For the second day in a row, SB 50 lost on an 18-15 vote, although Senator Scott Wiener during his press conference told the media that it was actually closer than that, and he felt “we were on the cusp of getting to 21.
“I’m deeply disappointed that SB 50 failed on the Senate floor,” the senator said. “We’ve been working for over two years on this legislation.”
He said, “Fundamentally this is about addressing California’s very debilitating housing shortage. We are short 3.5 million homes in California. We rank 49 out of 50 states per capita. Since 1960 our population has almost tripled, while our housing production has gone down by two-thirds or three-quarters.”
The result, he said, we see every day – homelessness, poverty, people in their cars, and more.
“This is a problem and we have to deal with it,” he said. He added that, as we 
build those new homes, “we must stop building sprawl.” He said, “It tanks our climate goals, clogs our freeways, pushes people into super commutes, destroys farmland, we need to concentrate the new housing near jobs – that’s what this bill is about.”
He added in a statement: “California’s housing status quo is badly broken. Today’s vote perpetuates that dysfunction. While I’m disappointed, I also know that the fight continues. We will not give up until we have put California on a positive and sustainable path to a better housing future. I will soon be announcing new housing production legislation.”
But while he was finally able to get the bill to the floor with the help of President Pro-Tem Toni Atkins, he was not able to garner enough support to pass the bill.
“I took the step of removing SB 50 and bringing it to the floor to give us all the chance to see if additional time and discussions would generate enough support to move the bill forward,” Toni Atkins said in a statement on Thursday.
“Here’s the thing: we need a housing production bill,” she said. One that includes a number of consensus solutions that would help solve the housing affordability crisis.
She concluded that the vote on Thursday “showed this particular vehicle isn’t it.”
She noted, “The opponents of SB 50 have real concerns.” But at the same time, she criticized, they “have offered no substantive alternative with the same kind of scope of SB 50. Things have to change. We need to reset the conversation.”
She said, “So I am making the commitment to you today that in the coming weeks I will be meeting with stakeholders on all sides to find a way forward on a housing production bill that can pass both houses and get the Governor’s signature.”
“This is not the end of this story,” she said. “Everyone needs to get ready to come to the table. Everyone needs to get ready for some compromise.”
This was also viewed as a setback for Governor Gavin Newsom. The governor had campaigned on the 3.5 million housing number. But the bill most likely in his mind to get that accomplished has now failed.
Governor Newsom released a statement Thursday applauding President Pro Tem Atkins for “vowing to continue this fight.”
The problem can be seen in the vote of Bill Dodd, who represents Davis and much of Yolo County in the State Senate. Senator Dodd had told the media he had planned to vote for the bill, but recognized this week how divided Democrats were on this measure.
He told the media he wanted an approach that more of his colleagues could support and argued that there are still seven months left to do that.
But what does that look like?
SB 50 did several things that Senator Wiener hoped would open up production. The biggest was it overrode zoning restrictions around public transit and transportation corridors by raising height limitations, eliminating single-family residential zoning in such areas, allowing for the conversion of vacant lots and homes into larger units, and allowing for the redevelopment of smaller apartment projects into higher density housing.
All of this proved controversial. On the one hand, groups representing labor unions, businesses and the construction industry lined up behind the bill. But local officials opposed the bill as they were concerned that they would lose the ability to oppose development that did not fit the character of their local community.
He attempted to compromise by giving cities time to create an alternative process to plan for similar amounts of housing – but those objections remained in place and it was Democrats from suburban and coastal districts that were the chief opposition.
In addition, supporters of affordable-housing and low-income communities also had concerns. Talks between the senator and those groups reached an impasse in the last week and many of those organizations opposed the bill, fearing the spread of gentrification and that the bill would make affordability worse rather than better. Many low-income communities worried that they would be pushed from their homes.
Most observers wonder what the next iteration of this type of legislation would look like to unite opposition.
Indeed, the vote broke down much more along the lines of geography rather than partisanship. Most Democrats from Northern California and the Central Valley supported the measure but most of Los Angeles County, for example, opposed.
Senator Wiener noted in his press conference that the senate leadership and the governor were adamant that “there must be a strong housing production bill this year.
“No more nibbling around the edges. It’s time to get to the heart of this problem,” he said.
Across the state, he said the housing crisis is fundamentally the same. But the solution becomes more complicated, given how quickly the situation in the Bay Area has worsened.
