Davis has followed a policy of restrictive growth since 2000 when Measure J passed, which allowed city voters to approve of new projects on the margins of the city. Since then, Bretton Woods, designed for older (55+ years) residents, and the Nishi project, designed for UC Davis students, both passed in 2018.
Apart from that, every other proposed project, which notably would have been available for younger adults less than age 54, has been rejected. This quarter century drought on peripheral developments for younger adults has consequences in our current demographic makeup.
City of Davis census data show a local declining young adult population
From 2000 to 2020 U.S. Census data show that Davis grew from about 60,000 to 66,000, an annualized growth rate of about 0.5%. Within that time the population of 20- to 29-year-olds, which includes mostly UC Davis students, grew by about 2500. The population of Davis adults aged 50 and older grew by 8,000, reflecting good health and the desirability of our community. Meanwhile, the number of young adults aged 30 to 49 has shrunk by 2,000 during the same period.
Figure 1 – City of Davis Population – 2000 v. 2020 U.S. Census
This last age cohort, specifically, includes parents who are likely to enroll students in the local public schools. Based on the 2020 U.S. census, the 30 to 49 age cohort is proportionally larger, statewide and nationally, than either the Baby Boomer or older Gen X population, demonstrating that the Davis decrease is anomalous in not accommodating this age cohort.
Many of the Davis residents from the 2000 census who were aged 30 to 49 have aged in place to become 50- to 69-year-olds, and insufficient new housing has been created to accommodate newer young families. We have created a situation in Davis where we have effectively shut out this younger age cohort from living here.
We are rejecting many of our own local high school and UCD graduates who would like to continue to call Davis home. Nationwide, we have a housing crisis. This is what that the housing crisis looks like in Davis, almost invisible to older, long-settled residents, but very real to younger generations. Over time we are on a trajectory of transitioning to a retirement community with a large public university.
Impact on our local K-12 schools
One symptom of restricting housing availability for younger adults and families is that we have fewer school age children in the district. Although the local Davis population for years has been gradually declining for grade school children, much of that decline has been countered by students transferring from neighboring communities to the Davis schools. Such transfers are called Inter-District Transfers or IDTs.
A healthy majority of IDTs are due to parent employment in Davis, and state law allows that such students to be accommodated as long as space is available. The school district is appropriately compensated by the state to serve such students. A majority of newer employees at UC Davis, Davis JUSD, and the City of Davis live in neighboring communities and are among those enrolling their kids in Davis schools. But we have reached a point where overall enrollment declines are no longer covered by IDTs, and that decline is great enough to affect the viability of keeping schools open in the district.
Whether or not more housing accessible to 30-49-year-old adults is made available, the school district will respond and adjust to the community that exists. But voters should be aware of the consequences. California school districts that are not declining in enrollment serve communities that provide secure housing for younger families.
Locally, every relevant housing development that has been put up for vote over the past 20+ years has been rejected, with the message being that it’s not good enough. The overall result is that we are not planning to accommodate any fair proportion of this age cohort. As city voters we have a chance to change that on the June 2 ballot.
Conclusion
The perfect has been framed as the enemy of the good, but the overall impact of current policies is to push younger adults away from Davis into other communities; even adults who work in Davis and would like to live here.
Multi-generational balance in a community gives us better institutional balance. Local schools can remain viable; diverse businesses can thrive with a steady local workforce; and churches, religious communities, and other civic organizations can be sustained. Village Farms is a great project, at this time it is appropriate for our community as a whole, and it deserves your support. Vote Yes on Measure V!
Hiram Jackson is the DJUSD Trustee for Area 1 and current Board President. He has been an active parent-volunteer in the district since 1998. In that time, he’s been a hands-on music booster and co-founded the Mariachi Puente band with his wife, Ximena.
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
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.
Hiram said … “Many of the Davis residents from the 2000 census who were aged 30 to 49 have aged in place to become 50- to 69-year-olds, and insufficient new housing has been created to accommodate newer young families.”
Two observations on that. The majority of the people who have aged in place as Hiram describes were UCD faculty and/or State of California government bureaucrats. They had well-paying jobs on the campus or across the Causeway in Sacramento.
And we haven’t built small, easy to maintain houses for them to downsize to after they had become empty nesters. Developers only built large footprint, harder to maintain homes. If you read the Baseline Features of the Village Farms proposal, you find no commitment to building either small senior downsizing units for sale, or small starter for sale properties for the young families Hiram describes.
Hiram said … “Multi-generational balance in a community gives us better institutional balance. Local schools can remain viable; diverse businesses can thrive with a steady local workforce
The nature of our local economy and the workforce that supports that economy, is service-based and quite modestly paid. Restaurants and coffee shops shops pay modestly and more often than not the workers are part time. Our local retail economy is anemic because Davis does noting to attract “other people’s money” so the vast majority of retail workers are modestly paid, and again largely part time. Hotel workers are modestly paid. Hospital and medical office workers for the most part are modestly paid. DJUSD teachers are modestly paid. Bottom-line, our local Davis economy had a very thin layer of well paid people at the top. So Hiram’s steady local workforce needs housing that is priced low enough that the local workers can afford it, not the high priced housing Davis developers have chosen to build.
