In local land use debates, there’s a reflexive insult that gets hurled at anyone who supports new housing: “Build, baby, build.” It’s meant to be a dismissal—accusing the speaker of siding with developers, promoting urban chaos, or ignoring environmental concerns in the name of unchecked growth.
But that phrase, catchy as it may be, fundamentally distorts what many climate-conscious housing advocates are actually arguing. Not every call for more housing is a call for deregulation. Not every YIMBY is a market fundamentalist. And not everyone who says “we need to build more” is parroting a tech-industry line.
Some of the most principled housing advocates in California today are people like Judy Ennis, co-founder of the Davis Community Action Network (DCAN) and a longtime climate organizer. Ennis doesn’t call for sprawl or blank-check development. What she’s proposing is a more thoughtful, inclusive, and sustainable approach to land use—an approach that understands housing scarcity as a key driver of both inequality and ecological collapse.
“There’s a deep connection between where we allow people to live and the carbon emissions we produce.” – Judy Ennis
In a recent interview with the Vanguard, Ennis made the case for linking housing policy to climate justice.
“There’s a deep connection between where we allow people to live and the carbon emissions we produce,” she said. “If we continue to push people out into long commutes and car-dependent development, we’re undermining every other climate goal we claim to have.”
It’s a simple point, but a radical one in many local political circles: if we care about climate change, we can’t keep saying no to infill housing. We also can’t keep pushing people to live outside of this community and commute to work at UC Davis.
In California, particularly in cities like Davis, we’ve developed a political culture where “environmentalism” often means stopping things: halting change, freezing neighborhoods in amber, and preserving exclusivity under the guise of protecting open space.
But this kind of NIMBY environmentalism has helped produce some of the most unaffordable, segregated, and unsustainable land use patterns in the country. By opposing new housing in walkable, transit-connected communities, we haven’t protected the planet—we’ve locked out lower-income families and forced sprawl into distant suburbs.
“We need to stop thinking about housing as something separate from our climate goals. We need to think about the kind of future we’re building—not just for ourselves, but for the planet.” – Judy Ennis
Ennis is pushing back on that narrative. Her vision for Davis is not “build, baby, build”—it’s build wisely and equitably. She supports housing near jobs, services, schools, and public transit. She advocates for climate-resilient land use patterns, not developer giveaways. She believes in housing as a climate solution—not in the abstract, but grounded in systems thinking.
In the interview, Ennis explained that “we need to think about housing policy as part of a broader ecosystem. Transportation, land use, air quality, energy—these things are all interconnected. If we separate them, we miss the point.”
That approach contrasts sharply with the caricatures often deployed by critics. Opponents love to conflate any zoning reform or infill proposal with a libertarian agenda.
But what Ennis is advancing is not a market-only worldview—it’s a justice-based one. She’s advocating for housing as a right, for reducing emissions through compact growth, and for making Davis a place that younger generations, essential workers, and marginalized communities can actually afford to live in.
This distinction is crucial. Because, too often, housing debates devolve into binary frames: pro-growth vs. anti-growth, developers vs. preservationists, YIMBY vs. NIMBY. But the reality is more nuanced—and more urgent.
According to the California Air Resources Board, our state is not on track to meet its climate goals, largely due to rising vehicle miles traveled (VMT). When people can’t afford to live near where they work, they drive longer distances. Those long commutes, multiplied across millions of Californians, are now a leading source of carbon emissions. The solution isn’t just more electric vehicles—it’s more homes in the right places.
And yet, cities like Davis still make it incredibly hard to build infill housing. Restrictive zoning, excessive procedural hurdles, and deep political resistance to change have all contributed to a situation where Davis produces far too little housing for its needs—let alone its climate obligations. The result is predictable: rising rents, longer commutes, and deepening inequality.
Against this backdrop, Ennis’s advocacy stands out. She’s not calling for housing at any cost. She’s calling for housing that aligns with our values—values like environmental stewardship, inclusion, and generational responsibility. And she’s doing it as someone deeply rooted in both climate activism and local community-building.
But her message hasn’t always been easy to deliver. “It’s hard,” she told the Vanguard. “There’s a lot of fear. People don’t want to lose what they have. But we have to remember: the status quo isn’t sustainable. What we’re doing now is failing—on affordability, on equity, and on emissions.”
This is why dismissive labels like “build, baby, build” are so counterproductive. They shut down conversation. They reduce complex moral and ecological arguments into slogans. And they allow opponents of change to dodge accountability for the consequences of inaction.
