This year was – or at least should be – a game changer in terms of the perception of Davis. Prior to this year, the belief was that it would be hard if not impossible to get housing projects approved by the voters. However, in the span of six months, the voters not only approved two projects, they did so overwhelmingly.
Nishi passed by a 60-40 margin, with WDAAC approved by a 57-43 margin, pending the counting of the final absentee ballots.
Housing needs remain large in this community, but, as I have written previously, I really do not see another peripheral housing development on the horizon for the next decade. That could change quickly, but that is the assessment for right now.
However, the need for economic development remains acute and we have an opportunity to address that in the near future. While University Research Park and Sierra Energy promise to the fill the needs of the close-in research and development center that was defeated at Nishi in 2016, we still have the need for a large scale project – two million- plus square feet on the periphery.
MRIC (Mace Ranch Innovation Center) has already done the legwork, it has a certified EIR, it only needs to get jump-started. And I think we need to stop trying to micro-manage the innovation parks – the reason that two of them have failed is largely that housing was taken off the table.
This will be controversial, but I believe we should re-think housing at the MRIC site.
There are several reasons that are both community-related and practical.
First, if you look at innovation centers across the region, they have workforce housing. In fact, we need workforce housing anyway. So why are we trying to build something that adds tens of 
thousands of jobs during a housing crisis, while not providing places for the employees to live?
Look no further than our own University Research Park where we see the need to put housing with jobs at work.
As Project Manager Dave Nystrom told the Vanguard, as they are now proposing their own mixed-use workforce housing project, “one of the challenges (businesses in the park) face is hiring people because it’s so difficult to find housing in Davis. People I think have an expectation that if they’re going to work in Davis, they’re going to live in Dixon or Woodland or West Sacramento because the housing market is just so tight.”
Second, it is also good environmental policy. We would be adding over two million square feet of commercial space and perhaps employing tens of thousands of people. We want them to commute here from Elk Grove? Really? We already have a huge work/live imbalance, why exacerbate it.
Third, the opposition to the recent project and the opposition to student housing has argued the need for workforce housing. In fact, the need for workforce housing has been raised by a number of people in the community.
During the Measure L campaign, Rik Keller argued that the phrase “internal housing need” as “used in City of Davis policy framework, documents, and studies actually refers primarily to low and moderate income workforce housing, and indeed that category is the only one specifically mentioned and for which specific policies have been crafted to meet the need.”
He called workforce housing “so central to the Council’s conception of the city’s internal housing needs…”
Nancy Price, in a public comment criticizing Measure L, argued that “it does nothing to provide the mix of housing so desperately (needed) in this community – workforce housing for single persons, 
young couples and young families.”
It is difficult to argue with the assessment that we need a variety of different kinds of workforce housing. This includes rental housing for young adults entering the workforce – that many in the community are hoping will stick around after graduation at UC Davis to work in new startups, and be hired as labor for high-tech companies we are hoping to attract.
So why are we going to add to the workforce without adding a place for them to live?
When housing came up as a possibility for MRIC in the past, there was pushback. Some argued that the housing would simply be taken up by students since there was no way to restrict the housing to employees.
That’s actually not true. The companies could purchase the housing and then sublease to their employees. MRIC was not inclined to take that approach when we spoke to them several years ago, but it’s one possibility.
Another possibility is to make the leasing period March to March – which would effectively preclude students who would need to occupy in September and vacate at the end of the school year.
The third possibility is to simply take the approach of Jim Gray with the mixed-use project at the University Research Park.
Mr. Gray responded, “If this ends up with some students living in it, it will end up with some students living in it.” He explained, “We’re trying through design, through deliberate marketing, through management practices to attract professionals and workers. We don’t think that you need to impose all kinds of government restrictions and standards.”
He added, “We’re going to let the market respond. I know that that’s a little different in Davis, but it’s been tried and true throughout the region as well as in the community in the past. We believe that because of the location, and the effort we’re going to make, that we’re going to have a good mix of residents… our targeted market is workforce.
“We’re not doing dormitories. We’re not doing four bedroom units,” he said.
As a fourth point, the other objection to housing was the notion of bait and switch. It has been now nearly five years since these things were proposed – maybe it is time to re-examine them and figure out if we can make this work. What we are doing isn’t getting us a project to the Planning Commission and the Council that can be sent to the voters.
It is therefore time to do something different.
At this point we can either can bury this project. Or we can also understand that coming out of the housing collapse five years ago, things have now changed.
Finally, from a practical level, it was assumed that housing would kill a Measure R project. That was again in 2013 when we had come off two dramatic defeats for housing projects and everyone thought housing was going to lose every time it was put forward by the voters.
