The following comments were submitted by members of the Davis Citizens Planning Group on Wednesday, commenting on the Village Farms Draft EIR at the Davis Planning Commission meeting.
Alex Achimore – Introduction
Hi. I’m Alex Achimore and I’m with the group of guys standing behind me that’s trying to be a resource for alternatives to the proposal we’re looking at tonight. You may have seen some of our articles in the Vanguard under our catchy name Davis Citizens Planning Group, and we have loaded a website—plandavis.org—with more information about how else we think this property could be developed to better serve Davis.
The unfortunate part of where find ourselves, of course, is that there’s been no opportunity for the community to prepare its own plan for comparison to one that’s been done from the perspective of a landowner/developer.
So rather than dissect the proposal before us, we decided to try to imagine what if there were a specific plan that came out of a public process, what it might look like and how it might differ from what’s on the table. We of course are no substitute for compiling the varied ideas of our community, but we’re all professionals in various aspects of planning and can at least cite current best practices and what’s been working recently in other cities.
A couple of high points: we think infill is great, but don’t believe there are enough sites left to build the housing Davis needs, and we totally agree that the Village Farms and Shriners sites are the best places for that. We take no exception to the numbers of units proposed, but we do have concerns about the heavy reliance on detached, single-family houses that in our market are way out of range of our school teachers, service workers and most university staff, sometimes called the missing middle.
Providing more in-town housing opportunities for folks like that who commute to Davis every day would not only help them but would have a lot of benefits for the rest of us as well: it would also help reduce car travel and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
The present situation is really no better for the developers than the public. The Village Farms and Shriners teams are having to guess what the voting public might go for based on a few private conversations and their own marketing studies. We’ll keep putting out alternatives that hopefully will stimulate more conversation about what the broader community might want. Our website offers the chance to make comments free of the editing and filtering that the official outlets offer. Perhaps some middle ground will emerge..
Now I’m going to turn it over to my colleagues to talk more about how a plan that might have been generated by the public would differ from what’s before us tonight.
Anthony Palmere:
Hello, I’m Anthony Palmere, retired after a career in transportation and public transit planning. One of the recurring concerns expressed about any proposal in the area of Covell and Pole Line is added traffic. And, unfortunately, the Village Farms proposal is not designed in a way to maximize use of cycling and transit, which could, in turn, reduce the VMT increase that would result from adding more homes in the area. As Alex mentioned, the reliance on detached housing will result in very expensive houses that are not affordable to people who may work in Davis, making it likely that people will be commuting longer distances to work and will find that driving is their only option.
The project location is ideal for transit and bike access, and, when considered in conjunction with other proposed projects such as Palomino Place, Shriners, and projects along the Mace Curve, would be a strong corridor for a high quality frequent transit line, as identified in the work by our planning group. In a perfect world, such a corridor would be identified in an updated General Plan, consistent with our Climate Action Plan, but we are hesitant to delay the start of building more housing waiting for the completion of a multi-year planning process.
With that in mind, we don’t need to delay Village Farms for a General Plan update, but we can make some common sense changes that would be consistent with our Climate Action Plan and a future transit corridor. That would be to build more housing closer to Covell and Pole Line where current and future transit service will be, instead of putting a park in that important location. Studies continually find that people are much more likely to use transit that is frequent and within a 5- to 10-minute walk. The park in that location serves to push more of the houses outside the needed proximity to transit and adds distance to every bike or walking trip to shopping and schools. Instead, if the housing were to be concentrated in that area and is attached, truly “missing middle” housing, then local workers can live there and take advantage of the bike paths and transit service that are provided. If we are able to maximize the potential for cycling and transit use, we have a win-win, with more housing for the families to live in Davis while reducing the traffic and VMT impact. This is too important a location to waste on expensive and unaffordable housing that increases driving and congestion.
Thank you.
David Thompson:
Re Other Options for Village Farms housing
Village Farms talks about meeting various housing needs but the reality is that they are providing mainly single-family market rate homes priced for middle-aged high income families likely to have few school age children.
The housing needs not addressed by Village Farms are those for younger households with school age children in the very low to medium income range.
The highest proportion of school age children to units is gained by approving family-sized (2, 3, 4 bedroom) subsidized rentals. So why so few units in that category?
