DAVIS, Calif. — Across Davis, lawn signs proclaim that the city is “for everyone.” The message reflects values that many residents embrace: inclusion, diversity, equity and social justice.
Yet there is an uncomfortable contradiction embedded in that slogan.
As one critic recently put it, “Davis which touts lawn signs claiming it is for everyone. Everyone, who can afford a million dollar home, that is.”
In Davis, social justice rhetoric collides with land-use policies that make it extraordinarily difficult for many people to live here.
The city has a reputation as a progressive community—but the Vanguard has constantly challenged that reputation, launching in 2006 with the notion that there is a dark underbelly in Davis that underlies a facade of tolerance and progressivism.
Residents routinely support policies designed to promote environmental sustainability, racial justice, immigrant rights and LGBTQ+ equality.
Local political discourse often centers on creating a more inclusive society.
But when it comes to housing and land use, Davis has spent decades implementing policies that limit growth and restrict access to the community.
The result is a city where homeownership is increasingly out of reach for middle-class families and nearly impossible for many working-class residents.
Median home prices in Davis now approach or exceed $1 million in many neighborhoods. Rental housing remains scarce and expensive.
Young families, teachers, public employees, service workers and even many university employees struggle to find housing they can afford within city limits.
The consequences extend beyond individual households.
Housing costs have become one of the primary factors contributing to enrollment declines in DJUSD.
Families who might otherwise choose to live in Davis increasingly find themselves moving to Woodland, Dixon, West Sacramento, Sacramento or elsewhere because they cannot afford housing in the city.
At the same time, Davis residents frequently express concern about preserving community character, protecting farmland and limiting growth.
While these concerns are often framed as environmental or quality-of-life issues, they also serve as barriers to entry.
Whether intentionally or not, they restrict housing opportunities and help maintain a community that is increasingly accessible only to those with substantial financial means.
The problem arises when the people excluded by these policies remain invisible in the conversation.
Restricting housing production does not stop growth—it merely relocates it while making housing increasingly expensive for those seeking to live in the community.
The beneficiaries of scarcity are often existing property owners whose home values continue to appreciate. The costs are borne by prospective residents who are effectively locked out of the community.
This dynamic raises difficult questions for a city that frequently presents itself as a leader on social justice issues.
Who gets to live in Davis?
Who gets excluded?
And what does it mean to proclaim inclusion while maintaining policies that make entry into the community increasingly difficult?
For decades, Davis has relied on a series of growth-control measures that have significantly constrained housing production. The city has averaged relatively modest levels of housing construction compared to many neighboring communities.
Meanwhile, employment centers have continued to grow.
The city is home to UC Davis, one of the region’s largest economic engines. Thousands of students, faculty and staff seek housing each year. Many ultimately commute from surrounding communities because housing availability in Davis remains limited and therefore costly.
That pattern has environmental consequences as well. Long-distance commuting increases vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, often undermining sustainability goals that Davis residents strongly support.
The contradiction should be difficult to ignore, yet many residents see no inconsistency between displaying “Davis Is for Everyone” signs and opposing housing developments that would allow more people to live here.
A community that champions climate action often opposes housing near jobs and educational opportunities.
A community that champions diversity often maintains housing costs that exclude large segments of the population.
A community that proclaims it is for everyone frequently debates whether new residents should be allowed to live there at all.
Every housing project that is rejected represents not only preserved open space but also families who will live elsewhere, workers who will face longer commutes and potential residents who will never have the opportunity to become part of the community.
Discussions about growth should honestly acknowledge the consequences of saying no.
Every housing project that is rejected represents not only preserved open space but also families who will live elsewhere, workers who will commute longer distances and potential residents who will never have an opportunity to become part of the community.
The tension between social justice values and exclusionary land-use policies is not unique to Davis. Similar debates have emerged throughout California, particularly in affluent and politically progressive communities.
What makes Davis noteworthy is the extent to which both commitments exist side by side.
Residents routinely speak about equity and inclusion. Many sincerely believe in those values. Yet housing debates often reveal a competing desire to preserve the city exactly as it exists today.
The challenge is that preserving exclusivity and expanding opportunity are often incompatible goals.
A city cannot simultaneously be accessible to people of varying incomes while severely limiting the housing supply needed to accommodate them.
Ultimately, the question facing Davis is not whether it supports diversity and inclusion as ideals. The question is whether those ideals extend to land-use decisions that determine who can actually afford to live here.
