by Jim Frame
Davis doesn’t have a shortage of million-dollar houses, it has a shortage of housing affordable by people with very low, low and moderate incomes. The demand for high-end single-family-detached housing in Davis is practically insatiable due to the character of the city, the reputation of the school district, and housing prices that are attractive to Bay Area retirees, remote-work professionals and die-hard commuters. However, in general Davis citizens believe that attempting to meet that demand would fundamentally alter the character of the city by gobbling up adjacent farmland, increasing traffic congestion, and further straining the city budget, so they resist approving developments that cater to it.
Affordable housing is a different matter – most residents seem to acknowledge that meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is not just reasonable, but desirable. Unfortunately, with the demise of the redevelopment agency, at present the only practical model for getting affordable housing built in the city is developer 
subsidy: in exchange for permission to build a market-rate housing project, a developer agrees to build a percentage of affordable units (or make a land donation for development by others, or to pay an in-lieu fee for use by the city in building affordable housing on another site). Under this model, attaining RHNA Very Low (VL), Low (L) and Moderate (M) income housing numbers entails adding large swaths of land and large numbers of high-end houses to the city.
Background
The Davis RHNA obligations for the current cycle (2021-2029) are 580 units of VL, 350 units of L, 340 units of M, and 805 units of Above Moderate (AM) housing, for a total of 2,075 units. While the current cycle envisions meeting all of the obligations via infill, it seems nearly certain that the next cycle will have to be met on peripheral land, i.e. land not already in the Davis city limits.
This concept set forth in this article doesn’t address the current RHNA-cycle housing element, but rather the next cycle. In the example discussed below, it is assumed that the next-cycle obligations for Davis will be the same as those in the current cycle. (While the next-cycle numbers will likely be larger, the magnitude is probably the same.)
Using the RHNA numbers and typical densities, the entire VL, L and M obligations can be met on about 100 acres, including the standard park dedication. This is about the size of The Cannery development. Adding the Above Moderate (AM) units to the project would bring the development to about 240 acres, about the size of the Shriners site.
The Problem
Getting affordable housing – which includes the “missing middle” moderate-income group – built is the challenge, but there’s a mismatch between what the city needs and what developers want to build. If the city were to approach adjacent land owners and invite them to annex 100 acres of their land and build affordable housing on all of it, the invitation would probably be met with a muted response.
A conceptual proposal for development of the Shriners property has been submitted to the city. While it doesn’t directly address affordability, it only provides a total of 1,100 units, barely more than half of the total RHNA obligation. A conceptual proposal for development of Village Farms, a 390-acre project, has also been submitted. It features 1,395 units, of which 210 are high-density and presumably affordable, with another 310 “attainable” units (which might or might not meet the Moderate income criteria), and 875 market-rate units. These two projects together would add 630 acres and 2,495 units to the city, yet would not fulfill our RHNA obligations.
Using density values (units per acre) of 30 for VL, 20 for L, 8 for M and 6 for AM, meeting the RHNA obligations under the developer-subsidy model at 25% affordable would require about 800 acres; at 15% affordable it would require about 1,400 acres.
The Solution (Maybe)
Revising the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) statute (the Cortez-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code §56000 et seq.) to allow a city to annex adjacent land for the sole purpose of meeting its RHNA obligations, despite landowner objection, might open a path toward a different model of providing affordable housing. At first impression this might seem like an unreasonable intrusion on property rights, in particular a taking without due process of law. However, the existing statute allows for annexation despite owner protest under certain conditions when necessary to promote orderly development, which is a key function of LAFCO. This provision was upheld by a 1973 California Supreme Court case (Weber v. City Council, 9 Cal. 3D 950).
Annexation by itself would likely be considered a taking that must be compensated. However, the compensation might not amount to more than the increment between county and city property taxes. That would largely be a wash for the city, as the cost of providing fire and police services to uninhabited ag land is typically pretty low.
Under the envisioned change to the LAFCO statute, the city would be able to identify an undeveloped piece of land as a logical choice for development of affordable housing and invite the owner to develop same. To sweeten the deal, the city could offer to facilitate expanding the development to include the RHNA AM units. This would require a Measure J vote, but its chance of success at the polls would be greatly enhanced by its limited nature and the large affordable component.
Were the owner to decline to develop the parcel, the city could annex it under the proposed legislative provision, even if the landowner objects. Once within the city limits, the city could again invite the developer to develop the parcel, which would now be encumbered by a limitation that it be developed solely for affordable housing. The city could again sweeten the deal by offering to expand the project to include the RHNA AM units. A Measure J vote would be required for the expansion parcel, but again with an improved chance of success.
