There is no perfect project, and there is no perfect time. But there are good projects that come at the right time. Such a project is Village Farms. There are a few reasons I will vote YES for Village Farms.
First, Village Farms is contiguous with the city, and I would label this site infill. It is surrounded by The Cannery, F Street, Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road. While this land is farmland and has been planted with tomatoes, wheat and corn over the years, it is surrounded by our community on three sides and is ideal for development.
Second, the property that Village Farms sits on is in the Sphere of Influence created in 2008. What is the Sphere of Influence? “The legislature created the mechanism a ‘sphere of influence’ (SOI) as a means for planning of probable physical boundaries and service areas within a local agency… SOIs are designed to both proactively guide and respond to the need for the extension of infrastructure and delivery of municipal services to areas of emerging growth and development.” Village Farms (formerly Covell Village) is largely within the city’s SOI. This means we as a community, former councils as well as city staff, have thought for decades about the areas of future growth, and this is one of them.
Third, and the most important reason, is the incredible need for housing in this town. I have worked in the real estate industry for almost 30 years, honing an education as markets rose and fell. That education tells me that Davis is expensive not because it has an incredible downtown and shopping area, not because of the schools and not because of UC Davis. Davis is expensive because there is little growth, and everyone who wants to live here competes with UC Davis students, staff and faculty for food, parking and, most especially, housing. All of which makes us an expensive town to live in.
I might add that along with those students there are a lot of landlords. In fact, there are more landlords who own homes in Davis and rent them than there are actual homeowners living in their homes. To the tune of nearly 56.5% of Davis homes are non-owner occupied (i.e., rentals).
Finally, I read the EIR and understand the many ways that the dump site and plumes of toxins will be mitigated by this project. Let me offer the thought: What will happen to those sites if we don’t develop the property? If the site remains just as it is, the waste will continue to leach into the soil and possibly the aquifer. Developing the site assures we deal with the issue in a constructive way, and that we build needed housing at the same time.
Davis is my town just like it is your town. Village Farms is being proposed for development by a local family. I have greater confidence in the developer who is a neighbor—whose kids went to our schools and who supports our community in so many ways—than in the developer I don’t know, who isn’t my neighbor and hasn’t supported various community efforts.
I am voting yes on Measure V and yes for Village Farms, and I hope you do too.
Georgina Valencia is the owner and broker of Valencia Real Estate & Consulting. She has served on the Davis Social Services Commission, the Housing Element Commission, and now serves on the City of Davis Planning Commission. She is a UC Davis alumna and lives in Davis with her husband and her standard poodle, Red.
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.
To the tune of nearly 56.5% of Davis homes are non-owner occupied (i.e., rentals).
Hmm. Does that include apartment units? If so, then that’s a pretty misleading claim (and that the percentage actually INCREASED when the megadorms were built). Which I don’t believe supports the point you’re attempting to make.
Also, do rentals not provide housing?
And what’s to prevent investors from purchasing new houses, and renting them out? (Other than the fact that this usually doesn’t pencil out?)
I do know that real estate agents aren’t particularly happy unless there’s (sales) turnover. And that this is also the reason that the realtor association pushed Proposition 19 (which ultimately harms beneficiaries).
The realtor association is not on the side of consumers.
Ron,
Yes, rentals provide housing. My point is that ownership homes in Davis have more landlords than owner occupied properties. The number I shared is above the national average. As far as the realtors association statement you make. I don’t represent the association. I am representing myself and my views.
Again, it’s misleading unless you break down the percentage of single-family rental houses, vs. apartment buildings primarily intended to be occupied by students in a university town.
All apartment building are “rentals”, unless perhaps an owner lives in one of the units.
I’m reasonably certain that the 56.5% that you cited above includes apartment building units.
Of course, some have claimed that the city itself has taken on too much responsibility to house UCD’s students, instead of the university itself doing so.
Also, non-student rentals might provide the exact type of housing that some seek to increasingly house in Davis (lower-earning “local” workers – who in no way can afford to buy a house – anywhere). Some of whom are no doubt paying off ill-advised student loan debt, to boot.
I do know that (in general), small-time “Mom and Pop” landlords are generally less profit-oriented.
About half of the rentals are apartments. The other half are single family and duplexes. Owner occupied SF/duplexes outnumber the rentals of that type.
I’ll take your word for that.
There’s also probably quite a difference between different neighborhoods (and even different streets within neighborhoods). For example, I suspect that Pole Line Road has a disproportionate number of single family rentals (since no family wants to buy, or even live on a street like that). Possibly Loyola, as well (there’s a house for sale there right now).
And anything near the university.
Supposedly, the megadorms were supposed to cause a “mass exodus” from mini-dorms (single family rental houses), or that’s the justification that was put forth at least. (Plus, some claimed that the megadorms themselves would house at least some “young professionals” – which everyone knew was pure b.s.)
There was also some kind of problem in counting the megadorms toward RHNA “mandates”.
