By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
File this one under “be careful what you wish for.”
I have had this ongoing discussion with one of our regular readers and commenters about the local housing crisis.
They have suggested that in order to meet Davis’ RHNA targets “I’d suggest that Davis pursue whatever the vast population centers along the coast will be pursuing to address those same targets.”
In previous columns and responses I have pointed out that, for example, San Francisco actually has large parcels including the Shipyards and Angel Island that surpass the size and scope of the peripheral project proposals for Davis.
But I was even more amused when I ran across the proposal for densification in San Francisco.
The Chronicle last week reported the proposal for a 50-story residential tower overlooking Ocean Beach in San Francisco’s Sunset District.
The Chronicle writes: “New, detailed plans and renderings have been filed with the city for a proposed 50-story residential tower overlooking Ocean Beach in San Francisco’s Sunset District — a project that has prompted backlash from city officials and debate among residents.”
The article continues: “The 680-unit building, proposed for a site across from the San Francisco Zoo, would rise more than 580 feet in a neighborhood currently defined largely by low-rise buildings and single-family homes.
“City officials have said that, while they encourage density and residential development in the area, the proposed project is several times taller than what regulations allow in the neighborhood.”
The Chronicle adds: “The latest details come as the city is faced with carrying out its state-mandated plan to build 82,000 new units over the next eight years. Some housing advocates have pointed to this requirement as a reason to approve the project.”
The residents in Davis, of course, have complained regularly about 5- to 7-story buildings.
San Francisco will likely oppose a building this high, but it does illustrate the danger of transplanting solutions from other communities to the housing crisis. Davis can relatively easily meet its housing targets with a few peripheral projects.
As Tim Keller’s work has demonstrated, we could accommodate our housing needs for the next half century without moving our borders significantly outside of their current boundaries.
That would seem to be a better solution than pursuing what San Francisco and other communities are going to have to pursue to meet their much larger housing requirements.
So Davis had better approve massive sprawl on its periphery or you might end up with a 50 story building, is that what you are trying to imply?
No
“Some” might view the article that way.
Maybe, but that’s wasn’t the point. My point actual point was stated in the article, you can’t take the solutions from a place like San Francisco and drop them into Davis.
“As Tim Keller’s work has demonstrated, we could accommodate our housing needs for the next half century without moving our borders significantly outside of their current boundaries.”
He also explains that to do so we can’t build more single family homes something that most of the commenters on here live in and likely own. Once again we see a failure of leadership by example. A do as I say not as I do vision of the future.
Davis has been a suburban community built in a rural setting. The future for the downtown is an urban landscape. Its not what I would do but at least there is a logic to it. But the question for the periphery is what mixture of urban, suburban and rural should we have?
Honestly I like my 0.2 acre single family home where I can putter around the yard growing tomatoes and roses. It has been a good place to raise a kid and has long been the preferred choice of young professional families to raise children. Why are we trying to reinvent Davis at the expense of what makes Davis an attractive place to live. Davis needs more single family housing for young families. Not doing so will only continue the trend of families forming in Davis after graduating from UCD and then moving to Woodland, Winters, West Sac and Dixon. What we retain in our rural buffer costs us in losing our best and brightest to other places.
I think people need to understand the trade offs here. My preferred alternative is finding a reasonable midpoint.
Give me an available condo in a mixed use development and I will move. There are lots of people who dont care about tending their tomatoes or roses or resent being forced to maintain a yard (im one of them) but Right now the ONLY housing available for adults in this town is single family, and even there “available” is a generous term. Please stow your accusations of hypocrisy until we are actually given a choice.
If we built out the mace curve and village farms at the ratios I have proposed, Davis would still be ~80% single family homes by land area. People who “like” their single family homes really dont have to worry. These kinds of homes are not going away. They will be more expensive than the missing middle homes that Im proposing, but oh.. wait.. they already are…
That said, I didn’t make up the facts and figures about the impact of these houses. They exist whether or not people “like” their single family homes. I might “like hunting spotted owls” but that doesn’t mean the city needs to cater to my desire. As David said, we need to balance these interests.
