Davis has often framed its housing debates largely through the language of process, planning, neighborhood compatibility and local control.
Reading an op-ed in the San Francisco Examiner by San Francisco YIMBY volunteer Davey Kim has brought up another question: Is blocking housing in the midst of a housing crisis itself a moral failure?
That is a question that now sits at the center of the debate over Village Farms and the future of growth in Davis.
The op-ed unintentionally reads almost like a commentary on Davis politics itself.
Writing about opposition to a housing development in San Francisco’s Marina District, Kim argues that communities often claim to support housing in theory while opposing virtually every real project proposed in practice.
As he put it, “Ask any YIMBY the number of times they’ve heard people supporting housing in the abstract — but when it comes time to actually build it, myriad bad-faith excuses are made in the name of ‘responsible’ or ‘selective’ development.”
Anyone who has followed Davis politics over the last decade understands exactly what he means.
Davis residents broadly acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis. Polling shows that they believe that lack of available housing and unaffordability of housing rank at the top of their concerns
Drilling down: the voters seem to recognize rising rents, declining school enrollment, increasing displacement, overcrowding among students and workers, and the inability of many young families to remain in the city.
There is widespread agreement that affordability has deteriorated and that housing scarcity is a self-inflicted but growing problem.
Yet nearly every large-scale proposal intended to materially address that shortage encounters fierce resistance — even by people who seem to understand the problem and not just by people who deny there is a housing crisis..
The Village Farms debate illustrates the tension in real time.
Supporters see the project as one of the few realistic opportunities for Davis to produce housing at the scale necessary to address long-term shortages while also delivering substantial affordable housing commitments.
Opponents frame the proposal as sprawl, environmental degradation, traffic expansion and a threat to the city’s character.
Both sides believe they are defending Davis.
Increasingly, the debate is no longer simply about planning preferences, but about what obligations communities owe to future residents, younger generations and those currently excluded from high-opportunity cities.
That argument is not limited to Davis but is emerging across California.
For decades, affluent communities throughout the state used zoning restrictions, procedural hurdles and political veto points to limit growth. Often those decisions were framed in neutral language about preserving community character, protecting quality of life or managing infrastructure constraints.
But the cumulative effect has been devastating.
California now faces some of the nation’s highest housing costs, pricing out younger families, forcing workers into crushing commutes, fueling rising homelessness and making economic mobility increasingly dependent on inherited wealth or existing property ownership.
The politics of housing is starting to look different.
Kim makes this point directly when he argues that “freezing neighborhoods in amber is a one-way ticket to higher rents for tenants.” He continues: “It might bless local homeowners and landlords with higher property values — that is, until their kids or employees need homes for themselves. In the end, everyone loses.”
He could have written that about Davis.
One of the defining contradictions of Davis politics is that the city often sees itself as progressive, inclusive and environmentally conscious while simultaneously maintaining one of the most restrictive growth systems in California through Measure J/R/D.
The practical outcome has been predictable: extremely high housing costs, constrained supply, demographic stagnation and declining enrollment in local schools.
People concerned with the environment should note the impact of forced commutes on traffic, VMT, and GHG.
And yet it is the school issue that is particularly revealing.
For years, Davis leaders treated declining enrollment primarily as an education management problem, but it has become increasingly clear that shrinking enrollment is deeply tied to housing affordability and demographic imbalance, as a city dominated by older homeowners and constrained housing production inevitably produces fewer school-aged children over time.
People will attempt to link declining enrollment to a statewide trend — but it is self-inflicted. We have restricted housing supply to the point where families cannot afford to live in Davis.
That outcome is not accidental, but is the predictable result of decades of policy choices that constrained housing production and limited demographic renewal.
Critics of projects like Village Farms often argue that Davis should focus on smaller-scale infill rather than peripheral expansion, but while that approach sounds reasonable in theory, years of relying primarily on infill have still failed to produce housing at levels remotely close to regional need.
Moreover, we are left with the questions of where and how can Davis build sufficient affordable housing utilizing infill only.
The city’s own housing pipeline demonstrates the problem.
Much of Davis’ affordable housing strategy now depends heavily on a very small number of large peripheral projects. Without those projects, the city’s path toward meeting lower-income housing obligations becomes increasingly uncertain.
The debate is not really about one project, but rather about whether Davis is willing to accept meaningful housing growth at all.
