Reading the title from a recent op-ed by the LA Times, Joel Kotkin, it seemed like it was going to be another anti-densify article (California’s housing problems require a better solution than densify, densify, densify)—but, rather than a polemic, it was a reasonable call, a balanced approach.
Kotkin does not outright reject densification, but rather questions whether it should be the only solution. The concerns about infrastructure strain, affordability, and community resistance are valid, especially if densification happens without parallel investments in public services or affordability measures
Instead, Kotkin argues that California’s housing crisis cannot be solved solely by increasing urban density (“densify, densify, densify”) and that a more comprehensive approach is needed.
While proponents of densification highlight benefits such as efficient land use, improved public transit, and economic growth, critics point out potential downsides like rising costs, infrastructure strain, and community resistance.
The piece suggests that a balanced strategy—including zoning reforms, streamlined permitting, and community engagement—is necessary to effectively address the state’s housing challenges.
The “densify, densify, densify” approach has has ignited a debate, with proponents highlighting its benefits and critics pointing out potential drawbacks.
There is a case to be made for densification.
Efficient Land Use. By constructing multi-family units in urban centers, cities can accommodate more residents without expanding into undeveloped areas, preserving natural landscapes and reducing urban sprawl.
Enhanced Public Transit. Higher population densities can justify and support more robust public transportation systems, leading to reduced traffic congestion and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Economic Vitality. Densification can stimulate local economies by bringing more consumers into urban areas, boosting businesses, and increasing municipal tax revenues.
A recent study by RCLCO (Robert Charles Lesser and Co.) highlights that, when effectively structured, property tax-based incentives can alleviate housing shortages and provide a strong return on investment for municipalities. These incentives can make urban development more attractive to builders, leading to an increase in housing supply and improved affordability.
Charlies Hewlett, Caroline Flax Ganz and Jackson Browning write, “these programs lead to a strong return on investment for municipalities, resulting in more affordable housing and increased tax revenues. Despite the clear benefits, some cities remain hesitant to adopt these incentives due to concerns about the timing and magnitude of budgetary impacts.”
Despite its potential benefits, densification faces criticism on several fronts.
Limited Impact on Affordability. Some argue that simply increasing the number of housing units doesn’t guarantee affordability. Without specific measures to include affordable housing, new developments may cater to higher-income residents, potentially driving up property values and rents in surrounding areas.
Infrastructure Strain. Adding more residents to existing urban areas can put pressure on infrastructure, including water, sewage, and public services, which may not be equipped to handle increased demand without significant investment.
Community Resistance. Local communities may resist densification efforts due to concerns about changing neighborhood character, increased traffic, and potential environmental impacts.
The recent article in the Atlantic we covered earlier this week, discusses how well-intentioned urban planning efforts, while aiming to preserve community character, can inadvertently restrict urban evolution and accessibility for newcomers, potentially exacerbating housing shortages.
Adding to that problem is the fact—cited by a number of commenters here—that many people simply do not want to rent and live in high-density living, especially in areas like Davis outside of dense urban centers.
Kotkin for instance, cites a recent PPIC survey which found “that 70% of the state’s adults preferred single-family residences.”
Moreover, he noted, “Not surprisingly, a large majority of Californians, according to a poll by former Obama campaign pollster David Binder, opposed legislation signed by Newsom in 2021 that in effect banned single-family zoning in much of the state.”
Others have suggested the expansion of publicly subsidized affordable housing.
But Kotkin cites “adding more projects such as the ambitious renewal of Jordan Downs in South L.A., but this will be difficult in a nearly broke city and a state with budget problems as well, and again it won’t match the aspirations of most Californians.”
Earlier this week, we reported on an effort by Senator Cabaldon along with Assemblymember Buffy Wicks to create a $10 billion fund for affordable housing. While that is certainly a helpful approach (unless you happen to oppose subsidized housing), even that may not go far enough.
Kotkin suggests one way out of this crisis, and that would be “to expand the streamlined permitting and regulatory processes that Newsom and local leaders are fast-tracking for fire reconstruction, incentivizing rather than punishing townhome and single-family home construction.”
He argues, “Instead of laws all but mandating high-density units, usually rentals, in the state’s biggest metros, Sacramento needs to encourage market-driven projects based on consumer preferences.”
