By David Taormino
When the term “colonized” is used one conjures up the 16th and 17th Century European Powers sailing off to Africa, South America and the Far East. The purpose then being to exploit the riches of these lands and in theory bring modern governance to an uneducated populace.
Why is it logical or fair to label the University and Davis as a Colonial Powers? I am not suggesting that these governmental entities are using practices and concepts identical to the Europeans. Instead the results have some shared elements albeit subtler and less harmful, but it still amounts to a type of exploitation.
The Oxford Dictionary entry for Colonization contains the following definition:
The action of appropriating a place or domain for one’s own use.” In “Empire: A Very Short Introduction,” by Stephen Howe, it is further described: “Colonization refers to migration, for example, to settler colonies in America or Australia, trading posts and plantations… In many settled colonies, Western European settlers eventually formed a large majority of the population…” It is my opinion that the current colonization efforts are not as sinister, but do affect Woodland, the colonized city, and the wider environment. What does our specific local form of colonization look like?
The original name of the new Woodland Colony is Springlake – 6.8 miles from the Nugget Market on Covell. The European practice of attaching a similar name to a place back home being commonplace, to us the colony is known as North, North Davis. It currently consists of about 1,500 single-family homes, 70% of which are occupied by Davis/UC Davis based individuals. Indigenous Woodlanders 
occupy around 15%, a small minority and Bay Area settlers the remaining 15%.
Eventually, it will accommodate 3,500 single-family homes and a tech park that was originally proposed for Davis. The initial mother city location (Davis) was abandoned for the “riches” offered by the new colony’s location. The same group of tech proponents is now moving happily forward in North, North Davis.
On any given weekday morning or afternoon, you can see the environmental effects of the colonization by observing the thousands of single occupant autos driving to and from Davis on Highway 113 and on Pole Line Rd. So much for our City-University concerns about reducing automobile generated Greenhouse gases. The environmental impacts of commuting Colonists are not included in these loudly voiced environmental concerns of various Davis interest groups.
Often the “enlightened” members of City’s Natural Resources are the very ones that fight new Davis housing. In part they want to save “precious” farmland resources immediately adjacent to Davis by exploiting farmlands in the nearby colony. Sadly, the “colony” with less units per acre (density) uses more farmland than the same homes would occupy in Davis. As vocal leaders of the mother city the Natural Resources Commission seemingly justify their silence on colonization as the liberal and progressive perspective. Check world history books for similarly voiced liberal perspectives by European leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Colonists do receive one major financial benefit as residents of North, North Davis compared to us: they are exempt from a list of current and future Davis school parcel property taxes.
855 children, equal to about 10% of all Davis school’s enrollment arrive each day driven by family members living elsewhere, about ½ from North, North Davis. As a result, the Davis mother school district generates an additional 6 million dollars to keep all our Davis schools open while other Districts lose a combined 6 million dollars of school revenues from their budgets. Effectively, according to a recent Enterprise article 3 or 4 neighborhood Davis schools remain open thanks to colonists driving their children to Davis for a high-quality education while indigenous children stay at home and attend their local schools. What will happen to the 3 or 4 neighborhood Davis schools, if the rules change and colonized communities fight to retain “our students”? Another School Parcel Tax?
How did this local version of neo-colonization start and then flourish?
There are two major contributors. First, the leadership or better said, lack thereof, of previous administrations at UC Davis’ Mrak Hall that ignored the needs for Davis based new faculty and staff housing created by student growth. While a UC Davis administration did try to build faculty and staff housing in West Village, the bungling that occurred resulted in zero faculty and staff housing. West Village epitomizes Mrak Hall’s inability to timely and adequately manage the more nuanced business of residential real estate development for both students and faculty. Stanford University is currently facing real pressure to from Santa Clara to provide adequate housing for its current student and faculty growth expansion plans.
The second contributor, Davis’ citizens refusal to accept civic or moral responsibility to provide enough housing opportunities for locally based workers, UCD faculty and staff, public service related employees like teachers, police and employees of Davis based businesses. Measure J/R has made it nearly impossible to logically plan ahead for and then build homes for those individuals and families directly related to our community. About 80% of the homes, etc. in the and nearly built-out Cannery project were purchased by the Bay Area and out-of-state transplants. In North, North Davis 70% of home buyers are Davis based, many with children, while the Cannery has created few new attendees for Davis schools. In essence, the City is providing new housing for out-of-town folks and simultaneously populating its own colony of North, North Davis with Davis and UCD based employees. Does that make any common sense?
I am a strong supporter of the University and all the social and civic benefits it has and will continue to contribute to the Davis community. Sure, I am biased as a housing provider for wanting more homes and children in our community. As the lead planner and head of the development team for Springlake (North, North Davis), my partners and I realized in the early 2000’s that Davis and UC Davis were on the path of housing failure.
