This week San Francisco, which had become the poster child of the housing crisis and the example for the state to come down with increasingly punitive penalties, accomplished the previously unthinkable—it received its first-ever Pro-Housing Designation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
The designation, which is awarded exclusively to cities that have enacted the strongest pro-housing policies in the state, unlocks millions in new state funds to build affordable homes in San Francisco.
Senator Scott Wiener points out, “The award marks a remarkable shift for San Francisco, which only last year was found to be in flagrant violation of state housing law. Under Mayor London Breed’s leadership, the City passed major legislation to remove barriers to home construction and come into compliance with state law. Mayor Breed’s work builds on over 180 pro-housing laws passed at the state level in recent years.”
Senator Wiener said the “important milestone would have seemed unimaginable before” when “San Francisco was the poster child for illegal obstruction on housing.”
The senator explained, “Local wins like this are possible because of a series of critical new laws and policy changes at the state level, combined with local leadership. In recent years, California has completely overhauled our state’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation and our housing planning process, thus ensuring that cities plan for building the homes we need. We’ve strengthened enforcement of state laws to hold obstructionist cities accountable, including a new law I authored this year (SB 1037). And, we’ve enacted new, faster processes like my SB 423, which caps the approval for new homes at 6 months across much of the state.”
He added, “Changing a broken culture takes time, collaboration, and hard work. But progress begets progress, and all of these state and local policy changes add up to a brand new world for housing in California. We’re already starting to see home builders taking an interest in building in San Francisco, and I have no doubt that with committed leadership, this City’s best days are still ahead.”
GrowSF released a poll in early October on Housing, noting, “San Franciscans overwhelmingly support building more housing and making it easier to modify existing buildings. Yet the city is held hostage by NIMBY elected officials who overwhelmingly block the kinds of reforms people want.”
GrowSF’s most recent poll of city residents found strong support for 6-8 story buildings near transit (87% in favor), new residential skyscrapers in downtown, SOMA, and Mission Bay (75% in favor) and near BART stops (70%), and reducing fees on new homes to spur development (81% in favor).
“Importantly, this pro-housing sentiment extends to traditionally low-density neighborhoods like the Sunset and Richmond districts, indicating a citywide shift in attitudes,” the poll found.
At the same time, residents “remain concerned about displacement, so they strongly support reasonable compensation measures for tenants affected by redevelopment.”
This date “presents a compelling case for policymakers to enact bold housing reforms, aligning regulations with the will of the people and paving the way for a more affordable, vibrant San Francisco.”
I highlight both these developments in San Francisco because they reveal the possibility of a changed mindset.
At the same time, it is worth noting that some communities that have been noted slow growth communities have now made the positive list—but locally, while West Sacramento is on the list and Sacramento is on the list. Eastern Sacramento metro areas like Citrus Heights and Roseville are on the list. And to our west, cities like Napa, Fairfield, Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa are on the list.
Not on the list: Davis.
I have expressed concern before that Davis will have a hard time meeting its current housing allotment and an even more difficult time in the Seventh RHNA Cycle.
Moreover, I have expressed concern that the city council punted on major housing issues for 2024—it pushed off consideration of two Measure J projects, pushed off consideration of a Measure J amendment, and it has gotten off to a very slow start in terms of its General Plan update.
We have seen community after community pressured by the state to follow basic state laws on housing and, at some point, that may well come for Davis.
On the upside however is the notion that communities can change—and, at least on the surface, it appears that San Francisco, once the poster child for obstruction, is now on the pro-housing list. That should be the goal of Davis city leaders and residents as well.
A more healthy housing market will help our community by revitalizing our schools and ultimately lowering the cost of doing business.
A key quote from the San Francisco passed major legislation to remove barriers to home construction article …
“I’m deeply concerned that since passing our housing element earlier this year, nearly every effort to that has been commenced by the mayor’s administration has been focused on how to meet our market rate housing goals and little to nothing on reaching our affordable housing goals,” said Supervisor Dean Preston.
“In our previous eight-year housing cycle, we produced 150% of our target market rate housing. At the same time, we barely reached half of our affordable housing goals,” he said.”
That is more evidence that the State has imposed an unfunded mandate with RHNA. The City of Davis should reach out to other similarly affected cities and form a class action lawsuit to force the State to fund its affordable housing mandates. Hopefully David’s statement at the beginning of this Vanguard post is an indicator that the State may be seeing the light … “The designation, which is awarded exclusively to cities that have enacted the strongest pro-housing policies in the state, unlocks millions in new state funds to build affordable homes in San Francisco.”
The City of Davis should allow more housing to be built and not waste its time and money on frivolous lawsuits.
Don, I agree that the city needs affordable housing and the City government should be doing everything it can to get affordable housing built.
Current listings, homes for sale (Zillow):
Davis: 49
Woodland: 154
Dixon: 110
West Sac: 109
These ratios are typical. Note that Davis has the highest population of the cities listed.
Davis needs more housing inventory in every category. “Affordable housing” will only be built by developers who can also build higher-cost housing. If you oppose housing developments that include a full range of housing choices, you do not, in fact, support development of affordable housing.
It isn’t the City of Davis that is obstructing development. It’s people like you.
That doesn’t even tell the full story. A lot of those listings in Davis are up for less than a week.
That means passing housing projects.
David, a friend with connections in Davis real estate emailed me and said to tell you to look on Zillow.
My friend also asked me to post this:
“There are dozens of houses for sale that in the last few months have had their selling prices reduced because they aren’t selling. Rental prices are dropping too, to the point renters can bargain with landlords on terms. David’s thinking is a year behind the actual Davis housing market. A year ago houses were indeed selling in a week, and rentals were at a peak with multiple offers common. That market bubble has collapsed. David’s comment does not reflect reality. I know this hurts his narrative, but he cannot pretend to be an expert and claim the Davis housing market is in crisis, all the while talking about a housing demand situation that no longer exists.”