For example, if we consider “village Farms” infill, and dense infill is what we want for all the reasons cited, then we can get our town to 120,000 people using the same spreadsheet math I used in my articles with JUST the village farms site!
its just that we would get there by building 45 dwelling units per acre which means apartments / condos / townhomes over the entirety of that site, or maybe townhomes over all of it with core of 8-story apartments in a little downtown section up front.
Despite my statements that it is irresponsible for us to be building any more single family housing, it should be noted that I did propose 30% of the land area in my projections for more single family housing. This is a concession for the sake of balance and those people who cannot imagine anything other than single family homes. What matters is the average density of these developments anyway, so I retreated from the thought of building everything more densely for the sake of creating something that is more balanced and in-scale with our existing city. ( for reference… the highest density parts of the layout I created, encompassing only 10% of the land area calls for 4-5 story apartments… something we already see quite a bit of along Russell boulevard (though one of those is 7 stores). So don’t be thinking that my density proposal is extreme. An average of 20 units per acre is NOT very dense by urban planning standards, not by a long shot.
.
Tim is 100% correct in his statement above. Walter is just a mad zealot when he throws around accusations of hypocrisy. We need to work toward solutions, not petty insults.
With that said, addressing housing is only dealing with a symptom, not the actual disease itself. Fiscal studies have clearly shown that SFRs cost municipal jurisdictions more than they generate in revenues. That is even more the case in Davis where the sales tax revenues are so paltry. The root cause that needs to be addressed is jobs. Right now the jobs in the City of Davis do not pay sufficient wages for the person working to afford a $900,000 home. Further, young families do not want to raise their children in apartments. So we need to develop an Economic Development Plan with clearly identified target markets and market segments that capitalize on Davis’ core competencies. Until we do that, the new homes are going to be purchased by commuters whose earnings in non-Davis jobs affords them the luxury of being able to afford a Davis residence.
Matt –
“With that said, addressing housing is only dealing with a symptom, not the actual disease itself.”
“The root cause that needs to be addressed is jobs.”
That’s an interesting discussion. I’ve read a lot on one of the roots of economic inequality – post-war housing policies that excluded Blacks and gave white middle class a means to build wealth that was not available to others.
So while I don’t think you are completely wrong, housing at its core is a pathway to building wealth and lies at the root of current economic inequality.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy whether you like it or not. Calling someone a hypocrite is not an insult if it’s the absolute truth.
So don’t be afraid to point out hypocrisy when you see it, you might be doing some good overall.
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2016/nov/17/its-only-wrong-when-you-do-it-the-psychology-of-hypocrisy
And yet, there’s already sufficient demand for $900,000 houses – without “more jobs”.
What would happen (regarding “housing demand”) if more jobs were created?
This isn’t rocket science.
That is not the purpose of housing. But if that’s someone’s “personal goal”, Davis is not the place to do it anymore.
There are other places that offer better opportunity for that.
The days of big growth (and big housing price appreciation) are over in Davis. I realize that some resent “missing out”, but everyone has lost opportunities in their lives.
(Get yourself a time machine – that might work.)
Matt: “Right now the jobs in the City of Davis do not pay sufficient wages for the person working to afford a $900,000 home.”
Ron: “And yet, there’s already sufficient demand for $900,000 houses – without “more jobs”.”
Notice Matt is talking about “sufficient” wages and Ron is thinking in terms of quantity rather than quality of jobs. Instead of thinking “more jobs” perhaps it would help Ron to think of “better jobs.” Strangely, this is a point that Ron has made elsewhere when he has questioned whether the problem is “housing” or jobs. So why is he so obviously missing Matt’s point here?
We have a supply side vs a demand side argument here…
Bringing higher paying jobs to davis so that local residents can afford the high housing prices here is certainly one way to look at it, but we will still have a lot of median-income jobs here which don’t pay for a davis home.
If we care about allowing davis workers to afford homes in davis, we either need to pay those workers MORE ( your woodstocks pizza is now $35 instead of $25) or provide more market-rate affordable housing forms…
The simplest way to do that is to focus on missing middle housing.