“The Bay Area has gone off of a housing cliff before L.A.,” he said. “On housing, the Bay Area is the tip of the spear in a bad way. One of our goals is we want to avoid having other parts of the state be like the Bay Area in terms of the housing crisis.”
By Thursday afternoon, he was posting on Twitter that he had introduced two new placeholder housing bills.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“This is a problem and we have to deal with it,” he said. He added that as we build those new homes, “we must stop building sprawl.” He said, “It tanks our climate goals, clogs our freeways, pushes people into super commutes, destroys farmland, we need to concentrate the new housing near jobs – that’s what this bill is about.”
Pot meet kettle. As many as don’t want “Sprawl” don’t want densification. As long as our leaders demand only certain types of solutions little will get done. In Davis the defeat of SB50 means the status quo for Old East Davis and its epic battle over Trackside. But the other side of this is Measure R continues to choke off housing on the periphery. The result is not much getting done to alleviate the shortage of housing for families with children in Davis.
I was driving on Russell the other day and looking over at West Village where housing is being developed on class I research fields because Davis passed measures J/R locking up commodity production land. While I find it disturbing that jurisdictional prerogatives have led to the misallocation of resources such that we have prioritized the loss of research land, in order to preserve commodity production land, I was even more distressed to see the construction of solar panel covered land. While I support the widespread use of photovoltaics as the ultimate renewable energy source, and, even have them on my roof, covering class I soil research land with solar panels seems astonishingly short sighted.
In my mind the most valuable resources Davis has are its human capital and its spaces for the development of new intellectual capital. It is this combination of research land and intellect that make Davis a thriving community where our contribution to feeding a continuously growing world population are vitally important. Squandering that research land for other priorities based on silos of interests and jurisdictional prerogatives seem like sadly misplaced priorities.
That’s a false argument, as long as the state allows both (density AND sprawl). In fact, increased density might “encourage” sprawl, as folks get pushed out of miserably-dense, increasingly-expensive areas.
One of the solutions is to ensure that a given community does not encourage more jobs than it actually needs. This would also prevent “manufactured” housing crises and sprawl.
Not following why it’s a false argument rather than one you simply disagree with
The fact that the state allows “both” (sprawl and infill) is not an “opinion”.
But Wiener is arguing they should encourage density over sprawl
Now, if SB 50 had included a provision which specifically “traded” infill for sprawl (throughout the state), then it might have been able to make that implied claim.
But, it did not.
The idea was to change the regs to allow density in hopes that would encourage less sprawl. I don’t see your point here
“Hopes” is not a firm foundation upon which to make such claims.
Were you “hoping” that SB 50 would have prevented places like Manteca, Stockton, Natomas, Elk Grove, Woodland, Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Roseville, from continuing upon their current paths?
Whose to say that SB 50 wasn’t actually ENCOURAGING “business as usual”? (Not to mention the gentrification impacts, pushing out those who increasingly can’t afford to stay in impacted areas.)
Me personally? I don’t care. Only pointing out the logic of the legislation. You seem to be arguing it’s not sufficient. I agree. That’s a different matter.
Not exactly. I was pointing out that the claim I quoted (regarding SB 50 “preventing” sprawl) is totally unsupported, and may be flat-out wrong. And yet, that claim underlies a MAJOR portion of its supposed “justification”.
I don’t agree
That same, unsupported claim is also used to support dense infill (e.g., locally), and it may be just as incorrect.
“Housing crises” are created by the pursuit of economic activity (specifically, an increase in jobs) beyond what a given community needs. That’s what leads to BOTH (dense infill, AND sprawl).
And as usual, it pushes out those who can’t afford the increased prices, FIRST. (Along with those who simply don’t want to live in overly-dense misery.)
Universities can also “manufacture” a need for housing, via an active pursuit of more students without regard for the impact on a given community.
I recall that one of the lawsuits filed against the UC system (Santa Cruz?) specifically addressed limitations regarding the pursuit of additional students. (Basing this upon memory, and I don’t recall the details.)
Local school districts (e.g., with shrinking enrollments due to demographic changes) may also have an interest in the “creation” of a need for more housing.
In general, there’s a lot of interests which benefit from the “creation” of a need.
And yet the DV continues to support Measure R. Double-U-Tee-Eff!
Maybe not families with children, but old people and puppies get plenty of housing.
And if you’ve ever priced public/union-built student housing on campus, you’ll know it ain’t uh-fordable by any stretch.
