Interfaith Housing Justice Davis (IHJD) is dedicated to advancing equitable housing solutions for our community’s unhoused neighbors, renters, and first-time homebuyers. As faith-based organizations, we are committed to promoting diverse, inclusive, and sustainable development practices that foster long-term housing stability and opportunity for all. As the City of Davis begins revising the City’s general plan, we in IHJD encourage the city to include the following principles.
1. Encouraging Mixed-Income, Mixed-Housing Neighborhoods
Background: To address historical injustice as well as reach compliance with State housing goals, new developments should integrate a range of housing types that reflect the diverse needs of our community.
This includes:
• More “Big A” affordable rentals (i.e. increasing the number of units that utilize income eligibility for residency and have specific oversight through government bodies) and subsidized rental housing to ensure stability for those with the greatest financial need.
• Building community-oriented neighborhood and housing options (Cooperatives, cohousing, village models). Attached housing is more affordable and increases opportunities to develop social resilience (options for shared childcare, amenities, tools, and vehicles) as well as the safety and trust of living close to neighbors.
• Market-rate rentals, including larger floor plans suitable for lower-income families.
• Attainable, for-purchase housing, particularly in the “missing middle” category, such as townhomes, duplexes, and small-scale multifamily units, as well as mixed-use developments. (These types of units may be eligible for down-payment assistance programs.)
2. Strategic Density Near Transit and Services
We recognize the social justice and climate benefits of focusing on high-density development in areas with easy access to public transit, essential services, employment hubs, and parks. By concentrating housing in these areas, we can reduce reliance on private vehicles, which helps mitigate traffic congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, well-planned, high-density neighborhoods promote social equity by ensuring all residents have equal access to resources, jobs, and recreational spaces, regardless of income level. These strategies support the creation of vibrant, sustainable communities that contribute to both environmental and social justice.
• Responsible Land Stewardship
Responsible land stewardship is a deeply held principle rooted in our moral obligation to care for creation and to preserve the environment for future generations. We advocate for development practices that ensure that the choices we make today do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. This includes compact housing footprints to optimize land use and the preservation of agricultural and open space areas of ecological significance such as vernal pools.
3. Protecting Community Health
As a housing justice advocacy group, IHJD believes that protecting the health and well-being of our neighbors is a sacred responsibility. Housing development must prioritize the safety and vitality of our residents by creating environments free from harmful toxins and hazards. It is essential to provide safe spaces for families to live, while also ensuring that access to public transportation, pedestrian walkways, and bike-friendly routes are available to all, fostering a sense of community and accessibility.
Through these commitments, IHJD and our member faith organizations strive to shape a future where housing is accessible, sustainable, and just for all members of our community.
Ellen Kolarik co-chair IHJD
Words
And letters . . .
• More “Big A” affordable rentals . . . subsidized rental housing . . .
In other words “Big S” rentals . . . SUBSIDY.
So?
No money to do so?
By the way, are the local churches/religious organizations “exempt” from having their land rezoned for housing? I recall that some were resistant to that idea.
Not sure why they’d resist it, since no one can “force” them to build housing anyway – just like any other property owner. (The difference, of course, is that religious organizations also don’t pay property taxes to my knowledge.)
“By the way, are the local churches/religious organizations “exempt” from having their land rezoned for housing?”
No. But unless the city were to use Eminent Domain, they’d have to agree to do it – like any other property owner.
You’re stating that no city can rezone land without the consent of property owners? If so, then how are cities throughout the state addressing RHNA targets?
Are you stating that cities have to check with each and every homeowner, for example, to change the zoning for a given area?
And what does this have to do with eminent domain (a different issue)?
Let me walk back my comment somewhat- Rezoning without consent is legally allowed, but that doesn’t make every rezoning credible for housing production under state law.
Yes – that’s why the state’s housing mandates aren’t credible. And they’re becoming less-credible every day (no money for Affordable housing, transit systems are declining, etc.).
ACM say: ” “Big S” rentals . . . SUBSIDY. ”
DG say: “So?”
And that, ladies and germs, is the difference between Alan C. Miller and David M. Greenwald :-|
But you didn’t answer the so what question.
I considered it to be rhetorical
Glad to see Interfaith coming to the same conclusion that many of the rest of us have: What we need is NOT more expensive homes, but multifamily attached housing in proximity of transit. AMEN.
This is consistent with all modern planning best practices by every relevant metric: Economic / environment / social / traffic etc.
The challenge of course with all of this is that we dont really have a relevant “transit system”. A bus system that only comes by once an hour or has a “finals schedule” and has the terminus of every route on campus is not a reliable alternative to car ownership for everyday citizens.
