Key points:
- Declining birth rates do not mean housing demand will decrease.
- High housing costs drive down birth rates, delaying family formation.
- Davis must build 2,100 units every eight years to meet state requirements.
There’s a dangerous complacency creeping into our housing debates—the idea that because birth rates are falling, the demand for housing will somehow resolve itself if we just wait long enough. It’s a comforting thought for those who want to block change, but it’s not rooted in reality.
In fact, it ignores the basic economic and social forces shaping the lives of workers, students, and families right now.
For one, the research is clear: the very cost of housing itself is one of the drivers of declining birth rates.
Young adults are delaying marriage, delaying children, and even deciding against having children altogether because they cannot afford stable housing. When the cost of entry into adulthood is priced so high, people adapt by limiting their families.
To cite a declining fertility rate as proof that we don’t need housing is to ignore that unaffordable housing is part of the problem in the first place. Demographic decline is not a natural force that exists apart from housing costs. It is, in part, a product of them.
This logic is important, because it directly undercuts the argument that Davis—or any city—can afford to sit on its hands and wait for “demand” to ebb. The reality is that demand is being reshaped by the very crisis of affordability. If we allow prices to spiral unchecked, we’re not only worsening inequality, we’re also distorting the life decisions of an entire generation.
Then there is the idea that people should simply live “where they can afford.”
On the surface, that might sound pragmatic. But in practice, it collapses under scrutiny. Jobs are not evenly distributed across the map, and in regions like ours, people need to live near where they work.
UC Davis is a major employer, not just for students who cycle in and out every four years, but for thousands of staff and faculty. These are not temporary jobs. They are long-term careers in teaching, research, health care, and administration.
Pretending that these employees can all “just live elsewhere” ignores the economic geography of our region.
When workers are priced out of Davis, they face longer commutes, clogged highways, higher greenhouse gas emissions, and a diminished quality of life spent behind the wheel. That’s not a sustainable future—environmentally or socially.
California has set ambitious climate targets, and local governments like Davis have adopted climate action plans. Forcing people to drive further each day because of local inaction on housing undermines those goals at their core.
Commutes from places like Dixon, Woodland, West Sacramento, and beyond already choke I-80 and Highway 113 during peak hours. Each year that Davis refuses to approve new housing, those commutes lengthen, congestion worsens, and emissions rise. Telling workers to simply move farther out is an answer that only compounds the problem. It’s a recipe for sprawl, traffic, and frustration.
For Davis in particular, the challenge is straightforward.
The state requires the city to plan for about 2,100 units every eight years to meet its fair share of housing. That’s not rapid growth. It’s a steady, deliberate pace that would not overwhelm the city, even if population growth ultimately slows. To frame this as reckless expansion is to mislead residents.
Meeting state housing allocations is not about transforming Davis into a metropolis; it’s about providing a modest supply of housing that reflects real needs.
It’s also worth emphasizing what this growth looks like in context. Two thousand units over eight years translates to roughly 260 units per year. In a city with tens of thousands of residents and a large university population, that is incremental change.
It’s not enough to overwhelm schools, infrastructure, or services. And it’s slow enough that the city can plan carefully—integrating new housing with transit, bike infrastructure, and sustainability goals.
In fact, failing to meet these targets leaves the city more vulnerable to unplanned development through the state’s builder’s remedy and other interventions.
More importantly, Davis is not a static community. It sits next to a major research university, and that university is not going away. UC Davis will continue to generate a steady flow of students, staff, and faculty.
Pretending that the city can wait a generation or two to see if population trends stabilize is an abdication of responsibility. People need housing now, not in 20 or 30 years.
Some argue that the students can simply be housed on campus, and, indeed, UC Davis has expanded its housing stock in recent years. But the idea that students alone drive demand in Davis is misleading.
Thousands of staff and faculty also need homes.
Many families have two earners who may not both work for the university, and those families want to live near good schools, near downtown, and near transit.
That demand doesn’t vanish because of statewide demographic shifts.
Nor can we dismiss the housing needs of people in so-called “flunkie jobs”—the food service workers, retail employees, caregivers, and others who keep the local economy running. To write off their needs by saying they should simply live elsewhere is both morally shortsighted and economically unsound.
