In Yoni Appelbaum’s soaring essay in the Atlantic next month, adapted from a forthcoming book, he argues, “The U.S. was once the world’s most geographically mobile society. Now we’re stuck in place—and that’s a very big problem.”
Historically, the U.S. was known for its high mobility, which fueled prosperity, innovation, and social cohesion. However, over the past 50 years, this mobility has significantly decreased, with fewer Americans moving between states, cities, or even neighborhoods.
Appelbaum attributes this decline to several factors, including aging demographics, dual-career households, and increased home ownership. In fact, he primarily blames restrictive housing regulations, such as zoning laws and historic preservation efforts, which have limited new housing development and made housing in economically prosperous areas prohibitively expensive.
Moreover the piece critiques the role of progressives, in advocating for neighborhood preservation that inadvertently contributed to this housing crisis.
Writes Applebaum: “Blame Jane Jacobs. American mobility has been slowly strangled by generations of reformers, seeking to reassert control over their neighborhoods and their neighbors. And Jacobs, the much-celebrated urbanist who died in 2006, played a pivotal role.”
Applebaum puts the blame here on progressivism, which he argues “has produced a potent strain of NIMBYism, a defense of communities in their current form against those who might wish to join them. Mobility is what made this country prosperous and pluralistic, diverse and dynamic. Now progressives are destroying the very force that produced the values they claim to cherish.”
In a novel approach, Applebaum links this to a trend of immobility.
He writes, “In December, the Census Bureau reported that the United States had set a dismal new record: The percentage of Americans who had moved in the previous year was at an all-time low. That same month, the economist Jed Kolko calculated that geographic inequality—the gap in average incomes between the richer and poorer parts of the country—had reached an all-time high.”
He continues, “The loss of American mobility is a genuine national crisis. If it is less visible than the opioid epidemic or mounting political extremism, it is no less urgent. In fact, the despair it fosters is fueling these and other crises, as Americans lose the chance to build the best possible lives for themselves and their children.”
Part of the problem, “Many of the country’s more dynamic cities, along with the suburbs around them, have continued to wall themselves off in recent years, using any means available.”
Tops on the list: restrictive zoning laws. Zoning regulations have limited the development of new housing, especially in economically prosperous areas, making it difficult for people to move where job opportunities are abundant.
But he suggests that there are some signs that that is changing.
“California has enacted a series of legislative reforms aimed at paring back local zoning regulations. Cities across the country are banning zoning that restricts neighborhoods to single-family homes,” he writes. But, while these changes are encouraging, they are not sufficient.
He adds, “insufficient. And sometimes the solutions solve the wrong problem: Building subsidized housing in a place where land is cheap because jobs are scarce will help with affordability, but only worsen immobility.”
However, he noted, “zoning alone was not enough to halt American mobility, even if it did serve to widen inequalities. Zoning had introduced a new legal reality: Putting up any housing now required government approval.”
Moreover, not every place in “America is having its growth choked off by zoning, or by the weaponization of environmental reviews or historic-preservation laws.”
And here we get to Davis.
Applebaum notes, “The opposition to mobility appears concentrated in progressive jurisdictions; one study of California found that when the share of liberal votes in a city increased by 10 points, the housing permits it issued declined by 30 percent.”
He continues, “The trouble is that in the contemporary United States, the greatest economic opportunities are heavily concentrated in blue jurisdictions, which have made their housing prohibitively expensive. So instead of moving toward opportunity, for the first time in our history, Americans are moving away from it—migrating toward the red states that still allow housing to be built, where they can still afford to live.”
That gets us to Davis—a place that is often renowned for its small-town charm, vibrant community, and commitment to environmental sustainability… but, at the same time, is facing a set of housing challenges that mirror a broader national trend.
Indeed, as the US grapples with a decline in geographic mobility, Davis in many ways exemplifies how restrictive housing policies and high costs are hindering economic and social dynamism.
And what Applebaum’s essay suggests is that in order for Davis to maintain its unique appeal while fostering growth and inclusivity, Davis must reassess its housing policies and embrace reforms that address affordability and mobility.