By the nature of whom it intends to serve, Davis Village Farms will be a project that continues by policy to increase the exclusionary structure of our community.
Many of the thousands of younger incoming daily workers are in the category of “you will never be able to afford to live here.”
A sample of wait lists and turnovers:
The 37-home Aggie Village CLT model for moderate income households had one turnover in 2024 and none in 2023. There are 44 on the wait list the wait list has been as high as over 100
The 60-unit Dos Pinos LEHC model for moderate income families had 6 turnovers in 2024. 4-6 turnovers per year previous five years. There were 122 on the waiting list in 2021 when it was closed. That list has just been purged a few months ago and there is now a new waiting list of already 56.
Yolo County Housing:
Has not one public housing site in Davis but if it had it would have 10,000 households (-30%-80%) on it, similar to Woodland.
YCH has 10 properties in Davis that have project-based vouchers waitlists. Of the nine waitlists that YCH manages, there is a combined total of 8,825 households (-30%-80%) on the waitlists.
Please be aware that this is a duplicated number, and one household could be on all nine waitlists.
Subsidized rental housing in Davis:
Looked at over the last 20 years, low-income subsidized rentals in Davis often have waiting lists four times the number of households that could be served as there are actual units.
For example, a 50-unit project could have a wait list of 200 households.
There are about 1,500 units of subsidized rental units in Davis and they would have approx. 6,000 households on their wait lists. Certainly, people put their names on more than one, so admittedly there is multiple counting.
I believe that the Planning Commission should have staff do a formal review of these wait lists to put it in a position of determining: is Village Farms is meeting the needs of Davis workers and residents?
Richard McCann
We believe that planning for and approving new developments requires understanding the context within Davis that these projects are being considered. Here’s the current employment, housing and commuting situation in the Davis area:
- UCD is the largest employer with 11,000 employees on the Davis campus. 42% of them live in Davis; the rest commute from out of town because they can’t afford a house here. It’s clear that mid-level staff jobs do not pay sufficiently to cover housing prices here.
- Within the City and UCD, there are about 32,500 jobs of which 31% live in Davis, and the other 69% commute in because they can’t afford a house here.
- There are 33,500 employed residents. About two-thirds of them commute outside of Greater Davis where they have higher paid jobs that afford them the ability to live in Davis. They have outcompeted those working inside Greater Davis.
We have about the same number of jobs as we have workers, but clearly there’s an imbalance between the types of jobs and the jobs that residents are qualified for. This has created a mass vehicle flow each day of close to 40,000 trips.
To achieve lower GHG emissions and to reduce VMT and improve traffic congestion, we need to bring those employees who are commuting into Davis to housing here. And we need to create sufficiently attractive jobs for those commuting out to prefer to work here instead.
Based on these facts and objectives, we need two actions to accomplish these goals:
- Create and attract private sector businesses that attract higher paid employees and provide higher salaries for mid-level jobs.
- Build “missing middle” housing that meets the needs of current local employees.
Village Farms needs to focus on meeting the needs of this missing middle housing market. Detached single-family housing in Davis is and will be priced out of the reach of these households. We still have time to redirect Village Farms to accomplish this goal.
Gabriel Ehrlich – Strong Towns Davis
Hi Commissioners, my name is Gabriel Ehrlich. I grew up in West Davis, and I’ve been back living in West Davis for a few years now. I’m a member of Strong Towns Davis, but I’m speaking tonight on my own behalf and in collaboration with members of the Davis Planning Group.
I believe Davis needs to build a lot more housing, and not just so that I might be able to afford it someday, but not just any housing. Our city needs housing that makes us stronger, including more financially resilient.
When a developer builds a peripheral development like Village Farms, they build a lot of new infrastructure—streets, water lines, and sewers—and they hand the liability for maintaining that infrastructure over to the city. So when a street in the development has been driven on for decades and it needs to be replaced, the city has to pay for that.
Where does the city get the money for that? From taxes on the stuff the new residents are buying, mostly through the sales tax, the property tax on land and structures, and the fuel tax. So whether the city can afford to maintain that new infrastructure depends on how much neighborhood we’re getting for our streets.
In the U.S., before the 1950s, we built compactly, like downtown Davis. There are a lot of businesses and offices and apartments serving as a tax base, and there are relatively few streets—there’s plenty of money to maintain or replace them.
