For me, tonight’s Council Meeting is extremely important, and it has long-reaching consequences with respect to our Quality of Life in Davis. As a result I have sent the following e-mail to all five members of the Council. The sentiments I express in the e-mail arise from two key principles: The first is well expressed in the materials referenced in the e-mail:
- We need housing to take care of the people we add to Davis who work here.
- Preserves prime farmland and minimizes farmland conversion
———————-E-mail sent 2/11/2008———————-
Subject: Comments re: Agenda Item 6 — Discussion and Clarification of One Percent Growth Guideline Resolution No. 05-27
TO: Greenwald, Saylor, Asmundson, Heystek, Souza
CC: Roberts
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council,
Your time is valuable, and there isn’t any way I can do justice to Agenda Item 6 in 2 minutes of Public Comment on Tuesday, so please accept this e-mail as a more thorough study of that Agenda Item.
Summary
Clarifying the Cap vs. Target wording of the One Percent Growth Guideline Resolution (hereinafter referred to as “the Guideline Resolution”) is the easy part of what Council needs to do Tuesday. I believe the Council in 2005 was wise enough to recognize that the 1% Guideline may need a mid-course correction, and mandated that such a correction should take place no later than 2010. I would argue that such a mid-course correction is needed now. Why do I feel that way?
- Numbers like 325 homes, or 260 homes or 1% growth don’t help address Council’s 3/8/05 discussion of, “We need housing to take care of the people we add to Davis who work here.”
- The assumptions that are the foundation of the 2/19/2003 Bay Area Economics Internal Housing Needs Analysis (which was the basis for recommendations in the 3/12/2003 Planning Department Staff Report), either have been superceded, or were flawed to begin with.
- Bay Area Economics’ assumptions were based on a SACOG allocation that was 4 times larger than the current final SACOG fair-share number. If SACOG has assigned growth allocations correctly, wouldn’t it be appropriate to consider converting the 1% Growth Guideline into a 0.25% Growth Guideline?
We can never truly control the infinite regional demand for Davis housing. However, we can do our best to ensure that the housing built here is more attractive to the members of the Davis workforce than it is to the person who wants to get in their car each morning and contribute to Davis traffic and the Davis carbon footprint, while they commute to their job in Sacramento.
Logic Behind the Position Taken in the Summary
The 2/12/2008 Planning Department Staff Report (hereinafter referred to as the “Hess/Wolcott Report”) prepared by Katherine Hess and Bob Wolcott for your upcoming discussion and clarification of the Guideline Resolution does a good job of:
1) Outlining the background/history behind the Guideline,
2) Identifying steps that should have (and may have) happened since the Guideline Resolution was passed, and
3) Framing the questions, you will be discussing on 2/12/08.
Looking at those three points.
With respect to point 1,
The “Evolution of the current resolution” section of the Hess/Wolcott Report needs some expansion because the evolution of the issues leading up to the passage of the Guideline Resolution began well before March 12, 2003. Council first agendized this issue on July 31, 2002, and discussion of it began well before that. In a 2/24/03 Staff Report (hereinafter referred to as “the Emlen Report”) prepared for the 7/31/02 Council meeting, the author of the report, Bill Emlen, got to the heart of the matter when he wrote,
“It would be premature at this point to imply that the current housing market is beginning to challenge the assumptions contained in the recently adopted [May 2001]General Plan update. Nonetheless, the markets do appear to be responding to local and regional demand, which remains quite high while new housing production, particularly single-family housing, continues to drop in the city.”
Four words in those two sentences jump out from the others … “local and regional demand” Those four words beg the question, “What is regional demand for Davis housing?” The Emlen Report does a good job of answering that question when it says:
“While staff in no way would suggest that we can ever grow to meet what seems to be an insatiable demand, it would be prudent to consider if some long term adjustments should be considered to avoid a bubble of pent up demand that could ultimately burst in poorly planned growth.”
The only way the demand for Davis housing can be insatiable is if one takes into consideration both internal and external demand for that housing. Given Davis’ population, and the historical job growth in Davis and at UCD, any insatiability of housing demand is almost entirely attributable to people from outside Davis who want to move to Davis and then commute to their jobs in cities other than Davis. To address this reality of insatiable demand, Emlen goes on to say,
“Proactive planning will be a key element of this effort. Finding ways to change, while maintaining the city’s vision and values will be critical.”
