Dear Planning Commissioners,
The City of Davis needs additional housing. The proposals presented by the developers of Village Farms deserve serious consideration. However, the City of Davis cannot afford the proposal for the Village Farms project to include a fourth city fire station that we don’t need. In addition, city finances also shouldn’t be burdened by a new program being proposed by Village Farms to provide downpayment assistance for buyers of its single-family homes that will not generate any substantial financial benefits to the city low-income housing programs for decades.
A fiscal analysis of the project by an independent expert says the fire station proposal alone could add $3.4 million or more annually to the city’s deficit spending over time at a time when our city is already headed for bankruptcy and deterioration of parks, roads, bike paths, and other city infrastructure.
These problems are fixable if we act now, before this measure goes to the ballot. This measure, like others subjected to the requirements of Measure J/R/D, already faces a tough uphill fight for voter approval. If this project moves forward in a way that worsens the very serious financial problems the city already faces, I fear this project will suffer the same fate as Measure X on that site did long ago. I have previously alerted Village Farms proponents about these important issues and offered proposals that I believe would help win more voter support for the project by setting aside the space now proposed site for a fourth fire station for additional low-income housing our community really does need.
But as of now this project is in your hands and on a tight timetable for public consideration. Accordingly, I believe the commission should recommend that the Davis City Council make the following changes to the Village Farms project:
1. The proposal for the fire station should be dropped and stripped from all maps and project descriptions that will go before the voters. The site proposed for the fire station near Covell Avenue should keep its designation allowing use for various unspecified public purposes. The Development Agreement should be drafted in a way that ensure that parcel is conveyed to the city for undetermined purposes as a public benefit of the project. After further environmental review that would be conducted in the future, that city land could then be considered as a site for additional low-income housing without delaying consideration of Village Farms by the voters.
2. The affordable housing package for this project should be modified to strike any mention of the proposed downpayment assistance payment program. You should advise the Council that it should either drop this proposal entirely or require the developer to enter into a contract with a private entity to establish and administer such a program. If Council elects the former alternative, of dropping the downpayment assistance program altogether, the $4.9 million proposed for that proposal could instead be contributed in like increments to the city’s Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing use at the former fire station site or elsewhere within the City of Davis.
I would call your attention to the following information:
The fiscal analysis of Village Farms that was presented to the City of Davis Fiscal Commission on April 2, 2025 documented that, if project includes a fourth fire station, it could over time generate a net fiscal loss of $3.4 million General Fund annually for city finances. Exclusion of the fire station from the project, that fiscal analysis by BAE Urban Economics shows, would mean that Village Farms would be fiscally positive for the city. This fiscal analysis that would be presented to voters. You can find this information in the attachments to the city staff report.
The city staff report sites a 2007 General Plan policy as the basis for placing a fourth fire station at Village Farms. However, an independent expert hired by the city released a Standard of Cover report in 2018 — eleven years later — more recently advised the City Council based on careful computer analysis of Davis fire station deployment data that the city does not need to build a fourth fire station.
Fitch & Associates said a much more cost-effective approach would be to someday consider moving the location of one or two of its existing fire stations to a specified location either on the Mace Curve or near Bretton Woods. It did NOT propose placing such a station at Village Farms. While moving a fire station could incur capital outlay costs, Fitch & Associates said, the city would avoid ever-growing operational costs of $3.4 million or more annually for the additional staff needed to operate a fourth station.
It is true, as staff has stated, that the five-minute response rate is not being achieved in all areas of the city. However, the expert firm hired by the city, Fitch & Associates, said that problem would best be addressed by moving an existing fire station rather than adding a fourth station. Also, the firm said the proper standard, in its professional opinion, is for a five-minute response time be achieved 90 percent of the time, not 100 percent of the time. Using such a standard, Fitch & Associates said its approach would significantly improve public safety for the City Of Davis residents without excessive costs.
