In terms of state mandated growth for the next 10 years, we are talking on the order of a couple of small projects.
The real growth inducer is now the city’s own and SELF-IMPOSED 1% growth requirement.
The City Council majority of Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Ruth Asmundson in September, upheld that goal.
Councilmember Souza argued that we are a community that grows by initiative now.
“So it doesn’t matter if you have a one percent, a half percent, ten percent, whatever the percent may be. The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town. That’s the policy we have, and unless we’re going to amend that policy, that’s the true policy that determines when, where and how we’ll grow.”
There is an element of truth to that. Any peripheral development is required by law to obtain a Measure J vote. Any infill is not, and though there are not many locations for which infill would occur, any major project the council likely to ask for a vote anyway.
The tricky part though is that Mr. Souza is also incorrect. Growth is also determined by the planning process and the Housing Element update process. The locations and size will be largely determined by what spots on the map the Housing Element recommends for future growth. If the Housing Element recommends 1% worth of developments that will lead to more potential for growth than .5%.
The community rallied against Covell Village because of the magnitude of the project and likely foreseen disruption it would cause. Would there be future outcry against smaller and less burdensome projects? It seems unlikely.
The developers who propose these projects have a built-in advantage in that they have money and organization already in place in order to run Measure J elections. Grassroots movements are likely to be underfunded and disorganized. A large number of Measure J votes will leave them tired and depleted.
Thus having a rearguard defense is not enough. The key for proponents of slower growth is the gatekeeping power–the ability to determine which projects go forward and which do not.
During the Covell Village Arguments, the City Council Major argued that SACOG’s Fair Share numbers required us to grow at a given rate. Now that these numbers have been reduced, suddenly they are not as important. Indeed in September they argued that these are merely goals and they know we will come in well under 1% growth rate.
This argument largely ignores the fact that we will grow by whatever amount of proposals are actually placed onto the Housing Element Update. It seems unlikely that projects that are selected will not ultimately go forward as Measure J votes in the development process and as I mentioned earlier, it seems even less likely that all but the most massive and disruptive would then be approved.
For too long the argument has been that we have to obtain a certain level of growth, the state mandates it. Now with the new RHNA numbers said to require much lower growth rates than we place upon ourselves and with a depressed housing market, the pressure to grow will be much reduced. The question is whether that means that the council will ease up on its goals for growth over the next ten years. That seems much less certain.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
The Council Majority argues now that SACOG numbers are not critical to Davis growth rate decisions after claiming that they were a critical determinant in the need for their citizen-rejected Covell Village project. Saylor and Souza’s public record with regard to
credibility should give the Davis voter pause in placing them back on the Council dais for another four years.
The Council Majority argues now that SACOG numbers are not critical to Davis growth rate decisions after claiming that they were a critical determinant in the need for their citizen-rejected Covell Village project. Saylor and Souza’s public record with regard to
credibility should give the Davis voter pause in placing them back on the Council dais for another four years.
The Council Majority argues now that SACOG numbers are not critical to Davis growth rate decisions after claiming that they were a critical determinant in the need for their citizen-rejected Covell Village project. Saylor and Souza’s public record with regard to
credibility should give the Davis voter pause in placing them back on the Council dais for another four years.
The Council Majority argues now that SACOG numbers are not critical to Davis growth rate decisions after claiming that they were a critical determinant in the need for their citizen-rejected Covell Village project. Saylor and Souza’s public record with regard to
credibility should give the Davis voter pause in placing them back on the Council dais for another four years.
“While those penalties now may be more serious, the actual RHNA required growth for Davis–defined as Davis’ fairshare–is actually quite low.”
For those who don’t know — it was not explained in the column — RHNA means Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The City of Davis website calls it the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. I guess both are acceptable. The RHNA comes from state law.
….
To my mind, the big question for growth in Davis (and the immediately surrounding unincorporated areas) going forward is how much UC Davis grows. If the University ever stops growing, then so will the city.
While it is true that some of our marginal growth in recent years came from people who commute to work in Sacramento and from retirees who moved here from the Bay Area and So. Cal, the core driver of growth in Davis is (and I believe will continue to be) UC Davis.
The best qualities Davis has which attract outsiders mostly derive from the University.
If UCD doesn’t add more faculty, more staff, more graduate programs and so on, then the internal pressures to add more subdivisions will be modest. But if UCD is growing fast, then either the City of Davis will expand or the unincorporated parts (as is happening with West Village) will add housing.
I don’t think the SACOG numbers or the RHNA numbers are meaningless. They can add to or subtract from the pressures for more Davis housing. But the ultimate pressure is internal. And that is driven mostly by the University.
“While those penalties now may be more serious, the actual RHNA required growth for Davis–defined as Davis’ fairshare–is actually quite low.”
For those who don’t know — it was not explained in the column — RHNA means Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The City of Davis website calls it the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. I guess both are acceptable. The RHNA comes from state law.
….
To my mind, the big question for growth in Davis (and the immediately surrounding unincorporated areas) going forward is how much UC Davis grows. If the University ever stops growing, then so will the city.
While it is true that some of our marginal growth in recent years came from people who commute to work in Sacramento and from retirees who moved here from the Bay Area and So. Cal, the core driver of growth in Davis is (and I believe will continue to be) UC Davis.
The best qualities Davis has which attract outsiders mostly derive from the University.
If UCD doesn’t add more faculty, more staff, more graduate programs and so on, then the internal pressures to add more subdivisions will be modest. But if UCD is growing fast, then either the City of Davis will expand or the unincorporated parts (as is happening with West Village) will add housing.
I don’t think the SACOG numbers or the RHNA numbers are meaningless. They can add to or subtract from the pressures for more Davis housing. But the ultimate pressure is internal. And that is driven mostly by the University.
“While those penalties now may be more serious, the actual RHNA required growth for Davis–defined as Davis’ fairshare–is actually quite low.”
For those who don’t know — it was not explained in the column — RHNA means Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The City of Davis website calls it the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. I guess both are acceptable. The RHNA comes from state law.
….
To my mind, the big question for growth in Davis (and the immediately surrounding unincorporated areas) going forward is how much UC Davis grows. If the University ever stops growing, then so will the city.
While it is true that some of our marginal growth in recent years came from people who commute to work in Sacramento and from retirees who moved here from the Bay Area and So. Cal, the core driver of growth in Davis is (and I believe will continue to be) UC Davis.
The best qualities Davis has which attract outsiders mostly derive from the University.
If UCD doesn’t add more faculty, more staff, more graduate programs and so on, then the internal pressures to add more subdivisions will be modest. But if UCD is growing fast, then either the City of Davis will expand or the unincorporated parts (as is happening with West Village) will add housing.
I don’t think the SACOG numbers or the RHNA numbers are meaningless. They can add to or subtract from the pressures for more Davis housing. But the ultimate pressure is internal. And that is driven mostly by the University.
“While those penalties now may be more serious, the actual RHNA required growth for Davis–defined as Davis’ fairshare–is actually quite low.”
For those who don’t know — it was not explained in the column — RHNA means Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The City of Davis website calls it the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. I guess both are acceptable. The RHNA comes from state law.
….
To my mind, the big question for growth in Davis (and the immediately surrounding unincorporated areas) going forward is how much UC Davis grows. If the University ever stops growing, then so will the city.
While it is true that some of our marginal growth in recent years came from people who commute to work in Sacramento and from retirees who moved here from the Bay Area and So. Cal, the core driver of growth in Davis is (and I believe will continue to be) UC Davis.
The best qualities Davis has which attract outsiders mostly derive from the University.
If UCD doesn’t add more faculty, more staff, more graduate programs and so on, then the internal pressures to add more subdivisions will be modest. But if UCD is growing fast, then either the City of Davis will expand or the unincorporated parts (as is happening with West Village) will add housing.
I don’t think the SACOG numbers or the RHNA numbers are meaningless. They can add to or subtract from the pressures for more Davis housing. But the ultimate pressure is internal. And that is driven mostly by the University.
increasingly, students and new profs can’t afford to live here, though. more and more live in sacramento, west sac, woodland and dixon, and commute in. i suspect that the sacramento commuter demographic is larger than you assume.
that’s one reason for the university building west village. job searches are getting harder, because unless the prof. is bringing equity from a part of the country that’s roughly as expensive, it’s not worth taking the job if you can’t afford housing.
at any rate, the salient point isn’t as much the rate of growth as what kind of growth we’re going to have. right now most of the houses are aimed at the luxury market, so they’re unlikely to be bought by new profs or recent graduates, or (as we’ve noticed in the valley oak discussion) young families with children, much less people who perform most of the service jobs in the local economy.
ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.
increasingly, students and new profs can’t afford to live here, though. more and more live in sacramento, west sac, woodland and dixon, and commute in. i suspect that the sacramento commuter demographic is larger than you assume.
that’s one reason for the university building west village. job searches are getting harder, because unless the prof. is bringing equity from a part of the country that’s roughly as expensive, it’s not worth taking the job if you can’t afford housing.
at any rate, the salient point isn’t as much the rate of growth as what kind of growth we’re going to have. right now most of the houses are aimed at the luxury market, so they’re unlikely to be bought by new profs or recent graduates, or (as we’ve noticed in the valley oak discussion) young families with children, much less people who perform most of the service jobs in the local economy.
ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.
increasingly, students and new profs can’t afford to live here, though. more and more live in sacramento, west sac, woodland and dixon, and commute in. i suspect that the sacramento commuter demographic is larger than you assume.
that’s one reason for the university building west village. job searches are getting harder, because unless the prof. is bringing equity from a part of the country that’s roughly as expensive, it’s not worth taking the job if you can’t afford housing.
at any rate, the salient point isn’t as much the rate of growth as what kind of growth we’re going to have. right now most of the houses are aimed at the luxury market, so they’re unlikely to be bought by new profs or recent graduates, or (as we’ve noticed in the valley oak discussion) young families with children, much less people who perform most of the service jobs in the local economy.
ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.
increasingly, students and new profs can’t afford to live here, though. more and more live in sacramento, west sac, woodland and dixon, and commute in. i suspect that the sacramento commuter demographic is larger than you assume.
that’s one reason for the university building west village. job searches are getting harder, because unless the prof. is bringing equity from a part of the country that’s roughly as expensive, it’s not worth taking the job if you can’t afford housing.
at any rate, the salient point isn’t as much the rate of growth as what kind of growth we’re going to have. right now most of the houses are aimed at the luxury market, so they’re unlikely to be bought by new profs or recent graduates, or (as we’ve noticed in the valley oak discussion) young families with children, much less people who perform most of the service jobs in the local economy.
ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.
I agree ?? Wu-Ming,
As davis choses not to grow it genterfies its self and makes it harder and harder for those people or family’s that too much money to be considered for affordable housing and too little to buy the luxury homes that are for sale in Davis.
I feel that there is nothing just about the davis growth policy, and How any person calling themselves a liberal can call them selves “slow or no growths” is a hipporcrit.
I agree ?? Wu-Ming,
As davis choses not to grow it genterfies its self and makes it harder and harder for those people or family’s that too much money to be considered for affordable housing and too little to buy the luxury homes that are for sale in Davis.
I feel that there is nothing just about the davis growth policy, and How any person calling themselves a liberal can call them selves “slow or no growths” is a hipporcrit.
I agree ?? Wu-Ming,
As davis choses not to grow it genterfies its self and makes it harder and harder for those people or family’s that too much money to be considered for affordable housing and too little to buy the luxury homes that are for sale in Davis.
I feel that there is nothing just about the davis growth policy, and How any person calling themselves a liberal can call them selves “slow or no growths” is a hipporcrit.
I agree ?? Wu-Ming,
As davis choses not to grow it genterfies its self and makes it harder and harder for those people or family’s that too much money to be considered for affordable housing and too little to buy the luxury homes that are for sale in Davis.
I feel that there is nothing just about the davis growth policy, and How any person calling themselves a liberal can call them selves “slow or no growths” is a hipporcrit.
Currently, housing prices are falling at a rapid rate, and, according to most observers, there is no end in sight.
This is causing tremendous pain for those, mostly younger buyers, who bought their first home during the last few years.
However, this price correction, as I have been trying to point out to the council majority for years, was inevitable, and will ultimately greatly increase affordability across the board whether, we grow or not.
In fact, housing growth does nothing to bring down housing prices, especially in the long run.
Housing prices are largely determined by the perceived relative desirabity of a city or area. In fact, housing tends to be much more expensive in larger metropolitan areas than it is
in small towns.
Just look at Los Angeles and Manhattan. Obviously, a lot of units were built in these cities. If Los Angeles and Manhattan
had stayed small towns, prices would be a fraction of what they are today.
The demand for housing is very elastic, and people from the entire country and beyond will bid up the prices of homes built in cities and areas that they believe to be attractive.
As I have said for years, if I thought that another peripheral subdivision would make housing more affordable, I would not hesitate to support it.
But it won’t. And, as I have been urging the council, it is time to change the “one percent” growth policy, which they instituted.
One percent sounds small, but it isn’t. The policy aims at 325 units a year (the policy is actually 1% plus the affordable requirement), which would be the equivalent number of units contained in one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every three years.
And it doesn’t even count
the University’s massive West Village project, which is to be almost the size of the City of Winters.
Even according to SACOG, the city has already met SACOG’s desired targets for our growth through 2013.
I would like to finish our
desireable infill projects, and focus on a really exciting transit-oriented development on the 25 acre underused PG&E project at 5th and L. Streets. We could do amazing things at that site, in terms of cutting-edge, beautifully designed, smart growth development.
I would like to see the Hunt-Wesson land remain zoned high-tech research/light industry and to focus on helping the current owner, or any future owners, develop a beautiful high/tech campus.
I am also interested in smaller projects which target specific needs; attractive planned manufactured home communities such as Rancho Yolo, more continuing care facilities for seniors, etc.
As to planning for peripheral subdivisions, I think it is time to wait and see how the current massive housing price correction plays out.
Currently, housing prices are falling at a rapid rate, and, according to most observers, there is no end in sight.
This is causing tremendous pain for those, mostly younger buyers, who bought their first home during the last few years.
However, this price correction, as I have been trying to point out to the council majority for years, was inevitable, and will ultimately greatly increase affordability across the board whether, we grow or not.
In fact, housing growth does nothing to bring down housing prices, especially in the long run.
Housing prices are largely determined by the perceived relative desirabity of a city or area. In fact, housing tends to be much more expensive in larger metropolitan areas than it is
in small towns.
Just look at Los Angeles and Manhattan. Obviously, a lot of units were built in these cities. If Los Angeles and Manhattan
had stayed small towns, prices would be a fraction of what they are today.
The demand for housing is very elastic, and people from the entire country and beyond will bid up the prices of homes built in cities and areas that they believe to be attractive.
As I have said for years, if I thought that another peripheral subdivision would make housing more affordable, I would not hesitate to support it.
But it won’t. And, as I have been urging the council, it is time to change the “one percent” growth policy, which they instituted.