“Compliance with State fair-share requirements is also a critical factor in balancing the immediate demands for housing with the community’s longer term objectives. The Council should be aware that if the City takes an overly aggressive approach to infill and develops most of all of the infill sites prior to 2007, there may be few sites remaining to accommodate the fair-share requirements [of the future].”
The bottom-line of Emlen’s words is that regional demand for housing in Davis was (and continues to be) insatiable. Thankfully in the months following the Emlen Report Council took the steps outlined in the Hess/Wolcott Report, culminating with the passage of the Guideline Resolution.
Moving on to point 2,
The Puntillo/Souza Council subcommittee (hereinafter referred to as “the Subcommittee”) recommendations sections of the Hess/Wolcott Report note that:
“Council previously selected a growth amount … after accepting half of the needs based on natural growth and UCD research park growth.”
“The Subcommittee also recommended that growth be managed by the following tools to ensure that peripheral and infill development decisions are consistent with growth guidelines: … create a new development status monitoring and reporting system; use reports in decisions on projects on their timing; provide annual report and adopt annual resolution to direct prospective developers and staff where the city will consider growth and development …”
“Davis is in a unique position of having a great deal of control of the approval of new developments through general plan amendments and/or zonings. The city can make informed decisions on new projects and control their timing.”
The City Council discussion section of the Hess/Wolcott Report notes:
“We need housing to take care of the people we add and work here.”
“Go to year 2010 and then decide if it is working or if changes are needed.”
“The City Council also added that the growth guideline would be tied to the 2010 General Plan and would not extend to year 2015 as recommended by the Subcommittee.”
Regarding point 3, which is the meat of the matter,
The clarifications suggested in the Hess/Wolcott Report are a good start, but so much has happened since 3/8/05, that Council’s decision to give the Guideline Resolution limited life and “decide if the Guideline is working or if changes are needed” was very wise.
What are some of those key “happenings”?
1) The final RHNA allocation from SACOG for the 2006-2013 period came in at 498 residential units rather than the 1,932 units projected in the Subcommittee report.
2) The first Measure J vote was completed.
3) UC Davis announced its plans for West Village
4) The Subprime Mortgage crisis has significantly reduced housing demand
5) I am not aware of the existence of any of the annual development status monitoring reports or annual resolutions discussed in the Hess/Wolcott report, which are included in subsection (2) of the Growth management system concepts section of the Guideline Resolution.
6) I am unable to find the “amendments to the growth management and housing sections of the General Plan and the Phased Housing Allocation Ordinance” called for in Section 2.a. of the Guideline Resolution.
Those last two apparent “non-happenings” make me wonder whether Davis really is in the “a unique position of having a great deal of control of the approval of new developments.” However, those concerns are overwhelmed by the fact that the first four “happenings” make it clear that the initial assumptions that went into the 2/19/2003 Bay Area Economics Internal Housing Needs Analysis have either been superceded, or were flawed to begin with.
Conclusion
As I said at the beginning of this e-mail, clarifying the Cap vs. Target wording is the easy part of what Council needs to do Tuesday, however, it would be wrong to stop there.
- We do not need numbers like 325, or 260 or 1%. We need housing to take care of the people we add to Davis who work here.
- Bay Area Economics assumption that Davis’ needs are based on natural growth and UCD research park growth, doesn’t take into consideration that construction in UCD research park ended years ago, and therefore no longer adds an annual increment of new jobs to Davis. Why doesn’t the incremental housing growth stop when the jobs growth stopped.
- West Village now provides all the housing needed by UCD research park employees … and then some. Shouldn’t that be figured into the housing equation?
- Bay Area Economics’ assumptions were also based on a SACOG allocation that was 4 times larger than the current final SACOG fair-share number. As I said before, if SACOG is right, wouldn’t it be appropriate to consider converting the 1% Growth Guideline into a 0.25% Growth Guideline?
Because of the larger economic issues facing our country and our state, this is an ideal time to step back and assess where we are, and where we are going. If we do that now when the housing markets are in a pause, then when we do add new residences to Davis we will be in a much better position to achieve the ideal scenario where the housing built in Davis is more attractive to the members of the Davis workforce than it is to the person who wants to get in their car each morning and contribute to Davis traffic and the Davis carbon footprint, while they commute to their job in Sacramento.