Neither Mrak Hall nor the City would be providing suitable housing opportunities for Davis based workers, so we planned for it and coined the term North, North Davis. In fairness to UC Davis administrations, big California employers, private and public, are failing to adequately address the housing needs of their California employees. High tech cities don’t fret either because they want the financial benefits of expensive office buildings and even higher wages spent in their cities. Just look at Silicon Valley for some of the worst housing and traffic situations in the state and country. No one in state government has a clue about what is needed, notwithstanding speeches and rhetoric to the contrary.
In conclusion, the social and environmental costs to the rest of us are massive with large employers and cities failing to provide housing where the jobs are located. These issues remain adequately unaddressed by local, regional and state governments.
Interesting article. The failure of the city and university to work together to plan for the impact of the 2010 Chancellor’s Initiative has been apparent from its inception. Woodland (and Dixon and West Sacramento) have become the housing providers for Davis and UCD.
These two stats really stand out:
Perhaps it is incumbent on Davis to take the lead in developing transit options for those who are residing elsewhere and working here.
Such as?
I am not sure if I missed it from the article, but financially, does this colonization cause a problem for Woodland? Are they still collecting enough tax or are they going bankrupt accommodating Davis people?
Bay Area people live in Davis, Davis people live in Woodland.
Is there an anti-sprawl policy in the bay area? Or do people pick Davis for some reason? It seems that all else being the same, more housing in Davis would also be occupied mainly by people from Bay Area. Why don’t we built a real colony near Bay Area and collect tax/loyalty/dividend from there? Then builders get to build, Bay Area people gets to live in Bay Area, and our city gets revenue.
An interesting perspective. I feel Mr. Taoromino has painted too narrowly with regard to responsibility for the current situation. We might also look at the profit priorities of current investors and developers in assessing “fault” for inadequate workforce housing. A couple of examples.
1. Trackside – developers and investors bought what is probably the largest core or transitional area of land available downtown. Then instead of using any of it for affordable and/or workforce housing despite it’s close proximity to the University, they decided to build a mixed-use, luxury apartment building. I could be wrong, but I am unaware of any pressing city need for “luxury” apartments.
2. West Davis Active Adult Community – the developers stated there is a need for senior housing in Davis. A true statement. However, when I brought up the issue whether or not this was our communities greatest need, they offered no statistics or evidence of any kind. Arguably, we have known of this great need for workforce housing for as long as we have known of the need for senior housing. Arguably, this area could have been developed more densely to provide for larger numbers of folks including those associated with the university in closer proximity to the university.
I don’t think we have to invoke the image of colonization to realize that there is plenty of responsibility to pass around with regard to university-related housing.
Colonization is hardly the apt analogy. Colonization suggests the acquiring of political control over other societies or territories for purposes of exploiting it economically. That’s hardly the relationship between the Cities of Davis and Woodland. What we have is more in the way of emigration of people seeking a better (more affordable) life.
And I find lamenting the plight of displaced workers a bit hypocritical coming from the developer of a huge, recently approved housing project that, by design, will exclude those very households, and provide further impetus for their migration north.
In this circumstance Davis homeowners are paying a school parcel tax while “Costco Highway” residents go for free. We we are exploiting ourselves so they can go for free.
As a very long time Davis resident with kids in the school district, I found this article a very good read. Over the years, I’ve known many families that have essentially “quit” Davis housing prices and chosen to purchase in Springlake (North, North Davis). I completely understand these decisions as they have exchanged more affordable housing for a very short commute.
I am going to take issue with several of the statements in regards to faculty and staff housing at UC Davis. While David addresses it as UC Davis administration, I will take it down a level to my Real Estate Services team which I oversee at UC Davis. In addition to all things “real estate” at UC Davis and UC Davis Health, my team is directly responsible for all development (student housing and faculty staff housing) in West Village.
So while David is correct, we do not have a faculty staff housing project underway in West Village, I would hardly consider our extensive efforts as “bungling” as David describes in the article.
From 2016-2017, my team evaluated numerous options and alternatives to get a financially feasible “for sale” single family project in West Village. In short, our project as planned, was financially infeasible. The key factors for financial infeasibility include:
.
— Overall market and construction cost conditions
— Target sales prices which needed to be below market in order to accommodate the ground leases and value appreciation caps associated with UC Davis Faculty and Staff housing to ensure continuing affordability for both this project as well as the existing Aggie Village project.
— UC Davis pays prevailing wages for all projects in West Village as part of a prior settlement agreement. Prevailing wages are uncommon for residential development and result in a 20%+ construction cost premium above and beyond an already overheated construction market.