Starting in the 1950s, the U.S. started building large developments of single-family detached housing. There are wide paved streets and driveways for all the cars everyone needs. The lots are bigger, and a lot of it is privately owned green space. The neighborhood occupies more land, so things are farther apart, and the city needs more mileage of streets, water, and sewer to serve it. That’s going to be expensive to replace.
According to Strong Towns, this pattern of development has been causing many or most cities across the U.S. to quietly go broke over the past few decades, as old roads start to need to be replaced for the first time and they’re added to the “deferred maintenance” pile. In Davis, we built this way, and now, we have an $11 million per year infrastructure maintenance backlog, at least. If you want to look this up, Strong Towns the “growth Ponzi scheme.”
The way to stop digging this hole with Village Farms is to get more neighborhood for our streets. Let’s build more multifamily housing so that we don’t need to maintain as much expensive asphalt to serve it. And basically, let’s make it so people in this neighborhood don’t have to drive everywhere, which is why most of that expensive infrastructure is needed. Let’s plan the housing around an excellent transit connection to downtown and UCD, and let’s make the housing affordable for people who work in town and families with children who attend our schools and can walk or bike there, like I did when I was a kid.
Building this way uses less energy and water, and, just a small portion of the space reclaimed from cars and private backyards can be used for plenty of trees and park space. And above all, we’ll have more money to spend on making Davis better.
I believe we need to build a lot more housing in Davis, and I hope Village Farms might help meet that need, but it’s not clear to me that any of it needs to be single-family detached housing. Thank you.
Tim Keller:
Effect on our economy.
I’m Tim Keller, I run Inventopia, which is a business incubator here in town, and I would like to comment on the effect that our housing decisions have on our local economy.
When you do an analysis of what Davis is good at in terms of our economy, and what our strengths are, there is really only one answer: Its talent. Companies start here, or come here when they are in their early days in order to access the intellectual talents of our populace because of the university. But our housing situation is a dire threat to that one economic advantage we have.
When you visit the startups in our economy, as I have, you see a pattern. The older veteran tech workers live here in town, but if you are under about 40, you commute in from outside. These workers are the next generation of our innovation economy, and, if we can’t house them, we are not only causing more traffic and VMTs in the short run, we are undermining our city’s primary economic advantage in the long run.
Davis has quite a bit of housing dedicated to students, (although still not enough) and the rest is single-family homes that you need a median household income of 160k to be able to afford. There is almost nothing in the middle and this is our greatest area of need.
Now there is a lot of evidence to indicate that building our cities primarily out of single-family housing was never a good idea in the first place, and as Gabe mentioned there are plenty of reasons to question whether it’s responsible to be building ANY more single-family housing at this point… but the biggest one to me is just how very dire the situation is for housing the people whom we most urgently need to house.
We are discussing only 1800 housing units at our best infill site in town in the face of over 20,000 currently displaced workers. And we are considering producing mostly single-family housing that won’t be affordable to this population? That is just out of touch with our city’s actual needs, it is a waste of a precious land resource we really should be using more wisely, and it’s a threat to the future of our economy.
There is really only one development concept that ticks all the boxes for the real needs of our city, environmental, economic, social, and that is the transit-oriented development concept—that we have been writing about in the Vanguard for some time now. Unfortunately, a medium/density transit-oriented option is NOT considered in any of the EIR scenarios, and we really think it should be.
Davis needs more housing desperately, and this site is THE best opportunity to make a difference. But the plan that has been brought by the developer has been crafted to simply to pass a Measure J vote. And while we understand why they really have to play it that way, that doesn’t make this plan for Davis the best one. There is a clash of systemic incentives here. This is why planning commissions exist, so let’s be smart and look for better options. More information about our alternative proposal that we would like to see included in the EIR can be found at plandavis.org/villagefarms
Or, the voters could just reject it entirely – also an option (as they’ve done before).
Personally, I like it the way it is. A highly-visible farm (tomatoes, sunflowers, etc.), with high quality soil – not adding to traffic congestion, etc.
What’s not to like?
One way or the other housing will be built and there’s only limited number of locations in Davis that can accommodate the amount of housing the state is going to require this time and next cycle. What is up for debate and discussion is what that housing looks like – and to me that’s an important and healthy debate.
