By Alex Achimore
Finally, the housing logjam seems to have broken. The recent announcements of three (!) large infill housing projects on G Street is great news, and I may need to be counted as another Downtown Plan skeptic who got it wrong. Meanwhile, four previously approved projects have just broken ground. And the City Council has greenlit two enormous expansion proposals—Village Farms and Shriner’s Property, together offering up to 3,000 new homes—to move forward into environmental review and on to a Measure J vote. With the words “housing crisis” now part of everyday vocabulary, chances are better than ever that one or both will be approved.
But there’s a nagging issue Davis shares with other high-priced cities that won’t be addressed no matter how much more housing comes along if we only build at the high and low ends of the wealth/income spectrum. It’s often called the “missing middle” but is more insidious than that—we have been devolving into a community divided between property owners and renters, a rich/poor split not just by income, but even by where we live in town. Not exactly a revelation, given the times and the ever-growing wealth disparity in our nation, but we’re also in the midst of planning how to add thousands of new housing units to Davis, and what and where we build can make it all a little better, i.e., fill in the gap, or a little worse, depending on what we build.
The prospect of adding housing and population is an opportunity to arrest the decline in our school enrollment, offer new access to groups that have been historically shut out, especially first-time and first-generation homebuyers, and help us look more like the rest of California. But we need to recognize how the good intentions of preventing 
sprawl and preserving farmland have contributed to the housing affordability crisis as well as the growing divide in our city between renters and owners. And we should be careful about what type of housing we build in the future, because thousands more detached single-family houses will only widen the wealth/income gap in our community. I don’t agree that any type of additional housing is necessarily good for Davis.
OK, but with all the new projects within our city limits, do we even have to consider expansion? Our draft Housing Element, the State-mandated report on where we plan to accommodate at least 2,075 units at various price points by 2029, relies entirely on infill, and many agree that’s as it should be. Of course the Downtown Plan pushes high density, but after scouring within the city limits for other housing sites, I think the Element well documents that there isn’t room for anything much different than more of the 4-5 story apartments that have recently joined the queue. Note that those projects are of one single type—market-rate rentals, geared toward households earning what’s defined in the Element as Moderate Income (current maximum $136,000 for a family of 4). Isn’t that the “missing middle?” The lower half maybe, but it’s still all rental apartments, and not attractive to those earning more, yet not enough to buy in Davis.
For Moderate Income, at least, we are certainly way ahead—1,330 units already approved even before the three projects on G street vs. 340 allocated in the Element—but they aren’t generating much affordable to low and very-low incomes (maximum $91,000, family of 4). While the old Regal Theatres site is pledging 20% of the total units to be restricted to low-income (their incentive is to streamline entitlement through the Builder’s Remedy), the old Hibberts’ site promises only 5% and the just-completed 3280 Chiles is paying a fee instead. And even adding the others already moving ahead we still have to find sites for over 600 Low/Very Low-Income units. To do so will take additional strategies, including building on city-owned land and increasing public sources like the Housing Trust Fund that I won’t go into here, but maybe there’s room for those as well without expansion. The harder to imagine scenario, actually, is how to accommodate the remaining 299 Above Moderate Income (no upper income limit), but the Element essentially says that densities will be increased to whatever it takes for the total to fit. Altogether, it seems a bit of a stretch (pun intended) to me but check out the map below and judge for yourself.
Anyway, if asked whether we can do it all with infill, I would say sure, and if every new Davis resident is happy with living in an apartment, we’ll be fine. But what about families, especially those with young children, who want to own, benefit from the wealth-building of real estate appreciation, and have a small patch of private outdoor space? If they make less than $160,000, and don’t have sufficient savings to hold their mortgage to a manageable amount, they can’t afford the minimum Davis starting price of about $650,000 (the recent sales price of an older 3-bedroom, 1-bath house). But the adjacent cities of Woodland and West Sacramento are building for at least a portion of that demographic, and if we can’t offer anything within their price range in Davis, we’re headed toward a further divided community.
So I personally believe we will need some additional land, but there’s an opportunity in the Above Moderate category that we shouldn’t get wrong. Because there is no upper income limit, we could theoretically fill the quota entirely through expensive detached single-family houses, and recent proposals to build outside our boundaries certainly aim in that direction.
The problem is that in a market like Davis’ it is virtually impossible to build a detached house even on a tiny lot that is worth less than the $650,000 cited above. If we could only find a way to move the entry-level price downward, we could broaden the demographic of people who live here, including many that work in Davis but are only able to purchase in adjacent cities.