One of the project options that was explored but quickly dismissed (that either David or Jason did inquire with me about), was selling this UC Regent owned property to private developers. This option was a non-starter for numerous reasons.
Ultimately, my team presented our feasibility challenges to then Interim Chancellor Hexter with a strong recommendation to terminate the project as planned and start the project over to find another way to get some type of affordable faculty staff housing project in West Village.
This new planning work for faculty and staff housing will commence this year now that UC Davis has gotten the largest Public-Private Partnership student housing project in the country financed and under construction. This new 1.2 million square foot West Village project will deliver 3,290 new student housing beds in a rental market that has experienced a 0.2%-0.4% vacancy rates for quite some time.
Both student housing and faculty staff housing on UC property is a very nuanced real estate development business that often times, can be incomprehensible to those in the private sector.
So in other words the union negotiated their workers out of a job.
So in other words the public sector union negotiated their workers out of a job.
Plot twist in the 2nd-to-last paragraph: David Taormino himself is the “colonizer”! “As the lead planner and head of the development team for Springlake (North, North Davis)…”
I found the contrast between Grant Rockwell’s very thoughtful and detailed comment and Rik Keller’s glib comment very interesting and telling.
I also saw this comment from Robin Rainwater on the Facebook page and found it interesting to get a perspective from a Woodland resident:
“Not your judgements, the judgements are Faaaaaaaaaaaaccccts!”
I find the “colonization” analogy inapt. Most colonies are populated by, as Mr. Taormino uses the term, the “mother city.” Can he provide evidence that most of the new residents of what he snidely calls “North, North Davis” emigrated from within the Davis city limits?
As an aside, one of the criticisms of developers in this town is that are difficult to deal with and don’t like to collaborate. Mr. Taormino might do well to tone down the snide comments and sarcasm if he wants to get along with more Davis residents. It’s wonderful that he says he supports UC Davis and the town, but it doesn’t help when he insults them in print and runs down the largest employer in Yolo County.
I think he’s probably right that a good percentage of folks living in Spring Lake used to live in Davis – I suspect he does have that data.
Do you have data that shows he does have that data?
He didn’t coin that term. Lots of us have been calling south Woodland “north north Davis” for several years.
Agreed, but maybe it’s just the general tone of the article that offends me.
But David Taormino does claim that he invented the term: “so we planned for it and coined the term North, North Davis”
Maybe this is like his son in an earlier article this week claiming his 5 years of living in Europe made him an expert in traffic safety there and then proceeding to state incorrectly that pedestrian traffic death rates are higher in Europe than the U.S.
It’s that “Taormino Tone”. Get’s ’em every time.
Don Shor: “He didn’t coin that term. Lots of us have been calling south Woodland “north north Davis” for several years.”
For instance, from Bob Dunning’s column, 8 Oct. 2013, see last paragraph. But plenty of other examples.
I think the important point is that he thinks he did. Megalomania?
Yeah, it comes out the same book that shows that there are a lot more peds hit by cars in “Europe” than in “America”.
Why should he, RC? The voters of Davis, despite the Taoramino Tone, voted him millions by approving his project. I voted against it specifically because of the T.T. I like developers who don’t have an attitude. But Davis voters as a whole are stupid. So Mr. T. feels emboldened, similar to how another Mr. T. feels emboldened on a more national stage, to say whatever he wants, because he already got the vote.
More plot twists: David Taormino, last seen apologizing for his insensitive, discriminatory, and Trumpian tagline for the WDAAC project “Taking Care Our Our Own”…
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/10/monday-morning-thoughts-apology/
…nevertheless persisted in ignoring what City of Davis policies say is the primary local housing need—workforce housing—in order to push his luxury senior housing WDAAC development… https://davisvanguard.org/2018/09/guest-commentary-internal-housing-needs-davis/
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/10/guest-commentary-wdaac-not-meet-real-housing-needs-davis/
…and was also involved in efforts to kill one of the main policies in Davis that actually addressed the primary internal housing need in Davis: the Middle Income Ordinance. David Taormino spoke in opposition to the passage of the Middle Income Ordinance as recorded in Davis City Council Minutes from 3/8/2005. The Davis Chamber of Commerce worked on the behalf of a coalition of developers and other business interests and brags about killing the Middle Income Ordinance provisions in 2009: “Ultimately, we were successful in helping to get the Middle Income Ordinance suspended indefinitely.” http://www.davischamber.com/uploads/2/4/6/9/24698775/board_positions_1999_to_present_updated_feb2016.pdf
Rik’s probably the only one who actually believes that the city policy identified workforce housing as “the” primary local housing need. It’s been debunked numerous times and for reasons that don’t make a lot of sense he’s relied on an outdated housing element to make the point when more recent ones not only exist but list a variety of housing needs.
