The message from Supervisor Mike McGowan goes even further. McGowan was quoted as saying:
“I don’t care where (Davis) puts their additional units, but from any standpoint they have to absorb their fair share. I’m not telling them where to grow.”
He added:
“One of the reasons we are embarking on the General Plan update is that we can’t maintain the old way of doing business; we aren’t generating the revenues we need.”
Not mentioned is the fact pointed out by Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald that housing is not a reliable source for revenue.
But there is more in this rhetoric. The notion of fair share. This notion is based on the presumption somehow that California can continue to grow. That it has the resources–namely the water–to be able to sustain high rates of growth. As it is, Davis is looking at expanding its water capacity and paying an addition 300 to 450 million dollars for a water project.
Supervisor Helen Thomson represents part of Davis.
The Davis Enterprise writes:
“But Thomson later suggested there was much to talk to Davis about in addition to new housing.
In exchange for the county’s policy of directing commercial and residential projects to the cities instead of building them on agricultural land, the cities pay the county a fee in what’s called a pass-through agreement.
In 2005-06, Davis paid nearly $2 million to the county in its pass-through agreement, Thomson said. But that agreement is nearly 15 years old and there are other issues to discuss. Thomson cited her own example of “poor planning” by the city of Davis — allowing homes to be built on seven 20-acre parcels at Binning Ranch north of Davis.”
Of course what the article fails to mention is in fact, that the City of Davis and Yolo County just recently renewed the pass-through agreement.
My thoughts are this: I am very disturbed by the audacity of Supervisor McGowan who does not reside in Davis making such bold assertions.
However, I am even more disturbed by the lack of leadership from the two Davis Supervisors in this regard.
Growth around Davis is an issue for the Davis City Council. The City of Davis will determine and should determine how and when and in what places it will grow.
I sympathize with the County about their dilemma. They provide services to the cities and have revenue shortfalls. I am not unwilling to look into changes in the pass-through agreement. But Davis residents have fought long and hard be able to retain control of their growth both through Measure J and the hard fought pass-through agreements. If the county expects that they are going to get their way on this, I think they have another thing coming.
It was very reassuring to see both Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Saylor vehemently on the same side on this. The entire council seems united on this issue. And the citizens of Davis control forty percent of the county supervisors.
I have no problems with discussions but the rhetoric of fair-share is a slap in the face to Davis residents. The notion of fair-share is inherently selfish. It is about the procurement of scare resources with discussion about the future carrying-capacity of the state of the California and moreover fails to look into the future at what the climate changes may have in store. I think the idea of growth is blatantly irresponsible and unfair. We need to address these questions and not simply look at growth as a cure-all for fiscal and revenue problems.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
toto togel
toto slot
situs toto
prediksi hk
jacktoto
jacktoto
situs togel
slot mahjong
rtp slot
I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?
Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?
That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.
If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.
–Richard Estes
I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?
Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?
That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.
If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.
–Richard Estes
I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?
Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?
That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.
If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.
–Richard Estes
I lived in Davis throughout all of the 1990s. Didn’t Davis construct more new housing units than West Sacramento? than Woodland?
Didn’t Davis have more population growth than either of these cities considered separately?
That’s my recollection, I even seem to recall seeing it in the Enterprise, but I will defer to the knowledge of people with more experience with the issue.
If I am correct, it causes one to wonder what all this talk of “fair share” is about.
–Richard Estes
Fair share is the new rhetoric that everyone has to keep up their end of the bargain in terms of absorbing growth.
Fair share is the new rhetoric that everyone has to keep up their end of the bargain in terms of absorbing growth.
Fair share is the new rhetoric that everyone has to keep up their end of the bargain in terms of absorbing growth.
Fair share is the new rhetoric that everyone has to keep up their end of the bargain in terms of absorbing growth.
I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.
Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”
It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.
I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.
Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”
It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.
I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.
Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”
It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.
I think the headline to this story isn’t quite right. It isn’t the County that has “declared war,” it appears to be three Supervisors in particular – Yamada, Thomson and McGowan.
Interestingly, the Yamada/Thomson/McGowan bloc hasn’t even articulated a consistent message regarding why they are so hot to begin interfering in Davis city planning. Thomson says it’s about money. McGowan says it’s about taking our “fair share” of growth. Yamada says it’s about “land use planning.”
It is questionable whether residential develpment on the periphery of Davis would generate revenue for the County in excess of the cost of additional services and infrastructure required. What is not in doubt, however, is that such development generates huge profits for the developers, and that developers and their allies are often big contributors to political campaigns.
SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.
The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.
The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.
To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.
Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.
SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.
The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.
The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.
To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.
Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.
SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.
The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.
The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.
To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.
Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.
SACOG conducts regionwide growth projects periodically and then assigns a “fair share” growth amount. The growth projections are essentially a line chart that assumes trends from the past X number of years will continue into the future, cross referenced with ecnonomic growth projections.
The fair share growth concept is essentially what keeps the Cities and Counties in the region in agreement (in theory) regarding where growth should be allocated.
The issue is not so much about “fair share” or even growth, but rather HOW you grow. Most people interpret that as “continuing to grow the way we have historically”, which means on the periphery. This is a fundamentally flawed thought process and should be reexamined.
To the extent that all Cities in the region have committed to SACOG to accommodate their fair share of expected growth, it is a sound concept. It is disingenuous for a City, or its residents, to join a regional planning agency with associated growth commitments and then refuse to make the accommodations necessary. It simply pushes growth somewhere else and in manners which are not beneficial to the region. May as well disassociate from the regional planning process, which is a bad idea.
Fair share should not be used as political rhetoric. However, it is a real commitment to plan for the future. Some call it “growth”, which has negative connotations. More accurately, it is additional residents.
And I would say that agencies such as SACOG need to strongly reevaluate whether this sort of growth and incentive for growth is sustainable.
And I would say that agencies such as SACOG need to strongly reevaluate whether this sort of growth and incentive for growth is sustainable.