Because, make no mistake: inaction is not neutral. Every time a housing project is blocked, those people don’t vanish—they move farther away. They drive longer. They pay more. They pollute more. And those emissions, that exclusion, that sprawl—it’s not someone else’s fault. It’s the cost of political decisions made locally, under the banner of environmental concern.
Judy Ennis is one of a growing number of climate advocates who refuse to accept this false choice. She believes that environmentalism can mean yes. Yes to homes for working families. Yes to walkable neighborhoods. Yes to a climate strategy that actually connects the dots between land use and emissions.
“We need to stop thinking about housing as something separate from our climate goals,” she said. “We need to think about the kind of future we’re building—not just for ourselves, but for the planet.”
That’s not “build, baby, build.” That’s moral clarity—and we need more of it.
From article: “There’s a lot of fear. People don’t want to lose what they have.”
I agree – there’s definitely a lot of fear regarding “right-sizing” the school district – something that Judy Ennis (with her background in the educational system) seems to fear, as well.
But it’s amazing how “Davis-centric” the views (of those like Judy Ennis) are, regarding the impact (on other districts) resulting from “recruiting” students from other districts. Something they simply don’t care about, apparently.
And again, I’m not even seeing where UCD, for example, is adding a lot of jobs. (Assuming that it’s CAN’s goal to accommodate them.)
But perhaps the biggest problem with all of this nonsense is that there’s often more than one person per household. As such, one worker might work at UCD, while another worker (in the same household) might work in Sacramento. The net impact of building more in Davis is just as likely to result in as many “outbound” commuters, as “inbound” commuters (to UCD). Perhaps even more outbound commuters than inbound, since (again) UCD is apparently not expanding its Davis staff. (If anything, they might be shrinking as a result of Trump’s actions.)
The comment about outbound commuters is just anecdotal, not accurate. It’s plausible, like “if you just flapped your arms hard enough, you’d be able to fly.”… not sensible.
The Southern California Association of Governments modeled every congestion relief plan imaginable, including double-decking the freeways. The only strategy that provided significant congestion relief was mixed-use (residences, offices, commerce, etc.) neighborhoods. Studies demonstrate that pedestrian friendly, mixed use neighborhoods cut vehicle miles traveled (VMT) roughly in half. That’s what the author of this piece is advocating. The argument that the outbound/inbound commute would not increase global warming is bunk.
Meanwhile, thanks to Davis for even exposing this debate to the light of day. I know activists in Sacramento who have worked for 30+ years to get pedestrian-friendly mixed use to be the default. The County even includes such pedestrian-friendly, mixed use zoning in its General Plan…but generally ignores it.
Even Sacramento’s environmental coalition (ECOS) refuses to lobby for this. Of course ECOS is where the state and local workers who constructed the framework of sprawl go after they retire, so it’s not a surprise they won’t abandon their allegiance to the non-working system that is California’s land use law.
Better news: The Planning and Conservation League persuaded the state to adopt “Complete Streets” (pedestrian- and transit-friendly streets) as its standard for all new development. Sacramento County now includes mixed use in its General Plan, although it doesn’t mandate it.
The next step: a public bank that will lend to mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-income projects rather than the standard single-use, auto-friendly, narrow-income sprawl style of development.
A little Davis note: The developers of Village Homes had genuine trouble getting construction financing from standard sources, and contrary to what Frank Lloyd Wright said, form doesn’t follow function, form follows finance. Judy Corbett (one of those developers) is also on the Planning and Conservation League…. So, despite all the commute-dependent concrete the US has poured, there’s hope yet!
“The comment about outbound commuters is just anecdotal, not accurate. It’s plausible, like “if you just flapped your arms hard enough, you’d be able to fly.”… not sensible.”
It’s not only plausible, it already exists. In fact, some of the growth advocates on here claim that additional jobs need to be created in Davis, so that those who live in the city but work elsewhere will abandon their current careers to work at a new facility in Davis. (THAT’s what’s not plausible.)
So unless more jobs are created on campus (or in the city), where are the new residents going to work? (Sacramento comes to mind, as it did for me.) And again, it’s usually not just “one” worker per household, nor do they normally work at the same place.
One of the primary CAN members is someone who has a direct business interest in creating more growth. The city has loaned him money, since there’s apparently no other way for him to remain in business. As a result, he’s become a “hawker” for more development (inline with what most city officials want). (Seems like quite a “coincidence” that they guy receiving money from the city is the same guy who is actively advocating for what city officials want.)