Whether workforce housing is “the” primary local housing need or not, the thrust of the article is a criticism of the City and UCD for the failure to adequately address that housing need. As I noted earlier, instead of developing housing to meet the variety of local housing needs, we got a development (WDAAC) that effectively excludes the local workforce from at least 80% of the single family homes and 100% of the affordable units.
If David Taormino is looking for someone to blame for inadequate planning for the local workforce, he need only look in the mirror.
Well said, Eric Gelber!
I find it stunning that Taormino penned this article about “colonization” when he is the person extracting money from Woodland in his Springlake development and who has not made efforts to address the broad range of housing needs in Davis in favor of his luxury developments.
D. Taormino is a developer who builds housing, typically low-density single-family homes. His responsibility is to propose developments that offer appropriate returns for his investors and financiers, and that have a good chance of being approved by the local jurisdiction. In the case of Davis because of Measure R, that means approved by a vote of the citizens. Those constraints limit the types of projects that are feasible for each developer. WDAAC was simply a project that D. Taormino thought was feasible in the current market conditions.
If you wish to attach blame for ‘inadequate planning for the local workforce,’ you need to look at what is responsible for limiting the feasibility of the types of projects that would benefit the local workforce. Measure R is at the top of that list.
Mark West:
So, your contention is that WDAAC would not have been feasible if it didn’t exclude the local workforce—i.e., non-seniors? What’s the basis for that? Seems to me it would have greatly expanded the pool of eligible purchasers.
He didn’t say it was the only project that was feasible in the current market conditions.
Exactly. My point is that this article opining that the City and UCD are responsible for a shortage of workforce housing in Davis is written by a developer who declined to help alleviate the problem when the opportunity arose. The housing needs of seniors and the local workforce are not mutually exclusive.
Did I say that? In fact, I opposed WDAAC because it discriminated against younger residents. What I believe is that WDAAC was a project that the developer thought would be both feasible and also pass a vote of the electorate. It is the financial risk associated with that requirement for a vote of the electorate (combined with all the other requirements and exactions) that makes many projects unfeasible, or at least undesirable for those putting up the money.
I agree with MW, above. The senior part was to pass a vote of Davis voters, because of Measure R, and because Davis voters are stupid. Attach “green”, “children”, “seniors”, “puppies” or other “feel good glitter” to any shiny object, and it’ll pass the vote.
Wheeeee!
I inadvertently blocked comments from Don Shor. Oh no! How do I reverse?
I like how the colonization metaphor started out ‘strong’, kind of got pasted to things nonsensically towards the middle, and then completely faded out in the end. In some African countries, when the colonizing countries left, those from Europe left behind were slaughtered and their land taken back. Can we expect the same fate for North North Davis?
Please stop the disparaging personal comments and stick to the topic of the article. Thanks.
Wonder if the 7:20 P commenter saw this, or just figured they’d be given ‘slack’… no matter…
Seems some are still smarting over the election and think the part about favoring locals at WDAAC was something more than an election sales ploy that backfired. Maybe, but time will tell.
As for Spring Lake, when Davis passed Measure J in 2000, a measure that made an already adverse business environment impossible, the need for family housing didn’t disappear and some local guys with enough capital and knowhow recognized that leap frog development into a welcoming municipality a few miles down the road would meet demand for single family homes that Davis was refusing to provide to the growing University and support services workforce.
State law also worked to the advantage of the new project because people working at UCD could enroll kids in DJUSD. That the project didn’t provide parcel taxes to DJUSD and added traffic and additional vehicle miles traveled for the residents were simply the unintended consequences of Davis’ anti-growth atmosphere. If Davis had gone a different path of growing as needed since the 1980’s it would be bigger, housing would be cheaper in Davis and Woodland would be smaller.
This article is an interesting first person account of how people responded to certain market forces and unintended consequences of Davis anti-growth policies. I think the interesting question is the counterfactual of would we be better off if we had gone down a different path of housing development since the no growth councils of the 80’s? I know one ex-council member from that time who regrets that they helped set Davis on the path of restricted growth policies that have led us to the microcosmic Davis reality of today with astronomical housing costs and its attendant inequalities that mirrors the housing shortages found throughout California. It didn’t have to be this way.
Ron Glick:
It might be surprising to learn that Woodland and Davis have had about the same rate of housing unit growth since 2011 at about 0,5% annually. And that Woodland’s average rents and average housing values have increased at (slightly) faster rates than Davis. Meanwhile, Roseville, which has had the highest housing growth in the region has also had the highest rental rate increases in the region.