So how could we do that without further use of subsidies and price controls? While it may be impossible to produce a for-sale, market-rate house that is affordable by every level of the Above Moderate category, we could at least drive the prices down somewhat by building more attached units—duplexes and townhouses—which have the added benefit of reducing the consumption of land. It’s a simple but effective move: a party wall, even built with modern soundproofing technology far superior to 20 years ago, by itself reduces the value of a home. We’ve got some fine examples of attached homes in Davis, but there could be a lot more, and perhaps that’s all we should build going forward.
In order to ensure new housing in any expansion of Davis is built attached, we’d need to set a minimum density—at least 10 units per acre would do it. If not so ideal for the landowner/developers, it wouldn’t exactly be a “taking” either, and maybe the requirements for including affordable housing could be adjusted if that’s truly necessary to help bring costs down in line with reduced sales revenue. Both David Greenwald and Robb Davis have made the point that inclusionary zoning isn’t the most efficient, and I would add not the fairest, way to create affordable housing. Worse, I think, is that we’ve drifted into an implied (though never explicit and possibly inaccurate) assumption that a very healthy return must be made on high-end housing in order to provide some units with low-price restrictions. The optics alone are unfortunate—a few dozen dense, low-income rental apartments surrounded by and somewhat indebted to hundreds of expensive homes—and only tout the growing disparity.
But pushing attached housing, perhaps with a feasible inclusionary requirement at the higher end of the affordable scale, would help backfill some of the middle-income strata we have been losing in Davis. And the key amenities, especially desirable for families with children, of a ground-floor entry and even a tiny yard are still possible in that format. This is not some new or radical concept: in its 2010 “Blueprint” for growth, SACOG called for all additional housing in the region to be at least 70% attached. It obviously hasn’t yet happened around here, although the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San Diego are doing so, but we could certainly take the lead in our region.
True, attached homes in Davis won’t be cheap by any standard and still unattainable to many, but they would reach down and hold lower prices—a recent Zillow scan shows just one (making the point we need more) townhome for sale: a 3-bedroom, 3-bath with 1,400 square feet for $520,00. At best, this is a partial solution for a finite population, and additional measures such as down payment assistance will continue to be needed. But it could have a noticeable impact in narrowing the wealth gap that’s been growing here, and just as importantly would consume far less land than our typical residential neighborhoods or what’s being proposed on our edges. Even with parks and greenways, attached houses could cut the amount of land consumed by either the Village Farms or Shriner’s proposals by more than a third.
In any case, we shouldn’t accept the notion that marketability means there’s a shortage or need—Davis already has well over 11,000 detached single-family houses worth more than $650,000, plenty of inventory that will turn over in time for those with the ever-rarefying means necessary to buy. If you take the logic of Davis’ housing obligations from the Element (and I realize many don’t), we only need 299 additional units in the Above Moderate Income category by 2029. Of course the next cycles will likely require we keep adding, but even if you triple to 900, that’s far short of the thousands of detached single family homes being proposed that will only be attainable by folks earning significantly above Moderate Incomes. Why spend so much farmland on such a narrow segment of our society and widen the divide between renters and homeowners?
How we get to a consensus on the appropriate density of land added to Davis has to be the subject of another tome and probably by someone else. The same old lines around the issue of expansion at all are being drawn in the sand, not unexpected given how similar the peripheral proposals look to what’s been rejected in the past. But the fact that the previously proposed Covell Village got built in Woodland isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Those homes are clearly less expensive than they would be if they were built in Davis, and the quality of the farmland consumed is not as high.
The climate crisis is as real as the affordable housing crisis, and anything we build going forward must address both. Davis has benefited in the past from cutting-edge developments like Village Homes and Northstar, and several of the principles in those projects are involved in the expansion proposals today. I don’t see the same level of innovation in what’s being offered so far, but perhaps as more details emerge, and/or if the EIR process seriously considers alternatives, as has been stated, we’ll have some real choices at a Measure J vote. I believe there are advocates for affordable housing willing to go to bat for the right project. Someone should take advantage of that.
Alex Achimore is the parent of a Davis High School teacher who recently moved to West Sacramento.
Seems to me that the biggest “wealth gap” in Davis is between students, vs. permanent residents.
And that UCD students (in general) will create their own “wealth gap” wherever they end-up, compared to those without a UCD degree. (Or so it’s claimed.)
As far as non-student “permanent” Davis renters, rent control would keep prices in check. (I have yet to see anyone put forth any actual numbers regarding the size of this group.)
In regard to the “attached” houses that this author advocates for, any “families” looking to buy a house in this price range will overwhelmingly-seek a “detached” house in a surrounding community, instead.
Then again, I haven’t seen any logical reason to pursue families in the first place, beyond the accommodations that Davis already provides. “Families” tend to have multiple cars and create disproportional demand for services such as schools, sports parks, and libraries. How does the latter “fit in” with a city that’s already/supposedly experiencing fiscal challenges?