And I would say that agencies such as SACOG need to strongly reevaluate whether this sort of growth and incentive for growth is sustainable.
And I would say that agencies such as SACOG need to strongly reevaluate whether this sort of growth and incentive for growth is sustainable.
I think your idealism is getting the better of you. It’s really not about SACOG. They are merely providing the cities with the most accurate information possible.
The idea of sustainability doesn’t translate well to land use decisions. You basically have two paths to take with respect to sustainability:
1. No growth in the name of “sustainability”
2. Smarter growth with the realization that more people in California is inevitable
If the first option is chosen, are you prepared for all the secondary effects that would result? Such as an increasingly expensive housing market where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live? How about the spillover effects of declining school enrollment because young families cannot afford to move into the city? Declining property tax revenues because fewer properties turn over? Or completely forsaking the entire young professional (or non), artists, and other groups of people who will be priced out of the market? Should they be priced out of home ownership (in the variety of forms that can take)? Do we not want a mix of demographics and diversity which has helped create the City as we know it today? We should be striving for inclusion. No-growth policies (and mindset) inhibit that ideal.
The second path better preserves the things that make Davis unique because it opens up the housing product types (townhomes, row houses, mixed-use, flats, live-work lofts, etc.), increases business activity and commerce, and does it on the smallest footprint possible.
Our entire civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. It’s a big ship to turn around and takes time.
I think your idealism is getting the better of you. It’s really not about SACOG. They are merely providing the cities with the most accurate information possible.
The idea of sustainability doesn’t translate well to land use decisions. You basically have two paths to take with respect to sustainability:
1. No growth in the name of “sustainability”
2. Smarter growth with the realization that more people in California is inevitable
If the first option is chosen, are you prepared for all the secondary effects that would result? Such as an increasingly expensive housing market where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live? How about the spillover effects of declining school enrollment because young families cannot afford to move into the city? Declining property tax revenues because fewer properties turn over? Or completely forsaking the entire young professional (or non), artists, and other groups of people who will be priced out of the market? Should they be priced out of home ownership (in the variety of forms that can take)? Do we not want a mix of demographics and diversity which has helped create the City as we know it today? We should be striving for inclusion. No-growth policies (and mindset) inhibit that ideal.
The second path better preserves the things that make Davis unique because it opens up the housing product types (townhomes, row houses, mixed-use, flats, live-work lofts, etc.), increases business activity and commerce, and does it on the smallest footprint possible.
Our entire civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. It’s a big ship to turn around and takes time.
I think your idealism is getting the better of you. It’s really not about SACOG. They are merely providing the cities with the most accurate information possible.
The idea of sustainability doesn’t translate well to land use decisions. You basically have two paths to take with respect to sustainability:
1. No growth in the name of “sustainability”
2. Smarter growth with the realization that more people in California is inevitable
If the first option is chosen, are you prepared for all the secondary effects that would result? Such as an increasingly expensive housing market where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live? How about the spillover effects of declining school enrollment because young families cannot afford to move into the city? Declining property tax revenues because fewer properties turn over? Or completely forsaking the entire young professional (or non), artists, and other groups of people who will be priced out of the market? Should they be priced out of home ownership (in the variety of forms that can take)? Do we not want a mix of demographics and diversity which has helped create the City as we know it today? We should be striving for inclusion. No-growth policies (and mindset) inhibit that ideal.
The second path better preserves the things that make Davis unique because it opens up the housing product types (townhomes, row houses, mixed-use, flats, live-work lofts, etc.), increases business activity and commerce, and does it on the smallest footprint possible.
Our entire civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. It’s a big ship to turn around and takes time.
I think your idealism is getting the better of you. It’s really not about SACOG. They are merely providing the cities with the most accurate information possible.
The idea of sustainability doesn’t translate well to land use decisions. You basically have two paths to take with respect to sustainability:
1. No growth in the name of “sustainability”
2. Smarter growth with the realization that more people in California is inevitable
If the first option is chosen, are you prepared for all the secondary effects that would result? Such as an increasingly expensive housing market where only the ultra-affluent can afford to live? How about the spillover effects of declining school enrollment because young families cannot afford to move into the city? Declining property tax revenues because fewer properties turn over? Or completely forsaking the entire young professional (or non), artists, and other groups of people who will be priced out of the market? Should they be priced out of home ownership (in the variety of forms that can take)? Do we not want a mix of demographics and diversity which has helped create the City as we know it today? We should be striving for inclusion. No-growth policies (and mindset) inhibit that ideal.
The second path better preserves the things that make Davis unique because it opens up the housing product types (townhomes, row houses, mixed-use, flats, live-work lofts, etc.), increases business activity and commerce, and does it on the smallest footprint possible.
Our entire civilization is fundamentally unsustainable. It’s a big ship to turn around and takes time.
it is hard to tell where she stands, but I am having trouble understanding how Mariko Yamada can challenge Christopher Cabaldon for the 8th AD Democratic nomination if it turns out that she does development in the northwest quadrant
–Richard Estes
it is hard to tell where she stands, but I am having trouble understanding how Mariko Yamada can challenge Christopher Cabaldon for the 8th AD Democratic nomination if it turns out that she does development in the northwest quadrant
–Richard Estes
it is hard to tell where she stands, but I am having trouble understanding how Mariko Yamada can challenge Christopher Cabaldon for the 8th AD Democratic nomination if it turns out that she does development in the northwest quadrant
–Richard Estes
it is hard to tell where she stands, but I am having trouble understanding how Mariko Yamada can challenge Christopher Cabaldon for the 8th AD Democratic nomination if it turns out that she does development in the northwest quadrant
–Richard Estes
“This notion is based on the presumption somehow that California can continue to grow.”
California WILL continue to grow. Do you see some alternative to that? So it will be necessary to plan for housing, for water, and for the related infrastructure.
I recall a few threads back a statement that affordable housing should be a priority. It seems to me that priority would conflict with slow growth.