Kotkin also suggests, wait for it… “peripheral development” which he argues “could open opportunities for first-time home-buyers.”
Other approaches would require some sort of balanced and multifaceted approach that considers the merits of densification while acknowledging its challenges.
Inclusive Zoning Policies. Implementing zoning reforms that require a mix of market-rate and affordable housing units can ensure that new developments serve diverse income levels.
Streamlined Permitting Processes. Simplifying and accelerating the approval process for new housing projects can reduce costs and encourage development. Lessons from other states, such as Texas’ H.B. 14, demonstrate that reducing bureaucratic delays can lead to a surge in housing permits.
Community Engagement. Involving local communities in planning decisions can help address concerns and foster support for densification projects that align with neighborhood needs and values.
None of these are of course panaceas and all of them have considerable drawback.
But, while densification offers a viable pathway to mitigate housing shortages, it must be thoughtfully implemented within a broader strategy that includes affordability measures, infrastructure investment, and community collaboration to effectively address California’s complex housing challenges.
From article: “Kotkin suggests one way out of this crisis, and that would be “to expand the streamlined permitting and regulatory processes that Newsom and local leaders are fast-tracking for fire reconstruction, incentivizing rather than punishing townhome and single-family home construction.”
Sounds like a “great idea” – fast-track rebuilding construction in a high risk fire zone, including townhomes and single family houses. What could go wrong with that?
From article: Kotkin also suggests, wait for it… “peripheral development” which he argues “could open opportunities for first-time home-buyers.”
Sprawl was never “not” the goal. Take a look around the region (in a state with a population that’s not growing), if you doubt that.
Or, take a look at the home town of the author (Los Angeles), if you want to see more examples of sprawl.
70% of people polled by the PPIC preferred single family homes.
Take that Davis Planning Group. Of course members of the Davis Planning group prefer single family homes for themselves just not for others
The problem with that, of course, is that single family housing costs more (and takes up more space, etc.).
The Cannery was already pretty cramped, but the houses seemed expensive (and that was a few years ago, at this point).
Even the small houses at Bretton Woods are pretty expensive (and also come with an HOA fee).
The best deal by far (in terms of price, lack of Mello Roos fees, location, lot size, and materials) is a “pre-owned” house. And they are available – I see them on Zillow all the time.
Existing homes don’t solve supply shortages – Just because homes are available on Zillow doesn’t mean there’s enough supply to meet demand. Prices remain high because there aren’t enough homes for sale at affordable levels.
New construction is needed to stabilize prices – If everyone relied on pre-owned homes, prices would remain artificially high due to limited supply and growing demand. The only way to reduce long-term costs is to increase housing production—whether single-family or multi-family.
If pre-owned homes were truly a complete solution, we wouldn’t have a housing crisis—yet home prices in California remain unaffordable for many.
The fact that new homes are expensive isn’t an argument against building more—it’s an argument for figuring out how to make housing development more affordable
If Davis only relies on existing homes, it risks becoming a wealthy enclave where housing remains out of reach for middle- and lower-income residents.
In short, Ron is correct that pre-owned homes can be a better deal, but that’s not a scalable solution for solving a regional or statewide housing shortage. New construction is necessary to bring prices down in the long run.
As of December 31, 2024, the Davis housing market reflects a median home value of $849,760, marking a 0.8% increase over the past year.  The inventory includes 72 homes for sale, with 17 new listings added in December 2024.
In December 2024, the median listing home price in Davis was $800,000, consistent with the previous year, and the median price per square foot stood at $477. 
The California Association of Realtors projects a 10.5% increase in existing single-family home sales statewide in 2025, reaching 304,400 units, with the median home price expected to rise by 4.6% to $909,400. 
These figures indicate a stable yet high-priced housing market in Davis, with limited inventory potentially contributing to sustained competition and elevated prices.
That’s interesting, regarding the claim by the California Association of Realtors (a 4.6% increase statewide average). Most of the sources I’ve seen show a mixture of projected results around the state, with some areas dropping in price, while others slightly increasing.
I’ve personally noticed some drastic reductions in asking prices in some “desirable” areas in California, and houses sitting on the market for a much longer period of time.
Of course, if the realtors’ prediction is correct, that would be (approximately) in line with the inflation rate as a whole.
I understand that interest rates are still around 7%.
Nationwide, the housing market is tanking (massive price drops in some locales, such as Florida, Texas, Louisiana).