That means that planning and establishing a robust transit system that CAN be reliably used as an alternative to cars is job #1 and all other planning issues need to flow from that.
“That means that planning and establishing a robust transit system that CAN be reliably used as an alternative to cars is job #1 and all other planning issues need to flow from that.”
How is that going to get paid for and by whom?
What you aren’t asking is how is the current system which doesn’t work getting paid for and by whom
In San Francisco, there was a plan to charge homeowners for their driveway cut-outs, to try to make up for the $322 million deficit for the MUNI transit system. Needless to say, they anticipated that this idea would not be “popular”.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/driveway-property-san-francisco-20359267.php
I dunno – seems to me that the ideas put forth by folks like Tim Keller is pretty amusing, in light of this example.
Yes – anyone is “allowed” to respond to comments on here.
But the answer to that depends on the particular system, which anyone is free to look up. For example, here’s what AI has to say about the MUNI system:
“Muni is subsidized through a combination of sources including the San Francisco general fund, transit fares, parking revenue, and grants. Federal and state funding can also contribute to Muni’s operating budget. Additionally, various discount and free programs for specific populations (youth, seniors, low-income individuals) further rely on these funding sources.”
MUNI also obtains electricity as a result of the destruction of the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite, though I believe they pay some amount for that. Not sure if it’s the same rate that “everyone else” pays.
Per AI:
“Yes, the San Francisco Muni (Municipal Railway) system gets a significant portion of its electricity from the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System.”
“Hetch Hetchy also powers other municipal services like San Francisco General Hospital and the San Francisco International Airport.”
Seems to me that both you and Keith are making the same mistake – you look at a new proposal without considering how bad the current system is and how costs from that system are baked in and you are already paying them. It is knee jerk reaction without careful analysis.
Honestly not sure what your point is, but I answered the question you asked (pending comment, in response to yours which might have now disappeared.)
But if you’re suggesting that “next time” will be better (regarding funding under-used transit systems), you’re certainly entitled to that opinion.
I’d suggest that we all take the high-speed train to Modesto in about 50 years, where we can meet to discuss it further. (Or is it Bakersfield?)
“How is that going to get paid for and by whom?”
Public transit infrastructure is FAR less expensive than car. In fact, building and maintaining roads for cars is THE LEAST cost efficient way to move people AND has the most negative consequences in terms of public safety and climate impacts.
There is an infographic that is often re-posted out there out there that I cant paste here, but it says:
if walking cost you $1 Dollar, soceity pays $0.01
….Biking “” $0.08
….Bus “” $1.50
… Car “” $9.20
I worry VERY VERY little about the “cost” of our transit system, we subsidize the hell out of automotive infrastructure, even a money-losing transit system is better than building for the car.
But… that said, the “break even” population density for even a TRAM system is apparently only 10-15 units per acre. ( about the density of the lower parts of the cannery). So throw in a couple of zoned apartment buildings at every planned transit stop… and you are easily there (even the 2-story apartments we have around town net out to 20 units per acre. The tallest one near trader joes is 80!)
Last fun fact: When you are putting in transit lines like trams… fully 50% of the cost is “moving existing utilities” like sewer lines and electrical. So if we actualy PLAN for there to be a tram line from day 1 and build accordingly, the cost to establish goes down significantly.
Precisely the point i was trying to make – people are not aware of the current costs and who is paying them.
….Biking “” $0.08
….Bus “” $1.50
… Car “” $9.20
And yet, they all use the same roads (apparently not accounted for, here). So do ALL of the services that are provided to residents of a given city, not to mention streetlights, sewers, etc. for those roads, etc.
On a related note, I posted the information regarding where MUNI gets its money from (while simultaneously creating a $322 million deficit), but David apparently isn’t posting it for some reason.
Point being that the roads and infrastructure are paid by everyone, but only public transit requires an “additional” subsidy beyond walking, biking, cars, etc.
Now, if employers subsidize public transit (as many public agencies do in places like Sacramento), while simultaneously making it expensive to park – that combination sometimes provides sufficient incentive. But even so, you end up paying for it with your time – the only resource we have which is definitely not replaceable. (Of course, you can say that about work itself – no one would go if they weren’t getting paid in exchange for sacrificing a portion of their life.)
Ironically, one of the few times in my life when I drove to work was when I lived AND worked in Davis. When I took a job in Sacramento, I took a bus – for the reasons described above. But if I had to pay the full cost of that, you betcha I would have driven to Sacramento.
But unlike some on here, I didn’t complain when I took advantage of a better opportunity in Sacramento. I didn’t wait around for DISC to provide me with a job, for example.
“And yet, they all use the same roads (apparently not accounted for, here). So do ALL of the services that are provided to residents of a given city, not to mention streetlights, sewers, etc. for those roads, etc.”