If Davis truly wants to be a community that is open to everyone, it must grapple with the reality that housing scarcity functions as a barrier every bit as real as any formal exclusionary policy.
While modern barriers to inclusion are more likely to be embedded in housing prices and land-use regulations than in explicit acts of discrimination, communities are ultimately defined not by the values they proclaim but by the policies they choose to implement.
For Davis, the gap between those two things has become difficult to ignore.
A city that says it is for everyone must eventually confront a simple question: Is it willing to make room for everyone?
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.
There’s an assumption built into your article that building more houses in Davis will lower the value of existing houses.
There’s also an assumption that in order to be “for everyone”, housing prices have to decrease to a value that everyone can afford. (I’m not sure that even Flint, Michigan meets that criteria.)
You have the assumption reversed – it is that NOT building housing will continue to continue to drive up the cost of housing
That’s another way of claiming that existing values will be reduced going forward, by building new housing in Davis. Or more accurately, outside of Davis on farmland.
Pretty hard to measure as you know, but it didn’t seem to happen with The Cannery, at least.
Housing built in surrounding cities impacts housing prices and availability of housing in Davis, as well.
You also have a couple of other outright incorrect claims, in your article. You state that enrollment declines have been driven by a lack of new housing, and yet – residency is not a requirement to attend DJUSD.
Also, UCD is not increasing the number of employees on its main campus.
There is a limit as to how much housing prices can rise in a given community at any given time, whether or not more housing is built. The reason for the limit is due to “alternatives”, which is part of the supply and demand model.
This is a reason, for example, that some people won’t even take a well-paying job in places like Silicon Valley. They then look for other alternatives (such as continuing to live and work where they are).
But again, getting back to “Davis is for Everyone”, the underlying claim behind your assumption is that housing should be cheap enough for “anyone” to afford.
You’re arguing a point that is peripheral to the article – why?
How is any of that discussion “peripheral” to the article? Seems directly related (and cites some of what you claim in the article, as well).
There’s all kinds of factors impacting housing prices. But I’ve sometimes wondered why those who claim to be concerned about it don’t just lower the asking price of their house when it inevitably turns over (or directs their heirs to do so). No one is holding a gun to their head, forcing them to do otherwise.
Because the article is about the disconnect between the claimed Davis value of it being for “everyone” and the exclusive housing policies that systematically exclude people who can’t afford to buy into the market.
O.K., but I noted the underlying assumption that would “back up” your literal interpretation – which is that “anyone” should be able to buy or rent a house in Davis – regardless of current income or assets.
And again, that’s not the case in ANY community – even in Flint, Michigan.
Perhaps you’ve misinterpreted the sign.
That’s a strawman argument. The argument is that growth restrictive policies compress supply and make it more expensive to buy into the market which has a discriminatory impact on who can live in Davis in contrast to the stated profession that “Davis is for everyone”
Davis still would not be for “everyone”, regardless.
At what point ($$ amount) would you state that Davis (or any community) is not having a “discriminatory impact” on who can live there?
Put an actual price tag on it (which would still “discriminate” against some people, by the way). The best you might be able to claim (all else being equal) is that a reduction in value by XX amount “discriminates” against fewer people. Not exactly an inspiring campaign slogan, I would think.
Something like, “for everyone $10K in value drop, Davis discriminates against (XX) fewer people.”
I think the question that should be asked is how do you reduce the discriminatory effect, you at this time can’t eliminate it.
“At this time”, you say.
At what time ($$$) can it be “eliminated”? If that’s ever accomplished, Davis would be the first community in the history of capitalism to do so.
So like I said, the best you can say is that by lowering the value of existing housing by (XX) amount via the pursuit of sprawl (assuming that actually worked), Davis would discriminate against (XX) fewer people.
Of course, if that new housing didn’t actually lower the value of existing housing (or didn’t do so to any significant degree), then the best you can say is that by building on farmland, Davis will discriminate against (XX) fewer people who “somehow” were able to buy a new house – but not an existing one.
David Greenwald said I think the question that should be asked is how do you reduce the discriminatory effect, you at this time can’t eliminate it.
I disagree David. If we build enough 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom homes … almost exclusively … to get to a balance where the housing ownership opportunities for our workforce are equal to the housing opportunities for our economic elite, we will not have mitigated the situation, we will have eliminated it.