Davis is known for its strict land-use policies and community-driven planning processes, which are often aimed at preserving the city’s character and environmental sustainability. However, these well-intentioned policies can inadvertently mirror the national critique of restrictive zoning and preservation efforts.
By limiting new housing developments, these regulations exacerbate affordability issues and contribute to the decline in geographic mobility. As the demand for housing in economically prosperous areas like Davis continues to outpace supply, the city risks becoming a place accessible only to the affluent.
The high cost of living in Davis leads to economic disparities, as only those with higher incomes can afford to reside within the city limits. This economic homogeneity can have far-reaching implications for local businesses and the labor market. Workers may have to commute from more affordable regions, increasing traffic congestion and impacting quality of life.
Additionally, a less economically diverse population may stifle the kind of innovation and cultural vibrancy that a more varied demographic could bring.
Community resistance to new housing developments, often referred to as NIMBYism, plays a significant role in Davis’ housing challenges.
While residents understandably wish to preserve open spaces and the city’s unique character, this opposition can entrench housing shortages and limit opportunities for growth. Balancing community values with the need for new developments is crucial for addressing the affordability crisis.
Encouraging developments that increase housing supply, particularly in areas with access to public transit and amenities, could help alleviate affordability and mobility challenges. By fostering an environment that welcomes new residents and diverse economic backgrounds, Davis can ensure its long-term vibrancy and inclusivity.
One of the greatest challenges facing Davis is balancing growth with the preservation of its small-town character and environmental values. Implementing policies that promote sustainable and inclusive development, while respecting community goals, is essential.
This might involve reimagining zoning laws to allow for more diverse housing types, such as duplexes and townhomes, in addition to single-family homes.
Emphasizing environmentally friendly building practices and integrating green spaces into new developments can help maintain the city’s commitment to sustainability.
But by far the biggest factor is a reconsideration of how Measure J can be modified to better allow a diverse variety of housing.
As Davis looks to the future, it is essential to foster a dialogue that includes all stakeholders—residents, policymakers, developers, and community organizations.
Doing so can foster the kind of collaborative effort that will allow it to move forward before Davis locks off its future, and seals its fate.
Measure J is the exact kind of zoning law that facilitates the problems this article articulates but the best the author can muster is a tepid call for modification.
Again, Measure J is not disappearing completely–that’s democracy in action. So we need to come up with a better solution that gives voice to voters’ preferences, but in a more sensible way.
Measure J isn’t disappearing at all. And I’ll be one of the people helping to ensure that it doesn’t.
You’re a lawyer?
Aren’t you the guy who posted a photo of me and Eileen, canvassing in The Cannery?
But if you’re referring to a legal challenge from the dishonest sacks of (you-know-what) from the state – who claim to only be pushing for infill, that’s a different matter.
I was referring to a potential legal challenge. My theory is you guys will help bring it about by defeating Village Farms. That will trigger a legal challenge against Measure J by the state and possibly YIMBY Law and/ or Legal Services.
Well, again, you’re referring to the dishonest “sacks” I just referenced above.
In any case, you seem to be stating that there will be a legal challenge at some point, regardless of the result of Village Farms. Unless voters approve every proposal that the YIMBY contingent believes “should” be approved on farmland.
The voters have already approved two, so I’m sure that will come up in any defense. Assuming that the YIMBY council even chooses to mount a defense.
But you’ve also noted that the time for a response (e.g., to a successful attempt by the state to force sprawl) will be AFTER they do so – assuming that they take that route in the first place.
i don’t know why you want to fixate on “dishonest sacks” but whatever. The standard appears to be barrier to housing, at this point, I think that’s a clear showing. If Village passes, obviously that would cut against a clear showing. I don’t believe every proposal requires approval as long as there is a viable path to the city building housing that meets standard requirements. but we’ll see what happens.
The reason I call them “dishonest” seems pretty obvious to me, for the reason I already stated. The state is supposedly trying to force infill (e.g., in the Bay Area – where their YIMBY financial backers are located).
They “claim” that they were never attempting to force sprawl, which I never believed in the first place (given their financial backers).
Also, as I recall, you claim that ALL of these proposals (Village Farms, Shriners, DISC, etc.) – will be needed to satisfy the state. Since that result seems unlikely (and would effectively eliminate the entire reason for Measure J in the first place), this just adds to the dishonesty regarding the issue.
