Key points:
- A housing crisis exists when supply doesn’t meet demand in desired neighborhoods.
- Housing affordability shouldn’t be assessed across entire metropolitan areas, but individual neighborhoods.
- Increasing housing supply is a necessary condition for achieving affordability.
We’re in a housing crisis. Say it again until it sinks in. And while that may sound like a slogan, it’s a measurable, definable fact.
For example, according to The YIMBY Manifesto, a housing crisis exists “when there is a shortage of housing in the places where people would like to live.”
It’s a simple concept with enormous consequences: when housing supply doesn’t meet demand in the neighborhoods people need or prefer to live in, prices rise and access shrinks—particularly for low- and moderate-income renters.
Some have pushed back against this framing.
For example, in the often cited counter-example, Schwartz and McClure (2024) argued that housing affordability should be assessed across entire metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), rather than individual neighborhoods or submarkets.
They suggest that, because cheaper housing exists somewhere within most MSAs, the crisis is overstated. Their claim rests on the idea that affordability concerns are largely a result of preference—people wanting to live in expensive neighborhoods—rather than a structural failure of supply.
They’re right about one thing: you could move to those cheaper areas.
They’re wrong that people will.
There is a reason for that that seems to go unrecognized here: the suggestion ignores real and present constraints.
Many people live where they do out of necessity—not completely by choice. If you don’t own a car, or if you’re already rent-burdened, moving far away from work, services, or public transportation isn’t just inconvenient—it’s impossible.
The market may offer “affordable” options far from job centers, but that affordability evaporates when you factor in long commutes, auto expenses, or the social and emotional costs of dislocation. And it evaporates because the fact of the matter is that jobs and housing are largely inseparable.
More importantly, Schwartz and McClure’s paper misses a key point: a surplus of housing in one area doesn’t offset the shortage in another, particularly when the shortage is in high-opportunity, transit-rich, or job-dense neighborhoods.
The underlying theory—that aggregate affordability across a region is enough—has been debated and largely rejected by other housing scholars.
As Alexander Hermann and Whitney Airgood-Obrycki at Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies pointed out in their 2024 analysis, a failure to fully account for household formation has contributed to underestimating the true demand for housing.
They note that an increasing share of younger adults are continuing to live with their parents well into adulthood, not by choice but because of affordability constraints. When people can’t afford to move out and form new households, it suppresses demand on paper while hiding the true scale of unmet need.
It’s not about preference but rather actual structural barriers.
Estimates vary, but some studies now indicate that the U.S. may be short as many as 20 million homes nationwide. That figure comes not just from population growth, but from the cumulative effect of decades of underbuilding—especially in cities and neighborhoods where demand is strongest.
The YIMBY Manifesto outlines what happens when supply fails to keep up: “When we don’t build enough housing, we drive up prices and push people out.”
In markets like San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and increasingly smaller cities like Sacramento and Austin, the consequences are visible every day—teachers, service workers, nurses, and city employees commuting from hours away because they can no longer afford to live near their jobs.
The research backs this up.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noted in a recent evidence review that “increasing housing supply moderates price pressures.”
While no one claims new construction alone will solve every housing problem, the academic consensus has coalesced around the basic truth that increasing supply is a necessary—if insufficient—condition for achieving affordability.
Yet some local debates still hinge on whether a housing crisis exists at all.
In conversations over the past year, we’ve encountered variations of the same argument: that high rents are simply a matter of demand, that if people just moved to less popular areas or settled for less space, the problem would resolve itself.
But this mindset fails to address the structural forces of exclusion: zoning rules that prohibit apartments in wealthy neighborhoods, parking mandates that drive up costs, minimum lot sizes that restrict density, and regulatory delays that block shovel-ready housing.
In short, people aren’t priced out by accident—they’re priced out by design.
If we want to address the crisis, cities must take bold and evidence-based action. That starts with streamlining permitting for housing in the places where people want and need to live most. It means liberalizing zoning codes, especially in high-opportunity neighborhoods. It requires removing parking mandates and minimum lot size rules that make infill housing financially infeasible. And it means investing in transit and pedestrian infrastructure so that car ownership is no longer a necessity for accessing jobs, schools, and services.