Rental housing is going to be a much harder nut to crack because the economically elite UCD students can outbid and sit in queues longer than members of workforce families can. As a result they outcompete the workforce for the available rentals. To remedy that we need our elected leaders to enact policies that make it either more expensive or more difficult (or both) for UCD students to outcompete our workforce members for available apartments. The Business License Fee proposal I have made several times for a monthly per rental bed fee would be a step in the right direction, coupled with a family assistance program funded by the additional revenue realized from the monthly Business license fees.
“Rental housing is going to be a much harder nut to crack because the economically elite UCD students can outbid and sit in queues longer than members of workforce families can.”
The young adults I have known who have been looking for rental housing in this market looked as far from campus as possible. That reduces the likelihood that they would be living in a primarily student housing complex. They also generally have zero interest in being in or near the downtown, as it is now perceived as being entirely for students with respect to entertainment, food, and retail. Also worth noting that ability to have pets is paramount.
Good points Don. Does that make Willowgrove an attractive alternative for those young adults?
Ron O
You argue in absolutes as thought housing prices must be either at levels of Beverly Hills or Flint. Instead housing prices slide on a scale based on the relationship of demand to supply. In addition, housing within a community can have many different attributes across neighborhoods. Living in Woodland you may not have noticed that quite a few student-targeted apartment buildings have gone up that are not appropriate for young families. The question is then what type of neighborhoods do we need in Davis to serve those younger families? That subtly seems to escape you.
Richard, Spring Lake is already providing new housing for families (who sometimes have one household member, for example, who works at UCD).
And it does so at a price that Davis can’t touch.
But again, UCD itself is not increasing the number of workers at its main campus (and some people have claimed that they’re planning reductions in staff).
I don’t know why people are moving to the immediate area, when UCD is not increasing the size of its staff.
I have certainly noticed the new apartment buildings in Davis that you and others have advocated for. I’m not sure why you think they’d be occupied by anyone OTHER than students, when UCD has historically declined to consider the impact that would have on the city.
I don’t believe there’s “any” type of housing that wouldn’t appeal to UCD students, with the exception of McMansions.
I also don’t believe that there’s any significant demand for rental housing in Davis from anyone who isn’t a student. Why would anyone (who isn’t a student) choose to be a long-term renter in a college town? Why would they want to pay a premium to do so, and live in a building that’s primarily occupied by students?
(Other than perhaps renting an entire house.)
Ron O
Spring Lake is not in Davis as you very well know (hint, hint). It has created a traffic nightmare down Pole Line and has pulled young families out of Davis that are key to maintaining a dynamic lively community here. Your solution is to turn Davis into a retirement community served by outsiders. That’s not sustainable for a number of reasons and is increasingly environmentally damaging. We’re aiming to fix that.
Again, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, we have driven 1,500 UCD workers out of town through excessive prices from a housing shortage. Doesn’t matter if UCD has grown–we’re shrinking the local workforce by our housing policies.
As for the rental market, students are only about half of that market.
What makes you qualified to have any opinion about the attributes of the housing market? You’re statements are just wild uninformed speculation. On the the other hand, I’ve worked in a segment of that market for a quarter century and I’ve provided many citations here supporting my analyses.
Well, tell that to the developers who came up with “North, North Davis”. You seem to think that my observations consist of an “advocacy” (they don’t).
But the fact is that Spring Lake exists, and is continuing to expand. Including another 1,600 planned housing units adjacent to Highway 113 / Road 27.
There’s also a development being built right now, which consists of the rather small houses/lots that some in Davis are pushing for. But even in Spring Lake, they cost more than $500K.
I don’t see why those in Spring Lake (who are on the side closest to Road 102) would use 102 all the way to UCD. It would be much easier to cut over to Highway 113 (via Road 27) in order to get to UCD. Regardless of source, traffic (including traffic impediments) on 102 would be EXPONENTIALLY WORSE if ANY development was built at the Village Farms or Willowgrove site. Though Willowgrove residents would probably/mostly be accessing Covell/Mace to I-80.
Perhaps the traffic you’re seeing has very little to do with traveling to UCD.
You seem to think that the only time people drive is when they go to work.
In the meantime, let us know when you can cause housing prices to be the same in Davis as they are in Spring Lake.
“There’s an assumption built into your article that building more houses in Davis will lower the value of existing houses.”