So here is a question for everyone, do the Baseline Features of Village Fars include any commitment to low priced housing the local workforce can afford?
“Hotel workers are modestly paid. Hospital and medical office workers for the most part are modestly paid. DJUSD teachers are modestly paid. Bottom-line, our local Davis economy had a very thin layer of well paid people at the top. So Hiram’s steady local workforce needs housing that is priced low enough that the local workers can afford it, not the high priced housing Davis developers have chosen to build.”
Those folks are mostly going to be renters, not home buyers.
Agreed Don … mostly. But is it discrimination against them not to provide any opportunity to purchase market rate owner-occupied housing at a price their household income can afford?
With that said and asked. Those workers often are part of a two wage earner household, which combined does give them the hope of buying/owning their own home.
“But is it discrimination against them not to provide any opportunity to purchase market rate owner-occupied housing at a price their household income can afford?”
Not by any definition of “discrimination” that I am aware of.
The voters approved WDAAC, which only allows seniors. Is that discrimination?
”The voters approved WDAAC, which only allows seniors. Is that discrimination?”
The last time i checked the “only allows seniors” pledge was in the same category as Trump’s “I’m the peace President” pledge. Both have proven to be untrue.
Explain
You didn’t answer my question.
Also, lest anyone be confused by Matt’s comment, Bretton Woods is described on all sites as a Senior Living development, 55+, etc. So the voters approved a project known to be limited to seniors. My comment that it “only allows seniors” was accurate, so far as I can determine.
Is that discrimination?
David, I will let David Thompson’s words provide you with the explanation.
After four years of gaining the support of the Davis public that they would be building 150 units of affordable senior housing DSHC vanished from public view. No apologies to the Davis public: who supported the West Davis project, who voted for it, who wrote letters in support and who testified at public meetings. No DSHC apology to possibly 100 or so Davis residents who put their names on the Bretton Woods Interest List for affordable senior housing and no effort to contact them. There are Davis seniors out there who still think they have an opportunity to move into the DSHC housing.”
The simple answer to Don’s question is as follows:
Key Federal Fair Housing Act Exemptions
Owner-Occupied Homes: Buildings with four or fewer units, where the owner resides in one of the units, are exempt.
Single-Family Housing: A single-family house sold or rented by a private owner is exempt if they own three or fewer such homes, do not use a real estate agent, and do not use discriminatory advertising.
Religious Organizations: Religious groups or non-profit organizations operating housing for non-commercial purposes can limit occupancy or give preference to persons of the same religion, provided membership is not restricted by race, color, or national origin.
Private Clubs: Private clubs not open to the public can limit, or give preference to, members for lodging, provided the units are not commercial.
Housing for Older Persons: Communities designed for the elderly (e.g., 100% occupied by 62+ or 80% occupied by at least one person 55+), legally known as “housing for older persons,” may exclude families with children.
This is like pulling teeth.
So, it’s okay for the city voters to approve a housing development exclusively for senior occupancy, that isn’t discrimination. But if a builder proposes to build houses for anyone who can afford them — you are saying that is discrimination?
I don’t think every housing development has to provide forms of housing for every demographic. But apparently you do think that they must, or maybe only if it’s not a senior housing project. Or something.
Maybe it’s time for you to retire the ‘it’s discrimination’ trope.
Also time for you to acknowledge that opposing Village Farms won’t lead to more housing, or a denser proposal for that site, much less more housing at lower cost. Measure V is about a specific project. It’s not about choosing between two project proposals for the site. It’s not about giving guidance to the developer. It’s about whether or not to approve what they have spent years working on. They’ve done the EIR. They’re not going to do another one. It costs half a million dollars to run an election. This will be their second one for that site.
At best you might get another project proposal for that site in a decade. It’s now or never, basically.
Some who oppose Village Farms have said literally that it’s better to have no housing on the site than this project. Do you agree with that?
I would agree with Don regarding Matt’s purposefully-evasive responses, and I’m not sure what he’s attempting to accomplish via that.
Also, there’s legal and illegal forms of discrimination – and the word itself can have different meanings.
But Matt and the author of this article are actually making the same argument. It’s just that Matt is stating “how” to rectify it, while neither the author nor you are proposing anything that would (unless you think that some average 25 year-old is going to buy an $800K house in Village Farms while they’re still paying off student loan debt, etc.).
And let’s face facts, here. I’ve already provided more than one example of the price of new housing in Davis (at Harvest Glen and Pole Line Terrace). Even the “attached” housing at Pole Line Terrace is almost $800K.
And families with kids seek space, garages, etc. (which they’ll continue to find for a couple hundred thousand less in Woodland).
Those are simply the facts.
Another fact is that they can get a much better deal on a pre-existing house (which comprise the vast majority of sales across the country in the first place.)
But even if Village Farms fails, there still is the “other” proposal on the horizon for all of you advocates of sprawl. So, don’t give up hope, I guess.