None of this is a silver bullet. Nor is it in opposition to social housing initiatives. In fact, these reforms complement public investment by reducing land and construction costs and expanding access to more types of housing across income levels.
Too often, energy is wasted litigating whether the crisis exists—rather than organizing around solutions. That only delays progress and fractures coalitions that should be working together to build better, fairer cities.
It’s time to move beyond that. We have the tools. We have the research. And, increasingly, we have the political will.
Let’s build it all. Build because it’s what the evidence demands. Build even more because the people who need it most are still waiting.
Again, one of the primary problems with this argument is that you’re not going to make housing prices the same “everywhere” no matter what is built. That’s ALWAYS been true – even before zoning laws, for example, went into effect.
Places like Nob Hill and Pacific Heights was/is where wealthier people live in San Francisco, for example. And that was true as soon as the Gold Rush started. And the (Excelsior?) district is where less-wealthy people live. The outer avenues is where “middle class” people have traditionally lived.
And yet, the entire city is probably more expensive than Daly City, on average. And Daly City is more expensive than Stockton (but is cheaper than San Mateo).
Nothing to do with zoning, etc.
Locally, Spring Lake is cheaper than Davis, and is an easy commute to UCD. In fact, it’s easier and more direct to UCD than it is from many neighborhoods WITHIN Davis. And there’s not a darn thing that anyone in Davis can do about that.
1,600 more housing units on the way, at the planned technology park – which is a straight shot down Highway 113 to UCD.
Even within Davis, prices aren’t the same everywhere.
Housing shortage my arse.
“Again, one of the primary problems with this argument is that you’re not going to make housing prices the same “everywhere” no matter what is built. That’s ALWAYS been true – even before zoning laws, for example, went into effect.”
That’s a strawman argument. Not one person, publication, or group has argued that. Not one.
Your entire article notes that prices are higher where people “want to” live, which usually has to do with jobs.
And those are the areas that get developed FIRST. Those areas will ALWAYS be more-expensive than more-distant areas, and those with less money will ALWAYS look for areas where they get more for their money.
Knights Landing is cheaper than Woodland, by the way – for the same reason.
Now, if you REALLY want to even-things out, allow jobs to leave (as was occurring anyway, in regard to the California Exodus). That’s going to be far more-effective in regard to your social justice concerns.
But even that won’t fully “even out prices” – since this basic condition occurs EVERYWHERE in the world.
Bangkok is more expensive than some small village in the middle of that country, as well. Do you think they have a lot of zoning laws or NIMBY’s in Bangkok, causing problems?
My guess is that anywhere near downtown Houston (the land of “no zoning”) is more-expensive than areas which are farther away from THAT downtown.
If you are trying to infer from that that someone is arguing that all markets must be the same thing your inference is completely wrong
Thought I was pretty clear, in regard to the impact that “different” housing prices have – since it’s the same one that you and the YIMBYs make.
People choose areas where they get more for their money, and that’s not going to change. At least, those with less money. (Especially those with families/young children.)
Now, if you and the YIMBYs started to actually DISCOURAGE housing in far-flung locations, that might achieve your stated goal (to force them into expensive density). But that’s not what the YIMBYs do.
Yes there are a lot of mitigating factors concerning housing desirability, affordability and markets. As they say; Real Estate is all about location, location, location…..meaning local factors are the more significant factors for housing affordability in local markets.
In THIS local market; I’d say Spring Lake or North, North Davis pretty much disproves: “A housing crisis exists when supply doesn’t meet demand in desired neighborhoods. Housing affordability shouldn’t be assessed across entire metropolitan areas, but individual neighborhoods.” Or if you build a nice enough and affordable alternative; people will choose to live there if it’s a viable housing solution.
I think the definition of crisis is pretty broad here, and I would personally frame it very differently.
When you have a housing market (on a city-wide basis) where you dont have sufficient housing that is affordable to a large number of people working WITHIN that city, then you have a crisis. ( this allows compensation for “prevailing wage” etc)
Its not that we need to make it so that home prices in places like lake alhambra are affordable to all. Its okay to have “expensive neighborhoods.”