Cities have the right to control their own growth, and I do see a conflict brewing between the cities and the county. But there’s nothing new about that. If I recall, that was what got Mace Ranch started in the first place.
“This notion is based on the presumption somehow that California can continue to grow.”
California WILL continue to grow. Do you see some alternative to that? So it will be necessary to plan for housing, for water, and for the related infrastructure.
I recall a few threads back a statement that affordable housing should be a priority. It seems to me that priority would conflict with slow growth.
Cities have the right to control their own growth, and I do see a conflict brewing between the cities and the county. But there’s nothing new about that. If I recall, that was what got Mace Ranch started in the first place.
“This notion is based on the presumption somehow that California can continue to grow.”
California WILL continue to grow. Do you see some alternative to that? So it will be necessary to plan for housing, for water, and for the related infrastructure.
I recall a few threads back a statement that affordable housing should be a priority. It seems to me that priority would conflict with slow growth.
Cities have the right to control their own growth, and I do see a conflict brewing between the cities and the county. But there’s nothing new about that. If I recall, that was what got Mace Ranch started in the first place.
“This notion is based on the presumption somehow that California can continue to grow.”
California WILL continue to grow. Do you see some alternative to that? So it will be necessary to plan for housing, for water, and for the related infrastructure.
I recall a few threads back a statement that affordable housing should be a priority. It seems to me that priority would conflict with slow growth.
Cities have the right to control their own growth, and I do see a conflict brewing between the cities and the county. But there’s nothing new about that. If I recall, that was what got Mace Ranch started in the first place.
Don:
I understand it will continue to grow, that does not mean it should continue to grow or that the county should dictate to the city of Davis how it must grow.
And that growth should be based on sound plans not the need to capture more revenue for the county.
I’m not opposed to growth as long as we are wise about it.
Don:
I understand it will continue to grow, that does not mean it should continue to grow or that the county should dictate to the city of Davis how it must grow.
And that growth should be based on sound plans not the need to capture more revenue for the county.
I’m not opposed to growth as long as we are wise about it.
Don:
I understand it will continue to grow, that does not mean it should continue to grow or that the county should dictate to the city of Davis how it must grow.
And that growth should be based on sound plans not the need to capture more revenue for the county.
I’m not opposed to growth as long as we are wise about it.
Don:
I understand it will continue to grow, that does not mean it should continue to grow or that the county should dictate to the city of Davis how it must grow.
And that growth should be based on sound plans not the need to capture more revenue for the county.
I’m not opposed to growth as long as we are wise about it.
The Fair Share concept is fundamentally a political one.. It essentially is a game of political
“chicken”.. Politicans recognize that to DEMAND that voters relinquish control over the communities and lives that they have built is political suicide.. so the rhetoric continues, the intimidation and threats intensify. The method of calculating Fair Share is much more complex than the simplistic approach that the developer/land speculator lobby has put in place.
The Fair Share concept is fundamentally a political one.. It essentially is a game of political
“chicken”.. Politicans recognize that to DEMAND that voters relinquish control over the communities and lives that they have built is political suicide.. so the rhetoric continues, the intimidation and threats intensify. The method of calculating Fair Share is much more complex than the simplistic approach that the developer/land speculator lobby has put in place.
The Fair Share concept is fundamentally a political one.. It essentially is a game of political
“chicken”.. Politicans recognize that to DEMAND that voters relinquish control over the communities and lives that they have built is political suicide.. so the rhetoric continues, the intimidation and threats intensify. The method of calculating Fair Share is much more complex than the simplistic approach that the developer/land speculator lobby has put in place.
The Fair Share concept is fundamentally a political one.. It essentially is a game of political
“chicken”.. Politicans recognize that to DEMAND that voters relinquish control over the communities and lives that they have built is political suicide.. so the rhetoric continues, the intimidation and threats intensify. The method of calculating Fair Share is much more complex than the simplistic approach that the developer/land speculator lobby has put in place.
Doug… exactly what was Mariko’s position on all of this. Was she agreeing with Thomsen and McGowen? Hasn’t Thomsen said that she is planning to retire from politics after this stint as Supervisor and so may have little compunction about alienating the voters who put her into office?
Doug… exactly what was Mariko’s position on all of this. Was she agreeing with Thomsen and McGowen? Hasn’t Thomsen said that she is planning to retire from politics after this stint as Supervisor and so may have little compunction about alienating the voters who put her into office?
Doug… exactly what was Mariko’s position on all of this. Was she agreeing with Thomsen and McGowen? Hasn’t Thomsen said that she is planning to retire from politics after this stint as Supervisor and so may have little compunction about alienating the voters who put her into office?
Doug… exactly what was Mariko’s position on all of this. Was she agreeing with Thomsen and McGowen? Hasn’t Thomsen said that she is planning to retire from politics after this stint as Supervisor and so may have little compunction about alienating the voters who put her into office?
unless people plan to forbid californians from having multiple children, or prepare to stop all immigration, or prevent people from other states from moving to california, this talk of preventing growth is a mirage. you’re not preventing growth, you’re just deciding where the new people should or can live. and to those of us who weren’t lucky enough to land six figure jobs or be born in the right generation to be able to afford housing in this state, the talk of limiting or preventing growth sounds rather hypocritical coming from those who already own houses in town.
california is growing, and will continue to grow as long as people keep having kids, as long as good jobs pull people in from otehr areas, and as long as it is an attractive place to live. we should not deal with this demographic fact by turning a city into a gated comunity, or by pretending that it isn’t happening, but rather by looking for ways to manage that growth in a way that addresses both the need for housing and the need not to build in a manner that is economicallly or environmentally unsustainable.