No, the assumption is that building more types of housing at different price points would allow more people to buy or rent here.
I agree with Don.
I agree with the premise of this article. By building only large footprint, rich amenities homes on large lots, Davis has excluded the vast majority of the Davis workforce (that provides us with the suite of services that provides us our high quality of life) from the opportunity for home ownership.
It bears repeating. Davis built 1,261 units of high priced detached single family homes on large lots for the economic elite, and at the same time has built zero (or close to zero) small footprint low priced owner-occupied homes for its citizens of modest economic/financial resources.
We are all to blame, the Vanguard included. There has been very little leadership from either the citizens or our elected leaders illuminating our classist pattern of (A) catering to the elite while (B) throwing our workforce under the bus, and (C) providing no proactive guidance to developers on project concepts that will cater to the members of the workforce, rather than the elite.
To escape our classist (and earlier racist) pattern we need to honestly and forthrightly assess our internal and external environments. It isn’t a pretty picture. In addition to our discriminatory practices we have an abominable financial situation. The City Budget (on pages D-13 and D-18 and D-19) reports a $264.7 million unfunded liability for maintenance of our streets ($78.8 million), bikeways ($12.5 million), buildings ($28.1 million), parks ($64.3 million), traffic ($76.4 million), and parking ($4.7 million).
Over and above that the reported Pension unfunded liability is $178.3 million and the Retiree Healthcare unfunded liability is another $38.4 million.
Add those numbers up and our City’s “credit card balance” is $476.4 million. That is just under $7,000 per person.
But it gets worse. As reported in yesterday’s Bee (where was the Vanguard?), in the current Budget just adopted by City Council, “the City is about $20.7 million short of funds needed to complete construction projects that are already underway.” Add that $20.7 million to the $264.7 million unfunded subtotal and to the $476.4 million total total. That means our credit card balance is half a billion dollars.
If you don’t know where you stand right now, you won’t know where to go next.
Our elected leaders need to help us establish our community’s identity. Once upon a time that identity was “ a university town” but we have largely abdicated that identity and replaced it with “a bedroom community that supports an outflow of its employed residents to jobs that are outside the City Limits.” Intellectual Capital creation is at the heart of a university town and compared to 25 years ago the number of Davis residents with jobs creating intellectual capital is less than half, and some of our key businesses that built intellectual capital every day have moved out of town.
We need to clarify why we exist (our Mission). Clearly understand and state where we are going (our Vision). And restate the principles that guide us as a community (our core values).
Our Vision should capture a broad but simultaneously concise picture of what Davis wants to achieve and become. Developing this Vision can help us write a Mission statement as well, which lays out our reason for being. Having clear, coherent Vision and Mission statements in place will provide a solid foundation for our decisions moving forward … and hopefully enable us to transcend our current and past elitist and classist patterns of behavior.
Yes, focusing on the Mission and Vision statements are key for our General Plan Update and our Economic Development Plan. We’re lost on the roadway to the future at the moment with no coherent community story. The foundation of our community will crumble if we don’t address this.
The foundation of our community is crumbling from no growth.
Ron, you are wrong. The foundation of our community is (literally) crumbling because of the way we have grown. Our approach to growing our community has ignored jobs and advanced projects that only provide housing. The City has over 10 fiscal studies that show that housing by itself produces more costs for the rich suite of services we give ourselves, but not enough revenue to pay for those services.
As I detailed earlier the current City Budget (on pages D-13 and D-18 and D-19) reports a $264.7 million unfunded liability for maintenance of our streets ($78.8 million), bikeways ($12.5 million), buildings ($28.1 million), parks ($64.3 million), traffic ($76.4 million), and parking ($4.7 million). That maintenance isn’t being done which means crumbling streets, crumbling bikeways, crumbling buildings, and weed-filled parks.
On Tuesday City Council wrote the latest chapter in this sad saga when they adopted the current Budget, which is about $20.7 million short of funds needed to complete construction projects that are already underway.”
Prioritizing the creation of housing over the creation of jobs is what got us into this mess. Building more housing that doesn’t bring jobs with it, only makes the dire financial situation worse.
Ron G
It’s not JUST growth–the type, focus and direction of that growth matters. We don’t need to turn into Houston. That’s why we need mission and vision statements to set that direction.