Because you “know a guy” who won the lottery does not make it a good retirement plan to buy a lottery ticket. Yes, a lottery winner “does exist,” but that’s not what makes “knowing a guy” a plausible excuse to abandon good land use. If that’s too “nuanced” for you, I’m afraid there’s nothing I can say that will persuade you otherwise.
…and if you believe Davis is crooked in hiring someone to promote the city for employers, I would say you’re straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel (a common rhetorical trick). The camel, of course, is the Sacramento region. According to one County Supervisor–the late Grantland Johnson–it’s widely acknowledged throughout the state that the Sacramento region is the most in the hip pocket of the developers seeking their “unearned increment” for land speculation, a practice that raises land prices without compensating the local government for their expenses developing infrastructure.
“According to one County Supervisor–the late Grantland Johnson–it’s widely acknowledged throughout the state that the Sacramento region is the most in the hip pocket of the developers seeking their “unearned increment” for land speculation, a practice that raises land prices without compensating the local government for their expenses developing infrastructure.”
I’m sure it is – the name Tsokapoulos comes to mind as a major land owner/developer. But it’s certainly not just Sacramento. What you’re referring to is the U.S. system, itself.
As far as “not compensating local governments for their expenses”, the existing reimbursements (e.g., mitigation fees) are exactly what YIMBYs want to eliminate.
All of this type of thing is a war that will never end – apparently even as the population itself is no longer growing.
When there’s money to be made (again, referring to the system itself), those who actually DO make massive amounts of money will do everything possible to hide that fact, to obfuscate, to point at others – whatever it takes. Their latest gimmick is to demonize middle class residents.
“One of the primary CAN members is someone who has a direct business interest in creating more growth. The city has loaned him money, since there’s apparently no other way for him to remain in business.”
The person you’re referring to is not involved with DCAN. It would behoove you to get your facts straight before posting things.
Correction – seems that I was thinking of the local YIMBY group – not seeing its website anymore. They seem so similar to the CAN group.
Allow me to clarify further: I’m referring to Tim Keller, the guy who got a loan from the city (recently, again) who rents a commercial space from the guy who owns the DISC site as I recall, and who would have been housed at the DISC site had it passed.
The guy who simultaneously claims there’s a housing shortage, while simultaneously advocating for more jobs which would exacerbate the shortage. To further clarify, the guy who constantly imagines that others agree with him, when they do not.
How’s that for “nuance”?
But as far as “knowing a guy”, I’m not sure what that refers to. For sure, the growth advocates have OFTEN stated that more jobs need to be created so that those who work in Sacramento can abandon their careers to work in Davis. While simultaneously claiming that Davis (actually UCD) essentially has “too many” jobs in regard to the size of the city (and that UCD therefore needs to import workers).
Now, if any of that makes sense to ANY of the growth advocates on here, I’ll certainly congratulate on your “nuance” (or more accurately – outright delusion).
https://www.davisite.org/2021/06/the-city-of-davis-housing-element-update-developer-web.html
Again Ron, I’ll point out that you are not a stakeholder in Davis. You live in Woodland with no apparent connection with Davis. You’re desires for Davis are of no importance to the rest of us who are stakeholders.
You’re missing Judy’s point–she wants to build the type of housing that ends pulling students from other districts. Those UCD and Davis employees who live in Woodland, Vacaville or West Sac and bring their children to DJUSD would instead be able to afford to live in Davis. There are 20,000 commuting into Davis/UCD and 20,000 commuting out each day. It’s the EXISTING UCD staff (and their substitutes) that we are trying to serve. We don’t need more housing for those commuting out.
And while there are households commuting to multiple locations, they may be living in Vacaville and going to Woodland and Davis. This makes is easier for at least one to live and work in the same town. At this point, you’re simply speculating with absolutely no empirical information or even anecdotes about the actual commute patterns so you’re adding nothing to this conversation–classic technique to obscure and divert the thread.
“there’s a reflexive insult that gets hurled at anyone who supports new housing: “Build, baby, build.””
Thank you for an entire article on a phrase I coined. It’s very odd that you would so-call it an insult, since an insult is directed at a person, not a movement. If I shouted, ‘you’re a build baby build person’, I doubt anyone would take it as an insult, unless the shoe fit and they decided to wear it. Rather, it was an observation of the current movement, exemplified by YIMBY, which is supported by developer money.
I’m not saying maybe someone else didn’t also coin it in this context. I was playing off of “drill baby drill” obviously, to show the environmental hypocrisy of the modern pro-housing movement.
“Thank you for an entire article on a phrase I coined.”
