By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – On Tuesday I was once again disappointed to see what I perceive as a lack of urgency on the part of council when it comes to housing. Let me be clear: to a person, the council I think understands that there is a housing crisis and that they will need to go outside of their comfort zone to solve it.
While I understand that the timeline is tough—the focus should have been on November 2024. Staff doesn’t have the bandwidth? Hire an outside consultant. This isn’t rocket science.
On Tuesday, there didn’t seem to be an appreciation that the best time to put a housing measure on the ballot is November 2024 when you maximize turnout and you also maximize the student vote.
That important piece was completely missing from the discussion. Council talked about having a planning process, about the bandwidth issues for the city, and of course about how contentious that could be.
Mayor Will Arnold at least pointed out that a community planning process was no guarantee.
He noted that the DISC project was in fact the result of a rather lengthy process, a community planning process that lasted a number of years, where the Innovation Park Taskforce put forward a request for proposals that netted the city three proposals, and DISC was the last one standing.
Mayor Arnold explained that “yet that didn’t spare us the conflict of the developers still presenting us with what they were able to do and the conflict of the community still saying, no, this isn’t what we’re looking for, voting it down.”
The calculation here should be pretty simple—while there is a general recognition by the public that affordability of housing is a problem, when we see polling on individual projects they start out with about 35 to 40 percent of the public opposed to new development no matter what.
That’s a tough hurdle to overcome and if you go to a special election, we saw how low the turnout was this month for District 3. A Presidential General Election is maximum turnout—80 percent plus a huge number of students, and it is students and some of the infrequent voters who are going to carry a project to victory.
There are those who believe that the public understands the need for housing—that may be. But we also know as several councilmembers put it on Tuesday, there are things about every project that people like and things that they don’t like.
Opponents of development have learned to pound the perceived weaknesses of a project. Look no further than Eileen Samitz and Pam Nieberg’s guest piece on Village Farms. Given the size of the project and existing traffic congestion in the area, it won’t be hard for a campaign to hammer on perceived problems.
The frustrating part of this is the council does understand that in order to meet housing needs, the city is going to have to go outside of its boundaries. It probably will need to do at least two or three peripheral projects.
Councilmember Bapu Vaitla said, on the one hand, “I believe in a growth boundary for Davis. We’re surrounded by some unique and valuable soils in open space, and I want to preserve that.”
But he said, “That means maximizing the value of the parcels that we have to work with both infill and these peripheral parcels will inevitably be developed.”
He continued, “The parcels that are in question right now, I think it’s magical thinking to think that they won’t be, they will be.”
Looking at the next RHNA, he said, “Without optimizing the amount of affordable units we get out there in these peripheral parcels that are up for discussion, we’re not going to meet those next cycle RHNA targets, we’re just not.”
And yet, he wants to prioritize a revenue measure and bypass the best time to put a land use measure on the ballot.
Why does this matter? It matters because the city in my view lacks the zoned properties in town to accommodate the amount of housing we will need—perhaps as early as this RHNA cycle, and if not, the next RHNA cycle.
Some have questioned why we are even considering the next RHNA cycle when we should be focused on this one.
Simple: let’s look at the calendar. 2028 sounds like a big number, but it’s not. That means we have to start developing and drafting the RHNA as early as 2026. In order to have the land count for RHNA, it has to be rezoned. In Davis, that means there has to be a Measure J vote—and it must be successful.
The chart that city staff provided is helpful with this. We are starting to plan now for projects that *could* be on the ballot in 2025 and 2026. If we wait until 2028 to put measures on the ballot, it leaves no margin for error if the measures fail.
So yeah, sorry, but it would be irresponsible for the city to wait any longer to start addressing how to zone land for sufficient housing for the next RHNA cycle.
What happens if we fail to do this? The simple answer is there will be consequences. We have seen the state become much more aggressive in enforcing housing laws—whether it is all the cities out of compliance with their Housing Element or the lawsuits the state has started to institute.
Some have called it blackmail, some have called it fear mongering or scare tactics. I call it anticipating consequences for non-compliance with the law.
Laws come with an enforcement mechanism or a stick that acts as a consequence when you don’t follow it.