See: https://davisvanguard.org/2018/10/comparison-regional-housing-growth-housing-cost-increases/
A few key conclusions from the data :
”There were only two jurisdictions (Rancho Cordova and Roseville) that had annual housing growth rates higher than 1% from 2010-2017. This is of particular note because the City of Davis has an annual housing growth rate “policy guidance” of 1% that “represents a cap that is not to be exceeded except for units that are specifically exempted or allowed by the City Council as an infill project with extraordinary circumstances and community benefits” (source: City of Davis). As shown in the table, this 1% cap does not represent a limit to development in Davis compared to existing housing growth rates in the region that are generally far below 1% and projected to stay at low levels in the future.“
“Davis experienced one of the lowest rates of rent increases in the region from 2011-2018. The city of Roseville had the distinction of having the highest rate of rent increases while it also had the highest rate of housing unit construction. It is often said in certain quarters that an increased housing supply is needed for greater housing affordability [For example, see this article published two days ago in the Davis Vanguard that called housing construction “the engine of affordability”: https://davisvanguard.org/2018/10/commentary-cant-build-blocked-litigation-rent-control-answer/%5D However, in Roseville’s case it is clear that the engine of housing construction has gone hand-in-hand with the highest rate of rent increase in the region.”
“Davis also experienced THE lowest rate of housing value increase in the region from 2011 to 2017. This reinforces the above point and calls into question the idea that growth constraints in Davis have led to large housing price increases. Meanwhile, communities such as Elk Grove, West Sacramento, and Rancho Cordova that had some of the highest rates of new housing construction also had the highest rates of housing price increases.”
“Similarly the Davis Vanguard and the development community in Davis often make statements suggesting that the City of Davis’ growth management land use policies make housing less affordable. The data shown in this article demonstrates that this simplistic viewpoint is misleading. While the housing supply in Davis has grown at rates similar to the region as a whole, Davis has experienced rent increase rates much lower than the regional average.”
I know from discussions with you that you think we need to look at a longer timeframe than back to 2010/2011 in the last recession. To the extent that time series pricing data is available, I plan to update the above analysis to do just that. However, I don’t think that the data will show what you think it will show (I’ll report it regardless).
Ron Glick,
You stated “As for Spring Lake, when Davis passed Measure J in 2000, a measure that made an already adverse business environment impossible… know one ex-council member from that time who regrets that they helped set Davis on the path of restricted growth policies that have led us to the microcosmic Davis reality of today with astronomical housing costs and its attendant inequalities… It didn’t have to be this way.”
I ran some more numbers for you based on the Zillow Housing Value Index (ZHVI) time series that goes back to April 1996 (unfortunately their Zillow Rental Index (ZRI) time series data only goes back to November 2010, so this is only tell us one part of the story).
The “conventional wisdom” repeated many times by the Davis Vanguard/David Greenwad states that Measure J passed in 2000 in Davis created a restricted market that substantially boosted housing/rental prices compared to surrounding jurisdictions.
Looking at the data from January 1997 to January 2000, the following are the CAGRs (compound annual growth rates) for housing values for that 3-year stretch (again, the ZHVI time series data only goes back to 4/1996, but it turns out that Jan. 1997 is a reasonable starting point for an analysis anyway since this is about the turnaround point in California from the previously housing value slump starting around 1990):
* California: 8.1%
* Davis: 7.9%
* Woodland: 4.1%
* Dixon: 6.7%
* Sacramento: 6.5%
* West Sacramento: 4.9%
* Rancho Cordova: 7.0%
* Folsom: 7.2%
* Roseville: 7.0%
Conclusion: before Measure J passed in Davis in 2000, Davis had housing value growth rates almost identical to the State of California as a whole; slightly more than other Sacramento-area suburbs like Rancho Cordova, Folsom, and Roseville; and substantially more than Woodland.
The following are the CAGRs for housing values for the 6-year stretch from January 2000 to January 2006 (the height of the regional housing market right before the crash):
* California: 17.2%
* Davis: 17.5%
* Woodland: 18.1%
* Dixon: 18.2%
* Sacramento: 19.1%
* West Sacramento: 20.1%
* Rancho Cordova: 17.7%
* Folsom: 14.8%
* Roseville: 13.9%
Conclusion: after Measure J passed in Davis in 2000, housing value growth rates in Davis were almost identical to State of California as a whole from 2000-2006; a bit less than other nearby jurisdictions like Woodland, Dixon, West Sacramento, Sacramento, and Rancho Cordova; and a bit more than other Sacramento-area suburbs like Folsom and Roseville. Based on this there does not appear to be any discernible effect on relative housing value increases compared to other regional jurisdictions from Measure J in Davis. And this certainly completely contradicts the idea that the growth control measures in Davis lead to “astronomical housing costs.”