You didn’t coin it
And Led Zepplin came up with the cord progression for Stairway to Heaven.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0CW1PT7KK/ref=x_gr_bb_kindle?caller=Goodreads&tag=x_gr_bb_kindle-20
https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-housing-yimby.html
I don’t click on unframed links.
Alan
To save you the risk of clicking:
Build, Baby, Build: A New Housing Movement’s Unofficial Motto
It’s a counter to the “not in my backyard” mentality that has led to housing shortages in some cities.
February 13, 2017 • Scott Beyer
Regardless of who “coined” it, it’s a lot more-accurate of a description than “building for equity”, “building for climate change”, “building for smart growth”, and all of the other nonsense espoused here and elsewhere.
“Nuance”, as you like to refer to it, is often nothing more than “Nu-nonsense”.
Truth be told, a lot of “new arrivals” in the area are coming from places that are MORE environmentally-friendly (and are moving to an area that is LESS environmentally-friendly.
Ultimately, it comes down to population growth. The entire country is essentially not growing anymore. (They’re not making new human beings at a level to even replace the ones that already exist.)
But I’ve got to acknowledge the amount of creativity that goes into messaging, these days. I wonder if it will actually fool anyone?
Nuance. Not recognizing nuance makes for flawed conversation.
Labeling what others put forth (without addressing content) makes for “no” conversation. (Which might be a good tactic when you can’t address the content.)
“Labeling what others put forth (without addressing content) makes for “no” conversation. (Which might be a good tactic when you can’t address the content.)”
Wow, said with no irony!
“Ennis doesn’t call for sprawl or blank-check development.”
I don’t know what Judy Ennis (in particular) calls for, but most of the CAN people seem to want to “redefine” what sprawl is, first. By doing so, the sprawl that they advocate for will no longer be “called” sprawl.) See how that works?
“Nuance”, as they say. Otherwise known as hiding the truth.
Another reason that their advocacy seems questionable is due to the fact that “true” infill doesn’t easily pencil-out. It costs a lot of money to tear down existing structures and build new ones. Even at Chiles Ranch (a large “infill” development within the city), it’s been sitting vacant for about 15 years since a developer bought it.
“Labeling what others put forth (without addressing content) makes for “no” conversation. (Which might be a good tactic when you can’t address the content.)”
Wow, said with no irony!
It’s David who wasn’t interested, not me. He’s taken to simply labeling my comments as being “without nuance” (or referencing a Star Wars quote), when he doesn’t want to engage.
I, on the other hand – generally provide some type of reason if I “label” someone else’s comment. (But for the most part, I don’t even need to label it – since it’s usually self-evident.)
Alan
To save you the risk of clicking:
Build, Baby, Build: A New Housing Movement’s Unofficial Motto
It’s a counter to the “not in my backyard” mentality that has led to housing shortages in some cities.
February 13, 2017 • Scott Beyer
I know when I first used it I made it up. It seems pretty obvious so not surprised others did too.
A good article that captures the goals of those of us advocating for more housing, but not just any type of housing. We need to serve those who are currently locked out but work in our community today.
That said, what we build now will be with us for decades if not a century, locking in community patterns and energy uses that will be continually damaging. Many of us are ready to oppose these new developments if they are not changed from their current configurations to better address community goals. We will have proposals on those changes soon.
“We need to serve those who are currently locked out but work in our community today”.
A more meaningless, undefined phrase has rarely been spoken.
Who are these people, where do they work, where does their spouse or partner work, how much money do they make – and how much can they afford, how does that compare with what’s available in surrounding communities, and what makes you think they’d move from wherever they’re currently living?
And why wouldn’t “someone else” move into a new development, instead of the population you’re seeking?
If you could even answer half of those questions, your advocacy “might” be worth discussing. Otherwise, it’s probably the most-irresponsible “planning statement” I’ve seen. And yet, you and this CAN group, among others, are basing your entire advocacy on assumptions that have no validity.
Who are these people,
Mostly young adults, some middle-aged.
—where do they work,
They work at a couple of hundred retail stores and restaurants, as staff at UC and other local agencies, and for the medium-size businesses locally.
—where does their spouse or partner work,
Not everyone has a spouse or partner.
—how much money do they make –
$35 – 80K per year.
—and how much can they afford,
30% of what they make is considered optimal, but most are probably paying 40 – 50% for housing. Obviously most are sharing their house or apartment with others.
—how does that compare with what’s available in surrounding communities,
Cost of housing is 20 – 30% higher here; cost to commute is $5 – 10 per day. Balancing those costs is challenging.
—and what makes you think they’d move from wherever they’re currently living?
