Davis, CA – We started our weekly string of council candidate questions. Two of the three districts do not have contested races, so we are exclusively focused on District 2. Will Arnold has declined to seek a third term and that leaves it between Linda Deos, Dillan Horton, and Victor Lagunes.
Personally I think you can learn a lot by asking the candidates what they see as the key issue facing Davis – and so that’s why we led off with it.
A key question I think is going to be: how close are the candidates on the issues.
2024 Davis City Council Candidate Question 1: Key Issue Facing the City
Perhaps not surprisingly they all picked housing.
This is emblematic of the fact that housing is at least in my view – and apparently the candidates views as well – the most important issue facing Davis. And I would argue it’s the most important issue facing the state of California. And while it’s increasingly important nationally – I wouldn’t quite put it at the top.
How much difference actually is there between the candidates?
Linda Deos: “the key issue I would most like to address is the availability and affordability of housing. Affordable and accessible housing is fundamental to our community’s success and future. Davis faces a critical housing problem, with home prices and rental rates outpacing the financial capabilities of many residents, particularly students, young families, and seniors. This shortage of affordable housing threatens to erode the diversity and inclusivity that make Davis such a vibrant place to live.”
Dillan Horton: “There’s no question that the statewide housing crisis is hitting our community hard. As a renter who has experienced the harsh impacts of this crisis, my primary focus will be to expand the supply of quality-affordable housing. The truth is, we’ve recently built more housing, but it’s still not enough to catch up to decades of not building in town or to serve all those who need housing.”
Victor Lagunes: “When I talk to fellow Davisites across the city and across different ages, one issue constantly rises to the top: housing. The scarcity and high cost of both ownership and renting in Davis has a pervasive impact on every level of our community and connects to other issues important to Davis voters: climate, open spaces, schools, the unhoused, and more.”
The candidates took different approaches to addressing the issue.
Deos for example, offered a “multi-pronged approach” which included the “increased development of affordable housing units through both public and private partnerships.” She is looking to “incentivize the creation of affordable rental and ownership opportunities.” Second, she addressed rental protection and third she talked about the need to develop regional partnerships “recognizing that affordable housing is a regional issue that requires regional solutions.”
Horton put out a five point plan: (1) building more affordable housing, (2) renters’ ordinance, (3) Affordable Housing Trust Fund, (4) First Time Homebuyers program and (5) smart development – avoiding agricultural land for example.
Lagunes took a slightly different approach – although he seems to get to much the same place.
He notes that the issue connects to: climate, open spaces, schools, the unhoused, and more. But he ends up noting for example: “Young families just starting out have to buy in Woodland, West Sacramento, or Sacramento. Renter families can’t save enough to transition to becoming homeowners. Seniors can’t afford to downsize and struggle with their family-sized homes as they age. UC Davis students struggle to stay housed while they get their degrees, then can’t settle here after graduation even if they wish to.”
All three candidates are seeing the same basic problem. It’s some measure of lack of “affordable” housing, the challenges that renters face, and attempting to leverage various partnerships in order to address these pressing problems.
The answers also tell us something I think most of us already suspected – there is not really a “slow growth” voice in this council election. We saw slow growth challengers in 2018, 2020, and 2022 – and frankly none of them did all that well even as the voters themselves have put town several development projects over that time.
Housing will be a key issue in this election – it will come up in any candidate forums. And it will come up in subsequent Vanguard questions.
From my perspective the key question is will it make any difference in our ability to address some of these vexing and seemingly intractable problems?
Did any of the candidates say how they intend to fund this magical holy grail of desirable affordable housing? One mentioned the affordable housing fund….how do they intend to fund the fund? Do they still plan on begging the state or hoping for the goodwill of all the market rate developments going on in Davis to provide new affordable housing units or funding? How do the candidates plan for the city to pay for the on going maintenance and infrastructure to support new housing (or I dunno….do a better job of providing maintenance and services for existing housing?). It’s all rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic without an economic growth plan.
” there is not really a “slow growth” voice in this council election.”
Horton’s “Smart Development” (lol) avoids agricultural land….which is pretty much the only land that surrounds Davis. Even you know that no peripheral development isn’t a long term solution.
The funding issue is a real concern.
Im not shocked that there is not a slow-growth voice in this lineup. Its hard to be “pro-fire” when your house is burning.
I share Keith’s cynicism re: funding. Programmatic ideas like the trust fund are nice, but they arent going to make a dent, and I do worry that if we focus on stuff like that, it will just serve as a fig leaf for addressing the true size and shape of our housing problem.
With the fact that we currently have 23,000 inbound daily commuters, we need to be looking at approaches that can get us 10,000 units in the coming years. And of course, since it seems that affordability is also pretty widely recognized as a key part of the problem, that means that the housing we DO build should absolutely NOT be single family homes, which will start at 800k and be out of reach to that currently-inbound demographic of local service workers, young families and university staff that are currently displaced.