But to not have homes or apartments that are affordable ( per the 30% rule) in your city for a large number of people working IN your city… THAT is a crisis.
In Davis that describes at LEAST 10,000 people ( If you assume that half of our 23,000 incoming commuters are commuting by choice rather than necessity)
There is no defending the position that there isnt a crisis. Its not credible, this article shouldnt be even necessary.
We have a state-wide crisis that is driving out-migration, that is a fact, its documented well. We also have a regional crisis as demonstrated by the premium on housing prices that you get in Davis as compared to woodland and Dixon etc to show that the crisis is ESPECIALLY ACUTE here in Davis.
But lets be careful about this definition please… because when you have a housing affordability crisis, you dont “solve it” by building more high priced housing. Houses =/= housing. Even a dual-income household of two starting-level DJUSD teachers wont be able to afford to live in village farms at the prices those homes are going to command, and so much is being made of that development to “support our schools”. Its all a fantasy and people need to check the math.
We need to wake up both to the crisis and to the reality that NONE of the proposed developments are actually going to fix it. We need a different plan all together.
Tim Keller says: “In Davis that describes at LEAST 10,000 people ( If you assume that half of our 23,000 incoming commuters are commuting by choice rather than necessity).”
Those people are NOT working “in Davis”.
In general, a primary reason for a disconnect between an average salary vs. what is needed to buy a house is due to older generations, who haven’t yet died-off – while the world around them changed (e.g., Silicon Valley).
As they die off (or move-out), they’re replaced by high wage workers.
This (the “change”) is ENTIRELY due to “economic development” of the type that YOU advocate for on land outside of Davis (e.g., DISC).
Anecdotally, I’ve heard from people who are increasingly-questioning this type of displacement. (Then again, the existing homeowners and/or their heirs might not mind “cashing out”).
There’s an effort right now to totally eliminate capital gains on the sale of a house (beyond what the government already allows). But once heirs get the property (or any other asset, I believe), it receives a stepped-up basis (no capital gains tax), regardless.
Ron your response to my comment is entirely disconnected from reality.
The people Im advocating building housing for is university staff and our local service sector workforce, teachers, janitors, middle-managers ,hospitality, barbers, retail clerks etc
These people VERY MUCH work IN DAVIS and they represent a huge slice of our economy that are almost entirely shut out of the market here.
Im not even saying that they need to be able to buy single family homes however… but we have NO housing that fits those kinds jobs in our industry… THAT is a crisis. We either have single family housing or student housing.. nothing in the middle.
We arent even getting close to the additional needs for growing our economy, that is just catching up to the growth that we should have absorbed over the past 20 years. We will need additional housing for additional growth on top of that… which is why its totally dumb to be devoting all of our time to looking at low-density sprawling developments… that land needs to be apartments / townhomes etc, and all services by coherent transit.
There is only one way to do this right, and arguing whether the problem is real doesnt help.. Its obviously real and there is only one path to fixing it that doesnt make a billion of other things worse.
Tim Keller says: “The people Im advocating building housing for is university staff and our local service sector workforce, teachers, janitors, middle-managers ,hospitality, barbers, retail clerks etc.”
You’ve lumped-together a wide variety of workers, with a wide range of salary. Some of those people would have trouble paying for housing (without another worker in the household) anywhere, while others would have no problem doing so. Some live in households in which a family member works elsewhere, as has already been noted MANY TIMES on here.
You’re primarily advocating for the city to take responsibility (primarily) for UCD employees. UCD did have plans to house more of its own employees (as it does in the development behind University Commons shopping center – do you know the status of that? (Since you’re an advocate, I would think that you’d be following up with that. Why is is that the housing advocates never seem to do so?)
In any case, the number of UCD (Davis campus) employees is not increasing, to my knowledge. And most newer employees are probably finding housing in places like Spring Lake (a straight, easy commute to UCD – avoiding traveling through the city of Davis almost entirely). So how, exactly is that a “crisis”??
As far as DJUSD employees are concerned, Davis needs FEWER of them as enrollment continues to decline.