If the owner declines to participate at all, the city can make a finding that it has a compelling interest in developing affordable housing on the parcel and condemn it by right of eminent domain. Since the existing use of the parcel is ag, the acquisition cost would be in the neighborhood of $40K per acre, or $4M for the parcel. While hardly flush with cash, the city could find $4M for such a pressing need.
Once the city acquires the parcel, it can engage a non-profit affordable housing developer to plan and develop the project. Financing the infrastructure will require some creativity, but it might be possible with judicious phasing.
Measure J Considerations
The citizens of Davis have for many decades expressed a desire to grow as slowly as legally possible. They value the compact footprint of the city, its small-town character, and the preservation of the farmland that surrounds it. In response to development projects that a majority of Davis voters believe were not beneficial to the city, Measure J (Municipal Code Article 41.01 Citizens’ Right to Vote on Future Use of Open space and Agricultural Lands) was passed in 2000, and subsequently renewed as Measure R and Measure D.
However, the existing ordinance provides an exemption for meeting RHNA requirements. The exemption is limited to maximum multifamily densities for projects exceeding 5 acres per year, which complicates the development of a 100-acre project. This wouldn’t impede the development of the high-density multifamily component – typically affordable by very-low and low-income households – which would account for about 37 acres, but it would slow the progress of the moderate-income units. Since the sale of moderate-income units would likely be needed to provide cash flow for construction of the high-density units, the 5-acre restriction could complicate financing. Nevertheless, even with a 5-acre annual limit on construction of the moderate-income units, it is conceivable that a single 100-acre project meeting the entire next-cycle RHNA obligation could be completed within the cycle timeline.
State Action Required
Adding this concept to the city’s planning toolbox requires a modest change to state law. In the past such a change might have been unthinkable due to the anticipated objections of landowner groups, but in the last few years we’ve seen dramatic changes in state law and policies regarding affordable housing. In light of the altered policy landscape, the envisioned change no longer seems far-fetched, and would give the city options for developing affordable housing that it doesn’t currently have.
Eminent domain of farmland as a solution to Davis’ voters unwillingness to allow development of the same farmland. I can’t make this up. So land that trades at a premium because of its speculative development value of perhaps $1,00,000/acre when developed would be taken from people who are paid commodity production land values of about $15,000/acres. I don’t care how many sweeteners you add that dog ain’t gonna hunt.
Everyone is trying to solve this by tying themselves in knots (or is it nots) proposing work arounds while clinging to voter approval of farmland conversion. Let’s simply recognize that Measure J worked so well that it has created all these new problems. Instead of convoluted work arounds I offer two solutions. They are both so simple I will call them the Occam’s Razor solutions.One is the City gets off its butt and processes the five Measure J projects currently being proposed for the ballot. The second one is get rid of Measure J, annex about 1000 acres into the city, allow the builders remedy of 20% affordable to take root and let the market do the rest.
“Everyone is trying to solve this by tying themselves in knots (or is it nots) proposing work arounds while clinging to voter approval of farmland conversion”
I think what you’re seeing or perhaps missing is that on the one hand, people to varying degrees with some notable exceptions recognize that there is a housing problem but at the same time they don’t want to see Measure J completely go. So they are exploring ways in which they can keep Measure J but still address the housing crisis. You want people to conclude that Measure J is completely broken, but most people don’t see it that way.
.
David again paints with a broad brush in using the all encompassing term “a housing problem.” Ron Oertel use an equally sweeping (and flawed) brush when he denies there is a problem.
Jim Frame has correctly noted the nuance of our housing situation when he says,
To be clear, I’m not denying that some people do not earn enough to cover costs of living (not just for housing, and not just in Davis).
One reason I support rent control, which has never even been seriously discussed in Davis.
There’s also lots of cities with comparatively “cheap” housing, which nevertheless have a substantial homeless population.
It is good to see that Ron can acknowledge that his past pronouncements that there is no housing shortage in California is a statement tha needs some adjustment to “clearly” match the nuances of the California housing marketplace.
Matt: I said nothing about a “housing shortage”.
I do think there either was, or still is a student housing shortage. However, for whatever reason, I’m now receiving online advertisements for housing available at Ryder (the new student housing development on Olive). So I suspect that even students can get housing (on campus, or off) – even though Nishi and some other developments haven’t been completed.