Thank you again for your time and your consideration.
Matt Williams, Jr.
(530) 297-6237
Matt….. Davis could use your critical analytical skill. How about seeking a Planning Commission appointment?
Matt….. Davis could use your critical analytical skill. How about seeking a Planning Commission appointment?
Matt….. Davis could use your critical analytical skill. How about seeking a Planning Commission appointment?
Matt….. Davis could use your critical analytical skill. How about seeking a Planning Commission appointment?
Unfortunately Matt doesn’t live in the city proper, so like other famous non-Davis residents, he cannot serve on a city commission.
Unfortunately Matt doesn’t live in the city proper, so like other famous non-Davis residents, he cannot serve on a city commission.
Unfortunately Matt doesn’t live in the city proper, so like other famous non-Davis residents, he cannot serve on a city commission.
Unfortunately Matt doesn’t live in the city proper, so like other famous non-Davis residents, he cannot serve on a city commission.
So.. why is a non-Davis resident attempting to change the way in which Davis grows.
So.. why is a non-Davis resident attempting to change the way in which Davis grows.
So.. why is a non-Davis resident attempting to change the way in which Davis grows.
So.. why is a non-Davis resident attempting to change the way in which Davis grows.
This non-Davis resident may not live in the City, but he does live in the Davis City Planning Area, the Davis Sphere of Influence, and the area governed by the City-County Pass-Through Agreement.
This non-Davis resident may not live in the City, but he does live in the Davis City Planning Area, the Davis Sphere of Influence, and the area governed by the City-County Pass-Through Agreement.
This non-Davis resident may not live in the City, but he does live in the Davis City Planning Area, the Davis Sphere of Influence, and the area governed by the City-County Pass-Through Agreement.
This non-Davis resident may not live in the City, but he does live in the Davis City Planning Area, the Davis Sphere of Influence, and the area governed by the City-County Pass-Through Agreement.
Ok, attacking the messenger and not the message isn’t cool.
But it does beg the question: If you live outside of town in a rural environment, do you live in rural sprawl that converted ag land? Is your carbon footprint larger than a city resident since you have to drive to get to most services?
Ok, attacking the messenger and not the message isn’t cool.
But it does beg the question: If you live outside of town in a rural environment, do you live in rural sprawl that converted ag land? Is your carbon footprint larger than a city resident since you have to drive to get to most services?
Ok, attacking the messenger and not the message isn’t cool.
But it does beg the question: If you live outside of town in a rural environment, do you live in rural sprawl that converted ag land? Is your carbon footprint larger than a city resident since you have to drive to get to most services?
Ok, attacking the messenger and not the message isn’t cool.
But it does beg the question: If you live outside of town in a rural environment, do you live in rural sprawl that converted ag land? Is your carbon footprint larger than a city resident since you have to drive to get to most services?
Great questions.
El Macero definitely qualifies as urban sprawl IMHO. It was built on prime agricultural land (all Class I soils) over a 25 year period from the late ’60s thru the turn of the Century. Lots of my neighbors walk to the Nugget Market at Mace and Cowell tio shop, which is a 1.5 mile distance or less from all the houses in El Macero.
Was its development less than ideal planning? Probably.
Would it do any good to tear all the houses down and try and convert the land back to agriculture? No.
Is there a lesson to be learned from a retrospective look at the decisions that created it in its current form? Definitely.
Great questions.
El Macero definitely qualifies as urban sprawl IMHO. It was built on prime agricultural land (all Class I soils) over a 25 year period from the late ’60s thru the turn of the Century. Lots of my neighbors walk to the Nugget Market at Mace and Cowell tio shop, which is a 1.5 mile distance or less from all the houses in El Macero.
Was its development less than ideal planning? Probably.
Would it do any good to tear all the houses down and try and convert the land back to agriculture? No.
Is there a lesson to be learned from a retrospective look at the decisions that created it in its current form? Definitely.
Great questions.
El Macero definitely qualifies as urban sprawl IMHO. It was built on prime agricultural land (all Class I soils) over a 25 year period from the late ’60s thru the turn of the Century. Lots of my neighbors walk to the Nugget Market at Mace and Cowell tio shop, which is a 1.5 mile distance or less from all the houses in El Macero.