Ron
It is very difficult to substantiate that apartments are built specifically for one group vs another. I can state with confidence, having talked with the property owners, there are apartments that were built for the missing work force and Luxury apartments that are occupied by a high number of students.
Also, you bring up the idea of mom and pop being less profit-oriented. The fact that a home is being rented instead of an owner living in it is my point. Rents will go up and down with the market. What we need is more housing.
“It is very difficult to substantiate that apartments are built specifically for one group vs another.”
They are ALL built for renters, which means that the percentage you listed is potentially misleading.
“Also, you bring up the idea of mom and pop being less profit-oriented. The fact that a home is being rented instead of an owner living in it is my point. Rents will go up and down with the market. What we need is more housing.”
So again, apartments are never owner-occupied (unless some small-time landlord lives in one of the units).
Rents are not going up, and neither are sales prices. In fact, I believe they’re declining. Should Davis start tearing down houses as a result?
The other problem with such a simplistic claim is that it doesn’t examine causes of demand (local hiring, and whether or not it’s occurring), nor does it consider adequately consider “supply” (pre-existing housing, cheaper housing in nearby communities).
As far as “Mom and Pop” landlords, I believe they’re generally looking for stability (in other words, tenants who don’t cause a lot of problems) more than annual price increases. Whereas apartment owners are probably slightly more-willing to put up with troublemakers, as long as the overall profit is there.
As far as I know, there is no local tracking of “Mom and Pop” rental prices. There’s only tracking of apartment rental prices (which have flattened or gone down).
While we need more housing of a particular type, the large scale stand alone single family that will be offered is not what we need. Those houses will continue to be unaffordable to the younger households that work in Davis but can’t live here. Those families are raising the 1,000 students who currently transfer into DJUSD. Few of them will be able to buy in Village Homes as it is currently envisioned.
Instead, the City should require that a scaled down version of Alternative 4 from the Draft EIR be built. It will offer many more shared wall homes that are much more affordable. Further, the Draft EIR shows that traffic will decrease by over 40% compared to the proposal. This is the best CEQA mitigation measure for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. It appears that the City did nothing to push forward the actions included in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
Measure V is the wrong answer to the right question. And we already have a much better answer.
Richard,
Thank you for your comments. I disagree that we need homes of a specific type. We need housing of all types from density to larger custom homes. Communities, like Davis, are made up of all types of people and their needs aren’t one size fits all.
We already have an oversupply of larger homes built for out of town commuters. We’re missing smaller housing, generally with shared walls, that are a better fit for younger lower income households. Developers want to build those bigger homes (and real estate agents want to sell them) because they appear to be more profitable. It’s time for the City to push back and tell the developers and real estate agents that they are going to still make money, just less of it. And even, the revenues per acre will be as much as 20% higher with denser housing (we’ve done the calculations.)
I’ll also point out that Georgia’s husband pointed out at the Commissionpolooza that the City is not facing a near term deadline to comply with the state’s Housing Element requirements. The current HE runs to 2029 and the City has until then to identify the next round of projects to meet the next allocation. In addition, the City should have a General Plan Update in place that can give clear direction to developers that does not exist now. Pushing this project off is the best solution.
Thank you Richard actually I made that same point regarding the HE. This fact doesn’t preclude our need for housing.
But we don’t need to rush to approve this now. We have a longer period to finish the General Plan Update and then approve each of these projects to be in full compliance with the General Plan.
The author states,
“In fact, there are more landlords who own homes in Davis and rent them than there are actual homeowners living in their homes. To the tune of nearly 56.5% of Davis homes are non-owner occupied (i.e., rentals).”
This statement is not very clear. Is it meant to be misleading?
As the author is a realtor, I would ask you to restate these two sentences so that the reader can make an honest interpretation of the facts. What points are you trying to make?
I too have worked in housing in Davis for over forty years and have never heard of this statistic.
Does your term ‘homes’ include all units of housing (rental and ownership or homes and apartments).
in Davis?
The number that I have been provided with by various sources is that about 25% of single family homes in Davis are rentals. The origin of this number comes from various voices saying that it comes from the city counting the number of property tax bills which are required by the owner of the home to be sent to a different address than the home itself. Thus implying that the person living in the home is not the owner and therefore a renter. The number is not magic but at least a start in quantifying the % of ownership homes that are rentals.
I am okay with that number as close to representing reality.
However, I am not comfortable with the author implying that out of each ten ownership homes in Davis, 5. 6 of them are rentals.
Please re-state your questionable facts as they seem to be misleading?
David
Please reference Table 27 of the current Housing Element. This is not where I found the actual numbers I used. I went to the census numbers as I believe they are more current than what is in the HE. But, the numbers still support my point.
I was just wondering if anyone has come up with some fake numbers regarding how much The Cannery reduced housing prices (or even caused them to level-off).
Same question regarding Spring Lake, since that also impacts Davis.
