By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
This weekend, the LA Times Editorial Board called out city and county officials who on the one hand rallied in Sacramento last week to demand $3 billion in state funding to ease homelessness, while at the same time “the League of California Cities, a lobbying association that represents cities, and some local governments are trying to block bills that would make it easier to build more housing, including affordable housing.
“That’s some nerve,” the Times wrote. “Pouring money into homelessness efforts without also making it much faster and cheaper to build housing, especially affordable homes, is a fool’s errand.”
Once again the Times directly linked the homeless crisis in California to “the high cost of housing, and that’s a result of cities and
counties failing for decades to permit enough homes to keep up with demand.”
As they point out—correctly, “The shortage has driven up housing costs for everyone, but the lack of cheap housing makes life particularly precarious for people with low income or struggling with mental health, drug addiction or other challenges; if they lose their housing, it can be extremely difficult to find another home they can afford.”
Locally we have seen much the same game playing. Slow growth forces have attempted to block or stall or slow housing production locally through growth control measures like Measure J—but what we have discovered over the last twenty years is that such efforts, while successful at limiting growth and preserving agricultural land, have downside costs.
The school district has finally spoken out to the city about the impact of declining enrollment on our schools. That is a direct result of the pricing of middle income families out of the community or the failure to provide many who work at the school district or UC Davis with the housing they can afford, to live in this community and continue to provide the children necessary to fund our schools.
But the homeless crisis has the potential to impact everyone. At a time when the homeless population across the country has been relatively stable, it has exploded in communities in California.
This is rapidly becoming a public health crisis—with people on the streets with untreated mental illness and substance use disorder creating a huge public nuisance that can become a breeding ground for disease and various forms of crime.
As the Times points out: “The efforts to ease the homelessness crisis are stymied by the limited pool of cheap rentals and regulated affordable housing.”
The Times explains that, while cities and counties are working to find ways to get people off the streets, “too often people get stuck in interim housing because there aren’t enough affordable apartments or units in supportive housing developments to move them into.”
As we have seen in Davis with recent housing proposals, “California needs to build a lot more housing, for all income levels.”
There continue to be barriers not just locally but statewide with “the high cost of development, lengthy approval processes and political uncertainties.”
The people most vulnerable to the housing crisis are those who are living on the margins between homes and houselessness.
The LA Times calls out cities and organizations that are asking for more state funding while at the same time “fighting efforts to reduce those obstacles and create more opportunities for residential development.”
The League of California Cities in particular has earned the ire of many housing advocates because they have become a barrier to new housing legislation.
The LA Times points out: “The league has opposed or failed to support some of the most important housing reforms passed by the state since 2017, including laws making it easier for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs), removing barriers to build homeless housing, streamlining affordable and mixed-income developments, encouraging developers to turn moribund commercial properties into residential projects, and requiring cities to plan and zone for more housing.”
League officials complain that these laws require staff time and funding to implement the new laws, “which makes it harder for them to create local policies to address housing and homelessness.”
That may be, but what I have seen is the main argument used by the League has to do with the loss of local discretion.
The Times points out: “California’s housing crisis was decades in the making and it will take years to ease it. But new laws are beginning to have an effect.”
It’s a slow process and it feels like every step is a war unto itself.
The Times points out some of the success of SB 35—which, by the way, is what has allowed the imposing of the Builder’s Remedy in Davis and what will become the center point of what figures to be the latest land use battle as Palomino attempts to use the Builder’s Remedy to compel the city to process their application.
The Times points out that SB 35 is “a law that prohibits cities from rejecting or shrinking projects that comply with local zoning; the law shaves months or years off the usual approval timeline. Despite the proven success, the league and some cities oppose making SB 35 permanent and expanding its reach.
“Local governments are right about the need for ongoing, guaranteed funding for cities and counties to address homelessness,” the Times concludes. “But perhaps city and county officials would find a more receptive audience in Sacramento if they stopped fighting housing laws and started embracing housing development.”