Stupid with a capital S – unless it’s over some other land use.
Ron
“In Davis the defeat of SB50 means the status quo for Old East Davis and its epic battle over Trackside”
This is simply not the case for two reasons. 1. The battle over Trackside had zero to do with the provision of affordable housing. It was always about “gentrification”. 2. OEDNA has not so much defended the status quo, as vetted projects for their effectiveness at addressing housing issues. Our neighborhood did not object to, and in some cases worked actively with the developers in both student projects which directly impact the neighborhood, Lincoln 40 & the project at the former Families First site.
Tia,
My understanding of SB 50 is that it would have prohibited any opposition to Trackside because of its proximity to the train station as you can read below:
(h) “Major transit stop” means a rail transit station or a ferry terminal that is a major transit stop pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code.
(1) All parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area outside of a one-half mile radius of a major transit stop or a one-quarter mile radius of a stop on a high-quality bus corridor.
I think these provisions would have been a game changer for Trackside and severely limited the input the neighbors could have about the project.
True story… and more often than not, same folk.
I have no problem with densification, if it meets needs, and is financially feasible (but I’ll never live in a 40 unit/acre high-rise, unless it’s on life-support), and I don’t “promote sprawl” for the sake of “sprawl”. Am not afraid of ‘expansion’, when justified and feasible, either.
Am in general agreement with the other points made.
Availability and affordability of housing is very important… ‘zero-net-energy’, other building codes, existing or proposed, work against both affordability and availability… good goals, all, but a balance is needed…
Good planning would put housing near jobs for folk housed, along transit-friendly routes (existing or likely)… I liked that part of SB 50… big time… Sterling, the MF projects along Fifth Street/Russell are great concepts, and I support those… getting a college education is a ‘job’… but limited in duration. The A-line Unitrans route serves many MF housing in part of So Davis, and along Fifth… so much so that they often need to send out “sweeper buses”… very high occupancy at peak hour. This is good. I semi-regularly use the bus as I live within 1/4 mile from the route, and the “Senior Pass” doesn’t hurt the choice either… 2 good 1/4 mile walks, and no wear/tear on my car.
The ‘spirit’ of SB 50 is good… unclear what the sticking points have been, other than some folk not wanting to have someone else telling them what they HAVE TO do… and I can relate to that sentiment… you can ask me, you can convince me, you can cajole me, but when you “order” me… well, raises ‘hackles’… just how I’m wired… if someone tells me I HAVE to do “x”, even if I was inclined/prepared to do it, I suddenly lose interest, and am inclined to do the opposite.
Yeah, probably a MH issue…
Here’s another source which challenges that assumption:
https://www.livablecalifornia.org/the-3-5-million-housing-shortage-lie/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/26/inside-livable-californias-fight-for-single-family-neighborhoods/
‘Liv(e)able California’ has no “creds”, except being a political advocacy group… < 2 years old… SF based… against anything other than SF housing. Founded by Susan Kirsch, a Marin resident, apparently in response to a talk by the SB 50 author.
https://marinpost.org/about/contributors/1160/susan-kirsch
‘Nuff said.
Unduly dismissive.
Your opinion is noted.
Meanwhile, state population growth rate is at its lowest level within the past 120 years:
Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article238591568.html#storylink=cpy
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article238591568.html
Yes, the growth rate has slowed but still there is growth… and there is already a deficit.
Plus the 141, 310 folk counted/estimated (more than twice the size of Davis, in one year)… will be interesting to see the results of the 2020 census.
Also part of the reason that the growth rate has slowed is the cost of living and lack of availability of housing. So citing the outcome of the problem as a reason not be concerned doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. There will be economic consequences for the slowed growth.
Yep…
Will be interesting to see the results of the 2020 census… won’t be perfect data, but still…
And you make a good point… a data point does not equal a ‘trend line’….
It’s sort of a “chicken and egg” situation.
The bottom line is that if you build it, they will come.
If you don’t, they won’t.
And, the “market” will ultimately address the situation, on its own. (It’s pushing out those who are less-wealthy, first.)
Those who support market-rate “solutions” have yet to explain why they have a “problem” with people leaving California (to places that are still more welcoming of sprawl), as they’re doing in droves.
Actually, there’s a lot (if not most) places in California that still welcome sprawl. Even (or perhaps “especially”) within the immediate region.
And, there’s other places in California that are actually losing population.