By the way, if you REALLY want to reduce the cost of housing, one way to do so would be to loosen the grip that realtors have in regard to their 5-6% extraction from the amount that buyers ultimately pay in regard to the sales price.
The same group that was already found to be in violation of the law in regard to requiring sellers to automatically include the buyer’s agent fee in their sales price. (Unfortunately, it appears that nothing much has changed regarding that ruling.)
Get rid of those salespeople (and their parent organization), and there will be a lot fewer fake “housing shortages” (not to mention exorbitant costs associated with transactions).
Get a REAL job – something that provides actual value to society. (And no, I’m not suggesting that they become solar salesmen, either.)
Georgina,
I think most readers reading your statement as a realtor would regard your use of the word ‘home’ as describing a single family home. If they do, then they are led to believe that 56.5% of all single family homes are rentals which is not true.
If i check Craigs list there are (1) Apartments for rent and by going to another category housing for rent you get a different list. No apartments for rent are actually single family homes
I do still regard your terminology as misleading.
The author states,
“In fact, there are more landlords who own homes in Davis and rent them than there are actual homeowners living in their homes. To the tune of nearly 56.5% of Davis homes are non-owner occupied (i.e., rentals).”
Instead of ‘homes’ you could have written ‘houses/apartments’ but you did not make that important clarification and you should have.
Your statement is not very clear. Is it meant to be misleading?
No, actually this is not the time for this Village Farms proposal, nor ever. Between Village Farms toxics, enormous floodplain, unsafe access issues, infrastructure costs, massive traffic (more than 15,000 more cars PER DAY near Covell and Pole Line) and UNaffordable housing, it is the worst project ever proposed in Davis. And no, the EIR did not adequately address these issues, particularly the toxics and the flooding potential. There is no validated flood control plan which you actually raised the flood control issue at Planning Commission.
With the market rate housing being $740,000 to $1.34 million per the BAE Village Farms fiscal report, that means at least a $6,000 house payment per month to cover mortgage, property taxes, insurance, CFD and other fees. Local workers and families with young kids cannot afford this. So, Village Farms will not bring hundreds of kids and will not help the schools as the School District would like to believe.
The Village Farms affordable housing “plan” is abysmal. While this article praises this developer for being local, the City is being cheated out of affordable housing acreage. The project is required to dedicate 18.6 acres yet only dedicating 16 acres for affordable housing. So, this local developer, John Whitcombe partner of Tandem Properties, a multi-million-dollar company, could not find 2.6 acres to dedicate for affordable housing out of a 498-acre project with 1,800 units? I mean, seriously?
Historically, this local developer refused to cooperate to allow a safer and better bike/pedestrian path through his Cranbrook Court apartments under the Covell car overpass about a decade ago. Not very altruistic for a local developer.
Further on the affordable housing “plan” the developer not responsible for building the 360 affordable units, yet Yes on Measure V campaign false advertising implies that. Instead, the developer “may” (as in might) build 100 affordable apartments IF the City has not first built 100 affordable units. Then the City “may” ask the developer to do so in the LAST phase (Phase 3) 10+ years down the road. The City would then need to return the unspent amount of the $6 million “donation,” for affordable housing, plus interest to the developer.
So, this is supposed to be an adequate affordable housing plan? It’s an embarrassment. Another issue, which one Council member raised this concern repeatedly, was that the developer could always walk away from this Phase 3 100 apartment loose arrangement. He could abandon the last 160 building permits, because by Phase 3 the vast majority of the project will have been built with massive profits. So, the developer can afford to walk away from the 100 affordable apartments that he is supposed to build. The BAE fiscal report points out that affordable apartments cost at least $400,000 per apartment so 100 affordable apartments would cost at least $40,000,000
“the waste will continue to leach into the soil and possibly the aquifer”. That’s exactly what will happen. No clean up planned for the old dump and burn site ever! Instead of a clean up, Channel A will be moved next to the dump and VF homes will be within 100 ft of the dump as is!! I repeat, no clean up! The planned liner in Channel A isn’t sufficient – permeability same as the clay that conducts the toxic plume. In Addition in a 100 year storm the flow rate will be very high (1000 cfs) and any liner is likely to get washed away anyway. Can you imagine being an unwitting VF home buyer who didn’t read the disclosures about the adjacent dump (if there even are any about the dump). Realizing you didn’t even know there is an old dump 100 ft away and that you don’t know at what depth and how much PFAS or combustion products like dioxin (never been tested for) there is under your Village Farms lot.
The “middle” is the median.
In Atherton, it’s half of the $8 million dollar average house price.
Not a lot of baristas fall into that “middle”. And almost no one from Davis would be in that “middle”, either.
Apparently, they’re missing quite a few middlers in Atherton.
Woops – I just realized I got that wrong.
Assuming that the $8 million average house price is right-around the median, then THAT’s the middle. (The middle of the people who can afford Atherton.)