Opponents frequently frame their concerns around traffic, farmland preservation, infrastructure strain and environmental impacts. Some of those concerns are legitimate and deserve serious consideration.
Growth always creates tradeoffs.
But housing advocates increasingly argue that the status quo itself carries enormous moral and environmental costs that are too often ignored.
Long commutes increase emissions, housing scarcity fuels displacement, exclusionary housing patterns reinforce economic segregation, and restricting housing in wealthy, high-opportunity communities often pushes growth outward into even more sprawling and car-dependent regions.
This is one reason modern YIMBY arguments increasingly frame housing production itself as an environmental and social justice issue.
Kim writes that YIMBYs “are compelled by overwhelming evidence that we are in a crisis of unaffordability due to lack of housing supply.” He also argues that “the status quo is scarier” than neighborhood change itself.
These arguments increasingly apply to Davis as well, whether residents are comfortable with it or not.
The traditional political language of “slow growth” sounds different in an era where many working families cannot afford to live in the communities where they work, where UC Davis continues to grow while housing production lags far behind, and where younger generations face shrinking access to homeownership entirely.
Kim also directly connects housing policy to broader questions of exclusion and opportunity. “Northern San Francisco, including the Marina, is among the wealthiest and most racially homogenous enclaves in all of California, thanks in part to restrictive zoning,” he writes. “YIMBYism is about solidarity with new people of different backgrounds.”
Davis may not be San Francisco, but the underlying questions are becoming increasingly similar.
Who gets access to high-opportunity communities? Who gets excluded? And what responsibilities do existing residents have toward future generations that currently cannot afford to enter the market?
For years, housing opponents largely controlled the moral language of local politics by presenting growth itself as the threat. Increasingly, however, many Californians now view chronic housing scarcity, exclusion and displacement as the greater danger.
Kim closes by warning against “the arbitrary veto of new housing,” a phrase that neatly captures the political crossroads now facing Davis.
The central question is no longer simply whether growth changes communities, but whether refusing growth changes them even more.
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.
Years ago I remember the Reverend John Pamparin telling me he was never a supporter of the no growth progressive scene.
David Greenwald said … For years, housing opponents largely controlled the moral language of local politics by presenting growth itself as the threat. Increasingly, however, many Californians now view chronic housing scarcity, exclusion and displacement as the greater danger.
The problem with these sweeping statements is that the real estate sales numbers tell a much more nuanced story
6 bedrooms – 2
5-7 bedrooms – 2
5 bedrooms – 37
4-5 bedrooms – 18
4 bedrooms – 108
3-5 bedrooms – 1
3-4 bedrooms – 17
3 bedrooms – 124
2-3 bedrooms – 4
2 bedrooms – 14
Arguably the data tells us that the “crisis” is only in 2 bedroom houses.
“As he put it, “Ask any YIMBY the number of times they’ve heard people supporting housing in the abstract — but when it comes time to actually build it, myriad bad-faith excuses are made in the name of ‘responsible’ or ‘selective’ development.” ”
Ironic! because that itself is a bad-faith excuse of an argument.
So long people cant differentiate “houses” from “housing” then the disconnect will persist. I know that simple minded people want to think in simple, compact terms and simplify everything and maybe they cant process complex thoughts. But there IS indeed both “good” and “bad” growth. You CAN in fact be FOR growth in general terms, but against forms of growth that are unwise.
Thats not a “bad faith excuse” its “paying attention to very important details”
—-
This reminds me strongly of the movie “idiocracy” where the people of the future have bought in entirely on the corporate line of a sports drink company “brawndo – its what plants crave” and watering their plants with gatorade essentially… while wondering why their crops are failing…
Thats pretty much exactly the same thing happening with the people parroting the developer’s lines that “because we have a housing crisis, we need to build houses”. Its both simple minded and incorrect.
We know that single family sprawl bankrupts cities. We have known that for decades. We know that it produces traffic and has twice the climate impact etc etc… so exactly WHY are we doing this again? Who does it actually benefit? Not you.
have we seriously considered an alternative to this? Why not?
We NEED to start thinking differently. Consensus thinking that simply perpetuates the mistakes of the past is not the solution. There ARE readily available alternatives we need to be serious about pursuing if we don’t want to make land-use mistakes that are impossible to fix.
I knew John also, and I know he was not a supporter of unafforedable housing. He would not have been supportive of an affordable housing “plan” that was a scam with a huge loophole that would likely result with ZERO affordable housing units. I am pretty confident that he would not have been supportive of exposing residents to carcinogenic toxics and flooding and enormous infrastructure costs imposed on Davis citizens. Nothing moral about any of this, and John was a very moral man.