One percent sounds small, but it isn’t. The policy aims at 325 units a year (the policy is actually 1% plus the affordable requirement), which would be the equivalent number of units contained in one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every three years.
And it doesn’t even count
the University’s massive West Village project, which is to be almost the size of the City of Winters.
Even according to SACOG, the city has already met SACOG’s desired targets for our growth through 2013.
I would like to finish our
desireable infill projects, and focus on a really exciting transit-oriented development on the 25 acre underused PG&E project at 5th and L. Streets. We could do amazing things at that site, in terms of cutting-edge, beautifully designed, smart growth development.
I would like to see the Hunt-Wesson land remain zoned high-tech research/light industry and to focus on helping the current owner, or any future owners, develop a beautiful high/tech campus.
I am also interested in smaller projects which target specific needs; attractive planned manufactured home communities such as Rancho Yolo, more continuing care facilities for seniors, etc.
As to planning for peripheral subdivisions, I think it is time to wait and see how the current massive housing price correction plays out.
Currently, housing prices are falling at a rapid rate, and, according to most observers, there is no end in sight.
This is causing tremendous pain for those, mostly younger buyers, who bought their first home during the last few years.
However, this price correction, as I have been trying to point out to the council majority for years, was inevitable, and will ultimately greatly increase affordability across the board whether, we grow or not.
In fact, housing growth does nothing to bring down housing prices, especially in the long run.
Housing prices are largely determined by the perceived relative desirabity of a city or area. In fact, housing tends to be much more expensive in larger metropolitan areas than it is
in small towns.
Just look at Los Angeles and Manhattan. Obviously, a lot of units were built in these cities. If Los Angeles and Manhattan
had stayed small towns, prices would be a fraction of what they are today.
The demand for housing is very elastic, and people from the entire country and beyond will bid up the prices of homes built in cities and areas that they believe to be attractive.
As I have said for years, if I thought that another peripheral subdivision would make housing more affordable, I would not hesitate to support it.
But it won’t. And, as I have been urging the council, it is time to change the “one percent” growth policy, which they instituted.
One percent sounds small, but it isn’t. The policy aims at 325 units a year (the policy is actually 1% plus the affordable requirement), which would be the equivalent number of units contained in one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every three years.
And it doesn’t even count
the University’s massive West Village project, which is to be almost the size of the City of Winters.
Even according to SACOG, the city has already met SACOG’s desired targets for our growth through 2013.
I would like to finish our
desireable infill projects, and focus on a really exciting transit-oriented development on the 25 acre underused PG&E project at 5th and L. Streets. We could do amazing things at that site, in terms of cutting-edge, beautifully designed, smart growth development.
I would like to see the Hunt-Wesson land remain zoned high-tech research/light industry and to focus on helping the current owner, or any future owners, develop a beautiful high/tech campus.
I am also interested in smaller projects which target specific needs; attractive planned manufactured home communities such as Rancho Yolo, more continuing care facilities for seniors, etc.
As to planning for peripheral subdivisions, I think it is time to wait and see how the current massive housing price correction plays out.
Currently, housing prices are falling at a rapid rate, and, according to most observers, there is no end in sight.
This is causing tremendous pain for those, mostly younger buyers, who bought their first home during the last few years.
However, this price correction, as I have been trying to point out to the council majority for years, was inevitable, and will ultimately greatly increase affordability across the board whether, we grow or not.
In fact, housing growth does nothing to bring down housing prices, especially in the long run.
Housing prices are largely determined by the perceived relative desirabity of a city or area. In fact, housing tends to be much more expensive in larger metropolitan areas than it is
in small towns.
Just look at Los Angeles and Manhattan. Obviously, a lot of units were built in these cities. If Los Angeles and Manhattan
had stayed small towns, prices would be a fraction of what they are today.
The demand for housing is very elastic, and people from the entire country and beyond will bid up the prices of homes built in cities and areas that they believe to be attractive.
As I have said for years, if I thought that another peripheral subdivision would make housing more affordable, I would not hesitate to support it.
But it won’t. And, as I have been urging the council, it is time to change the “one percent” growth policy, which they instituted.
One percent sounds small, but it isn’t. The policy aims at 325 units a year (the policy is actually 1% plus the affordable requirement), which would be the equivalent number of units contained in one subdivision the size of Wildhorse every three years.
And it doesn’t even count
the University’s massive West Village project, which is to be almost the size of the City of Winters.
Even according to SACOG, the city has already met SACOG’s desired targets for our growth through 2013.
I would like to finish our
desireable infill projects, and focus on a really exciting transit-oriented development on the 25 acre underused PG&E project at 5th and L. Streets. We could do amazing things at that site, in terms of cutting-edge, beautifully designed, smart growth development.
I would like to see the Hunt-Wesson land remain zoned high-tech research/light industry and to focus on helping the current owner, or any future owners, develop a beautiful high/tech campus.
I am also interested in smaller projects which target specific needs; attractive planned manufactured home communities such as Rancho Yolo, more continuing care facilities for seniors, etc.
As to planning for peripheral subdivisions, I think it is time to wait and see how the current massive housing price correction plays out.
Sue you might have been right, but homes in davis our not falling like a sink out of the sky. Davis is the one community not affected by the home declines, look at the numbers.
Also every study says that you are incorrect in your statement here is one about southern California http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/research/publications/reports/SoCal_Housing.pdf
So your wrong, and the idea that you can create market rate houses that the average college educated duel income couple can afford by building infill is silly!
Sue you might have been right, but homes in davis our not falling like a sink out of the sky. Davis is the one community not affected by the home declines, look at the numbers.
Also every study says that you are incorrect in your statement here is one about southern California http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/research/publications/reports/SoCal_Housing.pdf
So your wrong, and the idea that you can create market rate houses that the average college educated duel income couple can afford by building infill is silly!
Sue you might have been right, but homes in davis our not falling like a sink out of the sky. Davis is the one community not affected by the home declines, look at the numbers.
Also every study says that you are incorrect in your statement here is one about southern California http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/research/publications/reports/SoCal_Housing.pdf
So your wrong, and the idea that you can create market rate houses that the average college educated duel income couple can afford by building infill is silly!
Sue you might have been right, but homes in davis our not falling like a sink out of the sky. Davis is the one community not affected by the home declines, look at the numbers.
Also every study says that you are incorrect in your statement here is one about southern California http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/research/publications/reports/SoCal_Housing.pdf
So your wrong, and the idea that you can create market rate houses that the average college educated duel income couple can afford by building infill is silly!
On the other hand, the idea that you can grow a sufficient amount in Davis to reduce the market prices is equally absurd. Any development would be a mere pin prick in a vast system.
On the other hand, the idea that you can grow a sufficient amount in Davis to reduce the market prices is equally absurd. Any development would be a mere pin prick in a vast system.
On the other hand, the idea that you can grow a sufficient amount in Davis to reduce the market prices is equally absurd. Any development would be a mere pin prick in a vast system.
On the other hand, the idea that you can grow a sufficient amount in Davis to reduce the market prices is equally absurd. Any development would be a mere pin prick in a vast system.
According to the local realtors with whom I have talked, as well as to anecdotal evidence collected from friends concerning houses for sale in their neighborhoods, prices in Davis are very definitely falling.
According to the local realtors with whom I have talked, as well as to anecdotal evidence collected from friends concerning houses for sale in their neighborhoods, prices in Davis are very definitely falling.
According to the local realtors with whom I have talked, as well as to anecdotal evidence collected from friends concerning houses for sale in their neighborhoods, prices in Davis are very definitely falling.
According to the local realtors with whom I have talked, as well as to anecdotal evidence collected from friends concerning houses for sale in their neighborhoods, prices in Davis are very definitely falling.
Sue- not according to the data. Sorry
DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing!
Sue- not according to the data. Sorry
DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing!
Sue- not according to the data. Sorry
DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing!
Sue- not according to the data. Sorry
DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing!
Sue is absolutely correct. The nonsensical 1% growth imposition does nothing to create affordable housing and only adds to the sprawl that damages Davis. The key to this city is our downtown, it is nearly inaccessible because of the hordes of cars from the satellite communities created on the edge of town. NO growth is essential until we resolve our parking and traffic issues from the development mistakes we have already allowed. Growth does nothing to benefit the city and needs to stop until we have dealt with what we have.
This is not a “liberal” or “conservative” issue, it is one of common sense vs. confused ideology.
Sue is absolutely correct. The nonsensical 1% growth imposition does nothing to create affordable housing and only adds to the sprawl that damages Davis. The key to this city is our downtown, it is nearly inaccessible because of the hordes of cars from the satellite communities created on the edge of town. NO growth is essential until we resolve our parking and traffic issues from the development mistakes we have already allowed. Growth does nothing to benefit the city and needs to stop until we have dealt with what we have.
This is not a “liberal” or “conservative” issue, it is one of common sense vs. confused ideology.
Sue is absolutely correct. The nonsensical 1% growth imposition does nothing to create affordable housing and only adds to the sprawl that damages Davis. The key to this city is our downtown, it is nearly inaccessible because of the hordes of cars from the satellite communities created on the edge of town. NO growth is essential until we resolve our parking and traffic issues from the development mistakes we have already allowed. Growth does nothing to benefit the city and needs to stop until we have dealt with what we have.
This is not a “liberal” or “conservative” issue, it is one of common sense vs. confused ideology.
Sue is absolutely correct. The nonsensical 1% growth imposition does nothing to create affordable housing and only adds to the sprawl that damages Davis. The key to this city is our downtown, it is nearly inaccessible because of the hordes of cars from the satellite communities created on the edge of town. NO growth is essential until we resolve our parking and traffic issues from the development mistakes we have already allowed. Growth does nothing to benefit the city and needs to stop until we have dealt with what we have.
This is not a “liberal” or “conservative” issue, it is one of common sense vs. confused ideology.
I think that DPD has coined the moniker for those in favor of growth for ideology’s sake “Pricks for Equality and Justice” 😉
I think that DPD has coined the moniker for those in favor of growth for ideology’s sake “Pricks for Equality and Justice” 😉
I think that DPD has coined the moniker for those in favor of growth for ideology’s sake “Pricks for Equality and Justice” 😉
I think that DPD has coined the moniker for those in favor of growth for ideology’s sake “Pricks for Equality and Justice” 😉
Call me crazy but, I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty,
Mike H. nice try and good attempt at trying to change the subject
Call me crazy but, I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty,
Mike H. nice try and good attempt at trying to change the subject
Call me crazy but, I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty,
Mike H. nice try and good attempt at trying to change the subject
Call me crazy but, I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty,
Mike H. nice try and good attempt at trying to change the subject
“DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing! “
and then
“I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty”
I think part of the problem is that you are in fact trying to look at this in isolation. If indeed there were no negative impacts then I would say you were right, a pin prick is better than nothing. But in terms of traffic, environmental impacts, noise, and quality of life, there is a possibly drastic impact of some of the growth potentials which would drastically outweigh any possible reduction in housing costs that they would enable.
“DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing! “
and then
“I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty”
I think part of the problem is that you are in fact trying to look at this in isolation. If indeed there were no negative impacts then I would say you were right, a pin prick is better than nothing. But in terms of traffic, environmental impacts, noise, and quality of life, there is a possibly drastic impact of some of the growth potentials which would drastically outweigh any possible reduction in housing costs that they would enable.
“DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing! “
and then
“I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty”
I think part of the problem is that you are in fact trying to look at this in isolation. If indeed there were no negative impacts then I would say you were right, a pin prick is better than nothing. But in terms of traffic, environmental impacts, noise, and quality of life, there is a possibly drastic impact of some of the growth potentials which would drastically outweigh any possible reduction in housing costs that they would enable.
“DPD- A pin prick for equality and justice is better than nothing! “
and then
“I don’t think we were talking about the viability of downtown and traffic, we are talking about housing and affordabilty”
I think part of the problem is that you are in fact trying to look at this in isolation. If indeed there were no negative impacts then I would say you were right, a pin prick is better than nothing. But in terms of traffic, environmental impacts, noise, and quality of life, there is a possibly drastic impact of some of the growth potentials which would drastically outweigh any possible reduction in housing costs that they would enable.
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage
of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage
of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage
of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage
of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?
I am often intrigued by this argument that growth is inevitable. So is death, that does not mean we do not attempt to forestall it.
But really this argument misses the fundamental point, the debate over growth is when, where, and how much.
“why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want”
I would say we are doing exactly that. We have made development into a scarce commodity and therefore the new developments that are approved are more likely to offer more of we want. That does not mean we ought to allow more of it.
“Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?”
I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited. Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.
I am often intrigued by this argument that growth is inevitable. So is death, that does not mean we do not attempt to forestall it.
But really this argument misses the fundamental point, the debate over growth is when, where, and how much.
“why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want”
I would say we are doing exactly that. We have made development into a scarce commodity and therefore the new developments that are approved are more likely to offer more of we want. That does not mean we ought to allow more of it.
“Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?”
I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited. Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.
I am often intrigued by this argument that growth is inevitable. So is death, that does not mean we do not attempt to forestall it.
But really this argument misses the fundamental point, the debate over growth is when, where, and how much.
“why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want”
I would say we are doing exactly that. We have made development into a scarce commodity and therefore the new developments that are approved are more likely to offer more of we want. That does not mean we ought to allow more of it.
“Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?”
I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited. Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.
I am often intrigued by this argument that growth is inevitable. So is death, that does not mean we do not attempt to forestall it.
But really this argument misses the fundamental point, the debate over growth is when, where, and how much.
“why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want”
I would say we are doing exactly that. We have made development into a scarce commodity and therefore the new developments that are approved are more likely to offer more of we want. That does not mean we ought to allow more of it.
“Developers have paid for these communities quality of life resources in other areas of California, why not here?”
I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited. Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.
Sue Greenwald chants this silly mantra about defying the laws of supply and demand to justify her opposition to more housing. Then she talks about how regional supply and demand is causing prices here to go down. So which is it Sue? Then she adds insult by suggesting we need more mobile homes. The thing I find most offensive is somebody telling people how they should live when the person is not leading by example and living the way they are preaching others should live. So Sue when you move into a mobile home I’ll start to consider it for myself.
Of course her analogy of high priced cities fails to account for other economic factors such as ports, finance centers and the movie industries.
At the same time she is in denial about the engine of the local economy, UC Davis, which supports her family. If the University didn’t grow to be what it is today there would be no job for her family and no Sue Greenwald in town. Of course that would mean that the university would have failed in its missions to educate the diverse population of California at reasonable cost and do research that makes the lives of everyone better. While Sue Greenwald represents the total nimby constituency the University grows, as it should, anyway making people live in surrounding communities. This commuter population adds to regional traffic and production of carbon dioxide but keeps downtown Davis bucolic for those who live in town and never need to deal with the stress of driving the highways in these parts.