In any case, let’s see what’s available in Davis. Below is the first one that popped up, without even applying any “screens” to the search. $750K.
Now, maybe you think that someone searching for a house should “wait” for a developer to provide a better deal than that one (as an example), but I personally doubt that’s going to happen.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1305-Oak-Ave-Davis-CA-95616/16520635_zpid/
Reiterating: “In short, Ron is correct that pre-owned homes can be a better deal, but that’s not a scalable solution for solving a regional or statewide housing shortage. New construction is necessary to bring prices down in the long run.”
Another way to look at this, there are 73 homes for sale currently per Zillow and nearly 26K total homes in Davis, that means current 0.3 percent of the homes in Davis are currently listed – that is a Low percentage that indicates a very tight housing market with limited availability. You can’t spin this data. It would be better if you just acknowledged that you are against building new housing regardless of the data. That would at least be honest and then we could agree to disagree and move on.
David, what exactly is the “goal”?
Because if the goal is to find a house for someone looking to move to Davis, there’s 73 choices – per your own citation. I cited one that I found immediately, for $750K
How many more do you want?
How many houses can someone live in simultaneously?
You’re trying to reframe the issue.
Finding one house doesn’t mean the market is balanced. If that were the case, every city would be “affordable” as long as some homes were available.
The real issue isn’t “how many homes do you need?”—it’s “does the supply match demand at reasonable price points?” Right now, in Davis, it doesn’t.
Nothing you’re arguing changes that fact – the data speak for themselves.
David says: “It would be better if you just acknowledged that you are against building new housing regardless of the data. That would at least be honest and then we could agree to disagree and move on.”
No – you’re misstating what I said.
But I am “against” using the data that you’re using (a perennial/preferred percentage of supply of houses for sale) to create a policy regarding the “need for sprawl”.
That’s a recipe to continue sprawling forever, and is highly irresponsible. It is the very definition of an unsustainable policy.
And again, inventory is not the same thing as new construction. The housing market has tanked nationwide – there aren’t as many buyers (which isn’t something that necessarily corresponds with “inventory”).
If there’s no buyers (e.g., due to high interest rates, high cost for housing – including taxes, insurance, etc.), then inventory is irrelevant.
David says: “Finding one house doesn’t mean the market is balanced. If that were the case, every city would be “affordable” as long as some homes were available.”
Would you like for me to find some other ones? (That one didn’t suit your fancy?)
You recently (after much prodding) put forth some numbers regarding what you think is “affordable”, while simultaneously stating that it’s not feasible via new construction.
“Balanced” has no meaning, “affordable” has no meaning. Let alone trying to achieve it.
The best deal remains pre-existing housing. The Cannery did not lower existing housing prices in Davis.
You can’t respond to data analysis with analogies. The data I cited showed there were 73 vacancies in Davis accounting for around a 0.3 percent vacancy rate. You citing another vacant home, doesn’t change the data.
Again, inventory can be irrelevant, when there’s a lack of buyers. (See San Francisco example, below.)
But more to your point, I don’t advocate for sprawl based upon inventory numbers (which fluctuate depending upon factors other than new construction). That is simply not sustainable, and has no “end game” regarding continued sprawl.
Again, see San Francisco, where housing prices dropped by about 15% while new construction simultaneously reached a 12-year low.
And that’s ultimately because people have “alternatives” to living in a particular locale. That fact is NOT measured by inventory numbers.
If you’re going to continue citing the supply/demand model, cite it in its ENTIRETY – which includes “alternatives” as variables change.
Lots of folks have already figured out that much of California is no longer a “good deal” (in regard to wages vs. cost of living). Why are you and the other growth advocates opposed to that?
You’re not even making good arguments for your position at this point.
And again, can you put the numbers (housing prices) of new construction that you believe are “affordable”? (The numbers that you cited, while simultaneously noting that it’s not achievable via new construction.)
There’s some of your own “data” for you to look at, in regard to your advocacy for continued sprawl.
I can get whatever data you want, but none of it changes the fact that you’re ignoring it completely and going all over the map in terms of your arguments, this is not a fruitful exercise for me.
“You’re not even making good arguments for your position at this point.”
So far, you haven’t even addressed any of the points I brought up.