Was its development less than ideal planning? Probably.
Would it do any good to tear all the houses down and try and convert the land back to agriculture? No.
Is there a lesson to be learned from a retrospective look at the decisions that created it in its current form? Definitely.
Great questions.
El Macero definitely qualifies as urban sprawl IMHO. It was built on prime agricultural land (all Class I soils) over a 25 year period from the late ’60s thru the turn of the Century. Lots of my neighbors walk to the Nugget Market at Mace and Cowell tio shop, which is a 1.5 mile distance or less from all the houses in El Macero.
Was its development less than ideal planning? Probably.
Would it do any good to tear all the houses down and try and convert the land back to agriculture? No.
Is there a lesson to be learned from a retrospective look at the decisions that created it in its current form? Definitely.
4) The Subprime Mortgage crisis has significantly reduced housing demand
That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever. It is now harder to sell a home, but that is mainly due to inflated price expectations (on the seller’s side) and uncertainty on how low the market will go (on the buyers side).
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. Housing policy should be driven more by the needs of those who need (or will need) the housing and less by the needs of those who already have housing and don’t want to share “their” space with anyone else.
4) The Subprime Mortgage crisis has significantly reduced housing demand
That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever. It is now harder to sell a home, but that is mainly due to inflated price expectations (on the seller’s side) and uncertainty on how low the market will go (on the buyers side).
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. Housing policy should be driven more by the needs of those who need (or will need) the housing and less by the needs of those who already have housing and don’t want to share “their” space with anyone else.
4) The Subprime Mortgage crisis has significantly reduced housing demand
That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever. It is now harder to sell a home, but that is mainly due to inflated price expectations (on the seller’s side) and uncertainty on how low the market will go (on the buyers side).
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. Housing policy should be driven more by the needs of those who need (or will need) the housing and less by the needs of those who already have housing and don’t want to share “their” space with anyone else.
4) The Subprime Mortgage crisis has significantly reduced housing demand
That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever. It is now harder to sell a home, but that is mainly due to inflated price expectations (on the seller’s side) and uncertainty on how low the market will go (on the buyers side).
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. Housing policy should be driven more by the needs of those who need (or will need) the housing and less by the needs of those who already have housing and don’t want to share “their” space with anyone else.
Matt: your thinking just doesn’t mesh with what is expected/required of commission members. I think(know) you wrote a great piece and you said a lot of things that many couldn’t even have recalled. You put forth a great amount of time and effort and you wrote it much better than I could have so for that I thank you!! Unfortunately, the city budget is far too reliant on construction $ as we have NO retail tax base and never will. If we don’t have the construction dollars coming in, we don’t even come close to paying the bills-not to mention the really big ones coming due in the next 5 years!!
Matt: your thinking just doesn’t mesh with what is expected/required of commission members. I think(know) you wrote a great piece and you said a lot of things that many couldn’t even have recalled. You put forth a great amount of time and effort and you wrote it much better than I could have so for that I thank you!! Unfortunately, the city budget is far too reliant on construction $ as we have NO retail tax base and never will. If we don’t have the construction dollars coming in, we don’t even come close to paying the bills-not to mention the really big ones coming due in the next 5 years!!
Matt: your thinking just doesn’t mesh with what is expected/required of commission members. I think(know) you wrote a great piece and you said a lot of things that many couldn’t even have recalled. You put forth a great amount of time and effort and you wrote it much better than I could have so for that I thank you!! Unfortunately, the city budget is far too reliant on construction $ as we have NO retail tax base and never will. If we don’t have the construction dollars coming in, we don’t even come close to paying the bills-not to mention the really big ones coming due in the next 5 years!!
Matt: your thinking just doesn’t mesh with what is expected/required of commission members. I think(know) you wrote a great piece and you said a lot of things that many couldn’t even have recalled. You put forth a great amount of time and effort and you wrote it much better than I could have so for that I thank you!! Unfortunately, the city budget is far too reliant on construction $ as we have NO retail tax base and never will. If we don’t have the construction dollars coming in, we don’t even come close to paying the bills-not to mention the really big ones coming due in the next 5 years!!
“Was its development less than ideal planning?”
If you look back at what was said at the time when Bruce Mace devised “El Macero” — he made up the Spanish version of his surname — Davis people were aghast at its development. This was long before Davis people were aghast at every development.