Sue Greenwald chants this silly mantra about defying the laws of supply and demand to justify her opposition to more housing. Then she talks about how regional supply and demand is causing prices here to go down. So which is it Sue? Then she adds insult by suggesting we need more mobile homes. The thing I find most offensive is somebody telling people how they should live when the person is not leading by example and living the way they are preaching others should live. So Sue when you move into a mobile home I’ll start to consider it for myself.
Of course her analogy of high priced cities fails to account for other economic factors such as ports, finance centers and the movie industries.
At the same time she is in denial about the engine of the local economy, UC Davis, which supports her family. If the University didn’t grow to be what it is today there would be no job for her family and no Sue Greenwald in town. Of course that would mean that the university would have failed in its missions to educate the diverse population of California at reasonable cost and do research that makes the lives of everyone better. While Sue Greenwald represents the total nimby constituency the University grows, as it should, anyway making people live in surrounding communities. This commuter population adds to regional traffic and production of carbon dioxide but keeps downtown Davis bucolic for those who live in town and never need to deal with the stress of driving the highways in these parts.
Sue Greenwald chants this silly mantra about defying the laws of supply and demand to justify her opposition to more housing. Then she talks about how regional supply and demand is causing prices here to go down. So which is it Sue? Then she adds insult by suggesting we need more mobile homes. The thing I find most offensive is somebody telling people how they should live when the person is not leading by example and living the way they are preaching others should live. So Sue when you move into a mobile home I’ll start to consider it for myself.
Of course her analogy of high priced cities fails to account for other economic factors such as ports, finance centers and the movie industries.
At the same time she is in denial about the engine of the local economy, UC Davis, which supports her family. If the University didn’t grow to be what it is today there would be no job for her family and no Sue Greenwald in town. Of course that would mean that the university would have failed in its missions to educate the diverse population of California at reasonable cost and do research that makes the lives of everyone better. While Sue Greenwald represents the total nimby constituency the University grows, as it should, anyway making people live in surrounding communities. This commuter population adds to regional traffic and production of carbon dioxide but keeps downtown Davis bucolic for those who live in town and never need to deal with the stress of driving the highways in these parts.
Sue Greenwald chants this silly mantra about defying the laws of supply and demand to justify her opposition to more housing. Then she talks about how regional supply and demand is causing prices here to go down. So which is it Sue? Then she adds insult by suggesting we need more mobile homes. The thing I find most offensive is somebody telling people how they should live when the person is not leading by example and living the way they are preaching others should live. So Sue when you move into a mobile home I’ll start to consider it for myself.
Of course her analogy of high priced cities fails to account for other economic factors such as ports, finance centers and the movie industries.
At the same time she is in denial about the engine of the local economy, UC Davis, which supports her family. If the University didn’t grow to be what it is today there would be no job for her family and no Sue Greenwald in town. Of course that would mean that the university would have failed in its missions to educate the diverse population of California at reasonable cost and do research that makes the lives of everyone better. While Sue Greenwald represents the total nimby constituency the University grows, as it should, anyway making people live in surrounding communities. This commuter population adds to regional traffic and production of carbon dioxide but keeps downtown Davis bucolic for those who live in town and never need to deal with the stress of driving the highways in these parts.
“I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited.”
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the inferstructure to have light rail
to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit. Bad argument.
“Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.”
Wheres your facts, can you name me a study, or an situation where having the examples that I stated I.E solar panels on public buildings and light rail as a problem and where adding those items created long term problems for the communitie?
“I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited.”
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the inferstructure to have light rail
to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit. Bad argument.
“Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.”
Wheres your facts, can you name me a study, or an situation where having the examples that I stated I.E solar panels on public buildings and light rail as a problem and where adding those items created long term problems for the communitie?
“I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited.”
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the inferstructure to have light rail
to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit. Bad argument.
“Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.”
Wheres your facts, can you name me a study, or an situation where having the examples that I stated I.E solar panels on public buildings and light rail as a problem and where adding those items created long term problems for the communitie?
“I think this misses a key point. The benefits of development in terms of revenue are short-term and limited.”
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the inferstructure to have light rail
to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit. Bad argument.
“Communities that have grown more have suffered more and not fewer problems, have lower not great quality of lives.”
Wheres your facts, can you name me a study, or an situation where having the examples that I stated I.E solar panels on public buildings and light rail as a problem and where adding those items created long term problems for the communitie?
“ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.”
–Wu Ming
Mr. Ming,
Your definition of “we” is interesting. Are you a member of the developer aristocracy? An employee of Chuck Roe? Otherwise, the “we” thing has to be qualified, unless you remember the shining example of Covell Village getting beaten down by a coalition of regular folks and middling property owner, usually voiceless.
The powers that be in this town aren’t interested in others’ abilty to afford to live in Davis, just lining their pockets. Which is why Davis is now a bedroom community. Soon to be a virtually moated feifdom.
“ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.”
–Wu Ming
Mr. Ming,
Your definition of “we” is interesting. Are you a member of the developer aristocracy? An employee of Chuck Roe? Otherwise, the “we” thing has to be qualified, unless you remember the shining example of Covell Village getting beaten down by a coalition of regular folks and middling property owner, usually voiceless.
The powers that be in this town aren’t interested in others’ abilty to afford to live in Davis, just lining their pockets. Which is why Davis is now a bedroom community. Soon to be a virtually moated feifdom.
“ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.”
–Wu Ming
Mr. Ming,
Your definition of “we” is interesting. Are you a member of the developer aristocracy? An employee of Chuck Roe? Otherwise, the “we” thing has to be qualified, unless you remember the shining example of Covell Village getting beaten down by a coalition of regular folks and middling property owner, usually voiceless.
The powers that be in this town aren’t interested in others’ abilty to afford to live in Davis, just lining their pockets. Which is why Davis is now a bedroom community. Soon to be a virtually moated feifdom.
“ultimately, the manner in which we choose to grow determines what kind of a community we become. i’m a lot less concerned about the rate of growth than i am about the kind of city we’re gradually becoming.”
–Wu Ming
Mr. Ming,
Your definition of “we” is interesting. Are you a member of the developer aristocracy? An employee of Chuck Roe? Otherwise, the “we” thing has to be qualified, unless you remember the shining example of Covell Village getting beaten down by a coalition of regular folks and middling property owner, usually voiceless.
The powers that be in this town aren’t interested in others’ abilty to afford to live in Davis, just lining their pockets. Which is why Davis is now a bedroom community. Soon to be a virtually moated feifdom.
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “smart growth”. The term “smart growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough tax revenue to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a budget deficit.
New homes requires schools, police, fire, parks, public works – in other words city services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will not help our city’s dire fiscal situation.
So it would seem logical to encourage more business, before new homes. One can argue against big box stores. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech industry, or exploit the use of the Hunt-Wesson property for light industrial use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more tax dollars, if you can’t pay for city services. No new housing until your budget is balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on surveys that tell us very little, but no fiscal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second screen for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a parks survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the tank house? Come on!
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “smart growth”. The term “smart growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough tax revenue to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a budget deficit.
New homes requires schools, police, fire, parks, public works – in other words city services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will not help our city’s dire fiscal situation.
So it would seem logical to encourage more business, before new homes. One can argue against big box stores. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech industry, or exploit the use of the Hunt-Wesson property for light industrial use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more tax dollars, if you can’t pay for city services. No new housing until your budget is balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on surveys that tell us very little, but no fiscal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second screen for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a parks survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the tank house? Come on!
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “smart growth”. The term “smart growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough tax revenue to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a budget deficit.
New homes requires schools, police, fire, parks, public works – in other words city services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will not help our city’s dire fiscal situation.
So it would seem logical to encourage more business, before new homes. One can argue against big box stores. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech industry, or exploit the use of the Hunt-Wesson property for light industrial use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more tax dollars, if you can’t pay for city services. No new housing until your budget is balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on surveys that tell us very little, but no fiscal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second screen for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a parks survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the tank house? Come on!
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “smart growth”. The term “smart growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough tax revenue to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a budget deficit.
New homes requires schools, police, fire, parks, public works – in other words city services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will not help our city’s dire fiscal situation.
So it would seem logical to encourage more business, before new homes. One can argue against big box stores. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech industry, or exploit the use of the Hunt-Wesson property for light industrial use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more tax dollars, if you can’t pay for city services. No new housing until your budget is balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on surveys that tell us very little, but no fiscal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second screen for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a parks survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the tank house? Come on!
Property values in Davis have fallen but by a smaller percentage than other areas. Why? Because of constricted supply. Davis didn’t build much during the boom which is why 1 dollar in Roseville buys twice the square foot of house as it does in Davis.
Sue Greenwald has been talking about developing along the tracks on PG&E’s property for 8 years and it seems absolutely nothing has come of it. I imagine this is because she is inept as a politician and can’t get anything done. I guess she doesn’t understand that politics is about the art of making deals and cultivating relationships with other elected officials instead of being against any idea that isn’t her own.
Property values in Davis have fallen but by a smaller percentage than other areas. Why? Because of constricted supply. Davis didn’t build much during the boom which is why 1 dollar in Roseville buys twice the square foot of house as it does in Davis.
Sue Greenwald has been talking about developing along the tracks on PG&E’s property for 8 years and it seems absolutely nothing has come of it. I imagine this is because she is inept as a politician and can’t get anything done. I guess she doesn’t understand that politics is about the art of making deals and cultivating relationships with other elected officials instead of being against any idea that isn’t her own.
Property values in Davis have fallen but by a smaller percentage than other areas. Why? Because of constricted supply. Davis didn’t build much during the boom which is why 1 dollar in Roseville buys twice the square foot of house as it does in Davis.
Sue Greenwald has been talking about developing along the tracks on PG&E’s property for 8 years and it seems absolutely nothing has come of it. I imagine this is because she is inept as a politician and can’t get anything done. I guess she doesn’t understand that politics is about the art of making deals and cultivating relationships with other elected officials instead of being against any idea that isn’t her own.
Property values in Davis have fallen but by a smaller percentage than other areas. Why? Because of constricted supply. Davis didn’t build much during the boom which is why 1 dollar in Roseville buys twice the square foot of house as it does in Davis.
Sue Greenwald has been talking about developing along the tracks on PG&E’s property for 8 years and it seems absolutely nothing has come of it. I imagine this is because she is inept as a politician and can’t get anything done. I guess she doesn’t understand that politics is about the art of making deals and cultivating relationships with other elected officials instead of being against any idea that isn’t her own.
Dear Angry Anonymous person-
Where is all this anger coming from directed at Mayor Greenwald? She is speaking for the vast majority of Davis residents when she opposes growth in our town. People here have paid a premium for living in a slow-growth town rather than getting an insta-box in Woodland or West Sac.
Quality of life matters. The expense of growth, the impact to traffic and our downtown needs to be addressed. Developers don’t have to deal with these matters nor can even a massive project afford to address them and still deliver the huge inventory of cheap housing needed to really impact housing prices. Although they can easily afford to “greenwash” the project with a few solar panels… You can’t grow your way out of the misdeeds of the past. We need to take a deep breath and work to absorb what we have already done.
If you want to help the University deal with recruiting professors and house students, just sit back and watch them do exactly that in West Village. We really don’t need any new growth for quite some time. This project, coupled with the existing large (for Davis) inventory of houses, will keep the lid on appreciation for some time to come.
Dear Angry Anonymous person-
Where is all this anger coming from directed at Mayor Greenwald? She is speaking for the vast majority of Davis residents when she opposes growth in our town. People here have paid a premium for living in a slow-growth town rather than getting an insta-box in Woodland or West Sac.
Quality of life matters. The expense of growth, the impact to traffic and our downtown needs to be addressed. Developers don’t have to deal with these matters nor can even a massive project afford to address them and still deliver the huge inventory of cheap housing needed to really impact housing prices. Although they can easily afford to “greenwash” the project with a few solar panels… You can’t grow your way out of the misdeeds of the past. We need to take a deep breath and work to absorb what we have already done.
If you want to help the University deal with recruiting professors and house students, just sit back and watch them do exactly that in West Village. We really don’t need any new growth for quite some time. This project, coupled with the existing large (for Davis) inventory of houses, will keep the lid on appreciation for some time to come.
Dear Angry Anonymous person-
Where is all this anger coming from directed at Mayor Greenwald? She is speaking for the vast majority of Davis residents when she opposes growth in our town. People here have paid a premium for living in a slow-growth town rather than getting an insta-box in Woodland or West Sac.
Quality of life matters. The expense of growth, the impact to traffic and our downtown needs to be addressed. Developers don’t have to deal with these matters nor can even a massive project afford to address them and still deliver the huge inventory of cheap housing needed to really impact housing prices. Although they can easily afford to “greenwash” the project with a few solar panels… You can’t grow your way out of the misdeeds of the past. We need to take a deep breath and work to absorb what we have already done.
If you want to help the University deal with recruiting professors and house students, just sit back and watch them do exactly that in West Village. We really don’t need any new growth for quite some time. This project, coupled with the existing large (for Davis) inventory of houses, will keep the lid on appreciation for some time to come.
Dear Angry Anonymous person-
Where is all this anger coming from directed at Mayor Greenwald? She is speaking for the vast majority of Davis residents when she opposes growth in our town. People here have paid a premium for living in a slow-growth town rather than getting an insta-box in Woodland or West Sac.
Quality of life matters. The expense of growth, the impact to traffic and our downtown needs to be addressed. Developers don’t have to deal with these matters nor can even a massive project afford to address them and still deliver the huge inventory of cheap housing needed to really impact housing prices. Although they can easily afford to “greenwash” the project with a few solar panels… You can’t grow your way out of the misdeeds of the past. We need to take a deep breath and work to absorb what we have already done.
If you want to help the University deal with recruiting professors and house students, just sit back and watch them do exactly that in West Village. We really don’t need any new growth for quite some time. This project, coupled with the existing large (for Davis) inventory of houses, will keep the lid on appreciation for some time to come.
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “stupid growth”. The term “stupid growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough sewage to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a sewer system.
New homes require toilets – in other words janitorial services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will produce more sewage.
So it would seem logical to encourage less business, before more sewer pipes. One can argue against big toilets. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech plumbing, or exploit the use of the public restrooms for light bathroom use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more toilet paper, if you can’t pay for bidets. No new water closets until your pipes are balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on outhouses, but no fecal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second urinal for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a hand washing survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the historical toilet tank? Come on!
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “stupid growth”. The term “stupid growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough sewage to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a sewer system.
New homes require toilets – in other words janitorial services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will produce more sewage.
So it would seem logical to encourage less business, before more sewer pipes. One can argue against big toilets. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech plumbing, or exploit the use of the public restrooms for light bathroom use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more toilet paper, if you can’t pay for bidets. No new water closets until your pipes are balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on outhouses, but no fecal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second urinal for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a hand washing survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the historical toilet tank? Come on!
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “stupid growth”. The term “stupid growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough sewage to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a sewer system.
New homes require toilets – in other words janitorial services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will produce more sewage.