You and I are on entirely different planes of thought and goals regarding the issue of sprawl. Again, I don’t advocate for sprawl based upon inventory numbers for the reasons I already discussed (which you haven’t responded to).
Nor do I advocate for the creation of more jobs (as you and the other growth advocates do), which is the PRIMARY REASON for what you view as “housing shortages” in a given area in the first place!
David says: “I can get whatever data you want, but none of it changes the fact that you’re ignoring it completely and going all over the map in terms of your arguments, this is not a fruitful exercise for me.”
This is one of your continuing problems – you don’t actually engage with anything that you don’t like. And then you start putting forth dismissive comments.
Do you think this is a “fruitful exercise” for ME?
In contrast, I responded to your point regarding “inventory”.
Honestly, David. It’s like you’re not hearing what I said at all.
I see the data, and I’ll assume it’s correct.
I cited some other data, including what’s happening in San Francisco (which you haven’t responded to).
You and I have different responses to data. You seem to think that data should only lead to one conclusion (yours).
David Greenwald said, “Another way to look at this, there are 73 homes for sale currently per Zillow and nearly 26K total homes in Davis, that means current 0.3 percent of the homes in Davis are currently listed”
and
“You can’t respond to data analysis with analogies. The data I cited showed there were 73 vacancies in Davis accounting for around a 0.3 percent vacancy rate. You citing another vacant home, doesn’t change the data.”
David’s second quote above is a text book example of an Appeal to Authority fallacy with David’s authority being “the data.”
One of the problems with citing data and then calculating based on that data happens when the cited data is in correct, which it is in David’s first quote. Contrary to David’s assertion, there are not 26,000 homes in Davis. That 26,000 number includes residential units in multi-family complexes. The number of homes is less than half of 26,000.
Further, calculating a vacancy rate for for-sale homes is a fool’s errand because the vast majority of homes listed as being for sale are at that time occupied by their current owner.
Good point, Matt.
Also, there is no “housing shortage” (in the manner commonly-presented) in the first place.
From article, below: “The researchers found only four of the nation’s 381 metropolitan areas experienced a housing shortage in the study time frame, as did only 19 of the country’s 526 “micropolitan” areas — those with 10,000-50,000 residents.”
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/study-finds-us-does-not-have-housing-shortage-but-shortage-of-affordable-housing
Given that 55% of Californians’ already live in single family homes that they own, it’s not surprising that a majority prefer SF homes. But that’s not the population we’re targeting. It’s the portion of the 45% who rent who want to buy a house or move closer to work. They are much more amenable to higher density housing.
Davis Citizens Planning Group is trying to create housing that is affordable for this population. New SF housing in Village Farms will cost more than $700k and probably more. That’s not affordable to the “missing middle” housing market that we need to target. That’s why we need higher density housing. Adding more SF housing would be counterproductive to the affordability goal.
Richard, higher density isn’t the only way to bring down housing prices. An even better way is to build smaller square foot houses. That is especially true in today’s world where the number of children in each family on average gets smaller and smaller.
One of the important factors affecting housing demand is that the national marriage rate is hovering at an all-time low, and adult relationships are in terrible trouble. For the first time since at least the 1970s women under age 35 are more likely to share a household with their parents then with a romantic partner. The problem is especially glaring among lower income Americans. NOTE: the vast majority of jobs in the City of Davis are low income jobs.
Since the 1980s coupling has declined more than twice as fast among Americans without a college degree compared with college graduates. There are several factors, but the most important is simple. Many young men are falling behind economically while women have charged ahead into the workforce and simultaneously seeing their college graduation rates soar. The earnings of non-college educated men at age 45 have dropped by nearly 25% over the past 50 years.
For women marriage has traditionally served as a form of insurance against the threat of violence and the specter of poverty. Young men with low incomes and dim future prospects of advancement, make for less attractive partners. And in the modern world women do not feel obligated to marry them or have children. As economic and cultural trajectories of men and women move in opposite directions the sexes drift apart.
All of the above impact local demand for for-sale housing.
Matt:
You are offering a false dichotomy here between higher density and smaller homes – which are not mutually exclusive. Many high-density developments incorproate smaller units. In addition, high density housing is often more efficient and thus a better way to lower housing costs than simply building smaller detached homes.
Land and construction costs still matter. In places like Davis where land is expensive (and so is construction), high density housing can make better use of limited space.
