. Still the fact that at best we are scratching at the edges shouldn’t keep us from trying.
There isn’t a housing shortage, in a state which is losing population.
San Francisco lost more than 6% of its population, and yet some still claim that there’s a housing shortage, there. Must be the “new math” that they’re using.
There is an affordability problem, for some. But that doesn’t mean that they have no housing.
Pass stronger rent control, if you want folks to avoid being priced out of the rental housing that they already live in.
I do find it amusing that some are so concerned about labels such as “progressive”. Most folks I know have a range of views, which don’t always fit into one artificial category or another. (However, I have noticed that they don’t always realize this, themselves. Those are the people who might be “concerned” about someone else stating that they don’t belong in the “progressive” club.
Of course, it’s pretty difficult to claim that you’re a progressive yourself, if you’re cozying-up to development interests and oppose rent control, for example. Or, if you advocate for a development which would ensure more demand for housing (e.g., DISC). (Not to mention those folks who claim to be concerned about local contributions to climate change, while also supporting DISC.)
Ultimately, the free market does work, in that folks won’t move into areas that they can’t afford.
Personally, I’d be careful about adding an abundance of “Affordable” housing as well, unless the fiscal impact was fully analyzed.
There has always been tension between housing growth and environmental groups. Most environmental advocacy groups are largely slow- or anti-growth. This has led to tension between these groups and those seeking affordable housing. The charge of elitism that has long been leveled at environmental groups reflects this tension.
As is often the case, a whole fable has been created about this. All we need to do, we are told, is build housing more densely, apparently on some random vacant lots that are still here and there within the city limits. Or redevelop existing buildings to add housing to them, and somehow make some of that low-cost. The city can just mandate some arbitrary amount of that housing to be ‘affordable’ and developers will be ok with that. People will want to live in these dense housing units because they are close to downtown, can get everything they need there, have lots of mass transit options, and can walk or bike everywhere. Studies even show that’s what they say they want!
Problems are:
We don’t have enough of those random vacant lots to make a significant difference.
The need for economic development via infill is in competition with housing goals.
When people actually save enough and earn enough to buy a house, they want a house with a yard.
People strongly prefer to drive their own vehicles than to travel via transit, bike, or foot.
Costs of redevelopment are too high to pay for affordable housing by private development; the need for a standard return on investment precludes financing.
So the housing that actually sells, which developers might actually be willing to build, needs to be bigger, less dense, and more profitable if they are going to spread out some profit for the purpose of providing other types of housing. Otherwise, affordable housing will have to be funded by the state or federal governments. That would require the city to identify sites and get them shovel-ready in order to apply for grants. That requires citizen participation in selecting sites, although they wouldn’t necessarily require a Measure J vote.
When it comes down to it, I think many people who call themselves progressives are more concerned about environmental issues than they are about housing issues. Perhaps that’s because they tend to have secure housing and little experience trying to navigate the Davis housing market, and likely don’t interact much with people who are struggling with this market.
If there’s conflict between housing and the environment, they are reluctant to compromise about the environment. That’s often the case even if it means exacerbating conditions that are harmful to the less well-off members of our community.
I agree with some of what you write, here.
But the “less-well-off” members of the community (as you describe them, and whoever they are), aren’t going to be purchasing sprawling, single-family dwellings that might be approved on farmland outside of Davis. Look no further than The Cannery, to see that. (And prices were a lot cheaper when that development was built.)
Simply put, new, market-rate single-family housing in an expanded Davis is not going to be occupied by the folks that you and others claim to be concerned about. (For that matter, those folks haven’t even been defined or quantified. Just a nebulous claim regarding “need” for an undefined supposedly pre-existing population. Let alone any analysis whatsoever regarding how anything proposed would meet that undefined need.
As long as places like Woodland continue to provide this type of housing (at a price that’s significantly-less), that’s where new, less-wealthy families will continue to migrate. And even there, you basically need $600K (with what is now a 7% or so interest rate).
Maybe Davis should stop trying to be all things to all people.
But one thing I’d suggest is that the “Davis buyer’s program” at WDAAC is exactly the type of thing that one would expect social equity warriors to be concerned about. And yet, nary a peep from most of them.
Same was true regarding the increased demand for housing as a result of DISC.
These contradictions (and others, such as the local contributions to climate change from DISC) are the reason that I have no confidence at all regarding what the development activists claim that they are attempting to pursue.
One other issue regarding government/subsidized housing:
There aren’t an unlimited amount of funds for this type of subsidized housing, and many other cities around California are dependent upon those same funds (assuming they actually want to ensure that their assigned RHNA Affordable housing requirement units are built).
As such, any funds that Davis pursues are then not available to other locales, where the supposed “need” might be greater.
This is a zero-sum game. Though one might argue that the city which pursues the most funding is actually the “loser” in this game, depending upon the fiscal impacts of that type of housing. But, doing so might at least ensure “bragging rights” (aka, virtue signaling), while possibly/simultaneously making that city’s fiscal situation more dire. (Again, not an issue that is unique in any way to Davis.)
The situation reminds me of how some school districts (such as Davis’) “poach” students from other districts, with no concern whatsoever regarding the overall impact.
Yes… and that means all landlords absorb increases, when rents don’t meet the costs of property taxes, maintenance etc. repair, inflation, etc., means they would be able (maybe) be able to deduct 15-20% of their losses as ‘charity’?
I get your (apparent) drift…
Just wondering…
Or, do you have a ‘hybrid’ in mind?
For the time we rented a property (~ 25 years), we looked for a minimum 2% ‘profit’ over our ‘mortgage interest’, taxes, and other direct costs… the 2% barely covered our ‘administrative’ costs (paying bills, etc.)… guess that offends some as ‘gouging’… but we were ‘not in it for the money’… we were thinking it would be an ‘affordable’ place for our kids to live as a ‘starter home’, but they those not likely to start children, or chose to live in other locales…
Property taxes should only be rising 2% per year, under Proposition 13.
As far as the other increases, I’d have to look into whether or not they’re already accounted for in cities with stricter rent control, compared to the statewide control which is already in place.
I don’t know. I guess what I have in mind is for “reasonable” rent increases as needed, whatever that means. That would be an entire topic to explore.
That’s how a lot of “Mom and Pop” landlords operate. (And I believe they still comprise the majority of all rentals.) For the most part, rent control probably isn’t warranted for them. Perhaps that’s part of the reason that the Costa Hawkins law was established.
The part that I find concerning (in regard to renters) is that (compared to homeowners with fixed mortgages), renters’ housing costs can rise much faster in the absence of controls. Priced out of their homes, as it were. In contrast, homeowners are rarely priced out of their homes, as long as they’ve made payments for a number of years. (Thanks to Proposition 13, as well.)
With housing prices dropping, it seems that the next few months would be a great time to buy, if one has the funds (and/or can afford the higher interest rates).
Just saw the following article.
I’m thinking that purposefully-withholding funds for homeless housing is not an “effective” strategy for those communities which don’t want that type of housing in the first place.
Something akin to a parent “threatening” to take away their child’s broccoli, while letting them keep the ice cream. (And ultimately forcing another child be forced to eat the broccoli, instead.)
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Do-better-Newsom-pauses-1B-in-homelessness-17555918.php?IPID=120147
Here is where I’m aligned with “progressives” regarding housing. I’d say that this qualifies me as “progressive” – and much more so than the Vanguard (as if the label actually meant anything in the first place):
And certainly no “surprise” regarding the following:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/california-tenants-rise-up-demand-rent-caps-from-city-halls/