The problem was its location: Davisites recognized back then that leap frog development was a bad idea. They preferred to add housing on the immediate periphery of town, as opposed to 3 miles away.
Once El Macero (and Willowbank) opened, that invited the sprawl into South Davis.
“It was built on prime agricultural land.”
Of course, so was almost all of what is now the City of Davis. However, it is worth noting that if your house is 65 years or older, the land it’s on has most likely been urbanized longer than it was actively farmed.
In the core area of town, Jerome Davis only farmed that acreage for a little more than a decade before the railroad barons hornswaggled him. His father in law, Joseph B. Chiles, never farmed it at all. The Mexicans* whom Chiles bought the ranch from may have used this land for grazing cattle. However, they were not in California much before Chiles was.
If your house in Davis or El Macero is 40 years old now, its land was probably actively farmed for about 90 years, give or take. So in another 50 years, it too will reach that point of having been urban land as long as farmland.
* Chiles purchased the northern part of Rancho Laguna de Santos Calle from Marcos Vaca, a son of Juan Manuel Vaca, for whom the city of Vacaville is named.
“Was its development less than ideal planning?”
If you look back at what was said at the time when Bruce Mace devised “El Macero” — he made up the Spanish version of his surname — Davis people were aghast at its development. This was long before Davis people were aghast at every development.
The problem was its location: Davisites recognized back then that leap frog development was a bad idea. They preferred to add housing on the immediate periphery of town, as opposed to 3 miles away.
Once El Macero (and Willowbank) opened, that invited the sprawl into South Davis.
“It was built on prime agricultural land.”
Of course, so was almost all of what is now the City of Davis. However, it is worth noting that if your house is 65 years or older, the land it’s on has most likely been urbanized longer than it was actively farmed.
In the core area of town, Jerome Davis only farmed that acreage for a little more than a decade before the railroad barons hornswaggled him. His father in law, Joseph B. Chiles, never farmed it at all. The Mexicans* whom Chiles bought the ranch from may have used this land for grazing cattle. However, they were not in California much before Chiles was.
If your house in Davis or El Macero is 40 years old now, its land was probably actively farmed for about 90 years, give or take. So in another 50 years, it too will reach that point of having been urban land as long as farmland.
* Chiles purchased the northern part of Rancho Laguna de Santos Calle from Marcos Vaca, a son of Juan Manuel Vaca, for whom the city of Vacaville is named.
“Was its development less than ideal planning?”
If you look back at what was said at the time when Bruce Mace devised “El Macero” — he made up the Spanish version of his surname — Davis people were aghast at its development. This was long before Davis people were aghast at every development.
The problem was its location: Davisites recognized back then that leap frog development was a bad idea. They preferred to add housing on the immediate periphery of town, as opposed to 3 miles away.
Once El Macero (and Willowbank) opened, that invited the sprawl into South Davis.
“It was built on prime agricultural land.”
Of course, so was almost all of what is now the City of Davis. However, it is worth noting that if your house is 65 years or older, the land it’s on has most likely been urbanized longer than it was actively farmed.
In the core area of town, Jerome Davis only farmed that acreage for a little more than a decade before the railroad barons hornswaggled him. His father in law, Joseph B. Chiles, never farmed it at all. The Mexicans* whom Chiles bought the ranch from may have used this land for grazing cattle. However, they were not in California much before Chiles was.
If your house in Davis or El Macero is 40 years old now, its land was probably actively farmed for about 90 years, give or take. So in another 50 years, it too will reach that point of having been urban land as long as farmland.
* Chiles purchased the northern part of Rancho Laguna de Santos Calle from Marcos Vaca, a son of Juan Manuel Vaca, for whom the city of Vacaville is named.
“Was its development less than ideal planning?”
If you look back at what was said at the time when Bruce Mace devised “El Macero” — he made up the Spanish version of his surname — Davis people were aghast at its development. This was long before Davis people were aghast at every development.
The problem was its location: Davisites recognized back then that leap frog development was a bad idea. They preferred to add housing on the immediate periphery of town, as opposed to 3 miles away.
Once El Macero (and Willowbank) opened, that invited the sprawl into South Davis.
“It was built on prime agricultural land.”