These workers provide essential services to the community. If they are forced to live far away, the community suffers—restaurants can’t staff shifts, child care becomes harder to find, local businesses struggle to retain employees. Housing affordability is not just a social justice issue; it is an economic development issue.
The broader pattern is familiar.
In cities across the country, housing debates often devolve into abstract arguments about what the future might look like rather than the concrete realities of the present. But Davis cannot escape its role as a jobs and education hub. The choice isn’t between growing or not growing; it’s between planned, sustainable growth or unmanaged sprawl and displacement.
Arguments about density often miss this point as well. It’s true that, historically, cities grow denser at their core rather than their edges.
But Davis is a small city surrounded by agricultural land and subject to unique growth constraints. That doesn’t mean it should never build housing near its periphery; it means it should plan carefully for projects that align with climate and transit goals. Dismissing peripheral projects out of hand does not solve the housing problem—it simply defers it.
Meeting RHNA obligations should not be seen as some radical proposition. It is the bare minimum to keep Davis livable, equitable, and environmentally responsible. Growth at that scale will not erode the character of the city. What it will do is give families, workers, and young people a chance to actually live where they study, work, and contribute.
The consequences of inaction are stark. Without new housing, prices will continue to climb, inequality will deepen, and young people will leave. Employers will struggle to hire and retain staff. Commutes will grow longer, traffic worse, emissions higher. And all the while, the city will fall further behind on its climate and equity goals.
We should also remember that the housing crisis is not a problem that can be solved one city at a time. It is regional and statewide in nature. If Davis opts out of building its fair share, the pressure shifts to surrounding communities, distorting their growth and undermining regional planning. A refusal to grow responsibly here is not a neutral act—it pushes costs and consequences onto neighbors.
Housing policy cannot be held hostage to demographic guesswork. Yes, birth rates are falling. But that is not a reason to delay housing. If anything, it’s a call to action: to ensure that the next generation has the stability they need to make choices about family, career, and community free from the crushing weight of housing costs.
The alternative—shrugging our shoulders and hoping demographic decline will solve the housing crisis—is not a plan, but a recipe for trouble.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
And you also have this, a significant and growing number of women in the U.S. are choosing not to have children, citing a desire for personal freedom, career opportunities, and independence.
I take it that this article was written partly in response to my ongoing comments. Let’s start by addressing the three bullet points at the top of the article:
* Declining birth rates do not mean housing demand will decrease.
(Yes, it does. This is common sense.)
* High housing costs drive down birth rates, delaying family formation.
(Well, there you go, then – a self-correcting “problem” – assuming there’s a housing shortage in the first place. Though it’s not just housing costs which are impacting the decisions of young people, as Keith just noted.)
* Davis must build 2,100 units every eight years to meet state requirements.
(False, and you already know that. First of all, the state “requirements” don’t require the construction of anything. Second, you don’t know what the future requirements will be. Third, just about every city in the state is failing to meet those requirements. Are you claiming that the state and YIMBY groups will sue every city in the state? And if they do, how would that result in housing, regardless?)
As far as “waiting for population decline as a strategy”, the decline has already started. But again, why would there be a “strategy” for a problem that doesn’t exist?
Once farmland is paved-over, there’s no going back.
Let’s move on to this one, next:
“Nor can we dismiss the housing needs of people in so-called “flunkie jobs”—the food service workers, retail employees, caregivers, and others who keep the local economy running. To write off their needs by saying they should simply live elsewhere is both morally shortsighted and economically unsound.”
These people are largely students – who already have housing.
The others (what, maybe 100 total non-students) commuting to Davis for the purpose of working in a “flunkie” job that they can’t get in their own home town? As if that can support a place to live on one’s own ANYWHERE?
It’s not that they “should” live elsewhere – you and others claim without evidence that they ALREADY DO. (And that they have no partners who work elsewhere).
But for THEIR sake (and NOT for the sake of Davis employers offering “flunkie” jobs), they’d be better-off finding those type of jobs WHERE THEY ALREADY/SUPPOSEDLY LIVE. Those type of jobs (retail, baristas, fast food workers etc.) are EVERYWHERE.