David, the point is that there’s “already demand” for $900,000 houses – as you yourself have noted. Apparently, this demand is not entirely-dependent upon “local jobs”.
Now, if you add additional “better jobs”, what do you think will happen in regard to the $900,000 houses, given that there’s “already demand” for them?
Do you think, for example – that they’d (then) rise to $1 million and beyond?
But how does that help the person that can’t afford the $900K home?
David: You’re asking me how increasing the cost of a $900,000 house (to $1 million) “helps” the person who can’t afford a $900,000 house.
It seems like you didn’t read my comment.
But on a related note, there’s LOTS of houses that cost less than $900,000 in Davis.
There aren’t in fact a lot of *available* houses period. When I looked at the May data, there were 37 homes sold in Davis, the median price was $900K and they were on the market for less than 10 days on average. That’s a pretty constrained market.
It is true that inventory (nationwide) is much lower than “normal”, due to folks locking in low interest rates. This will change – the housing market is never permanently “fixed” in one trend.
In any case, how many houses do “you” or anyone else need to live in? I’ve seen several over the past few months, in the $700K range. Assuming that “you” want one, have you put any offers on any of them? That would probably be more “effective” than writing continuously about what you’d “prefer” to see.
(Though I don’t know – have any of these developers “promised” you anything for your activism – other than what I assume to be rather meager advertising dollars on the blog?)
There are several decent-looking single-family houses on Zillow, right now. One for $599K, one for $680K, etc. And less-expensive than that, for condos.
In any case, “used” houses are where you’re consistently going to be a better, more-affordable deal.
In any case, “good luck” on your efforts to destroy more farmland, I guess. To build houses that YOU won’t be able to afford.
https://www.zillow.com/homes/davis,-ca_rb/
Seems like this article is in response to comments I’ve made.
That tower is almost certainly not going to get built. (The article from The Chronicle itself casts doubt on that.) The proposal and article (which first appeared several weeks ago) seems intended to “scare” folks, as does this one from the Vanguard.
So, David claims that San Francisco has “sufficient land” to accommodate RHNA targets, and and yet this (fake) proposal arises anyway.
So what good is having “sufficient land” if (fake) proposals like this are going to arise, anyway?
By the way, the Chronicle article (and diagram) first appeared several weeks ago.
San Francisco’s targets are not going to be met due to other reasons, including lack of funding for Affordable housing. Articles I’ve posted show that it would cost $19 billion to do so.
But David is actually missing my primary point: It will take some “suffering” by cities for folks to (finally) rise up against the state’s interference in local planning. I fear that there won’t be “enough” suffering for that to occur, due to the downturn in the housing market, population exodus, etc.
But think about it for a moment – does anyone actually believe that the state would want to deal with the “fallout” from totally-taking over planning from cities? Not just the reaction from the residents – but the resulting traffic chaos, and all of the other problems that result from “no zoning”? Think about the logistics/impacts of proposals like the one in the diagram would result in if it was actually feasible, and ask yourself if the state has the ability to deal with that on a statewide level. It seems “unlikely”, to say the least.
Oh, and while you’re at it, ask yourself why the Palomino Ranch developer continues advertising on this blog, since he’s already announced that he’s pursuing the “builder’s remedy”, himself. Why would he need to continue advertising on here, if the builder’s remedy is available (and feasible) for that site?
Also, ask yourself what would happen to ANY land that is annexed into the city, in regard to the state’s interference (regardless of any “local requirements”). For example, how many of these towers might arise at the 400-acre Covell Village site – regardless of any “baseline features” or “development agreements”?
By the way, you know you’re “in trouble” when a YIMBY supervisor says something like this:
And when your “opposition” immediately “turns the tables”, and uses the fear-mongering proposal themselves – to build support:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/sunset-condo-tower-18193024.php
So yeah – keep at it! Let’s see even more of these things. (Perhaps those opposed to Covell Village II can come up with a drawing which shows hundreds of them, on that site.)
Perhaps it won’t even require that many fake proposals to undermine the state and derail the YIMBYs – permanently. (But seriously, the economy and population exodus is accomplishing that, anyway.)