Of course, so was almost all of what is now the City of Davis. However, it is worth noting that if your house is 65 years or older, the land it’s on has most likely been urbanized longer than it was actively farmed.
In the core area of town, Jerome Davis only farmed that acreage for a little more than a decade before the railroad barons hornswaggled him. His father in law, Joseph B. Chiles, never farmed it at all. The Mexicans* whom Chiles bought the ranch from may have used this land for grazing cattle. However, they were not in California much before Chiles was.
If your house in Davis or El Macero is 40 years old now, its land was probably actively farmed for about 90 years, give or take. So in another 50 years, it too will reach that point of having been urban land as long as farmland.
* Chiles purchased the northern part of Rancho Laguna de Santos Calle from Marcos Vaca, a son of Juan Manuel Vaca, for whom the city of Vacaville is named.
Spooky, your point is extremely important. The problem I see is that relying on construction $ as the City’s revenue source is a bit like a Ponzi Scheme.
The reason I say that is that the vast majority of new housing simply does not “pencil out.” City Finance Director, Paul Navasio made that point in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) last Thursday evening. The short term infusion of $ is offset by the long term obligation to provide services. His presentation handout can be viewed at the HESC website.
That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.
In the meantime, we need to also look at the current internal demand generated by existing Davis workers who don’t live in Davis, but want to live in Davis. Housing for a large proportion of those people “won’t pencil out,” but the other positives that housing that bring those workers to Davis residences will be very good for the community.
JMHO
Spooky, your point is extremely important. The problem I see is that relying on construction $ as the City’s revenue source is a bit like a Ponzi Scheme.
The reason I say that is that the vast majority of new housing simply does not “pencil out.” City Finance Director, Paul Navasio made that point in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) last Thursday evening. The short term infusion of $ is offset by the long term obligation to provide services. His presentation handout can be viewed at the HESC website.
That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.
In the meantime, we need to also look at the current internal demand generated by existing Davis workers who don’t live in Davis, but want to live in Davis. Housing for a large proportion of those people “won’t pencil out,” but the other positives that housing that bring those workers to Davis residences will be very good for the community.
JMHO
Spooky, your point is extremely important. The problem I see is that relying on construction $ as the City’s revenue source is a bit like a Ponzi Scheme.
The reason I say that is that the vast majority of new housing simply does not “pencil out.” City Finance Director, Paul Navasio made that point in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) last Thursday evening. The short term infusion of $ is offset by the long term obligation to provide services. His presentation handout can be viewed at the HESC website.
That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.
In the meantime, we need to also look at the current internal demand generated by existing Davis workers who don’t live in Davis, but want to live in Davis. Housing for a large proportion of those people “won’t pencil out,” but the other positives that housing that bring those workers to Davis residences will be very good for the community.
JMHO
Spooky, your point is extremely important. The problem I see is that relying on construction $ as the City’s revenue source is a bit like a Ponzi Scheme.
The reason I say that is that the vast majority of new housing simply does not “pencil out.” City Finance Director, Paul Navasio made that point in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) last Thursday evening. The short term infusion of $ is offset by the long term obligation to provide services. His presentation handout can be viewed at the HESC website.
That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.
In the meantime, we need to also look at the current internal demand generated by existing Davis workers who don’t live in Davis, but want to live in Davis. Housing for a large proportion of those people “won’t pencil out,” but the other positives that housing that bring those workers to Davis residences will be very good for the community.
JMHO
ANON 10:31 “That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever.”
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
When supply is steady and prices are falling, that, by definition, implies that demand is falling. In economic jargon, that is called The Law of Demand.
Why is demand falling? I think there are a number of reasons, these just being a few:
1) It’s harder to get a loan;
2) Speculators have left the market;
3) A slowing economy; and
4) Inflation in non-housing prices (such as gas and food) have reduced money available for housing.
Perhaps some demographic changes, such as an aging population, are having an effect on demand as well.
ANON 10:31 “That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever.”
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
When supply is steady and prices are falling, that, by definition, implies that demand is falling. In economic jargon, that is called The Law of Demand.
Why is demand falling? I think there are a number of reasons, these just being a few:
1) It’s harder to get a loan;
2) Speculators have left the market;
3) A slowing economy; and
4) Inflation in non-housing prices (such as gas and food) have reduced money available for housing.
Perhaps some demographic changes, such as an aging population, are having an effect on demand as well.