Mission and Vision statements (created by a small group of people who think they represent everyone else) that will be summarily ignored during upcoming Measure J elections. Assuming that the electorate at large is even aware of whatever the statement says.
Though as I previously noted, I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the effectiveness of the spanking machine.
Measure J is sort of a two-fer: 1) Should a given site be developed at all, and 2) should a particular proposal be approved.
The self-appointed “planners” in Davis seem to consistently ignore question #1.
“No, the assumption is that building more types of housing at different price points would allow more people to buy or rent here.”
Well, that’s certainly true – but the size of any city prevents approximately 8 billion (from the entire world) from moving to a given city, as well. Which doesn’t seem to be related to discrimination for example.
And since there’s always a constant availability of existing housing (which doesn’t sell within 5 seconds of listing), it doesn’t seem like there’s demand from 8 billion people.
Nor is there much demand from those who are already living elsewhere, but working at UCD for example. Not when they can find the same thing much cheaper some 8 miles away, with an easy commute that avoids most of Davis in the first place.
David, you are right to challenge the lawn sign “Davis is for Everyone” because as you argue, the housing we have “is not for everyone”.
Nor is the range of housing for “Everyone” proffered in both Village Farms or Willowgrove which the City of Davis approved to go on the ballot. And the Davis voters who vote yes (by a majority) on a Measure R or V are also voting in projects which do not create a range of housing which fulfills the “Davis is for Everyone” feel good falsehood.
So if the council and Davis voters by their actions both choose to exclude housing for large components of our workforce the only other avenue to overcome the problem is the market.
And in this Davis and somewhat much of California the market has no incentive to build “housing for everyone” except those who have the higher income and assets to pay the highest price for housing.
I’d like to share two examples;
CARMEL, California
At some point in its early history, a school teachers group had control over the land in Carmel. That teachers group came up with the idea to create the smallest lots possible in the town to keep the prices affordable for teachers.
You can see how that turned out.
The median prices home in Carmel is $2.7 million. for a home on a small lot.
London, England
In1957, at the age of 15, I left home and went to work in London. The only thing I could afford was a hostel with five boys to a room. It cost me $36 dollars per month more than 50% of my income.
Today , one person in London in a shared house pays $1,200 to $1,700 dollars per month.
Except for local council subsidized housing there is no ownership or rental housing in London for the same groups as in Davis pointed out by David, “Young families, teachers, public employees, service workers and even many university employees struggle to find housing they can afford within city limits.”
Few places in the USA, Europe or the major cities in the world do.
So to me the simple truth is,
“The City and state cannot require it and the market won’t build it!
Now what?
“To escape our classist (and earlier racist) pattern we need to honestly and forthrightly assess our internal and external environments. It isn’t a pretty picture. ”
Not really. All we need to do is start voting yes on Measure J votes.
The housing proposed on virtually all of the Measure J proposals has been sized and priced to perpetuate the classism of Davis by excluding the members of the current Davis workforce from being able to purchase and owner occupy a home.
For example, how many of the owner-occupancy homes in Grande or The Cannery were purchased by modest financial resources members of the current Davis workforce. How many DJuSD teachers bought homes in either of those two developments?
“The housing proposed on virtually all of the Measure J proposals has been sized and priced to perpetuate the classism of Davis by excluding the members of the current Davis workforce from being able to purchase and owner occupy a home.
For example, how many of the owner-occupancy homes in Grande or The Cannery were purchased by modest financial resources members of the current Davis workforce.”
Neither Grande nor Cannery were subject to Measure J, so your statement and subsequent question are largely meaningless. Of the two Measure J project that have passed, one was rental only (Nishi) focused on students, and the other was age restricted discriminatory housing. Neither was intended for workforce housing in general or for DJUSD employees specifically. The Measure V proposal included workforce appropriate housing. Not as much as I would have preferred, but considerably more than zero. If you voted no, you voting against increasing workforce housing in town.
You cannot have more affordable housing in town until you are willing to build more housing.
Mark, go back and read the article. The article was not about and is not about measure J it is about Davis is for everyone. Your point is misdirected at best.
Go back and read your own words, Matt.
Matt is like the guy who complains in a restaurant the food is awful and the portions are too small. On the one hand he says housing doesn’t pay for itself. On the other hand he says we are building the wrong kind of housing. All I can say is okay Boomer.
Well Ron, when you can’t address the message, shoot the messenger.