The cost and hassle of commuting makes it more desirable to live closer to where they work. Davis is considered a safer, more desirable place to live than the surrounding communities. Many were born and raised here and have no desire or means to move elsewhere.
Don, thank you for a great summary of the market that we should be targeting.
I’ll go further to support your point that the demand is there–the housing price premium of Davis over Woodland, West Sac, Dixon and Vacaville. All of those communities have house prices close to each other and there’s no real physical differences among them. All have highway access to Sacramento and they are surrounded by flat farmland with nearly identical climates. The only difference for Davis is UCD and DJUSD. And following Father Guido Sarducci’s Five Minute University, “economics is about supply and demand.” Simply put, the price premium arises from those outside of Davis demanding access to housing here while housing supply is insufficient to meet their demand. The higher market price that is readily visible on Zillow and Redfern shows that people want to move here. If anyone believes in a capitalistic market solution, they MUST acknowledge that price reflects the demand-supply balance and that supply will respond to price.
Thanks, Don. Let’s examine what you say here a little more-closely.
“They work at a couple of hundred retail stores and restaurants, as staff at UC and other local agencies, and for the medium-size businesses locally.”
That doesn’t actually provide a number, nor does it break it down by income level. Also, how many of these people are students, able to live in student housing?
Also, is UCD still planning to house some of its workers, or did they give up on that plan?
“Not everyone has a spouse or partner.”
True – how many of them do, on average? Also, leaving aside the “partner” for a moment, how many work in either a different city, or more than one city?
“30% of what they make is considered optimal, but most are probably paying 40 – 50% for housing. Obviously most are sharing their house or apartment with others.”
So using your own numbers ($35K-$80K gross), the most that some of them should be paying ranges between $875 – $2,000 per month. Are there any developers planning to build market-rate housing that would fall in that range, when considering all costs?
How much are they paying to live elsewhere, now?
“Cost of housing is 20 – 30% higher here; cost to commute is $5 – 10 per day. Balancing those costs is challenging.”
So, the cost to commute from outside the city ranges between $100-$200 per month (approximately). Even when factoring those costs in, it sounds like it’s a lot cheaper to live outside of Davis (on average).
Also, regarding those who DO live in the city – do all of them just “walk to work”? Or, do they have commuting costs within the city?
“Davis is considered a safer, more desirable place to live than the surrounding communities. Many were born and raised here and have no desire or means to move elsewhere.”
Right – I was “born and raised” somewhere else as well, and would have preferred to stay there. But you know what I did, instead? I ADAPTED – and moved to where I COULD afford it after I came of age. Now, that’s not to say that I’ve totally given up on moving to where I’d prefer to be, but I was willing to wait. (Turned out to be one of the better decisions in my life. And truth be told, I don’t miss most of what I left behind.
Also, isn’t Davis a “more desirable place” for those working OUTSIDE of the city – even if they’re not that highly paid themselves?
Unknown, no they aren’t as far as I know, unknown, unknown, people in this income range share housing with others, about 20 – 30% less probably, unknown but maybe though not necessarily, unanswerable.
“Right – I was “born and raised” somewhere else as well, and would have preferred to stay there. But you know what I did, instead? I ADAPTED – and moved to where I COULD afford it after I came of age. Now, that’s not to say that I’ve totally given up on moving to where I’d prefer to be, but I was willing to wait. (Turned out to be one of the better decisions in my life. And truth be told, I don’t miss most of what I left behind.”
Here Ron raises an important point but fails to think out the consequences of it. What he is explaining is pretty much what everyone does. They get a job where they can get a job and live where they can afford to live. So what’s wrong with that? The consequence of it means that people do not live near where they work and therefore have to commute. That leads to congestion, traffic, and GHG. Transportation emissions are a large part of the climate crisis. So what Ron says people ought to do is actually what they are doing and is what is causing the problem.
In my case, my job “moved” from my hometown to Davis – at almost the same time my living situation was no longer viable.
But I left that job shortly afterward, and started working in Sacramento. Made a lot more money there, and had a lot more opportunity. (Nothing to “write home” about, but a lot better than anything in Davis OR on campus for me, at least.)
Ironically – I drove to my job in Davis, but took the bus to Sacramento. (Actually, it’s not “ironic” since there was no free parking in Sacramento, and my Sacramento employer subsidized public transit. So being the cheapskate that I am, I took advantage of that. I guess “frugal” is a more-polite word.)
I’d say that about half the people in the Sacramento office took public transit (or biked to work), and none of them lived anywhere near the office.
It seems as though the same thing was happening in the tech industry recently – that is, both jobs and people moved, together (to places like Austin).