David says: “One way or the other housing will be built . . .”
The state’s housing mandates are already failing – statewide.
Also, the proposed development doesn’t even address state mandates.
Ron continues to be a diehard housing obstructionist. That is plain as day.
If state housing mandates are ‘already failing statewide,’ as Ron claims, that would seem to be an argument for more housing solutions, not fewer. Blocking development only exacerbates the problem.
Also, saying the proposed project doesn’t address state mandates— what is he saying? Is he arguing it doesn’t meet the letter of the law, or that it doesn’t contribute meaningfully to solving the housing crisis? Because opposing all housing, regardless of context, certainly doesn’t help meet the state’s goals or address the growing need.
David says: “If state housing mandates are ‘already failing statewide,’ as Ron claims, that would seem to be an argument for more housing solutions, not fewer. Blocking development only exacerbates the problem.”
You’re conflating two different issues. The state’s “mandates” are not related to a “problem” (other than for development interests).
David says: “Also, saying the proposed project doesn’t address state mandates— what is he saying? Is he arguing it doesn’t meet the letter of the law, or that it doesn’t contribute meaningfully to solving the housing crisis? Because opposing all housing, regardless of context, certainly doesn’t help meet the state’s goals or address the growing need.”
Again, conflating two different things. But you’re the one who brought up the state’s housing mandates (which this proposal doesn’t address). If you’re stating otherwise, you’re the one who needs to show how it meets those mandates (at each income level).
The state isn’t growing in the first place – young people aren’t even having kids anywhere near replacement levels.
Ron’s response is a mix of deflection, shifting the burden of proof, and an unrelated population argument.
He claims I’m conflating issues, but then argues o that state mandates don’t matter while simultaneously using them to oppose this project. If mandates are irrelevant, why bring them up as a reason to block housing? And if they do matter, then shouldn’t we be building more to meet them? You can’t have it both ways.
As for the claim that the state isn’t growing, that’s simply not true. California’s housing shortage isn’t about population growth alone—it’s about affordability, displacement, and supply not keeping up with demand. Even with slower population growth, the number of people needing housing far exceeds what’s available, which is why rents and home prices remain so high.
But let’s be clear: Are you opposing this project because it supposedly doesn’t meet state mandates? Because you think the mandates themselves are flawed? Or because you just don’t want new housing? If you want to argue against a specific policy, fine. But opposing housing in general while also complaining about mandates just sounds like an excuse to block development outright.
David: Again, you (not me) brought up housing mandates. You also claimed that Davis is going to have to meet them (despite the failure of those mandates throughout the state).
But again, if you’re claiming that this proposal addresses the mandates, it’s up to you (since you brought it up) as to how this proposal would address those mandates (e.g., by income level).
As far as the state not growing, you’re claiming that’s “not true”, despite the fact that it is true. (There’s been a very slight rebound, lately.)
Also, it’s not that there’s “slower” population growth – it’s becoming “negative” population growth. Again, the birthrate (nationwide – not just California) is nowhere near replacement levels. You do understand the implications of that, right?
It’s likely that this will become even more pronounced, as a result of Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
You state that ” . . . the number of people needing housing far exceeds what’s available, which is why rents and home prices remain so high.”
And yet, you don’t define what that actually means (in terms of the “number of people”, “what’s available”, or “prices”.
You’ve somehow managed to fail to provide any numbers regarding all three variables you cite, despite those variables being the crux of your advocacy.
And not only for Davis but the entire state!
So, I see that David is unable to answer the question regarding the issue he brought up – how this development would supposedly meet the state’s failing RHNA targets at each income level.
In any case, I have another question regarding the claims made in the article. The authors are stating that a large number of Davis residents commute elsewhere, because they can’t find a high-paying job on campus or in the city.
So their “solution” is to create high-paying jobs in the city, which will cause these well-paid workers (whatever that means) to abandon their existing careers in mass. Is that actually what they are claiming?
(The other unstated part of their claim is that this group won’t be adding more low-paying jobs in the city, which of course would exacerbate the other problem that they’re claiming to exist.)
And by creating more low-cost housing (of course, without defining what that means – or the quantity of it), they’re claiming that low-wage campus workers (without defining what that means) would abandon whatever housing they’re living in now, and that the new low-income housing in Davis would not be occupied by anyone in the household who doesn’t work in Davis. Is that actually what they’re claiming?