So it would seem logical to encourage less business, before more sewer pipes. One can argue against big toilets. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech plumbing, or exploit the use of the public restrooms for light bathroom use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more toilet paper, if you can’t pay for bidets. No new water closets until your pipes are balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on outhouses, but no fecal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second urinal for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a hand washing survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the historical toilet tank? Come on!
I am not for no growth, slow growth or fast growth. I am for “stupid growth”. The term “stupid growth” can mean different things to different people.
However, I think most would agree Davis is not generating enough sewage to support current city services. At least the City Council keeps reminding us there is a sewer system.
New homes require toilets – in other words janitorial services. If we cannot pay for current services, building new homes will produce more sewage.
So it would seem logical to encourage less business, before more sewer pipes. One can argue against big toilets. Fine, bring in whatever the city can sustain. If we can manage to encourage high-tech plumbing, or exploit the use of the public restrooms for light bathroom use, great!
But you need to attract what will bring in more toilet paper, if you can’t pay for bidets. No new water closets until your pipes are balanced. What I see is a city that wastes its money on outhouses, but no fecal responsibility.
Redevelopment funds spent on a second urinal for the Varsity Theater? Come on! $75,000 spent on a hand washing survey? Come on! $200,000 to be spent on refurbishing the historical toilet tank? Come on!
West village may take the edge off the market as you suggest and yes Sue does represent those that are already landed but this ideal of Davis as some island in a region is so myopic and selfish its outrageous. It denies the educational role Davis plays in the state, prices people who do the heavy lifting in this town out of the market, contributes to regional traffic congestion and auto pollution while claiming to do just the opposite.
Sue is the kind of mayor that goes to the Martin Luther King Jr. ceremony and speaks about equality and votes to exclude anyone but the rich from buying in town. So yes I am angry with her and the people who she represents but what I find completely outrageous is her half-baked economic analysis that is so stupid and anecdotal that it would make Adam Smith laugh his ass off.
As for my comments about her inability to get anything done, either she is inept at politics or the other possibility which is that she doesn’t want anything done and uses the PG&E idea as a way to look like she isn’t totally against development while doing nothing about it.
As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.
West village may take the edge off the market as you suggest and yes Sue does represent those that are already landed but this ideal of Davis as some island in a region is so myopic and selfish its outrageous. It denies the educational role Davis plays in the state, prices people who do the heavy lifting in this town out of the market, contributes to regional traffic congestion and auto pollution while claiming to do just the opposite.
Sue is the kind of mayor that goes to the Martin Luther King Jr. ceremony and speaks about equality and votes to exclude anyone but the rich from buying in town. So yes I am angry with her and the people who she represents but what I find completely outrageous is her half-baked economic analysis that is so stupid and anecdotal that it would make Adam Smith laugh his ass off.
As for my comments about her inability to get anything done, either she is inept at politics or the other possibility which is that she doesn’t want anything done and uses the PG&E idea as a way to look like she isn’t totally against development while doing nothing about it.
As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.
West village may take the edge off the market as you suggest and yes Sue does represent those that are already landed but this ideal of Davis as some island in a region is so myopic and selfish its outrageous. It denies the educational role Davis plays in the state, prices people who do the heavy lifting in this town out of the market, contributes to regional traffic congestion and auto pollution while claiming to do just the opposite.
Sue is the kind of mayor that goes to the Martin Luther King Jr. ceremony and speaks about equality and votes to exclude anyone but the rich from buying in town. So yes I am angry with her and the people who she represents but what I find completely outrageous is her half-baked economic analysis that is so stupid and anecdotal that it would make Adam Smith laugh his ass off.
As for my comments about her inability to get anything done, either she is inept at politics or the other possibility which is that she doesn’t want anything done and uses the PG&E idea as a way to look like she isn’t totally against development while doing nothing about it.
As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.
West village may take the edge off the market as you suggest and yes Sue does represent those that are already landed but this ideal of Davis as some island in a region is so myopic and selfish its outrageous. It denies the educational role Davis plays in the state, prices people who do the heavy lifting in this town out of the market, contributes to regional traffic congestion and auto pollution while claiming to do just the opposite.
Sue is the kind of mayor that goes to the Martin Luther King Jr. ceremony and speaks about equality and votes to exclude anyone but the rich from buying in town. So yes I am angry with her and the people who she represents but what I find completely outrageous is her half-baked economic analysis that is so stupid and anecdotal that it would make Adam Smith laugh his ass off.
As for my comments about her inability to get anything done, either she is inept at politics or the other possibility which is that she doesn’t want anything done and uses the PG&E idea as a way to look like she isn’t totally against development while doing nothing about it.
As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.
To angry anonymous:
Taking your lead and more to the point, Mike Corbett would be living in Humbolt County or the south of France now if he had been successful in selling Covell Village; Davis had become TOO congested for him, he was overheard remarking. As for Covell Village developer Whitcomb, unlike those of us who must live with the impacts of peripheral sprawl development in Davis, he has his home in Mexico and his ranch(in Montana?)
To angry anonymous:
Taking your lead and more to the point, Mike Corbett would be living in Humbolt County or the south of France now if he had been successful in selling Covell Village; Davis had become TOO congested for him, he was overheard remarking. As for Covell Village developer Whitcomb, unlike those of us who must live with the impacts of peripheral sprawl development in Davis, he has his home in Mexico and his ranch(in Montana?)
To angry anonymous:
Taking your lead and more to the point, Mike Corbett would be living in Humbolt County or the south of France now if he had been successful in selling Covell Village; Davis had become TOO congested for him, he was overheard remarking. As for Covell Village developer Whitcomb, unlike those of us who must live with the impacts of peripheral sprawl development in Davis, he has his home in Mexico and his ranch(in Montana?)
To angry anonymous:
Taking your lead and more to the point, Mike Corbett would be living in Humbolt County or the south of France now if he had been successful in selling Covell Village; Davis had become TOO congested for him, he was overheard remarking. As for Covell Village developer Whitcomb, unlike those of us who must live with the impacts of peripheral sprawl development in Davis, he has his home in Mexico and his ranch(in Montana?)
I don’t think a lot of these shots are very fair at Sue.
For one thing this paragraph makes no logical sense:
“As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.”
So are they the majority or are they not?
I think a large percentage of Davisites are not necessarily opposed to growth but they are also not in favor of sprawl, traffic congestions, or changing the character of the town by any large means.
I’m still waiting for the logical argument for how in a region that has in general had a high demand for housing, has seen large amounts of increase in housing costs, in a city as desirable as Davis with good life style, standard of living, low crime, how the meager housing options proposed even by the most pro-growth people are going to substantially change the housing market.
The only way I see that changing is if we grow to the point where we less resemble Davis, and more resemble Vacaville and Fairfield. That will lower the cost of housing, it will also change many of the defining features of Davis. Is that what we are arguing for?
I don’t think a lot of these shots are very fair at Sue.
For one thing this paragraph makes no logical sense:
“As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.”
So are they the majority or are they not?
I think a large percentage of Davisites are not necessarily opposed to growth but they are also not in favor of sprawl, traffic congestions, or changing the character of the town by any large means.
I’m still waiting for the logical argument for how in a region that has in general had a high demand for housing, has seen large amounts of increase in housing costs, in a city as desirable as Davis with good life style, standard of living, low crime, how the meager housing options proposed even by the most pro-growth people are going to substantially change the housing market.
The only way I see that changing is if we grow to the point where we less resemble Davis, and more resemble Vacaville and Fairfield. That will lower the cost of housing, it will also change many of the defining features of Davis. Is that what we are arguing for?
I don’t think a lot of these shots are very fair at Sue.
For one thing this paragraph makes no logical sense:
“As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.”
So are they the majority or are they not?
I think a large percentage of Davisites are not necessarily opposed to growth but they are also not in favor of sprawl, traffic congestions, or changing the character of the town by any large means.
I’m still waiting for the logical argument for how in a region that has in general had a high demand for housing, has seen large amounts of increase in housing costs, in a city as desirable as Davis with good life style, standard of living, low crime, how the meager housing options proposed even by the most pro-growth people are going to substantially change the housing market.
The only way I see that changing is if we grow to the point where we less resemble Davis, and more resemble Vacaville and Fairfield. That will lower the cost of housing, it will also change many of the defining features of Davis. Is that what we are arguing for?
I don’t think a lot of these shots are very fair at Sue.
For one thing this paragraph makes no logical sense:
“As for your notion about Sue representing the vast majority of people in Davis that is questionable. Sure she got the votes in the election and measure x got voted down but there are lots of people who live in the area that feel the way I do they just don’t represent a majority of the people who get to vote in the City of Davis.”
So are they the majority or are they not?
I think a large percentage of Davisites are not necessarily opposed to growth but they are also not in favor of sprawl, traffic congestions, or changing the character of the town by any large means.
I’m still waiting for the logical argument for how in a region that has in general had a high demand for housing, has seen large amounts of increase in housing costs, in a city as desirable as Davis with good life style, standard of living, low crime, how the meager housing options proposed even by the most pro-growth people are going to substantially change the housing market.
The only way I see that changing is if we grow to the point where we less resemble Davis, and more resemble Vacaville and Fairfield. That will lower the cost of housing, it will also change many of the defining features of Davis. Is that what we are arguing for?
This article from the current Fortune Magazine suggests real estate “prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.”
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
That has to affect Davis. Our home prices are impacted by the larger Sacramento market.
Here is an excerpt from Fortune:
“So what are rents saying about home values today? To answer that question, Fortune worked with Moody’s Economy.com to estimate adjustments needed to get prices and rents back in balance. We’ll go into detail below, but the headline is gloomy: According to our calculations, prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.
“Here’s how we reached that disturbing conclusion. We started with the median price of existing homes in 54 metropolitan areas, using numbers from the National Association of Realtors. We then compared those prices with the annual rent on similar properties – houses, condos, and apartments with the same number of square feet as the median-priced house in each market – using figures prepared by Property & Portfolio Research, a commercial real estate research firm. That gave us a price/rent ratio for each area. Economy.com then compared the current P/R ratio with its average over the past 15 years and calculated how much it would have to decline to return to its historical norm. The average drop for all the markets we surveyed is 28%.
“But that’s not the whole story. The adjustment doesn’t come exclusively from a fall in prices – rising rents also help close the gap. To complete the picture, Economy.com assembled a forecast of rental growth in each market; the average rise in our 54 markets is a total of 12% over the next five years. So to reach the average correction of 28%, prices need to drop only about 16%.
“Of course, that’s still a big bite. And in many areas the outlook is far worse. In the major Florida cities, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa, prices need to fall 28% to 34%. It’s a similar story in inland California markets such as Sacramento (-26%) and the East Bay (-31%). In East Bay boom towns like Walnut Creek, a four-bedroom house that might have fetched $1.56 million in the spring may go for less than $1.1 million in five years.”
This article from the current Fortune Magazine suggests real estate “prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.”
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
That has to affect Davis. Our home prices are impacted by the larger Sacramento market.
Here is an excerpt from Fortune:
“So what are rents saying about home values today? To answer that question, Fortune worked with Moody’s Economy.com to estimate adjustments needed to get prices and rents back in balance. We’ll go into detail below, but the headline is gloomy: According to our calculations, prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.
“Here’s how we reached that disturbing conclusion. We started with the median price of existing homes in 54 metropolitan areas, using numbers from the National Association of Realtors. We then compared those prices with the annual rent on similar properties – houses, condos, and apartments with the same number of square feet as the median-priced house in each market – using figures prepared by Property & Portfolio Research, a commercial real estate research firm. That gave us a price/rent ratio for each area. Economy.com then compared the current P/R ratio with its average over the past 15 years and calculated how much it would have to decline to return to its historical norm. The average drop for all the markets we surveyed is 28%.
“But that’s not the whole story. The adjustment doesn’t come exclusively from a fall in prices – rising rents also help close the gap. To complete the picture, Economy.com assembled a forecast of rental growth in each market; the average rise in our 54 markets is a total of 12% over the next five years. So to reach the average correction of 28%, prices need to drop only about 16%.
“Of course, that’s still a big bite. And in many areas the outlook is far worse. In the major Florida cities, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa, prices need to fall 28% to 34%. It’s a similar story in inland California markets such as Sacramento (-26%) and the East Bay (-31%). In East Bay boom towns like Walnut Creek, a four-bedroom house that might have fetched $1.56 million in the spring may go for less than $1.1 million in five years.”
This article from the current Fortune Magazine suggests real estate “prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.”
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
That has to affect Davis. Our home prices are impacted by the larger Sacramento market.
Here is an excerpt from Fortune:
“So what are rents saying about home values today? To answer that question, Fortune worked with Moody’s Economy.com to estimate adjustments needed to get prices and rents back in balance. We’ll go into detail below, but the headline is gloomy: According to our calculations, prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.
“Here’s how we reached that disturbing conclusion. We started with the median price of existing homes in 54 metropolitan areas, using numbers from the National Association of Realtors. We then compared those prices with the annual rent on similar properties – houses, condos, and apartments with the same number of square feet as the median-priced house in each market – using figures prepared by Property & Portfolio Research, a commercial real estate research firm. That gave us a price/rent ratio for each area. Economy.com then compared the current P/R ratio with its average over the past 15 years and calculated how much it would have to decline to return to its historical norm. The average drop for all the markets we surveyed is 28%.
“But that’s not the whole story. The adjustment doesn’t come exclusively from a fall in prices – rising rents also help close the gap. To complete the picture, Economy.com assembled a forecast of rental growth in each market; the average rise in our 54 markets is a total of 12% over the next five years. So to reach the average correction of 28%, prices need to drop only about 16%.
“Of course, that’s still a big bite. And in many areas the outlook is far worse. In the major Florida cities, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa, prices need to fall 28% to 34%. It’s a similar story in inland California markets such as Sacramento (-26%) and the East Bay (-31%). In East Bay boom towns like Walnut Creek, a four-bedroom house that might have fetched $1.56 million in the spring may go for less than $1.1 million in five years.”
This article from the current Fortune Magazine suggests real estate “prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.”
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
That has to affect Davis. Our home prices are impacted by the larger Sacramento market.
Here is an excerpt from Fortune:
“So what are rents saying about home values today? To answer that question, Fortune worked with Moody’s Economy.com to estimate adjustments needed to get prices and rents back in balance. We’ll go into detail below, but the headline is gloomy: According to our calculations, prices in most markets will fall by double digits over the next five years.
“Here’s how we reached that disturbing conclusion. We started with the median price of existing homes in 54 metropolitan areas, using numbers from the National Association of Realtors. We then compared those prices with the annual rent on similar properties – houses, condos, and apartments with the same number of square feet as the median-priced house in each market – using figures prepared by Property & Portfolio Research, a commercial real estate research firm. That gave us a price/rent ratio for each area. Economy.com then compared the current P/R ratio with its average over the past 15 years and calculated how much it would have to decline to return to its historical norm. The average drop for all the markets we surveyed is 28%.