Notably, the draft EIR for Village Farms examined the issue of fire protection and, while its language is admittedly somewhat confusing, the environmental study did not result in any requirement for a fourth fire station at the project site to mitigate the impacts on public services of adding new housing there.
The city staff report asserts that the City Council directed the Fire Department to “pursue planning for a fourth fire station.” While the council has publicly considered remodeling or rebuilding the existing downtown fire station, I am personally unaware of any public decision by the present City Council to pursue a fourth station. City staff should document this claim. I am certain the council took no such action during my term on the council, which ended in December 2022. I have found no such documentation in the official minutes of this Davis City Council of any occasion on which the Council made such a huge fiscal commitment. It certainly was never mentioned publicly during the campaign for the big sales tax increase last year.
While Fire Department officials have stated their preference for Covell Village as a site for a fourth fire station, no independent analysis has been done to my knowledge to support this conclusion. Nor has any analysis been produced indicating how construction of the fire station, potentially costing tens of millions of dollars, would be financed by a city heading at the moment, according to its own projections, for fiscal oblivion.
The City of Davis Fiscal Commission’s review of the Village Farms project raised a long list of fiscal questions about the project. Among the questions documented in their minutes, which are in the attachments to your staff report, are the following:
— “Has a version of this analysis been done without a new fire station?
— “Why assume building a new fire station rather than relocating an existing one or doing nothing?
— “Is the assumption of needing a fourth fire station justified by data?
— “Shouldn’t there be deeper consideration of alternatives (e.g. relocating a station v. building a new one)?
Based on these questions, the commission voted unanimously (7-0) on April 2, 2025 in support of a motion including various recommendations including: “1. An analysis of alternatives to proposed development, such as relocating fire stations or choosing different forms of development.”
As noted above, at this time, I am also raising public concerns about the inclusion in the Village Farms affordable housing plan of a downpayment assistance program that would be funded by the developers but administered by the City of Davis. The downpayment assistance program would benefit medium-income and above purchasers of homes at Village Homes, not low-income or missing middle homebuyers. Eventually, perhaps decades later, as persons receiving that downpayment assistance paid off and sold their homes, some funding would flow to the city’s Housing Trust Fund that could benefit low-income residents. But the city in the interim, potentially for decades, would be obligated to manage a housing assistance program it cannot afford using city tax dollars. No information has been provided in the staff report about the staff resources and funding that would be needed for many years to administer this program.
As noted above, I recommend that the affordable housing package for Village Farms strike any mention of creating a city-operated downpayment assistance payment program. It should either drop this proposal entirely or require the developer to enter into a contract with a private entity to establish and administer such a program. If it elects the former alternative, of dropping the downpayment assistance program, the $4.9 million proposed for that proposal could instead be contributed in like increments to the city’s Housing Trust Fund for affordable housing use at the former fire station site or elsewhere within the City of Davis.
The downpayment assistance program would benefit some homebuyers and the developer, but, at least for many years or even decades, would provide no or little benefit to low-income and missing middle Davis residents. In the alternative, converting the ill-advised fire station site at Village Farms to city-owned land that could be considered for affordable housing in the future would be a much more direct direct and effective way to meet our current housing needs.
Please find below links below to the Fitch & Associates and the EIR report I have referenced above.
All the best,
Dan Carson
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.
Excellent article, but I do have a question regarding this:
“The downpayment assistance program would benefit some homebuyers and the developer, but, at least for many years or even decades, would provide no or little benefit to low-income and missing middle Davis residents.”
If the “middle is missing” (whatever that means), does that mean that they were abducted from Davis? Should we be putting up flyers and images on milk cartons? Maybe some kind of Amber alert?
I completely agree with both of Dan Carson’s recommendations.
A fully staffed fire station will add about $4 million a year to our city’s negative budget. Adopt the Fitch choices.
And yes turn the land over for low income rental housing. Win, win.
And yes delete the For Sale segment from the housing plan. The last time a concept like this was built ended up being a loss to the city of about $10 million dollars.