Feel free to use me as your scapegoat. You have my permission to do so. David is glad for the break in the action.
Mark, reading is fundamental. How many of the Measure J projects’ proposed homes have actually been built? The answer to that question forces one to look for representative examples that address David’s point from non-Measure J projects. That was what the two words “For example” rhetorically did. Try to keep up.
It amazes me how complicated some people want to make this, when in fact, the issue is really quite simple. If you want Davis to be ‘for everyone,’ then you need to have multiple housing options available so that ‘everyone’ has an opportunity to choose what works best for them. Any attempt to predetermine what types of housing are needed only serves to reduce options for those who are looking.
In any event, approved housing types should not be determined by current residents or property owners, since they already have appropriate housing and have no idea what housing types are appropriate to those still looking. Those here arguing that we should only build the type of housing that they might approve of, are really saying that we should only be building housing for those people that they approve of. That doesn’t sound like ‘everyone’ to me.
I’ll make this simple. If you voted against any housing project in town over the past 20 years, you voted against the idea that “Davis is for everyone.” You might want to think something different about yourself when you look into the mirror, but what your actions say is that you do not want Davis to be for everyone, you only want Davis to be for those like you.
“If you want Davis to be ‘for everyone,’ then you need to have multiple housing options available so that ‘everyone’ has an opportunity to choose what works best for them.”
Davis already has multiple housing options, and they can be found on Zillow each and every day.
Is someone waiting around for some developer to build them something “cheaper” in comparison to the housing inventory which already exists?
If so, I think we’ve identified the problem – and it isn’t housing. At some point, the problem (on an individual level) can be found in the mirror – one way or another. Perhaps related to a sense of entitlement or unrealistic expectations, inflexibility . . .
Then again, we never actually do hear from those imaginary people on here.
Actually Mark none of the members of the Davis Citizens Planning Group are part of the “Missing Middle” demographic group. All five of the members of that group very clearly want Davis to be for the Missing Middle.
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/05/transit-oriented-growth-davis/
“All five of the members of that group very clearly want Davis to be for the Missing Middle.”
All five, and you as well, worked hard to preclude new housing in Davis. The justifications for doing so don’t interest me.
You are only interested in fantasizing about “What if?”
Carry on.
No Matt. I’m interested in seeing housing built in town so more people will have an opportunity for finding appropriate housing. You are interested in controlling who moves in, with a distinct preference for it to be nobody.
Mark, your assumptions about my “interests” are incorrect. As is often the case, you look at the world with blinders on, seeing only what you want to see. For the Nishi 2018 proposal I fought hard and very publicly for the same housing density as was in the Nishi 2016 proposal … 67 units per acre rather than the 27 units per acre in the proposal. That would have meant a bed for between 5,000 and 7,000 students rather than the 2,200 students they were proposing. Those 2,800 to 4,800 additional students would be insulted by your characterization of them as “nobody.” I also supported Nishi 2016. And if you check with Doug Busby and Rochelle Swanson and Sandy Whitcombe, they will confirm that I argued for making North Village in Village Farms into 610 units, which is double the 305 units in the proposal.
You can do better if you try.
Buzbee
“How many of the Measure J projects’ proposed homes have actually been built?”
Therein lies the problem. The counter factual is also revealing. If you add up add the homes that haven’t been built because of Measure J it’s easy to understand why Davis has a housing affordability problem and a larger carbon commuter footprint.
Ron, you like Mark have blithely ignored the basic premise of David’s article .,. That “Davis Is For Everyone” is mostly virtue signaling. It has become abundantly clear in your recurring Measure J attacks of David, that your dog whistle is your virtue signal.
With that said, I will build on David’s Davis Is For Everyone theme and at the same time address directly your point that building the homes proposed in the past Measure J proposals would address the affordability problem we have.
Keith Echols has explained many times, but you clearly haven’t been listening, that the addition of new high priced (by the dollars per square foot measure) increases rather than decreases the prices of existing resale homes in a community. The reason is simple and straightforward … real estate professionals use “comparables” to set the price (or value in the case of appraisals) for homes poised to come on the resale market, and the high dollars per square foot prices of the new homes become those “comparables” justifying a higher price than would be achieved if the “comparables” were only resale homes.
We have seen that principle in action here in Davis, where resale prices have gone up and up after adding the Grande and Cannery homes.