You keep shifting the goalposts in this discussion – which makes it difficult to respond, especially when I have other priorities. Nevertheless, you are throwing out a mix of shifting the burden of proof, deflection and broad generalizations without actually addressing the core issues.
Point number one: you argue that state mandates are failing and shouldn’t therefore be followed, but then you demand proof that the project meets them. It seems that you are trying to have it both ways.
Point number two: California’s population dipped slightly in recent years but that doesnt validate your argument that housing demand has disappeared. At the end of the day, we have more people seeking housing than there are homes available, which is why the prices and rents remain high. That’s the basic law of supply and demand.
Point three, California’s housing shortage is well-documented. Very few people would argue the positions you continue to take. The state has projected a need of 2.5 million homes by 2030. The vacancy vate for affordable rents is under 3 percent in most parts of the state, and homeownership is out of reach for most middle-income families – the problem is getting worse not better.
If you’re continuing to suggest we don’t need more housing, perhaps you should be the one to show the data, particularly because yours is an extreme minority position.
You keep trying to argue that mandates are failing, but the alternative is not “just don’t build.” You’re arguing for higher rents, increased homelessness and continued displacement.
Let me know you’re serious policy solution.
David says: “You keep shifting the goalposts in this discussion – which makes it difficult to respond, especially when I have other priorities. Nevertheless, you are throwing out a mix of shifting the burden of proof, deflection and broad generalizations without actually addressing the core issues.”
I haven’t shifted anything. The burden of proof is on those making a claim, not on those challenging it. And you and your friends make a bunch of claims in this article, and in your comments. And yet, you’re completely unable to respond to any questions regarding your claims.
David says: “Point number one: you argue that state mandates are failing and shouldn’t therefore be followed, but then you demand proof that the project meets them. It seems that you are trying to have it both ways.”
That’s not exactly what I said. I said that the state’s mandates are failing (and that’s true).
You’re stating that this development needs to be approved to adhere to those failing mandates. Since you’re making that claim, I’m asking “how” (e.g., at each income level) this proposal addresses those mandates.
David says: “Point number two: California’s population dipped slightly in recent years but that doesnt validate your argument that housing demand has disappeared. At the end of the day, we have more people seeking housing than there are homes available, which is why the prices and rents remain high. That’s the basic law of supply and demand.”
You state that we have “more people seeking housing than there are homes available”. Prove it, as I can show you houses that are available RIGHT NOW (and have been on the market for some time). I can also show you examples of housing prices that are DROPPING.
Also, demand DROPS as birthrates decline and people pursue opportunities elsewhere. Why don’t you “celebrate” THAT?
David says: “Point three, California’s housing shortage is well-documented. The state has projected a need of 2.5 million homes by 2030.”
You’ve previously noted that numbers like that are based upon prior construction rates, and are not an actual indicator of “demand” in a state with a declining population. Truth be told, business interests have infiltrated the political system AND the media regarding this.
No one ever seems to question “where those numbers come from”, though there is an audit which showed that Newsom’s previous numbers were fiction.
David says: “The vacancy vate for affordable rents is under 3 percent in most parts of the state, and homeownership is out of reach for most middle-income families – the problem is getting worse not better.”
“Affordable rents” – you’re referring to subsidized housing? Gee, who would have guessed?
When you say that “homeownership is out of reach for most income families” – that’s a sound bite, which has no meaning. Housing prices are dropping, and the Sacramento region is one of the most-affordable in California.
The truth is that inflation has impacted all aspects of life. Why wouldn’t it apply to housing, as well?
David says: “If you’re continuing to suggest we don’t need more housing, perhaps you should be the one to show the data, particularly because yours is an extreme minority position.”
O.K. – I’ll show you how California is changing in a separate comment.
David says: “You keep trying to argue that mandates are failing, but the alternative is not “just don’t build.” You’re arguing for higher rents, increased homelessness and continued displacement.”
I’m not the one arguing for more job creation. You and your buddies are.
David says: “Let me know you’re serious policy solution.”
Let me know when you can answer ANY of the questions I brought up regarding you and your friends’ claims.
As they say the answer to high prices is high prices. If you don’t build housing it only increases demand for housing and increases prices making more pressure to build . That is David’s argument and if Ron O doesn’t get that it shows he wears blinders when confronted with a market reality he wishes not to be true.