The City still has only a few elements to the running of the Housing Trust Fund. At this time, there is no legal guarantee to where the funds will go once returned and to whom (which income category) and for what purpose (not designated yet) the returned funds will go.
This project cannot be relied upon.
Even so, the Housing Trust Fund should be run by an external non-profit. The City’s cost for managing the program will eat up much of the income leaving very little funding for the actual purposes.
More to come.
i think the city already has an affordable housing fund. The problem is the fund doesn’t have a dedicated funding source. My understanding is that the Village Farms proposal is the developer taking a silent second on the mortgage. This will allow people to qualify more easily for mortgages.
There is another aspect of the proposal I can’t claim to understand. It has something to do with money from the silent seconds going into some affordable housing program. Perhaps someone with better understanding can explain it but I think its somehow related to the statement about future funding?
Here is how the city staff report describes this plan:
Village Farms-Specific Down Payment Assistance Program. The VF proposal
includes a down-payment assistance program specific to the development
and designed to help first-time homebuyers achieve homeownership. This is
the most significant of the alternative contributions under the PIP. Under the
proposal, the developer would contribute $70,000 per eligible unit to the City,
who would then use the funds to provide down payment assistance loans to
first-time homebuyers. The program is intended to assist up to 70 qualified
buyers, with a total contribution of $4.9 million ($70,000 x 70 units) secured
through equity share promissory notes held by the City. The funds would be
provided incrementally rather than as a lump-sum payment by receiving the
funds at each unit purchase, as determined by the developer, within specified
locations in the Village Farms project. As the units are sold in the future and
as the loans are repaid, the funds would go back into the City’s Housing Trust
Fund for affordable housing use.
Given the price of the new housing units, probably the vast majority of persons receiving downpayment assistance would not be low-income or even middle-income level homebuyers. The measure is being considered as contributing toward housing affordability because the money that is eventually paid back by them to the city (if there is not a foreclosure, of course!) would be used for low-income housing. Staff further notes that because the lucky recipients of $70,000 in downpayment assistance may hold onto their homes a long time, repayment of those monies back to the city Housing Trust Fund may not occur for many years or even decades. Says the city staff report: “The downpayment assistance program, could indirectly support future affordable housing projects for income groups required by code. However, the value of this support will decrease over time since repayments to the City’s Housing Trust Fund could take decades.”
“Staff further notes that because the lucky recipients of $70,000 in downpayment assistance may hold onto their homes a long time, repayment of those monies back to the city Housing Trust Fund may not occur for many years or even decades. However, the value of this support will decrease over time since repayments to the City’s Housing Trust Fund could take decades.”
My understanding (from reading Alan Pryor’s comment in the Davisite) is that it’s not a “fixed” amount – and is instead a percentage (15%) of the value of a house when it changes ownership. In any case, it sounds like any future heirs to one of these houses would have to immediately come up with 15% of the value, payable to the city (regardless of whether or not they keep or sell the house).
And either way, the house itself is no longer part of the affordable housing stock when it changes ownership.
Assuming that I understand how this works (and have calculated it correctly), the initial housing price is being estimated at approximately $466,667. (15% of that number = $70,000.)
I don’t know of very many places in Davis that are priced in that range. It also seems likely to change before the development is even completed, if approved.
Now that I think about it a little more (which is never a good idea), I guess it would be carried on the tax rolls at $466,667 even though the buyer himself/herself would only pay about $396,667 for it.
In other words, the buyer would be paying property tax on the full market value – instead of the amount actually paid by the buyer.
(Plus Mello Roos, of course.)
And the city would not be responsible for paying tax on the 15% that it’s holding onto, of course.
I guess that part is “fair”, though I might also want to own a portion of someone else’s house without having to pay any of the costs associated with it.