But once again, things have changed. The voters just voted to pass two projects – why would we think this is the poison pill? As I said, what we are doing isn’t getting us projects, so let us change our approach.
In the past I have equivocated on this issue. I realized from a planning standpoint and an environment one that putting housing with jobs is the right approach. I also recognized that the financing worked better with housing to anchor the commercial.
However, from a practical level, there was enough pushback to believe that, politically, housing might kill the project in a vote before the people.
But the project is already dead. So let us look at a new approach. At this point, all that can happen is that a project could come forward and lose. How can we argue that we need workforce housing and then turn down a project that offers that housing on location with the jobs it generates?
In short – we need commercial development, we need the tax revenue and we need workforce housing. It’s time to reconsider MRIC with housing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There, I FIFY.
Hey Ron, you were right, that didn’t take long at all.
I kept thinking: why not? We need the commercial development and it’s not going to come without housing, we got people like Nancy Price pushing for workforce housing, why not?
Ron can be very insightful at times. I thought you would’ve at least let the smoke clear.
I think of it as a broken clock being right twice a day. But in this case he planted the idea.
Regardless I think the ship has sailed and this was my last ditch effort to resurrect it. More likely mixed use at URP and densification there and downtown. It won’t replace the size and scale of 2 million square feet but it’s something.
The other thing I find odd is that you are the one who complains about taxes – the way to avoid taxes is economic development – if it takes mixed use to get that development, I would think you would be for it.
I’ve always been an advocate for an innovation/business park. You should know that.
I didn’t like what many saw as a bait and switch that was pushed with MRIC years ago when they tried to add housing to the mix after everyone was originally led to believe was going to be an innovation park only.
I feel the same way today, I’m for the business park only.
“I’m for the business park only”
Which effectively means that you’re for a vacant field only because without housing, there will be no project.
As Robb Davis has put it in the past: “the reality (is) that these projects will not be built without it”
So you’re choice compromise on housing or accept higher taxes, because they are coming and despite all of your predictions, the voters keep passing most of them.
Keith… the “bait and switch”… word is, did not originate with the developer… my sources are knowledgeable and reliable…
Howard, please share.
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/04/monday-morning-thoughts-consider-housing-mric/
I’m not so sure about that. The road tax failed. Looking at an old house tax bill and now with an extra $360 school bond tacked on the other local taxes that would come close to $2500 just in local taxes. Add to that the state and county 1% tax on value and it really adds up. Taxpayers are hitting the wall as was shown with the failure of the road tax.
But a brand new tax, Measure M passed with 72 percent of the vote and no real opposition. The city made a huge error putting two taxes on the ballot at once.
Keith, to share more, with an anonymous/semi-anonymous poster, would be a violation of ‘journalistic integrity’ (and personal confidentiality)… but will meet you half way… will share with David, off-line, my info, and then he can decide the degree to which it should be pursued and/or fully disclosed… or, alternatively, he and/or moderator can excise my comment. He may well already be privy to the information I possess in this matter.
There’s a big difference in a school facilities tax and taxes for the city. You know that, “for the children”.
The same (Vanguard) article that the moderator referenced at 10:19 a.m. states the following:
No – I’ve just observed what the developer and the Vanguard have been advocating for.
At this point, the Vanguard is the outright enemy of those who prefer slow growth. But yeah, I thought it would be at least awhile before David resurrected this. He also tried (but failed – multiple times, now) to get a debate going regarding Measure R.
The battle is not going to be fought on the Vanguard. Measure J/R and the slow-growth movement predates the Vanguard.
“The battle is not going to be fought on the Vanguard.”
Measure L was
David: “Measure L was.”
You have a greatly exaggerated sense of the Vanguard’s influence. You’ve got plenty of opponents looking at this blog, as well.
Maybe, but to a large extent the Vanguard was where the ideas of the campaign was most debated, we covered the campaign much more than the Enterprise did. And about 20,000 different IP addresses logged on to read the Measure L articles.
All of which is meaningless, in terms of measuring the impact of the Vanguard’s advocacy.
It’s sad, when a publication declares war on the community in which it exists. Free speech in action, though.
I’ve got time on my hands, and interest in this subject.
Let’s see how effective you are.
I’m not sure what that means.
Jesus F-ing Christ, would someone fix this? I have for months or years seen this weird “person arguing with themselves” thing in the Vanguard, which I now know is one of DG’s two identities being invisible to me while I am logged in. Surely someone knows how to flip the invisible switch.
Judging by the absence of comments and persistent lack of interest in this point, it might have been more accurate to have included NOT in the above statement – as in “NOT many” or “NOT hoping”.
How else do you create well-paying employment opportunities in the community if not for the growth of existing combined with arrival of new employers. What’s essential to foster and encourage such development?