Bottom line from my perspective is that if Davis cannot approve the housing that it is required to do, the state may well be inclined to come in and take out Measure J. I have floated this out there as a possibility and have had it confirmed to me by a number of well-placed sources.
That’s a real possibility.
The person who seems to grasp the urgency of the situation right now is actually Alan Pryor—who has often been a force behind blocking Measure J projects.
Prior wrote, “The reason I am now advocating for a peripheral housing project to be placed on the ballot as soon as possible is simple, Times Have Changed!”
What’s changed—state law and mandates on housing.
Pryor argues, “If cities do not comply with these requirements by submitting plans accepted to HCD showing a pathway to increase their housing stock, the state may impose severe penalties including removing some control over local housing development from the local government.”
He continued, “Should the City’s proposal to HCD continue to be rejected and eventually result in litigation against the City to impose more housing development, the obvious target of any such litigation likely would be to overturn the City’s voter-approved Measure J/R/D allowing citizens the right to vote on peripheral housing projects in Davis.
He added, “I believe this to be a real and urgent concern.”
I agree with Alan Pryor here. My preference is that Davis can build the housing it needs—I don’t think a long and contentious battle over Measure J is in the best interest in the community.
But that is going to take a recognition on the part of the leaders of this community that we need to work together to come up with a way to get the housing we need.
I believe that there is a generic appreciation that we need more housing by probably two-thirds to three-quarters of the public. But the devil remains in the details and the enemy of the good is the perfect.
We are not going to get a perfect project and we are not going to have a perfect process. What we need is something that is good enough.
And if we don’t—then yes, there will be consequences. And yes, I think people do need to take into account ALL of the information in determining how to proceed. That’s not fear mongering, it is recognizing that all decisions we make have consequences.
Is that right? Have they ever defined what the “housing crisis” means? Have you?
What’s the percentage that votes “yes” on everything?
You know what is a “guaranteed failure”? Rushing this onto the ballot, to address a non-crisis. You can be sure that opponents will see to that.
This doesn’t sound like an argument to “enfranchise” students living on campus.
First off, the current round of RHNA mandates will be addressed prior to any vote. So, you’re referring to future rounds of mandates. (As a side note, who are these “well-placed sources”? Is this turning into something like Watergate?)
How about you put forth the exact sequence of events and claims that would need to occur for a developer (or some other interested party) to put forth a challenge, in the event that some future RHNA mandates are not addressed. But again, put forth ALL of the events/elements that would need to occur (e.g., starting with the city uniquely failing to put forth an approved housing element, in some future round of RHNA mandates).
What, exactly, would cause the state to look outside of the city rather than inside the city, to address those mandates? And to conclude that this is the only way to address those mandates? Especially when vast population centers along the coast are subject to those same mandates, but aren’t expanding outward?
Truth be told, there will always be those looking to spread fear, as well as those attempting to actually attack Measure J. And this will be the case as long as there’s a financial incentive to do so.
And if Measure J is actually vulnerable, what purpose is it actually serving? And how long will it be before some interest finds a way to undermine it? Again, it’s a form of extortion to suggest that one has to vote for proposals indefinitely, to preserve Measure J.
And if it is overturned, you can be sure that this won’t be the end of it. The war will continue. Only this time, the 83% who voted for Measure J would be (let’s just say) riled-up. And I would assume that this would include Alan Pryor, as well.
In the meantime, let us know how the vast population centers along the coast (which aren’t expanding outward) are going to address future (or even current) RHNA mandates. Because that’s one of the examples that would be provided in any legal defense.
Again, provide even one example/scenario where the state (or a court) would force annexation of prime farmland, under any of these mandates.
It’s more likely that the state or the courts will allow a developer to pursue something like the “builder’s remedy” on newly-annexed land – regardless of any development agreement or baseline features.
How about if you clearly delineate the fake “housing crisis” from the fake “legal claims”, in future articles?
It’s your opinion that there is no housing crisis in Davis. To date you have provided completely insufficient evidence to back up this assertion. Both David and have poked large holes regarding your so-called evidence. A few listings on Zillow is literally a joke.
I’m not the one claiming “housing crisis”, Walter. Why would it be up to me to define that?