The comment relating to 15 percent by Alan Pryor was described by him as pertaining to “how it was originally envisioned” not as it is now being proposed for consideration
Here’s what Alan P says in the Davisite article:
“However, the City saw this pot of money and has demanded that they receive the money from the developer and provide the down payment assistance and then the City gets the 15% equity interest in the property. When the property is sold, the 15% equity interest is then deposited into a bottomless pit the City calls the Housing Trust Fund – BUT WITHOUT ANY GUARANTEES IT WILL BE USED FOR FUTURE DOWN PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS!”
(Am I or he misunderstanding it? It does seem a little confusing as to how this works.)
“Given the price of the new housing units, probably the vast majority of persons receiving downpayment assistance would not be low-income or even middle-income level homebuyers. ”
Whatever the economic condition of the purchasers as long as they are first time buyers I don’t see the problem with some people getting a break. It seems the only risk to the city is in a foreclosure the city could lose the money donated by the developer since the note is subordinated. The beauty of the program would be for people to more easily secure financing because the silent seconds would mean that the traditional part of the loan would be smaller.
Given that a lot of fiscal wonks are on this thread…. Has the fact that streets and utitilies need to be replaced over time been priced into the mello-roos for this property? And if it has, do we have an idea of what the “real” cost of living there with those fees is going to be?
Absent that information… if we care about city finances, then we should be against the production of more single family housing no matter what.
Strong Towns has shown that single family suburbia is a ponzi scheme and that developments like this have a net negative impact on the city. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020-8-28-the-growth-ponzi-scheme-a-crash-course
This is what is wrong with how we have already designed our city…. nothing but single family housing, very little industry, or retail businuess to provide sales tax revenue. In most towns based around a certain industry, that industry has a propety and salex tax flow that comes with it…. NOT the case with a university… and so us saying “no” to other industry and commercial has really shot us in the foot.
The housing we should be building is multi-family mixed use. Strong towns has done case studies where you get net-positive fiscal housing starting in the 15units per acre range ( more than single family housing, but less than the south end of the cannery)… that should be the starting point for all housing in Davis… it needs to at least pay for iteslf, or it should be off the table
I don’t think we ‘designed’ our City. It just kinda happened in chunks.
yep.. and that is why we cant have good transit.
Transit has been declining in cities which are ALREADY dense, like San Francisco.
(Not sure if MUNI is bankrupt yet, but I think it’s pretty close.)
Davis has ZERO chance of becoming a transit-rich community. It’s not large enough, not dense enough, and there aren’t enough jobs.
There’s already a commuter line to Sacramento (where the jobs actually are).
And UCD isn’t hiring anyone these days, to my knowledge. (Certainly, the number of employees at the “Davis” campus.)
There is NO WAY that Davis is going to become a bastion of public transit, when no other surrounding city is. Again, this isn’t even working in the Bay Area in regard to its EXISTING transit systems, these days – despite the fact that a lot more growth (including density) has occurred since those systems were implemented.
Honestly, I don’t know what kind of fantasy you’re living in. Any housing built along Covell is just as likely to be occupied by commuters to Sacramento (or elsewhere).
Davis itself has NO JOBS to speak of. Never has, and (hopefully) never will.
Nonsense. Transit oriented development has hundreds of successful impelmentations around the world.
“Those who say it cant be done, should not interupt those who are actually doing it” – george bernard shaw
Just telling you what’s occurring with Muni, BART, the train to nowhere, etc.
It’s not an “opinion”, and they are planning to “pass the hat around” to try to collect more funds.
From AI:
“Muni and BART are receiving funds from a $750 million state loan and a recently approved $1.1 billion in restored transit funds to prevent service cuts, with the loan expected to be finalized by January 10, 2026. In the long term, a new regional sales tax measure (subject to voter approval) is being developed to provide ongoing funding.”
It doesn’t seem likely that Davis will make this work, when older, more-dense and established systems are suffering (despite continuing residential growth/development).
The most-useful types of local transit are the express lines to Sacramento. Not sure if the express line from Woodland to UCD is still operating, but the need for that might be justified going forward. (Especially after they construct another 1,600 housing units at the technology park that will be built adjacent to Highway 113.)
