Once again, a city council caves to neighborhood pressure and kills a desperately needed housing project — this time in San Jose, not Davis. But the story is eerily familiar: a proposed apartment complex near transit corridors, a campaign of organized neighborhood opposition, and elected officials retreating behind vague claims about “neighborhood character” and “right-sizing” development. It’s the California housing crisis on repeat.
Earlier this week, the San Jose City Council unanimously rejected a plan to build a 17-story apartment complex with 135 homes and 15,000 square feet of retail space at 826 N. Winchester Blvd. The vote came despite the building replacing a long-abandoned structure and being located on a major arterial street. Even after the developer, VCI Companies, offered to reduce the height to 11 stories, that wasn’t enough. The opposition had already framed the project as out of scale and out of character — familiar language to anyone who’s watched housing debates in cities across the state.
“We need housing of all types and for all income levels,” said District 6 Councilmember Michael Mulcahy, before proceeding to argue that this particular housing wasn’t quite right. The proposal, he claimed, was “inconsistent with San Jose’s general plan and was outsized for the Cory neighborhood.” Instead, he suggested, the area should be reexamined as part of a future general plan update — effectively punting on any real commitment to new housing in the present.
Opponents of the project filled city council chambers and an overflow room. They came with signs, matching outfits, and the rhetorical force of a well-organized NIMBY movement. Lindy Hayes, daughter of former San Jose Mayor Janet Gray Hayes, was quoted celebrating the outcome, calling it a “neighborhood effort” and thanking the council for “preserving the vibrancy of our neighborhood.”
But as housing advocates pointed out during the hearing, the voices that dominated the room don’t reflect the full breadth of the city’s housing needs. Alex Shoor, executive director of Catalyze SV, spoke plainly: “It’s crucial we talk about who isn’t here tonight: students coming home from college, working families, undocumented San Jose residents fearful right now, and the next generation of tech workers taking jobs here.”
He’s right. Housing policy isn’t just about those who can show up to a meeting on a Tuesday night. It’s about those who can’t — the people stuck in long commutes because they can’t afford to live near work, the renters squeezed by climbing prices, the young people who leave because there’s no room for them in the cities where they grew up. The council’s vote catered to the loudest voices in the room, not the most vulnerable or most affected.
This decision also highlights how easily cities can block housing without invoking anything like Davis’s restrictive Measure J. Here, San Jose didn’t need a citizen vote. It only took a few organized neighbors and a pliant council to kill a project outright. The language about general plans, “transit residential” zoning, and “right-sizing” development has become a bureaucratic shield for inaction. Meanwhile, the crisis grows.
San Jose’s own planning staff had warned that reclassifying the site as transit residential could actually work against the city’s broader housing and growth goals. But that analysis was brushed aside in favor of neighborhood appeasement.
Councilmember Mulcahy attempted to soften the blow by saying District 6 is already doing its “fair share,” noting that 23% of the city’s new housing is located in his district, which comprises just 10% of the population. But housing need doesn’t stop at percentages — especially when you’re rejecting projects in a city that is still nowhere near meeting its state-mandated housing targets.
This isn’t just about one apartment building. It’s about a pattern. Time and again, cities across California say they support housing in theory — “all types, all income levels” — but balk the moment it might slightly inconvenience a group of affluent homeowners. This dynamic is exactly why we are in a housing crisis. It’s why prices continue to soar, why working-class families are pushed to the margins, and why homelessness persists at tragic levels.
Until city leaders are willing to stand up to neighborhood obstruction and make decisions in the interest of long-term affordability and equity, nothing will change. Saying yes to housing isn’t easy. It requires political courage. Unfortunately, in San Jose this week, that courage was nowhere to be found.
Sound familiar? It should. Because it could be Davis. Or Palo Alto. Or Berkeley. Or Santa Monica. The town changes, but the excuses stay the same.
And so does the crisis.
From article: “Meanwhile, the crisis grows.”
That’s for sure. For example, Davis housing prices have declined by 10% over the past year. (Not sure how this works mathematically – does this mean that 10% of existing housing should be torn down to stop the bleeding and the reduced demand?)
https://www.redfin.com/city/4690/CA/Davis/housing-market
DG, give us a number. At what percentage point drop from the highest price will you declare the so-called “crisis” over? I mean 10% is a pretty good drop. Ask anyone who owns a home they don’t plan to retire in how they feel about that drop, especially if they bought at the peak.
Bottom line, I’m guessing you can’t answer, and there is no number. Because what would you write about to replace crying “Wolf!” in a crowded theater?
Ron, my guess is that 9.8% is within the margin of error for the data set Redfin is using. The sample size is small and there is very little homogeneity in the characteristics of each individual sale. That plays out in the difference between the two percentages (9.8% and 6.7%) Redfin reports when they say … “ The median sale price of a home in Davis was $838K last month, down 9.8% since last year. The median sale price per square foot in Davis is $498, down 6.7% since last year.”
With that said, the graphs Redfin provides show that over 5 years the median sale price has steadily increased.