You mentioned household formation, but that doesn’t equal housing demand decline. While declining marriage rates may impact demand for large homes, they don’t decrease overall housing demand. And in fact, more single adults may increase the demand for smaller units – something that density-friendly zoning can help accommodate.
Matt says: ” . . . women under age 35 are more likely to share a household with their parents then with a romantic partner.”
This does not necessarily mean that they’re not in a relationship with a “romantic partner”.
Regarding young males, it seems likely that a higher percentage of them (compared to women) are entering the trades.
There’s also young people (of both sexes) choosing to live at home to pay off student debt and to save up money for a downpayment for a house.
Regarding the low birth rates, “it’s good thing” (to paraphrase Martha Stewart).
https://tenor.com/search/its-a-good-thing-gifs
David Greenwald said … “You’re offering a false dichotomy between higher density and smaller homes”
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is that building smaller homes produces higher density in almost all cases. It is not an either/or situation. It is both/and. Both smaller, more affordable houses, with lower construction costs because of their reduced square feet, and more often than not reduced land costs because of smaller lot sizes.
David Greenwald then said … “You mentioned household formation, but that doesn’t equal housing demand decline. While declining marriage rates may impact demand for large homes, they don’t decrease overall housing demand.”
That is a correct statement. Single individuals need housing just as much as married individuals do. However, single individuals need considerably less space. 900 to 1,200 square feet … the size of post-WWII starter homes … is very comfortable for a single person. The typical new construction home built in Davis exceeds 2,000 square feet and quite often exceeds 3,000 square feet. What that says is that housing formation is out of step with household formation. The developers are ignoring the realities of our changing national demographics, and the result is that Davis’s historical classist exclusion of people of moderate income will get worse, not better.
Our political leaders need to stand up to the developers and demand that they build smaller, more affordable units matched to the smaller, Les financially endowed buying public.
That is especially important in Davis where the vast majority of the jobs in Davis are low paying.
Building large, high priced homes not only is a disservice to the people who work in Davis providing high quality of life services to the Davis residents, it is a significant contributor to greater green house gasses because the only way buyers can afford the high priced houses is to commute out of town to the kind of high paying jobs Davis has so few of within its City Limits.
Employment trends at the City’s neighbor UCD tell the same story. The absence of moderately priced homes in Davis has resulted in the number of UCD employees who live in Davis to plummet to below 3,800,. That means that less than one out of three Davis campus employees lives in the City. That will not improve if the housing we add is out of their price range in the same way current housing in Davis is out of their price range. Only very affluent UCD employees will be able to afford to live in Davis, which simply perpetuates our classist exclusionary history.
Finally, it is worth noting that the state of California clearly and explicitly wants to see Davis swing its pendulum toward more affordable housing. Only 805 out of 2,075 mandated units are in the above moderate category. The state wants over 60% of the new units to be moderately priced or below. The message is clear.
David says: “Existing homes don’t solve supply shortages – Just because homes are available on Zillow doesn’t mean there’s enough supply to meet demand. Prices remain high because there aren’t enough homes for sale at affordable levels.”
(Right – existing homes probably “create” housing shortages, in your view.)
(But if there’s such a dire shortage, shouldn’t a house in Davis (for example) only be available to someone with Elon Musk’s money? And last time I checked, that wasn’t exactly the case.)
David says: “New construction is needed to stabilize prices – If everyone relied on pre-owned homes, prices would remain artificially high due to limited supply and growing demand. The only way to reduce long-term costs is to increase housing production—whether single-family or multi-family.”
(Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that people “move” within the state, out of the state, to the state, etc. Those are called “alternatives” and are PART OF the supply/demand model that you and the other growth advocates REPEATEDLY ignore.)
David says: “If pre-owned homes were truly a complete solution, we wouldn’t have a housing crisis—yet home prices in California remain unaffordable for many.”
(Houses in Cleveland are “unaffordable for many”. And yet, you can get a very nice one for under $100K. “Unaffordable for many” has no meaning whatsoever.)
David says: “If Davis only relies on existing homes, it risks becoming a wealthy enclave where housing remains out of reach for middle- and lower-income residents.”
(Depends upon what you mean by “middle class”. Housing in Davis is downright “cheap” for those moving from the Bay Area.)