Not at all. Thats the entire point.
Cars require much MORE (4-6x wider) road. Cars require traffic lights and traffic cops AND you have to make PARKING SPACES for everything. UCLA professor Donald Shoup once figured out that we pave 7 parking spaces in our communities for every car.
Check out this image here: http://urbanist.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83454714d69e2017d3c37d8ac970c-800wi
This has RADICAL beneficial impacts on our cityscape as well. When you have good transit, your public spaces can be more compact, more walkable. MUCH nicer. Compare downtown Davis which was laid out before the automobile to the costco shopping center in woodland.. which would you rather spend an afternoon shopping in?
As far are road repair and sewer lines, the maintenance per mile goes WAY down when you are servicing 20 houeholds per acre instead of 4,
As for biking… Biking is 10x safer per mile than driving a car when you take cars-hitting-bikes out of the equation, and the #1 or #2 reason cited why most people DONT ride their bike for that 53% of short trips outside the home that are under 3 miles? (depending on the survey) They worry about being hit by a CAR.
So its NOT “all the same” not at ALL. A city built for transit and biking looks and feels entirely different than one built for the car. Its quieter, faster to navigate, safer, more sustainable, cheaper to maintain etc etc etc… Its better in just about every way.
Tim says: “Cars require much MORE (4-6x wider) road. Cars require traffic lights and traffic cops . . .”
My response: So you’re suggesting that roads be narrowed? What about deliveries, utility trucks, emergency vehicles, vehicles to service the roads, utilities, houses, businesses, etc.?
Tim says: “AND you have to make PARKING SPACES for everything. UCLA professor Donald Shoup once figured out that we pave 7 parking spaces in our communities for every car.”
My response: Well, I only need “one” at any given time, so someone can have mine when I vacate it. But again, all of the other types of vehicles mentioned above also need spaces.
Tim says: “This has RADICAL beneficial impacts on our cityscape as well. When you have good transit, your public spaces can be more compact, more walkable. MUCH nicer. Compare downtown Davis which was laid out before the automobile to the costco shopping center in woodland.. which would you rather spend an afternoon shopping in?”
My response Costco – by far. Turns out that I want to have selection, cheap prices, and a way to get the stuff home. Now if you ask me where I’d want to “walk-around” in (for pleasure or nonsense purchases), that would be some place like Davis. (For restaurants in particular.)
Tim says: “As far are road repair and sewer lines, the maintenance per mile goes WAY down when you are servicing 20 houeholds per acre instead of 4,”
My response: Probably so, but it’s a heck of a lot more unpleasant and backed-up.
Tim says: “As for biking… Biking is 10x safer per mile than driving a car when you take cars-hitting-bikes out of the equation, and the #1 or #2 reason cited why most people DONT ride their bike for that 53% of short trips outside the home that are under 3 miles? (depending on the survey) They worry about being hit by a CAR.”
My response: I’m not sure where you’re “taking cars out of the equation”, but I do know that there’s frequent collisions between bicyclists on campus, especially at the beginning of a school year. Also, bicyclists are among the WORST-behaving commuters around pedestrians. Especially with these electric motorcycles (sorry, I meant “electric bicycles”).
But more importantly, I flat-out DON’T BELIEVE any survey in which respondents state that the reason they don’t bike is due to “safety concerns”. The ACTUAL reason is because it’s more difficult, more-uncomfortable, more-exposed to the weather and nighttime challenges, can’t carry passengers, and can’t carry anything to speak of.
Tim says: “A city built for transit and biking looks and feels entirely different than one built for the car. Its quieter, faster to navigate, safer, more sustainable, cheaper to maintain etc etc etc… Its better in just about every way.”
And, it doesn’t exist. Not in Davis or anywhere else. Even in Europe, those road were created BEFORE the invention of cars.
But again, see the reason that it doesn’t matter what YOU personally do in regard to personal transportation and roads/infrastructure – unless you want the police, fire department, ambulances, Amazon or other deliveries for both homes AND businesses, utility workers, contractors, handymen, yardwork, city tree trimmers, etc. – to show up on bicycles in a completely redesigned city, and using a completely redesigned method of providing those services.
But it would be interesting to see grandma strapped onto a cargo bicycle, to deliver her to the local hospital. (Have to get rid of that ladder truck, though – no room for that either. So I guess there’d be some cost savings regarding that.)
Oh, and buses (public transit) themselves – they can’t fit in a bicycle lane (and if they tried to do so, there’d be no room for bicyclists OR pedestrians).
Did you ever actually think about any of this? I ask because it seems pretty obvious to me.
This is either “willful ignorance” or “ritual objection” but no matter what it is.. its REALLY Sad.