Matt W: ‘The last time i checked the “only allows seniors” pledge was in the same category as Trump’s “I’m the peace President” pledge. Both have proven to be untrue.’
When I go to the Bretton Woods website — https://brettonwoodsdavis.com/ — they present themselves as a ‘senior living community.’ You say that’s not true?
Hiram, you are looking at marketing materials. If you google “Bretton Woods Davis listings” the first site linked is DeNova Homes that lists Bretton Woods as a “Multi-Generational Community” with the following full description …
“Nestled in the heart of Davis, this multi-generational community benefits from the city’s unique blend of small-town charm and modern amenities. Enjoy easy access to a bustling downtown with diverse dining options, and numerous parks and green spaces perfect for outdoor activities. With its vibrant cultural scene and commitment to sustainability, Davis offers a welcoming environment for residents of all ages.”
Don, the answers to your questions are as follows:
There is de facto discrimination and de jure discrimination. Senior communities are both de facto and de jure. Lots of discrimination is in the eyes of the beholder. I believe ageism and classism are both de facto discrimination even if they are not technically/legally de jure discrimination. I believe our long history of classism in Davis has damaged the members of the Davis workforce over and over and over again over the 28 years I have been in Davis. Those are my beliefs. However, I also believe that like for the question, “Do you believe in God?” different people have different beliefs. That is how human beings roll.
Regarding whether I want housing on that site, the answer is an unambiguous “Yes” but I’m not willing to be like the father who gives his daughter advice about rape. I’m also more than willing to NOT practice Virtue Signaling in my beliefs about classism, and fight for a project that benefits the Davis workforce. I took a similar stand on Nishi 2018 arguing for the same 67 units per acre housing density that was in the Nishi 2016 proposal. That would have meant a substantially superior 5,000 to 7,000 students living on that site, walking each day to their classes through a tunnel under the railroad tracks … with zero VMTs and zero GHG emissions.
I understand the practicality of what you describe, and I respect your right to believe that practicality. Im willing to choose whst you believe is an impractical road.
With the above said, I apologize if your framing of the questions you asked was out of sync with my framing of how I heard those questions. I answered them from my level of awareness at the time of what you were asking. Bottom-line, you were asking from the perspective of your beliefs and I was giving you answers from the perspective of my beliefs. That often happens in demure vs de facto situations.a
That’s the problem. Even 30 years ago people with these local jobs could afford to own a home in Davis. I’ve known many of them, particularly teachers and staff at UCD. They can’t afford to live here now. At UCD over the last 20 years, 1500 positions which used to be filled by Davis residents are now filled by out of town commuters. If we extend that to the of Davis, 4500 workers have been pushed out of town due housing prices being unaffordable. Village Farms isn’t going to supply the housing needs of these people. It’s going to be yet more commuters to Sacramento and Vacaville who will be buying here. We don’t need that type of housing. Village Farms is the wrong answer to the right question.
Thirty years ago housing was cheap because there was a recession. It was a time where real estate prices were at a trough. It wasn’t as bad as 2008 but I remember the 90’s housing bust epitomized by people mailing house keys back to mortgage lenders. I also remember as a young single teacher not being able to afford a home. Housing was affordable but only to two income families much as it is today. In fact it was only a few years later Elizabeth Warren wrote “The Two Income Trap.”
Another thing about the 1990’s and Davis. Davis wasn’t a no growth city yet. Mace Ranch was getting built so young professionals could afford a home as added supply kept homes affordable.
“It’s going to be yet more commuters to Sacramento and Vacaville who will be buying here.”
So Richard, did you and your gang of friends all grow up here in town, or did you move here from somewhere else and perhaps commute to out of town jobs?
We need all types of housing, including the type you moved into when you came here or what you live in now. Why are potential new residents of this development seen as bad in your view?
I realize this question wasn’t directed to me, but I’ll answer it anyway (as I believe I understand the argument, as well as its weaknesses).
Apparently, the reason that some think that Davis should be pursuing sprawl is to address “Davis’ needs” (whatever that means).
And that if it’s attracting Bay Area residents (who live in an environmentally-superior location in regard to public transit and weather), then encouraging them to move to this region is not a responsible “societal goal”, let alone a “Davis goal”. Plus, building expensive housing indirectly “displaces” the “needs” of the poor schmucks who would otherwise move to Davis, I guess. (Since the new development is then reserved for the “elites”, and probably has a similar impact on pre-existing housing in Davis.
As far as what Davis actually “needs”, it needs a smaller school district.
“We need all types of housing, including the type you moved into when you came here or what you live in now. ”
I agree that we need “all” housing types. But Davis is already primarily single family housing and student housing. We have almost nothing in the middle for younger professionals / university staff etc. THIS project is more of the same… only 8% multifamily… So how does this project make sense?
Thats like saying to someone who eats only doughnuts that “hey, you should eat a balanced diet”. and then give him another box of doughnuts.