The other Ron apparently wants people to suffer with high housing costs or move away in order to preserve farmland forty years from now when we *may* not need the housing assuming a lot of different things that we don’t actually know.
David: It’s not 40 years – it’s already occurring (reduced demand). Boomers aren’t waiting 40 years to die. Truth be told, it would be highly-unusual if I (personally) survive that long.
Also, the U.S. already imports a lot of food (rather than growing it locally), and prices for food have probably risen faster than they have for housing.
You (and the “other” Ron) do realize that I’m not the one arguing for job creation (or job retention in the case of the school district), right?
Jobs are usually what creates demand for housing in a given locale.
The problem with your argument is you oversimplify things. While California’s population growth has slowed, and in some cases even declined in certain areas, that doesn’t automatically eliminate the need for housing. Several factors counteract this point:
1. Housing Shortages Are Chronic – California has underbuilt housing for decades, leading to a structural shortage. Even with some population decline, there’s still a massive gap between supply and demand, particularly for affordable housing.
2. Household Formation Matters More Than Raw Population Numbers – Even if total population drops, people are forming new households at different rates. More single-person households, delayed marriages, and younger generations moving out all sustain demand.
3. Migration Patterns Are Uneven – While some people are leaving California, others are still moving in, especially to job centers. Plus, demand remains high in major metros like LA, SF, and San Diego, even if other areas see declines.
4. Zoning and Land Use Restrictions Keep Prices High – Even with reduced demand in some regions, housing remains unaffordable due to restrictive zoning, permitting delays, and NIMBY opposition to new construction.
5. Jobs and Economy Still Attract People – California remains a major economic hub. Sectors like tech, entertainment, and biotech continue to create demand for housing, even if some industries slow down.
Declining population doesn’t necessarily mean declining housing demand—especially in a place with a long history of housing shortages. Your argument seems to assume that demand and supply adjust in a simple, linear way, which just isn’t how housing markets work.
Sounds like someone consulted their “fact-checker”, again. I’ll just go ahead and response to that nonsense.
1. Those numbers are fiction, and are based upon the past (when the population was growing).
2. Some of what you cite “delays demand”. (For example, young people staying with their parents for awhile, due to the student loan debt that they were suckered-into. Also, to save up money for a downpayment.
3. Housing prices are going down in places like San Francisco (due to layoffs, etc.).
4. That is the “exposed” YIMBY position – that they’re actually supportive of sprawl. And one only has to look at how supports them (financially) to figure that out.
5. The entertainment industry (Hollywood) is begging for government subsidies. Would you like for me to provide some links to that?
But again, I’m not the one arguing for job creation (or retention). You and the “other” Ron are.
Regarding your last (un-numbered) comment, I agree. However, you seem to be purposefully ignoring the fact that a lot of the job creators are located outside of the state, at this point. Places where costs/income are in better-balance. What, exactly, is “wrong” with that?
“Those numbers are fiction.” – Which numbers?
“Your” number 1. So are Newsom’s numbers – there was an audit regarding that.
But the REAL problem with coming up with a “number” is that it doesn’t exist. It depends upon what people pursue as an “alternative” (e.g., Texas). Not to mention telecommuting, etc.
You’re referring to the 2022 audit?
I disagree. The audit found that some of the housing calculations lacked transparency and consistency, but it did not say that California doesn’t have a housing shortage—only that the specific targets set by Newsom’s administration might not be perfectly accurate.
On the contrary it specifically stated: “On the contrary, the audit said specifically: “Housing availability and affordability has become a key economic issue, as the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported in 2019. The LAO noted that the significant shortage of housing, particularly within coastal communities, contributed to higher housing costs for Californians. The LAO also noted that high housing costs increase the State’s poverty rate and, in particular, put low‑income Californians at risk of instability and homelessness.”
O.K. – was it “solved” after some 500,000 people “left”?
Again, you’re ignoring the fact that the supply/demand model is impacted by “alternatives”.
“Alternatives” is also the reason for migration to places like Davis from the Bay Area.
The population of California in 2024 was 39,431,263, a 0.59% increase from 2023.
2023 was 39,198,693, a 0.14% increase from 2022.
2022 was 39,142,414, a 0% increase from 2021.