Now, I’ve heard that Costco is a better-than-average place to work in regard to those type of jobs , but it’s not in Davis, is it. (Under David’s “rule”, anyone working outside of Davis should move to their city of employment in the first place. But realistically – if they did so, that would free up a bunch of Davis housing. Of course, David and the other growth monkeys don’t want to hear ANYTHING in regard to “solutions” to their fake claims other than “build, baby, build”.)
But again, why isn’t David concerned about Sacramento, for example, building more housing for all of the Davis residents who work there?
“These people are largely students”
Again, this is largely not true.
Don, I patronize Davis businesses often enough to see “who” is working at places like Nugget, ACE, coffee shops, bike shops, the local banks, etc.
They are students, who will likely make far more than I ever did (though some of it may be wiped out by student debt).
I can spot UCD students even when they patronize Costco – they often arrive in groups.
“They are students…
I can spot UCD students…”
No you can’t. They are young adults. They may or may not be UCD students.
O.K. – with 90% certainty.
And the other 10% are living with their parents. (Smart move, and an increasingly-popular one. Other cultures have always embraced that.)
“O.K. – with 90% certainty.”
No, Ron, you have no idea.
In my best “Get Smart/Don Adams” voice –
“Would you believe . . . 80%?”
But seriously, those young people might also be students at a local community college, Sacramento State, etc.
I’m pretty sure I would not be prepared to live on my own (in my own place) at that age. And it does seem to be true that EVERYTHING is more expensive these days, in relation to salaries offered to most people.
I view it as a positive thing, that our culture is changing regarding young people living at home, longer. Again, other cultures view this entirely differently than American (white) people have (and I do know what I’m talking about regarding that). I’ve seen it in action.
They also help their own parents, more.
Some of them are wisely saving up for downpayments this way, as well.
(This is documented – not something I’m making up.)
Maybe it’s not “me” who fears change.
“But again, why isn’t David concerned about Sacramento, for example, building more housing for all of the Davis residents who work there?”
Follow the money :-|
Now, let’s move on to this:
Commutes from places like Dixon, Woodland, West Sacramento, and beyond already choke I-80 and Highway 113 during peak hours. Each year that Davis refuses to approve new housing, those commutes lengthen, congestion worsens, and emissions rise. Telling workers to simply move farther out is an answer that only compounds the problem. It’s a recipe for sprawl, traffic, and frustration.
Highway 113 is not “choked” with traffic between Woodland and Davis. I-80 is choked with traffic as a result of cities throughout the region and beyond pursuing the type of growth-oriented policies that David advocates for.
No one is “telling” workers to move farther out. They do so (and have done so for more than a hundred years across the country and world) because it’s “cheaper” (and therefore offers more for your money). And the reason it’s cheaper is because the centers of towns are already developed.
It is interesting to see that large cities ALWAYS have dense highrise buildings – even in places like Texas. Granted, most of those highrises are office buildings (but not all of them). It is striking to see Sacramento from a distance, as it appears to be highrises arising out of “nothing” which surrounds it (though this isn’t true when you see it up close).
Sacramento is an employment center for ALL of the suburban cities throughout the region.
UCD is not hiring more workers to speak of. But for sure, there are a significant number of households in Spring Lake who have connections to UCD, one way or another. Of course, that’s not the same thing as claiming that both workers in a given household work at UCD.
1,600 more housing units to come at the technology park that failed in Davis (before it even reached voters), and moved 7 miles up Highway 113. At a site that was previously zoned for commercial-only, I understand.
The only “choice” that Davis has (which some are trying to take-away) is whether or not to add sprawl in ADDITION TO the sprawl that other cities are hoping to create. (See, that’s what some people don’t seem to understand – the type of people running cities usually WELCOME and ENCOURAGE sprawl. Davis has those type of people as well, which is the reason that Measure J was created.)
Needless to say, the type of people who see continued sprawl as some kind of sustainable “policy choice” are the same people who aren’t happy about a declining birth rate. Nor are they the type of people who see any “connection” between something like DISC, and the housing demand it would create (if successful in the first place). Nor do they see any connection between an ever-increasing population and climate change, species extinction, habitat destruction, etc. This tells you all you need to know about these “type” of people – they aren’t honest.