That is a dynamic from the supply side. There is also a dynamic from the demand side that pulls the rug out from under your argument … specifically that there is a massive number of Bay Area empty nesters who are looking to escape. Look at the sales of the new homes in The Cannery. According to the real estate broker who represented New Home Company in those sales, 54% of the buyers came from Marin County, with additional percentages from San Francisco, the East Bay, and Silicon Valley.
So the high priced homes that those failed Measure J projects proposed to build would have been for the economic elite. Increased Affordability in Davis will only be achieved if the developers propose and build lots of small, 2-bedroom homes with modest amenities an low prices, which stay low on the resale market when the time comes when the first buyer of the home chooses to move.
You seem to want to choose your neighbors but I don’t care that much. I mean where did you come from. You weren’t born here but you think you should be able to decide who we build for, and in doing so, you might have just nixed 16 acres of Affordable housing. I’m simpler. If people want to move here why should I care. And if they can afford million dollar homes that ought to be good for the local economy. A future of too many wealthy people in Davis, the horror!
Thank you for confirming you prejudice.
What are you even talking about? My prejudice? Better check your meds.
The way the regional market has worked, for as long as I’ve been around is, Bay Area prices go up and people bail out and move to Davis driving up local prices. It’s not a new phenomenon.
But once again your aversion to houses of certain types is the scarcity argument because the kind of housing you want to get built doesn’t preclude other kinds of housing from being built. In fact, the problem with your local market only approach is that it violates Federal anti-discrimination laws.
Your answer explains/illuminates clearly and incontrovertibly how you pre-judge the challenge Davis faces.
As you have shown over and over in your badgering of David, your pre-judgment gets very judgmental at times.
My badgering of David? Funny, David and I are sympatico these days and we never were at odds. We respectfully have engaged on here for many years and have been friends even longer. In fact, David made a special point of shaking my hand and saying hi on election night. And BTW, I bet if you asked David he would tell you I have been right on housing for many years. Another Fact this entire article was based on a comment I made about the hypocrisy of people claiming to be for social justice but not housing. David took my comment and ran with it.
So it seems your opposition to V because you didn’t get what you wanted only ended up losing 16 acres of Affordable housing that probably won’t get built during our lifetimes. Are you proud?
Ron, given that there are over 450 Affordable Projects statewide sitting in limbo because State and Federal funding isn’t available … and they all have their paperwork already completed, the chances of the 360 Village Farms Affordable units happening in either your or my lifetimes were already zero.
Wrong again Matt. Given that Vaitla insisted on the developers guaranteeing 100 Affordable units in the baseline features a yes vote on this project would have produced more than the zero Affordable units now guaranteed for the foreseeable future.
So your insistence that the only responsible solution is to build what you think should get built as some sort of economic or social justice campaign results in fewer opportunities for less fortunate people for whom I recall Phil Ochs’ lament “There but for fortune go you or I.”
Ron, read the language of the Baseline Features.
David Thompson wrote an extensive article about the conditional language used. May vs. Shall. There is a world of difference.
https://davisite.org/2026/05/01/its-a-may-day-for-village-farms/
As someone who enjoys observing the self-imposed microcosm that is Davis, I thought it was an unfortunate stance for the Yes on V crowd to take in trying to use school enrollment as the leading argument for passing the measure. The reality is that lower enrollment is not a Davis-centric issue; it is one faced by many school districts across the state. The cause of this is less about the very real housing crisis and more about the mass exodus in general from the state.
Now, before some of you jump on me, saying, ” Well, if there is a mass exodus, how can there be a housing crisis?!” Let me explain. From the state’s perspective, even with the largest number of people leaving a state in the country, we have also lost a large amount of the housing stock to natural disasters (wildfires). We also have some of the most stringent building regulations (not that it isn’t warranted, but they do bring along a price tag) in the nation. Since 2020, labor rates in the trades have risen between 15% and 25%, only to be outpaced by the 40% increase in material costs over the same period. These increases directly affect the cost of every construction project, every house built, every pothole covered. These increases are not going to be reversed for at least 2 to 3 decades, if at all. For every 7 retirees in the trades, there is maybe one replacement.
The majority of the arguments I saw against Measure V were that the housing was not deemed affordable in the eyes of the opposition, yet not once did I see anyone offer a price tag that would be considered affordable. The state of California has a definition/formula, not a price tag. Oh, and let’s not forget that the State now has a mandatory growth rate to meet, or else severe financial penalties will be imposed.