Anyone wanting a single-family dwelling in Davis (for around $700K) can find one, pretty quickly. Even during this time of a nationwide “shortage of supply” due to folks locking in low interest rates. I’ve seen several over the past few weeks/months, on Zillow.
And of course, there’s the entire “North, North Davis” – where there’s always something for sale (even cheaper than that).
Not to mention the developments in Davis, such as the Chiles Ranch development in Mace Ranch (which has been “Coming Soon” for at least 10 years), and whatever that single-family development is called, which is replacing the skilled nursing facility on Pole Line. (Which also seems to be “coming soon”, even though there’s no sign of it proceeding.)
In regard to “Coming Soon”, this reminds me of bags of rice that sit in my pantry for an extended period, but are nevertheless still labeled “New Crop”.
And for that matter, “Coming Soon” truly applies to the Creekside Affordable housing complex, which was “Coming Soon” for about 25 years.
I think the people seeking work arounds are afraid to come out against Measure J but know its not working. Whether its because they think an outright frontal assault won’t fly or because they are afraid of saying what they know is true, I can’t tell. But its sort of implicit in seeking a work around. If the system was working you wouldn’t need a work around. But the idea of having an election on whether to have an election is a waste of time. The people who have homes and don’t care about anyone else are going to go to Defcon one over any proposal for change. So this whole mend it don’t end it nonsense will do nothing but create another no holds barred election fight. The current path of least resistance is for proposals to get processed and have an election under the current rules.
Of course the City Council is so beleaguered by the over the top attacks on CC members during the last two elections that they won’t even process any Measure J proposals. The biggest joke of all is the person who was the most vociferous voice against Ramos’ project is now complaining that the city isn’t processing a proposal he now is in favor of building as if his previous conduct is of no consequence.
I think they ought to do a study first, to determine if an election on whether or not to have an election is warranted. 🙂
No comment. 🙂
.
Ron, regarding the first part of your comment above, other than David Greenwald and several Council members, who is “seeking work arounds” for Measure J?
Regarding the second part of your comment above, Measure J is working and has worked extremely well in accomplishing its goal … to improve the quality and accountability of development plans presented to the City by developers. Measure J was conceived and written because of the Mace Ranch planning disaster. Mace Ranch was poorly and inadequately planned, costing the City and taxpayers many, many millions of dollars. In addition, the terms of the Development Agreement were not enforced by either City Staff or City Council. So, minimum standards of planning and accountability were written into the Ordinance.
How well have those minimum standards of planning worked?
— Covell Village went down to defeat mostly because of two reasons. First, the traffic impacts were not sufficiently planned for, and second, the sheer size of the project created negative impacts that were clear to see, but the educational efforts of the development team did not clearly and compellingly show project benefits that provided value that more than offset the negative impacts.
— Wildhorse Ranch was poorly and inadequately planned and even more poorly explained to the voters. Also during the election period the City’s financial officer shared the results of the City’s fiscal model that showed the project’s costs for the City exceeded its revenues.
— Nishi 2016 was another inadequately planned project, with the two biggest planning deficits being (A) the traffic impacts on Richard’s that were not sufficiently planned for, and (B) the absence of any meaningful amount of affordable units.
— Nishi 2018 was the first project that met both the spirit and the letter of Measure J’s planning standards. The traffic issues were addressed and an affordable housing plan was included.
— WDAAC passed because of all the advance planning that the development team did in identifying and delineating the senior housing demand that their project was designed to address. There were still planning glitches, such as the buyers program that probably was in violation of Fair Housing laws, but the voters believed it was a good plan … and a plan that they could hold accountable.
— DiSC 2020 was inadequately planned, and the education program during the election cycle did not do an adequate job of illuminating the benefits or mitigating the impacts, with traffic impacts being at the top of the list.
— DiSC 2022 repeated all the DiSC 2020 mistakes, and added on the lawsuit debacle.
So, bottom-line Measure J has shone a spotlight on the poor and inadequate planning of five projects, and rewarded the good planning of two projects. That is exactly what it was intended to do, and as a result, it is not only working, it is working well.
And if that were not enough look at what we got from the non-Measure J project, The Cannery … a repeat of the Mace Ranch mess.
Matt, this article is the third one I’ve seen in recent days offering a work around. Now if you think the solution to our Affordable Housing shortage is to underpay someone for the taking of property under eminent domain I’d like you to come right out and say so because that is exactly what this article is proposing.