It ultimately comes down to economic factors – especially the creation of jobs.
The point is that the population growth issue is caused by scarcity and cost rather than a reason not to build more.
Population growth is not “caused” by scarcity and cost. There’s evidence that population growth is literally curtailed by those factors.
Housing “crises” are entirely “manufactured”, by creating a demand in a particular area (e.g., via jobs, etc.).
Here’s what’s now happening in Pittsburg, PA – of all places:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/the-house-flippers-of-pittsburgh-try-a-new-tactic/ar-BBZiJYP?li=BBnbfcN
Growth will vary year to year, and by region. What matters for Davis planning is what the regional growth is expected to be.
Regional growth projections for Sacramento region vs state and nation.
https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/chapter3_mtp-scs_0.pdf?1580327288
Actually, there’s a great deal of “choice” regarding whether or not that outcome is pursued. And make no mistake about it – it is a choice.
The region as a whole has (pretty much) already made a choice. Davis has its allotment, via SACOG. Whether or not the vast amount of student housing in the pipeline addresses those allotments (or the degree to which it does – especially when considering its impact on the city) is another concern. (This was discussed in more detail, on another blog.)
Of course – when I refer to “choice”, I’m really referring to a choice made by those who have the power to do so. Outside of Davis (at least within the region), “regular” citizens have almost no say in the matter. That’s why we have sprawl, and politicians advocating for “3.5 million more homes”, with extremely weak Affordable housing requirements and weak rent control.
One wonders how the state might change, if voters were allowed to make such choices in all communities.
But you know, there is resistance at times (even within the region) – which isn’t all that hard to find:
https://www.rosevilletoday.com/news/roseville/placer-county-development-faces-public-opposition/
It’s unfortunate that it takes so much effort from citizens to force a change of course. (I’m not sure of the status of the effort described above.)
There was also opposition to Folsom’s expansion to the other side of Highway 50, but I suspect most readers know how that ended:
Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article154936164.html#storylink=cpy
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article154936164.html
There was also opposition to building in the flood plain that we know as Natomas, but that resulted in a similar outcome. (I believe that taxpayers paid for a lot of the levee improvements needed as a result of that decision, and may “pick up the tab” again, if or when it’s literally “bailed-out”.)
This is the quote: “This proposed city of 15,000 residents and 60,000 workers will contribute 1.5 billion pounds of CO2 to our atmosphere each year, and put 900,000 cars and trucks on our roads DAILY” says Leslie Warren, chair of the Alliance For Environmental Leadership. “All of this while simultaneously destroying 7,000 acres of carbon-sequestering agricultural and wetlands.”
But there’s a huge problem with the quote. The proposed city is not creating people – it’s creating places for people to live. That means that the CO2 and traffic figures are not really additions to the environment. So her figure is irrelevant. The only question is whether the development in Roseville will end up being more efficient and environmentally friendly than the alternative.
The argument that she is making is not an environmental argument. It’s a NIMBY one. She’s arguing not in my backyard because those people are going to have to live somewhere.
Wow. So, this argument suggests that if Placer county doesn’t do it, some other place will.
Sort of like saying that we “might as well” burn-up all of the remaining oil in the earth, since some other country will do so anyway, if we don’t.
One thing for sure is that it’s hard enough to influence local decisions, let alone regional, state, country, or world decisions. (Hence the slogan, “think globally, act locally”.)
Again, there’s evidence that “not building it” literally influences birth rates, for one thing.
(It’s more than a housing development, by the way. It also includes a spot for a Sacramento State satellite campus – which I believe is “unfunded”. I haven’t examined the proposal very carefully, but I understand that Placer county approved it.)
Here’s another development proposal from Davis’ neighbor to the east, which was soundly rejected by voters last year (by a ratio of about 2 to 1):
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2019/06/20/oters-reject-village-at-loomis-project.html
More evidence that councils and supervisors (everywhere, really) consistently do NOT represent voters very well, regarding development decisions. Perhaps has something to do with the need for developer dollars to fund candidate campaigns in the first place.
(I particularly “like” the bolded text in the last quoted sentence, above.)
One thing for sure: Newsom (who apparently doesn’t like dense infill in regard to his own home, to say the least) isn’t going to get 3.5 million homes built by 2025.
Time for “Plan B” – which probably involves further net migration out of California. Ironically, the same type of “market-based solution” that the YIMBYs seem to be clamoring for.