Like many other analysts and media; this article conflates the related but separate issues of housing and homelessness.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF MARKET RATE (for profit) HOUSING IS NOT A SIGNFICANT FACTOR IN HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. Even if they add 20% affordable homes to their project it’s not going to make a dent. There simply isn’t enough infrastructure and financial stability for (for profit) builders to massively build enough to make enough of a dent in housing affordability. Again, (for profit) builder’s goals are to make money….and to minimize losing it. (For profit) builders generally INTENTIONALLY EXASPERATES GENTRIFICATION which overrides positive supply influences in the market. Why? To make more money (and to reduce the risk of losing it). They typically enter markets that are growing where they can attract even more affluent buyers which of course RAISES LOCAL HOME PRICES. So the idea that for profit builders are part of the housing affordability issue is ridiculous.
The state needs to look for other solutions other than relying on for profit builders to build enough market rate homes (and the 20% affordable homes) as a viable solution. I for one believe that answer is to go back to public housing. Fully funded public housing (not the stripped down, poorly funded public housing “projects” of the late 60’s and 70’s. And not just public housing for the ultra poor. Workforce housing mixed in with low income housing. Mixing housing types and the income tenants would help to avoid creating more low income “projects”. I honestly think that local government should be in the real estate development and housing business. Cities and school districts should develop and own significant numbers of homes in their cities. They could mix in workforce housing for their employees (police, fire, teachers…etc…) with low income housing. That mix of workforce housing would change the face (again, teachers, police, fire fighters, city workers) of public housing away from the public perception of those scary low income people. And how is this funded? Partially with for profit housing. A city builds out a 100 units. It sells 10 to recoup some of it’s initial expenditure to develop the project, rents out 20 units at market rate, rent out 30 workforce units (110% of the median income) and 40 affordable housing units. That’s 20 units that generate market rate income for the city, 30 units that generate some revenue and 40 affordable units that are subsidized by the other units.
If building more housing doesn’t bring down prices, why does everyone point to the unfettered building of houses in the Sun Belt at the primary reason for lower housing prices? Clearly there’s strong evidence of increased housing supply and lower prices.
On the other hand, other than Section 8 housing vouchers, public housing projects have largely been an unmitigated disaster. It might be that local government should be in real estate development and housing (although UCD’s experience with West Campus is a cautionary tale), but it should be intervening across a much broader market segment if it does enter that forum.
Richard, the Sun Belt isn’t California. Its overall economy is nowhere near as robust and diversified as California’s is. The quality of life there is paltry when compared to California’s. And land prices and construction costs are much higher in California than in the Sun Belt. All we have to worry about are Earthquakes and Wild Fires. They have to worry about Tornadoes and Hurricanes.
This is why a real estate/builder needs to add context to the numbers. Remember I said in my post that builders build to make money AND mitigate loss/risk. There’s a big difference in trying to acquire land and entitle it and then spend the money on building it in California vs. the other Sun Belt states. WHY because you can’t just buy land and expect the infrastructure and resources to be there. You have to spend lots of time and money jumping through hoops to maybe get a property entitled…..and that’s IF the infrastructure and services are even available. Then there’s the environmental hurdles to clear. This is much less of an issue in the other sun belt states like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Florida (notice a political similarity in regards to government regulation?). All that costs time and money. Developers stand to lose lots of money so they have to bet on possible big returns (assuming some of their projects won’t pan out). Then there’s the builder. In these other states, they’re acquiring the property for much less money because….well for starters the demand isn’t as high as in CA, but also because the time and expenses that were brought into entitling the land (and all the failed projects but the developer) are baked into the cost of the property. And finally generally the cost of labor is a lot higher in CA than other states…as many (as was the case in the CA Central Valley for many years) still use undocumented immigrants in the construction business. All these things add to the cost and therefore the risk of developing and building houses in California. Because of that and the limitations of infrastructure; builders select markets where they can not just hit singles and even doubles but home runs to make up for the risks/costs along the way. Looking for “home run” markets is why particularly in CA that builders exasperate the gentrification problem that adds the housing affordability problems.
The LA Times has been taken-over by YIMBY types, as has the Chronicle. They are advocacy publications, at this point.
And yet, some have pointed out (not just me) that it’s the school district that needs to adjust, not the city.
Also, children don’t exist for the purpose of “funding our schools”.
It’s well-past time to get over the “fear of change”.
And apparently, even the continuing sprawl in places like Woodland hasn’t been sufficient for the school district (and their more than 1,000 out-of-district enrollments).
It will be interesting to see if the development activists ever see the problem as the school district, itself. So far, that’s not been the case.
Unfortunately, it appears that most (or perhaps even all) on the council believe that the main purpose of a continuing flow of children is to provide sustainability for an oversized school district.