Ron O
You miss the point of our proposal–we need local housing that is affordable for middle income households BECAUSE we have jobs here already. 17,000 people are commuting into town. The large number of interdistrict transfers shows that many (most?) want to live IN Davis despite your unsubstantiated speculation otherwise. If we build the higher density housing, those workers can live here and we’ll get less traffic as a result as they rely on the transit and active mobility that so many UCD employees take advantage of. Of those UCD employees who live in Davis, only one-third drive alone to work on a typical day as shown on Table 12 of the most recent Travel Survey; the other two-thirds use other modes. We can expect other workers who move to Davis to do the same. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5vf1b6s1#page=15 Davis is an employment center already–we have as many jobs as we have working residents, just half of them commute out of town, and half of the workers commute in.
Clearly, Davis shows that it is a relatively transit rich community, and it can be better. Bay Area transit was doing well until the pandemic. That’s most likely a hiccup until we have more return to work.
17,000 people are NOT commuting to the city of Davis. Davis is not an employment center – never has been, never will be.
DJUSD is motivated to poach students from other communities to protect their own jobs.
They’re also motivated to support sprawl for that same reason. (Actually, “support” is too mild of a word, in that case.)
Has the fact that streets and utitilies need to be replaced over time been priced into the mello-roos for this property? And if it has, do we have an idea of what the “real” cost of living there with those fees is going to be?
Good question – don’t know the answer in this case.
But from what I’ve seen of Mello Roos, it’s usually used to pay for initial infrastructure construction costs (not subsequent maintenance). It would be more “honest” to account for it in the price of the house, though you’d then pay slightly more in property tax over time.
But this is a big part of the reason that “pre-existing” houses in older parts of town are almost always a better deal.
The best plan is to buy a pre-existing house, and never move or sell it. This nonsense regarding “entry-level” homes (and “move up” homes) seems like it was hatched by the real estate industry.
Buy a house in a location that you’re willing to live in/keep for the rest of your life, and possibly pass it on to your kids (who still might benefit from lower property tax, despite the limitations imposed by Proposition 19). It’s usually a better move than chasing employment opportunities elsewhere (unless you’re a renter).
Chasing employment opportunities is how people gain more income. That’s become even more salient of late. With the demise of union workforces due to the widespread “right to work” laws, corporations no longer show loyalty to workers and exploit them. The only leverage remaining is to job hop. Being sufficiently mobile is key to financial well being.
In addition, we need different types of housing at different stages of life. We don’t know how many children we might have or even if we’ll have any. A two story house works when you’re young but becomes a health hazard when you’re older. We need MORE people to move, not less. Mobility has been declining since the 1960s and it is a key cause of our current societal strife. This Atlantic article describes how it has caused us to be alienated from our fellow Americans: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/american-geographic-social-mobility/681439/
Most people need MORE space when they retire, since they’re home a lot more often.
I’ve known elderly people (including some who aren’t particularly mobile) for which stairs provide a benefit (the only exercise they get).
Geez, you’d think that folks might at least wait until someone dies, before they try to kick them out of their own house.
“This is what is wrong with how we have already designed our city…. nothing but single family housing, very little industry, or retail business to provide sales tax revenue.”
Actually the city has built a lot of multi-family housing if you include apartments.
“The housing we should be building is multi-family mixed use.”
The problem with that argument is that there is already a surplus of the kind of retail you are likely to build under a mixed use building.
We have a lot of “student” housing. Not “multi famiy”.. very few condos or apartments designed for young couples, families starting out, or lower-income service sector workers.
A lot of younger couples ( this was my own experience as well) will start families in the nicer student complexes… but its still student housing, and we had a lot of issues with students holding student hours and making a lot of noise while our baby was asleep. These arent the most compatable uses, but its the best we have.