As for the poor planning of Mace Ranch and Cannery the people who live in these places likely disagree with you. I’ve never had anyone who lives in either of these places tell me how poorly planned these subdivisions are but I know people who like living in both areas.
And talk about poor planning! Building a 200 acre stand alone Affordable project would upend Davis’ long standing policy of interspersing Affordable units throughout the community.
As for how well Measure J is working, in 23 years since implementation, not a single unit of housing subject to the ordinance has been occupied and housing costs have gone way up as has the differential in housing costs between Davis and surrounding communities. I guess you would call that a success but I don’t see it that way.
When young families with kids or who plan on having kids leave town because of the high cost of housing I guess you would call that a success but I don’t feel that way. When DJUSD gets to the point that they can no longer paper over the decline in enrollment I guess you would call that a success but I don’t feel that way. When the people who work at UCD, teach our kids, provide our police and emergency services can’t afford to live here maybe you would call that a success but I don’t see it that way.
One other point Matt I think there are problems with the history you have detailed but I’m not going to break it down for you here.
I find myself agreeing largely with Ron Glick.
I live in mace ranch, and the planning is “fine” The problem is with how it CONNECTS to other developments.
Over the weekend we had a kids birthday party to go to in slide hill park… our beautiful mace ranch greenbelts delivery you via bikepath to the edge of the slide hill neighborhood and then BAM… you have a weird transition to loyola ( not the most bike friendly street, and there is no cross-walk or anything at this transition) and you have to take neighborhood roads from there.
If the neighborhoods were planned together, you would be a pass-through into slide hill’s neighborhood along the mace ranch greenbelt that runs up its eastern edge… but there was no foresight present to leave that space.
The same thing is ABOUT to happen at the intersection of that same greenbelt at its north end and the edges of Palomino Place and the Shriner’s property.
We have a very nice bike under-crossing there which should terminate into a greenbelt going north all the way up to wildhorse, claiming what was once the wildhorse agricultural buffer and turning it into a series of Parks. But neither palomino nor shriners is thinking that way apparently… they want to put facilities INSIDE their own developments in order to sell them, so they aren’t thinking that way at all. Shriners currently envisions hemming that area in with a road…
Measure J gives us projects… not “neighborhoods”.
and
.
Ron and David, please explain to everyone how Jim Frame’s proposal is in any way a “work around” Measure J. Jim’s proposal does not modify Measure J or any of its provisions. Everything that Jim has proposed complies 100% with Measure J.
If there is anything that Jim is “working around” it is RHNA, but here too Jim isn’t proposing any changes to RHNA, and his proposal complies 100% with RHNA.
What Jim is proposing is a thoughtful planning alternative to achieve compliance with the portions of the RHNA allocation that are going to be difficult (very difficult) for the City to comply with. The City has been very clear that it is not going to have any trouble achieving the Above Moderate market rate threshold. The very first sentence of his article says, “Davis doesn’t have a shortage of million-dollar houses, it has a shortage of housing affordable by people with very low, low and moderate incomes.” Do either of you disagree with that statement? Curious minds want to know.
Regarding the planning deficiencies of Mace Ranch, with entitlements granted, building permits issued, and ground already broken, suddenly there was an “Oops!” There were acres identified for parks and other amenities … bare ground acres. But there was no plan or intention of the developer to make that bare ground into an actual park. To get the bare ground to be a park, which Tim Keller will agree it is now, the residents of Mace Ranch were obligated to dig deep into their pockets every year for 30 years for the millions of dollars needed to fund the construction costs. To add insult to injury, due again to inadequate/poor planning, the residents are being forced to pay significantly higher annual interest costs than could have been obtained with just a smidgen more thought.
Cannery was equally bad. The planning deficiencies are pretty plain to see in the terms of the three amendments to the Development Agreement. A additional planning debacle that doesn’t show in those amendment documents is the fact that there is no public domain fiber optic cable or conduit in the Cannery. There actually is both conduit throughout and fiber optic cable in some of that conduit in the planning documents and the Development Agreement, but the City project manager verbally told the construction workers not to bother with putting the conduit and/or cable in because it would be too much work. Similarly, the planning of the current condition of the front portion of the project is living, breating testament to the inadequacy of the planning of that portion of the project. Then we get to the worst of the planning gaffes, the Cannery CFD, which was an $8 million give away of money (with no value received by anyone other than the developer) to the developer that, because of a repeat of the poor interest rate the CFD bonds have, costs the Cannery residents over $21 million in total over the 30 years duration. That is $21 million that is a direct reduction in the quality of life of the Cannery residents.