But I will say this: even though this is a “fake proposal”, it’s easy to overlook the fact that this neighborhood (and the city itself) will likely lose one of the few (perhaps even the “only”) plant nurseries left in the city. Something like a 1-acre site.
If “I was in charge of things”, I would not let that happen – for any amount of housing.
Make no mistake, this is a loss for the city of San Francisco, regardless of what type of housing replaces it. This is exactly how cities become more unlivable.
Don’t be afraid to call their bluff, and don’t accept what they’re doing as a “negotiating tactic” (e.g., perhaps similar to what’s occurring with Palomino Ranch).
The business interests supporting the YIMBYs need to be sent packing, entirely.
Ron G
While you might prefer a conventional single family house, that doesn’t mean everyone does. If the developers don’t think they can actually sell a more dense development in Davis despite the 55% price premium over neighboring cities indicating strong pent up demand, they won’t build them. We don’t need to make that decision at the outset–the market forces will eventually resolve that question.
Ron O
First, I don’t see any real relationship between what’s happening far away in San Francisco in a very different setting and in Davis. Not sure why you spend so much time on a situation that none of us see as relevant. Second, I find it ironic that accuse David of bias because he’s carrying an ad while you object to the us pointing out the fact that you don’t live in Davis and have unstated motivations for meddling in Davis issues. Suspicion goes both ways.
David is the one who posted a photo of a fake proposal in San Francisco, apparently as a “scare tactic” for Davis. And yet, you focus on MY comment.
What does that tell readers about YOU, and YOUR motivation?
Where did I say that I “object to” the ad? Did you even read the comment?
Here it is, again:
Also, I’ve never stated where I live.
But again, are you “suspicious” of Don Shor, Don Gibson, Matt Williams, Professor Chris Elmendforf (and others), who have freely noted that they don’t live in Davis? And if not, why not?
I’ll tell you “why”. The reason is because you think you’re scoring some kind of political point with this repeated nonsense, in regard to “me” alone. What you’re repeatedly attempting to do is a reflection of you and your motivation, not mine.
Why “anyone” would listen to you is beyond me.
“ Also, I’ve never stated where I live. ”
While I honestly don’t care where you live there are two key differences between the people you mention and yourself. One is that they all work in the Davis with the exception of Matt at this point. But second, they have all acknowledged where they live (Elmendorf rarely discusses Davis issues, so I’m not sure why he’s even listed here). You never did. You acted as though you lived in Davis, when you didn’t and never explained your situation when it was pointed out and as such you have actually dragged this entire thing out way longer than it needed to be. That’s all I’m going to say, you make your own choices, but that’s largely why it’s an issue
So according to this logic, no one should be listening to Matt (or Chris Elemendorf, either.) Elmendorf works on campus.)
Perhaps I’m simply choosing to not disclose my connections to Davis. For that matter, there could be more than one “type” of connection I have.
Perhaps the “reason” I choose to not do so is because of the type of attacks that you allow (such as those from Richard) in the first place.
I guarantee you that the more one discloses about themselves on here, the more that folks like Richard will attempt to “use it” against those whom he disagrees with. And you specifically encourage that. Capitulating to this type of online bullying only encourages folks like Richard.
So no, it does not make any difference, regarding fending-off personal attacks that YOU encourage.
No – I never did, nor will I ever make this a point of discussion. Nor have I ever “acted” as if I currently live in Davis. (What does that even mean?)
But is this really about “me”? Am I the “subject matter”, here?
Why are you excusing Richard’s behavior, which you’ve actively encouraged on here? Does it relate to the subject matter in any way, shape or form?
Elmendorf intertwines his “job” on campus with his YIMBY activism. (To what degree, I don’t know – but he is referred to as a UCD professor when his YIMBY views are cited in housing articles across the state.)
Is that appropriate? Where is Richard (or your concern) regarding THAT?
And isn’t the YIMBY issue essentially what the Vanguard advocates in every single one of its housing articles – just about every day?
And yes, I’ve heard (second-hand) that he advocates against Measure J.
You missed the point of most of what I said, you made it about you because you haven’t been honest about where you live and why you are involved.