No graduates coming out of college, getting maried and starting a career and a family have a place in this town. We have student housing full of students, and then single family housing.. The middle use cases for lower income and younger familes just end up blending into those two catagories with “student dorms” and the aforementioned young couples / families making student housing complexes work.
When we talk about these “missing middle” housing types, we SO frequently hear people say “I dont want to live in a place like that” or you Ron reliably accuse people like me of hypocracy for not living in such a place.”
But the truth is that this isnt about you or me, or Ron… if a person currently can afford to live in Davis, the housing we need is not for you. We need to see the housing without the narscissistic lens.
I lived in a townhome when my wife and I married, we lived in an apartment when I was in Grad School….. But after grad school… we spent 4 years living in winters becaause we couldnt find a place to live in davis period..
What we need is housing for people at multiple phases of life. But instead we only have student housing and single family. Thats the point here. It doesnt need to be what you or I would require for OUR current phase of life… because its not about US. Its about the people who are currently commuting in to town because they are priced out and what THEY need.
( and to be clear.. I would actually LOVE to live in a downtown condo sized for my family of 4, but I think there are less than a dozen properties that meet that description… you have to know someone moving OUT in order to secure a good rental in this town… else you have little chance of finding housing at all)
Tim says: “We have a lot of “student” housing. Not “multi famiy”.. very few condos or apartments designed for young couples, families starting out, or lower-income service sector workers.”
(The city was told that, when they were approving megadorms. (Which don’t fully account toward RHNA targets.) “We” were also told (on this blog) that those would be suitable for non-students, as well.)
Tim says: “I lived in a townhome when my wife and I married, we lived in an apartment when I was in Grad School….. But after grad school… we spent 4 years living in winters becaause we couldnt find a place to live in davis period.”
(I flat-out don’t believe that, and have reason to believe that it’s not true.)
Tim says: “(and to be clear.. I would actually LOVE to live in a downtown condo sized for my family of 4, but I think there are less than a dozen properties that meet that description… you have to know someone moving OUT in order to secure a good rental in this town… else you have little chance of finding housing at all)”
(Those are called “rental HOUSES”. And there’s plenty of them – usually a better deal than an apartment.) A family of four prefers a HOUSE, not a condo or apartment. And they will find them in Davis OR Woodland pretty easily.
Though I do have a certain amount of respect for your advocacy for sardine-can living. The “problem” (from your perspective) is that’s not what families prefer – and they’ll find it cheaper in Woodland. (Though I don’t think rental prices differ as much as “for sale” prices.)
“(I flat-out don’t believe that, and have reason to believe that it’s not true.)”
Its amazing how your mind works Ron. I report what MY OWN first-hand life experience has been, and you just dismiss it as false? Amazing.
“A liar thinks everyone else lies … A thief thinks everyone else is stealing from him … A philanderer thinks everyone else is philandering.”
― Megan Whalen Turner, The Queen of Attolia
“I flat-out don’t believe that, and have reason to believe that it’s not true.”
Ron O, now you’ve crossed the line. A personal attack on someone’s integrity in describing a personal experience is reprehensible. This borders on libel. You should be banned from this site for making that statement.
Unfortunately, its very much in character with your outlandish statements and your denial of factual material that refutes each of those statements.
Yeap – I flat-out don’t believe what Tim Keller is saying, here. There’s a tool called “Zillow” (and other sources) which shows that there’s always been rental houses available in Davis. There has NEVER been a recent time when that’s not true (except maybe 100 years ago), when there was essentially no demand for it at all.
Odd, how some are so willing to accept someone’s unsubstantiated, illogical anecdotal claim (who is motivated to see Davis grow for other reasons) as “evidence” of the need for the city to grow.
Tell you what: If anyone thinks there’s no rental housing available in Davis (during any 24 hour/365 day period), let me know and I’ll find it for you within 30 seconds at no charge.
Once again you don’t seem to understand the argument or the issue and are instead trying to burn down strawmen
Do tell. By the way, much of what Richard says on here about me “borders on libel”.