Tim, Measure J isn’t the reason we have projects… not “neighborhoods.” The reason is our General Plan that is non-compliant with State law. That law says that because our General Plan is non-compliant, each project must be handled as a stand-alone General Plan Exception. If our General Plan were compliant, the individual projects could, and almost surely would, be processed as part of a holistic whole. For example, processing the Palomino Place proposal and the Pioneer Community Master Plan proposal holistically together would mean that the redundant sports parks in those two proposals could be rationalized in a holistic context. Given the close proximity of the Pioneer sports park to the existing DYSL fields on Chiles, the City planners could point out to the Palomino Place applicants the severe shortcoming that their sports park has by comparison. The inability of City Staff to do so has nothing to do with Measure J.
Ron, circling back to your closing assertion about the history I described, your “I think there are problems with the history you have detailed but I’m not going to break it down for you here” comment sounds like Donald Trump saying “I have heard …” or “I have been told …” Last time I thought about you I thought of you as a Ronald, not a Donald.
Matt, you know the workings of city hall fall better than I, So I’ll have to take your word for it.
When I asked the same question of “why is our planning so bad” a year or so ago, the answer I got from someone was “a raional city would have a master plan for all of the properties within its sphere of influence” (And I then learned that the sphere of influence isnt just a turn of phrase, but a map somewhere.. and these projects arent even in THAT map.)
But I really doubt that is even the core problem
In my most recent article (which might run tomorrow?) I discuss the density we would need to build at in order to establish an urban limit line that is meaningful. By definition, this means talking about where our population might be in 30 to 50 years, and even with 1% and 2% population growth, you are talking population numbers in the 120k-180k range. Im sure just reading those numbers is going to make a few people in our community foam at the mouth.
Now, I can get away with that because I’m just a nobody commenting from the sidelines. But I suspect someone on a commission or on council would just be making their daily lives MUCH harder, by even bringing up the topic of long range growth or trying to make decisions which by definition entail discussing growth. It just goes against ones sense of self-preservation.
So I think its probably empty to just talk about having a non-compliant plan, we need to discuss WHY we have a non-compliant plan, and I think that comes down to a failure of leadership… a failure to do what is right in the presence of conflict. Is that failure at the council level, or the comission level, or at the staff level? Id be interested to hear thoughts.
Matt
Three points:
First, I think Jim’s workaround is quite creative, but as Ron G points out, it’s unlikely that the City will be able to acquire that land for $15K-$40K per acre even if its zoned as ag. (The City Council made this conceptual mistake when it leased land to BrightNight in 2020 as a number of us pointed out.) So the question will be how much will those landowners be willing to negotiate. Almost certainly they will ask for either $1m per acre (making Affordable housing not affordable) or allowance of some portion of market-priced development (and NO new housing should go in without associated commercial/real estate to serve local residents to reduce GHG emissions.)
And that said, this is a work around. It goes through convoluted steps to comply with Measure J/R/D and RNHA–that’s exactly what a work around does by definition.
Second, I agree with Ron G (and David) that the history of the Measure J projects is different in key ways that your description, but debating those differences won’t help gut us further along on this issue. For example DiSC 2020 failed for the very simple reason that the UCD students were out of town due to the pandemic. A few hundred more votes from them and it passes. That was a calculus that no one in spring 2020 when it was put on the ballot could make easily.
And the missing part in the review of post Measure J projects are the ones that haven’t been proposed due to the high barrier erected by the need for a political campaign. What kind of projects have we missed out on over that period. As Ron G points out, for more than two decades (when we’ve had lots of population growth everywhere) Davis hasn’t added a house approved by those votes.
Finally, that we don’t need a compliant General Plan for City planning staff to bring together individuals projects in a manner that creates a holistic view of a set of neighborhoods. When Mace Ranch was built, our General Plan was not that old and still in force. The failure to integrate properly with Slide Hill was due to planning staff failures, not a noncompliant General Plan.
Tim, Measure J is the reason there is no holistic planning. Look at the Cannery as an example. A holistic approach would have master planned both the adjacent Covell Village site and the Cannery. But since one was in the city and the other in the county Measure J precluded such a master plan.
WDAAC is another example. A rational planning process would have master planned the entire Northwest quadrant but Measure J makes every land owner look for what can pass at the ballot box instead of what makes the most sense.