Now, I have also observed in my short time on this planet that every time some well-meaning group tries to define or regulate an outcome for something that is largely determined by supply and demand, overwhelmingly, the very group they so desperately want to help ends up worse off than when they started, or had they simply waited and saved up more, or made other economic choices.
Building more houses in Davis will increase the housing supply, which can make housing more affordable; it doesn’t necessarily mean the housing stock in Davis will lose value, either. College towns tend to have S&D 2.0 curves. The reason is behind the primary demand, proximity to the University. The homes that are closer to the University tend to be held as more desirable for both purchase and rent. The further away from the University’s epicenter, the less demand, and prices drop accordingly. However, as there is still demand to be in the same town as the University, we see a bolstering of the prices, and even when additional housing has been built, there might be a short-term decrease in the property value, but long term (12 months or longer time frame) the homes hold their value and increase at the same rates as the rest of the market area.
Assuming the premise is truly to make housing more affordable, the best way to do that is to create as many options as possible for people. This means you need to use a combination of housing plans, not just one, to be the end-all. In-fill can help, but not by itself. Large developments can help, but not by themselves. Multi-family housing can help, but not by itself. The General Plan needs to take into consideration all of these types of housing to address the issue.
California, in general, is an expensive place to live. But just because someone lives here doesn’t make them wealthy. There are plenty of people who are one bad day away from losing the “Privileged” home they have. One of the worst lies we ever created was that the “American Dream” was owning a home, instead of having the freedom to live.
The majority of the arguments I saw against Measure V were that the housing was not deemed affordable in the eyes of the opposition, yet not once did I see anyone offer a price tag that would be considered affordable.The state of California has a definition/formula, not a price tag. Oh, and let’s not forget that the State now has a mandatory growth rate to meet, or else severe financial penalties will be imposed.
Although it was no doubt lost in the cacophony, a 2-bedroom 900-1,000 square foot house on a small lot, with $500,000 price tag was indeed put forth as “affordable.”
“I thought it was an unfortunate stance for the Yes on V crowd to take in trying to use school enrollment as the leading argument for passing the measure.”
No kidding. I was wavering right up to my pen landing on the ballot sheet. The school board promoting Measure V turned me cold (as did the promoters failing to promote the construction of a 1000′ connector from the already-existing path under Covell by the railroad down to the already-existing tunnel under the railroad by H Street).
Just disgraceful to have public school officials promoting a private project in that way, even if technically legal.
“Ding, dong – the witch is dead?” (Latest election results)
https://ace.yolocounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/633/Unofficial-election-results?bidId=
I mentioned this to Eileen, and she got mad at me. (Bad juju or something.)
I say, bring it on – I’m not afraid of juju. Or more accurately, juju isn’t going to impact the final result at this point.
If I did my arithmetic right, the estimated remaining 2800 or so votes would have to break 58% Yes to 42% No.
It doesn’t look good for the YES side.
That and the vote isn’t getting counted in L.A. 🙃
” the vote isn’t getting counted in L.A”
That is false.
”the vote isn’t getting counted in L.A”
“That is false.”
First of all I wrote that tongue in cheek. But what I wrote is true, the Measure V votes are not getting counted by the people who are counting the mayoral vote in L.A.
What flavor Kool-Aid you drinking Keith? Are you going to storm out of the Davis Vanguard comments section or provide proof the vote isn’t being counted? Oh, and just for the record, who won for President in 2020?
The optics of your disrespectful vilification of “LGBTQ For Everyone”, in order to push your support for the North Davis Land Company, LLC, is gratuitous at best. I
would remark that you must be a better person than that, but I can’t. Obviously the text of your article was intended not to dismiss LGBTQ issues but to continue your unflagging support for the Whitcomb Vision of a hyper-suburbanized and corporately profitable enterprise. Hope to
God your not making any money from your efforts.
Tell us how you really feel, JC
As noted in John Cooper’s comment, “Davis is for Everyone” was apparently related to support for the LGBTQ+ community, and had nothing to do with cheap housing for example.
Also, segments of the LGBTQ+ community have incomes/assets that are above-average (and can easily afford Davis). In fact, Davis housing is already cheap for some members of that cohort (and no doubt, a lot of them wouldn’t be caught dead in a flat, hot floodplain miles from the Bay Area – despite the official “welcome”).