Tim Keller is not correct – there was housing available in Davis for ANY period of time, past, current, and future. Now, maybe he didn’t like what was available (compared to the town where he temporarily ended up), to which I say, “so what”?
In any case, should we go over the Zillow listings, or one of the other sites in regard to rental houses currently available? (I have a very rough guess as to how many are available right now, even though I haven’t looked for awhile.)
Same thing regarding “for sale” houses. Anyone having trouble with that? My offer still stands regarding finding more than one within 30 seconds – at no charge to anyone having trouble with that.
And that reality would have been true for the past several decades, at this point.
My guess is that Davis actually has a HIGHER number of rental houses than comparable communities. And I’m pretty sure this is officially tracked with the city, as well.
Stop with the libel stuff, you’re not a lawyer.
I don’t see anything that Tim Keller wrote that is “not correct.” The availability (finally) of student apartments doesn’t mean we have sufficient multifamily housing that meets the needs of families who wish to live or work in this community. You always miss that caveat – it’s not just available space, it’s space that meets people’s needs that they can afford.
“Stop with the libel stuff, you’re not a lawyer.”
As usual, you seem to fail to understand “who” started making comments like that. You encourage this (particularly against those whom you disagree with) on this site.
Here’s what Tim Keller said (which is NOT the same thing you’re saying). Again, it seems like you’re the one having trouble understanding this:
Tim says: “But after grad school… we spent 4 years living in winters becaause we couldnt find a place to live in davis period.”
(This statement is factually untrue – regardless of who said it, or when. It’s not even typed correctly – has a typo, and is missing punctuation.)
Now, if Tim Keller “meant” something different, than it might not be untrue. Something along the lines of what Goldilocks said – “this one is too hot, this one is too cold . . .”
Also, his preference for a 4-bedroom townhome is rather absurd. That’s a HOUSE, at some point.
How do you know if it’s untrue? It’s his lived experience?
I already told you why it’s untrue – go back and read my comments.
But again, you didn’t even quote him correctly, despite me listing the exact quote AGAIN. That comment is factually incorrect. For all realistic references (any period of time in which Tim is referring to), there has always been rental houses available in Davis.
I refer to “houses” because that’s pretty much what a family of four would need.
That doesn’t show it’s untrue, it shows you can make a counter-narrative.
BTW you scoff at needing a four bedroom town house, what if you have five people living in a three bedroom with tiny rooms and mismatched genders? (We did that for ten years, it was a big problem). You don’t have kids, you don’t think like a father in that situation.
If you could go back in time (and look at what was actually available during the several year period in which Tim Keller put forth that statement, you would see that he’s factually incorrect.
You know this, already. Are you actually trying to dispute that?
Regarding “space” for a family, your comment seems to be more-supportive of what I stated, compared to what Tim stated.
This is why normal families increasingly pursue places like Spring Lake. More for their money.
They also want a minimum of a 2-car garage, some kind of a yard, etc.
And by the way, is it your theory that I grew up under a rock, without parents and siblings? In other words, a “family”?
Why do you suppose my own parents moved from a small house to a larger one, as the family increased in size? (A long time ago, at this point.)
But you know what they DIDN’T do? They didn’t expect the city to adapt to “their” needs. Instead, they themselves adapted.
And so did perhaps half the people in Davis in the region, who moved here from the Bay Area when it became not worth staying there in regard to their individual circumstances.
And now, it’s happening to a lesser degree regarding places like Spring Lake (North, North Davis). Some people think that Spring Lake is too expensive at this point, and move further out.
You fail to recognize that I was describing my own situation. There are tons of families in this position in Davis. You don’t know it, because you don’t have kids.
Besides, listings are the beginning of the story, I remember in 2018 trying to help an employee find a spot for herself in Davis. Sure there are listings, but every one had more than 10 applicants and filled quickly. She ended up staying on someone’s couch for six months.
An employee of yours? Well, that would explain why she couldn’t rent an entire house by herself, wouldn’t it?
