It was last spring, and Choices For Healthy Aging (CHA) had a candidate’s forum for the city council candidates. They had a chance to show that they were a full seniors advocacy group and they blew it horribly. Instead, as Jon Li put it, “the answer to every question was Covell Village.”
Moreover, no candidates bit on support for such a project – an 800-unit project that would serve senior housing needs that somehow could only be build on the Covell Village site.
So in many ways, Merna and Don Villarejo, both from CHA, spin their wheels when they talk about senior housing.
They continue to attempt to speak for seniors, even as they were exposed for their limited agenda. The city has since further undercut the CHA message through the adoptions of Senior Housing Guidelines, which includes concepts such as universal design, a concept notably missing from the CHA forum until members of the public brought it up.
Today the Villarejos argue that the city’s growth control policy is leading to a large senior population, but they cloak their discussion in the language of the developers.
They write, “Davis is vibrant, but the demographic is shifting. Students and families are leaving, cannot afford to live here or are aging, and Davis is experiencing remarkable growth in the senior population.”
They continue, “This distortion of the population profile is peculiar to Davis and can be attributed to the city’s slow-growth policy, enacted years ago amid fears that Davis would fall prey to rapid urbanization. The immediate effect of the policy slowed the community’s population growth to just 0.42 percent per year average between 2000 and 2007-09, well below the city’s self-imposed 1 percent per year growth cap.”
They also get things wrong when they write, “Davis’ policy has resulted in declining numbers of school-age children, contrary to what is occurring in the rest of Yolo County and in the state as a whole.”
In fact, statewide there has been declining enrollment of school-age children. In fact, since 2006, over half of the school districts in California have experienced multi-year declining enrollment conditions. That makes Davis not nearly as unusual as other districts in California.
They write, “The aim of growth control was to prevent change, yet the unintended consequence of Davis’ slow-growth policy is that the demographic profile of Davis has been skewed, and the population is aging. We are still a vibrant, active community, but we’re growing into a community with many seniors with new needs, different from seniors a generation ago.”
The problem is much more complex than they suggest. One need only look at the type of growth that occurred in Davis prior to the more recent slowdown in growth. It was largely large and costly homes. We were not building workforce or starter housing. That means that the housing market was already likely to price young families out of Davis, even when Davis was growing.
Nevertheless, they fail to make their point that we need Covell Village, only that seniors are a rising group in Davis, as they are elsewhere.
They again attempt to speak for seniors by writing, “Today, seniors want to remain connected members of their community. They want to have home ownership, but a different type of home, both in size and functionality. They don’t want to give up their bicycles, clubs, hobbies, volunteer work or friends, old and young.”
They continue, “Davis has an opportunity to recognize and acknowledge the shift in our population, and be a leader in developing a new kind of living for seniors. This community has been a leader in environmental policy in the past, including bike trails, curbside recycling, local farm support and solar housing.”
“Now is the chance for Davis to lead the region, and the country, in developing a creative, thoughtful, vibrant and sustainable home ownership solution for seniors, today’s new-agers,” they conclude.
So they lament the trend that Davis has priced young families out of town and instead of proposing policies to shift that, they wish to continue those policies, and focus new housing on seniors rather than families.
I am sure they will argue that families would then be able to move into the homes vacated by seniors, but it will not work that way. Those homes will be well outside of the price range of most younger families.
Bottom line is that most people in this community will be looking at housing options for seniors, but within the broader framework. I have seen nothing to suggest there is any kind of legitimate support for senior housing, other than what has been synthetically generated by the astroturf group, CHA, founded by consultants to the Covell Village developers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Nice article, dmg…
It is my understanding from what was discussed at our Feb 10 Sr Citizens Commission meeting, that CHA has been speaking w ConAgra about senior housing in ConAgra’s new proposed housing development. At the last community meeting called by the city and ConAgra to discuss the recycled Cannery project, CHA folks in the audience complained that the proposal did not mention much about senior housing.
CHA is certainly entitled to its view of what senior housing should look like in Davis. The problem is it seems as if CHA’s view is that one size fits all – there seems to be an assumption that all seniors want CHA’s model of what senior housing should be. In addition, CHA does not seem to take into account countervailing considerations the city must take into account when planning for housing.
Commissioner Mary Jo Bryan will be making a small presentation of what CHA has been talking about with ConAgra at our next scheduled Senior Citizens Commission meeting on March 10 at 2:30 at the Davis Sr Ctr. I look forward to the ensuing discussion…
While you focus on the politics of their article you forget to focus on their analysis that shows the trend for Davis is a fewer residents in the family, child rearing years, of the 25-54 age group. I think their argument that this is an affordability issue is well grounded at least anecdotally from the many friends and dynamic people I have seen leave Davis only because they could not afford to buy here. Their argument that this is an unintended consequence of growth control is a sad but true reality. Further your argument about the type of houses built and their affordability only holds up under our current model of slow growth. If you build more houses you get a better mix also as you build more the prices go down. Eventually if you build enough the prices go way down you need to go no farther than Woodland to see that this is true.
