Davis is one of the most housing-constrained and exclusionary cities in California.
California is in the midst of a housing crisis. After decades of exclusionary zoning, political paralysis, and NIMBY-driven resistance, the state has finally put cities on notice: build more housing—or lose control.
San Francisco, long emblematic of housing dysfunction, recently made headlines with an ambitious rezoning plan that could finally move the needle on its housing shortage. But while all eyes have been on the big cities, the fate of California’s housing future may ultimately be decided in smaller, wealthier, slower-growing cities like Davis.
This moment demands clarity. The state has set aggressive housing production targets under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process—82,000 units for San Francisco, but thousands more for cities across California. Davis, like many of its suburban counterparts, faces a simple but politically fraught question: will it rise to meet the moment, or cling to outdated policies that protect privilege at the expense of inclusion?
California’s housing crisis is often treated as a supply problem—and in many ways, it is. The state has underbuilt housing for decades. But it’s also a moral crisis, rooted in decades of exclusionary land use policies that segregated communities by race and class.
Davis exemplifies this paradox. It is a city celebrated for its livability, bike-friendliness, and progressive values. And yet it remains, by design, one of the most housing-constrained and exclusionary cities in the state. Rents are high. Home prices are astronomical. The workforce that sustains the city—from university staff to teachers, service workers, and nonprofit professionals—can rarely afford to live in it.
The problem is not geography. Davis is not boxed in by ocean or mountains. The problem is policy and political will. The city’s growth control policies, combined with fierce opposition to new housing developments, have created a bottleneck that stifles affordability and drives displacement.
The city’s growth control policies, combined with fierce opposition to new housing developments, have created a bottleneck that stifles affordability and drives displacement.
Last week, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie unveiled a bold rezoning plan that targets historically exclusive, low-density neighborhoods for increased housing. Rather than dumping new development on the city’s east side—as past plans have done—the new map opens up westside districts like the Sunset and the Marina, areas that have long resisted growth.
The political significance of this shift cannot be overstated. It acknowledges what housing advocates have said for years: if we want a more inclusive California, we can’t just build in poor neighborhoods. We need to build in wealthy, low-density, job-rich communities—places like Davis.
The takeaway for Davis: no city is exempt from the responsibility to build. No neighborhood should be able to shield itself from growth while offloading the burdens of affordability onto others. And no amount of progressive rhetoric can mask policies that entrench inequality.
California has spent the last several years strengthening its housing laws, particularly through the work of State Senator Scott Wiener and others. SB 828 overhauled the RHNA process to reflect real housing need. SB 9 and SB 10 legalized duplexes and small apartment buildings in single-family zones. SB 330 and SB 423 streamlined approvals for infill housing.
The state continues to send a message that people right here in are community are disregarding: cities that obstruct new housing risk losing control. In Davis that has consequences that many have not fully grappled with.
Already, we’ve seen the state hold cities accountable. Huntington Beach is locked in a legal battle with the state over its refusal to submit a compliant housing element. Beverly Hills and San Bernardino have been cited for offering insufficient rezoning plans. And the “builder’s remedy” provision has opened the door to bypass local zoning in cities out of compliance—allowing developers to move forward with projects even without local approval.
Davis is not immune. It may be a small city, but it is not exempt from state law. The city’s recently adopted Housing Element commits to rezoning land to accommodate its RHNA target of over 2,000 units. But the pace of implementation has been glacial, and opposition to even modest infill projects remains fierce.
If Davis fails to act decisively, it risks not only legal consequences, but the erosion of local planning authority altogether.
This is not just a fight over housing. It is a fight over who gets to live in California, and under what terms.
Do we believe in a California where teachers, artists, caregivers, and farmworkers can live near where they work? Do we believe that students should be able to graduate from UC Davis and afford to stay in the community they call home? Do we believe in integrating neighborhoods, or are we comfortable reinforcing patterns of racial and economic segregation?
Housing is a civil rights issue, a climate issue, and an economic justice issue. And yet, too often, cities like Davis fall back on procedural hurdles, environmental review abuse, or aesthetic concerns to delay or deny projects that would bring much-needed homes.
This isn’t just unfair—it’s unsustainable. If Davis wants to be a community that lives its values, it needs to build for those values. That means embracing density, especially near jobs, schools, and transit. It means legalizing small apartments, student housing, and affordable multifamily projects. It means opening up single-family neighborhoods—not just industrial corridors—for new homes.
Here are some things that Davis should do:
- Accelerate Zoning Reform: The city should move swiftly to rezone sites identified in its Housing Element, especially those near downtown, transit corridors, and the university. This includes removing arbitrary height and density limits that block feasible development.
- Streamline Permitting: Davis should adopt local streamlining policies that align with SB 330 and SB 423, cutting red tape and making it easier to build housing by right.
- Embrace Infill and Missing Middle Housing: Legalize duplexes, fourplexes, and small apartment buildings in residential zones. This is not radical—it’s how Davis was originally built.
- Reject NIMBY Obstructionism: Politicians and planners must stop capitulating to neighborhood groups that oppose all growth. Community input is important, but it cannot become a veto on progress.
- Build Affordable Housing on Public Land: The city and county should identify underutilized public parcels for deeply affordable housing—especially for low-income families, students, and unhoused residents.
- Support a Culture Shift: Leaders must reframe housing as a public good. That means telling a new story—one that celebrates growth, welcomes newcomers, and prioritizes inclusion over nostalgia.
Cities that refuse to build will lose their young people, their diversity, and eventually, their relevance.
In Davis, we saw the beginning of this discussion last week when the Superintendent went to the City Council to lay out the consequences for failure to act.
We have seen the consequences: students commuting from Sacramento. Young families priced out. A workforce that can’t afford to live where it works. A downtown struggling to evolve. This is the trajectory of stasis—and it is the death of the community we claim to cherish.
But there is another path. One where Davis reclaims its identity as a forward-thinking, values-driven city that leads by example. One where it joins a growing movement across California to build more homes, in more neighborhoods, for more people.
San Francisco, improbably, has started down that path. Will Davis follow—or fall further behind?