Projection Eileen. You’re making up something that fits your narrative not anything I ever heard John say.
I remember my conversation with him clearly because it helped me crystallize my pro-housing anti progressive attitude.
I remember John backing Affordable housing at Wildhorse when the new residents of Wildhorse were objecting to the Affordable housing project there even though it was disclosed to them when they bought homes. So please, if you are going to invoke John Pamparin in your argument, please bring something real that he actually did to the conversation.
I don’t think I agree with the premise of this entire article.
First, Davis has recently approved several housing projects: The Cannery, Nishi, Bretton Woods. Davis isn’t necessarily “slow growth”, but it is trying to embrace “smart growth”. And of course what “smart growth” means varies from person to person.
Second, the jury is still out on Village Farms – it has not been voted on yet. Even if Village Farms is defeated, for whatever reason, another housing development, Willow Grove, will be up for a vote in November.
Third, even if a housing development is approved, like Nishi, the developer may not start construction right away, but rather wait for a more favorable economic picture to develop to maximize profit.
Fourth, Measure J/R/D is there for a reason. Voters got fed up with developers controlling this town. Voters wanted to make sure they had a say in what gets developed and how. I am a strong supporter of Measure J/R/D. Does it need some tweaks? Perhaps. Nevertheless it was needed for a very good reason.
Fifth, citizens are well aware that the state is breathing down our collective necks to impose their will if we don’t hit our RHNA numbers.
Sixth, the current state of the economy and what is going on at the federal level is gumming up the works on every aspect of the economy, which makes everything unpredictable for the immediate future. It often makes citizens just want to hang on to the status quo and not take chances with anything.
Just my two cents, for what its worth.
Don’t know what kind of “volunteer” Davey Kim supposedly is, since YIMBY groups are not grass-roots organizations.
In any case, below is a link to the development that Kim is supporting Looks like something out of Las Vegas. Apparently, 55 of the 4,000 proposed units would be “affordable”.
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/bay-area-safeway-building-projects-22204717.php
Folks, the actual moral imperative that the citizens of this state have is to weed-out the YIMBYs from the political system. They actually consist of the same old development interests by another name.
It’s going to be a challenge to get rid of them, as they’ve weaseled their way deep into the Democratic party, in a one-party state.
They are, in fact, an “immoral” bunch.
But this is also the danger of going along with their fake “housing shortage” claims without even questioning those numbers.
Here’s a number they definitely don’t like: 1.6 kids per couple – NATIONWIDE.
(Looking at the article again, it appears that the 4,000 units include the destruction of more than one Safeway store.) And the 55 affordable units refers to the destruction of a Safeway store in San Mateo (not the one in the photo – in the Marina district).
In any case, you know there’s a problem with the YIMBYs when even the pro-development mayor has a problem with what they support.
Like I said, the actual moral imperative is to smoke them out of the political system, before they and their political lackeys wreck the entire state.
If, according to you, we’re not supposed to trust developers (or YIMBYs as you include them) and get them out of the system, then who builds any needed housing? The potential homeowner/occupant who wants the home? That will likely be inefficient.
No one from the school district has any “moral authority” or credibility regarding this issue.
Also, I assume you’re aware of the communication between the development team and the superintendent, where it was suggested that they refrain from using email regarding their apparent collaboration. It was discussed in detail (including the actual email) on NextDoor.
The email was sent by former council member (and current development team member) Rochelle Swanson.
‘No one from the school district has any “moral authority” or credibility regarding this issue.’
I’m comfortable with the communication that happened, although some framed it as if it was something nefarious. The email date shows March 2025, ten months before it was placed on the June ballot. All substantial development projects that are submitted to the city eventually are reviewed by the school district to discuss what impacts may occur, one way or another. It was discussed in closed session, and the MOU that was released in open session in November indicated we had discussion of an underpass under Pole Line that landed at Nugget Fields which is owned by the school district. Also, Village Farms, as part of their proposal, donated land to the school district to be used as an early childhood education center.
But I assume you don’t intend to answer my original question?
Well, folks can make of the “collaborative relationship” (literally what it says, while also suggesting that communications be kept offline). The school district has indeed been engaging in a campaign for sprawl, for some time.