Crickets – in response. 😉
Rik if you could run the numbers:
What happens for the entire nine years if you don’t split it in half?
Also what happens to the percent premium in median home price between Davis and Woodland over time?
Ron G.: I can provide more numbers later today or tomorrow. Unfortunately, there aren’t equivalent rent numbers going back as far
What 9-year period are you referring to?
“Percent premium,” if I understand your use of the term, will track housing price growth rates.
With these latest numbers, I think we can put to the bed the notion that there was some sort of significant change in Davis housing price increases relative to the region starting with growth controls in 2000.
Rik
You have a penchant for selective use of statistics. I’ve responded on this point several times. Yes, if we only look at the period since 2010, then you’re numbers appear to support your arguments. But if you look at housing values from before the collapse in the market in 2008, when prices in Davis felt little impact compared to the rest of the region, then Davis prices have grown at a much higher rate. And if we look at housing growth rates since 2000, Davis lags the rest of the region. I posted that information previously (but of course it’s too difficult to find in the archives here.)
Richard: I agree with you that it is difficult to find stuff in the archives, but on little else in your last post. Right now I’m looking at detailed charts of housing prices at jurisdictions across the region from 1996 to 2019, and what you say is not true.
It’s actually quite striking the degree to which Davis housing price growth rates mirrored that of other jurisdictions in the growth period from 1997-2006 and has been a bit less in the 2012-present growth period. The difference between Davis and a lot of other jurisdictions is that its prices did not decline as much in the 2006-2012 period. I discussed the likely reasons why earlier.
For example from 1/1997 to the 1/2006 peak and 1/2012-1/2019 these are the average annual housing price growth rates:
* California: 14.1%/8.9%
* Davis: 14.2%/7.5%
* Woodland: 13.2%/10.0%
* West Sacramento: 14.8%/11.9%
Interestingly, looking around further, one of the jurisdictions I found whose housing price growth /decline curves matched Davis the closest (in especially the 2006-2012 decline period, because the growth periods are really close across so many jurisdictions) is Irvine. Total opposite from Davis in terms of population growth rates though with Irvine growing from 128,000 people in 1997 to 276,000 in 2018 (3.7% annual growth rate) compared to Davis growing from 54,500 to 68,700 over that stretch (1.1% annual rate). For companion of other population growth rates 1997-2018: California: 1.0% (with incorporated areas only: 1.3%). Woodland: 1.3%. West Sacramento: 2.7%
You don’t have to take my word on this though: I’ll publish a detailed presentation of this stuff sometime soon (though not likely on this venue).
97-06
I remember more then a decade ago that the premium for a house in Davis had expanded from around 20% per/sq ft. in the 90’s to 50% or more in the 2000’s. I don’t remember what distortions the housing bubble and crash contributed to this over time but I would be interested in knowing how price differentials varied over time.
Looking at Zillow just now it seems that Davis homes are going for roughly 50% more by my estimate than Woodland Homes. How do you explain such a large differential if not that Davis has restricted additional supply and Woodland has added supply.
“It might be surprising to learn that Woodland and Davis have had about the same rate of housing unit growth since 2011 at about 0,5% annually. And that Woodland’s average rents and average housing values have increased at (slightly) faster rates than Davis. Meanwhile, Roseville, which has had the highest housing growth in the region has also had the highest rental rate increases in the region.”
Woodland has added over time with the exception of during the housing bust. Davis built almost no houses between 2000 and 2010. I remember looking at the numbers of houses built in Davis during the first decade of this millennium and if I remember correctly it was only about ten a year.
Ron G., based on ZHVI data, the median house price in Davis in Jan. 2000 was 46% more than the median price in Woodland (there is not data available to calculate median price/sq.ft.). At the Jan. 2006 peak before the crash, this difference was only 41%. As described in the data in my previous post, this was a period of massive housing price increases in California in general with statewide median values appreciating at an average annual rate of 17.2%, compared to Davis at 17.5% and Woodland at 18.1%, But how do you explain this if the adoption of Measure J in early 2000 lead to “astronomical housing costs” in Davis?
In the comments under a recent article, Matt Williams has an excellent list of a number of factors about the “location, location, location” of Davis that explain the price premium compared to other nearby areas much more than the city’s growth policies .
Here’s that list from my comment in the thread started by last Sunday’s article by Brett Lee Guest Commentary: Measure J/R Is an Important Mechanism to Ensure High Quality Proposals
Ron and Rik, here is the Zillow ZHV1 median home value data for Woodland and Davis for each January from 2010 to 2019.
.