(and those who own houses built upon old farmland have to recognize that their hands are not clean, sustainabilty-wise, simply because they got here first)
but pulling up the drawbridge will not solve the larger question, and it strikes me as a fundamentally conservative response to the issue. “i’ve got mine, and everyone else can take care of themselves” is not, in my opinion a liberal or progressive solution.
while the peripheral low-density sprawl of oeste ranch strikes me as a terrible solution to the problem of statewide and countywide growth outstripping housing or infrastructure, just refusing to grow with the population’s increase is not a serious response either.
the solution IMO is to seriously look at increasing density, which means dropping the whole land-extensive petroleum-intensive suburban ideal in favor of a more walkable urban pattern of development. and while yes, those new people will put more strain on the infrastructure, it is the responsibility of government to come up with way of finding a way out of the crunch, not just passing the buck to the county or other cities, and then pretending as if growth didn’t happen just because it didn’t happen here.
just as it is the responsibility of government to deal with other issues of the comon good.
unless people plan to forbid californians from having multiple children, or prepare to stop all immigration, or prevent people from other states from moving to california, this talk of preventing growth is a mirage. you’re not preventing growth, you’re just deciding where the new people should or can live. and to those of us who weren’t lucky enough to land six figure jobs or be born in the right generation to be able to afford housing in this state, the talk of limiting or preventing growth sounds rather hypocritical coming from those who already own houses in town.
california is growing, and will continue to grow as long as people keep having kids, as long as good jobs pull people in from otehr areas, and as long as it is an attractive place to live. we should not deal with this demographic fact by turning a city into a gated comunity, or by pretending that it isn’t happening, but rather by looking for ways to manage that growth in a way that addresses both the need for housing and the need not to build in a manner that is economicallly or environmentally unsustainable.
(and those who own houses built upon old farmland have to recognize that their hands are not clean, sustainabilty-wise, simply because they got here first)
but pulling up the drawbridge will not solve the larger question, and it strikes me as a fundamentally conservative response to the issue. “i’ve got mine, and everyone else can take care of themselves” is not, in my opinion a liberal or progressive solution.
while the peripheral low-density sprawl of oeste ranch strikes me as a terrible solution to the problem of statewide and countywide growth outstripping housing or infrastructure, just refusing to grow with the population’s increase is not a serious response either.
the solution IMO is to seriously look at increasing density, which means dropping the whole land-extensive petroleum-intensive suburban ideal in favor of a more walkable urban pattern of development. and while yes, those new people will put more strain on the infrastructure, it is the responsibility of government to come up with way of finding a way out of the crunch, not just passing the buck to the county or other cities, and then pretending as if growth didn’t happen just because it didn’t happen here.
just as it is the responsibility of government to deal with other issues of the comon good.
unless people plan to forbid californians from having multiple children, or prepare to stop all immigration, or prevent people from other states from moving to california, this talk of preventing growth is a mirage. you’re not preventing growth, you’re just deciding where the new people should or can live. and to those of us who weren’t lucky enough to land six figure jobs or be born in the right generation to be able to afford housing in this state, the talk of limiting or preventing growth sounds rather hypocritical coming from those who already own houses in town.
california is growing, and will continue to grow as long as people keep having kids, as long as good jobs pull people in from otehr areas, and as long as it is an attractive place to live. we should not deal with this demographic fact by turning a city into a gated comunity, or by pretending that it isn’t happening, but rather by looking for ways to manage that growth in a way that addresses both the need for housing and the need not to build in a manner that is economicallly or environmentally unsustainable.
(and those who own houses built upon old farmland have to recognize that their hands are not clean, sustainabilty-wise, simply because they got here first)
but pulling up the drawbridge will not solve the larger question, and it strikes me as a fundamentally conservative response to the issue. “i’ve got mine, and everyone else can take care of themselves” is not, in my opinion a liberal or progressive solution.
while the peripheral low-density sprawl of oeste ranch strikes me as a terrible solution to the problem of statewide and countywide growth outstripping housing or infrastructure, just refusing to grow with the population’s increase is not a serious response either.
the solution IMO is to seriously look at increasing density, which means dropping the whole land-extensive petroleum-intensive suburban ideal in favor of a more walkable urban pattern of development. and while yes, those new people will put more strain on the infrastructure, it is the responsibility of government to come up with way of finding a way out of the crunch, not just passing the buck to the county or other cities, and then pretending as if growth didn’t happen just because it didn’t happen here.
just as it is the responsibility of government to deal with other issues of the comon good.
unless people plan to forbid californians from having multiple children, or prepare to stop all immigration, or prevent people from other states from moving to california, this talk of preventing growth is a mirage. you’re not preventing growth, you’re just deciding where the new people should or can live. and to those of us who weren’t lucky enough to land six figure jobs or be born in the right generation to be able to afford housing in this state, the talk of limiting or preventing growth sounds rather hypocritical coming from those who already own houses in town.
california is growing, and will continue to grow as long as people keep having kids, as long as good jobs pull people in from otehr areas, and as long as it is an attractive place to live. we should not deal with this demographic fact by turning a city into a gated comunity, or by pretending that it isn’t happening, but rather by looking for ways to manage that growth in a way that addresses both the need for housing and the need not to build in a manner that is economicallly or environmentally unsustainable.
(and those who own houses built upon old farmland have to recognize that their hands are not clean, sustainabilty-wise, simply because they got here first)
but pulling up the drawbridge will not solve the larger question, and it strikes me as a fundamentally conservative response to the issue. “i’ve got mine, and everyone else can take care of themselves” is not, in my opinion a liberal or progressive solution.
while the peripheral low-density sprawl of oeste ranch strikes me as a terrible solution to the problem of statewide and countywide growth outstripping housing or infrastructure, just refusing to grow with the population’s increase is not a serious response either.
the solution IMO is to seriously look at increasing density, which means dropping the whole land-extensive petroleum-intensive suburban ideal in favor of a more walkable urban pattern of development. and while yes, those new people will put more strain on the infrastructure, it is the responsibility of government to come up with way of finding a way out of the crunch, not just passing the buck to the county or other cities, and then pretending as if growth didn’t happen just because it didn’t happen here.
just as it is the responsibility of government to deal with other issues of the comon good.
Davisite:
Mariko is doing as described by the first anonymous poster in this thread.