Not to mention that NONE of these proposals even attempts to address RHNA targets (e.g., at various income levels) in the first place.
Ron you’re conflating a number of issues here.
It is true that the state through RHNA and other policies has prioritized urban infill. But that doesn’t preclude cities from promoting peripheral development instead to avoid rezoning existing neighborhoods. Davis at this point will have a very difficult time rezoning sufficient existing neighborhoods to meet state demands for the seventh cycle.
If the state guidelines are forcing expansion – that’s a function of RHNA.
You claim none of these projects “even attempts to address RHNA targets.”
That’s misleading—most large developments include some level of affordable housing, even if not enough to meet all RHNA requirements.
The reality is that no single project is going to solve an entire city’s RHNA targets—it requires a mix of infill, rezoning, and new construction.
RHNA compliance is complex and requires multiple solutions—not just one project.
You are trying to paint the entire housing policy debate as a bad-faith scheme rather than acknowledging the real policy trade-offs involved which are complicated in places like Davis due to community opposition and Measure J.
My view remains at some point the state will step in, and remove one constraint on housing.
David says: “Ron you’re conflating a number of issues here.”
My response: I’m not conflating anything.
David says: “It is true that the state through RHNA and other policies has prioritized urban infill. But that doesn’t preclude cities from promoting peripheral development instead to avoid rezoning existing neighborhoods. Davis at this point will have a very difficult time resigning sufficient existing neighborhoods to meet state demands for the seventh cycle.”
My response: Again, you yourself noted that infill is not “viable” (financially). It’s also not viable in more-expensive markets (like San Francisco).
In other words, you noted that it’s not likely to occur – regardless of the state’s targets.
You seem to be suggesting that (despite the failing targets – statewide), the state is going to look at some place like Davis (as opposed to every place in the Bay Area where the state’s targets are failing), and are going to say, – why don’t you sprawl “over there”? (Even as the targets fail in the Bay Area.)
David says: “If the state guidelines are forcing expansion – that’s a function of RHNA.”
My response: Are you stating that RHNA targets are not from the state?
David says: “You claim none of these projects “even attempts to address RHNA targets.” That’s misleading—most large developments include some level of affordable housing, even if not enough to meet all RHNA requirements.”
My response: So again, you’re claiming that all of them need to be approved. Since that’s not likely, why approve ANY of them in regard to RHNA targets?
David says: “The reality is that no single project is going to solve an entire city’s RHNA targets—it requires a mix of infill, rezoning, and new construction.”
My response: Again, they’re failing statewide.
David says: “RHNA compliance is complex and requires multiple solutions—not just one project.
You are trying to paint the entire housing policy debate as a bad-faith scheme rather than acknowledging the real policy trade-offs involved which are complicated in places like Davis due to community opposition and Measure J.”
My response: The state (and its YIMBY supporters) ARE engaging in “bad faith”. Their actions are the OPPOSITE of reigning-in sprawl. They are not honest actors.
David says: “My view remains at some point the state will step in, and remove one constraint on housing.”
My response: Could be – which will lay bare their lies regarding not forcing sprawl. Perhaps they’ll take down all voter-approved urban limit lines, in a state that’s no longer growing. (The latter appears to be their “actual” concern. Again, one has to look at who is funding the YIMBYs, their politicians, etc. – something that you have no apparent interest in.)
I can’t follow this. State your position in a paragraph in response to my points.
My final response for tonight…
I believe you are doubling down on your conspiracy-driven narrative that the state and YIMBYs are acting in bad faith—but doing so without clear evidence. Your argument ignores basic realities of housing policy while relying on broad assumptions and contradictions.
First, you are contradictory on infill feasibility. You argue that infill isn’t viable because of financial constraints. But then criticize the state for failing to meet RHNA targets statewide. If infill isn’t feasible, then of course cities will struggle to meet RHNA targets. That doesn’t mean RHNA was designed to force sprawl.
What’s really happening: The state is forcing cities to accommodate more housing, but cities often resist rezoning or make infill so costly that developers avoid it. That’s a local governance issue, not proof of a bad-faith scheme to promote sprawl.