The 5-year graph doesn’t seem particularly “impressive” – especially when considering the cost of “everything” going up:
https://www.redfin.com/city/4690/CA/Davis/housing-market
If housing prices don’t keep up with inflation, they’re actually decreasing on a real basis. (Same thing is true regarding every dollar in your pocket.)
The “smart money” is on Bitcoin (or perhaps pork bellies) – not sure which. Or maybe the lottery – or by trying your luck at one of the local casinos.
Median home prices per Zillow:
May 2022 $ 890,493.00
May 2023 $ 841,684.00 , down 5%
May 2024 $ 879,345.00 , up 4%
May 2025 $ 875,925.00 , down 0.4%
Not a good way to look at the Davis market. The supply is so small, those numbers are skewed by what ends up on the market rather than reflecting the market.
Correct. My point was that saying “Davis housing prices have declined by 10% over the past year” is meaningless.
Just curious: where in Davis would you support a 17-story apartment building?
I realize you didn’t ask me, but the only way there’d be a market for a 17-story apartment building in Davis (e.g., one that would “pencil out”) is if it was targeted at UCD students. And even then, I’m not so sure it would pencil out.
Even if the city or state “gave permission” for it.
Short of that, the state would have to pay for it (subsidize it), to make it viable.
The “problem” that the growth activists are facing is demographics. The population itself is stabilizing (and is on a path to decline). (This is “good news”, except for those who don’t view it as such.)
I can only speak for myself, but I don’t have an interest in seeing prices increase (e.g., more than the rate of inflation).
Obviously, the 17 story building is not the point of the article
The 17 stories is a major part of the story. I remember growing up in L.A. when Westwood went from being mostly the two story Mediterranean Village and redeveloped into the Century City highrise Wilshire corridor. As a kid growing up in LA it was alienating and intimidating.
But the limit is going to be different in different places. UCLA recently built a building that, if I remember correctly, was about 17 stories of student housing but doing so in that area at this time wouldn’t change the skyline much at this point. Yet doing so in Davis would be major change because it would double the height of anything this side of the Causeway.
The neighbors are correct. The project proposed is massively out of scale for the neighborhood. That’s why I asked the question.
It’s already been asserted locally that UCD should build high-rise housing.
People already have stated that the public works site should have housing several stories tall, despite the impact on housing to the north.
If there’s a direct impact on neighbors, that is a reasonable consideration. This was a serious over-reach by the development team.
Also, it’s unhealthy to live in high-rise buildings and they don’t integrate well into neighborhoods. They should be a last resort.
If anyone REALLY wants to talk about a profit, how about this?
“These 12 acres on which the Chiles Mansion sat was then sold by Mary Bado Simmons’ heirs to local developers Steve Sherman and Dan Fouts in April 2007 for $4.2 million.”
https://localwiki.org/davis/Chiles_Mansion
Followed by this ( from article earlier this year):
“Chiles Ranch has sold to a new owner – Century Communities Inc.”
“According to Doug Bayless of Bayless Properties Inc., the land was purchased for $17.7 million.”
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/chiles-ranch-land-sold-to-century-communities-inc/article_de7baec4-f956-11ef-b90a-a36e25a2980d.html
That, my friends, is “how you do it” (become wealthy – without even building anything).
Gotta wonder what Simmons’ heirs (now) think of their decision to sell at that time.
I understand that the owner of the Village Farms site also got an extraordinary “deal”.
Good for Fouts. Land speculation at its best. I think land speculation has been a major part of the American economic engine since the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
I thought you were opposed to speculation (at least as far as homeowners are concerned)? (Actually, they’re usually not engaged in speculation.) Given your position, why do you support Fouts’ unearned profit?
“I understand that the owner of the Village Farms site also got an extraordinary ‘deal’.”
That’s a cheap shot without citing any basis. I once heard one of the owners of that site say it “Was the worst investment he ever made.” Another partner put money in decades ago and never got a penny out before he passed away recently. I find your carelessness with the facts particularly loathsome today.
“I find your carelessness with the facts particularly loathsome today.”
I’ve cited facts, and could probably find out what Whitcombe paid, as well. It was told to me, but I don’t remember what it was. (A price I’d certainly try to buy it for, however.)
Probably the price for farmland (which it is).
In any case, let me know if you’d like for me to find out/confirm what Whitcombe paid for it. (I already cited what Fouts and his partner paid in regard to Chiles Ranch.) But in Whitcombe’s case, it was verbally relayed to me.)
I wonder what the average cost basis is in Davis. If you have lived here a long time you’re probably not worried about a ten percent swing in price. I have a neighbor whose cost basis is in the tens of thousands and his house value is easily over one million dollars.
In a relatively stable market with some ups and downs price in a relatively fluctuations isn’t only due to supply and demand dynamics alone. Interest rates and carrying costs also help determine affordability. But adding supply always has a dampening effect on demand so the more you produce the more affordable housing becomes for the people with the marginal income needed at that time and place.
In a relatively stable market with some ups and downs price fluctuations aren’t only due to supply and demand dynamics.