Ron O’s 9:33 post regarding Loomis votes is interesting…
Both of the votes came from citizen originated referenda… not a “Measure R-type process… another example of why we don’t need measure J/R.
Thanks, Ron O, for pointing that out, indirectly.
One would think another remedy Loomis or Davis voters could use, is electing candidates who more closely share their views… heck, they could even recall current CC members. A ‘remedy’ tht already exists.
Are you referring to barring the acceptance of “donations” from development interests to fund expensive candidate campaigns (for a job that ultimately pays “peanuts”)? If so, count me in on that effort – statewide, at multiple levels of city, county, and state government.
You have correctly identified a large part of the problem. Thanks for that.
In the meantime, the other “remedy” that you propose puts the onus on referendum-seekers, to (repeatedly) overturn the decisions of councils which don’t represent the will of voters (as demonstrated in the example I cited). Doesn’t sound like a good plan, to me. In fact, that’s the “plan” that led to Measure J/R in the first place, as well as the vast amounts of continuing sprawl that’s occurring throughout the region.
Also, note that the Loomis proposal was described as “infill” – which might mean that it was already within city limits.
If that’s the case, then the ability of the two respective (Loomis and Davis) councils to approve such developments is exactly the same, as is the ability for citizens to launch a referendum to overturn those decisions.
Of course not… it doesn’t fit your agenda or narrative.
But it is truth.
Here’s a “good plan” for those who want no development, and believe all developers are “money grubbing, rich, miscreants, who care not for the communities they propose to develop in… only the mammon”, and that local staff and electeds are “in the pocket” of such creatures:
Testify against any proposal that comes forward, using any argument that comes to mind, fact-based or not. At every stage, including, but not limited to staff review, commission review, CC review. But, if a proposal is approved;
Support a R/J rejection, and/or a referendum to overturn the approval (as near as I can tell, voters opposed to a project have two swings at the bat on that… no evidence they are mutually exclusive); [might be interesting is a group of voters launched a referendum to affirm/approve a project could ‘trump’ CC disapprovals, and/or a negative Measure R vote… ‘experiments’ have always interested me! That would certainly add delays, as courts sort it out, with possible multiple appeals, etc., which works against development proposals, and meeting needs, BIG TIME…]
File a lawsuit either CEQA-based or process-based.
Ted Puntillo likened those kind of approaches as “a spanking machine”… guess some folk are more into ‘spanking’ than good governance…
As I recall, Ted’s comment was made like 25 years ago, prior to Measure J (much less, R)…
Could be.
But even so, no one is “forcing” developers to submit proposals. There are plenty who have successfully negotiated the process. And, those same processes exist throughout California.
Some communities essentially “don’t give a sh*t”, regarding what’s built. And, it’s not difficult to discern which ones do, and which ones don’t.
Ironically, developers seem to “try hardest” in the locations where they meet the most resistance, due to the potential reward from doing so. (At least, if they “believe” that they have a chance.)
Some communities don’t screw around, and pretty much lay down the law in the first place. Davis is probably somewhere in-between, which provides a potential “opening” for them.
Given the current political atmosphere, I think some version of SB50 will be back. All Sen. Weiner needs to do is get the affordable housing folks on board, and/or possibly make some concessions to the suburban legislators in L.A. The bill failed by three votes. That is certainly not insurmountable, and the governor is very supportive of the general principle of making it easier to get housing built. It’s a top priority for Newsom.
In a region that is projected to have population growth, as the Sacramento region is expected to do, it is likely there will be continued pressure for more housing and especially for lower cost housing. Local obstacles will be targeted if they are inhibiting development. Given how close to passage they were with this version, I think it’s safe to assume there’ll be another iteration along soon and it will pass.
Senator Wiener (not “Weiner” – as you spelled it – and as much as I’d like to) has failed twice, now. I suspect that he will try something again, but the “political wind” might shift by then (if it hasn’t, already). Not to mention the extremely low rate of population growth throughout the state, and a probable recession (which “somehow” reduces demands for housing).
Anything that Wiener puts forth also has to pass (both) the Senate and Assembly.
There are no forces preventing the Sacramento region from accommodating more development. (For the most part, it encourages it – which is the very reason that it’s “expected” to grow.) Even Davis has accommodated more than it’s share of SACOG-allocated “growth”.