Wu Ming:
Agreed, we cannot pull up a draw bridge. The question is about planning and also location.
Davisite:
Mariko is doing as described by the first anonymous poster in this thread.
Wu Ming:
Agreed, we cannot pull up a draw bridge. The question is about planning and also location.
Davisite:
Mariko is doing as described by the first anonymous poster in this thread.
Wu Ming:
Agreed, we cannot pull up a draw bridge. The question is about planning and also location.
Davisite:
Mariko is doing as described by the first anonymous poster in this thread.
Wu Ming:
Agreed, we cannot pull up a draw bridge. The question is about planning and also location.
There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.
There are two reasons so many Mexicans migrate to the US: supply and demand. The demand, of course, is in our low-skilled jobs and in agricultural work; the supply is from the large Mexican population that either cannot find work in Mexico or has been displaced by the modernization of Mexican agriculture (since NAFTA).
I don’t see the demand side of the equation changing much. Our farms still need laborers, and Americans are generally not as good at those jobs or just don’t want to do them. Same goes for a lot of the tough urban jobs that Mexican immigrants do.
However, the supply side of the equation is starting to change. Most of the modernization of the Mexican farming sector has already taken place, so that fewer Mexicans will be displaced going forward. And secondly, their birth rate has really declined significantly. In the past, the high fertility rate in Mexico forced many Mexicans to emigrate to find work. But that is less and less the case.
This, published in 2004, comes from UC Davis professor Philip Martin:
“Mexico is a family planning success story. In 1972, Mexico had a had a total fertility rate of 6.2, and the population was growing 3.5 percent a year, the fastest population growth rate in the world. In 2000, the Mexican population growth rate is 2.1 percent. Slower population growth reduces Mexico-US migration in two ways—fewer children mean fewer potential migrants, and families with fewer children tend to invest more in the health and education of each child, which reduces the probability of emigration.”
One thing I have read from others who have studied Mexico’s declining birth rate is that it is also due in part to the large entry of women into the modern labor force, most of which has just happened in the last 15-20 years.
There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.
There are two reasons so many Mexicans migrate to the US: supply and demand. The demand, of course, is in our low-skilled jobs and in agricultural work; the supply is from the large Mexican population that either cannot find work in Mexico or has been displaced by the modernization of Mexican agriculture (since NAFTA).
I don’t see the demand side of the equation changing much. Our farms still need laborers, and Americans are generally not as good at those jobs or just don’t want to do them. Same goes for a lot of the tough urban jobs that Mexican immigrants do.
However, the supply side of the equation is starting to change. Most of the modernization of the Mexican farming sector has already taken place, so that fewer Mexicans will be displaced going forward. And secondly, their birth rate has really declined significantly. In the past, the high fertility rate in Mexico forced many Mexicans to emigrate to find work. But that is less and less the case.
This, published in 2004, comes from UC Davis professor Philip Martin:
“Mexico is a family planning success story. In 1972, Mexico had a had a total fertility rate of 6.2, and the population was growing 3.5 percent a year, the fastest population growth rate in the world. In 2000, the Mexican population growth rate is 2.1 percent. Slower population growth reduces Mexico-US migration in two ways—fewer children mean fewer potential migrants, and families with fewer children tend to invest more in the health and education of each child, which reduces the probability of emigration.”
One thing I have read from others who have studied Mexico’s declining birth rate is that it is also due in part to the large entry of women into the modern labor force, most of which has just happened in the last 15-20 years.
There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.
There are two reasons so many Mexicans migrate to the US: supply and demand. The demand, of course, is in our low-skilled jobs and in agricultural work; the supply is from the large Mexican population that either cannot find work in Mexico or has been displaced by the modernization of Mexican agriculture (since NAFTA).
I don’t see the demand side of the equation changing much. Our farms still need laborers, and Americans are generally not as good at those jobs or just don’t want to do them. Same goes for a lot of the tough urban jobs that Mexican immigrants do.
However, the supply side of the equation is starting to change. Most of the modernization of the Mexican farming sector has already taken place, so that fewer Mexicans will be displaced going forward. And secondly, their birth rate has really declined significantly. In the past, the high fertility rate in Mexico forced many Mexicans to emigrate to find work. But that is less and less the case.
This, published in 2004, comes from UC Davis professor Philip Martin:
“Mexico is a family planning success story. In 1972, Mexico had a had a total fertility rate of 6.2, and the population was growing 3.5 percent a year, the fastest population growth rate in the world. In 2000, the Mexican population growth rate is 2.1 percent. Slower population growth reduces Mexico-US migration in two ways—fewer children mean fewer potential migrants, and families with fewer children tend to invest more in the health and education of each child, which reduces the probability of emigration.”
One thing I have read from others who have studied Mexico’s declining birth rate is that it is also due in part to the large entry of women into the modern labor force, most of which has just happened in the last 15-20 years.
There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.
There are two reasons so many Mexicans migrate to the US: supply and demand. The demand, of course, is in our low-skilled jobs and in agricultural work; the supply is from the large Mexican population that either cannot find work in Mexico or has been displaced by the modernization of Mexican agriculture (since NAFTA).
I don’t see the demand side of the equation changing much. Our farms still need laborers, and Americans are generally not as good at those jobs or just don’t want to do them. Same goes for a lot of the tough urban jobs that Mexican immigrants do.
However, the supply side of the equation is starting to change. Most of the modernization of the Mexican farming sector has already taken place, so that fewer Mexicans will be displaced going forward. And secondly, their birth rate has really declined significantly. In the past, the high fertility rate in Mexico forced many Mexicans to emigrate to find work. But that is less and less the case.
This, published in 2004, comes from UC Davis professor Philip Martin:
“Mexico is a family planning success story. In 1972, Mexico had a had a total fertility rate of 6.2, and the population was growing 3.5 percent a year, the fastest population growth rate in the world. In 2000, the Mexican population growth rate is 2.1 percent. Slower population growth reduces Mexico-US migration in two ways—fewer children mean fewer potential migrants, and families with fewer children tend to invest more in the health and education of each child, which reduces the probability of emigration.”