Again, I haven’t made “where I live” a point of discussion in the first place. How can I be “dishonest” about it, in light of that?
One can probably surmise that I have a connection (or more than one type) based upon the comments I’ve made – none of which even remotely addressed or suggested where I currently live. It’s irrelevant, and something that I don’t feel the need to share on here.
Again, why do you encourage “me” to be the issue? Rather than the guy you’re encouraging to engage in online bullying? And now, you’re stating that this is “my fault”, which would be “resolved” if I shared information beyond what the bully already posted?
You’re obviously not very-familiar with bullies.
Are you really that biased and dense, that you can’t see this? (That might explain a lot, regarding how you view the world.)
The way that you and Don have handled this type of issue is a primary reason that the Vanguard is so-disliked, by so many in the community. Ask Roberta (and others), if you don’t believe that.
“Again, I haven’t made “where I live” a point of discussion in the first place. How can I be “dishonest” about it, in light of that?”
That’s the point. Omission. As I said, I don’t care. But you’re playing victim on this and I’m pointing out why it’s come to pass. You can address it or you just ignore it, it’s up to you. I’m done here.
When you come up with a “list of rules” regarding what has to be disclosed on here (to avoid continued bullying), I’ll either comply, or stop commenting.
Until then, don’t “pretend” that what Richard is doing (and what you’re encouraging) is anything less than online bullying.
And again, I guarantee you that the issue for Richard is NOT “where I live”, or “what I choose to disclose”.
The “issue” for Richard is that he doesn’t like what I have to say, regarding the subject matter. It’s that simple.
Apparently, you “do” care – enough to allow Richard to continue his behavior.
I already did address it. I’m not here to discuss my personal life, or connections to Davis. And in fact, I don’t recall seeing any articles or comments discussing anyone else’s place of residence or connection to Davis on the Vanguard, either.
Even the council doesn’t “require” speakers to identify their place of residence, or connection to Davis. What makes you think the Vanguard is “so special” that it would require this (of commenters it doesn’t like, at least)? Especially when you allow bullying in the first place?
Who (in their right mind) would come on here and disclose everything about themselves, when hostile commenters are already encouraged to doxx others in the first place?
Now, keep in mind that there are folks who might do disclose everything about themselves, but they’re usually part of the resident peanut gallery in the first place.
There’s another concern regarding this, as well. This is a PUBLIC forum, and one doesn’t know “who” is reading this, or for what possible purposes. I do know of one periodic commenter who was previously threatened as a result of her political activism – there was a police report regarding that, as well. It’s bad enough that we have to disclose our names.
And by the way, how would YOU (or anyone else) know if they’re being “honest” or “fully disclosing all information that you deem pertinent” in the first place?
Stating the absolute truth is neither a personal attack nor bullying except in your own highly biased mind. If that was actually the case, the entire Internet would be comprised of personal attacks and bullying. Stating the city where one lives or doesn’t reside does not in any way constitute a personal attack, bullying or doxxing unless the specific neighborhood or street address is cited. The population of Woodland is 61,398 (2021). You are just one individual in a sea of people. The city of residence is definitely relevant when the subject directly involves Davis issues. People can tell based upon some of your comments that you don’t currently live in Davis. It’s not hard to determine that fact. Regarding people that no longer wish to comment on this site, it’s simply their choice, not mine. If you regard this comment as anything resembling a personal attack, you unquestionably and with gusto personally attack other people such as Richard, David and myself.
You talk about apples to oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.
But I guess your point was to yet find another way to say Ron doesn’t live in Davis. By now everyone knows that, why do you keep pounding on that?
Keith: As noted above, Richard doesn’t actually care about where I live, nor would his ongoing attempt to bully end if I started discussing it or if I disclosed anything else about myself. Capitulating to bullies does nothing but encourage them, as anyone who attended grammar school knows. (At least, outside of what I suspect is somewhat of a “protective cocoon” in Davis schools at least.
The Vanguard encourages this type of thing, in regard to commenters who challenge it.
Note how this shifts the conversation away from the actual subject at hand – purposefully.
Comments closed.