Let alone basing some drastic action on that, or how such action supposedly addresses it.
What we have here is a form of collective madness. From the same folks who believe that continuing sprawl is a legitimate “solution” to a declining-enrollment school district.
How this even got this far is pretty incredible.
It doesn’t really matter anyway. You’re entitled to your opinion that there is no housing crisis. I’m not going to expend energy to combat a minority opinion.
There is plenty of proof that there is a housing crisis. You have chosen not to believe that. Therefore it’s your responsibility to supply evidence to back up your assertion. Your references to Zillow proves that you attempted to prove your assertion is true. I have never said that school enrollment is even remotely a reason to construct more housing in Davis. My reason is that Davis has clearly not built sufficient housing since Measure J was enacted.
What has your own community been doing for the time you have living there? Doesn’t that continuing sprawl constitute “drastic action” according to your definition? What have you done to stop that drastic action? You will likely claim that Woodland has nothing to do with Davis, but they are only 11.5 miles apart. Many people routinely travel between them, including for work and to go to UCD.
You might think it “doesn’t really matter”, as you already have the council’s ear.
Now, whether or not you (or the council) have the “voting public’s ear” is a different matter, entirely.
Let’s be honest, here. This is an attempt to grow the size of the city, and continue growing to some undetermined, undefined, and unsupported level. Based upon a cry of “housing crisis”, interspersed with threats to Measure J.
More like 7 miles. And you’re wrong – that’s exactly what I’d note.
In fact, I believe that 7 miles is the mileage/distance quoted by the Woodland technology center, and its 1,600 planned housing units.
Someone other than me coined the term, “North, North Davis” in regard to Spring Lake – which still isn’t complete, itself.
They do.
The theory presented by some on here is that as soon as some overpriced development is built on farmland outside of Davis, the folks in Woodland (and elsewhere) will abandon their current homes, in mass. (With apparently no one else moving into those existing Woodland houses, either.)
“The theory presented by some on here is that as soon as some overpriced development is built on farmland outside of Davis, the folks in Woodland (and elsewhere) will abandon their current homes, in mass”
This comment is suggestive that you really don’t understand the arguments.
My “opinion” is that no one has even defined what “housing crisis” means.
And yet, some are immediately latching onto developer-initiated “solutions” to a supposed problem which hasn’t even been defined, quantified, or supported in any manner whatsoever.
What we actually have is a possible housing crash as a result of a series of actions by the federal reserve and federal government over the past few years. (At times, I’ve seen THAT referred to as a “housing crisis”.)
What do you mean “no one” has defined what “housing crisis” is?
That is an objectively false assertion.
From the LAO: “California has a serious housing shortage. California’s housing costs, consequently, have been rising rapidly for decades. These high housing costs make it difficult for many Californians to find housing that is affordable and that meets their needs, forcing them to make serious trade–offs in order to live in California. The state’s housing crisis is one of the most difficult issues facing state policy makers.”
Link: https://lao.ca.gov/laoecontax/housing
This is what some of the “usual suspects” on here claim – including a comment in response to Eileen’s article, from yesterday.
I’ve already responded in regard to “California”, below. It’s pending moderation, at the moment.
As far as “objectivity”, those numbers have been tossed around with total abandon. Nor have they even been challenged or explored, other than by the state auditor – who found that there was no support for those numbers.
And that was BEFORE some 500,000 people left the state.
But regardless of those squishy claims, there’s no connection (as in NONE) in regard to the five proposals outside of Davis.
To clarify, the following comment is what I’m referring to (from Richard McCann):
So again, this would require a two-step process:
1) The folks living in Woodland moving to some overpriced, smaller housing on peripheral land outside of Davis (with less garage space as well), and
2) Selling their existing house to someone who promises not to commute to Davis.
Neither of these seem likely.
Then again, the switch to VMTs (also) doesn’t seem “likely” to address greenhouse gas emissions, when stuck in gridlock – as even Walter has accurately-noted, as I recall. Do you know what seems more “likely” in this case? Developer/business interest corruption, regarding state regulations. Which (also) isn’t “unusual”.
As I recall, it was Will Arnold who literally said (during his initial run for office) that including housing at DISC (which was then called MRIC) would ensure its failure. This was prior to the time that it re-emerged as ARC, as well.