(Also, every single house in Davis (and everywhere) WILL turn over (have new owners) at some point. That’s not an opinion – it’s an inevitable fact.)
David says: “In short, Ron is correct that pre-owned homes can be a better deal, but that’s not a scalable solution for solving a regional or statewide housing shortage. New construction is necessary to bring prices down in the long run.”
(Again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are alternatives. Davis, for an example, IS a “cheap alternative” for those moving from the Bay Area.)
(Existing housing is the best alternative (as you just acknowledged) for anyone looking to move to Davis. If they were in such high demand, their prices would be higher and they wouldn’t remain on the market for more than a few minutes.)
(Perhaps it shouldn’t be a policy (anywhere) to try to address a fake, nebulous and undefined “housing shortage”.)
Ran it through the whopper…
A healthy housing market typically has:
How Davis Compares
• Current homes for sale: ~0.3% of total housing stock → Far below the 3%-5% benchmark → Indicates an extreme shortage.
• High home prices & slow turnover → Suggests an inventory squeeze where demand outpaces supply.
Conclusion
Davis does not have a healthy housing market. The extreme lack of available homes (0.3%) creates high prices, bidding wars, and affordability issues. More inventory—either through infill or new development—would be needed to move closer to a balanced market.
David, “inventory” (nationwide) has been low, due to the lock-in effect of those with low mortgage rates.
It is drastically increasing now, regardless.
Bottom line is that “inventory” is NOT THE SAME THING as “new construction”.
Also, your figure (from the California Association of Realtors) shows that housing prices in California have been increasing less than 1% – far below the rate of inflation for “everything else”.
But again, ask the “whopper” why houses in Davis are not selling for Bay Area prices, for example.
For that matter, what has been the inventory in a place like San Francisco? (I suspect that inventory has been low during the entire time when housing prices were DROPPING.)
The problem (with only examining inventory is that it doesn’t necessarily measure DEMAND.
The housing market has been frozen everywhere, due to higher interest rates, etc. There aren’t many BUYERS – regardless of inventory.
Density needs to be bear real destinations and good transit to add real value— beyond reducing construction cost per unit. Look at dense sprawl with apartment complexes in suburban sacto (arcade area)
Village farms putting large park on corner pole line x Covell- the closest spot to transit & shopping instead of housing shows developer and/ir city sadly do not get it.
Regarding the park on the corner, that’s probably so that existing Davis residents don’t have to immediately see an ugly, enormous housing project on a location that used to be high-quality farmland.
Below is what’s been happening in San Francisco, and the (approximately 15%) price drop is NOT a result of new construction, inventory – or anything other than lack of demand. In fact, one of the articles notes that new construction was at a 12-year low, while prices were simultaneously dropping.
And yet, the growth advocates on here want to create a housing shortage for the SAME REASON that houses are still expensive in S.F. and the Bay Area. (Economic development, which is now collapsing in San Francisco.)
As they say, you can view data in different ways (and measure it in different ways), depending upon what your goal is.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-bay-area-housing-shortage-20038431.php
https://nypost.com/2024/12/28/real-estate/san-francisco-house-prices-plunge-amid-widespread-tech-layoffs/
“While proponents of densification highlight benefits such as efficient land use, ****improved public transit**** . . . ****Enhanced Public Transit****. Higher population densities can justify and support more robust public transportation systems, leading to reduced traffic congestion and lower greenhouse gas emissions.”
And this is where you all get it wrong. Public transit ***always*** has to come first in the planning — within communities and between communities. And it will cost tens of billions of dollars and require auto-centric planning to stop 50 years ago, or today. But even BLUE BLUE DAVIS can’t even stand up and make a statement and vote to refuse the federal dollars to expand I-80 across the Causeway, because we are still accepting the billions from the feds with auto-strings attached.
We built this country on rock and roll, and on car-centric infrastructure in the hundreds of billions. You can’t simply subsidize and densify your way to a better structure, when you are densifying in a broken infrastructure still beholden to the car. The statement “Higher population densities can justify and support more robust public transportation systems” is a joke. Subsidizing housing is a joke, because a lucky few get the subsidy, the subsidy inflates the market and raises rents overall, and persons scu-rewed are the working poor, as they always are. Those just above the subsidy line, wherever that falls.