Not to mention the $500K that the developer has donated to the district, over time.
https://nextdoor.com/p/_LrKTShy58Z3?utm_source=share&extras=MjE1MTcw&share_platform=6&utm_campaign=1777999170542&share_action_id=75e5c60f-7d92-49e8-9747-1ec9cf63c3a9
As far as your question to me, it’s phrased as an assumption/conclusion – not a question.
“Not to mention the $500K that the developer has donated to the district, over time.”
Thanks to the people who donated that money. I know it went to things like basketball nets for school yards and scholarships among other things. Davis is lucky to have these people who are so dedicated to this community that they have enrolled their own children in our schools when they could have easily afforded to send them to private schools. They have given back generously to a community where they have been successful. And your problem with that is? Oh yeah, Ron O, what have you ever done for Davis’ schools?
Probably just a coincidence that the district is supporting a developer campaign. Those must be some expensive basketball nets.
As for what “I’m” trying to do, I’m trying to encourage the district to right-size itself in regard to the actual needs of the community, instead of advocating for sprawl.
Did you ever stop to think that just maybe the guy who donated those basketball nets did it for the kids without any ulterior motive. Did you ever stop to think that people donate time, money and energy to our schools because they care about the children in our community? Or do you believe everything about ROI?
“No one from the school district has any “moral authority” or credibility regarding this issue.”
At least they were elected unlike yourself. Since when do you decide who has moral authority? I hear you don’t even live in town and yet you go around attacking our local public servants. Personally I have more respect for Hiram’s toe nail than I have for you as the decider of moral authority.
“At least they were elected . . .”
Well, one of them didn’t even have any opponent, and won by default.
In the past, I never even paid attention to school boards (because I didn’t realize the damage they could do to a community).
I don’t attacks public servants on a personal level (unlike how you and others periodically interact with other commenters on here).
Have you ever considered the possibility that some non-residents pay DJUSD parcel taxes (and also don’t have any say in the matter)?
Also, have you been paying attention to my comments at all? I ask because DJUSD decisions are impacting OTHER communities due to DJUSD’s decision to poach students from other communities. That issue alone demonstrates a lack of moral authority/credibility.
They simply don’t care about the impact that has.
And then there’s the “sprawl for schools” campaign – including the interaction between Rochelle Swanson and the superintendent in which it was suggested that they keep communications “off line”.
Oh geez they keep conversations off line. Doesn’t everyone who doesn’t want people like you digging into those conversations. Its a scandal. A SCANDAL!!! Oh the horror. Let’s put them on the rack to find out the depths of Matt Best’s mendacity.
That’s quite a statement to make, Ron G.
Apparently, you don’t believe that a school district should be accountable/transparent to the public (e.g., when they’re engaging in a campaign for a developer who has given them $500K). And that their communications (when acting in official roles) should be kept “private”.
I’m not sure you even thought about this, before making a comment like that. (Apparently, the development team member – a former council member – didn’t think, either.)
The appropriate response from Matt Best should have been, “no, Rochelle – I will not hide communications made as a representative from the school district from the public”.
Oh the horror of the development cabal. People do this all the time. Take it to the grand jury.
Hiram, yours is a good question, and the answer is clear … the developers and builders will. However, that is not the important issue/question, which is whether our leaders will proactively lead, or will reactively follow … or fiddle.
The 2025 real estate sales numbers for Davis tell a very clear story.
6 bedrooms – 2
5-7 bedrooms – 2
5 bedrooms – 37
4-5 bedrooms – 18
4 bedrooms – 108
3-5 bedrooms – 1
3-4 bedrooms – 17
3 bedrooms – 124
2-3 bedrooms – 4
2 bedrooms – 14
The story that data tells us that the “crisis” is only in 2 bedroom houses. Why is it that our elected leaders haven’t given the developers/builders proactive guidance that small affordable houses are what Davis wants and needs.
When I proactively reached out to you, and then Joe DiNunzio to proactively advance the cause of workforce housing for both young families with children and DJzuSD teachers, you both chose to demur. That isn’t leadership, that is fellowship.
Also, since there was no money exchanged for any of the real estate … indeed the real estate was a donation … Stste Law says that a closed session “may” be used not “must” be used. So what was DJUSD hiding by going into closed session?