Is this an anomalous ratio? No.
June 2024:
Davis 55
Woodland 115
Dixon 56
West Sac 87
March 2024:
Davis 38
Woodland 92
Dixon 62
West Sac 67
January 2024:
Davis 36
Woodland 101
Dixon 60
West Sac 56
June 2023:
Davis 30
Woodland 91
Dixon 53
West Sac 82
Don, those numbers are missing a whole lot of context. One bit of context is the average occupancy tenure of the residences in the various communities between sales. The other bit of context is what portion of each number is for the first time sale of the residence.
Don, one other thing about your numbers is that I believe you are focusing on the wrong numbers.
These are the numbers I believe we all should be focusing on. When one looks at the City of Davis and the City of Palo Alto side by side:
— During the day time the population of Davis reduces by over 20,000 people from 67,000 to less than 47,000.
— In Palo Alto the daytime population increases by more than 70,000 from 68,000 to over 158,000.
— The reason for that stark difference is because Palo Alto has over 90,000 jobs in its City Limits, while Davis has only 15,000 jobs in its City Limits.
Palo Alto knows how to bring in “other people’s money.” Davis does not.
Palo Alto is an outlier. It is much wealthier and is located in the heart of Silicon Valley. There is no way most cities can compete with Palo Alto.
Walter, you miss the point. Davis wouldn’t be trying to compete with Palo Alto, it would be trying to emulate what Palo Alto has done in pursuing an “other people’s money” approach.
With that said, is Palo Alto anymore of a world leader in Silicon Valley technical achievements and know-how than UCD is a world leader in agricultural technical achievements and know how?
Literally everything you are posting is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Davis always has a much lower inventory of available housing for sale than the surrounding communities.
Davis needs more housing choices in every category.
Don, I agree with you that Davis needs a lot more housing in the under $600,000 category. It probably needs a bit more housing in the $600,000 to $800,000 category. But does it need more housing in the over $800,000 category.
It would be interesting to break down your multi-city numbers into those three categories (feel free to adjust the threshold numbers if you desire). I suspect that will tell a very different story than the aggregate numbers do.
Yes.
Show me the numbers Don.
I suspect that Davis has a larger for sale inventory of over $800,000 homes than Woodland, than Dixon, and than West Sac.
You’re missing too many important points here.
What are the important points I am missing?
“I suspect that Davis has a larger for sale inventory of over $800,000 homes than Woodland, than Dixon, and than West Sac.”
For starters not all inventory is made equal. So an $800K home in Davis is not the same as one in the other communities. Part of the driver for that – not the only part – but part – is scarcity.
Silicon Valley is vastly more lucrative than anything that UC Davis will ever be able to achieve. Davis has been hamstring for decades by development obstructionists and the tyranny of Measure J. Even UC Davis has been dragged through the mud by development obstructionists.
David Greenwald said … “For starters not all inventory is made equal.”
You didn’t really say that!?! In a town where Richard Rothstein clearly labeled us as lily white and privileged, isn’t the goal to address that inequity? To address that you need to look at the buyers, not the houses.
When you went out into the market to buy a house, what was the first question your real estate agent asked you … “How much can you afford? How much income do you have? How much of a down payment are you prepared to make?”
One of the points Whitcombe made is that there is a Davis inflation for housing, so the same size house in Davis goes for $100,000 or so more than in Woodland. His proposal to alleviate that is to subsidize the housing. But toward your original point, of course there is going to be more $800K homes in Davis than other communities, that’s why Davis has more expensive housing. It’s not because Davis has bigger homes, it’s because less is less affordable. I’m not exactly sure what in the heck you are responding to, that has nothing to do with my point.
Walter Schwe said … “Silicon Valley is vastly more lucrative than anything that UC Davis will ever be able to achieve. Davis has been hamstring for decades by development obstructionists and the tyranny of Measure J. Even UC Davis has been dragged through the mud by development obstructionists.”
Walter in a town where the local government has run up more than $450 million of unfunded liabilities (debt), how can you justify adding housing (with no jobs) that the City’s own financial studies show costs more in annual expenses for services than annual revenue it generates? That only digs the $450 million hole deeper and deeper.
David Greenwald said … ” I’m not exactly sure what in the heck you are responding to, that has nothing to do with my point.”,
Your point is both myopic and elitist. You are looking at the supply side only. You need to pay more attention to the demand side. To look at the demand side you need to consider the capabilities of the buyers, not the price of the houses.
As I said in my prior comment, when you went out into the market to buy a house, what was the first question your real estate agent asked you … “How much can you afford? How much income do you have? How much of a down payment are you prepared to make?”
I am not just talking about housing but rather all forms of development including commercial and industrial. Development obstructionists have successfully raised retail consumer prices by artificially restricting competition. In other words protectionism.
Walter Schwe said … “I am not just talking about housing but rather all forms of development including commercial and industrial. Development obstructionists have successfully raised retail consumer prices by artificially restricting competition. In other words protectionism.”
Walter, you clearly haven’t been listening to Mark West when he posts. He has consistently told you (and everyone else) that the long history of restricting competition has come from the local business establishment.
Further, the opposition to DiSC was because neither the City nor the developer had either an Economic Development Plan or a marketing plan. The developer actually refused to make any effort on a marketing plan until the entitlements were granted.
Now that is the same developer who has built the new building on 2nd Street near Faraday. How has the marketing of that building gone so far? Zero tenants to date.