And yet, on top of what you and David view as a “housing crisis” – you want to make what you claim to be WORSE – via a development like DISC.
“In any case, the number of UCD (Davis campus) employees is not increasing, to my knowledge.”
UCD has added an average of 300 staff per year since 2013.
The drop in staffing in 2020 was fully replaced in 2021 and 2022.
2023 UCD added 678 employees.
2024 UCD added 340 employees.
I don’t know how many were at their Sac facilities, this is just overall #’s. Any enrollment increase will cause staffing increases and UCD enrollment is likely to continue to increase.
Yes. It is the purpose of a city to provide housing / services / community for the people who work in a given region.
Yes, many households have people who work in different cities, which is why I think the number to shoot for in housing is 10k units not 23k
We are behind in terms of housing growth to support our existing economy, AND our existing economy is insufficient to provide for our aging infrastructure, which means economic development is ALSO needed.
So yes, we need to grow desperatley. Not just to make up for past shortfalls, but to accomodate future growth of our economy and make ourselves more sustainable in the long term.
These are both true, and both would be great for Davis.
Thanks, Don. I’ll take your word for it (in the absence of a link). Is that a “net gain”? In other words, does it subtract-out those who left the system?
As you noted, there’s also no breakdown of UCD employees working in Sacramento.
Nor, of course, is there any breakdown of UCD employees who have spouses/partners who don’t work at UCD.
Has anyone (especially the housing advocates on here) ever followed-up with UCD, regarding their plan to house more of their own employees? I’ve asked a bunch of times at this point. (Again, this would seemingly be of more interest for those who think there’s a “shortage” of local housing for UCD employees, so obviously I’m not in that camp.)
In any case, there’s apparently a UC-wide hiring freeze.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-wide-hiring-freeze-response-fiscal-challenges#:~:text=Dear%20Colleagues:,until%20more%20details%20are%20available.
“Has anyone (especially the housing advocates on here) ever followed-up with UCD, regarding their plan to house more of their own employees?”
I haven’t seen any formal discussion of UCD housing staff or faculty for several years now. I don’t see any plans in their system to do so, the LRDP doesn’t show any, and it’s not in the MOU between UCD and the city from 2018. Comments here indicated that the prevailing wage labor cost precluded any project from pencilling out, and UC does not provide or manage housing below cost. I think it is safe to say that they won’t be providing staff housing any time in the next decade or so, if at all.
Thanks, Don. Yeah, I probably wouldn’t be planning to build housing either (if I worked for UCD in that capacity), when they’re not hiring in the first place. But in regard to your comment regarding “penciling out” (and/or “prevailing wage”), how is it that they managed to build a bunch of student housing, recently?
One thing that is both interesting and helpful – there is broad consensus (not universal consensus mind you) that there is a crisis – there is broad debate and discussion on how to solve it.
There isn’t even “broad consensus” of what is meant by “housing crisis”, though it seems that a more-accurate description is “affordability crisis” (for some people). The same people who experience an “affordability crisis” regarding the rising cost of food, etc.
Perhaps the most-severe “housing crisis” is experienced by those who can no longer get insurance for their housing, and have to turn to the Fair Plan (at best). There are people in this state (and across the country) who are simply going without insurance. (Those people are indeed experiencing a “crisis” when their house burns down, is flooded, or swept-away by a tornado and they have no insurance.)
Another crisis is being experienced by those who are under-insured, and experience significant losses. (The Fair Plan, for example, isn’t going to cover the cost of replacing multi-million dollar houses that burned down in Pacific Palisades. (The Fair Plan apparently limits its payouts to $3 million – including personal property.)
But it’s not just the Fair Plan – millions of homeowners are “under-insured”.
I’ve seen examples/news reports where some people simply can’t afford to rebuild, even when they ARE insured.
“Opinion: We’re in a Housing Crisis”
Seriously, is this headline a joke?
Seriously, no.
I mean, I know you don’t consider the issue a joke. I found it amusing because this is rather the pinnacle summary headline for the main theme of the Vanguard for the last decade.