The MORAL FAILURE is with the CITY LEADERS – past and present, not with the voters! Providing affordable housing mandated by the State is a Citywide responsibility. These costs should be shared equitably by everyone in Davis, not just the few hundred who buy market rate homes in a new development like Village Farms. Why is the lion’s share of these costs being piled on the developer who passes the costs onto every buyer except the few that get subsidized? The market rate homes become even more unaffordable to the teachers and others we want to attract to our community. The complicated, convoluted methods imposed on developers to finance so called affordable housing drives up all costs even more. The City could impose a city-wide general tax dedicated to fulfilling the City’s affordable housing obligation and then free developers to build the homes in demand at a substantially lower and more affordable cost.
Furthermore, the City cannot be trusted with overseeing massive projects the size of Village Farms. The much smaller Cannery development is a prime example with a myriad of design and construction defects resulting from the City’s systemic failures spanning more than a decade! For a decade, the City consistently, systematically and negligently failed to fulfill its standard code enforcement responsibilities and inspections. This resulted in what should have been easily discoverable building defects in the townhomes, many single family homes and the condominiums that went undetected until years later. This resulted in all three HOA’s and dozens of individual homeowners in the Cannery having to take legal action against the developer, spending millions on legal fees and expenses along with years of grief. The State mandated SB800 legal process required to address such construction defects, even though it favors developers, resulted in favorable settlements in favor of all three HOAs and many of the homeowners totaling over $10 million.
Development agreements between developers and the City are a sham. The City often waives requirements at the developer’s request or simply fails to enforce provisions of the agreement in future years. The highly touted “Urban Farm” at the Cannery is an abject failure. It now looks abandoned, covered in weeds with expensive buildings not being used as originally intended. The promised retail zone near the entrance to the Cannery along Covell is another weed patch. Many of our streets are dangerously narrow and children must travel hazardous bike lanes and street crossings to get to school.
Voters are right to vote NO on the Village Farms measure V and reject a badly flawed project. Much of this site is not suitable for housing for the many reasons others have documented. The highest and best use for most of this parcel is for agriculture. Voters should demand the moral courage from our City leaders to address our affordable housing needs in a more fair and equitable manner. City leaders created our housing crisis (and the City’s fiscal crisis) and the City Council needs to design better solutions for the many unresolved problems long festering in our City.
. “City leaders created our housing crisis…” Huh? City leaders who gave us Measure J did. And those that reauthorized it without any changes did. But this CC negotiated hard before placing this project before the voters. Our housing shortage isn’t this CC’s fault its the voters fault.
Ron, did you go to the recent Thursday evening General Plan Update workshop at veterans Memorial?
If you did, what you found was that our government/leaders spent a whole lot of time talking about detail solutions without spending even one minute discussing the problem we face. That isn’t leadership. It is also text book bad problem solving.
With that said, from a General Plan perspective, what do you think is the biggest problem that The City of Davis faces?
I spent some time asking people that Thursday that question, and all the answers were either, (1) “The over $200 million unfunded liability we have amassed for streets and bikeways and buildings repairs.” or (2) “A lack of leadership!”
I haven’t bothered with the general plan at all. As long as we have Measure J the general plan is irrelevant. Have fun.
I realize that you and your wife don’t drive in a car much ( you said so in a prior post), but when you do drive, do you start out with a destination in mind?
With that said/asked, what do you think the City of Davis’ “destination” should be 5 years, 10 years, 25 years from now?
I hope to be alive in 5 years.
Ron, with that response you seem to be saying that you don’t care about the future of the City, you just care about yourself. Is that correct? It doesn’t sound like you.
I care about young people and families that want to be part of this community right now. People who save and dream and love and want to have children and raise them here.
All this 7th generation bullshit is keeping the young people here now down. As Keynes observed long ago. In the long run we are all dead.
Fair enough Ron. That is a goal I too support.
In your discussions with those young people and families, do they want to rent or buy? If buy, what is their typical price range and how many bedrooms do they typically want? If rent, how do they feel about Davis’ current vacancy rate?
Here’s your problem Matt you want to quantify things I’m happy to let the market figure out. Every person and every family has a million things they consider when they make decisions about where to live, when to buy, whether they should get married, have kids, make career decisions etc.
You want to do your CPA nonsense and make conclusions about who will live where. Its an impossible task because everyone’s circumstances are different. What I do know and has been known since Adam Smith hundreds of years ago is that adding supply puts pricing pressure on demand.
“That isn’t leadership. It is also text book bad problem solving.
