Davis is a city with immense resources—world-class institutions, a culture of civic engagement, and enough wealth to do more than tinker around the edges. Yet when it comes to affordable housing, we behave like we’re stuck.
As Drew Warshaw argues in his recent Next City op-ed, “We Need to Completely Rethink Affordable Housing,” the crisis is not a matter of scarcity. We have the money. We have the land. What we lack is imagination—and will.
Nowhere is that more evident than in Davis.
Earlier this month, the Davis City Council advanced the sale of 1021 Olive Drive, a city-owned surplus parcel, to a private developer planning to build 88 apartments. Fourteen of those units will be deed-restricted affordable housing. The rest will be “affordable-by-design,” modest studios and one-bedrooms theoretically accessible to moderate-income renters.
It’s a pragmatic step—one that aligns with our state-mandated housing goals—but it is also a reminder of how constrained our housing ambitions have become. Fourteen affordable units on publicly owned land in a city with thousands of cost-burdened renters is not a solution. It’s a system on autopilot.
As Warshaw writes, solving the housing crisis does not require a scientific breakthrough. It requires a shift in mindset. And Davis is overdue for one.
In Davis, housing scarcity is often treated like a natural condition—an unchangeable fact of local life. We fight over every new development. We parcel out affordability requirements with excruciating caution. We act as though change is something to be resisted, not shaped.
But this isn’t fate. It’s a policy choice. Warshaw reminds us: “History is not inevitable. It’s made by us.” The same is true for exclusionary zoning, low-density land use, and development caps that have restricted supply and pushed housing costs beyond reach.
Davis didn’t get here by accident. It got here because of Measure J/R/D, because of a deeply entrenched culture of homeowner entitlement, and because for decades we’ve measured progress by how little we build, not how many people we welcome in.
California is the fifth largest economy in the world. The City of Davis just brought in $570,000 from a single land sale, and our university hosts billions in research funding. The problem is not money. It’s how we choose to spend it.
As Warshaw notes, less than 1% of most state and federal budgets go toward affordable housing, while far more is spent propping up homeownership through tax deductions and mortgage subsidies. Meanwhile, renters—who now make up 35% of American households—are largely left out of long-term wealth-building strategies.
Here in Davis, the imbalance is even starker. While our city has supported some affordable housing investments, we have not matched that support with deep, structural reforms that would change the game. Public land like 1021 Olive Drive should be leveraged for 100% affordable housing. City resources should support housing co-ops, land trusts, and nonprofit developers—not just for-profit builders with minimal affordability requirements.
The money is there. So is the land. What’s missing is the decision to use both for the public good.
Our housing policies continue to be built around a romanticized vision of homeownership that leaves renters in the margins. As Warshaw points out, this mindset isn’t just outdated—it’s actively harmful.
In Davis, where home prices now top $900,000, buying a house is out of reach for nearly everyone under 40, for university employees, service workers, and young families alike. Yet our political decisions continue to center homeowners—restricting density, blocking new development at the ballot box, and fiercely guarding property values at the expense of access and equity.
It’s time to stop pretending that homeownership is the only valid pathway to stability. Renters deserve policies that protect them, housing that is permanently affordable, and investment that sees them as full members of the community—not temporary occupants.
In 2021, Congress passed the largest infrastructure bill in a generation. It included roads, bridges, transit, water—but not housing. As Warshaw notes, this omission reflects a larger failure of imagination: we still don’t treat housing as the infrastructure of everyday life.
Yet in Davis, housing is infrastructure in the most literal sense. It determines whether we have enough children to keep schools open. It determines whether our university staff can live near campus, whether our essential workers can stay in the community they serve, and whether our small businesses can hire and retain employees.
If we want a functioning, equitable, and sustainable city, then housing has to be treated with the same urgency and long-term investment as any other infrastructure project.
The solutions to our housing crisis won’t come from Sacramento alone. Cities like Davis must be willing to lead—and to rethink their own roles.
That means reimagining what’s possible on public land. It means re-zoning for density not as a concession, but as an opportunity. It means actively courting mission-driven developers, community land trusts, and affordable housing cooperatives. It means funding rental assistance, preserving existing affordability, and regulating speculation.
Above all, it means treating housing not as a commodity, but as a human right.
We already have examples of this new mindset: from cities like Minneapolis and Portland eliminating single-family zoning, to New York’s push for social housing, to California’s own ADU and duplex legislation. These reforms are about more than units—they’re about power. They challenge the assumption that land use decisions belong solely to homeowners and offer a path forward rooted in equity and inclusion.
Davis can be part of that future—but only if we’re willing to think differently.
In his op-ed, Warshaw compares the affordable housing crisis to the climate crisis—not in hopelessness, but in opportunity. Renewable energy scaled because people believed it could. Housing can too, if we make the same leap.
Davis has the resources, the talent, and the policy tools. What we need now is the will—to build, to share, to imagine. Let’s stop managing the crisis. Let’s start solving it.