Not to worry, how about developers destroying the City of Woodland area?
Walter: The “ship has already sailed”, regarding Woodland (along with just-about every other city in the region). Truth be told, those places sound more like “your” kind of city, than “mine”. And that goes for most of the commenters and article-writers on here, as well – including David.
And apparently, the slight resistance that development interests encounter in Davis is enough to cause them to pu$h even harder, again with the “assistance” of folks like you.
Where was this “wealth gap” nonsense (or “concern about discrimination”) in regard to the “Davis-connected buyer’s program” at WDAAC?
Or for that matter, the concern about “housing shortages” in regard to DISC?
Oh, right – those concerns was nowhere to be found, at the time. Seems that there’s only “selective concern” about such issues.
You seem to be conflating issues …. WDAAC had the largest affordable housing component in city issue. That’s not the issue you’re trying to raise.
Dave Thompson (below) brought up “whiteness” of Davis, below – and tied the comment to “wealth”. And yet, you apparently didn’t have a “problem” with him noting that.
And I don’t recall Dave Thompson bringing up any “excessive whiteness” concerns regarding the “Davis-Connected Buyer’s Program” at WDAAC, either.
I try to be consistent, in the comments I put forth. I rarely find consistency from some other commenters on here.
Again, “selective concern”.
Actually we had a pretty extensive discussion on that at the time. When I interviewed him, I asked him about it directly.
In fact, he addressed the point directly in his guest piece in October 2018: “ But foremost to DSHC and NP is that we will be given 4.5 acres of land worth about $4 million dollars on which to build a 150 apartment low income senior campus. We will build homes for 170 Davis low income seniors of whom 70% will be single elderly females and 37% will be minorities. That’s the inclusive Davis we want to build.”
David has been one of the most consistent people in Davis on these issues for a very long time
Actually, what (exactly) does this mean? Did they abandon the “Davis-Connected Buyer’s Program”?
And as a follow-up question, where are these percentages coming from? Are they quotas?
And what is a “minority”, in regard to this? For example, does it include Asians? Do potential occupants have to self-identify, or is a “guess” made?
(I’ll assume, for a moment, that no one is at risk of being “misgendered” in this group. Probably a “safe” assumption.)
And did the “Davis-Connected Buyer’s Program” preclude the Affordable component?
If so, wouldn’t that actually create two very “separate” communities (even though they occupy one large site)?
I can point to some very expensive cities, which nevertheless “housed primarily minorities” in public housing. Is that essentially what we’re referring to, here? While simultaneously outright ignoring a program which ensured discrimination, in the vast majority of the development?
Let me help you out: “I don’t recall David Thompson bringing up…”. Ron: Oh I’m sorry, I was mistaken.
To answer your question, they (the stats) were pulled out from the applicant pool at Eleanor Roosevelt that would have served the exact same clientele senior low income as the affordable site at Breton.
David: Is your comment intended to be comprehensible?
Now, if Dave Thompson did bring up concerns regarding the Davis-Connected Buyer’s Program, then he (or you) can clarify that.
As I was typing this, I see that you expanded your comment to include an “explanation” of the applicant pool for the Affordable component at Bretton Woods, which presumably would explain the percentages. (Still no explanation if it includes Asians.) Regardless, weren’t those people already living in Davis? And if so, are they going to be “replaced” by a similar percentage of “minorities”?
And again, what about the REST OF the WDAAC / Bretton Woods development, in regard to the Davis-Connected Buyer’s Program? (That’s the PRIMARY question I asked.) Are you stating that Dave Thompson WAS concerned about that?
I’ve said what I’m going to say at this point.
Worth nowhere near that amount, until voters approved annexation. Regardless, voters are the party that “created” that claimed value. And taxpayers are funding the building.
What did the developer “give”? A small portion of his farmland. If 4.5 acres was transformed to be worth $4.5 million, what was the increase in value in regard to the rest of the property as a result of voter approval? (I’m referring to the property that was bound by the “Davis-Connected Buyer’s Program”.)
Ask any appraiser. For that matter, ask them to provide a value “pre” and “post” approval.
And by the way, was the value actually $4.5 million post-approval, given that it had to be used for Affordable housing as essentially a “condition” of approval of the rest of the development?
The 4.5 acres sounds more like a “liability”, than a “value” for an owner. Probably worth more as farmland, than it would be for Affordable housing on its own (without the “benefit” of the rest of the development).
In fact, the developer apparently received “zero” direct dollars for it (unless there’s some kind of tax break, etc.). That is, unless Dave Thompson wrote him a check for $4.5 million. “Zero” is certainly a different number than $4.5 million.