One thing I have read from others who have studied Mexico’s declining birth rate is that it is also due in part to the large entry of women into the modern labor force, most of which has just happened in the last 15-20 years.
Here’s an interesting link on projected growth in the Valley:
http://www.greatvalley.org/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pId=183
Here’s an interesting link on projected growth in the Valley:
http://www.greatvalley.org/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pId=183
Here’s an interesting link on projected growth in the Valley:
http://www.greatvalley.org/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pId=183
Here’s an interesting link on projected growth in the Valley:
http://www.greatvalley.org/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pId=183
“There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.”
I think population growth in Davis, and to a lesser extent the Sacramento Valley, is more driven by in-migration from the Bay Area.
I think it’s safe to assume that larger cities in Yolo County will grow by at least 1 – 2% a year or more. I’m curious what kinds of housing growth would be acceptable to readers of this blog to accommodate that growth. It seems the main objection is to large peripheral planned developments, and there is a fondness for infill. But as we’ve seen, infill generates significant controversy. In fact, I think Mayor Greenwald is involved in a conflict about proposed development near her neighborhood. So what is wise growth?
“There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.”
I think population growth in Davis, and to a lesser extent the Sacramento Valley, is more driven by in-migration from the Bay Area.
I think it’s safe to assume that larger cities in Yolo County will grow by at least 1 – 2% a year or more. I’m curious what kinds of housing growth would be acceptable to readers of this blog to accommodate that growth. It seems the main objection is to large peripheral planned developments, and there is a fondness for infill. But as we’ve seen, infill generates significant controversy. In fact, I think Mayor Greenwald is involved in a conflict about proposed development near her neighborhood. So what is wise growth?
“There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.”
I think population growth in Davis, and to a lesser extent the Sacramento Valley, is more driven by in-migration from the Bay Area.
I think it’s safe to assume that larger cities in Yolo County will grow by at least 1 – 2% a year or more. I’m curious what kinds of housing growth would be acceptable to readers of this blog to accommodate that growth. It seems the main objection is to large peripheral planned developments, and there is a fondness for infill. But as we’ve seen, infill generates significant controversy. In fact, I think Mayor Greenwald is involved in a conflict about proposed development near her neighborhood. So what is wise growth?
“There is really only one big thing that is driving California’s population growth: immigration from Mexico. In most other respects, our population is quite stable.”
I think population growth in Davis, and to a lesser extent the Sacramento Valley, is more driven by in-migration from the Bay Area.
I think it’s safe to assume that larger cities in Yolo County will grow by at least 1 – 2% a year or more. I’m curious what kinds of housing growth would be acceptable to readers of this blog to accommodate that growth. It seems the main objection is to large peripheral planned developments, and there is a fondness for infill. But as we’ve seen, infill generates significant controversy. In fact, I think Mayor Greenwald is involved in a conflict about proposed development near her neighborhood. So what is wise growth?
I seem to recall that I read recently that California’s population actually decreased for the first time last year. The population movement appears to be back to the Midwest. The population/growth projections are only guesses that will be influenced by many different political currents, special interests, water availability, etc.
Prudent, full analysis and the active political participation of those whose communities are impacted will determine the shape of the future. Whatever it looks like should reflect the political will of the voters.
I seem to recall that I read recently that California’s population actually decreased for the first time last year. The population movement appears to be back to the Midwest. The population/growth projections are only guesses that will be influenced by many different political currents, special interests, water availability, etc.
Prudent, full analysis and the active political participation of those whose communities are impacted will determine the shape of the future. Whatever it looks like should reflect the political will of the voters.
I seem to recall that I read recently that California’s population actually decreased for the first time last year. The population movement appears to be back to the Midwest. The population/growth projections are only guesses that will be influenced by many different political currents, special interests, water availability, etc.
Prudent, full analysis and the active political participation of those whose communities are impacted will determine the shape of the future. Whatever it looks like should reflect the political will of the voters.
I seem to recall that I read recently that California’s population actually decreased for the first time last year. The population movement appears to be back to the Midwest. The population/growth projections are only guesses that will be influenced by many different political currents, special interests, water availability, etc.
Prudent, full analysis and the active political participation of those whose communities are impacted will determine the shape of the future. Whatever it looks like should reflect the political will of the voters.
I agree with Wu Ming. The way we are “planning” for new housing is essentially pulling up the draw bridge. This certainly goes beyond the city of Davis – it is a big problem and as a result we are leaving too many people out in the cold.
In the past twenty years housing prices have risen at least 5X. Inflation accounts for part of that, but the primary problems are lack of supply and too much housing speculation.
The concept of screwing the younger generation with obscene housing costs does not seem very progressive to me. Some might argue that high prices just reflect the workings of a free market, but that is simply not true on the supply side. We have removed the free market from the housing construction (supply) side of the market and that is creating a huge social problem.SAH
I agree with Wu Ming. The way we are “planning” for new housing is essentially pulling up the draw bridge. This certainly goes beyond the city of Davis – it is a big problem and as a result we are leaving too many people out in the cold.
In the past twenty years housing prices have risen at least 5X. Inflation accounts for part of that, but the primary problems are lack of supply and too much housing speculation.
The concept of screwing the younger generation with obscene housing costs does not seem very progressive to me. Some might argue that high prices just reflect the workings of a free market, but that is simply not true on the supply side. We have removed the free market from the housing construction (supply) side of the market and that is creating a huge social problem.SAH
I agree with Wu Ming. The way we are “planning” for new housing is essentially pulling up the draw bridge. This certainly goes beyond the city of Davis – it is a big problem and as a result we are leaving too many people out in the cold.
In the past twenty years housing prices have risen at least 5X. Inflation accounts for part of that, but the primary problems are lack of supply and too much housing speculation.
