![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Housing-construction-765x510.jpeg)
By David M. Greenwald
This year people have been shrugging off the housing crisis. I get it, COVID, economic downtown, civil rights have definitely, if not muddied the water, made it far more complicated to address long-term problems.
One argument we should reject out of hand, however, is the one I have seen—California’s growth rate has slowed, perhaps it is even in the negative with more people leaving the state than entering it.
Part of the problem with that argument is that the housing crisis is to some extent causing that problem. There are other factors at play here as well, but in a lot of cases, why would you want to wade through traffic, drive to work for hours from an overpriced and overly-small home if you can now just as easily live in a cheaper area and telecommute?
Still, allowing businesses and people to leave the state in droves is not a recipe for success and California is going to have to figure out better balance between business and environment, between quality of life and affordability—or we will have neither.
A fascinating article appeared in the New York Times last week, and it posits the question: “Is it possible to import growth without also importing housing problems?” Their answer: “I can’t point to a city that has done it right.”
The Times’ Conor Coughtery writes: “Statistically speaking, Idaho is one of America’s greatest economic success stories. The state has low unemployment and high income growth. It has expanded education spending while managing to shore up budget reserves.”
The leadership in Idaho—Republicans—attribute this run of prosperity to low taxes and minimal regulations, something “conservatives call ‘the business climate.’”
But the article points out: “But there is another factor at play: Californians, fleeing high home prices, are moving to Idaho in droves. For the past several years, Idaho has been one of the fastest-growing states, with the largest share of new residents coming from California. This fact can be illustrated with census data, moving vans — or resentment.”
This isn’t an unmitigated victory for either. For environmentalists in places like Davis, remember one of the allures of Idaho is the lack of environmental regulation and so you can talk about our carbon footprint all you want, but people moving from California to Idaho means that we are likely watering down environmental regulations.
For Idaho, this growth comes with a cost. The Times points out, “Home prices rose 20 percent in 2020, according to Zillow, and, in Boise, ‘Go Back to California’ graffiti has been sprayed along the highways. The last election cycle was a referendum on growth and housing, and included a fringe mayoral candidate who campaigned on a promise to keep Californians out.”
The answer to the question about whether Idaho can import California’s growth without also importing its housing problems?
The answer is apparently no.
“I can’t point to a city that has done it right,” said Lauren McLean, Boise’s Democratic mayor.
Why: “That’s because as bad as California’s affordable housing problem is, it isn’t really a California problem. It is a national one. From rising homelessness to anti-development sentiment to frustration among middle-class workers who’ve been locked out of the housing market, the same set of housing issues has bubbled up in cities across the country.”
Doughtery points out: “They’ve already visited Boise, Nashville, Denver and Austin, Texas, and many other high-growth cities. And they will become even more widespread as remote workers move around.”
That gets me back to California and even more so to home.
First of all, the reduction in California’s growth rates cannot be viewed as a reason not to build the appropriate amount of housing because, quite simply, the lack of affordability (as opposed to affordable housing) is driving the trend.
Second, as the article notes, the problem is not a California problem, it is a national one and we need to start solving it at home where we can.
I got an interesting email over the weekend from a long-time resident. They asked two very critical questions.
First, how do preservation and conservation zoning codes in Davis restrict housing and contribute to the housing crisis? Should those codes be relaxed or abolished?
Second, should residents of R-2 districts consider organizing to pressure the City to “up zone” the relevant areas to allow various forms of higher density?
What I have noticed is that, for the most part, the city has not taken these issues head on. I keep asking where the next wave of housing is going to come from because infill and densification is not only difficult to do, and expensive, but we are running out of infill space without leveling neighborhoods—and the residents still seem very reluctant to build peripherally, as Measure D passed overwhelmingly, extending Measure J for another ten years while Measure B was narrowly defeated.
Yes, we are taking on things like the Downtown Plan which might add housing if we can figure out fiscal viability, the new housing element, and ultimately the general plan. Those are hard questions that no one likes to have to address—how do we gain affordability and density without decreasing our quality of life?
We may not be in it alone, it may be a question beyond just Davis—but, guess what, every community still has to solve it at the local level.