Getting the “Affordable housing folks” (as you refer to them) is probably the most difficult challenge that Wiener faces. Or, did you not see how Wiener was “shouted down” by a sub-group of them in Oakland, recently? In addition, if there actually was any Affordable housing in a future proposal, the bill would likely lose the support of development interests – which seem to be driving this in the first place.
Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that an official “goal” of a governor (who apparently sees “no problem” with living on a several-acre compound in the Sacramento region, while demanding that others accept dense development) “doesn’t fly” very well.
Especially when it does NOTHING to prevent sprawl.
Just to clarify:
With the exception of some efforts of some, to counter the efforts of their own representatives. (Some of which are provided as examples, in the comment section above.) For the most part, these efforts fail (in the Sacramento region, at least).
Now, there are some places in California that “lay down the law” to begin with. And, I’m personally inspired by them. I don’t have any desire for them to destroy their own home (and their surrounding environment). And, if I only get to “visit” them at this point – and know that they’re relatively preserved, that’s more than enough for me, personally. Frankly, no individual is all that important, in a broader context.
Ya’ gotta love Belvedere, in your beloved Marin… they ‘lay down the law’…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvedere,_California
Disproves John Donne’s ‘meditation’…
They probably do. I truly like Marin, even though it’s choked with traffic, itself. And, has no shortage of “snobbery” and perhaps “entitlement”.
I believe that the police “record” (via cameras) whomever dares to drive into Tiburon. Seems like a place where anyone without white skin (and perhaps a nicer vehicle and clothing) might feel uncomfortable.
And yet, the entire county is so beautiful, healthy, and safe. With convenient access to San Francisco. No wonder that Newsom moved there (into one of the nicer towns, on a very large lot), before moving to his several-acre compound in a nicer area of Sacramento, when elected governor. (Apparently, for the purpose of telling others how “not to live”.)
The only significant Affordable housing in Marin county that I’m aware of is Marin City, itself. How different it feels (compared to the rest of Marin), when you venture into the new mall there (which replaced the space for a large flea market).
There’s also the “canal district” (in San Rafael), but I’m not sure if there’s actually any Affordable housing there.
To clarify, anyone who’s not white or Asian (or perhaps Hispanic – if they “think” that you’re one of the “help”).
Pretty much leaving African Americans (especially more than one male) as a group that might feel uncomfortable, in Tiburon for example.
Or, won’t be…
https://www.marinij.com/2015/08/26/study-marin-city-canal-among-bay-area-communities-at-high-risk-for-gentrification/
The ‘canal district’ was not known as “safe”. Not in the 70’s or 80’s… not even close…
But (following up on my 6:14 post), you already knew what Marin City and the ‘canal district’ of SR were like (economics and crime) were like in the ’70’s-80’s. And the ‘makeup’ of those communities…
Admit we didn’t track it much since the early 90’s… things do change… if folk accept change…
Am familiar with Marin City, and the “Canal section” of San Rafael.
Telling, you bring up Marin City? “I wonder”…
You “wonder” about what? That I’m not familiar with it?
I am quite familiar with Marin.
A friend finally got tired of renting there, and bought a house in Nevada. Loves it – the proximity to the Sierra, the lack of crowds/traffic, better prices, and the view from their own house!
I believe that the owners of their former apartment remodeled it, and essentially doubled the rent after they left.
Another friend (whom I don’t know quite as well) moved to Spokane, and (also) loves it for pretty much the same reasons as the one who moved to Nevada.
I believe that they also prefer the weather, outdoor opportunities, and geography – compared to the Sacramento valley, at least. As well as their new neighbors, whom are generally a lot friendlier.
I understand that neither one of them ever wants to come back. They both make fun of those left behind, in California.
Renting in Marin City or the ‘canal area’ of SR? Unclear…
No – they were “white”, and could afford to avoid it. (Or, do those factors “usually” correspond with each other in the first place, due to the long-standing history of this country?) 😉 (More recently, lumping in some “Asians” into the “white” category, as well.)
But, I am familiar with those areas.
Have a good evening, Ron O.
I don’t know what occurred in those areas during the 70s and 80’s, but I’m not arguing the point. Those areas are an “anomaly” in Marin county. I probably wouldn’t be entirely comfortable (especially with “my” skin color, and perhaps gender) venturing into Marin City, myself. Although it’s probably a lot safer than some other projects outside of Marin.
However, I don’t feel particularly uncomfortable during the few times I ventured into the canal district.