The sane solution is to build the infrastructure first. Invest in billions of dollars in electrified rail transportation that can move people in mass numbers at high speed. The local transit systems will tie in to the train arrivals and naturally feed the rail system. The density will naturally occur around the stations and fan outward as people desire to live near the transportation hub that can deliver them all over the state.
This isn’t a dream, it’s the state rail plan, largely not funded. This isn’t a dream, it’s how the rest of the industrialized world does it. This isn’t a dream, it means investing billions in the Capitol Corridor to electrify it, speed it up, straighten it’s route, and increase the frequency of trains.
But no. Our City Coucil, Our County Supervisors and the Transportation Authority all vote to keep the federal dollars and widen I-80. The housing subsidies will be an endless bottomless hole, as increased subsidies in the billions cause and chase inflated housing prices, forever. Investment in rail infrastructure will naturally induce density and encourage development around stations. Housing subsidies will increase box-flat ugly medium-rises and increase traffic and maybe someone will subsidize a lightly-used bus, as density is crammed into our auto-centric world.
Again, the number of houses for sale (at any given time) isn’t something that I’d refer to (in regard to advocating for sprawl), but for those who do – there’s (only) 102 housing units for sale in Woodland, compared to 78 for sale in Davis.
(The size of these two cities is pretty similar.)
One might expect a city that pursues sprawl (such as Woodland) to have a much greater number of units for sale, per the arguments that David puts forth.
In any case, there’s a couple hundred to choose from, between those two cities (alone).
As of February 2025, the housing markets in Davis and Woodland, California, exhibit notable differences in competitiveness and pricing.
Davis Housing Market:
• Average Home Price: $869,000, reflecting a 12.9% increase from the previous year. 
• Market Competitiveness: Somewhat competitive, with a score of 56 out of 100. 
Woodland Housing Market:
• Average Home Price: $550,000, marking a 7.8% rise from the prior year. 
• Market Competitiveness: Very competitive, scoring 79 out of 100. 
These figures indicate that while Davis has higher home prices, Woodland’s market is more competitive. Both cities have experienced price increases over the past year, with Davis seeing a more substantial rise.
For broader context, the California Association of Realtors forecasts a 4.6% increase in the state’s median home price for 2025, reaching $909,400. 
In summary, prospective buyers may find more competitive conditions in Woodland but should be prepared for higher prices in Davis.
How is “market competitiveness” compared between two cities, when the “more-competitive” one has a slightly higher inventory and significantly-lower prices?
Also, the “below 1% figure” for the past year that you cited (in regard to the increase in Davis housing prices over the past year) is well-below the rate of inflation over that same time period. Perhaps that’s indicative of a “glut” of housing, and that some of it needs to be torn down as a result (using your type of logic).
Here’s your citation (from earlier/above): “As of December 31, 2024, the Davis housing market reflects a median home value of $849,760, marking a 0.8% increase over the past year.”
I don’t know why it used average rather than median in the second citation. Probably drew from a different source.
This is why you should provide links to the sources you cite.
One was Zillow, the other was Redfin.
I already suspected that.
Redfin (for whatever reason) seems more “optimistic” than Zillow (from a homeowner’s perspective – assuming that he/she looks forward to seeing increases in property value online.)
Truth be told, homeowners are better-off if values decline, if property taxes and insurance follow suit. (The actual expenditures they have to make.)
Another problem, however, with looking at “sold” values is that the sample often does not represent an “average” house. For example, there’s a lot of cash buyers these days, and they may be buying more-expensive houses than an “average” buyer with a mortgage. Especially as interest rates have risen.
I’ve heard that cash buyers are dominating much of the market these days, and that the average age of a buyer is closing in on 60 years old. (And then there’s institutional buyers, but I don’t think there’s very much of that in Davis.)
Kotkin is a long time climate change denier. He sees no threatening environmental consequences from urban sprawl so of course he promotes it as he always has for decades. I first came across him in the 1990s. He believes in returning the California of the 1960s when sprawl and the auto was king. He can have useful insights, but when he turns to policy recommendations, he’s usually way out of bounds.
Kotkin predicted the Latino vote turning against Democrats because the Democrats were more concerned about a pure environment than the needs of working class people. We are now living with the consequences of not heeding Kotkin’s warning. Yet we still see demands for a future that values environmental correctness over practical solutions.
Nothing wrong with a ‘pure’ environment. The problem is delusional climate change politics.