(However, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s some kind of tax break for the developer in this scenario.)
Ron O
Where’s your data and analysis to back up this statement? The facts are that families purchase more and bring in higher incomes that generate more economic activity and more fiscal revenues for the city. They also push housing prices higher and move more often by choosing higher quality schools. This results in higher property tax revenues per house. On net these households are much more fiscally productive than either student ones or with retirees (who demand more emergency and health services.) That’s why we need to expand housing to bring in these households to have a healthy community.
I need “data and analysis” to note that families tend to have more cars (and seek more environmentally-damaging single-family housing, e.g. – with multiple garage spaces), and require more services such as schools, libraries, and sports parks? Really?
You don’t think that common sense backs up that observation?
Where’s your “data and analysis” to show that they’re even offsetting their own costs?
Isn’t this something you’re normally opposed to, in every other comment you normally make?
Isn’t this article supposedly about the “wealth gap” in the first place? And you now want to make that gap larger?
Are emergency or health services normally paid by cities? If not, then that’s irrelevant.
You just claimed that doing so “raises housing prices”, which you’re normally opposed to – and which is in direct opposition to the supposed “purpose” of this article.
But more-importantly, you haven’t even presented evidence that pursuit of these folks offsets their own costs/impacts. So far, all evidence points to the opposite. That’s why Davis and other cities (even those pursuing continuous growth) experience fiscal challenges.
Even in cities which pursue the “Ponzi scheme”, it’s usually not enough to even temporarily cover-up the shortfall. And ultimately makes the “day of reckoning” even worse.
But perhaps the most-glaring oversight that you and others make is the purposeful disregard of the vast number of single-family housing that already exists in Davis – all of which eventually turns-over.
There are houses to be had in the $700K range, which are perfectly-suitable for families. I see them listed quite often.
There’s also more housing in the pipeline, including Chiles Ranch (which has been “coming soon” for more than a decade).
Do you actually want to talk about a “wealth gap”?
If so, compare Davis with just about any city along the coast.
Not to worry, though – Wiener and his developer friends are attempting to destroy that area, as well.
https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/07/california-coast-housing-bill/
Thanks for this article. Glad I’m not the only one saying these things.
I really think we need to get a better understanding of what it takes to produce condos as well, as they provide for that important equity ladder to start happening for middle income people, but you can start at a much lower floor than a single family home.
Thats interesting. My density calcs for getting us to 20 units per acre called for the same number, but I didnt stop at duplexes, the balance I slated as townhomes, cluster houses, condos and apartments.
I agree that the peripheral projects on the docket right now are “uninspired”… we need to be thinking very differently about WHAT we build… and these developers are obviously not doing that.
Condos are generally not a good way to build “equity” – even in cities far-more expensive than Davis. You’re better-off purchasing an actual “house” in a surrounding community, regarding that.
The “equity ladder” is a myth in the first place. You’d be lucky to break even, after all of the transaction costs are added to the equation. Too many people (other than the seller and buyer) with their “fingers in the pie”, so to speak.
It might have (sort of) worked in the past, but not likely these days.
So what’s your solution?
Tried to add (but was cut-off): You might, however, be able to sell your condo to a parent whose kid is attending UCD, so there is that.
In that sense, Davis might actually have a market for “used condos”. So if you wait long-enough, you might actually break even.
As I was typing this, I just noticed that David asked me what my “solution” is. However, I don’t know what “problem” he’s referring to.
End capitalism, perhaps? Or, accept that there’s “different prices” in “different communities” (and even within the same city)?
A valuable piece for it’s factual components. However, the title is misleading,
“Guest Commentary: Expanding Davis Can Narrow Davis’ Wealth Gap – Or Not – Depends on What We Build”
Both proposed projects widen the wealth gap and probably no change in “What WE Build” will be substantial enough to reverse the already booked trends.
The piece that is written implies a certain optimism and hope which I admire. However, my thirty plus years advocating for affordable housing in Davis has steeped me in what the developers will do (never give up) and what the City Council won’t do (never give in).
The Council most frequently reduces the affordable requirement or accepts as you point out a pitiful in lieu fee. The on the ground reality numbers of the lowered amount of affordable housing are a stark reminder of hi-jacked hopes and dashed dreams.
The presumed population of either project will be richer and whiter with far less VLI and LI than the previously approved Bretton Woods.
Setting aside 1.7% of Village Farms for the VLI and LI is not going to change the already decided profile of the future families of Davis.
We have become the Piedmont of the Valley and we are staying that way.
Coming from England, I am reminded of the hovels lived in by the poor outside the city walls.
We too are economically walling out the poor.