In any case, it’s a sign that “all is not well”, in society at large – even (or perhaps especially?) in Marin.
K.
Well, maybe not the entire county. Certainly, the vast majority of it, compared to most other urbanized places.
Actually, the vast majority of Marin is actually preserved open space – either public or privately-owned. (I’ve forgotten what the actual percentage is, but it’s likely more than most would think.)
The urban footprint itself (while increasingly dense, perhaps) occupies a small percentage of the land in Marin county, mostly near the 101 corridor.
There were (and are) folks working hard to ensure that it stays that way. It didn’t happen by itself.
By the way, weren’t you planning to “sign off” for the evening (see your 7:26 p.m. comment, above).
a) No
b) much of Marin is watershed for water supply or has little/no groundwater… all Marin residents know (or should know) this… they had to build a water line, on the SR/Richmond bridge to connect to EBMUD, and still, Marin folk had to do the “if it’s yellow, let it mellow…” mantra thingy.
c) much or Marin is geologically unstable (regarding structures) due to soils (and, to a much lesser extent, seismic issues…)
But, this is indeed, drift…
Whether requirements, and/or incentives, development and/or ‘densification’ should be focused near job centers and logical transit routes.
Trying to get back on topic.
Should we go over the history of the large-scale development proposal in the Marin headlands (the one that they actually started building roads and a freeway exit for, before it was added to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area)?
Or, would you like to discuss the freeway that they were planning to build out to Pt. Reyes, as well as the effort to create Pt. Reyes National Seashore, itself?
Or, would you like to discuss the county’s open space acquisitions, or the conversation easements that were (and are still) being used to preserve vast amounts of private ranchland?
Because I can find (and post sources) for ALL of this (and more), if you’d like! Just let me know.
The truth is that preservation of land ultimately helps keep efforts such as SB 50 from having an even worse impact than what was proposed. It’s also “hindering” (if you’d like to use that word) the governor’s “goal” to increase housing production to a level that’s unattainable. (It’s also what’s allowed our governor to live in some pretty nice places, while demanding that others should not.)
Although not asked, I couldn’t resist:
Following the failure of this proposal (and subsequent inclusion within GGNRA), I understand that each and every one of those 30,000 people became “homeless”. (Sarcasm intended.)
Yet another example of representative leaders who lack vision, and tend to be biased toward support of development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marincello
Thought I’d take a look to see what the actual percentage is:
https://www.visitmarin.org/things-to-do/outdoor-activities/the-bay-and-protected-open-space/
(Makes Davis and its region seem like “Houston”, in comparison to Marin.)
I wonder if they have a bunch of development-oriented whiners complaining about the “spanking machine” in Marin? 😉
K.
Your comment was posted twice (and responded to, above).
By the way, I just noticed that you are combining different comments into “one”, making it appear that they were made together (even within ONE paragraph). Doing so destroys context, and has the potential to change the intended meaning.
If you’re going to use quotes, at least don’t recombine sentences into single paragraphs.
It’s difficult to have a serious conversation about planning issues with someone who doesn’t even believe that California has a housing shortage, or who appears to believe that literally nothing at all should be done about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_housing_shortage
Not sure if that comment is in reference to me, but I do believe something should be done about it.
Specifically, stop encouraging the creation of even more jobs in communities that already have an abundance of them. That’s pretty much the sole cause of the “housing crisis” (e.g., in Silicon Valley, San Francisco, etc.). Davis, as well – due to UCD (and proximity to Sacramento).
There are places (“nice” places, at that) even within California that are losing population. There are also places around the country that actually need “economic development”.
The problem with your comment is fails to take into account the ingredients necessary to sustain jobs long term. There is a reason why there are a lot of jobs in some places and a shortage in others. Until you recognize this factor, you’re analysis is flawed.
UCD jobs ARE long-term, as are most of those in Sacramento.
Other than student housing, Woodland is absorbing much of the “new demand” for Davis housing. And, will continue to do so.
Housing prices in Davis and in nearby towns are a “joke”, compared to housing prices in most of the Bay Area. Some moving from the Bay Area could probably buy 3-4 of them, from the proceeds of the sale of their existing house.
Now, if you want to discuss the “ingredients necessary” to sustain jobs long-term where they’re actually needed, I’d welcome that discussion.
The first thing I would suggest is to stop complaining when businesses move to locations such as West Sacramento – which could actually use some redevelopment. Instead, you’ve taken the opposite approach.