I spent some time asking people that Thursday that question, and all the answers were either, (1) “The over $200 million unfunded liability we have amassed for streets and bikeways and buildings repairs.” or (2) “A lack of leadership!”
Maybe you should run for city council.
Matt probably should try again. He actually did pretty well the first time (compared to some candidates).
His “problem” among the populace (if you will) is that he’s not really an advocate for the issues that some care about (e.g., not a social justice warrior). Instead, he focuses on the city’s fiscal health (and that’s not at the top of anyone’s passion).
I’d say that Matt leans toward slow-growth, but not consistently.
In any case, he’s probably exactly the type of person the city actually needs, at this point. And way, way better than some of the social justice lunatics who do manage to get elected.
One thing I’d “disagree” with him on is that he seems to suggest that there’s a “vision” that the community largely shares regarding development issues in particular. But I’ve seen no evidence of that.
I also believe that there’s a substantial portion of the population that simply doesn’t want much development, but that they remain silent/unseen until something appears on the ballot (or in their neighborhood).
He did run and did quite poorly.
Ron G, your perspective is your perspective, but over 7,000 people voted for my “We have to pay our bills!” candidacy in 2016.
Look through the election history of the four City Council elections since 2016 and tell me how many candidates got anything close to 7,000 votes.
Three candidates got substantially more votes than you did Matt. In a field of four.
And all the candidates in all the elections since got substantially fewer votes than my platform did. You are ignoring campaign platform traction while trying to practice character assassination.
with that said, I realize you are trying to use me as a scapegoat, and you have my permission to do so.
“With that said, from a General Plan perspective, what do you think is the biggest problem that The City of Davis faces?”
That the city voters have failed, over about two decades, to provide land and infrastructure for sufficient housing to meet the needs caused by a large employer which grew considerably over that time period.
Second to that, that the downtown is too small and has changed too much to meet the original planning goals of having it be the city’s core retail sector, supported by neighborhood shopping centers. That is a much larger discussion which would likely be fruitless, except if it were to arrive at a consensus about adding further shopping options along Covell.
Third would be that the community’s approach to affordable housing is a hopeless jumble of naive, unfunded aspirations that should be rebuilt from the ground up. I have zero hope that might occur.
Thank you for stepping up to the plate and taking an at bat Don.
Is the first of your three a symptom or a root cause?
I agree with your second one, but does Davis have enough retail demand too support any bricks and mortar retail? It seems like Amazon and Friends have permanently sucked the life out of davis’ bricks and mortar retail regardless of whether it is downtown or along Covell.
Also regarding your first one, does the City-County-UCD MOU spell a different future for UCD-driven housing demand in Davis?
Don: That the city voters have failed, over about two decades, to provide land and infrastructure for sufficient housing to meet the needs caused by a large employer which grew considerably over that time period.
Matt: Is the first of your three a symptom or a root cause?Also regarding your first one, does the City-County-UCD MOU spell a different future for UCD-driven housing demand in Davis?
It is a result of ideological preferences for slow growth along with a demand for very specific types of less-profitable housing. I guess that puts it in the ‘root cause’ category.
The MOU is not legally binding so far as I know. UCD will do what they want to do. It is very unlikely that UCD will build housing for staff and faculty as it simply doesn’t pencil out for them.
Don: Second to that, that the downtown is too small and has changed too much to meet the original planning goals of having it be the city’s core retail sector, supported by neighborhood shopping centers. That is a much larger discussion which would likely be fruitless, except if it were to arrive at a consensus about adding further shopping options along Covell.
Matt: I agree with your second one, but does Davis have enough retail demand too support any bricks and mortar retail? It seems like Amazon and Friends have permanently sucked the life out of davis’ bricks and mortar retail regardless of whether it is downtown or along Covell.
Don: No, there is plenty of room for retail growth in terms of demand in the Davis market. There is not a lot of room for retail growth physically. Davis has a very compact downtown and any business that wants to expand simply has to move. But there appears to be an unlimited number of small restaurant chains interested in the college-age market.
Downtown leases are a big problem for retailers, as is the lack of larger footprint sites. Worth noting that University Mall seems to have had no problem filling up with tenants after the remodel.
Also, most people overestimate online retail sales impact:
* 4.15% of motor vehicle and parts retail sales are online sales.
* 15.1% of furniture, building materials, and electronics retail sales are e-commerce.
* 16.1% of clothing and general merchandise retail sales are e-commerce.
* 3.44% of all other store and non-store sales are e-commerce.
