(Author’s note: Georgina Valencia was speaking for herself and not on behalf of the Davis Planning Commission).
As the city of Davis continues to grapple with affordable housing, Planning Commissioner Georgina Valencia shared her perspective on the current state of housing, the challenges ahead, and where she sees opportunities for progress. In a wide-ranging interview, Valencia spoke about down payment assistance programs, stalled projects, and the long-term impact of the city’s growth patterns.
Valencia began by expressing her concern that, despite the city finalizing its Housing Element with the state’s Housing and Community Development Department, tangible progress on affordable housing remains limited.
“I’m not sure we’ve made any great inroads since we finalized the Housing Element,” she admitted. “It’s disappointing.”
However, she acknowledged a recent bright spot: the City Council’s unanimous vote to explore a down payment assistance program.
“For our city, it’s at least a sign that this issue is being recognized,” she said.
Valencia, who has long advocated for such programs, emphasized that, while it’s a step forward, the true test will be what comes next.
She also cited the Palomino project as an example of recent incremental progress. During Planning Commission discussions, the developer acknowledged shortcomings in their affordable housing component and agreed to contribute $80,000 to the city’s Housing Trust Fund specifically for down payment assistance.
“That felt like a win—small, but real,” Valencia said.
Despite these positive developments, Valencia expressed disappointment over two previously approved projects that have yet to break ground: Chiles Ranch and the East 8th Street project. Both could have provided much-needed housing by now, she said.
“Chiles Ranch was (re)approved over a year ago, and nothing’s happened,” Valencia noted. “That could have been helping already.”
News that the Chiles Ranch property recently changed hands gave her some hope the project might finally move forward. Still, she warned the new owners face a tight timeline: “There’s maybe a year left on their agreement with the city. They’re going to have to hustle or resubmit the project.”
The conversation turned back to down payment assistance—something both Valencia and the Vanguard agreed was one of the most feasible and impactful tools for improving affordability.
“It doesn’t take tons of money to make a difference,” Valencia stressed. “It’s a sustainable program if structured as a revolving fund. When buyers pay the assistance back, the city can use it to help the next family.”
The cost of building new affordable units—often $500,000 to $700,000 per home—makes such programs even more attractive, she argued. “There just aren’t a lot of tools a city like Davis has. This is one of them.”
Valencia plans to continue advocating for the program, including an upcoming presentation to Sunrise Rotary.
“I keep hammering away at it,” she said. “It’s one way we can actually help families buy homes here.”
Valencia also flagged structural challenges that continue to hinder progress. She raised concerns about Measure J/R, the local ordinance requiring voter approval for peripheral developments unless they are 100% affordable housing—an unlikely scenario, given the financial infeasibility of such projects.
“No one’s that altruistic,” she remarked. “If the city doesn’t revisit this, I think we risk a challenge from the state’s Housing and Community Development Department.”
She also noted that the city’s housing market is increasingly dominated by landlords. “Something like 57% or 58% of homes are now rentals. That’s a tough reality and not great for building community.”
When asked if she’s noticed a change in public attitudes or conversations around housing, Valencia was cautious but hopeful.
“At certain events—housing forums, community discussions—you definitely hear people saying, ‘Yes, we need housing,’” she said. “But those might be people already supportive of housing. Meanwhile, the same voices who’ve opposed development for years are still out there, still loud.”
She hopes the upcoming General Plan update will create space for a more rational, fact-based conversation about housing needs and trade-offs.
No conversation about Davis housing is complete without mentioning traffic—often cited as the top concern when new projects are proposed. Valencia agreed that traffic is a legitimate issue, but one that often lacks nuance in public debate.
“People blame new housing for traffic, but when you really look, a lot of that traffic is commuters going through Davis or heading to the freeway,” she said. “If we built more housing here, maybe more people who work here could live here—and that might actually help traffic, not make it worse.”
She also warned that the university’s growth is inevitable, even if currently slowed by budget constraints. “The campus will keep expanding. There will be more jobs, more students. We should get ahead of that instead of always playing catch-up.”
Valencia was especially passionate when speaking about the broader implications of Davis’ affordability crisis.
“We’re becoming a town of students and seniors,” she said. “The ‘missing middle’—the teachers, service workers, young families—they can’t afford to live here. These are the people waiting on you at restaurants, teaching your kids, mowing your lawns. They should be able to live here too.”