Sure, doughnuts are delicious and every sane human being loves them… but you aren’t going to get a “balanced diet” by giving another dozen for your donut-eating friend. At some point, you’re gonna have so sneak some salad in there…
There are lots of resources about why single family zoning needs to end. Here is just one. This guy is an urban planning professor at Cal Poly:
https://youtu.be/ajSEIdjkU8E?si=_0Tw3GXaMS5tJCnP
“THIS project is more of the same… only 8% multifamily… So how does this project make sense?”
How much housing do you get if the project is rejected? How many years before another project is proposed (two decades the last time around). Your drive for perfection is the problem here, along with your utter failure to put your own money on the line. When you, Richard, and your friends come forward with a development project that you are funding, let me know. Until then, you are all nothing but nimby gadflies intent on virtue signaling. Don’t worry though, you have a lot of company in that regard.
“Davis does noting to attract “other people’s money” so the vast majority of retail workers are modestly paid, and again largely part time. Hotel workers are modestly paid. Hospital and medical office workers for the most part are modestly paid. DJUSD teachers are modestly paid.”
Modestly paid in Davis, and in every other city in the USA. Don’t Davis me!
Those associated with the school district (including trustees such as the author of this article) support sprawl rather than right-sizing the district to match the community’s declining need. They also support poaching students from other districts for the same reason – regardless of the impact on those districts.
They are motivated by self-interest.
The trustees have also taken action which has resulted in a petition from concerned parents. Specifically, they have chosen to sell their current administration building (which includes space for Independent study), and purchase a different building which cannot accommodate Independent study. What this seems to mean is that the trustees/district have already decided to shut down a school in the future (possibly Patwin), and house the Independent study program there, instead.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/petition-to-form-school-closure-committee-nears-1-000-names/article_b3f75497-f3b2-4ba8-9ce8-1f111174446b.html
As far as housing is concerned (something that the school district shouldn’t even be commenting on – let alone “listened to”), every single house in Davis (and anywhere else) will turn over in the coming years/decades. Every single owner has their own beneficiaries who will obtain title to those houses, and will either choose to live in them themselves, or sell it and use the proceeds elsewhere.
Unless someone figures out how to live forever, all housing and all other assets will belong to future generations – and this pattern will continue unless the country itself comes to an end. But apparently, that’s not happening “fast enough” for an oversized school district.
In the U.S., more than 90% of housing sales consist of EXISTING housing stock.
1.6 kids (per woman) nationwide – well below 2.1 replacement level.
It’s not just DJUSD that’s faced with declining enrollment, and it’s about time that they (along with other school districts) accepted that reality.
There is no other type of organization that would openly advocate for sprawl in order to avoid right-sizing. Only school districts get away with this type of blatant self-interest.
Ron O.: “1.6 kids (per woman) nationwide – well below 2.1 replacement level.”
A lack of available long term housing is effective birth control.
The Millennial Generation (born 1981-96) nationwide is larger than the Baby Boomers, but not in California. In fact, it is Millennials who are migrating out of California. The above chart shows what that looks like in Davis, but you can propagate that pattern through many communities and get a sense for what is happening statewide.
Businesses also leave California in significant part because there is insufficient housing available for their workers. We’re not that far from the 2030 Census, and I bet we’re progressing toward a more clearly defined bimodal distribution in Davis of a large cohort of UCD students, and then a larger, ‘sprawling’, retirement population, which is why I say that we’re transitioning to a retirement community with a large public university.
What you argue for is to power through a boom-bust model, which we can do if that’s where things go, but there is added cost to wind things (businesses, schools, institutions) down and then start things up again. I prefer a more sustained model than that.
Davis has grown at an annual rate of less than 0.5% per year since 2000, and has not kept up with the growth of UC Davis in accommodating either staff or students during that time. Even if Village Farms were to pass, that is no where anything like the rate of development that happened in the 80’s and 90’s.
Since the 1.6 kids figure is nationwide, and accounts for communities more to your liking (those that are actively pursuing sprawl), it seems that there’s other factors (besides housing) that are contributing to the lack of “customers” for school districts.
But yes, when businesses leave (or perhaps more accurately – pursue growth) for other states (e.g., where all costs are lower – including taxes), that’s a draw for those seeking employment. Often times, to locations where costs are more-aligned with salaries.
This is also the same reason that perhaps half of the people in the region (including Davis) came from more-expensive locales in the first place.
It’s excessive economic development which creates “housing shortages” in the first place, as occurred in Silicon Valley.
Not sure how you conclude that I’m arguing for a “boom and bust” model, since that’s exactly what you’re advocating for (not me). Homeowners don’t immediately move out of their houses when their kids age out of the school system. It’s happening in places like Woodland, as well. So you’re apparently seeking a short-term “fix” to an issue that will continually resurface. (Of course, new development also makes one-time payments to school districts – thereby also allowing them to temporarily delay reckoning.)
But again, ALL existing housing eventually turns over. Since we’re not immortal, it will be occupied by FUTURE generations.
It’s well-past time that the district understands that their role is to support a given community’s needs. School district’s are SUBORDINATE to the overall needs of a community (and only serve a small percentage of the population in the first place).
The state itself is not growing.