(https://capitaloneshopping.com/research/ecommerce-percentage-of-retail-sales/)
There will be plenty of demand for any number of types of retailers along Covell if the two housing projects are approved. In fact I’d say there will be a need for one more shopping center further to the east on Covell, though I doubt that any land developers would be interested in running the gauntlet to get that approved.
Don, while I agree that ideological preferences are a factor, the fact that the various developers put forward half-baked proposals is just as much of a factor. Why did WDAAC succeed where so many others failed? It was because they conducted literally hundreds of community meetings/focus groups and after active listening to what they were being told, planned the WDAAC offering so that it addressed that community feedback.
Why did Nishi 2018 succeed when Nishi 2016 failed (despite it being a superior project in many respects)? Because Nishi 2018 eliminated motor vehicle access to Richards, eliminating the traffic nightmare it was going to create. Surprisingly, neither project included a South entrance/exit out to Old Davis Road along the south side of the railroad right of way.
With that said, the growth of student apartments in Davis combined with the growth of on-campus housing has more than matched the enrollment growth at the Davis campus of UCD.
I think you are correct when you say “It is very unlikely that UCD will build housing for staff and faculty as it simply doesn’t pencil out for them.” However, if staff and faculty housing doesn’t pencil out for developers on-campus, why would it be any different for developers off-campus?
Because of prevailing wage laws.
Ron G., if that is the case then why are the rents for West Village apartments virtually identical to the rents for new apartment complexes in Davis, like Sterling, et.al.
In addition, developers on the campus don’t have to pay the Construction Taxes and Entitlement Fees that developers in Davis have to pay.
The Lord giver, and the Lord takes away.
Follow the money: as of April 18, the No on V campaign has collected about $32k, all from individuals. The Yes on V campaigns have collected $484k from the developer and $100k from the realtors.
Adding contributions through May 4, the Yes on V campaign is up to $784k, the No on V campaign is closer to $40k.
Yes has outspent no in every Measure J election. So what is your point? Its not like Eric Jones who parachuted in here with $3 million in Oligarch money from out of the district. The money is coming from people who have been in this community for generations and are willing to risk millions of dollars of their own money. Its actually a vote of confidence in and a dedication to this community that makes the proponents want to spend so much money in the hopes of bringing a project to fruition.
“Its actually a vote of confidence in and a dedication to this community that makes the proponents want to spend so much money in the hopes of bringing a project to fruition.”
Funny!
Its not a vote of conficence. Its an investment in a highly profitable outcome.
Im not trying to shame anyone for wanting to make a profit… Im all for capitalism. But lets not try to tout self interest as civic service.
Funny thing about Measure J. All of the Measure J votes that have happened were proposed and financed by people with a local connection and a strong enough belief in this community to risk millions of dollars taking a project to the voters. Nobody without that connection would roll the dice on this town and who could blame them.
“I’m all for capitalism”
That is the funniest line of all. You’re all for Capitalism as long as you get to dictate the design of a project you have no capital invested in.
“The debate is not really about one project, but rather about whether Davis is willing to accept meaningful housing growth at all.”
David, you’re behind the times. Read through the comments on the many threads on Nextdoor on Village Farms and you will find very few people saying “no” to any growth at all. This is quite different from a few years ago. As Tim points out, the argument is now much more nuanced. We had options on Village Farms and Willowgrove to move forward with much more environmentally friendly concepts that would deliver much more market-rate affordable housing.
Eileen Samitz, long a vocal opponent to numerous projects, agrees that she would support a revised Village Farms that is built south of Channel A. That doesn’t sound like an unreasonable opposition to meaningful growth–it sounds like standing up on a principle that has solid support.
And you know from my long commentary that I have been a strong advocate for appropriate growth in Davis, so my opposition should be a signal that something is amiss.
Davis citizens have tired of blind acceptance of developer promises. It’s time to move on to a more transparent process where developers are more directly responsive to citizens’ requests. We have that opportunity in the General Plan Update. These developments will not be able to be built fast enough to address our issues immediately so let’s take a short pause to get this right.
Richard, well said. We have Measure J/R/D for a reason. Citizens want a say in what is developed and how it is developed.
“Read through the comments on the many threads on Nextdoor on Village Farms and you will find very few people saying “no” to any growth at all. ”
That’s right. Usually, the closer the project, the more vociferously people seem to object. Eileen has backed lots of projects but opposes one right by her house. Dan Carson sued UC to stop housing south of Russell but backs V and backed Ramos’ failed project across town. There’s an acronym for that its called NIMBY.