Regarding tax deductions for homeowners (mentioned in the article), those largely disappeared as a result of Trump’s tax reforms during his first term. Regarding mortgage/lender subsidies, I understand that Trump is now attempting to eliminate those, as well (e.g., privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc.). It’s actually/primarily the Democrats who have tried to restrict foreclosures via various government-backed incentives, which have frozen the market and driven up housing prices. Exceptionally-low interest rates were also a major factor in increasing “demand” (and discouraging homeowners from selling).
Most of this article seems “all over the place”. But for those hoping to sprawl your way to affordability, I’d note that subsidized housing exists in continuously-sprawling cities, as well.
And for those who think housing is “too expensive”, it ironically seems that they’re reluctant to discuss what price is acceptable to them, and how that would realistically be achieved.
Regarding the new “abundance” nonsense, that apparently arises from a new book that the YIMBY-types are embracing:
“The hot new book ‘Abundance’ is just more neoliberal tech bro porn”
“What a wonderful future we could have if we just get rid of regulations! (It doesn’t actually work that way, and it hasn’t in 50 years).”
https://48hills.org/2025/04/the-hot-new-book-abundance-is-just-more-neoliberal-tech-bro-porn/
“Most of this article seems “all over the place”. But for those hoping to sprawl your way to affordability, I’d note that subsidized housing exists in continuously-sprawling cities, as well.”
Why do you see that as problematic?
The point being that continuing sprawl is not reducing prices sufficiently for those at the lower-end of the economic scale – assuming that’s the goal.
There is one thing that would reduce the cost of housing – stop loading it up with taxes for school districts, etc. (Both one-time charges added to the sales price, and ongoing taxes that generally increase every year as well. If that was done, it would go a very long way toward increasing “affordability”.)
Why cities would you cite as having continuing sprawl?
Did you miss my first sentence, above?
“The point being that continuing sprawl is not reducing prices sufficiently for those at the lower-end of the economic scale – assuming that’s the goal.”
But getting back to my other point, it’s not just the sales price that contributes to “high cost”. Though the sales price usually includes significant one-time fees for school districts, as well. (The bigger problem is the continuing taxes/fees.) I’m not sure that the average renter actually realizes any of this, until they actually try to buy a house – at which time, most of those are “supposed to be” disclosed.
New homeowners in places like Davis would be better-off financially if they started eliminating some of the parcel taxes and CFDs for the school district, as they start downsizing.
My point is your claim is a testable, falsifiable hypothesis that we could actually test with data.
It’s not a “claim” – subsidized housing literally exists in cities that are pursuing sprawl. And there’s more of it all the time.
That’s not even something that requires any “data analysis” – though the data (information) does exist.
Another point I’d like to bring up is that housing prices are not the same WITHIN a given city, either. This is also true for Davis. For example, housing prices in the far east side of town are not the same as those closer to downtown and UCD (for equivalent-sized/quality housing). And yet, that’s never acknowledged by the housing advocates.
As far as the taxes (one-time, and ongoing) applied to housing by school districts, restricting those would go a long way toward increasing affordability.
Yeah, I didn’t think you’d wanna actually test your claim
You really need me to point out examples of subsidized housing in Woodland, for example?
There’s some that’s literally a few feet away from me right now. If you’re denying that, maybe it’s you who should provide the data showing that it’s “imaginary”.
I believe it’s a city requirement for any new housing development in almost all cities throughout California.
I want to test your hypothesis using actual real world data.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I just provided a “real-world” example.
But if you want me to provide another “real world” example, you or I can look up the tax bill on any property anywhere in California (including Davis), to see all of the ongoing charges applied to properties from school districts, for example.
You won’t, however, see the one-time fees that developers pay for each housing unit for school districts (which are then “baked-into” the sales price). I believe that those fees are reserved for school infrastructure (e.g., building new unneeded schools, for example). Which will then cost new homeowners additional money to staff and maintain – permanently and increasing every year.
So if you want to reduce “regulatory burdens” placed on housing, I can’t think of a better place to start than with the massive costs that school districts are allowed to apply on new housing.
Try it out – maybe look up some tax bills in the newer parts of town – it will break down the ongoing taxes and fees (which are not the same throughout the city).
Reducing taxes is unrealistic. The real problem is Prop 13 which shifts taxes from the wealthiest households that have owned their property the longest to the youngest households that just bought and pay a much higher share per dollar of market value. Just reducing taxes will only make this problem worse, not better.
Within Davis, there is not a wide range of house prices across larger neighborhoods. There are small pockets such as Davis Farms, but not broad areas.
I’m referring to the taxes (and fees) that voters actually CAN control (e.g., parcel taxes, etc.). Of course, those who want to move to Davis for its school system can avoid those by living outside of the community (while still attending Davis schools), regardless.
Or, they can vote to increase parcel taxes in the community where they’re already living. (Either way, it’s a cost directly assigned to “housing”.)