Finally, in a rational community, Shriners and Wildhorse Ranch should be planned together but once again one is in the city and can invoke the builders remedy while the other is in the county and can’t use the builders remedy. Measure J balkanizes the planning process and makes every land owner go it alone.
The concept presented is applicable to any city, not just cities with voter control over ag conversion. Davis has Measure J, so I addressed it in the article, but the larger concern is that the developer subsidy model of producing affordable housing is both inefficient and produces a lot of undesirable results.
Sure Jim eminent domain is enshrined in the Constitution so its available to every community but show me one place where what you are proposing has happened? By the way there is this other Constitutional clause you should be aware of, this one in the 5th amendment “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
It seems to me that refusing to annex a property for housing then taking it through eminent domain and annexing it for housing while paying the property owner pennies on the dollar is going to end up in court and take years to be adjudicated but what do I know I’m not a lawyer.
It hasn’t happened yet because it requires a modification to state law. That’s the whole point of the article.
I don’t think you understand the way in which property is valued in condemnation — it’s based on current fair market value, not on speculative value. (I’m not an attorney either, but that’s my understanding.) Many condemnation proceedings do end up in court because owners don’t generally want to relinquish their property, so a court determines the fair market value under current usage, not the value it might have upon the realization of some future event that may or may not occur.
Interesting article from Jim Frame. However, I’d note the following:
I doubt that this conclusion is accurate.
By “notable exceptions”, are you referring to the folks that vote against every peripheral proposal (which you claim is around 40% of voters)?
This fact is difficult to even conceive, and will doom any/all of these proposals. But it also shows why the state’s targets will fail – not just in Davis.
And to be clear, we’re referring to future possible targets, not current targets. For that matter, no evidence has been presented that unbuilt units can’t be “re-used” to address future targets at some point. (Which would actually provide an incentive for a city to zone for, but not actually approve those developments. Or just wait for them to “pencil out” as a builder’s remedy.)
For that matter, another commenter pointed out that the state’s new laws would also likely apply to annexed-land (e.g., if the housing element is not in compliance). Which also helps “doom” proposals in the first place. The reason being that development agreements and baseline features would be rendered irrelevant, after voter approval.
.
When I was on the Finance and Budget Commission(FBC), we received an annual report from the City on its cash holdings in its myriad of different fund balances. Those reports typically showed in excess of $125 million.
Further, there is a history of the City investing some of that cash into useful projects. The Valley Clean Energy project received a $600,000 “loan” from the wastewater treatment fund. The Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency project received a multi million dollar loan from the Wastewater Treatment Fund. I don’t know whether that loan amount was as much as $4 million, but it was close. Coming up with $4 million for affordable housing would be a relatively easy task.
I’m not an attorney, but my understanding is that property valuation in condemnation proceedings is based upon present value, not future value. I believe there’s both well-settled statute and case law supporting this. There would be no “underpayment,” because a court would determine the fair market value based upon appraisal reports.
Jim Frame’s piece outlines exactly the problem we face in his opening sentence.
Davis doesn’t have a shortage of million-dollar houses, it has a shortage of housing affordable by people with very low, low and moderate incomes.
His solution bears serious consideration. Presently, all Davis gets are applications filled with the maximum number of single family homes unaffordable to most and by approving the minimum number of units for very low and low and moderate income households, thereby missing meetng our RHNA targets. Do we really want to plan a Davis future that purposefully avoids meeting a real need for these income groups and clearly fails our RHNA test..
Bringing land into Davis that skimps these needs is exclusionary sprawl.
Affordable housing is the communities biggest topic, yet none of the five applicants offer anything but a 15% minimum. The city’s consultant said that the 15% applies only to land within the city so why is the city not going for 25% in an annexation.
Jim’s proposal would allow cities to be more proactive in obtaining land that would enable planning for inclusionary housing. Jim’s proposal would ensure that cities such as Davis would always meet their RHNA targets.
Jim, sign me on.
In the meantime urge our City Council to require more affordable housing for VLI, LI and MI on annexed land land, especially VLI and LI.
PS. German law requires that land brought into a city for housing must pay only agricultural price.
Fathers Day activities precluded me from seeing this piece until Monday.
A condemnation action begins with negotiation but often goes to litigation, and all the research I’ve done (again, I’m not a lawyer) indicates that the well-established standard followed by the courts is appraised value at current zoning and use. If you have references that indicate otherwise, I’d be interested in seeing them.