MT: We have argued this point before, I just do not believe we can build enough in Davis to do that. The pent up demand and structural factors will always keep the cost of housing out of range, whether we are at 66K or 120K in population. The only way to reduce cost of housing would be to have the school worsen and crime increase – lower the standard of living. We would reduce housing costs that way but this would no longer be Davis.
The only scenario I could imagine that would bring down housing prices in Davis would be for UCD to cut its student enrollment way back, such that landlords of rental houses might be motivated to sell rather than rent at a lower market price. I don’t see any indication that such a scenario is likely to happen in the near future.
As it is, I think older residents might have more incentive to rent out their house if they decide to move out.
We have argued it before but the data provided in the op-ed show us that there are consequences to the status quo. As for your pessimistic view of housing dynamics I think Wild Wings in Woodland makes my point; if you build enough of it they won’t come and prices will decline. Yes you want a social scientist explanation sadly you miss the economic explanation, a simpler, less Malthusian and more optimistic view of human behavior.
Prices are declining, and there is a surfeit of housing (except, of course, for rental housing). Current stats from Trulia.com:
Davis median $415K down 6.8%
Dixon median $208K down 15.3%
Woodland median $210K down 6.9%
West Sac median $220K down 2.3%
Median prices are now twice what they are in nearby communities. Another consequence of no growth policies has been the expansion of the Davis Premium, which, in turn, drives young families to nearby communities as reflected in the data from the CHA advocates. Its odd Sac are actually the kind of law abiding, hard working, well educated, family oriented people most communities would want. Yet here in Davis the snobs turn their back on them.
Why do you disparage Davis residents as “snobs”? I am unaware of any development proposal in recent years that featured prices at or below median for the region. Why not blame the developers?
Another question: how many homes would builders have to flood the local market with in order to bring Davis home prices down to $210K? 1,000 homes? 2,000? 10,000?
My above post should read: Its odd my friends who moved to Sac are…
My snobs remark speaks directly to David’s comment about crime or a decline in schools. it is a common implication about growth enough to accommodate all the good people that want to live here that it will degrade the quality of life here. To me that is a rather snobby remark. As for the developers if you build enough the marker will eventually take care of itself. If you say we are going to double the size of Davis and build it out all the builders who are holding out for higher prices will need to do a new cost benefit analysis.
How many did they build in Spring Lake. I think it was 4000. That would take a lot of pressure off. It would also screw many who are under water or near it because they bought in the last ten years.
So just to clarify: you think Woodland is a well-planned community, and that Davis should build 4000 more homes?
Don: Prices are declining
Over what period – starting when?
Neutral: That data was from http://www.trulia.com, over the last year. Interestingly, when I opened it just now the stats have changed, and median price has dropped even more. Either it was updated since this afternoon, or I was looking at a different data source on the same site.
No I don’t know how many to build but you asked and I gave you an idea. The other point is that prices don’t need to go down to woodland prices. I think there is a long history of a premium to live in Davis. Its just that because of no growth policies the premium has expanded until there are unintended consequences that I believe are not in the best interest of the community such as a decline in the number of 24-55 year olds. The no growth advocates need to own the results of their policies.
4000 homes means adding 10,000 people to Davis. How are we going to afford that? Also, you say that will take the pressure off, maybe temporarily, especially now when there are hundreds of homes still on the market, unsold. But for how long? How often will we have to add 4000 homes?
“The no growth advocates need to own the results of their policies.”
What does this mean?
it means that there are consequences to the policies that are both negative and unintended such as a shift in demographics that challenges the assertion that no growth policies create a positive living environment. Apparently for 24-55 year olds it doesn’t.
I’m in that age bracket and I LIVE IN Davis
“4000 homes means adding 10,000 people to Davis.”
No it doesn’t. It means adding new owners some of whom already live here but rent.
“No it doesn’t. It means adding new owners some of whom already live here but rent. “
That’s not a credible claim.
If prices in Davis were half what they are would you buy today?
No
“Yes you want a social scientist explanation sadly you miss the economic explanation, a simpler, less Malthusian and more optimistic view of human behavior. “
I also wanted to respond to this: The problem is not with the economic explanation but rather with identifying how many houses it will take to bring the market down to where you want it and what that will do to the town. Unfortunately, while you have no research or analysis to answer those questions. You want to start with 4000, I don’t think you’ll find 10% of the people in this town who are willing to go there with you. So that’s a non-starter.
You cut prices in half by adding enough houses. Rent versus owning ratios collapse, rents decline, the 2/3 of Davis residents that rent can afford to buy or at least get cheaper rent. All these people have more disposable income or increased equity. The only losers are the landlords and those who owe too much because they bought when prices were too high.