What I don’t understand is this group of people (the school district being one of them) who are so dissatisfied with Davis (but don’t leave for communities that are more to their liking).
Hi, Ron,
“But again, ALL existing housing eventually turns over. Since we’re not immortal, it will be occupied by FUTURE generations.”
With Davis demographic characteristics and without any additional housing, I think that turnover will be longer coming, and the bimodal age distribution will become even more pronounced. What happens in the meantime before that turnover becomes more sustained? More UCD and other workers in the city are shut out of any possibility of living here. We are becoming a retirement community with a service class — including UCD faculty, city, school, and UCD administrators, and gerontological healthcare staff — that commutes in, while we older retirees complain about how prices were so much lower when we bought our homes at or before the turn of the century. I think our community is stronger when more residents have the opportunity to work in relative proximity to where they live.
“School district’s are SUBORDINATE to the overall needs of a community (and only serve a small percentage of the population in the first place).”
What’s happening to the school district is a symptom of demographic trends in the community that has resulted from our housing policies and the growth of UC Davis. It is an early indicator of what is happening. There are plenty of Millennials out there, many of whom grew up in Davis and/or went to UCD, who have lost the opportunity to live in Davis and many of whom have chosen not to have children because long term housing is unavailable. We committed to raising our children, but didn’t plan that they be appropriately accommodated in adulthood.
First of all, Davis is continuing to build housing (Harvest Glen and Pole Line Terrace being a couple of examples.)
You ask what will happen? DJUSD will downsize, and is already planning to do so regardless.
In regard to some kid who can’t afford their parents’ house, you’re communicating with one right now. Not only did I leave that town, I also left Davis for greener pastures some 7 miles away. And there’s a good chance I’ll leave that town, as well (have already started to, in a sense).
Those kids will also inherit their parents’ house (or gain assets when it’s sold).
So cry me a river. In the meantime, I’m looking forward to the school district “returning” the Patwin campus to the casino-owning Patwin people.
The other issue (as pointed out by a periodic commenter on here) is that developers don’t build housing for the purpose of lowering prices. In fact, they never build an entire development all at once – partly for this reason.
They’re more than willing to sit on a property during downturns. (The owner of the 12-acre Chiles Ranch site sat on it for about 15 years, before selling it for a massive price increase to another developer.) (Which is now being developed as Harvest Glen.)
The price of new, single-family detached housing in Davis is $800K, minimum.
Ron O
The birth rate is not going to affect our housing needs for decades. We need to focus on what we need today. Further, the birth rate is dropping because young families feel they can’t afford housing. We need more housing of the right type to relieve the pressure on housing prices.
Richard, the fact that I choose not to share what “stake” I may have in Davis is of no concern to you. But more importantly, it’s irrelevant regarding the points I bring up. Since you keep bringing this up, it’s obvious that the only reason you do so is to continue a personal attack that the Vanguard encourages. As a result, it’s really more of a reflection of the Vanguard than it is of you. It’s the reason that the Vanguard is seen as an enemy of anyone with a view that isn’t in support of its own. The same reason they ultimately got into a problem with the IRS.
Also, the points I bring up apply beyond Davis.
Also, one issue that DIRECTLY impacts Woodland’s school district, for example, is the poaching of Woodland’s students by DJUSD.
The declining birthrate has been occurring for years, at this point – and it IMMEDIATELY impacts the type of housing that young people seek.
Since 1.6 kids is a “nationwide” number (and includes places that pursue sprawl to a greater degree than even the Sacramento region does), the claim that housing prices are the sole cause of fewer children is not based on facts.
And by the way, who cares if Davis (and other locales throughout the state and country) are getting older?
Those of us opposing Measure V are not demanding the “perfect.” In fact, the City has the right answer right in front of it–Alternative 4 from the Draft EIR scaled down to 1800 homes. It’s higher density more affordable housing Adjusting for the scaled down size, the traffic decreases 41% compared to the proposal! It’s not perfect in many ways, but it achieves our two primary goals and will yield more young children which will make our school district more sustainable. No on Measure V because it is the wrong answer to the right question.
It was 20 years between proposals for that land. If this fails when do you expect another proposal to come forward?
And what if the answer is never?
Never say never.
Yeah but that’s not helpful to the point here.
As Keynes observed around 100 years ago “In the long run we are all dead.”
As Keynes observed around 100 years ago “In the long run we are all dead.”
And that’s ultimately what causes all housing to turn over, other than those who voluntarily move. Most of the people commenting/reading this article will be dead within 40 years (not all at once, but dropping along the way).
I wouldn’t be surprised if the house that just popped up in my apparent “feed” is the result of a death, based on the low property tax they were paying (indicating that it hasn’t turned over for a long, long time). In any case, I personally know of another house near this one, whose former owner “no longer needs housing”.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2802-Layton-Dr-Davis-CA-95618/16519178_zpid/?rtoken=b4bb4bf7-6b5d-4faa-b8ac-4db3afd98b4d~X1-ZUtpzll9oy21ah_3jtqo&utm_campaign=emo-instant_home_recs_email&utm_source=email&utm_term=urn%3Amsg%3A20260316184007c0f648ed0ab2ca20&utm_medium=email&utm_content=forsaleimage-_rid-ZBmWciGXmC3b8QcbWjTcyV_
(Zillow says that this one is overpriced at $550K, and I would agree. And Zillow doesn’t even know about the apparent cosmetic damage.)