She pointed to the strain this puts on local schools, which increasingly rely on students commuting in from other areas. “We’re paying to keep our schools open, but not building housing that allows families to stay. That’s a huge loss for the community.”
Despite the challenges, Valencia remains cautiously optimistic. Projects like Celeste and others are finally leasing up, raising the vacancy rate and offering a sliver of relief. But she knows that real change will require persistence—and political will.
“We haven’t made it over the hump yet,” she said. “But maybe, just maybe, with down payment assistance and smarter planning, we’re starting to see a path forward.”
For Valencia, the fight for affordable housing isn’t just about buildings—it’s about people. “These are your kids, your neighbors, your teachers,” she said. “We need to keep finding ways to help them stay in this community.”
From article: “Something like 57% or 58% of homes are now rentals.”
(If that’s correct, does it include apartment buildings – primarily for students?)
From article: “People blame new housing for traffic, but when you really look, a lot of that traffic is commuters going through Davis or heading to the freeway,” she said. “If we built more housing here, maybe more people who work here could live here—and that might actually help traffic, not make it worse.”
(That’s what we call an “urban myth”. But it is true that the state has allowed too much sprawl “everywhere”, and are continuing to do so.)
From article: “We’re becoming a town of students and seniors,” she said. “The ‘missing middle’—the teachers, service workers, young families—they can’t afford to live here. These are the people waiting on you at restaurants, teaching your kids, mowing your lawns. They should be able to live here too.”
(Those people don’t exist in the first place, in any real numbers. And those that do either already live in Davis, or aren’t going to move there. The growth advocates on here purposefully confuse those commuting to UCD, vs. the handful commuting to the town.)
(Who the heck would “choose” to work at low wage jobs in a comparatively high cost town, when they can get those same low wages in their OWN town?)
From article: “She pointed to the strain this puts on local schools, which increasingly rely on students commuting in from other areas. “We’re paying to keep our schools open, but not building housing that allows families to stay. That’s a huge loss for the community.”
(That’s why they need to close down schools. This is an issue throughout California – not just Davis.)
(And by the way, if Davis “poaches” students from other communities (either by allowing non-residents to attend, or by encouraging them to “move” to Davis, that’s a “loss” for those other communities – according to the logic presented in this article. Where’s the concern regarding THAT?)
“Meanwhile, the same voices who’ve opposed development for years are still out there, still loud.”
They are still loud! We must silence them!
“She hopes the upcoming General Plan update will create space for a more rational, fact-based conversation about housing needs and trade-offs.”
Fact-based facts are like evidence-based evidence –> the evidence that supports one’s political point of view.
“Valencia agreed that traffic is a legitimate issue”
Not dismissively worded at all :-|
“People blame new housing for traffic”
Um, yes.
“but when you really look, a lot of that traffic is commuters going through Davis or heading to the freeway,”
If you really look? Go forth and look, and tell me what you see, cars that don’t tell you where they are going.
“If we built more housing here, maybe more people who work here could live here—and that might actually help traffic, not make it worse.”
The key word being “maybe”. Alan Miller says, “If we built more housing here, maybe more people who work elsewhere will live here—and that might actually make traffic worse, not make it better.” Both statements are possible. That’s why we have traffic models that show that both are true, and how much of one dominates. But one thing that is almost always true: there will be more of each element, and thus more housing means more people, means more cars, means more traffic. Model this for traffic (evidence-based) and show me otherwise.
“She also warned that the university’s growth is inevitable, even if currently slowed by budget constraints. “The campus will keep expanding. There will be more jobs, more students. We should get ahead of that instead of always playing catch-up.””
Or maybe the University has reached it’s limits. Would that be so bad? Or there could be a war with China, or economic collapse. All are possible.
“Valencia was especially passionate when speaking about the broader implications of Davis’ affordability crisis. We’re becoming a town of students and seniors,”
Oh the humanity!!!
“The ‘missing middle’—the teachers, service workers, young families—they can’t afford to live here.”
So we should do what? Heavily tax the “seniors and students” and create a bureaucracy so we can subsidize the rents and down payments for “teachers, service workers, young families” ?
“These are the people waiting on you at restaurants, teaching your kids, mowing your lawns. They should be able to live here too.”
Should? I mean that sounds nice and all, but someone has to pay for that. I “should” be able to live in Atherton, or Tiburon, or Sausilito. But guess what? I can’t.