And yes, I recognized that you were likely speaking about yourself in regard to your other example. You’re essentially “trapped” by the limitations of the income from the career path you selected, COMBINED WITH being trapped in Affordable housing that you don’t want to lose.
You would have been better off by selecting a different career, a different living situation, and not having kids unless you were ready to do so. (Granted, I know that you adopted at least one of them, and I vaguely know some of the background regarding that.)
In any case, people make choices in life based on what they value. The problem arises when they’re “not satisfied” as a result of the choices that they themselves made (and start blaming communities, the police, systemic racism, transphobia, Trump, NIMBYs, or whatever else).
You just proved my point. Housing is about costs, needs, and location. You can have all the listings you want and if they don’t meet those criteria, there is still a housing problem.
There is NEVER a time when existing or proposed housing meets what you call the “needs” of those who wish that things were different. And that’s true regardless of location.
Again, what people think they “need” is (in regard to this conversation) a result of choices they make (or don’t make, for that matter).
Had I stayed in the Bay Area, I’m not sure if my life would be better or worse at this point. But I made a decision to leave, which I think was a good one at that time.
And had I not returned to school after getting my initial degree, my career would not have had the same path, either.
I certainly wouldn’t be trying to raise a bunch of kids in Affordable housing, supporting myself with what is essentially a blog. (But that’s just me, I guess.)
Not that I’m all that successful in a traditional sense either, but I just wouldn’t try what you did. It was never my goal to live in poverty.
That’s just another way of you acknowledging that there’s not enough housing
It’s truly amazing to listen to what you “hear”, rather than what is said.
Reminds me of how different people view videos (such as the picnic day incident).
From my perspective, the Bay Area has more than enough housing (even though I wasn’t able to afford it). Or perhaps more accurately, it wasn’t worth it at the time.
Truth be told, the given place is more important than me, as well. It means something to me to see farmland/open space preserved – even in places where I know that I’ll never live.
But in regard to “need”, there are at least three I do have:
Avocado toast (they’re never going live this down – regardless of reality),
The latest iPhone, and
DoorDash 3 times/week.
“Absent that information… if we care about city finances, then we should be against the production of more single family housing no matter what.”
Absent that information you reveal your biases against single family houses.
An moral stance derived from well established fact is not a “bias”.
Honestly, you probably should be “against” Proposition 13, in regard to housing “not paying for itself”. Though Proposition 19 has significantly weakened Proposition 13, over time.
(I don’t think many people actually know this. But “your” kids will realize it, later. Less so in Davis, since the value of houses is usually under the limit in regard to Proposition 19 – if they live in it.)
The legislature really stuck it to the heirs of those in the Bay Area, though, in regard to Proposition 19. But at least the real estate industry is happy regarding the resulting “forced sales”.
I oppose Prop 13. It creates subsidies to wealthy long time residents from lower income new homebuyers. The plaintiffs arguing the 1997 Supreme Court decision made very poor arguments and Scalia showed his lack of economic understanding in writing the decision. It also adds at least 15% to housing prices when I calculated it 20 years ago. The margin is bigger now given the increased residency period.
Prop 19 addressed an issue created by a post Prop 13 change. Prop 19 doesn’t affect current homeowners, only their heirs.
Proposition impacts current homeowners, if they qualify to bring their property tax with them when they move. (That’s how this proposition passed.)
The real estate industry supported Proposition 19 because it more-easily enables current homeowners to move throughout California, AND forces their heirs to sell the property. A win-win, from the real estate industry’s perspective.
Overall, it will result in a massive tax increase to future generations of California homeowners. That’s not even in question – it was analyzed as such by the entity that examines the financial impact of various propositions that appear on ballots.
This will also impact renters, when underlying property owner is forced to pay higher taxes. (Though I don’t think it applies to apartment complexes.)
It is odd how the same people who claim that they’re concerned about “affordability” usually advocate for increased taxes which directly decreases affordability in regard to housing.