“But that’s not the whole story. The adjustment doesn’t come exclusively from a fall in prices – rising rents also help close the gap. To complete the picture, Economy.com assembled a forecast of rental growth in each market; the average rise in our 54 markets is a total of 12% over the next five years. So to reach the average correction of 28%, prices need to drop only about 16%.
“Of course, that’s still a big bite. And in many areas the outlook is far worse. In the major Florida cities, Orlando, Miami, and Tampa, prices need to fall 28% to 34%. It’s a similar story in inland California markets such as Sacramento (-26%) and the East Bay (-31%). In East Bay boom towns like Walnut Creek, a four-bedroom house that might have fetched $1.56 million in the spring may go for less than $1.1 million in five years.”
Lots of people who live in surrounding areas and work or go to school in Davis can’t vote in Davis because they don’t live in town.
So even if I am off base about the voting thing just because the nimby’s have the votes doesn’t mean they are right. What was it Churchill said about democracy? I think the quote is “Its the worst kind of government except for all the others.”
I didn’t say anything about Covell Village and only made one reference to measure x so I don’t see how I am being tied to that.
Still somehow many people on here seem to think that peripheral growth is sprawl. Now leapfrog development is sprawl but peripheral development is growth especially when you have so few infill opportunities and such high residential densities. So while my rhetoric is inflammatory at least I’m not trying to use words that bias the arguments. Calling all peripheral growth sprawl is like calling the Bush education plan “No Child Left Behind.” Further, this idea about peripheral growth and traffic is nonsense as well. People are already driving to town from the entire region because there isn’t enough housing in town.
As for my remarks about the mayor they are centered on her turning the law of supply and demand on its head, with an argument so flawed yet believed by so many. When both Mace Ranch and Wildhorse were built you didn’t have the appreciation you have had since they have been built out. Davis has long had premium pricing as do most college towns but the premium is much higher today then the historical average compared to the surrounding areas. This is because Davis has built less then the surrounding communities. At least anon 6:47 understands basic economics when they raise the issue of how things will be influenced by the supply from West Village. The Mayor has gone unchallenged for too long on her nonsensical economics I felt she needs to be called on it.
Finally that PG&E development. I think to talk about something for eight years while in office without any movement towards it does raise questions about someones political skills.
Lots of people who live in surrounding areas and work or go to school in Davis can’t vote in Davis because they don’t live in town.
So even if I am off base about the voting thing just because the nimby’s have the votes doesn’t mean they are right. What was it Churchill said about democracy? I think the quote is “Its the worst kind of government except for all the others.”
I didn’t say anything about Covell Village and only made one reference to measure x so I don’t see how I am being tied to that.
Still somehow many people on here seem to think that peripheral growth is sprawl. Now leapfrog development is sprawl but peripheral development is growth especially when you have so few infill opportunities and such high residential densities. So while my rhetoric is inflammatory at least I’m not trying to use words that bias the arguments. Calling all peripheral growth sprawl is like calling the Bush education plan “No Child Left Behind.” Further, this idea about peripheral growth and traffic is nonsense as well. People are already driving to town from the entire region because there isn’t enough housing in town.
As for my remarks about the mayor they are centered on her turning the law of supply and demand on its head, with an argument so flawed yet believed by so many. When both Mace Ranch and Wildhorse were built you didn’t have the appreciation you have had since they have been built out. Davis has long had premium pricing as do most college towns but the premium is much higher today then the historical average compared to the surrounding areas. This is because Davis has built less then the surrounding communities. At least anon 6:47 understands basic economics when they raise the issue of how things will be influenced by the supply from West Village. The Mayor has gone unchallenged for too long on her nonsensical economics I felt she needs to be called on it.
Finally that PG&E development. I think to talk about something for eight years while in office without any movement towards it does raise questions about someones political skills.
Lots of people who live in surrounding areas and work or go to school in Davis can’t vote in Davis because they don’t live in town.
So even if I am off base about the voting thing just because the nimby’s have the votes doesn’t mean they are right. What was it Churchill said about democracy? I think the quote is “Its the worst kind of government except for all the others.”
I didn’t say anything about Covell Village and only made one reference to measure x so I don’t see how I am being tied to that.
Still somehow many people on here seem to think that peripheral growth is sprawl. Now leapfrog development is sprawl but peripheral development is growth especially when you have so few infill opportunities and such high residential densities. So while my rhetoric is inflammatory at least I’m not trying to use words that bias the arguments. Calling all peripheral growth sprawl is like calling the Bush education plan “No Child Left Behind.” Further, this idea about peripheral growth and traffic is nonsense as well. People are already driving to town from the entire region because there isn’t enough housing in town.
As for my remarks about the mayor they are centered on her turning the law of supply and demand on its head, with an argument so flawed yet believed by so many. When both Mace Ranch and Wildhorse were built you didn’t have the appreciation you have had since they have been built out. Davis has long had premium pricing as do most college towns but the premium is much higher today then the historical average compared to the surrounding areas. This is because Davis has built less then the surrounding communities. At least anon 6:47 understands basic economics when they raise the issue of how things will be influenced by the supply from West Village. The Mayor has gone unchallenged for too long on her nonsensical economics I felt she needs to be called on it.
Finally that PG&E development. I think to talk about something for eight years while in office without any movement towards it does raise questions about someones political skills.
Lots of people who live in surrounding areas and work or go to school in Davis can’t vote in Davis because they don’t live in town.
So even if I am off base about the voting thing just because the nimby’s have the votes doesn’t mean they are right. What was it Churchill said about democracy? I think the quote is “Its the worst kind of government except for all the others.”
I didn’t say anything about Covell Village and only made one reference to measure x so I don’t see how I am being tied to that.
Still somehow many people on here seem to think that peripheral growth is sprawl. Now leapfrog development is sprawl but peripheral development is growth especially when you have so few infill opportunities and such high residential densities. So while my rhetoric is inflammatory at least I’m not trying to use words that bias the arguments. Calling all peripheral growth sprawl is like calling the Bush education plan “No Child Left Behind.” Further, this idea about peripheral growth and traffic is nonsense as well. People are already driving to town from the entire region because there isn’t enough housing in town.
As for my remarks about the mayor they are centered on her turning the law of supply and demand on its head, with an argument so flawed yet believed by so many. When both Mace Ranch and Wildhorse were built you didn’t have the appreciation you have had since they have been built out. Davis has long had premium pricing as do most college towns but the premium is much higher today then the historical average compared to the surrounding areas. This is because Davis has built less then the surrounding communities. At least anon 6:47 understands basic economics when they raise the issue of how things will be influenced by the supply from West Village. The Mayor has gone unchallenged for too long on her nonsensical economics I felt she needs to be called on it.
Finally that PG&E development. I think to talk about something for eight years while in office without any movement towards it does raise questions about someones political skills.
the really perverse aspect of the imminent crash in housing prices is that it will very likely make it even harder for non-affluent homebuyers to afford houses, even as the state sees its prices plummet and supply flood the market, because the coming credit crunch will dry up all but the safest loans for the most affluent buyers who can promise to pay them off. and that’s not even factoring in the likely economic affect of such a real estate crash on buyers’ future employment or wage levels.
it’s going to be a huge mess, and will likely hit davis as well as the rest of the valley. i’ve heard some predictions that we could lose 50% of home value before it bottoms out. if the city council isn’t seriously thinking about how to cope with the fallout, they ought to be.
but even then, it’s not a simple matter of supply v. demand, because there are millions of californians who would like to buy homes but who currently cannot afford to at these prices. wages have not gone up 100% in the past couple of years, but housing prices have done more than that. growing davis or keeping growth to a minimum (or below the rate of UCD expansion, or below the rate of internal davis population growth) won’t affect the fundamental problem with housing in this state.
BUT, the sort of housing that the city collectively chooses to build will affect those prices within the context of the market. all those big mcmansions that davis has built in the past 20 years are going to go to affluent people, and have. if we want affordable housing, building smaller, denser housing of the sort that many davis homeowners would be shocked at (but which used to be fairly common in the 20s-40s) would be relatively cheaper within the context of the market. urban levels of density (and by urban i mean 2-4 story apartments or narrow brownstone type things) would bring it even more within reach, which is why i’m in favor of levels of densification that would horrify mayor greenwald and everyone else here, no doubt. make a walkable urban core downtown, bump the buildings up 2 to 4 stories, and don’t just sell the space to empty nester luxury condos, but as apartments and affordable housing as well. in essence, mimic early 20th century urbanism, before cars and cheap oil pushed development patterns out towards the margins.
but without talking about what sort of community we as citizens would like to see preserves and/or created, discussion of the means to get there is not going to be all that productive. right now, students who gradate from UCD, children who grow up in davis, and professors who get jobs at UCD cannot afford to live in this city. workers who do the service jobs in this city are expected to commute from out of town, and are effectively excluded from the community. to my eyes, that strikes at the heart of what davis ought to be, and is corrosive to the idea of a healthy community.
davis ought to be a college town, not a gated community or a commuter exurb or a retirement community. that’s the vision i have for my hometown, i’m sure you all have your own. so i support growth if it’s of the sort that makes that vision more possible, and tend to reject it if i don’t think it will. the devil is always in the details.
ps. no i am not part of the so-called developer elite in this town. i rent.
the really perverse aspect of the imminent crash in housing prices is that it will very likely make it even harder for non-affluent homebuyers to afford houses, even as the state sees its prices plummet and supply flood the market, because the coming credit crunch will dry up all but the safest loans for the most affluent buyers who can promise to pay them off. and that’s not even factoring in the likely economic affect of such a real estate crash on buyers’ future employment or wage levels.
it’s going to be a huge mess, and will likely hit davis as well as the rest of the valley. i’ve heard some predictions that we could lose 50% of home value before it bottoms out. if the city council isn’t seriously thinking about how to cope with the fallout, they ought to be.
but even then, it’s not a simple matter of supply v. demand, because there are millions of californians who would like to buy homes but who currently cannot afford to at these prices. wages have not gone up 100% in the past couple of years, but housing prices have done more than that. growing davis or keeping growth to a minimum (or below the rate of UCD expansion, or below the rate of internal davis population growth) won’t affect the fundamental problem with housing in this state.
BUT, the sort of housing that the city collectively chooses to build will affect those prices within the context of the market. all those big mcmansions that davis has built in the past 20 years are going to go to affluent people, and have. if we want affordable housing, building smaller, denser housing of the sort that many davis homeowners would be shocked at (but which used to be fairly common in the 20s-40s) would be relatively cheaper within the context of the market. urban levels of density (and by urban i mean 2-4 story apartments or narrow brownstone type things) would bring it even more within reach, which is why i’m in favor of levels of densification that would horrify mayor greenwald and everyone else here, no doubt. make a walkable urban core downtown, bump the buildings up 2 to 4 stories, and don’t just sell the space to empty nester luxury condos, but as apartments and affordable housing as well. in essence, mimic early 20th century urbanism, before cars and cheap oil pushed development patterns out towards the margins.
but without talking about what sort of community we as citizens would like to see preserves and/or created, discussion of the means to get there is not going to be all that productive. right now, students who gradate from UCD, children who grow up in davis, and professors who get jobs at UCD cannot afford to live in this city. workers who do the service jobs in this city are expected to commute from out of town, and are effectively excluded from the community. to my eyes, that strikes at the heart of what davis ought to be, and is corrosive to the idea of a healthy community.
davis ought to be a college town, not a gated community or a commuter exurb or a retirement community. that’s the vision i have for my hometown, i’m sure you all have your own. so i support growth if it’s of the sort that makes that vision more possible, and tend to reject it if i don’t think it will. the devil is always in the details.
ps. no i am not part of the so-called developer elite in this town. i rent.
the really perverse aspect of the imminent crash in housing prices is that it will very likely make it even harder for non-affluent homebuyers to afford houses, even as the state sees its prices plummet and supply flood the market, because the coming credit crunch will dry up all but the safest loans for the most affluent buyers who can promise to pay them off. and that’s not even factoring in the likely economic affect of such a real estate crash on buyers’ future employment or wage levels.
it’s going to be a huge mess, and will likely hit davis as well as the rest of the valley. i’ve heard some predictions that we could lose 50% of home value before it bottoms out. if the city council isn’t seriously thinking about how to cope with the fallout, they ought to be.
but even then, it’s not a simple matter of supply v. demand, because there are millions of californians who would like to buy homes but who currently cannot afford to at these prices. wages have not gone up 100% in the past couple of years, but housing prices have done more than that. growing davis or keeping growth to a minimum (or below the rate of UCD expansion, or below the rate of internal davis population growth) won’t affect the fundamental problem with housing in this state.
BUT, the sort of housing that the city collectively chooses to build will affect those prices within the context of the market. all those big mcmansions that davis has built in the past 20 years are going to go to affluent people, and have. if we want affordable housing, building smaller, denser housing of the sort that many davis homeowners would be shocked at (but which used to be fairly common in the 20s-40s) would be relatively cheaper within the context of the market. urban levels of density (and by urban i mean 2-4 story apartments or narrow brownstone type things) would bring it even more within reach, which is why i’m in favor of levels of densification that would horrify mayor greenwald and everyone else here, no doubt. make a walkable urban core downtown, bump the buildings up 2 to 4 stories, and don’t just sell the space to empty nester luxury condos, but as apartments and affordable housing as well. in essence, mimic early 20th century urbanism, before cars and cheap oil pushed development patterns out towards the margins.
but without talking about what sort of community we as citizens would like to see preserves and/or created, discussion of the means to get there is not going to be all that productive. right now, students who gradate from UCD, children who grow up in davis, and professors who get jobs at UCD cannot afford to live in this city. workers who do the service jobs in this city are expected to commute from out of town, and are effectively excluded from the community. to my eyes, that strikes at the heart of what davis ought to be, and is corrosive to the idea of a healthy community.
davis ought to be a college town, not a gated community or a commuter exurb or a retirement community. that’s the vision i have for my hometown, i’m sure you all have your own. so i support growth if it’s of the sort that makes that vision more possible, and tend to reject it if i don’t think it will. the devil is always in the details.
ps. no i am not part of the so-called developer elite in this town. i rent.
the really perverse aspect of the imminent crash in housing prices is that it will very likely make it even harder for non-affluent homebuyers to afford houses, even as the state sees its prices plummet and supply flood the market, because the coming credit crunch will dry up all but the safest loans for the most affluent buyers who can promise to pay them off. and that’s not even factoring in the likely economic affect of such a real estate crash on buyers’ future employment or wage levels.
it’s going to be a huge mess, and will likely hit davis as well as the rest of the valley. i’ve heard some predictions that we could lose 50% of home value before it bottoms out. if the city council isn’t seriously thinking about how to cope with the fallout, they ought to be.
but even then, it’s not a simple matter of supply v. demand, because there are millions of californians who would like to buy homes but who currently cannot afford to at these prices. wages have not gone up 100% in the past couple of years, but housing prices have done more than that. growing davis or keeping growth to a minimum (or below the rate of UCD expansion, or below the rate of internal davis population growth) won’t affect the fundamental problem with housing in this state.