The January 2006 peak before the crash of 41% clearly shot up substantially during the crash and it’s immediate aftermath, peaking at a premium of 124% in 2013, but declining in the six years since then to only 76% premium in January 2019
Matt Williams said: “The January 2006 peak before the crash of 41% clearly shot up substantially during the crash and it’s immediate aftermath, peaking at a premium of 124% in 2013, but declining in the six years since then to only 76% premium in January 2019”
When you say the “premium” “shot up” after the January 2006, it’s important to remember that at the same time housing prices declined dramatically across the state and region from that Jan. 2006 peak to the Jan. 2012 valley. The median house value in Davis declined about 30% total (or annual rate of -5.8% (CAGR)) over that time period while Woodland’s prices dropped by 52% (or 11.5%). In absolute terms, median housing prices in Davis dropped by $175,200 in value while Woodland’s dropped $215,500.
Then as prices across the state and region rose since the January 2012 valley, the price “premium” has dropped as Woodland median prices have increased at a faster rate than Davis’ prices.
The fascinating thing is that these relative price patterns are the exact opposite of what the Measure J/R doomsayers have been telling us. In the past two decades, Davis housing prices have actually increased at lower rates than the State, region, and most regional jurisdictions during the two housing price growth periods of Jan. 1997-Jan. 2006 and Jan. 2012-present. And Davis housing prices decreased at a lower rate during the period of housing price decline from Jan. 2006-Jan. 2012 when there was almost no construction in Davis at all (20-30 units per year for most years during this time).
I have a collection of data from multiple jurisdictions in the region, but here’s just a sampler showing those three periods:
Jan. 1997-Jan. 2006 average annual median house value growth rate (CAGR)
California: 14.1%
Davis: 14.2%
Woodland: 13.2%
West Sacramento: 14.8%
Jan. 2012-Jan. 2019 average annual median house value growth rate (CAGR)
California: 8.9%
Davis: 7.5%
Woodland: 10.0%
West Sacramento: 11.9%
Jan. 2006-Jan. 2012 average annual median house value growth rate (CAGR)
California: -9.1%
Davis: -5.8%
Woodland: -11.5%
West Sacramento: -12.7%
It is simply not true that Measure J/R starting in 2000 sent Davis housing price growth rates spiking compared to other places in the region. The biggest difference we see in Davis prices today compared to other places in the region is not because Davis housing appreciated at a higher rate in the growth period from 1997-2006 & 2012 -present, but because it depreciated at a lower rate in the bust from 2006-2012.
Likely explanatory variables for this performance from 2006-2012 include: 1) increased enrollment at UC Davis that propped up housing demand in Davis, and 2) more steady employment levels because of UCD that also propped up demand, and 3) less rampant speculation and over-construction in the boom from 1997-2006 that meant Davis did not have the degree of over-supply and foreclosures that other areas experienced in the crash starting in 2006. I have also read some research that shows more expensive areas in general were not as affected by the housing crash as cheaper areas, so in addition to the specific local factors outlined above, the experience of Davis would be more typical of more expensive communities.
We could point to UCD as being the biggest locational factor in keeping Davis housing prices from declining as fast as other areas during the housing bust from 2006-2012 and making Davis more relatively expensive than other jurisdictions in the region.
Matt… some problems with your assumptions, premises, and numbers…
You realize, of course, that Davis wasn’t the first city in Yolo County to host a college/university, right? That would be Woodland. Long before UC established a ‘farm extension’ next to what was then known as Davisville.
Your numbers don’t get anywhere close to normalizing for general inflation, nor for other historical factors… a clue… Woodland is the County Seat, not Davis… reasons for that…
One of the watershed events for the change in the fortunes of Davis vs. Woodland, was Jerome Davis finagling a UPRR junction on his land. That and political moves got UC interested in establishing a University Farm for UC Bezerkly ~ 1908… Davisville didn’t become Davis for another 9+ years…
Your numbers, and Rik’s points, are like focusing on a 3 in. X 3 in. swatch of the Mona Lisa, and conjecturing what the rest of the painting means… technically accurate, but missing the point.
Just saying…
Bill, the “college” impact of Sac City in Davis offsets the impact of Woodland CC in Woodland, leaving the “university” impact of UCD as a residual plus for Davis over Woodland.
Regarding the Zillow numbers, are you saying that general inflation is different in Davis than it is in Woodland? If you are, how much of an impact on Zillow’s ZHV1 median home value data do you think that difference in Woodland’s general inflation from Davis’ general inflation would have?
Regarding Zillow’s numbers, all the factors from the list I provided, plus a myriad of other factors in both Woodland and Davis, including of course the fact that Woodland is the county seat, affect the median home values reported in ALL the years.
I’m not sure what point you think has been missed in Rik’s and Ron’s discussion of the trend of the relative home value premium since the passage of Measure J in 2000. Care to help me out of my confusion?