How about a public recognition of the need – framed as a community priority?
The only talk and action seems to be about inexpensive housing to ease the journey through university – with no discussion of what happens next.
You don’t seem to notice the dead silence and absence of narrative on this issue of increasing viable employment opportiunities within the community – as a stated priority for the overall health and future prosperity of both community and the university?
Silence in the Council? Silence at the university? Silence in the DPAC? Silence among your commenters?
Or, maybe its simply the notion that hoping – without advocacy, leadership and strategy – will be sufficient to change the paradigm?
Or maybe the alternative – that somebody must be keeping an eye on this issue and will do something about it when it becomes a “real” issue?
Interesting comment, many levels… and seems very valid…
One I’ll address… housing and another thread, DCEA contract…
For new, out of area, DCEA city employees, chance of finding affordable housing in Davis, is slim… exists, but scarce. Actually, for most City employees… unless they got housing years ago, or came into an inheritance…
Was a member of DCEA when I was first hired by the city… ~ 40 years ago… rental vacancy was 0.25% … yes, one quarter of one %… saved some money (tiny bit), on housing, by buying a house 6 months later… a house that was 10 years old, and needed TLC… at a 12% interest rate on the mortgage (real deal, as it was owner financed… bank and CU rates were ~ 14%). A real stretch for us… particularly with an infant… no savings plan for years… but we were “treading water” successfully.
Yes, the situation for Davis as far as housing for even young professionals is dicey… for those in the service sector, or “non-professionals”, who are young, and starting families, much more so.
I hear you.
(The staff report that can be accessed in the link below states that 108 total dwelling units are proposed, on 12.1 acres.)
https://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/chiles-ranch-project-information
Someone needs to shoot down that F-ing glider.
Can gliders fly over housing? Oh that’s right, that’s the original plan and it contained no housing.
I’ve voted no on every Measure J, R or whatever it’s called until the last three. I voted yes on both Nishi proposals and on Measure L. I’ve been asking my own self why I have had such a change of heart. I think one factor is the overreach in lawsuits, exaggeration of the faults or maybe even just the tone of opponents. It’s not that I particularly like these developments but I just couldn’t see them in the total evil light that some felt compelled to cast.
I still favor taking a vote on peripheral development. I think these proposals will pass when the developer takes the time to really listen and to actually respond to what residents/voters think. That is what happened with WDAAC and it paid off. Nishi 1 was a much better project than Nishi 2 but it crashed because of the negative fear campaign against it. Maybe many others copped the same attitude I had when I voted yes on Nishi 2: Tired of the automatic lawsuits, nothing-is-ever-perfect-enough-what-the-hell-else-is-anyone-gonna-do with that property? Many of us out here are taking the approach that if there is a good faith effort by developers to listen and modify; that if the project is reasonable and there is no clearly articulated reason that it’s a bad idea, it gets a nod.
The vocal opponents to future projects need to take a hard look in the mirror and reconsider how they criticize and what they criticize if they expect to be effective in guiding public opinion in their direction.
I’ve voted no on every Measure J, R or whatever it’s called until the last three. I voted yes on both Nishi proposals and on Measure L. I’ve been asking my own self why I have had such a change of heart. I think one factor is the overreach in lawsuits, exaggeration of the faults or maybe even just the tone of opponents. It’s not that I particularly like these developments but I just couldn’t see them in the total evil light that some felt compelled to cast.
I still favor taking a vote on peripheral development. I think these proposals will pass when the developer takes the time to really listen and to actually respond to what residents/voters think. That is what happened with WDAAC and it paid off. Nishi 1 was a much better project than Nishi 2 but it crashed because of the negative fear campaign against it. Maybe many others copped the same attitude I had when I voted yes on Nishi 2: Tired of the automatic lawsuits, nothing-is-ever-perfect-enough-what-the-hell-else-is-anyone-gonna-do with that property? Many of us out here are taking the approach that if there is a good faith effort by developers to listen and modify; that if the project is reasonable and there is no clearly articulated reason that it’s a bad idea, it gets a nod.
The vocal opponents to future projects need to take a hard look in the mirror and reconsider how they criticize and what they criticize if they expect to be effective in guiding public opinion in their direction.
Your comment was so good that you needed to say it twice.
I certainly didn’t mean to. I believe in editing but there is no way to remove a comment, so I guess you’ll have to live with the fact that I realllly mean what I’m saying.
Davis no-growers need to ask themselves why they like living in Davis and the region… and then get real that they cannot stop others from wanting the same… and they cannot stop the university from growing.
They cannnot. They will lose trying. They might slow it for a time, but that will just end up causing a pent up demand that will explode in the future.
The opportunity being missed is to participate in smart growth.