“She pointed to the strain this puts on local schools, which increasingly rely on students commuting in from other areas.”
Schools shouldn’t “rely” on students from “other areas”. Isn’t that “othering” ?
“We’re paying to keep our schools open, but not building housing that allows families to stay. That’s a huge loss for the community.”
Maybe don’t pay to keep unneeded schools open. That’s how they do it in the private sector.
“Despite the challenges, Valencia remains cautiously optimistic. Projects like Celeste and others are finally leasing up, raising the vacancy rate and offering a sliver of relief.”
The vacancy rate is going up. That’s a good thing, and shows there isn’t a housing crisis. As for an ‘affordable housing’ crisis? It’s expensive to live in much of California, among the ‘much’ Davis. And it always will be. Until a more successful virus than Covid-19 is engineered.
“But she knows that real change will require persistence—and political will.”
And housing forums filled with ‘true believers’. But not those loud people referenced earlier!
“maybe, just maybe, with down payment assistance and smarter planning, we’re starting to see a path forward.”
“Smarter planning” — that’s a loaded, empty statement. And down-payment assistance is a subsidy. And probably if enacted will have a limited budget, so only a few lucky ‘lottery winners’ will received the subsidy. And introducing more government cash may slightly inflate prices. So some people will be taxed, prices could slightly increase, a bureaucracy will be formed and skim money, and a few lucky winners will get a subsidy.
“For Valencia, the fight for affordable housing isn’t just about buildings—it’s about people.”
Those lucky lottery winners.
“These are your kids, your neighbors, your teachers,” she said. “We need to keep finding ways to help them stay in this community.”
A noble sounding goal. And a very expensive one that we will all have to pay for, and will be applied in a limited manner and unfairly and ultimately won’t help most people. Both those claiming this belief sure sound noble, don’t they? I have a respected friend who looks at most everything through the lens ‘follow the money’. Not mentioned in the article: Georgina Valencia is a realtor. Not that there’s anything wrong with that; I have friends who are realtors; she may be a perfectly decent human being. But for a realtor, development is good for business, as is pumping government housing subsidies into the market.
Just sayin’
“If we built more housing here, maybe more people who work here could live here—and that might actually help traffic, not make it worse.”
Yeah, that’s a great way to solve the traffic problems in Davis.
Adding more people and automobiles is always the best solution.
But the point is that people are already commuting to and from Davis – that’s a huge part of what’s adding to the traffic. By that measure, building more housing could reduce some of that traffic.
Second point is that the city has to add housing – a lot of it – so if you believe that the first part is wrong, you still have to add housing even if you believe it will increase traffic. That being the case – you have to find ways to mitigate those traffic impacts.
“But the point is that people are already commuting to and from Davis – that’s a huge part of what’s adding to the traffic. By that measure, building more housing could reduce some of that traffic.”
But it will also add to the people who commute “from” Davis.
Unless they are working at UC Davis or downtown.
Yes, there will be some of those, but also some who will buy in Davis and commute elsewhere for work. Probably at the same percentages as now.
Important points overlooked by commenters here:
About 22,000 people commute into Davis/UCD (the latter going through the town) and another 22,000 commute out each day. Only 10,000 both live and work here. Those commuting out are wealthier and live here for its various amenities. Those commuting in are in lower paying jobs that can’t afford current Davis prices. That’s why we need “missing middle” housing to serve those now commuting in–that will lower our traffic load.
Studies like this one are showing that increased housing supply reduces house prices. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4629628 In addition, increased density provides lower cost housing. Increased density also reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
People’s intuitions generally are not very accurate for making policy decisions. In my four decades of experience in policy making processes, the worst outcomes resulted from policymakers making changes based on their “intuition.” Rigorous analysis usually leads to a different result. (And I’ve been right enough times in my career to see this difference.)
Regarding “intuition”, your entire comment is based on that. There is no evidence for what you’re stating regarding those commuting “outward”, vs. those commuting to UCD. I haven’t even seen anything backing up the claims regarding an income difference.
“There is no evidence…”
Probably the most incorrectly and overused phrase on the internet…
And yet, the entire premise (regarding “building housing” for those commuting to “Davis”, while simultaneously “adding jobs” so that outbound commuters don’t have to leave) is based upon no evidence – as well as a complete lack of basic logic.