—David M. Greenwald
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
David
I wanted to add another aspect that deals more with long-term population needs than the short and medium-range planning we seem to adopt. You have addressed population migration and some of the factors driving it. You did not address population size overall which I see as another important factor. I have included some data on overall birth and death rates over time. Unfortunately, the gov. data does not extend past 2018 and we have had a nationwide and worldwide change since then so I will close with a few more subjective & personal observations.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/mortality-trends/index.htm
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/31/792737851/u-s-population-growth-in-2019-is-slowest-in-a-century
While I do not fully agree with all the points made in the NPR article, it does include data from 2019 and still reflects the trends in decreasing life expectancy and decreasing births.
What we do not know, but should bear in mind are:
1. The long term effects of a likely continuation of decreasing birth rates
2. The long term effects of decreasing life expectancy
3. The effects of COVID-19 on both of these factors and the long-term effects of COVID-19 on work and travel patterns.
Given all of these uncertainties, and the fact that we now have on the local level both newly built and newly approved large housing projects, I would be cautious in pushing for further large housing developments at this time.
As the article points out, “affordability” is a national (not state, regional, or city concern). As noted, housing prices have been rising even in areas where regulations are relatively lax, and growth is encouraged.
The take-away from this is that there are large numbers of people who can afford higher housing prices, and large numbers who cannot. This is not a simple “supply/demand” problem, but goes to the root of income/wealth discrepancies.
Then there’s the issue of taxes (and other rising costs), which are also causing some to seek less-expensive areas. Some states have no income tax.
In our system, moving to less-expensive areas is exactly how it’s “supposed” to work. That’s the reason so many from the Bay Area have moved, and are continuing to move to the Sacramento region. And it’s also a reason that some individuals and businesses are moving to places like Austin.
Locally, Woodland has been, and continues to provide massive amounts of new housing (probably beyond what is actually “needed”, in terms of local employment). Of course, the planned technology park (if it’s successful) will also increase the demand for that housing, a reason that they will include 1,600 additional housing units onsite. I am not sure what the “net accomplishment” is from this type of pursuit.
For environmentalists in places like Davis, remember one of the allures of Idaho is the lack of environmental regulation and so you can talk about our carbon footprint all you want, but people moving from California to Idaho means that we are likely watering down environmental regulations.
You know it’s not the lack of environmental regulation in Idaho it is the lack of smart environmental regulation in the state of California here in California for example we don’t build dams we try not to retain the water that actually falls within the boundaries of the state but yet we continue on building houses we can build houses for cows come home but if you don’t have any water in the tap what’s the use of buying a house here in good old California.
As far as the California state economy goes we have the haves( those are the little people that have money) they’re leaving the state and those are the ones we got to retain but yet the focus of our illustrious state leaders is to focus on immigration from Central America and South America those I live in the call are the have nots I don’t think this is too conducive with having a good economy in good old California. I totally get it we all come somewhere I love immigration but there becomes a point that we have to start acting like adults.
“I love immigration but there becomes a point that we have to start acting like adults.”
I would rephrase your last statement. “… at some point, we have to start acting like the “haves” we are. What you see as an adult act, I see as an act of exclusion for our own benefit.
The problem is the problem? That doesn’t float. People are leaving due to high prices and no need to be here and the ability to put their kids in schools in other states. Prices on rentals especially have gone down. That’s the market reacting, and it will react again as conditions change.
Remember, they don’t have a lack, they have less restrictive. Like not having to run your car on a dynomometer for a smog check. I’d welcome that.
And you can talk about carbon footprint all you want, but what countries like India and China are doing is more than negating any small strides the US is making. The pandemic is probably the lowest low we will hit for lack of movement and consumption, and then it’ll all come back, but with less density and less use of public transit and more cars. We’ll never have it this ‘good’ again. Meanwhile, I just read an article that the current reduced travel conditions worldwide are actually causing even more warming. (I’m sure it was ‘fake science’)
We weren’t building ‘enough’ ‘affordable’ housing before, so with less pressure to build housing, let’s build more. And rents are down in the Bay Area 5-25%. So, ok . . .
Ahh, yes. It’s not the suburbs. Once again, the war is on against these small footprints of preservation that just a few years ago were called out by the City as very important to the character to the City. News flash: preservation doesn’t mean ‘let’s do this for a few years, then abandon the idea when it’s inconvenient’.
Here DV does the bidding of the evil developers (note: not all developers are evil, only the evil ones) for ‘abolishing’ preservation and conservation zoning codes. How about abolishing Measure JeRkeD instead?
You believe the people in R-2 districts ‘should’ pressure the City to upzone their own neighborhoods. Why would/should they do that? Aren’t there enough outside pressures doing it for them? Is this some sort of suggestion of self-inflicted zonal suicide?