Looks like it was listed for rent (for $400?), back in 2014.
Advertised as an investor opportunity.
Check out the size of the lot, by the way. You
Waiting for people to die is not a viable housing strategy.
Richard, I really respect who you are, your arguments and where you’re coming from, and I know it’s well-intentioned. But at this point I would ask how realistic it would be for your proposal to come to fruition. Do you have access to the kind of financial backing and resources to make this happen? Do you have a proven track record of housing development to point to? Do you have a realistic timeline to make this happen in the near future?
Hiram, that is where leadership and vision come in. Davis has no clearly articulated Vision for what kind of community the residents of Davis want Davis to be in 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 years. Some want it to be a bedroom community for retirees and people who commute to jobs outside the City Limits. The problem with that is that the City has almost a dozen official financial analyses over the years that show that housing, especially Single Family Residential housing, costs more in services and capital infrastructure maintenance expenses than it brings in in annual revenues.
Further, those reports show that the annual inflation rate for expenses is over 4%, while the annual growth rate for revenues is only 2.5%.
The result of that is that we have a city with crumbling streets and bike paths, weed ridden parks (and schools), deteriorating buildings, and each year before starting the Budget process, we start with over $15 million more in needed costs than we have in revenues. As a resurgence lots of capital maintenance gets deferred out of the Budget.
Bottom-line, our City is not sustainable as fit now exists, and our local economy is not resilient. We have dug ourselves a very deep financial hole, and more housing will only dig that hole deeper.
The problem with having no agreed upon community Vision is that the no growth portion of the community in Davis isn’t required to take ownership of the fact that our revenues fall so short of costs. Similarly, the housing growth portion of the community doesn’t take ownership of that reality either. The third distinct portion of the community is the economic development portion, and they are proceeding unilaterally without seeing whether that vision is one that is one that is shared.
My personal belief is that if we are going to dig our financial hole deeper by building bore money losing housing, then that housing should be planned and designed for the people in our community who have been excluded up to this point from the opportunity to purchase a modest house.
Those people are the ones who provide the services that make our life in Davis so high in quality. They are the people who teach our children in DJUSD. They clean our hospital rooms. They clean our hotel rooms. They bring our food and drinks to us in restaurants and coffee shops. We have systematically excluded them from home ownership. It is time to recognize that.
That is where leadership comes in. As one of our community leaders I would hope that you and your fellow leaders can tell the developers what we want and need. Instead of proactively doing that … communicating the community Vision … we sit back and let the developers lead, and then react to what those developers bring forward. We don’t lead. We follow.
Matt, It still takes a developer to develop. Someone who has the resources to make it happen. And if they don’t want to put anything else out there other than the five or so developments that we have rejected since 2005, then that’s it. We can’t force developers to do anything. As it is, I thought City Council did well to leverage their interests as much as they did.
Developers developed most of the housing that we currently occupy, and collectively we seem to be satisfied enough to stay put.
Very reasonable points Hiram. However, your “they don’t want to” statement has historically been absent any effort by our community to even begin telling them what we want and need. We simply have gone along with whatever they come forward with. Our actions are all reactive, (almost) never proactive. Do parents and teachers follow that approach with their children and students. Every course has an objective, and the objective is clearly articulated. Does the Davis community have an objective? Is it clearly articulated? Has it been shared with the developers who own land around or in Davis?
Regarding your last paragraph, one of the interesting characteristics all across California, not just Davis is that our spectacular climate causes us to live a much more outdoor and away from our dwelling lifestyle than anywhere else in the US. As a result housing in California has a much more diminished impact on us. The residents of other US cities/communities socialize in their homes or in social membership clubs. Here in California we have much fewer such clubs because we socialize out in our environment rather than behind walls. As a result, what we expect from our homes is much more constrained … number of bedrooms, a functional kitchen, and price being the three expectations that spring to mind. As a result our threshold for satisfaction is extremely modest … especially in a town where tenure is such a powerful word.
Note: yesterday Don Shor correctly took exception to my use of the word “discrimination.” Hence forth I will use the words “exclusion” and “excluded” rather than “discrimination” and “discriminated”
David Greenwald’s “Davis Vanguard “ is hosting Hiram Jackson, Davis School Board President to lecture us on the reasons to support a sprawling land development by voting yes on measureV.
No mention that Mr. Greenwald has a family member on the School Board as well. Measure V is NOT an acceptable issue for a publicly elected body to be throwing an endorsement towards. For the President of the Board to step forward here suggests the entire board is in favor. If not, maybe the other members can speak out. If so, I’ll remember the names when the next board elections take place.
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
That’s a laughable claim, regarding not “endorsing” candidates.