Second, you misrepresent how RHNA and state mandates work. You frame RHNA as an arbitrary tool forcing sprawl, but RHNA doesn’t dictate where housing goes—it just requires cities to plan for it. The state prefers infill, but if cities block rezoning, then peripheral development becomes the path of least resistance. Again in the case of Davis, we’ve hit three cycles of RHNA with infill and have tapped that out for the 7th cycle.
Third, you refuse to acknowledge trade-offs in RHNA compliance. Here you imply that if we can’t approve all projects, we shouldn’t approve any. In reality, cities meet RHNA through a combination of projects—some infill, some peripheral. The fact that RHNA targets aren’t being met statewide doesn’t mean the process is in bad faith—it means local opposition and high costs are barriers to compliance.
Fourth, you keep pushing the “YIMBY conspiracy” theory. Instead of engaging with actual policy trade-offs, you claim YIMBYs are secretly pushing sprawl because of their “financial backers.” Here you ignore that YIMBY groups overwhelmingly support infill and that local political resistance is what forces cities to consider sprawl.
Finally, you misrepresent state intervention. You act like the state removing constraints on housing would “expose” their lies, but in reality, this would just be a response to local governments failing to comply. The state hasn’t eliminated urban limit lines or forced sprawl—but it may override local restrictions to ensure housing gets built.
Bottom Line
You aren’t actually engaging with real policy trade-offs—you keep just pushing a bad-faith conspiracy that ignores how local politics and zoning decisions shape housing outcomes.
I already responded to (and identified) each of your points, in as clear a manner as your new website allows. Your new website does not have a “quote” feature.
I first repeated your comments (and identified the source), and then responded to each one.
It’s incredibly difficult to follow in that format.
It’s not that difficult, if you look at what I attributed to you (your comments), vs. my response.
But again, this is something you should fix (visually), in regard to your website. Your old website had a feature which differentiated quotes.
Yeah, thats on the list to fix. We’ve unfortunately had more pressing issues.
I’ll go ahead and respond to your additional (final comment) without including your comments. (I’ll respond to your comments, but erase them before posting.
Again, YIMBYs are PAID actors – by business interests. And they pay toward the political campaigns of those they support. That (alone) is a sign of a problem. They are not a grass-roots political movement.
But again, they state that they’re for infill, but they’re actually encouraging sprawl as well. As you already acknowledge is a “result” of what they advocate for.
You are completely misunderstanding the point I brought up regarding infill feasibility. I’m not “criticizing” the state or developers regarding lack of feasibility.
But you’re the one who suggest they need to turn to sprawl, as a result.
Regarding infill, this isn’t something I’m advocating for in the first place. Nor am I seeking to reduce the cost of it (since those costs generally exist to mitigate impact).
RHNA targets are ABSOLUTELY arbitrary. They have no underlying basis.
But again, when you state that sprawl is the “path of least resistance”, that’s a RESULT of the state’s policies – and they (the state and their YIMBY allies) already know that.
The state does very little to reign in sprawl. Have you looked at what’s occurring around the region, in a state that isn’t growing in the first place?
Again, I’m not advocating for infill OR sprawl, in a state that’s not growing.
Have you looked at the number of kids that young people are having these days (nationwide)? It’s not even anywhere near replacement levels.
Regarding “tradeoffs”, you’re the one who states that ALL of the upcoming proposals need to be approved to satisfy the YIMBY dictators at the state. And again, NONE of the proposals even attempt to address those targets.
There is no “YIMBY conspiracy” – I never said there was. They’re already all on the “same team”.
They are required to disclose the business interests supporting them, even though they don’t make that easy to find. Politicians are also required to disclose the YIMBY interests who support them.
Maybe you should help expose that.
Regarding “upzoning” – YIMBYs want that AND sprawl. Have you heard of “California Forever”? (“Hello???” – as you put it.)
What’s actually occurring is that the state is doing the bidding of the business interests which ensured those politicians were the only ones presented to voters in the first place. And yes, they are absolutely threatening voter-approved urban limit lines.
Voters don’t really have a choice as to who the candidates are. Again, that’s the result of a system in which paid interests ensure that voters have no real choice.
