By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Every so often, someone comes on the Vanguard and argues that there really isn’t a housing crisis—just go on a real estate site and you will see a ton of houses listed, they’ll argue.
It reminds me of a controversy from the 1980s, when in the middle of a recession, President Ronald Reagan told people to “look at the want ads.”
He told the press, ”In this time of great unemployment there were 24 full pages of classified ads of employers looking for employees. What we need is to make more people qualified to go and apply for those jobs, and we’re going to do everything we can in that regard.”
Reporters who actually attempted to follow President Reagan’s advice were more skeptical, saying “we are left puzzled about both Presidential propositions, about both the help wanted and the help offered.”
Just like Reagan’s anecdote back in the day, the real world experience of people attempting to find housing in town—at least the people I know who have been actively attempting to find it—has ended up with people 
purchasing housing, but not in Davis.
The answer comes down to the fact that housing is too expensive, unavailable, and what they can afford doesn’t meet their needs. And when a good property does come available, there is often fierce competition for that property.
An article that appeared in the Bee this weekend offers us another glimpse at the housing crisis: they called 148 affordable properties and only three had units available (for a non-paywall link).
During the pandemic, the state provided homeless people with shelter in what would have otherwise be empty hotel and motel rooms.
When Project Roomkey came to an end, the staff “provided homeless residents in the Vagabond Inn with a list of 160 affordable rental properties across the county, which they were encouraged to contact themselves.”
The Bee decided to call all 148 numbers on the list. They found only three of the properties had an immediately available unit.
The Bee writes, “The list and its 145 dead ends drive home the staggering hurdles faced by the county’s most vulnerable residents.”
It’s actually worse than that. Two of the ones with available options came only with significant restrictions.
The Bee writes, “A few rooms were available in an SRO, but only for people who had a referral from a social services agency. One unit in another building was available only for two seniors over 55. The third option was the least restrictive: A couple of apartments were open in a complex in Meadowview.”
A kicker was that for 64 of those properties (nearly half), they had a wait list—months to years long.
One staffer said, “Our waiting list opened in January and closed in January, and it may be another three years before it opens again.”
Reminds me of the students camping outside of the property in Davis overnight in January hoping to get a room for next fall, only to learn that there were no apartments available.
The Bee notes, “At a complex in a run-down neighborhood in north Arden Arcade, a property manager said there were no vacancies and the waitlist had been closed for over a year: ‘Best I can say is just to check back periodically.’”
The Bee also reported that only seven properties of the 148 were not working off a waitlist. Four of them, while not using a waitlist, also had no units to offer people.
Interestingly enough, “At least 33 phone numbers on the list maintained by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency did not lead to an affordable property at all.”
They found 26 numbers that were disconnected or non-functional, and “[f]ive of those numbers connected callers to scams, such as an offer to ‘win’ a gift card or a $100 Walmart rebate.”
Again, these are the lists maintained by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.
The Bee was unable to get the agency to respond to questions about their lists.
As of 2022, according to PPIC, around 30 percent of those in the US who are unhoused resided in California. About half of all the unsheltered people in the country live in California as well—and the homeless crisis grew steadily over the pandemic.
This little exercise by the Bee demonstrates how much of this problem is simply due to the lack of availability of affordable housing for the most vulnerable people, people in danger of having to live on the streets.
So?
I know “people like that”, as well.
And I still don’t know how the example you provided the other day (regarding one of your employees) was able to purchase a house anywhere, using only the salary provided by the Vanguard. Of course, you didn’t discuss any of his/her finances – beyond employment.
A lot (probably most) of the reason is that folks get more for their money in other nearby cities. Again, this can’t be stressed enough. Some even migrated “out of” Davis for this reason.
There’s two parts to this, which were (also) previously discussed.
1) There has been significant competition everywhere, due to the federal reserve’s policy of artificially-low interest rates, the impacts of the pandemic, telecommuting, the stimulus money, etc. And now, inventory is tight (again, in many places) because those who locked-in low interest rates aren’t willing to sell. (The market hasn’t yet fully adjusted to this, although prices have already fallen significantly in some areas. Especially in the more-expensive areas, as I noted the other day – with examples.)
The latter is expected to change, especially if the employment picture worsens (as the federal reserve is expected to purposefully cause with their actions. But again, there’s houses available right now (and every day) which are suitable and affordable. I’ve found several in the low $600-$700K range in Davis, in good locations, in good condition. And yes, they were “available”.
2) The other part of this story is that some of the claims you’ve put forth are both anecdotal, and do not likely apply anymore since interest rates have risen and the pandemic becomes less of a factor. But again, this goes back to the original point: Many people choose to live in nearby cities because they get more for their buck, or they want a “new” house, etc. I am familiar with some of these people.
This is a different group of people (compared to those attempting to purchase a house) – and you know that.
And this is a different group of people as well. And again, you know that.
By the way, was there something “special” about that particular place? Are they (for example) camping out on campus, hoping for an apartment opening, there?
Regardless, I have a question for you (that I’ve been wanting to ask). Given our capitalistic system, do you expect locales to grow indefinitely, presumably to keep prices “low” (whatever that means)? The reason I ask is because this is a recipe for endless development and sprawl, as long as “economic development” is (successfully) pursued as well.
I, for example – do not want to see places like Marin continue growing – even as prices have become “unaffordable” there.
Unlike you, I am fine with allowing places to “price me out”. In fact, I was priced out of my original home town. So you know what I did? I pursued an alternative.