Ron O tries to answer the fundamental critique of his position in this article. I’ll first note that he is the only person in this area making assertions that declining population decades from now will solve our housing crisis today. He really has no clue of who is actually working and living in Davis and what they might prefer for their commuting. Let’s lay out the facts:
Forecasts are speculative and no one should plan based solely on a point forecast about what might be 40 years from now. In 1985, California had a population of 26 million and this forecast said it would be 31.4 million by 2000. It was actually 34 million 2000. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED259665.pdf Forecasts our 40 years are more wrong than right. We must plan for different possibilities. Picking our favorite future, which Ron O is doing, and planning for that is foolish.
The single most important fact is that the Davis housing market has a 50% price premium over neighboring towns. This is a clear indicator that substantial demand exists for this housing market despite housing being cheaper in those other towns. If what Ron O said was true about buyers turning to Woodland or West Sac by choice instead, the housing prices would equilibrate across all of these markets, but that’s not happening. This premium is explained by another fundamental principle that constrained supply increases prices. These principles are at the level of understanding instructed in the “Father Guido Sarducci Five Minute University.”
About 1,000 students transfer into DJUSD from other towns. Most families prefer have their children attend schools near their residences, i.e., neighborhood schools. These students represent latent unmet demand for housing in Davis, and is only the tip of the iceberg given the requirements to gain admission to DJUSD. Recruitment doesn’t explain the magnitude of these transfers because if DJUSD was an undesirable district, parents wouldn’t make the effort.
We have 17,700 commuters coming into town. 6,400 work at UCD, the other 11,300 work elsewhere in Davis. 4,300 students commute into Davis. 1,400 students work on campus, most of whom live in Davis. Even if we make the absurd assumption that 100% of student commuters also work in Davis, then we still have 13,400 other non student commuters coming in. This means that at least 75% of these commuters are non students, which factually contradicts Ron O fanciful assertion that most young employees are UCD students who live out of town.
All of these facts point to fact that Davis has substantial unmet housing demand from those live out of town but work here and desire to live here. Ron O can present his alternative quantitative analysis. I’ve refuted his baseless speculation.
The “quantitative analysis” you’re referring to is 1.6 kids per woman nationwide when 2.1 are needed just to replace the existing population.
As far as the other nonsense you’re referring to, it’s been addressed many, many times.
I never claimed that housing prices are the same everywhere – you’re the one who appears to be claiming that they “should be”.
As far as those commuting to UCD (not Davis), vs. those who commute outbound (e.g., to Sacramento), I already suggested that to satisfy someone like you – they should switch careers, houses, and/or spouses who might work at a different locale.
Then again, this would apply to the ENTIRE Sacramento region, since Sacramento is an employment hub for ALL of the surrounding suburbs and exurbs. So in following your “logic”, Sacramento (near downtown) should build a lot more housing, so that places like Roseville, Folsom, and Elk Grove can be vacated and turned back into farmland.
But you’re wrong about the price differential – it’s more like 40% and has been for decades (prior to Measure J, as well). Again, this has been pointed out to you many, many times (and not just by me).
But the differential IS the reason that those moving to the region (often times, from more environmentally-responsible areas) seek housing outside of Davis. (Which again is rather strange, since UCD isn’t hiring new employees to speak of.)
Put forth some numbers regarding the percentage difference (or amount of housing prices) that you’d prefer to see in Davis, and how you propose to achieve it. Be specific, regarding how much housing prices would be reduced by something like Covell Village.
“ The “quantitative analysis” you’re referring to is 1.6 kids per woman nationwide when 2.1 are needed just to replace the existing population.”
You’re leaving out several variables
Yes – housing demand is also impacted by a lot of other factors. Housing prices are dropping right now (including in Davis) which have nothing to do with new construction. That’s one of the reasons that what Richard puts forth is nothing but a lot of noise.
Jobs are usually what creates demand for housing in a particular locale or region (and neither Davis nor UCD are creating many of those, these days). But even the availability of jobs isn’t a reliable measure – especially if there’s an employment hub nearby (see Marin county, for example). Or, if it’s a vacation destination such as Tahoe or Truckee, etc.
Ultimately, those moving to a given area usually consider housing prices BEFORE they even make that move, while simultaneously considering other options. (Other than dummies who don’t even look into that, and “hope for the best”).
I have pending responses to Richard in the other housing article.