So, not only do they believe it’s the city’s responsibility to provide new customers to the school district, they essentially view potential parents as having this responsibility as well.
And apparently, they’ve already “poached” as many students as they can reasonably harvest from out-of-district areas. These people know what’s going to “grow” (in terms of future harvests) better than local farmers do.
They are absolutely sweating, as Spring Lake (for example) nears build-out. I suppose they’d better hope that the planned technology park (and its 1,600 planned housing units) doesn’t include a school of its own. In DJUSD’s (apparent) view, that “crop” belongs to them.
“And apparently, even the continuing sprawl in places like Woodland hasn’t been sufficient for the school district (and their more than 1,000 out-of-district enrollments).”
The only people who are able to come to DJUSD are people whose parents work in Davis – either at DJUSD itself or UC Davis. So there would no direct connection between housing in Woodland and enrollment at DJUSD.
Not true, a few years ago I knew of a family with three young children who live/lived in Spring Lake whose parents didn’t work in Davis but their kids attended DJUSD.
“District residency status may be granted to a student if at least one Parent/Guardian is physically employed within district boundaries for a minimum of 10 hours during the school week. The interdistrict transfer may be approved if there is space available in the requested grade level and/or choice program. Once a student establishes residency on this basis, he/she shall not be required to reapply for enrollment in subsequent years.”
And yet, you just pointed out that there is a direct connection between housing in Woodland and enrollment at DJUSD – in regard to both UCD and the school district itself.
And as far as those working at the school district, you (somehow) see no irony in parents being employed in an oversized district (which needs “fewer” employees in the first place), and bringing their own kids with them (rather than both staying in their OWN district).
“And yet, you just pointed out that there is a direct connection between housing in Woodland and enrollment at DJUSD – in regard to both UCD and the school district itself.”
I would need a more specific reference (i.e. a quote) in order to respond.
Not totally correct. I have a friend who bought a home in Spring Lake AKA North North Davis. She had kids in DJUSD before she moved and is allowed to keep them in DJUSD.
That is accurate. As I posted above, the rule allows that once you are enrolled in a district to stay in a district.
Ummm, not just the LA Times and the SF Chronicle if you get my drift.
Naw, David still supports Measure J.
Probably more accurate to say I support a modified Measure J at this point.
I don’t think David supports Measure J, the feeling l get is David has backed himself into a corner and doesn’t know how to exit gracefully. So now David has both feet straddling a 2×4 on the fence top playing it both ways.
“Probably more accurate to say I support a modified Measure J at this point.”
Better late than never but its a pity you weren’t there when it might have mattered.
You attack and denigrate anyone that disagrees with you. That’s a sure sign of tunnel vision and narrow mindedness. You would rather they be run by NIMBYs like yourself. Editorial boards by their very nature are opinionated. They are called opinion pieces.
You are describing a born again Jerry Falwell. Allergic to any idea other than his own.
Seems like neither one of you have ever read an article from 48 Hills, despite posting links to that publication multiple times.
Now, that’s a true progressive publication, not a developer publication. And definitely not run by YIMBYs (or NIMBYs, for that matter).
Ron crossed the line when he made a lame attempt to dox me.
You’ve come a long way (downward), since the days that you presented yourself as a fiscal/economic expert.
Then again, there’s another commenter on here who presents himself the same way, and engages in this same type of name-calling. You must be taking lessons from him.
Actually, the three of you (Walter, Richard, and Matt) don’t seem to have anything of substance to say these days – just name calling and personal attacks.
I don’t think you’re serving your own supposed goals very well, at this point.
What are those supposed goals Ron?
You’re giving him too much credit.
He simply doesn’t want to be known as the blogger who supports the elimination of Measure J, as it would put him on the same side as the 17% of voters who want to disenfranchise “everyone else”.
As far as the school system is concerned, no one is suggesting that out-of-district attendees be disenrolled. It’s just worth noting that even with all of the growth and development in places like Spring Lake (and The Cannery, for that matter), it’s still apparently not enough for the school district to avoid right-sizing.
And for that matter, who is to say that “new” housing won’t suffer the same fate as “existing” housing (e.g., declining enrollment, over time)?
This has to stop, and I’d be glad to point this out to anyone associated with the school district.
Maybe you all could focus on the issues and avoid personal attacks?