“You cut prices in half by adding enough houses.”
The question is how many. I think you envision a more flexible floor than I do. I don’t think a house in Davis is ever going to sell for what a house in Woodland will cost. There are benefits to living in Davis that will preclude that regardless of the housing cost.
Yes but the 100% premium is too high. I was asked a hypothetical I responded hypothetically.
Why is it too high? Davis is a good deal less expensive than similarly desirable locations in the East Bay and the South Bay.
Compared to nearby communities it is too high. Compared to area’s with as much open space it is too high. Compared to the cost of construction it is too high.
Comparing it to nearby communities is comparing apples to oranges because none of the nearby communities have UC Davis and none of them have the schools where Davis has its schools.
It’s more reasonable to compare to places like Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, La Jolla, and other primary college towns.
I worked and rented temporarily in Los Gatos. Housing prices were (and I believe still are) about twice the price of Davis. Psychologically it made everything here look like a bargain.
La Jolla is an interesting example. It isn’t the housing market for UCSD. University City, Mira Mesa, and Kearny Mesa provide the affordable housing there. Even a full professor can’t afford to buy in La Jolla now. I will never be able to buy a house where I grew up, but I don’t feel that somehow La Jolla should try to build enough housing to equalize the costs so that I would be able to do so. For one thing, there isn’t the space, and La Jolla will always be more expensive no matter what because of location.
Contrary to the simplistic economic models often cited here by pro-growth advocates, no housing market anywhere in California is as simple as “build more houses to reduce the cost of housing.” There are too many other variables than just the supply and demand in the narrow range of housing types local builders have offered.
“For one thing, there isn’t the space, and La Jolla will always be more expensive no matter what because of location. “
But there is the space here we just have refused to open it up to housing. What we don’t have that all the places David cited it an ocean or bay.
“Contrary to the simplistic economic models often cited here by pro-growth advocates, no housing market anywhere in California is as simple as “build more houses to reduce the cost of housing.” There are too many other variables than just the supply and demand in the narrow range of housing types local builders have offered.”
Here you are just plain wrong Don. Look at Natomas, Elk Grove, Woodland, Dixon, Lincoln or West Sac. All of them over built and all of them have suffered dramatic decreases in value to the point that you can pick up a house in any of these places for so little in the secondary market that new construction can’t compete. A house is a commodity even in Davis where the realtors price houses by the model. Now I will grant that there are other variables such as the cost of financing, down payment size and amortization schedules but the biggest factor, especially after the crash removed much of the unrealistic financing, is price and price is determined largely by supply and demand.
“Here you are just plain wrong Don. Look at Natomas, Elk Grove, Woodland, Dixon, Lincoln or West Sac.”
But none of those places have a world class university.
“While you focus on the politics of their article you forget to focus on their analysis that shows the trend for Davis is a fewer residents in the family, child rearing years, of the 25-54 age group. I think their argument that this is an affordability issue is well grounded at least anecdotally from the many friends and dynamic people I have seen leave Davis only because they could not afford to buy here. Their argument that this is an unintended consequence of growth control is a sad but true reality. Further your argument about the type of houses built and their affordability only holds up under our current model of slow growth. If you build more houses you get a better mix also as you build more the prices go down. Eventually if you build enough the prices go way down you need to go no farther than Woodland to see that this is true.”
Here is the problem w this analysis. Let’s suppose CHA got its way and built an 800 unit senior housing development w all sorts of amenities they envision (golf course, club house, maid service, lawn service, telemedicine and the list goes on). The city will now have to provide services, e.g. a fourth fire station, water, etc. at a time when the city cannot afford to serve the citizens who are here. And who do you think is going to buy those new sr homes in Covell Village? Davisites? I very much doubt it. There will be an influx of wealthy seniors, who will put a strain on city and county services at a time when neither can afford it. This will cause local taxes to rise, which will drive many seniors on fixed incomes right out of Davis – their home. Not only that, it probably puts too large a share of housing only for seniors, and does not take into account the needs of younger folks, something the city must also consider. There are many, many countervailing interests here…
I didn’t say I supported senior housing. My entire thrust is directed towards the 24-55 demographic that has been priced out of Davis as an unintended consequence of restrictive growth policies.
Comparing Davis to other college towns is not the right analysis if you think the Davis premium is the sole result of having a University. A better analysis would be to compare Isle Vista to Santa Barbara and Arcata to Eureka then calculate the premium differential for Davis and Woodland. All these college towns would be compared to the nearby county seats. You might also look at Berkeley compared to Oakland or San Francisco, UCLA compared to Brentwood, La Jolla compared to Del Mar, San Luis Obispo compared to Morro Bay although SLO is sort of a unique place. Santa Cruz to Monterrey. I’m just making up these last ones but you get the idea. Figure out how much of a premium people pay for a college town and compare it to Davis.