I had to fix that sentence
Honestly, I don’t think anything Davis might consider (including Covell Village/Village Farms) is going to make any difference regarding market price. (See “The Cannery” regarding the degree to which it moderated price growth or DJUSD growth.)
Part of the reason for the lack of any difference is because places like Spring Lake moderate the price (and send their kids to DJUSD, for that matter).
Another 1,600 housing units on the horizon, if/when they ever get-around to building the “Woodland Technology Park” – the one that “escaped” from Davis, with the original site now being covered by housing as well (Bretton Woods).
The other (probably more-important) reason is that we’re “running out of people” to make things go up in price/demand.
The only way UCD itself is (slightly) growing at this point is by poaching college students who would otherwise attend a community college/CSU. (Those systems are experiencing an enormous downturn.)
The days of large price increases are behind us (permanently), at this point. Demographics don’t lie, nor does the California exodus.
But (unasked), I’ll put forth my own opinion (in addition to the facts, above). I simply don’t support building more (anywhere) in an attempt to lower price. (I’d tell you the same thing regarding places like Tiburon, Atherton, Tahoe, Beverly Hills, etc.).
Davis is already “cheap housing” for those coming from the Bay Area.
But one thing I do agree with you on: those who aren’t trying to sell their homes (along with all of the resulting costs of selling, buying, and moving) aren’t calculating (nor do they care about) unrealized gains. (Their children might, but I doubt they’re paying much attention, either.)
I see this as another example of people objecting to piecemeal planning.
come up with a 1-off plan for a huge tower in a neighbothood that isnt like that… yeah you are going to get everyone riled up AND the project is going to seem “out of pattern” and “optional”
But if you had a planning process or larger-scale leadership that set out where these areas near transit are going to be re-zoned, and what the heights are going to look like, and maybe have a PLAN for what that new part of the city looks like… And you do all of that in advance…
Give people time to process the change, give people time to weigh in. Our cities DO need to change though. DRASTICALLY. So its only fair to be proactive in the proces and give people a chance to react to what is coming and understand why.
” . . . react to what is coming and understand why”.
In other words, “We performed outreach, but we’re going to do the opposite of the input we received. The purpose of the workshop was to TELL you what’s going to happen – like/understand it, or not. We’re the government and we already have a divine plan. The workshop itself was just a formality to give you the illusion that your input is valued and considered. But thanks for participating.”
Sort of. Surely you agree that a workshop is not a plebiscite? So you take feedback, hopefully use that feedback constructively, but the feedback is not dispositive.
Depends upon if they use words like “plebiscite” and “dispositive”.
But seriously, I don’t believe there’s much purpose in workshops if a government agency already knows what it’s going to impose – regardless of input. I’ve been to workshops like that, and found that to be the case.
I think the main problem is you are treating workshop as though it were a choke point in the process rather than what it is intended to be – bidirectional information.
If those types of workshops are labeled as “informational” (meaning that the government is providing information regarding what it plans to do and that “your” input doesn’t matter), that would at least be honest.
I think we already have that type of process (e.g., from the state).
Come to think of it, that’s sort of been Newsom’s approach regarding the homeless situation as well. (Telling cities that they WILL do what he wants, or they won’t get funding from the state that they don’t have in the first place.) Yes, that’s definitely informational, but it’s not bidirectional.
First of all – workshops are information. They are not government policy making meetings. Second, your input does matter, but it’s a long input process that gets filtered through meetings, letters, and other communications and it doesn’t necessarily mean that things will or will not change.
One of the first things people need to learn when they get involved in this stuff is that there is a legally prescribed process that needs to be followed. If people were to understand the process, I think a lot of this confusion would dissipate.
David says: “If people were to understand the process, I think a lot of this confusion would dissipate.”
Your comment reminds me of the comments made by some council members, when they claimed that those appearing or calling in to oppose weakening of Measure J were “confused” and “misunderstood” what the city was attempting. When in reality, they simply OPPOSED what the city was attempting to do. (Which the council/staff obviously did not want to hear.)
Also reminds me of someone like Charles Manson showing up for a parole hearing – I’m sure his input was “considered”.
Comments like that from the council come across as either condescending or dismissive, but they have a basis in fact. Someone complaining about a project at a workshop cannot and should not stop the project.
David says: “Someone complaining about a project at a workshop cannot and should not stop the project.”
That’s an acknowledgement that opposition to a project (not necessarily a specific development project) is not considered by the time it’s presented in a workshop. That’s the problem.
One time, I participated in a workshop where there were several “choices” presented. Of course, “none of the above” was not an option (and I believe the workshop ultimately had no impact, regardless).
It’s not unlike participating in a survey where your choices of response are limited by design. (For example, I’m not really interested in telling a company how their particular “representative” responded at the end of a phone call. I’m WAY more-interested in raising concerns about the automated “phone tree system” that caused me to waste 15 minutes BEFORE I reached the representative. But they don’t want to hear about that – they already know it, but don’t care.)
“That’s an acknowledgement that opposition to a project (not necessarily a specific development project) is not considered by the time it’s presented in a workshop. That’s the problem.”
There’s a lot you’re failing to account for here and that’s making your analysis skewed.