I basically reused the title of the YIMBY article and did it to be a bit punchy.
Well, I definitely feel punched ;-)
Alan states, “Seriously, is this headline a joke?”
I know, right?
It’s not a joke – it’s a way of life for David.
That, and advocating for criminals to get out of prison.
Tim Keller says: “Yes. It is the purpose of a city to provide housing / services / community for the people who work in a given region.”
Seems to me that the region already goes “overboard” regarding providing housing/services/community for those who live in the region, but that they’re also PURPOSEFULLY TRYING to attract even MORE to the region.
Truth be told, that’s ALWAYS what providing more housing is about – to house those who don’t already live in a given area.
Ultimately, “if you don’t build it, they don’t come”. (This is demonstrably true, in communities which have chosen to restrict growth.) And if communities stop trying to attract more economic activity, then underlying demand won’t increase, either.
It’s really about that simple. All the rest of this (such as the demonstrated lack of interest in getting UCD to house more of its employees) is just a bunch of noise from folks who want to see the city and region continue to grow.
By the way, we’re finally getting at least a little more pushback regarding the fake housing shortage:
“The Canadian city of Vancouver offers an example. Its breathtaking site is now filled with “vertical” apartments. The metropolis decided to increase housing density, build tall and modify zoning to encourage construction. That didn’t move the needle down on home prices. Like its Bay Area counterpart, housing remained expensive and out of the reach of many, especially its workforce.”
“Why? According to a University of British Columbia study, “The economic value created by vertical housing density contributed to a staggering increase in land value instead of a lower price per housing unit.”
“Higher density did nothing for potential residents. It was a windfall for the owner of what was once zoned for a single-family home and then rezoned for more valuable multifamily housing.”
“Lastly, California isn’t growing. State population projections ignore that reality. Since 2018, we’ve had a stable population of 39 million with a 6.4% vacancy rate. Accurate growth numbers will diminish calls for millions of new units.”
http://www.marinij.com/2025/08/05/dick-spotswood-is-california-really-having-a-housing-crisis-data-says-no/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=fb-marinijfan&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwY2xjawMB_l5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHt0g4CTb3OX_SKmqMbBhohyI-WSdo1zrEMAPSjWyyBOms4PCkVrNQoBE0JKf_aem_zAKFusWnfpRycqO8hG50WA
http://www.marinij.com/2025/08/05/dick-spotswood-is-california-really-having-a-housing-crisis-data-says-no/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_content=fb-marinijfan&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwY2xjawMB_l5leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHt0g4CTb3OX_SKmqMbBhohyI-WSdo1zrEMAPSjWyyBOms4PCkVrNQoBE0JKf_aem_zAKFusWnfpRycqO8hG50WA
He basically makes the same mistake you do: “Lion contends that while there’s no shortage of housing in general, there’s a real lack of units for our middle to lower-middle class workforce”
So let’s follow this logic a bit… There is no shortage of housing, but we *lack* units for middle and lower middle class … McClure himself acknowledges that there is a real shortage for low income as well. You’ve now accounted for a huge swath of the population. But somehow there’s no housing crisis. It’s like people don’t know what the housing crisis.
Next sentence: ” Building more housing won’t alone remedy this deficiency. The government (funded by taxpayers) must subsidize this critical need.”
I agree.
Remarkably (or not so remarkably) these points are not pulled out by Ron… But there conclusion is pretty clear: even the people who are that there’s no housing crisis, when push comes to shove, acknowledge there is a housing crisis.
Well, it seems like you left some things out, yourself:
“Dick Spotswood: Is California really having a housing crisis? Data says no”
“Other sources agree. They include “Bringing the Housing Shortage into Sharper Focus,” an essay by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. Zandi’s team assessment reports that the entire U.S. “has a housing shortage of only 80,000 based on vacancy trends.”
(That’s the “shortage” for the ENTIRE U.S., in regard to that citation. That’s essentially a “rounding error”.)
(In any case, you consistently conflate “affordability” with “shortage” in regard to the number of units. There’s plenty of buildings, it’s just that some people don’t like how they’re priced. This is also essentially what the McClure study noted.)