ANON 10:31 “That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever.”
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
When supply is steady and prices are falling, that, by definition, implies that demand is falling. In economic jargon, that is called The Law of Demand.
Why is demand falling? I think there are a number of reasons, these just being a few:
1) It’s harder to get a loan;
2) Speculators have left the market;
3) A slowing economy; and
4) Inflation in non-housing prices (such as gas and food) have reduced money available for housing.
Perhaps some demographic changes, such as an aging population, are having an effect on demand as well.
ANON 10:31 “That is a false statement. Housing demand is a direct function of the number of people needing housing. The subprime mortgage crisis along with high housing prices have driven more people into rental units, but that will not last forever.”
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
When supply is steady and prices are falling, that, by definition, implies that demand is falling. In economic jargon, that is called The Law of Demand.
Why is demand falling? I think there are a number of reasons, these just being a few:
1) It’s harder to get a loan;
2) Speculators have left the market;
3) A slowing economy; and
4) Inflation in non-housing prices (such as gas and food) have reduced money available for housing.
Perhaps some demographic changes, such as an aging population, are having an effect on demand as well.
I didn’t receive a copy of the e-mail that you said you sent me.
I didn’t receive a copy of the e-mail that you said you sent me.
I didn’t receive a copy of the e-mail that you said you sent me.
I didn’t receive a copy of the e-mail that you said you sent me.
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
Actually I do. People live in places – there is a demand for places to live and that demand is growing.
Certainly there were factors that drove purchased housing prices up and there are factors that are now driving prices back down. However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.
You can use the housing price bubble as an excuse to further interfere in the supply of housing. However, you are just burying your head and ignoring the social need for housing.
I am not suggesting Davis should do more than it’s “fair share” to provide housing. OTOH there seems to be an “only me” mentality that I find unfortunate.
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
Actually I do. People live in places – there is a demand for places to live and that demand is growing.
Certainly there were factors that drove purchased housing prices up and there are factors that are now driving prices back down. However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.
You can use the housing price bubble as an excuse to further interfere in the supply of housing. However, you are just burying your head and ignoring the social need for housing.
I am not suggesting Davis should do more than it’s “fair share” to provide housing. OTOH there seems to be an “only me” mentality that I find unfortunate.
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
Actually I do. People live in places – there is a demand for places to live and that demand is growing.
Certainly there were factors that drove purchased housing prices up and there are factors that are now driving prices back down. However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.
You can use the housing price bubble as an excuse to further interfere in the supply of housing. However, you are just burying your head and ignoring the social need for housing.
I am not suggesting Davis should do more than it’s “fair share” to provide housing. OTOH there seems to be an “only me” mentality that I find unfortunate.
You don’t understand what the term “demand” means.
Actually I do. People live in places – there is a demand for places to live and that demand is growing.
Certainly there were factors that drove purchased housing prices up and there are factors that are now driving prices back down. However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.
You can use the housing price bubble as an excuse to further interfere in the supply of housing. However, you are just burying your head and ignoring the social need for housing.
I am not suggesting Davis should do more than it’s “fair share” to provide housing. OTOH there seems to be an “only me” mentality that I find unfortunate.
oops
oops
oops
oops
I sent it to Sue Greenwald suegreen@dcn.org at 5:10 PM yesterday. That is the e-mail your voicemail message says is the best way to get information to you. Do you want me to send it to another address?
I sent it to Sue Greenwald suegreen@dcn.org at 5:10 PM yesterday. That is the e-mail your voicemail message says is the best way to get information to you. Do you want me to send it to another address?
I sent it to Sue Greenwald suegreen@dcn.org at 5:10 PM yesterday. That is the e-mail your voicemail message says is the best way to get information to you. Do you want me to send it to another address?
I sent it to Sue Greenwald suegreen@dcn.org at 5:10 PM yesterday. That is the e-mail your voicemail message says is the best way to get information to you. Do you want me to send it to another address?
Anonymous Anonymous said…
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. …
2/12/08 10:31 AM
——
Where did you get the “1 – 1.5% growth rate” figure from? That is really the key policy issue for the council.
Anonymous Anonymous said…
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. …
2/12/08 10:31 AM
——
Where did you get the “1 – 1.5% growth rate” figure from? That is really the key policy issue for the council.