Not only that, but the birth rate isn’t going to immediately impact housing, so how long a period of time will it take for that to show up?
Depends on when it started.
But the more localized impact is related to jobs, economic activity, etc.
I know of towns (including some in the Bay Area) that haven’t grown during my entire lifetime. And yet, they’re doing pretty well (and are not necessarily that expensive, either).
They look almost exactly the same as they did when I was a kid, though the surrounding area has usually experienced an increase in population. (Not so much, lately.)
Do you know why that’s the case? I do – it’s because they purposefully restricted subdivisions. I was a direct witness to the “save the land” effort in the 1970s, when I was still a kid/teenager. In those days, they didn’t feel the need to apologize for saving land (and it was the other-way around).
Interestingly-enough, the impact of (earlier) rural subdivisions resulted in some pretty odd parcels – a direct reflection of greed and lack of vision or concern.
But you are citing a metric out of context because you have not situated how long it will take for the effect to show up
Again, people have been having fewer-and-fewer kids for a long time, at this point.
I myself am one of six kids. Do you know anyone who has that many, these days?
In any case, none of this is a mystery. Let’s say (for the sake of argument, since I haven’t looked into it) that the drastic reduction started about 5 years ago. Those kids are filtering through schools right now, and (traditionally) would be interested in housing in maybe 15 years (right around the time that their grandparents are dying).
Everyone reading this will be dead within 70 years – at the extreme upper end. Most will probably be dead within 40 years – tops. I give myself maybe 30 years at most. But again, it could be a lot sooner than that on an individual level.
I have noticed boomers increasingly dropping dead – including some in my own extended family.
Bottom line is that it’s not just birth rates – it’s also the ageing of the population as a whole.
This is why it’s important to have full data analysis, rather than simply citing the same figure over and over again out of context. You’re trying to use that figure to demonstrate we dont have a housing crisis or a need for more housing, but if the effect doesn’t show up for 30 years, you’re not really making the case.
We do have access to a university study which shows that there isn’t even a housing shortage right now, due to overbuilding in a previous decade.
Subdivisions are permanent, unlike individuals.
And again, it’s not “30 years” – that’s the upper limit. They’re dropping dead every day, while young people aren’t even replacing THEMSELVES.
Until the older generations totally die off, there will be a temporarily larger population.
But again, this actually doesn’t have much to do (directly) with demand in a particular locale/region. Again, I am quite familiar with towns in California which haven’t changed during my entire lifetime. In other words, it’s a “choice” that communities often make (see Silicon Valley).
And yet, most civic leaders salivate over Silicon Valley – despite, or perhaps because of the high housing prices that the technology industry created.
You’re failing to address the issue you raised
The fact that lower-than-needed “replacement levels” take awhile to show up? I already addressed that.
But again, there’s a university study which shows that there isn’t even a housing shortage NOW.
And housing prices are dropping – which often have nothing to do with additional construction.
Using your logic, there could be a need to tear down housing – since prices are dropping. (Maybe you can “time” the tear-downs so that housing prices are “just right” – not too high, and not too low. The Goldilocks method of civic planning.)
As for me, I already know that people (including businesses) seek alternatives when situations no longer make sense (see California Exodus, which is a “good” thing – despite how it’s portrayed by the growth monkeys.)
I also know that it’s not likely that I’ll ever be able to purchase a place in Manhattan, Tiburon, Atherton, Jackson Hole . . . (And yet, “selfish me” – I don’t want them to even attempt it. Apparently, someone like you and Richard think that everyone should have the right to live anywhere, and that prices should be the same everywhere.)
One other thing I have noticed, is that those (perhaps like you) who live in subsidized housing often times never grow/improve, themselves. “Golden handcuffs”, as it were.
And in the case of public housing, “plastic handcuffs” with a side order of violence all around.
Conservatives are actually right regarding some of this type of phenomenon. The reason being that it isn’t particularly “fun” to work for someone or some organization, for the most part. You are at their service – not the other way around.
You might have forgotten that yourself, since you control your own little world on here.
Rent control doesn’t exactly work that way, since income is not used in the calculation. The same would be true of universal basic income.
Bottom line is that someone like you may never own a house, largely due to those handcuffs. You probably would also have to get a “real” job, without that subsidized housing.