In any case, the Vanguard can apparently engage in political campaigns on behalf of developments “in the open”. It does seem as though non-profits can do so (hence, the existence of non-profit YIMBY organizations supported by business interests).
Look no further than the YIMBY support for California Forever.
The 501(c)(3) allowances are being (legally) abused. Apparently, yet another indicator of our corrupt Congress/political system.
As a 66 year old in Davis, I get the vibe that us old folks need to move on or die to allow the 21 to 29 crowd to move in. As a 46 year resident, I rented for over a decade before being able to afford to own, my family had the “requisite” 2.1 children to feed into the school district. I’d love to see an affordable place for my children to buy here, but Village Farms is not a financial option. Hello 👋 to childless Bay Area buyers if Measure V Is passed 🙁
Twenty-five years of no growth has led us to being a community where young people often can’t live here, near their aging parents, without the benefit of inter-generational wealth. Not adding supply only exacerbates this trend.
johncooper: “I’d love to see an affordable place for my children to buy here”
Me too. In 2005 I voted no on Measure X (an earlier iteration of what’s proposed for Measure V). I was persuaded by arguments that warned against more traffic, that the cost was too high, and that we should wait for a better project to be proposed. I actually thought the plans for that development were very nice, but the promise of an even better project with lower prices was more intriguing.
It took 20 years for another development to be proposed, my own children have now settled down, and it’s not in Davis, not even in California. 2005 Measure X proposed homes priced around $300K, and the no campaign argued that was too expensive at the time. In 2026 that would be a steal, but an unrealistic expectation. And traffic in that area increased anyway because of people commuting to homes in Woodland (homes which could have been built in Davis). In retrospect the logic for my no vote was misleading, but this thinking is used for every single development vote that’s brought before Davis voters.
We lost sight of the long term negative impact of buying in to this logic. We vote no, home prices spike even more with continued restricted housing supply, and the community gets older. We do a great job of developing and educating youth locally, and then we send them off live elsewhere. I can be generous, but I would like to keep a little more of that developed talent in our community.
If we ultimately reject Measure V, I believe we will look back years later and see that it really wasn’t the bad development that some make it out to be.
“which could have been built in Davis”.
Nope. Spring Lake was planned prior to Covell Village. I’m not sure how many more times this needs to be pointed out, especially since a former council member repeated the same “misinformation” – despite probably knowing better.
But this nonsense about kids not being able to afford their parents house is just that – nonsense. First of all, they certainly can afford to live 7 miles away. And if not there, then they can’t afford anywhere in the region – despite all of the sprawl.
I grew up knowing, at a certain point, that I’d never be able to afford my parents’ house – and that it wasn’t worth it for me to stay in the area. Turned out that moving to this area was one of the better decisions I made (and my parents thought so, as well). Not because they didn’t want me around, but because they knew it was better for me (and gave them a different, but nearby place to visit). And frankly, I believe they, along with I were somewhat surprised at our pre-conceived notions about the valley (including Davis).
Just as there’s other great places that are overlooked, today. A successful real estate agent whom I personally know (and grew up in Marin county) purchased a home in Iowa, to be closer to his daughter who moved there, first. Turns out that he loves it there, himself. I didn’t ask, but I believe he still owns property somewhere in this region, as well.
Honestly, you’d think that you’d be more concerned about the “Patwin people” who were displaced. Is the school district planning to return the Patwin campus to them? (You can find them running a casino in the Capay Valley, if you or the other trustees are interested in “actual” land acknowledgements.)
Ron: “Nope. Spring Lake was planned prior to Covell Village.”
And if Covell Village had been approved, then folks who now commute could have had choices.
They had choices, regardless (pre-existing housing, The Cannery, etc.). They still have choices.
More than 90% of sales (nationwide) consist of pre-existing housing, on average.
But you are correct – the only “choice” that Davis has is whether or not to add its own sprawl, in addition to that which occurs around it.
Regarding those who commute to Davis itself, that number will be reduced slightly when you and the other trustees shut down a school or two. For what it’s worth, you actually have my support regarding that (though I think you should be more honest about what your superintendent has already acknowledged, as well as the related reason regarding your purchase of a different administration building that cannot accommodate Independent study – which might then be housed at Patwin for example).
This might be about my fifth comment today, and David has asked me to limit them to that number per article, per day.
Hiram – I hear your broader point about Davis needing to think long-term about housing. But this conversation is happening while the district is considering closing neighborhood schools and naming them prematurely, and the process hasn’t been very transparent — even after successive public records requests.
The district has acknowledged there is an internal cabinet document explaining how the closure scenarios were developed, but it’s being withheld while the process continues. At the same time trustees are publicly linking school viability to housing outcomes, including Measure V. State guidance is clear districts may provide objective information on ballot measures but must remain neutral when speaking in their official roles.
Housing growth isn’t the only driver of enrollment — turnover of existing homes and new families moving into Davis also matter. Before closing schools, the district should first look seriously at boundary rebalancing and enrollment distribution.