BUT, the sort of housing that the city collectively chooses to build will affect those prices within the context of the market. all those big mcmansions that davis has built in the past 20 years are going to go to affluent people, and have. if we want affordable housing, building smaller, denser housing of the sort that many davis homeowners would be shocked at (but which used to be fairly common in the 20s-40s) would be relatively cheaper within the context of the market. urban levels of density (and by urban i mean 2-4 story apartments or narrow brownstone type things) would bring it even more within reach, which is why i’m in favor of levels of densification that would horrify mayor greenwald and everyone else here, no doubt. make a walkable urban core downtown, bump the buildings up 2 to 4 stories, and don’t just sell the space to empty nester luxury condos, but as apartments and affordable housing as well. in essence, mimic early 20th century urbanism, before cars and cheap oil pushed development patterns out towards the margins.
but without talking about what sort of community we as citizens would like to see preserves and/or created, discussion of the means to get there is not going to be all that productive. right now, students who gradate from UCD, children who grow up in davis, and professors who get jobs at UCD cannot afford to live in this city. workers who do the service jobs in this city are expected to commute from out of town, and are effectively excluded from the community. to my eyes, that strikes at the heart of what davis ought to be, and is corrosive to the idea of a healthy community.
davis ought to be a college town, not a gated community or a commuter exurb or a retirement community. that’s the vision i have for my hometown, i’m sure you all have your own. so i support growth if it’s of the sort that makes that vision more possible, and tend to reject it if i don’t think it will. the devil is always in the details.
ps. no i am not part of the so-called developer elite in this town. i rent.
rich –
if the rate of foreclosures balloons like it’s been doing, the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere. if the banks are smart, they’ll start renting foreclosed houses to their former owners, but we could end up in a terrible crunch where foreclosed houses sit idle as ghost suburbs while people move out of state or do battle in an incredibly right rental market.
the people who bought in the past decade are going to get gouged coming and going.
rich –
if the rate of foreclosures balloons like it’s been doing, the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere. if the banks are smart, they’ll start renting foreclosed houses to their former owners, but we could end up in a terrible crunch where foreclosed houses sit idle as ghost suburbs while people move out of state or do battle in an incredibly right rental market.
the people who bought in the past decade are going to get gouged coming and going.
rich –
if the rate of foreclosures balloons like it’s been doing, the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere. if the banks are smart, they’ll start renting foreclosed houses to their former owners, but we could end up in a terrible crunch where foreclosed houses sit idle as ghost suburbs while people move out of state or do battle in an incredibly right rental market.
the people who bought in the past decade are going to get gouged coming and going.
rich –
if the rate of foreclosures balloons like it’s been doing, the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere. if the banks are smart, they’ll start renting foreclosed houses to their former owners, but we could end up in a terrible crunch where foreclosed houses sit idle as ghost suburbs while people move out of state or do battle in an incredibly right rental market.
the people who bought in the past decade are going to get gouged coming and going.
“the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere.”
Wu,
That makes sense. However, there still seems to be a major disconnect in Davis between the cheap rents and the high home prices. How can a house which rents for $1,500/month sell for $600,000? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
“the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere.”
Wu,
That makes sense. However, there still seems to be a major disconnect in Davis between the cheap rents and the high home prices. How can a house which rents for $1,500/month sell for $600,000? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
“the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere.”
Wu,
That makes sense. However, there still seems to be a major disconnect in Davis between the cheap rents and the high home prices. How can a house which rents for $1,500/month sell for $600,000? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
“the rental rates will likely start going up as the housing market goes down, because people who have lost their houses will have to live somewhere.”
Wu,
That makes sense. However, there still seems to be a major disconnect in Davis between the cheap rents and the high home prices. How can a house which rents for $1,500/month sell for $600,000? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).
The article also points out that construction and lot prices have dropped and will continue to drop.
We have been through similar slumps in the past.
All of this is interesting, but doesn’t really form the basis for making planning and growth decisions. I hope our public officials consider the impact of development on particular sites, the negative effects of large peripheral development, and establish a growth rate that is sustainable with respect to the provision of public services. Determine where the growth will occur, monkey around with the affordable housing requirements if you want, and the developers will decide how to build the houses efficiently and still make a profit on them.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).
The article also points out that construction and lot prices have dropped and will continue to drop.
We have been through similar slumps in the past.
All of this is interesting, but doesn’t really form the basis for making planning and growth decisions. I hope our public officials consider the impact of development on particular sites, the negative effects of large peripheral development, and establish a growth rate that is sustainable with respect to the provision of public services. Determine where the growth will occur, monkey around with the affordable housing requirements if you want, and the developers will decide how to build the houses efficiently and still make a profit on them.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).
The article also points out that construction and lot prices have dropped and will continue to drop.
We have been through similar slumps in the past.
All of this is interesting, but doesn’t really form the basis for making planning and growth decisions. I hope our public officials consider the impact of development on particular sites, the negative effects of large peripheral development, and establish a growth rate that is sustainable with respect to the provision of public services. Determine where the growth will occur, monkey around with the affordable housing requirements if you want, and the developers will decide how to build the houses efficiently and still make a profit on them.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
What is most notable about that comment is that Fortune specifically says the Sacramento regional housing prices will decline by 26% over the next five years.
If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).
The article also points out that construction and lot prices have dropped and will continue to drop.
We have been through similar slumps in the past.
All of this is interesting, but doesn’t really form the basis for making planning and growth decisions. I hope our public officials consider the impact of development on particular sites, the negative effects of large peripheral development, and establish a growth rate that is sustainable with respect to the provision of public services. Determine where the growth will occur, monkey around with the affordable housing requirements if you want, and the developers will decide how to build the houses efficiently and still make a profit on them.
The PG%E site is as feasible as it is exciting. If the council majority really supports it, it will happen.
The 25 acre site is about the same size as the commercial core. To me, it makes more sense to maintain the character of our existing core neighborhoods, which are unique and wonderful, and to build new, well-planned, higher density, beautifully designed neighborhoods on our larger, underused core area parcels.
Density can work, but it has to be carefully and beautifully done. I believe that the decisions concerning where and how we densify will determine whether Davis remains a high quality town.
The PG%E site is as feasible as it is exciting. If the council majority really supports it, it will happen.
The 25 acre site is about the same size as the commercial core. To me, it makes more sense to maintain the character of our existing core neighborhoods, which are unique and wonderful, and to build new, well-planned, higher density, beautifully designed neighborhoods on our larger, underused core area parcels.
Density can work, but it has to be carefully and beautifully done. I believe that the decisions concerning where and how we densify will determine whether Davis remains a high quality town.
The PG%E site is as feasible as it is exciting. If the council majority really supports it, it will happen.
The 25 acre site is about the same size as the commercial core. To me, it makes more sense to maintain the character of our existing core neighborhoods, which are unique and wonderful, and to build new, well-planned, higher density, beautifully designed neighborhoods on our larger, underused core area parcels.
Density can work, but it has to be carefully and beautifully done. I believe that the decisions concerning where and how we densify will determine whether Davis remains a high quality town.
The PG%E site is as feasible as it is exciting. If the council majority really supports it, it will happen.
The 25 acre site is about the same size as the commercial core. To me, it makes more sense to maintain the character of our existing core neighborhoods, which are unique and wonderful, and to build new, well-planned, higher density, beautifully designed neighborhoods on our larger, underused core area parcels.
Density can work, but it has to be carefully and beautifully done. I believe that the decisions concerning where and how we densify will determine whether Davis remains a high quality town.
Could PG&E be enticed to sell, or are you thinking of some other means of developing that site?
I would LOVE to see housing there. Plus retail, parking, and more….
Could PG&E be enticed to sell, or are you thinking of some other means of developing that site?
I would LOVE to see housing there. Plus retail, parking, and more….
Could PG&E be enticed to sell, or are you thinking of some other means of developing that site?
I would LOVE to see housing there. Plus retail, parking, and more….
Could PG&E be enticed to sell, or are you thinking of some other means of developing that site?
I would LOVE to see housing there. Plus retail, parking, and more….
would the council use eminent domain to force PG&E to sell, or have they shown interest in selling and relocating?
i’m not sure how the city would develop that parcel, although i agree with don that it’d be a great spot for a dense development, contingent, as sue points out, on how it is actually planned and carried out.
would the council use eminent domain to force PG&E to sell, or have they shown interest in selling and relocating?
i’m not sure how the city would develop that parcel, although i agree with don that it’d be a great spot for a dense development, contingent, as sue points out, on how it is actually planned and carried out.
would the council use eminent domain to force PG&E to sell, or have they shown interest in selling and relocating?
i’m not sure how the city would develop that parcel, although i agree with don that it’d be a great spot for a dense development, contingent, as sue points out, on how it is actually planned and carried out.
would the council use eminent domain to force PG&E to sell, or have they shown interest in selling and relocating?
i’m not sure how the city would develop that parcel, although i agree with don that it’d be a great spot for a dense development, contingent, as sue points out, on how it is actually planned and carried out.
What makes this so exciting is that PG&E is interested!
What makes this so exciting is that PG&E is interested!
What makes this so exciting is that PG&E is interested!
What makes this so exciting is that PG&E is interested!
cool. keep us posted.
cool. keep us posted.
cool. keep us posted.
cool. keep us posted.
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Traditionally, home prices fall most in regions where the economic slowdown hits hardest. Davis is insulated from this phenomenon by its two main income activities,i.e. agriculture(Yolo county) and education. Fortune’s draconian projections in home values will not happen as the Government is( and will do more if necessary) dealing with the credit/mortgage crunch to avoid a full-blown recession. Excessive housing inventory
IS a fact and will keep developer special-interests in a political “sleep mode” in Davis for the next 1-3 years. We need to be even more mindful of who we will be electing for our 2008-2012 city council to set future growth policies when developer-special interests return “on-line”.
Traditionally, home prices fall most in regions where the economic slowdown hits hardest. Davis is insulated from this phenomenon by its two main income activities,i.e. agriculture(Yolo county) and education. Fortune’s draconian projections in home values will not happen as the Government is( and will do more if necessary) dealing with the credit/mortgage crunch to avoid a full-blown recession. Excessive housing inventory
IS a fact and will keep developer special-interests in a political “sleep mode” in Davis for the next 1-3 years. We need to be even more mindful of who we will be electing for our 2008-2012 city council to set future growth policies when developer-special interests return “on-line”.
Traditionally, home prices fall most in regions where the economic slowdown hits hardest. Davis is insulated from this phenomenon by its two main income activities,i.e. agriculture(Yolo county) and education. Fortune’s draconian projections in home values will not happen as the Government is( and will do more if necessary) dealing with the credit/mortgage crunch to avoid a full-blown recession. Excessive housing inventory
IS a fact and will keep developer special-interests in a political “sleep mode” in Davis for the next 1-3 years. We need to be even more mindful of who we will be electing for our 2008-2012 city council to set future growth policies when developer-special interests return “on-line”.
Traditionally, home prices fall most in regions where the economic slowdown hits hardest. Davis is insulated from this phenomenon by its two main income activities,i.e. agriculture(Yolo county) and education. Fortune’s draconian projections in home values will not happen as the Government is( and will do more if necessary) dealing with the credit/mortgage crunch to avoid a full-blown recession. Excessive housing inventory
IS a fact and will keep developer special-interests in a political “sleep mode” in Davis for the next 1-3 years. We need to be even more mindful of who we will be electing for our 2008-2012 city council to set future growth policies when developer-special interests return “on-line”.
I’ve been busy, and unable to participate in this discussion. To the surprise of no one, I align myself with Wu Ming.
Davis is a rapidly gentrifying city that will have soon exported most of the people who work and study at the University to surrounding areas. Contrary to what some would have you believe, it was not always this way.
Lower middle income and middle income people increasingly find it impossible to live in the city. Hence, a lot of people who work in the city, and even own businesses in it, will also live outside of it. Again, it wasn’t always this way.
The environmental consequences of this gentrification are obvious, as more and more people commute into the city. Progressives need to move beyond opposing developments for upper middle income people like Covell Center, and begin to solicit and support projects that will provide housing for these people.
It can be done. The PG&E site is one possibilily. Both the PG&E site as well as Hunt Wesson and Covell Center provide an unprecedented opportunity to provide employment and housing side by side. By economic development with affordable housing at these sites, the city can be transformed in a positive way.
The benefits of such an integrated approach are obvious. Increased employment, with good paying tech jobs, fewer vehicle trips as the workers live nearby and more kids for a school system that faces a demographic catastrophe. It would also enrich the cultural life of a city that is becoming monochromatic.
It would require densities unprecedented in the history of the city. It would additionally fail to generate the profit for developers obtained from the construction of homes for wealthier people. But, over time, it would help create a diverse city, diverse in terms of race, class and social experience, instead of the upper middle income utopia that is now on offer.
–Richard Estes
I’ve been busy, and unable to participate in this discussion. To the surprise of no one, I align myself with Wu Ming.
Davis is a rapidly gentrifying city that will have soon exported most of the people who work and study at the University to surrounding areas. Contrary to what some would have you believe, it was not always this way.
Lower middle income and middle income people increasingly find it impossible to live in the city. Hence, a lot of people who work in the city, and even own businesses in it, will also live outside of it. Again, it wasn’t always this way.
The environmental consequences of this gentrification are obvious, as more and more people commute into the city. Progressives need to move beyond opposing developments for upper middle income people like Covell Center, and begin to solicit and support projects that will provide housing for these people.
It can be done. The PG&E site is one possibilily. Both the PG&E site as well as Hunt Wesson and Covell Center provide an unprecedented opportunity to provide employment and housing side by side. By economic development with affordable housing at these sites, the city can be transformed in a positive way.
The benefits of such an integrated approach are obvious. Increased employment, with good paying tech jobs, fewer vehicle trips as the workers live nearby and more kids for a school system that faces a demographic catastrophe. It would also enrich the cultural life of a city that is becoming monochromatic.
It would require densities unprecedented in the history of the city. It would additionally fail to generate the profit for developers obtained from the construction of homes for wealthier people. But, over time, it would help create a diverse city, diverse in terms of race, class and social experience, instead of the upper middle income utopia that is now on offer.
–Richard Estes
I’ve been busy, and unable to participate in this discussion. To the surprise of no one, I align myself with Wu Ming.
Davis is a rapidly gentrifying city that will have soon exported most of the people who work and study at the University to surrounding areas. Contrary to what some would have you believe, it was not always this way.
Lower middle income and middle income people increasingly find it impossible to live in the city. Hence, a lot of people who work in the city, and even own businesses in it, will also live outside of it. Again, it wasn’t always this way.
The environmental consequences of this gentrification are obvious, as more and more people commute into the city. Progressives need to move beyond opposing developments for upper middle income people like Covell Center, and begin to solicit and support projects that will provide housing for these people.
It can be done. The PG&E site is one possibilily. Both the PG&E site as well as Hunt Wesson and Covell Center provide an unprecedented opportunity to provide employment and housing side by side. By economic development with affordable housing at these sites, the city can be transformed in a positive way.