So what happened? The city and council (including Will Arnold) put it on the ballot – with housing. Twice. With more than one council member advocating for it, and one acting as an honorary chairperson for the latest campaign. (Well, you already know how THAT turned out.)
Yes indeed, it was quite a “planning process”.
Not to worry, though – it’s now a “100%” housing proposal. (One of five, waiting in the wings).
The housing crisis has three main parts.
Homeless: `150,000 – 250,000 people in California are homeless, two-thirds of them unsheltered.
Affordability, rental market: housing cost ratio for renters above 30% (rent burdened).
“Before the pandemic, about half of California renters were rent burdened, which means that more than 30% of their income went toward rent, according to the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.”
https://calmatters.org/explainers/housing-costs-high-california/
The rate of rent burdened households has apparently increased since the pandemic.
Housing inventory: shortage of homes for sale. This is sometimes defined as the gap between household formations and housing starts. The simplest metric, as with rentals, is the vacancy rate.
“As households form and housing starts fail to keep pace, the number of homes sitting empty falls. The homeowner vacancy dropped from 2% in 2012 to 0.8% by the end of 2022.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/08/homes/housing-shortage/index.html
These problems are multi-factorial so reducing the impacts requires multiple strategies. At the moment the state’s focus is on increasing supply by removing local obstacles to housing construction.
Thanks, Don. Let’s break this down in regard to local development proposals.
How many of them are in Davis, and how many would presumably be housed in one or more of the proposed developments? Even if some included Affordable housing, which is usually not pursued for years (or decades) after the market-based development is built?
And what would the ratio be AFTER one or more of these proposals is built?
Doesn’t Davis have an unusually large number of rent-burdened renters as a result of most of them being students who haven’t even started their careers?
And on a statewide level, what has been the impact of some 500,000 residents leaving the state, while sprawling construction has nevertheless continued?
Also, are folks “burdened” in rent-controlled units (e.g., long-term renters in places like San Francisco)?
Is that a national statistic?
And what was the impact of extremely low interest rates that folks are (for the moment) unwilling to give up? And how is it that housing prices were declining during that period, despite tight supply?
By the way, are you sure that’s correct – given the number of vacation homes, other homes kept off the market for other reasons, etc.? (I don’t think so.)
By the way, demographics show that there will be an extreme housing “glut” within 10-15 years, as boomers “age-out” of the housing market. I’ve posted several articles regarding this, but just found the following one as well. This young man puts out some really good, entertaining, and useful YouTube videos, as well. He is not a “slow-growther”, to my knowledge.
https://reventureconsulting.com/the-myth-of-the-us-housing-shortage/
This is where the “slow-growthers” and the “housing crisis people” meet.
It is interesting – my nieces and nephews do not seem to be having children at a level sufficient to even replace themselves. And they’re at the age where (in the past), they’d do so, by now.
I’m actually becoming inspired by that generation. Perhaps there’s hope, after all.
I’m not sure why previous generations hadn’t figured this out, though each generation does seem to have fewer children – compared to the previous generation.
This may not be “good news” for those in college towns who are fans of continued development, however. Though it seems that the UC system is “poaching” students from other, declining systems (such as community colleges) so far, at least. (Gee, that does sound “familiar”, doesn’t it?)
The “lack of urgency” has described city hall’s approach to housing forever right? Or is it not a lack of urgency bur really a “lack of political courage”?
The toxic anti-growth movement which is so well established in town explains ( i think ) a great deal why those who work in city hall might not feel very motivated to move beyond doing the bare minimum when it comes to community planning and growth.
Why launch an effort to update our general plan when you know it’s just going to mean you are going to be attacked? Why prioritize getting a housing development passed when you want to win re-election?
This is a perverse incentive in our local politics which means that even “pro growth” city council-members and staff are quite effectively discouraged from acting on those impulses because of the political / emotional / BS overhead that is created by engaging in such work.
And that is really our question for council: Are they just punting? Or are they REALLY making time for a quick / effective planning process (perhaps community led) to actually happen… because if we punt on the proposals and do NOT take the time in the interim to do some of that planning, then it really is just a dodge.