I agree with Bill’s point that the numbers have not been adjusted for inflation. However, that wouldn’t make a difference in the analysis of these types of calcs looking at comparable growth rates among jurisdictions over the same time periods and the comparison of one jurisdiction’s housing costs to another.
I also agree that we shouldn’t focus on just Davis v Woodland comparison. That is why I brought a lot of other regional jurisdictions into the mix for some of the data I presented.
I think Matt’s locational examples for why there is a locational premium for Davis in the first place are solid.
And the larger point of the comparative housing cost numbers is that there is no apparent correlation with Measure J/R effects
I imagine if you go back far enough Woodland had the premium over Davis. I remember getting into this a decade ago and finding that at some point earlier than the late 90’s the premium was only 20% in Davis. Perhaps its because Davis started rebelling against growth in the 80’s and Measure J in 2000 is simply one more data point along the way. Another idea is that adding supply in Woodland moderates price in Davis and that this buffers the lack of supply in Davis limiting the differential to around 50%. Perhaps 50% is where young families throw in the towel and move to Woodland.
And thanks for your efforts on finding this info.
Ron G.: looking at a longer time frame before 1997 would be interesting. The 1997-2019 period that this ZHVI data covers ranges from one housing price trough in 1997; and the 1997-2006 boom, the 2006-2012 bust, and then the 2012-present boom.
The 2000 Measure J adoption was in response to a period of very high growth rates in Davis, so I don’t think it is accurate at all to say that Davis was already “rebelling against growth in the 80’s” and 90s. The Davis population grew an average annual rate of 2.35% from 1980-1990 (almost exactly the California average of 2.32%; Woodland was similar) and 2.70% from 1990-2000 (more than twice the California average of 1.30%: Woodland was very close to the statewide average).
As far as the moderating effect of Woodland on Davis prices, that is probably true to a certain degree, just as proximity to Davis amenities and employment opportunities would have the effect of increasing Woodland prices. Housing markets (and sub-markets by type/price/tier) are regional and have complex interacting effects. That’s why I included lots of other regional jurisdictions (and California) as a whole in the data I presented earlier in these comments. Bottom line though: the data in the last two building cycles just does not seem to show an effect of Measure J/R on relative housing value appreciation rates in Davis.
There’s more to be told in this story… for example, relative rent rates (unfortunately though we don’t have equivalent time series data going back beyond 2010) and the relative rates of depreciation among jurisdictions in housing busts and the reasons behind those. But that’s for another time…
Fights over Mace Ranch in the 80’s and Wildhorse in the 90’s created the environment for Measure J in 2000. Those conflicts sowed the seeds of the anti-growth rebellion that is J/R.
In the 90’s you could rent a two bedroom one bath apartment in Davis for $500-600/month. By 2000 we were paying $700. In 2010 market rate for the same was $1250.
Funny tho… the big impetus for those fights was from those who had first arrived in Davis 5 to 10 years immediately preceding… unconscious self-loathing?
Ron Glick said “Fights over Mace Ranch in the 80’s and Wildhorse in the 90’s created the environment for Measure J in 2000. Those conflicts sowed the seeds of the anti-growth rebellion that is J/R. In the 90’s you could rent a two bedroom one bath apartment in Davis for $500-600/month. By 2000 we were paying $700. In 2010 market rate for the same was $1250.”
Yes, those fights definitely created the environment for Measure J/R both in the amount and the type of growth that was occurring. Since the Davis population grew at an 2.70% annual rate from 1990-2000 (more than twice the California average of 1.30%; with Woodland very close to the statewide average), I’m sure people felt that growing at rates much more than the state and surrounding communities while also experiencing rent increases was the worst of both worlds. I don’t have rent data, but housing prices would have been mostly flat through the 1990s until about mid-1997 when things stated appreciating rapidly.
My point, though, that there wasn’t growth control in the 1980s and 1990s in Davis and it was growing at faster rates than the California and regional average. Interestingly, since population housing/growth rates in California and the region have declined dramatically in the past decade to well under 1% (and Davis has mirrored those trends), there is not a real argument that Measure J/R in Davis with its “soft” 1% growth cap is limiting growth to a degree that would keep Davis from following the same statewide/regional trends. (the massive growth rates in UCD enrollment are a different story…)
Getting back to the article, it seems strange that Taormino is lamenting the fact that was unable to build Springlake in Davis and command the higher housing prices that we would have in Davis for his higher-end low-density single-family homes. Taormino’s group was primarily focused on the more upscale part of Springlake (the Heritage neighborhood). It was (and is) not “workforce housing”. And if he had built in Davis, this would be even more true.
By one interpretation of Taramino’s definition of “colonization”, Mace Ranch is a colony of Sacramento to house state workers.