The benefits of such an integrated approach are obvious. Increased employment, with good paying tech jobs, fewer vehicle trips as the workers live nearby and more kids for a school system that faces a demographic catastrophe. It would also enrich the cultural life of a city that is becoming monochromatic.
It would require densities unprecedented in the history of the city. It would additionally fail to generate the profit for developers obtained from the construction of homes for wealthier people. But, over time, it would help create a diverse city, diverse in terms of race, class and social experience, instead of the upper middle income utopia that is now on offer.
–Richard Estes
I’ve been busy, and unable to participate in this discussion. To the surprise of no one, I align myself with Wu Ming.
Davis is a rapidly gentrifying city that will have soon exported most of the people who work and study at the University to surrounding areas. Contrary to what some would have you believe, it was not always this way.
Lower middle income and middle income people increasingly find it impossible to live in the city. Hence, a lot of people who work in the city, and even own businesses in it, will also live outside of it. Again, it wasn’t always this way.
The environmental consequences of this gentrification are obvious, as more and more people commute into the city. Progressives need to move beyond opposing developments for upper middle income people like Covell Center, and begin to solicit and support projects that will provide housing for these people.
It can be done. The PG&E site is one possibilily. Both the PG&E site as well as Hunt Wesson and Covell Center provide an unprecedented opportunity to provide employment and housing side by side. By economic development with affordable housing at these sites, the city can be transformed in a positive way.
The benefits of such an integrated approach are obvious. Increased employment, with good paying tech jobs, fewer vehicle trips as the workers live nearby and more kids for a school system that faces a demographic catastrophe. It would also enrich the cultural life of a city that is becoming monochromatic.
It would require densities unprecedented in the history of the city. It would additionally fail to generate the profit for developers obtained from the construction of homes for wealthier people. But, over time, it would help create a diverse city, diverse in terms of race, class and social experience, instead of the upper middle income utopia that is now on offer.
–Richard Estes
Some more housing data:
Building permits issued for calendar years:
1998: 999
1999: 926
2000: 566
2001: 206
2002: 307
2003: 265
2004: 135
2005: 250
2006: 104
2007(Through Nov.): 42
Year Median Price %Price Change
2000 245,000 —
2001 297,000 21%
2002 365,000 23%
2003 399,500 9%
2004 469,000 17%
2005 557,000 19%
2006 569,000 2%
2007 520,000 -9%
(Through Nov.)
Some more housing data:
Building permits issued for calendar years:
1998: 999
1999: 926
2000: 566
2001: 206
2002: 307
2003: 265
2004: 135
2005: 250
2006: 104
2007(Through Nov.): 42
Year Median Price %Price Change
2000 245,000 —
2001 297,000 21%
2002 365,000 23%
2003 399,500 9%
2004 469,000 17%
2005 557,000 19%
2006 569,000 2%
2007 520,000 -9%
(Through Nov.)
Some more housing data:
Building permits issued for calendar years:
1998: 999
1999: 926
2000: 566
2001: 206
2002: 307
2003: 265
2004: 135
2005: 250
2006: 104
2007(Through Nov.): 42
Year Median Price %Price Change
2000 245,000 —
2001 297,000 21%
2002 365,000 23%
2003 399,500 9%
2004 469,000 17%
2005 557,000 19%
2006 569,000 2%
2007 520,000 -9%
(Through Nov.)
Some more housing data:
Building permits issued for calendar years:
1998: 999
1999: 926
2000: 566
2001: 206
2002: 307
2003: 265
2004: 135
2005: 250
2006: 104
2007(Through Nov.): 42
Year Median Price %Price Change
2000 245,000 —
2001 297,000 21%
2002 365,000 23%
2003 399,500 9%
2004 469,000 17%
2005 557,000 19%
2006 569,000 2%
2007 520,000 -9%
(Through Nov.)
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
The tract house next door to mine — a little smaller than my house but normal for my neighborhood — sold in the Fall of 2000 for $235,000. They might have gotten a bit more, but that was close to market value, then. In 2005, the house next to it, two doors down from me, sold for $670,000. The second house is the same size as mine, though it is on a larger corner lot. If those two are comps, then the 5 year inflation was 285%. It’s possible that the corner house would have garnered $270,000 in 2000. If so, then the inflation was “only” 248%. But either way, it was (for those five years) WAY OVER 34.5%.
Assuming your number is correct, it suggests that most of the 2000-05 inflation happened between 2000 and 2002 (when the dotcom bubble burst and people were running to put their money in property?).
….
By the way…. this is what I wrote in a December 1, 2004 column: “My fear is that over the next few years interest rates will rise dramatically, and that will depress demand for housing, not just in Davis but all across the country.”
In the last few years, interest rates are appreciably up. (I think “dramatically” overstates it.) And it has been the rise in rates which tipped off the subprime crisis, now responsible for most of the problem.
I also quoted a local real estate appraiser, Lee Bartholomew, in that piece: “I have believed that in the last 12 months that there is a bubble. I still believe that the question is, at what point do we start to see a decline in prices? And at what point do they pick back up?”
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
The tract house next door to mine — a little smaller than my house but normal for my neighborhood — sold in the Fall of 2000 for $235,000. They might have gotten a bit more, but that was close to market value, then. In 2005, the house next to it, two doors down from me, sold for $670,000. The second house is the same size as mine, though it is on a larger corner lot. If those two are comps, then the 5 year inflation was 285%. It’s possible that the corner house would have garnered $270,000 in 2000. If so, then the inflation was “only” 248%. But either way, it was (for those five years) WAY OVER 34.5%.
Assuming your number is correct, it suggests that most of the 2000-05 inflation happened between 2000 and 2002 (when the dotcom bubble burst and people were running to put their money in property?).
….
By the way…. this is what I wrote in a December 1, 2004 column: “My fear is that over the next few years interest rates will rise dramatically, and that will depress demand for housing, not just in Davis but all across the country.”
In the last few years, interest rates are appreciably up. (I think “dramatically” overstates it.) And it has been the rise in rates which tipped off the subprime crisis, now responsible for most of the problem.
I also quoted a local real estate appraiser, Lee Bartholomew, in that piece: “I have believed that in the last 12 months that there is a bubble. I still believe that the question is, at what point do we start to see a decline in prices? And at what point do they pick back up?”
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
The tract house next door to mine — a little smaller than my house but normal for my neighborhood — sold in the Fall of 2000 for $235,000. They might have gotten a bit more, but that was close to market value, then. In 2005, the house next to it, two doors down from me, sold for $670,000. The second house is the same size as mine, though it is on a larger corner lot. If those two are comps, then the 5 year inflation was 285%. It’s possible that the corner house would have garnered $270,000 in 2000. If so, then the inflation was “only” 248%. But either way, it was (for those five years) WAY OVER 34.5%.
Assuming your number is correct, it suggests that most of the 2000-05 inflation happened between 2000 and 2002 (when the dotcom bubble burst and people were running to put their money in property?).
….
By the way…. this is what I wrote in a December 1, 2004 column: “My fear is that over the next few years interest rates will rise dramatically, and that will depress demand for housing, not just in Davis but all across the country.”
In the last few years, interest rates are appreciably up. (I think “dramatically” overstates it.) And it has been the rise in rates which tipped off the subprime crisis, now responsible for most of the problem.
I also quoted a local real estate appraiser, Lee Bartholomew, in that piece: “I have believed that in the last 12 months that there is a bubble. I still believe that the question is, at what point do we start to see a decline in prices? And at what point do they pick back up?”
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
The tract house next door to mine — a little smaller than my house but normal for my neighborhood — sold in the Fall of 2000 for $235,000. They might have gotten a bit more, but that was close to market value, then. In 2005, the house next to it, two doors down from me, sold for $670,000. The second house is the same size as mine, though it is on a larger corner lot. If those two are comps, then the 5 year inflation was 285%. It’s possible that the corner house would have garnered $270,000 in 2000. If so, then the inflation was “only” 248%. But either way, it was (for those five years) WAY OVER 34.5%.
Assuming your number is correct, it suggests that most of the 2000-05 inflation happened between 2000 and 2002 (when the dotcom bubble burst and people were running to put their money in property?).
….
By the way…. this is what I wrote in a December 1, 2004 column: “My fear is that over the next few years interest rates will rise dramatically, and that will depress demand for housing, not just in Davis but all across the country.”
In the last few years, interest rates are appreciably up. (I think “dramatically” overstates it.) And it has been the rise in rates which tipped off the subprime crisis, now responsible for most of the problem.
I also quoted a local real estate appraiser, Lee Bartholomew, in that piece: “I have believed that in the last 12 months that there is a bubble. I still believe that the question is, at what point do we start to see a decline in prices? And at what point do they pick back up?”
Since 1996, my little West Davis house went up 342%, based on comps up to 2006. Since then, the market has cooled, and now it is only worth 273% more.
I still think it is too high. A house would have to be priced in the 200k range to even begin to be affordable.
Since 1996, my little West Davis house went up 342%, based on comps up to 2006. Since then, the market has cooled, and now it is only worth 273% more.
I still think it is too high. A house would have to be priced in the 200k range to even begin to be affordable.
Since 1996, my little West Davis house went up 342%, based on comps up to 2006. Since then, the market has cooled, and now it is only worth 273% more.
I still think it is too high. A house would have to be priced in the 200k range to even begin to be affordable.
Since 1996, my little West Davis house went up 342%, based on comps up to 2006. Since then, the market has cooled, and now it is only worth 273% more.
I still think it is too high. A house would have to be priced in the 200k range to even begin to be affordable.
datahumans data is telling as new construction slowed prices skyrocketed. Obviously supply and demand does work in the Davis housing market. Of course there are other factors too but my contention that Davis is not immune to basic economics can be inferred from those data.
datahumans data is telling as new construction slowed prices skyrocketed. Obviously supply and demand does work in the Davis housing market. Of course there are other factors too but my contention that Davis is not immune to basic economics can be inferred from those data.
datahumans data is telling as new construction slowed prices skyrocketed. Obviously supply and demand does work in the Davis housing market. Of course there are other factors too but my contention that Davis is not immune to basic economics can be inferred from those data.
datahumans data is telling as new construction slowed prices skyrocketed. Obviously supply and demand does work in the Davis housing market. Of course there are other factors too but my contention that Davis is not immune to basic economics can be inferred from those data.
This is why statistical analysis is a very tricky endeavor. If you have a simple bivariate model, then what you say is true–construction drops, prices increase, end of story. Problem is there are other variables that are not accounted for in a simple bivariate equation. I’m willing to guess that if we looked at state trends in prices, Davis would mirror them. And if that is the case, then you cannot make that conclusion so quickly.
Moreover the end of the trendline shows something different as well where you have a drop in the increase in prices, a drop in real prices at the same time you have a drop in construction.
So again, much more complicated picture than is described by a simple bivariate model. That’s why social scientists and economists use statistical analysis and complex modeling to confirm such hypotheses.
This is why statistical analysis is a very tricky endeavor. If you have a simple bivariate model, then what you say is true–construction drops, prices increase, end of story. Problem is there are other variables that are not accounted for in a simple bivariate equation. I’m willing to guess that if we looked at state trends in prices, Davis would mirror them. And if that is the case, then you cannot make that conclusion so quickly.
Moreover the end of the trendline shows something different as well where you have a drop in the increase in prices, a drop in real prices at the same time you have a drop in construction.
So again, much more complicated picture than is described by a simple bivariate model. That’s why social scientists and economists use statistical analysis and complex modeling to confirm such hypotheses.
This is why statistical analysis is a very tricky endeavor. If you have a simple bivariate model, then what you say is true–construction drops, prices increase, end of story. Problem is there are other variables that are not accounted for in a simple bivariate equation. I’m willing to guess that if we looked at state trends in prices, Davis would mirror them. And if that is the case, then you cannot make that conclusion so quickly.
Moreover the end of the trendline shows something different as well where you have a drop in the increase in prices, a drop in real prices at the same time you have a drop in construction.
So again, much more complicated picture than is described by a simple bivariate model. That’s why social scientists and economists use statistical analysis and complex modeling to confirm such hypotheses.
This is why statistical analysis is a very tricky endeavor. If you have a simple bivariate model, then what you say is true–construction drops, prices increase, end of story. Problem is there are other variables that are not accounted for in a simple bivariate equation. I’m willing to guess that if we looked at state trends in prices, Davis would mirror them. And if that is the case, then you cannot make that conclusion so quickly.
Moreover the end of the trendline shows something different as well where you have a drop in the increase in prices, a drop in real prices at the same time you have a drop in construction.
So again, much more complicated picture than is described by a simple bivariate model. That’s why social scientists and economists use statistical analysis and complex modeling to confirm such hypotheses.
Dpd your endpoint issue can simply be explained by a lack of demand as the bubble burst and liquidity dried upthereby reducing demand. I did recognize that there are other factors and it would be interesting to see the comps from other areas. Of course if we could also look at the differentials between Davis and the surrounding communities to see if the Davis premium increased as supply grew in Woodland, Natomas and West Sac while supply growth became restricted in Davis. Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.
Maybe the data fairies could help with these numbers.
Dpd your endpoint issue can simply be explained by a lack of demand as the bubble burst and liquidity dried upthereby reducing demand. I did recognize that there are other factors and it would be interesting to see the comps from other areas. Of course if we could also look at the differentials between Davis and the surrounding communities to see if the Davis premium increased as supply grew in Woodland, Natomas and West Sac while supply growth became restricted in Davis. Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.
Maybe the data fairies could help with these numbers.
Dpd your endpoint issue can simply be explained by a lack of demand as the bubble burst and liquidity dried upthereby reducing demand. I did recognize that there are other factors and it would be interesting to see the comps from other areas. Of course if we could also look at the differentials between Davis and the surrounding communities to see if the Davis premium increased as supply grew in Woodland, Natomas and West Sac while supply growth became restricted in Davis. Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.
Maybe the data fairies could help with these numbers.
Dpd your endpoint issue can simply be explained by a lack of demand as the bubble burst and liquidity dried upthereby reducing demand. I did recognize that there are other factors and it would be interesting to see the comps from other areas. Of course if we could also look at the differentials between Davis and the surrounding communities to see if the Davis premium increased as supply grew in Woodland, Natomas and West Sac while supply growth became restricted in Davis. Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.
Maybe the data fairies could help with these numbers.
“Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.”
I have a problem with supply and demand? All I’m suggesting is that when you are looking at housing markets, you need to look in terms of region supply and demand rather than one city’s supply and demand when attempting to ascertain the impact of our growth policies on prices. I am simply arguing that the system is too large to be impacted by Davis’ local decisions.
“Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.”
I have a problem with supply and demand? All I’m suggesting is that when you are looking at housing markets, you need to look in terms of region supply and demand rather than one city’s supply and demand when attempting to ascertain the impact of our growth policies on prices. I am simply arguing that the system is too large to be impacted by Davis’ local decisions.
“Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.”