But one of the biggest fees (in regard to new construction) are the one-time school district fees charged to developers for each new unit, which are then passed on to those purchasing the houses. Another word for that is “regulations” – which YIMBYs are supposedly trying to eliminate (except when it comes to schools, I guess).
Then there’s the CFDs/Mello Roos, which can also be used for schools. (Those are decided by developers and cities BEFORE homeowners even purchase the property.)
Regarding Proposition 13, it’s largely been “de-fanged” as a result of Proposition 19. More specifically, low property taxes that parents may have are no longer passed on to children to the same degree. As a result, some children can no longer afford to live in their parents’ home.
The entire idea behind Proposition 13 was to ensure that people don’t get priced-out of their own houses as they age. In the absence of Proposition 13, you can be sure that the state would have priced-out a lot of ageing homeowners, by now.
(As a side note, “cheap Texas” has very high property taxes.)
Regarding the “range” of prices within Davis, houses that are closer to the university command a significant premium over houses that are farther away. (That goes for both rent and for-sale prices.)
Perhaps someone will perform an analysis at some point which shows the difference.
I do suspect that if the state is ever actually successful in forcing a lot of new housing in (or outside) of cities, we will witness a revolt among the residents of this state in which authority is removed from the state (similar to Proposition 13 in that regard).
Anti-housing advocates like to overcomplicate simple economics. The more of something you make, the cheaper it will be. Supply and demand. If you’ve bought eggs in the last year you’ve surely noticed that prices can swing widely due to supply constraints. The issue with eggs isn’t that we need affordable eggs instead of luxury eggs, we just need more eggs. The same is true with housing. The price is set by the market, not by the label on the tin.
Regulations are a tool, they can be good or bad. When they produce outcomes like mass homelessness and insecurity, they are bad. The great planners of Davis did not have it all magically figured out in the 70s and 80s, when they conveniently shut the door behind them and halted all new construction in the city after the population doubled several times over in a decade.
Also be reminded that the city of Davis dragged their feet on following existing regulation that requires them to allow for thousands of new homes in the city housing element as evaluated through the RHNA. They were 3 years late with this plan after several failed submission, just kicking the can down the road.
As someone else on here (who has a background as a developer) told us, developers don’t build to lower prices. Even when prices are rising, some don’t (witness the Chiles Ranch development, which the developer sat on for more than a dozen years). Not to mention his other site on Pole Line Road.
In Woodland, not a shovel has been turned in regard to the technology park (the one that “moved” from Davis several years ago, and added 1,600 housing units in the process). No one, other than market conditions, is preventing them from doing so.
In regard to eggs (or housing), there are alternatives which keep prices in check. The higher the price, the less demand there is – that’s actually how supply/demand works.
The problem with the “build, baby build” people is that they refuse to acknowledge that demand itself is flexible, and is also heavily-influenced by alternatives, job creation, etc.
Regarding “luxury” items, I don’t believe that price fluctuations are much of a factor, compared to an actual commodity. Housing can fall into either one of those categories, as can the choice to move to a particular locale.
I will say that I don’t support building more even if it did cause prices to fall in a given locale. If we’re going to have a capitalistic system, then I’m fine with letting the market take care of itself in this manner. As with eggs, people find alternatives – even more so when demand itself (lack of population growth) is not increasing.
I haven’t purchased a carton of eggs since prices rose, and I’m somehow still alive and well-fed. (Actually, I did purchase a carton a couple of months ago, when I noticed that prices weren’t as high as we’re told in the media.)
Ron O
Problem is that Davis has intervened in the market place to suppress supply of housing so the market can’t take care of this. Intervening to change the regulations so that the market can react is the intent of those proposing to modify Measure J/R/D. Currently you are advocating directly the opposite of what you claim to be doing. That’s called hypocrisy.
I’m not advocating for the city (or any city) to allow as much building as the market might dictate (e.g., if all restrictions were removed). If you want something like that, go to Houston.
The supply/demand model itself is impacted by options. That’s why the cost of housing, for example, never rises above what someone is willing to pay in a given locale. (At least, not for very long.)
When eggs rise above a certain price (due to the mass slaughter of chickens related to bird flu), people might eat cereal or toast instead.
But I am pointing out that the growth advocates on here (including you) advocate creating MORE demand for housing, as a result of the pursuit of “more jobs”. That’s an example of “hypocrisy” – something you won’t find in my comments.
The comment about supply and demand does not hold when the object works as a money making asset. Then the demand is infinite.
Imagine the town is like a monopoly board. As long as the rule of the game allows players to buy properties and do not charge them more than it would cost them to keep it, the players who can afford to buy more would have incentive to buy what they don’t “need” because they can profit from people who need it.
This situation does not change if you extend the game by adding new properties on the board. They get snatched up and the issue repeats.
It was said that the original creator of the game designed the game to illustrate how the law is wrong. But the “correct” law didn’t catch on as a game because the result was uneventful (everyone is happy, there was no challenge as a “game”).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game