Leveling neighborhoods. You heard it first here folks. That’s the reality we are facing. Ready everyone?
Repeal measure JeRkeD. We won’t. So we won’t.
And at the local level that’s why I say, if there ever is a shooting war in this town, it’ll be along the tracks between 3rd and 5th Streets. Metaphorically of course. Of course? Well . . . that’s why the DPAC meetings were a just a de-facto play-out of the Trackside lawsuit (3rd & tracks) and of exactly what you outlined here – actually building what’s in the plan downtown is too expensive, so instead poach the cheap land around the periphery of downtown, ignore the entire idea of transition and form-based planning as espoused by DPAC in theory but not practice, put up a wall along the edge of downtown looming over the adjacent districts (like horribly-planned towns in Orange County have done) that have that pesky preservation zoning in place so that people sell their homes to developers, and crush the preservation districts.
Then we don’t look like form-based planning with density in the center tapering out, we look like a freakin’ donut hole with a crater in the middle 🙁
But don’t touch the rich outlying suburbs. R-2 zoning suicide out there is out of the question in reality. That’s just the way it goes.
We live in a town where the “opportunity district” overlays the “preservation districts” and some of the most actually affordable housing in Davis. But that’s what “they” want – eat the character, declare ‘affordable’ as blight, and move in for the kill.
But hey, Davis Vanguard, thanks for your support of our historic neighborhoods. I mean, thanks for supporting their demise.
Dang Alan, that was one looooong post. 🙂
[3/5]
At some point they’ll start counting by the word rather than number of . . . until then . . . 😐
.
I believe the above statement is an overgeneralization. If a person/family has seen their California-based job move from work-from-office to work-from-home, and chooses for quality of life reasons to relocate that home from California to Idaho, then there is no watering down of environmental regulations. Further, if a company chooses to relocate to Idaho, that move doesn’t water down any regulations either.
Bottom-line, the regulations in Idaho and in California do not change because of the move. They stay the same. What actually happens is that the moving company “feels” a difference because of the regulations difference between Idaho and California. An individual moving person/family probably doesn’t even “feel” any environmental regulation difference between working from home in California and working from home in Idaho.
[2/5]
yeah, but those people and companies that moved are now polluting more because Idaho lets them pollute more . . . right? That’s how it works, right?
Of course, you could also look at it as all the Californians moving to Idaho will bring their values and turn Idaho into California and accelerate them having stricter environmental laws.
So there’s that.
Depends on how you define growth.
I mean aside from the infamous mass corruption; economic growth by encouraging commercial growth and limiting residential growth worked for the city of Vernon. Of course they took it so far that they were threatened with disincorporation by the state.
Vernon’s city revenue is about $57M (2019). Davis’ revenue in 2o2o I think is about $65M The city of Vernon has a population of a 110.
4/5 – one to go!
Do they have a diamond mine?
No, they’re just all commercial/industrial.
There are approximately 46,000 direct and 54,000 indirect mostly skilled workers employed by business within the City of Vernon (yet only a population of 110). Food companies in Vernon include Bon Appetit Bakery, Papa Cantella’s Sausages Company, Core-Mark, F. Gaviña & Sons Inc, Goldberg and Solovy Foods, Farmer John Meat Packing, J & J Snack Foods, Overhill Farms, Pacific American Fish Company, Red Chamber Co., Simply Fresh Fruit, and Tapatío Foods. Apparel companies in Vernon include 7 for All Mankind, BCBG Max Azria, Lucky Brand Jeans, and True Religion. The city is also home to rendering plants, smelters and metal working companies. Vernon has a $4.5 billion private employer payroll.
See also:
City of Commerce, CA (pop 400): showpublisheddocument (cityofindustry.org)
Go figure…
Or, City of Bell, CA (pop 36,500) they are running deficits, and are under investigation re: pensions…
All pensions | Transparent California
[Search under Bell, Pensions]
Different problem… some retired officials reportedly are getting (according to cite/site) over $1,000,000 per year…
(1/5) 4 left…
[Doubt those retirees would feel a need to ‘migrate’ due to housing prices]
Yes but none of those cities had a TV crime series based off of them that starred Colin Ferrell, Rachel McAdams and Vince Vaughn.
The corruption wasn’t the point of bring up Vernon. The idea of increasing commercial development and tax revenue while not increasing housing was the idea….taken to a comically absurd level…yes…but still an idea to be illustrated by an absurd example.