I have a problem with supply and demand? All I’m suggesting is that when you are looking at housing markets, you need to look in terms of region supply and demand rather than one city’s supply and demand when attempting to ascertain the impact of our growth policies on prices. I am simply arguing that the system is too large to be impacted by Davis’ local decisions.
“Still I wonder why you have such a problem with supply and demand? It is a well established principle of economics.”
I have a problem with supply and demand? All I’m suggesting is that when you are looking at housing markets, you need to look in terms of region supply and demand rather than one city’s supply and demand when attempting to ascertain the impact of our growth policies on prices. I am simply arguing that the system is too large to be impacted by Davis’ local decisions.
Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability. In addition, the Davis school system is factored into the buyer’s equation. The buyer is willing to pay more but can still come out ahead with growing equity in a Davis home(at least up until recently) and without the additional annual tuition for their children in private school.
Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability. In addition, the Davis school system is factored into the buyer’s equation. The buyer is willing to pay more but can still come out ahead with growing equity in a Davis home(at least up until recently) and without the additional annual tuition for their children in private school.
Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability. In addition, the Davis school system is factored into the buyer’s equation. The buyer is willing to pay more but can still come out ahead with growing equity in a Davis home(at least up until recently) and without the additional annual tuition for their children in private school.
Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability. In addition, the Davis school system is factored into the buyer’s equation. The buyer is willing to pay more but can still come out ahead with growing equity in a Davis home(at least up until recently) and without the additional annual tuition for their children in private school.
“Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability.”
I don’t disagree with your stated factors. However, the part of the equation you didn’t specify is the buyer’s income. More than anything else, it determines what a house can sell for.
In three different ways, I believe rising incomes (or in some cases rising wealth) helped to fuel the inflation in home prices in Davis from 2000-05:
1. Government salaries (including the university, the city and the state) have inflated substantially. Davis has a large number of people who work directly or indirectly for the government;
2. A large number of high income Sacramento people (including lawyers who work for the state or work for people who do business with the state) decided Davis was a good place to live and raise their families;
3. Wealthy alter kockers. For some reason, more and more older people have decided to retire in Davis; and those moving from the Bay Area helped to bid up housing prices with their high equity stakes.
Also, there is another wealth related factor:
4. Investors (including a lot of wealthy locals). Despite the modest rents in Davis, a lot of investors seemed to believe that the housing market would go up and up. And that speculation helped to inflate our home prices.
“Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability.”
I don’t disagree with your stated factors. However, the part of the equation you didn’t specify is the buyer’s income. More than anything else, it determines what a house can sell for.
In three different ways, I believe rising incomes (or in some cases rising wealth) helped to fuel the inflation in home prices in Davis from 2000-05:
1. Government salaries (including the university, the city and the state) have inflated substantially. Davis has a large number of people who work directly or indirectly for the government;
2. A large number of high income Sacramento people (including lawyers who work for the state or work for people who do business with the state) decided Davis was a good place to live and raise their families;
3. Wealthy alter kockers. For some reason, more and more older people have decided to retire in Davis; and those moving from the Bay Area helped to bid up housing prices with their high equity stakes.
Also, there is another wealth related factor:
4. Investors (including a lot of wealthy locals). Despite the modest rents in Davis, a lot of investors seemed to believe that the housing market would go up and up. And that speculation helped to inflate our home prices.
“Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability.”
I don’t disagree with your stated factors. However, the part of the equation you didn’t specify is the buyer’s income. More than anything else, it determines what a house can sell for.
In three different ways, I believe rising incomes (or in some cases rising wealth) helped to fuel the inflation in home prices in Davis from 2000-05:
1. Government salaries (including the university, the city and the state) have inflated substantially. Davis has a large number of people who work directly or indirectly for the government;
2. A large number of high income Sacramento people (including lawyers who work for the state or work for people who do business with the state) decided Davis was a good place to live and raise their families;
3. Wealthy alter kockers. For some reason, more and more older people have decided to retire in Davis; and those moving from the Bay Area helped to bid up housing prices with their high equity stakes.
Also, there is another wealth related factor:
4. Investors (including a lot of wealthy locals). Despite the modest rents in Davis, a lot of investors seemed to believe that the housing market would go up and up. And that speculation helped to inflate our home prices.
“Home prices in Davis are determined
by what the buyer will pay. The major factor is the purchaser’s monthly mortgage payment and this is is determined by interest rates and credit availability.”
I don’t disagree with your stated factors. However, the part of the equation you didn’t specify is the buyer’s income. More than anything else, it determines what a house can sell for.
In three different ways, I believe rising incomes (or in some cases rising wealth) helped to fuel the inflation in home prices in Davis from 2000-05:
1. Government salaries (including the university, the city and the state) have inflated substantially. Davis has a large number of people who work directly or indirectly for the government;
2. A large number of high income Sacramento people (including lawyers who work for the state or work for people who do business with the state) decided Davis was a good place to live and raise their families;
3. Wealthy alter kockers. For some reason, more and more older people have decided to retire in Davis; and those moving from the Bay Area helped to bid up housing prices with their high equity stakes.
Also, there is another wealth related factor:
4. Investors (including a lot of wealthy locals). Despite the modest rents in Davis, a lot of investors seemed to believe that the housing market would go up and up. And that speculation helped to inflate our home prices.
i suspect that a significant # of the houses in foreclosure and tax lien in this town reflect out of town speculators and investors in the early stages of the process of losing their shirts.
i suspect that a significant # of the houses in foreclosure and tax lien in this town reflect out of town speculators and investors in the early stages of the process of losing their shirts.
i suspect that a significant # of the houses in foreclosure and tax lien in this town reflect out of town speculators and investors in the early stages of the process of losing their shirts.
i suspect that a significant # of the houses in foreclosure and tax lien in this town reflect out of town speculators and investors in the early stages of the process of losing their shirts.
I would guess that the Government pays about 1/3(30% tax bracket) of many Davis home-owner’s mortgage interest.
I would guess that the Government pays about 1/3(30% tax bracket) of many Davis home-owner’s mortgage interest.
I would guess that the Government pays about 1/3(30% tax bracket) of many Davis home-owner’s mortgage interest.
I would guess that the Government pays about 1/3(30% tax bracket) of many Davis home-owner’s mortgage interest.
In 2006 there were 2 foreclosure sales on the MSL listings of the 561 homes sold in Davis and El Macero. So far this year there has been 9 foreclosure sales, 1 pending and 2 active of the 452 homes sold in Davis and El Macero.
In 2006 there were 2 foreclosure sales on the MSL listings of the 561 homes sold in Davis and El Macero. So far this year there has been 9 foreclosure sales, 1 pending and 2 active of the 452 homes sold in Davis and El Macero.
In 2006 there were 2 foreclosure sales on the MSL listings of the 561 homes sold in Davis and El Macero. So far this year there has been 9 foreclosure sales, 1 pending and 2 active of the 452 homes sold in Davis and El Macero.
In 2006 there were 2 foreclosure sales on the MSL listings of the 561 homes sold in Davis and El Macero. So far this year there has been 9 foreclosure sales, 1 pending and 2 active of the 452 homes sold in Davis and El Macero.
Rich, you forgot to include people who have wealthy parents that give them money to buy in Davis. This is more the case than anyone talks about.
Rich, you forgot to include people who have wealthy parents that give them money to buy in Davis. This is more the case than anyone talks about.
Rich, you forgot to include people who have wealthy parents that give them money to buy in Davis. This is more the case than anyone talks about.
Rich, you forgot to include people who have wealthy parents that give them money to buy in Davis. This is more the case than anyone talks about.
Rich Rifkin said…
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Rich Rifkin said…
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Rich Rifkin said…
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Rich Rifkin said…
“If they do, housing prices will not have dropped as much as they rose in the previous five years in Davis (34.5% since 2002).”
Don,
I agree. The 26% downturn, if it does happen, is simply a correction to an overinflated market. That’s not unexpected.
Yet I believe the inflation in home prices (in my neighborhood at least) was much higher than 34.5%. I guess it depends on your using that 2002 baseline.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Jamie said…
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Jamie, you over simplify the situation. Home sales numbers only represent the tip of the hosing values iceberg. They do not account for all the houses that the owners have no desire or intention of selling. You can’t project the situation of all housing values in Davis from such a meager sample. 393 houses represents just over 1% of the total housing units in Davis.
The one stat you can definitely take away is that the 468 sales in 2006 were 72 more than the 393 sales in 2007. With that said, the reasons for that 15+ percent decline in transactions could be many and varied. It could simply be that more people wanted to stay in Davis.
Jamie said…
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Jamie, you over simplify the situation. Home sales numbers only represent the tip of the hosing values iceberg. They do not account for all the houses that the owners have no desire or intention of selling. You can’t project the situation of all housing values in Davis from such a meager sample. 393 houses represents just over 1% of the total housing units in Davis.
The one stat you can definitely take away is that the 468 sales in 2006 were 72 more than the 393 sales in 2007. With that said, the reasons for that 15+ percent decline in transactions could be many and varied. It could simply be that more people wanted to stay in Davis.
Jamie said…
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Jamie, you over simplify the situation. Home sales numbers only represent the tip of the hosing values iceberg. They do not account for all the houses that the owners have no desire or intention of selling. You can’t project the situation of all housing values in Davis from such a meager sample. 393 houses represents just over 1% of the total housing units in Davis.
The one stat you can definitely take away is that the 468 sales in 2006 were 72 more than the 393 sales in 2007. With that said, the reasons for that 15+ percent decline in transactions could be many and varied. It could simply be that more people wanted to stay in Davis.
Jamie said…
Fascinating discussion! I thought it would help to have some facts about housing sales these past two years. This data was extracted from the MLS directly (does not include non-MLS sales)and includes only single family homes.
$300k – $400k
20006 – 20 sold/$371k avg / $375 sf
2007 – 31 sold/$373k avg / $333 sf
$401k – $500k
2006 – 86 sold/$459k avg / $365 sf
2007 – 94 sold/$456k avg / $339 sf
$501k – $575k
2006 – 93 sold/$552k avg / $345 sf
2007 – 86 sold/$537k avg / $342 sf
$576k – $650k
2006 – 85 sold/$616k avg / $327 sf
2007 – 51 sold/$610k avg / $318 sf
$651k – $735k
2006 – 71 sold/$690k avg / $319 sf
2007 – 55 sold/$690k avg / $307 sf
$736k – $850k
2006 – 51 sold/$782k avg / $322 sf
2007 – 32 sold/$795k avg / $309 sf
$851k – $1.5m
2006 – 62 sold/$1001k avg / $326 sf
2007 – 44 sold/$1043k avg / $306 sf
Take away? the number of houses selling this year and the price per square foot is dropping, but the average prices in the ranges are not dropping dramatically if at all.
Jamie, you over simplify the situation. Home sales numbers only represent the tip of the hosing values iceberg. They do not account for all the houses that the owners have no desire or intention of selling. You can’t project the situation of all housing values in Davis from such a meager sample. 393 houses represents just over 1% of the total housing units in Davis.
The one stat you can definitely take away is that the 468 sales in 2006 were 72 more than the 393 sales in 2007. With that said, the reasons for that 15+ percent decline in transactions could be many and varied. It could simply be that more people wanted to stay in Davis.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Actually, I was using statistics from comparable Sept – Nov periods in 2002 (median price $379K) and 2007 ($512K). 512/379 = 35% increase in that five year period.
The other statistics posted do indicate that there was, in fact, a 49% increase between 2000 and 2002 alone. Rich’s example was even more exaggerated, but we all know of similar anecdotal evidence of the hot Davis market in the last few years.
My point was simply that Fortune Magazine’s projected 26% decline in housing values over the next five year period isn’t all that significant in historical context. Obviously, though, if you bought your home in the last couple of years and plan on selling within another couple of years, that isn’t much comfort.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Actually, I was using statistics from comparable Sept – Nov periods in 2002 (median price $379K) and 2007 ($512K). 512/379 = 35% increase in that five year period.
The other statistics posted do indicate that there was, in fact, a 49% increase between 2000 and 2002 alone. Rich’s example was even more exaggerated, but we all know of similar anecdotal evidence of the hot Davis market in the last few years.
My point was simply that Fortune Magazine’s projected 26% decline in housing values over the next five year period isn’t all that significant in historical context. Obviously, though, if you bought your home in the last couple of years and plan on selling within another couple of years, that isn’t much comfort.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Actually, I was using statistics from comparable Sept – Nov periods in 2002 (median price $379K) and 2007 ($512K). 512/379 = 35% increase in that five year period.
The other statistics posted do indicate that there was, in fact, a 49% increase between 2000 and 2002 alone. Rich’s example was even more exaggerated, but we all know of similar anecdotal evidence of the hot Davis market in the last few years.
My point was simply that Fortune Magazine’s projected 26% decline in housing values over the next five year period isn’t all that significant in historical context. Obviously, though, if you bought your home in the last couple of years and plan on selling within another couple of years, that isn’t much comfort.
Rich, I believe Don meant 34.5% is the annual rate compounded each year from 2002 to present. That will get you very close to your 248% number.
Actually, I was using statistics from comparable Sept – Nov periods in 2002 (median price $379K) and 2007 ($512K). 512/379 = 35% increase in that five year period.
The other statistics posted do indicate that there was, in fact, a 49% increase between 2000 and 2002 alone. Rich’s example was even more exaggerated, but we all know of similar anecdotal evidence of the hot Davis market in the last few years.
My point was simply that Fortune Magazine’s projected 26% decline in housing values over the next five year period isn’t all that significant in historical context. Obviously, though, if you bought your home in the last couple of years and plan on selling within another couple of years, that isn’t much comfort.
My source for comparing the periods, as well as for comparing home values between communities, is trulia.com
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Davis-California/
My source for comparing the periods, as well as for comparing home values between communities, is trulia.com
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Davis-California/
My source for comparing the periods, as well as for comparing home values between communities, is trulia.com
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Davis-California/
My source for comparing the periods, as well as for comparing home values between communities, is trulia.com
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Davis-California/
Mike said…
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the infrastructure to have light rail to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit.
Mike, help me out. Your comment above confuses me. How do you think having light rail to the Bay Area would be a benfit to Davis?
Mike said…
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the infrastructure to have light rail to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit.
Mike, help me out. Your comment above confuses me. How do you think having light rail to the Bay Area would be a benfit to Davis?
Mike said…
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the infrastructure to have light rail to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit.
Mike, help me out. Your comment above confuses me. How do you think having light rail to the Bay Area would be a benfit to Davis?
Mike said…
Growth is going to happen one way or another, why don’t we take advantage of it and get what we want, I.E solar panels on all city buildings, maybe even light rail to sac and the bay area?
Is that going to be bad for the environment, traffic, or quality of life?
How would the benefit be short term in revenue if a developer paid for the infrastructure to have light rail to sac or the bay area. That is not a short term benefit.
Mike, help me out. Your comment above confuses me. How do you think having light rail to the Bay Area would be a benfit to Davis?