2021 was 39,142,565, a 0.96% decline from 2020.
2020 was 39,521,958, a 0.21% increase from 2019.
The main problem is your theory is wrong.
Housing demand is not simply a function of population change. Population change is just one variable in a complex equation. California’s housing crisis isn’t just about how many people live there—it’s about where and how they want to live, and whether supply can meet those needs.
Until you acknowledge this, your analysis will be flawed because you keep arguing the same point – which is also probably not supported by the data.
California lost 412,000 people between July 2020 and July 2023. Most of this loss occurred during the first year of the pandemic and was driven by a sharp rise in residents moving to other states. But fewer births, higher deaths, and lower international migration also played a role. Between July 2023 and 2024, the state population grew by 49,000 people (0.13%).
The number of residents moving to other states reached its highest level ever during the pandemic, and international migration fell to its lowest level in decades (according to Department of Finance estimates). However, in the last three years net international migration has increased from near zero in 2021 to 134,000 in 2024. Losses to other states have slowed, from net losses of 343,000 in 2021 to 197,000 in 2024.
Birth rates hit a new record low in 2024, with the number of births falling 20% since 2015. The number of deaths declined substantially after the height of the pandemic, with 16% fewer deaths in 2024 than in 2021. Birth and death trends are similar in the rest of the nation.
Thirty of the state’s 58 counties experienced population increases from July 2023 to July 2024. The largest increases were in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, Riverside, and San Joaquin counties. In contrast, Ventura, Marin, and San Francisco saw the biggest losses
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/
But truth be told, a lot of this is irrelevant. The birth rate for the ENTIRE NATION is well-below replacement levels.
If the population has slightly rebounded in 2024, perhaps this is a sign that housing prices are “justified” in the eyes of those moving to the state.
California’s population grew in 2024, increasing by about 233,000 people
Your data is dated and your theory is wrong.
Again, there’s been a slight rebound (49,000 people between 2023-2024), after 3 years of losses. Are you disagreeing with the citation?
But more importantly, ANY rebound is actually a sign that housing prices are “justified” in regard to (even a slightly-increasing population in California) within a country that has a birth rate WELL-BELOW replacement levels.
Add Trump’s actions to restrict immigration, and it’s not difficult to see where this is going.
Yes, it’s not the latest data and even if it were, I disagree with your underlying theory so it’s kind of irrelevant
David, your numbers aren’t correct even when using your OWN percentages.
https://ktla.com/news/california/californias-population-is-no-longer-in-decline/
Here’s the release from the US CENSUS BUREAU at the end of last year
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/population-estimates-international-migration.html
O.K. – so we have two different sources. (Unrelated to your earlier comment, which did not include a citation.) Who knows which one is correct.
And you know “why” anyone moves to the state (in a nation with a birth rate well-below replacement levels)? Primarily because they think that housing prices are “justified” in regard to the income they can receive.
The same reason that there was a net migration to other states, in the previous 3 years.
It’s called “alternatives”, as mentioned earlier. The same reason that so many moved from the Bay Area to Davis (and continue to do so). All part of the supply/demand model that you and the other growth advocates claim to be so fond of.
So David, here’s your headline from the census bureau:
“Net International Migration Drives Highest U.S. Population Growth in Decades”
Are THESE the people you’re trying to house?
To conclude this discussion, I normally consider PPIC a good source, but I see they used the July 2024 estimates rather than the updated data released by the census bureau at the end of the year. That accounts for the discrepancy.
Maybe so – didn’t check.
But again, doesn’t it seem like “international migration” (the source of the growth, and which doesn’t seem to be divided between “illegal” vs. “legal” migration) seem like something that Trump is now addressing?
Which is also probably resulting in “self-deportation”?
But more importantly, are these the people whom you think the government (at ANY level) should prioritize for housing?
“Maybe so – didn’t check.”
Could have saved a lot of time, if you had
Could have saved a lot of time if you cited it in the first place.
However, it would have IMMEDIATELY led to the other question I just asked (which remains unanswered).
To me, your failure to check your data before wasting my time is a huge error that you have failed to apologize for and no I’m not going into another rabbit hole, you don’t seem to take subtle hints.
To clarify, if you had cited the data that YOU were referring to (growth based on immigration – much of which is likely illegal and is now being addressed by Trump).