The concept of screwing the younger generation with obscene housing costs does not seem very progressive to me. Some might argue that high prices just reflect the workings of a free market, but that is simply not true on the supply side. We have removed the free market from the housing construction (supply) side of the market and that is creating a huge social problem.SAH
I agree with Wu Ming. The way we are “planning” for new housing is essentially pulling up the draw bridge. This certainly goes beyond the city of Davis – it is a big problem and as a result we are leaving too many people out in the cold.
In the past twenty years housing prices have risen at least 5X. Inflation accounts for part of that, but the primary problems are lack of supply and too much housing speculation.
The concept of screwing the younger generation with obscene housing costs does not seem very progressive to me. Some might argue that high prices just reflect the workings of a free market, but that is simply not true on the supply side. We have removed the free market from the housing construction (supply) side of the market and that is creating a huge social problem.SAH
It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. So maybe supply and demand isn’t what is driving prices in Davis. Maybe it’s a desirable place to live and so people (increasingly more wealthy people) are willing to pay more for the same house here than in Dixon or Woodland. Birds of a feather flock together.
Now, we could approve more trailer parks, accelerate the building of big box retailers, etc., and in general try to emulate Dixon and Woodland. If we really work at it, over time, Davis may be voted biggest armpit of the valley. Our housing will be affordable and nobody can say we didn’t take on our “fair share” of development.
It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. So maybe supply and demand isn’t what is driving prices in Davis. Maybe it’s a desirable place to live and so people (increasingly more wealthy people) are willing to pay more for the same house here than in Dixon or Woodland. Birds of a feather flock together.
Now, we could approve more trailer parks, accelerate the building of big box retailers, etc., and in general try to emulate Dixon and Woodland. If we really work at it, over time, Davis may be voted biggest armpit of the valley. Our housing will be affordable and nobody can say we didn’t take on our “fair share” of development.
It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. So maybe supply and demand isn’t what is driving prices in Davis. Maybe it’s a desirable place to live and so people (increasingly more wealthy people) are willing to pay more for the same house here than in Dixon or Woodland. Birds of a feather flock together.
Now, we could approve more trailer parks, accelerate the building of big box retailers, etc., and in general try to emulate Dixon and Woodland. If we really work at it, over time, Davis may be voted biggest armpit of the valley. Our housing will be affordable and nobody can say we didn’t take on our “fair share” of development.
It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. So maybe supply and demand isn’t what is driving prices in Davis. Maybe it’s a desirable place to live and so people (increasingly more wealthy people) are willing to pay more for the same house here than in Dixon or Woodland. Birds of a feather flock together.
Now, we could approve more trailer parks, accelerate the building of big box retailers, etc., and in general try to emulate Dixon and Woodland. If we really work at it, over time, Davis may be voted biggest armpit of the valley. Our housing will be affordable and nobody can say we didn’t take on our “fair share” of development.
“It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. “
This is just flat out wrong. Housing prices in Davis were lower in real dollars in 1999 than they were in 1990. While in that same period, housing prices in the Bay Area skyrocketted.
“It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. “
This is just flat out wrong. Housing prices in Davis were lower in real dollars in 1999 than they were in 1990. While in that same period, housing prices in the Bay Area skyrocketted.
“It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. “
This is just flat out wrong. Housing prices in Davis were lower in real dollars in 1999 than they were in 1990. While in that same period, housing prices in the Bay Area skyrocketted.
“It seems to me that with all the building that went on in the 1990s, housing prices didn’t come down. “
This is just flat out wrong. Housing prices in Davis were lower in real dollars in 1999 than they were in 1990. While in that same period, housing prices in the Bay Area skyrocketted.
I guess we can also make the observation that the absence of large developments recently in Davis has driven current housing prices down.
I guess we can also make the observation that the absence of large developments recently in Davis has driven current housing prices down.
I guess we can also make the observation that the absence of large developments recently in Davis has driven current housing prices down.
I guess we can also make the observation that the absence of large developments recently in Davis has driven current housing prices down.
No, Davisite, that is wrong, too (and I’m sure you know it). From 2000 to 2007, housing prices in Davis grew by about 300%. And as I’m sure you know, in that same period, not one signficant housing development was approved.
No, Davisite, that is wrong, too (and I’m sure you know it). From 2000 to 2007, housing prices in Davis grew by about 300%. And as I’m sure you know, in that same period, not one signficant housing development was approved.
No, Davisite, that is wrong, too (and I’m sure you know it). From 2000 to 2007, housing prices in Davis grew by about 300%. And as I’m sure you know, in that same period, not one signficant housing development was approved.
No, Davisite, that is wrong, too (and I’m sure you know it). From 2000 to 2007, housing prices in Davis grew by about 300%. And as I’m sure you know, in that same period, not one signficant housing development was approved.
Rich.. my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.
My somewhat facitious comment was directed at ,and you have readily acknowledged this in the past, the fact that supply/demand is not in any way the whole story. This simplistic notion is trotted out again and again with such forcefulness as if it will be a panacea.
The real questions to be considered are what are the negative consequences of rapid peripheral growth in the face of the fact that we don’t have clear evidence that it will have any dramatic and permanent effect on housing prices?
Free Market ideology is just that.. an ideology… as much myth as reality.
Rich.. my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.
My somewhat facitious comment was directed at ,and you have readily acknowledged this in the past, the fact that supply/demand is not in any way the whole story. This simplistic notion is trotted out again and again with such forcefulness as if it will be a panacea.
The real questions to be considered are what are the negative consequences of rapid peripheral growth in the face of the fact that we don’t have clear evidence that it will have any dramatic and permanent effect on housing prices?
Free Market ideology is just that.. an ideology… as much myth as reality.
Rich.. my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.
My somewhat facitious comment was directed at ,and you have readily acknowledged this in the past, the fact that supply/demand is not in any way the whole story. This simplistic notion is trotted out again and again with such forcefulness as if it will be a panacea.