More than 1,000 community members have signed a petition asking the board to slow down and open up the analysis. Most districts facing potential closures convene a community advisory group to review enrollment data, equity considerations, transportation impacts, and financial assumptions before narrowing options. Would you support doing that here?
Ron’s comments reflect a coherent low-growth philosophy—that Davis should largely remain the same size and allow regional demand to be absorbed by surrounding communities. But polling suggests most voters take a more pragmatic approach. They recognize the need for additional housing, but want it to be carefully planned and tied to community needs.
It’s also worth clarifying a common misunderstanding about the housing market. Ron is correct that most homes sold are existing homes.
But while Ron is throwing out an impressive-sounding statistic, once you unpack it the point is almost tautological. The reason most home sales are existing homes is simply that most homes that exist are existing homes.
So the fact that 90 percent of sales involve existing homes tells us very little about the role new construction plays in shaping the market. It mainly reflects the simple arithmetic of how housing stock accumulates over time.
What matters economically is not the share of transactions that are new homes but whether the total housing supply is keeping pace with demand. Even relatively small amounts of new construction can influence prices across the entire housing market, especially in constrained places like Davis where demand is strong and supply has been limited.
Just to be clear (not sure you’ll allow this comment today), I do not “advocate” that surrounding communities absorb demand, nor do I attempt to define what you or anyone else are referring to regarding demand. Demand is driven by price, opportunity, alternatives, etc.
I do note that surrounding communities are continuing to sprawl, despite an overall population that is not increasing (e.g., 1.6 kids and Trump’s immigration restrictions).
If “I” was running the world, I wouldn’t be encouraging sprawl anywhere. In other words, it’s not “Davis” that has this wrong. Davis is the only place in the valley at least, that (sort of) has it “right”.
And again, Davis housing is downright “cheap” compared to where I (and you) came from.
In the meantime, those looking for a “new” single family house at a relatively cheap price will find it in Woodland (the nearest city to Davis). There’s a reason that Road 102 is called the Costco Highway, and Spring Lake is called “North, North Davis” by the people who developed it.
1,600 more housing units to come at the technology park.
David said … “a coherent low-growth philosophy—that Davis should largely remain the same size and allow regional demand to be absorbed by surrounding communities.”
It is important to note that Davis has also been happy to allow regional jobs/employment to be absorbed by the surrounding communities.
That prompts a question, if the economic benefit of the jobs is being forsaken, is it not reasonable that the economic burden of the housing should go to the communities reaping the benefit of the jobs?
UCD, the largest employer in the County, is in such a neighboring jurisdiction i.e. the County of Yolo. But the County has a long standing policy of deferring to it’s cities on development issues.
The County has been conspicuously silent about housing development on the UCD campus.
Does the County even require UCD to submit applications to the County Planning Department for any type of building on the campus?
Matt: “Does the County even require UCD to submit applications to the County Planning Department for any type of building on the campus?”
The county has no authority over UC.
From the UC Office of the President:
“UC is unique among public agencies because it is a constitutionally created entity of the State of California with “full powers of organization and government” (Cal. Const. Art. IX, Section 9). As a constitutionally created State entity, the UC is not subject to local governments’ regulations, such as City or County General Plans or land use ordinances, on property owned or controlled by the University and used in furtherance of the University’s mission.”
Exactly. Thank you Don for confirming that.
Ron, the County’s General Plan provision regarding Cities doesn’t include/apply to UCD.
Hiram said: “Measure X proposed homes priced around $300K, and the no campaign argued that was too expensive at the time.”
The houses were priced more like around $600K at the time. It was right in the housing bubble. I remember being disappointed that they would be priced slightly higher than what we could afford but I understood that adding supply would possibly create other opportunities and would put downward pressure on prices as adding supply always does. I voted yes on X back in the day. Davis would be a better place to live today if Measure X had passed. It will be a better place to live if Measure V passes.
I already had my house when Measure X was considered. I have financially benefitted significantly since then because housing growth has been constrained. I don’t care. The City would be a better place to live had X been approved, and will be better place to live when V is approved.
Why will it be a better place to live?
Greater diversity, more kids, larger tax base, more opportunities for people to build equity, more amazing people, lower housing prices, more multi-generational families, more people to contribute to the social life of the community. These come to mind off the top of my head.
More crowded, more traffic, less farmland, less available parking downtown, more pollution.
These come to mind off the top of my head.
Such pessimism. I prefer optimism.
More teenagers riding high-speed e-bikes (electric motorcycles) on bike paths, bike lanes, etc.
(Hopefully, staying away from places like Bretton Woods at least.)
More soccer Moms – driving their kids to/from school, soccer practice in the family’s SUV, etc.
Larger tax base, but even larger expose costs for services and capital infrastructure maintenance/repair/replacement.
That is why each year the City Budget starts with over $15 million more in needed expenses than it has in revenues. Those $15 million (mostly in roads and bike paths) simply get written off the Budget to possibly get done in some future year. Parks maintenance is another item that gets moved off the Budget and the result is falling tree limbs and copious weeds growth all across the city.
The School District has the same problem. It just isn’t as up front and honest about it as the City is.