Weird to see the guy most rabidly against “sprawl” activley defending car centric planning. The ethical / moral gymnastics on display here are jaw-dropping.
obviously im only talking about new developments here and long-term strategies for how we think of our city. But its clear that you arent interested in anything other than trolling Ron.
Im once again “done” responding to any of your posts. I already regret breaking that rule of mine today.
Tim, I’m not intending to “troll” – I just brought up actual concerns which you haven’t addressed (which would also apply to any “new” neighborhood built on farmland on the outskirts of town).
I’m not an advocate for cars, but it seems to me that you’re advocating for roads that won’t work even in a new development, for the reasons already mentioned. Even to build the houses and infrastructure in the first place, unless you think construction materials and heavy equipment should be delivered by bicycles, as well.
TK say: “What we need is NOT more expensive homes, but multifamily attached housing in proximity of transit. AMEN.”
HAIL SATAN. No! What we need is massively better intercity rail transit: frequent, fast, electrified. The local transit and the housing will follow naturally, the transit will plug in, and the denser housing will flow naturally. Until then, cart before horse city. But this will take a massive change in the way the state thinks about transit funding strategies. Housing near transit is a stupid concept if the transit is anemic, which all of our transit is. And local buses today are barely transit, as you could increase them from every hour to every five minutes and still only a tiny tiny percentage of people would use them (and yes hourly is pathetic, should be half-hourly to even be usable). But the point is: massive, massive investment in the Capitol Corridor, tens of billions. Then we won’t have to deal with trying to force zoning or subsidize housing. All will be right with the world.
I want to add something else regarding this.
When I first moved to Davis, I pretty-quickly realized that it wasn’t a hell-hole unlike so many other “job centers” such as Sacramento. And unlike all of the other towns nearby, as well.
I knew it was hot (and not as good as the Bay Area), but not bad for a hot, flat valley town. Of course, UCD is the primary reason it’s “better”, though I never had a direct connection to it.
Not once did I even consider moving to Sacramento, when I took a job there. Every time I came back over the causeway (even on a bus), I was so relieved as it came into Davis. Immediately felt safer, more comfortable, etc. (I believe it was even a couple of degrees cooler in Davis on hot days.) My family was impressed and somewhat surprised by the town as well (since we were all “Bay Area snobs”, in a sense – in regard to ANYTHING in the valley).
Of course, this was back in the day (not so long ago) when people weren’t trying to screw it up for their own reasons. Other than developers, who were suddenly reigned-in when folks had enough.
Nor did any of those whom I worked with consider moving to Sacramento, who almost ALL lived in surrounding (or even distant) suburbs. (Only one person lived in Sacramento, itself – and she ended up moving to San Francisco after awhile.)
I’d estimate that about 3/4 of the people I worked with took public transit to work. One guy biked from his rather-distant home.
Take a look at who works in downtown Sacramento – I’d guess that fewer than 1/4 of them live nearby. (Of course, telecommuting has also had an impact regarding this.)
Point being: Don’t let anyone (whether it’s the school district or others pushing for more growth) tell you that there’s something “wrong” with Davis that growth will “fix”, when just about EVERY EXAMPLE proves the opposite. It’s not like Davis hasn’t been growing in the first place, regardless.
“Point being: Don’t let anyone (whether it’s the school district or others pushing for more growth) tell you that there’s something “wrong” with Davis that growth will “fix”. Just about EVERY EXAMPLE proves the opposite. It’s not like Davis hasn’t been growing in the first place, regardless.”
With the understanding that the “growth” you are talking about here is “car centric sprawl” then I very much agree with you. And your point that “just about every example proves the opposite” is also true… because those car-centric, low denstiy developments do indeed suck.
We have different opinions on what responsibilities we have to our city, the univeristy and our economy, and those needs can only be adressed by growth, (you think we have no reponsibility to address those issues, which is where our primary disagreement starts) but the point that developing things at low densities based on automotive transit ( which is how I define sprawl) only makes things worse is something I would in fact agree with.
The days of big growth are “over” for universities, as well. Demographics don’t lie.
The only reason that the UC system has been experiencing moderate growth recently is because it’s essentially poaching students from the declining CSU and community college systems.
UCD and the city have both been building massive amounts of student housing. As far as growth in the number of employees, I have not seen any discussion regarding that. (But these are folks who have already found housing, regardless.) I do know that UCD had plans to construct employee housing on campus, but haven’t heard anything about that recently, either.
Seems likely that Trump’s funding cuts to universities (and restrictions regarding immigration) are going to further cut growth.
Bottom line is that the growth activists haven’t actually addressed the “need for growth”, other than the fake/failing state mandates.