The real questions to be considered are what are the negative consequences of rapid peripheral growth in the face of the fact that we don’t have clear evidence that it will have any dramatic and permanent effect on housing prices?
Free Market ideology is just that.. an ideology… as much myth as reality.
Rich.. my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.
My somewhat facitious comment was directed at ,and you have readily acknowledged this in the past, the fact that supply/demand is not in any way the whole story. This simplistic notion is trotted out again and again with such forcefulness as if it will be a panacea.
The real questions to be considered are what are the negative consequences of rapid peripheral growth in the face of the fact that we don’t have clear evidence that it will have any dramatic and permanent effect on housing prices?
Free Market ideology is just that.. an ideology… as much myth as reality.
“my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.”
Dramatic? How so?
“my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.”
Dramatic? How so?
“my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.”
Dramatic? How so?
“my comment was just referring to the most recent and dramatic downturn in housing prices in Davis.”
Dramatic? How so?
The cost of housing (a.k.a affordability) is also directly related to the *nature* of the supply. In Davis, there is an oversupply of detached single-family and an undersupply of of attached, townhomes, rowhouses, mixed-use, etc. that on balance bring the cost of home ownership down, and allow a variety of prospective home buyers (not only affluent dual-income families) to enjoy the benefits of our community and homeownership.
So while I agree it is not simply a supply/demand relationship, there is definitely a supply/demand imbalance with respect to more affordable housing types.
The cost of housing (a.k.a affordability) is also directly related to the *nature* of the supply. In Davis, there is an oversupply of detached single-family and an undersupply of of attached, townhomes, rowhouses, mixed-use, etc. that on balance bring the cost of home ownership down, and allow a variety of prospective home buyers (not only affluent dual-income families) to enjoy the benefits of our community and homeownership.
So while I agree it is not simply a supply/demand relationship, there is definitely a supply/demand imbalance with respect to more affordable housing types.
The cost of housing (a.k.a affordability) is also directly related to the *nature* of the supply. In Davis, there is an oversupply of detached single-family and an undersupply of of attached, townhomes, rowhouses, mixed-use, etc. that on balance bring the cost of home ownership down, and allow a variety of prospective home buyers (not only affluent dual-income families) to enjoy the benefits of our community and homeownership.
So while I agree it is not simply a supply/demand relationship, there is definitely a supply/demand imbalance with respect to more affordable housing types.
The cost of housing (a.k.a affordability) is also directly related to the *nature* of the supply. In Davis, there is an oversupply of detached single-family and an undersupply of of attached, townhomes, rowhouses, mixed-use, etc. that on balance bring the cost of home ownership down, and allow a variety of prospective home buyers (not only affluent dual-income families) to enjoy the benefits of our community and homeownership.
So while I agree it is not simply a supply/demand relationship, there is definitely a supply/demand imbalance with respect to more affordable housing types.
“…Dramatic, how so?”
Just ask anyone who has their house on the market today. The prevailing wisdom is that housing prices have a ways to go before they bottom out and people are waiting on the sidelines before making their offers.
“…Dramatic, how so?”
Just ask anyone who has their house on the market today. The prevailing wisdom is that housing prices have a ways to go before they bottom out and people are waiting on the sidelines before making their offers.
“…Dramatic, how so?”
Just ask anyone who has their house on the market today. The prevailing wisdom is that housing prices have a ways to go before they bottom out and people are waiting on the sidelines before making their offers.
“…Dramatic, how so?”
Just ask anyone who has their house on the market today. The prevailing wisdom is that housing prices have a ways to go before they bottom out and people are waiting on the sidelines before making their offers.
I agree Brian.. that there needs to be more mid-range “affordable” housing developed in Davis.
This Free Market mantra is as much an illusion as other utopian dreams that are so readily derided. It finally comes down to voter involvement in the political process which is, by its nature, quite “messy”. I’ll take this over the more efficient, authoritarian model.
I agree Brian.. that there needs to be more mid-range “affordable” housing developed in Davis.
This Free Market mantra is as much an illusion as other utopian dreams that are so readily derided. It finally comes down to voter involvement in the political process which is, by its nature, quite “messy”. I’ll take this over the more efficient, authoritarian model.
I agree Brian.. that there needs to be more mid-range “affordable” housing developed in Davis.
This Free Market mantra is as much an illusion as other utopian dreams that are so readily derided. It finally comes down to voter involvement in the political process which is, by its nature, quite “messy”. I’ll take this over the more efficient, authoritarian model.
I agree Brian.. that there needs to be more mid-range “affordable” housing developed in Davis.
This Free Market mantra is as much an illusion as other utopian dreams that are so readily derided. It finally comes down to voter involvement in the political process which is, by its nature, quite “messy”. I’ll take this over the more efficient, authoritarian model.
It really comes down to “political will”. Taking Health Care as an example, we are rapidly abandoning the the Free Market mantra in the health care sector. Now it is the political will of the electorate, not the professional MD “guilds” that will determine the level of income that the society determines is reasonable. Doctors will still do very well, however. A simiar reexamination of the “profit margin” of developers is up next.
It really comes down to “political will”. Taking Health Care as an example, we are rapidly abandoning the the Free Market mantra in the health care sector. Now it is the political will of the electorate, not the professional MD “guilds” that will determine the level of income that the society determines is reasonable. Doctors will still do very well, however. A simiar reexamination of the “profit margin” of developers is up next.
It really comes down to “political will”. Taking Health Care as an example, we are rapidly abandoning the the Free Market mantra in the health care sector. Now it is the political will of the electorate, not the professional MD “guilds” that will determine the level of income that the society determines is reasonable. Doctors will still do very well, however. A simiar reexamination of the “profit margin” of developers is up next.
It really comes down to “political will”. Taking Health Care as an example, we are rapidly abandoning the the Free Market mantra in the health care sector. Now it is the political will of the electorate, not the professional MD “guilds” that will determine the level of income that the society determines is reasonable. Doctors will still do very well, however. A simiar reexamination of the “profit margin” of developers is up next.