Of course there are people like my friend Joe who says in his redneck way “I’m again it all.”
“So what is your point?”
That not a single one of the local luminaries touting the project have contributed to the campaign. In fact, no individuals at all have contributed — it’s all developer money and real estate PAC money. By contrast, the No campaign has received contributions from about 50 local folks who want to see responsible development.
Some want responsible development, some want responsible development on the other side of town and some don’t want any development at all.
Ron, so what’s your point? People have differing opinions. So why is that a bad thing? Must we all somehow agree? Why ascribe bad motives to people who don’t agree with your viewpoint? There are folks in this town who want the town to stay the same (and tend to oppose more housing), some who want us to progress (who tend to want more housing). Neither viewpoint is wrong. It is a particular viewpoint. Frankly I am sick and tired of the ugly rants that rear their ugly head if someone disagrees with a viewpoint in this town. I would much prefer to keep things civil and respectful.
Something wrong with my above comment?
Jim said “By contrast, the No campaign has received contributions from about 50 local folks who want to see responsible development.”
I was responding to his generalization of the motives of 50 people.
Well said Elaine, one of the challenges we face is that in putting forward thoughts of a direction anyone wants Davis to go in the next 5-10-25 years is that the consequences of the proposed direction are rarely illuminated or discussed.
For example, the consequences of a “stay the same” approach is that we currently spend more than we take in in revenues ($95.7 million in revenues and $102.8 million in expenses in the current City Budget) and we have over $200 million of unfunded roads and greenbelts and buildings repairs. In short, our city is crumbling and the $200 million is growing.
A second example, the consequences of more housing is that housing costs more in expenses (services and infrastructure maintenance and pensions) than it produces in revenues … and our costs are rising over 4% per year while revenues are only rising between 2% and 2.5% per year. So adding housing by itself makes our current dismal financial situation worse.
That is the challenge we face as a community, and the advocates need to step up and acknowledge the consequences of their preferred direction for the City to go.
One of our former Fiscal Commissioners and then subsequently also a Planning Commissioner once said, “We have promised ourselves a very rich set of services, but also stepped up with assessing ourselves enough revenues to pay for those rich services.”
If “I” was king:
I’d redirect DJUSD’s parcel and CFD taxes to the city (and would charge them per unit – no exemptions). And include apartment complexes in that per unit charge, as well.
And maybe think about charging those who DO have kids the cost of educating them – instead of giving them tax breaks for doing so. Honestly, this type of cost shouldn’t be fully allocated to properties, at least.
And I would insist that Affordable housing pays its cost, as well.
if you were king you’d institute a one child policy like China did or maybe it would be a zero children policy. A loveless world when Ron O. is king.
Ron O. said “Have you ever considered the possibility that some non-residents pay DJUSD parcel taxes (and also don’t have any say in the matter)?” Yeah they are called absentee landlords. Is that you? Is that your gripe. But here is the deal there is no taxation without representation every one of those parcel taxes has been approved by a super majority of the voters so suck it up buttercup.
Or maybe you don’t want more housing because you don’t want competition with your own investments. I know there are plenty of landlords in Davis that take that position. In fact I can think of a two right off the top of my head. They are also two of the sleaziest operators in town.
Well I’m waiting for my comment to post – I want to make one thing clear to you:
My advocacy is simply NOT based on self-interest. There are far easier/better ways to make money than to deal with the commenters on this blog.
I like the Village Farm (and Shriner’s) sites just the way they are, and I see nothing but negative impacts if either of them are developed. It’s that simple.
If you want to argue with me, stick to the subject matter. This isn’t about “me” or any other individual.
This article is about the immorality of not building housing and I find that the moral failings of Davis progressive politics need to be called out. That is why I began talking about a Reverend who’s moral authority in this community was well known. Then all these people weigh in making all kinds of crazy arguments and I tried to call out as much nonsense as I could to demonstrate the selfishness and indifference of people like yourself. People who would use any argument no matter how trivial, or disrespectful or lacking in human empathy. People who think they are the only people whose vision matters. People who are secure but could not care less about others in different circumstances. People who would vote against 16 acres of housing for people of lesser means because of some complaint about somebody’s vision for land they own and want to develop.
What I have tried to point out is the moral bankruptcy of the No on V campaign in an article about morality.