David says: “To me, your failure to check your data before wasting my time is a huge error that you have failed to apologize for and no I’m not going into another rabbit hole, you don’t seem to take subtle hints.”
I make no apologies for citing data (when you didn’t even cite any in the first place). I didn’t realize there was such a thing as a “subtle citation”.
But good to know that you think that illegal immigrants should drive housing policy, per your delayed citation.
David says: “And then you had the audacity to email me for a correction.”
Right – when you start citing numbers which have no reference, and don’t align with the percentages already cited from a source that you consider to be a “good one” I’m probably going to ask you about it. I would hope that anyone would.
But again, housing illegal immigrants doesn’t seem to be the U.S. policy anymore, in regard to your subsequent source. Check back in about 6 months to see the result of that. (Assuming that Trump hasn’t also fired the census workers.) Actually, it would be interesting to see how they come up with their numbers, as well – since the census is only conducted every 10 years.
But perhaps more important (locally), is Davis normally housing a lot of illegal immigrants? The source of the nation’s growth, per the census bureau?
What is your evidence that the immigration is illegal?
Ron: please refrain from using the phrase “illegal immigrant” on here.
Don: The source that David cited did not break down the number of (undocumented), vs. (documented) immigrants.
But I’ve heard estimates of 11 million (undocumented) immigrants. (Of course, some of those might be “legal” asylum-seekers.)
There are people in the country illegally, and they are immigrants. However, I have no say as to the terminology that you’ll allow on here.
But the bottom line is that it’s not someone like me, who is creating a “housing crisis”. It’s those who pursue economic development (such as DISC, locally).
As far as the “undocumented” are concerned, school districts and some employers use them for their own purposes. In the case of school districts, undocumented students are one of the factors keeping unneeded schools open.
“But the bottom line is that it’s not someone like me, who is creating a “housing crisis”.”
That’s an interesting point… how many homes do you own and how many people live in those homes? (No, I’m not expecting you to answer that). But the idea that you aren’t contributing to the housing crisis is not accurate.
You’re against economic development, but people need jobs and if they don’t have a local job, that means they have to commute, that creates traffic and GHG. It also leads to a housing/ jobs imbalance and if you oppose jobs here, then jobs will go somewhere else, creating the need for housing there.
Then there’s the fact that if you are not building jobs, then the local economic stagnates, that also creates a housing crisis.
David says: “That’s an interesting point… how many homes do you own and how many people live in those homes? (No, I’m not expecting you to answer that).”
The second part of that question would (generally) be more-relevant. In other words, there are people who have multiple dwellings that aren’t occupied.
David says: “But the idea that you aren’t contributing to the housing crisis is not accurate.”
By my mere presence, you are correct. Of course, another question related to that is whether or not someone has kids.
Regardless, I’ll be checking-out (so to speak) along with the rest of the boomers in not too long from now. But once you pave-over farmland, there’s generally no “going back” – ever.
David says: “You’re against economic development, but people need jobs and if they don’t have a local job, that means they have to commute, that creates traffic and GHG.”
I’m not against existing economic development, nor am I against existing housing. However, pursuing economic development in excess of what existing residents actually need is what creates a problem (e.g., Silicon Valley). That’s what encourages far-flung suburbs, traffic congestion (and the resulting greenhouse gasses), etc.
David says: “It also leads to a housing/ jobs imbalance and if you oppose jobs here, then jobs will go somewhere else, creating the need for housing there.”
That’s why I’m not opposed to businesses leaving for those areas. Some areas (such as the rust belt and coal mining country) “need” more economic activity and residents.
David says: “Then there’s the fact that if you are not building jobs, then the local economic stagnates, that also creates a housing crisis.”
Dependency upon never-ending economic growth is not sustainable.
The first thing needed to create more housing is the elimination of measure J.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/american-geographic-social-mobility/681439/?utm_medium=cr&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=02_18_2025_issue_promo_march_actives_large_subject_line_10_10_80_winner&utm_content=Final&utm_term=ISSUE+PROMOS+ONLY+-+ALL+Active+Subscribers+%28Stripe%2BCDS%2BiTunes%29
Wow – the Atlantic talks about Measure J? Seems unlikely.
Does the Atlantic also talk about preservation of farmland? Or have they given up on that?