Gee, can you imagine that? Rather than whining and crying about what my original home town should “do” for me? And by the way, things change personally for folks, over time. Meaning that they may not always be priced-out.
Again, though – prices have fallen the fastest in the most-expensive locales (e.g., in San Francisco) as the housing market has entered a downturn. This is the “free market” at work – people seek alternatives. (Just as they do when purchasing a house, for example, in Spring Lake – rather than Davis.)
We really not debate the “existence” of a shortage at ALL, because there is already a very accessible, impartial and accurate metric for the health of the housing market: The vacancy rate.
A good / normal vacancy rate where supply and demand are in balance is around 3%. Davis’s homeowner rate is at what.. 0.6% something like that? And it has been that way for a long time. We have an acute shortage of housing in this town, full stop, no denying it.. move along….
What are you talking about? Houses that are for-sale are quite often occupied, up until (or near) the point of sale.
Are you confusing “rental” vacancies, with “homeowner” vacancies?
Where, exactly – are there lots of vacant houses for sale, other than at a new development? (And even then, developers these days don’t build large tracts of them, all at once.)
Also, would you say that a place like Tahoe has “no housing shortage” – given that many of those houses consist of second homes (and therefore have a high “vacancy rate”)? Or a place like Jackson Hole, where the same situation applies?
A definite Yes in My Backyard!
Ron refuses to believe anything that doesn’t align with his completely rigid No Housing Anywhere view with the exception of his own house. He refuses to believe any objective statistics or new media reports, just his own completely subjective anecdotes and guesses.
This article was based partly upon David’s subjective anecdotes regarding one of his employees, and another anecdote regarding students waiting outside of a particular apartment building. Yesterday, he cited a “definition” of “housing crisis” which likely was not defined in any survey that he cited. And yet, you had no problem with that.
I’ve provided evidence that folks do, in fact consider alternatives in regard to housing (and job) markets. That’s not “subjective” – and it’s also common sense. In fact, it’s been cited in mainstream media many, many times (e.g., folks moving out of San Francisco, prices dropping there as a result, etc.). Within the past week, I cited an article which showed “which” cities throughout California have experienced the largest drop in prices. Consistently, it was the more-expensive locales, as folks have left those areas for less-expensive locales (partly as a result of the ability to telecommute). Again, not something that’s “subjective” or “just my opinion”. It’s been reported many, many times (and I’ve cited those type of articles on here many times, as well).
For that matter, the new developments in Woodland are an “alternative” to houses in Davis (again, not just my opinion).
How many people moved to Davis from more-expensive locales (e.g., were priced-out of their original home towns)? I don’t have an answer to that, as it’s likely never been measured. But I could (and no doubt have) cited many previous mainstream media articles which show that folks are moving to the region from more-expensive locales. This type of movement is not limited in regard to Davis or the region.
The only people who doubt there is a housing shortage are people who aren’t looking for housing.
That is factually untrue.
As an experiment, I’ve looked into it directly, myself (beyond just looking at online listings). They were available.
Also, ask the people who have successfully purchased a house in the $600-$700K range.
I did not look into rentals.
But again, I have a question (for anyone who claims “housing crisis”):
Do you expect locales to grow forever, to keep housing prices “low”?
Do you, for example, expect places like Marin to keep growing to satisfy this? Because I (for one) do not.
And again, this is coming from someone who was PRICED OUT of their original home town. How is it that someone like me doesn’t object to getting priced out? I’ll answer that for you – I pursued an ALTERNATIVE. Though honestly, I had some resentment regarding the UNDERLYING causes of that – which was ultimately the unbridled pursuit of economic development. The people that “replaced” me were in a position to take advantage of that.
But again, situations for individuals change over time. As such, it does not necessarily mean that one is priced-out “permanently” or “forever”.
Do you expect housing prices to be the same in all locales (and even within the same city)?
And why aren’t you looking at the underlying causes of housing “shortages” and “crises”? In the case of the Bay Area, it was caused by unbridled pursuit of economic development. Which has now partly reversed itself, causing a crash in housing prices.
So, go ahead and check into these, if you think they’re not available. Sorted by price.
https://www.zillow.com/davis-ca/?searchQueryState=%7B%22pagination%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22usersSearchTerm%22%3A%22Davis%2C%20CA%22%2C%22mapBounds%22%3A%7B%22west%22%3A-121.94705407006836%2C%22east%22%3A-121.60544792993164%2C%22south%22%3A38.45537405556536%2C%22north%22%3A38.6537831206826%7D%2C%22regionSelection%22%3A%5B%7B%22regionId%22%3A51659%2C%22regionType%22%3A6%7D%5D%2C%22isMapVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22filterState%22%3A%7B%22sort%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3A%22pricea%22%7D%2C%22ah%22%3A%7B%22value%22%3Atrue%7D%7D%2C%22isListVisible%22%3Atrue%2C%22mapZoom%22%3A12%7D
Alternatively, you can look at new houses some 7 miles up Highway 113 (or Road 102), but they’re not much cheaper (because they’re “new”). In my opinion, the best deals can be found via the “pre-owned” examples, listed above. New ones popping up all of the time – even in this tight (nationwide) market – due to the manipulations of the federal reserve and federal government. Which again, will change over time.
Or, look in the older sections of that town (some 8 miles away). For that matter, there’s (no doubt) some for sale even in the “new” sections of town. Does anyone need me to “hand-hold” them, to find them online? Or, is it easier for you to cling to your mistaken beliefs (sort of an “armchair”, non-house hunter)?
Five comment rule is in effect.