The “bottom line” (as you put it) is even worse than most people already think it is, regarding politics. I recall looking at all of the lobbying that occurs at the STATE level, and was shocked.
“Again, I’m not advocating for infill OR sprawl, in a state that’s not growing.”
It’s interesting that you cannot unstick from this point no matter how much evidence I have presented that state population growth is the wrong metric to be hung on. Particularly since this is a DAVIS housing article.
You’re referring to housing formation, which is a “flexible” number and changes over time. Nor is it actually a “need” (in regard to accommodation in a particular locale).
Household formation is actually a “choice”, not necessarily a “need”. It is different than population growth, since once people “exist”, it’s not really a choice – with the exception of what Donald Trump is doing regarding deportation of immigrants.
Household formation is also impacted by factors such as the fact that more young people are staying with their parents for a longer period of time, in order to pay off student debt and to save up money for a downpayment. I’d call that a “good” thing, for the most part.
Regarding Davis – again, I’m not the one advocating for the creation of more jobs. YOU and your growth buddies are the ones doing that. But even worse, there’s been times when you’ve actively denied that the result will be MORE demand for housing, MORE inbound commuting, etc.
“…A potent strain of nimbyism, a defense of communities in their current form from those may want to join them.”
Exactly the reality that I faced when I turned against the Davis Progressives when they opposed Covell Village in 2005.
I voted for Covell Village in 2005. I will be opposing the new development there. And not because I’m against housing or have become a ‘progressive’.
Personally, I never cared much about political labels (except when I was young and ignorant, and believed what I was told about “good guys” and “bad guys”). Despite (or perhaps because of) the Internet, the news media has become even worse regarding biased reporting.
In any case, some of those who call themselves “progressives” have actually become conservatives (“trickle-down” advocates).
The author states that people are “moving away from opportunity” to red states, but the reality is that “opportunity” is moving there, as well (e.g., businesses seeking cheaper labor, less taxes, etc.). And those states are becoming less red in the process (though some of those leaving the state cite California politics and taxes as the reason for their move).
As far as moving (when one is a homeowner), that’s an excellent way to LOSE a ton of money in transaction fees, moving costs, etc. The only ones who think it’s (financially) a good idea to move around a lot is the real estate industry and moving companies. Again, with those calling themselves “progressives” now embracing industry.
If you’re shopping for a “starter home” (rather than what might be a “forever home”), you’re shooting yourself in the foot, down the line.
Not true about increased opportunity in those other states. Coastal states’ income and job activity still outstrips those in the Midwest and South. The ability to do remote work has allowed higher paid employees to move to those other states, but the companies haven’t moved with them.
As for owning a house, that should have never been a way to build wealth. We’ve created a casino economy anchored in real estate that doesn’t improve our well being. Increasing home ownership is an important factor that is decreasing mobility and increasing wealth disparity, especially since the early winners of the real estate lottery have been whites.
Richard says: “Not true about increased opportunity in those other states. Coastal states’ income and job activity still outstrips those in the Midwest and South. The ability to do remote work has allowed higher paid employees to move to those other states, but the companies haven’t moved with them.”
Yeah, they (businesses have moved there – to where prices are dropping faster than in California). Usually to places that have far fewer taxes, as well.
Think Charlotte, Austin, Dallas, Nashville . . . (Just off the top of my head.)
ALL of those type of places are where incomes are better-aligned with prices.
Richard says: “As for owning a house, that should have never been a way to build wealth.”
I agree.
Richard says: “We’ve created a casino economy anchored in real estate that doesn’t improve our well being. Increasing home ownership is an important factor that is decreasing mobility and increasing wealth disparity, especially since the early winners of the real estate lottery have been whites.”
Seems like the younger generations have realized that home ownership isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, especially when considering taxes, insurance, repairs . . .
Not to mention the cost of selling, buying, and moving. (Maybe you should take that up with the real estate industry.)
Personally, I’ve never cared about skin color (and neither do you – or the other growth advocates). You’re simply using that to bolster your case for sprawl, for reasons you haven’t disclosed so far.
But there are places where homeowners are not necessarily “white” (e.g., Altadena, Atlanta, etc.).