Anonymous Anonymous said…
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. …
2/12/08 10:31 AM
——
Where did you get the “1 – 1.5% growth rate” figure from? That is really the key policy issue for the council.
Anonymous Anonymous said…
We need housing policies that reflect the real world in the long run – and that means we, as a society, need to provide housing for the 1-1.5% growth rate expected over the next 30 years. …
2/12/08 10:31 AM
——
Where did you get the “1 – 1.5% growth rate” figure from? That is really the key policy issue for the council.
anonymous 11:39,
Can I ask you to do us all a favor. Please choose a Nickname and use it in your posts. That way responses will be clear with respect to whom they are directed.
Your reply does get to the heart of one of the issues I addressed in my e-mail to Council. Demand for housing in Davis can be broken into two components … internal and external. What I hear you saying when you refer to “social need for housing” is consistent with what I call internal demand.
External demand for housing in Davis comes mostly from people who currently live elsewhere, work elsewhere, and even if they end up buying a house in Davis will never work in Davis. They will continue to go to work in the same “elsewhere” they currently go to work in. A huge proportion of the supply of housing that has been built in Davis over the last 15 years has been purchased by external demand. As a result Davis has become more of a bedroom community.
How do you feel about external demand as it relates to your “social need for housing”?
anonymous 11:39,
Can I ask you to do us all a favor. Please choose a Nickname and use it in your posts. That way responses will be clear with respect to whom they are directed.
Your reply does get to the heart of one of the issues I addressed in my e-mail to Council. Demand for housing in Davis can be broken into two components … internal and external. What I hear you saying when you refer to “social need for housing” is consistent with what I call internal demand.
External demand for housing in Davis comes mostly from people who currently live elsewhere, work elsewhere, and even if they end up buying a house in Davis will never work in Davis. They will continue to go to work in the same “elsewhere” they currently go to work in. A huge proportion of the supply of housing that has been built in Davis over the last 15 years has been purchased by external demand. As a result Davis has become more of a bedroom community.
How do you feel about external demand as it relates to your “social need for housing”?
anonymous 11:39,
Can I ask you to do us all a favor. Please choose a Nickname and use it in your posts. That way responses will be clear with respect to whom they are directed.
Your reply does get to the heart of one of the issues I addressed in my e-mail to Council. Demand for housing in Davis can be broken into two components … internal and external. What I hear you saying when you refer to “social need for housing” is consistent with what I call internal demand.
External demand for housing in Davis comes mostly from people who currently live elsewhere, work elsewhere, and even if they end up buying a house in Davis will never work in Davis. They will continue to go to work in the same “elsewhere” they currently go to work in. A huge proportion of the supply of housing that has been built in Davis over the last 15 years has been purchased by external demand. As a result Davis has become more of a bedroom community.
How do you feel about external demand as it relates to your “social need for housing”?
anonymous 11:39,
Can I ask you to do us all a favor. Please choose a Nickname and use it in your posts. That way responses will be clear with respect to whom they are directed.
Your reply does get to the heart of one of the issues I addressed in my e-mail to Council. Demand for housing in Davis can be broken into two components … internal and external. What I hear you saying when you refer to “social need for housing” is consistent with what I call internal demand.
External demand for housing in Davis comes mostly from people who currently live elsewhere, work elsewhere, and even if they end up buying a house in Davis will never work in Davis. They will continue to go to work in the same “elsewhere” they currently go to work in. A huge proportion of the supply of housing that has been built in Davis over the last 15 years has been purchased by external demand. As a result Davis has become more of a bedroom community.
How do you feel about external demand as it relates to your “social need for housing”?
“However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.”
For clarity’s sake, consider a stylized example with just one buyer. That buyer is willing to spend $4,000 a month to buy House X. If the buyer could get a loan at 5.24% APR, he would pay up to $725,000 for that house. That defines his “demand” for that house under current conditions. But then, with all else held equal, the interest rates increase from 5.24% APR to 8.94% APR. He is still willing to spend $4,000 per month. However, at the higher interest rate, he can only afford a $500,000 mortgage. And that latter number defines his “demand” for the same house. As such, if interest rates rise, ceteris paribus, demand will fall.
In the real world, a number of factors have acted together to burst the housing bubble, deflating the demand for housing and lowering prices in our region.
“However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.”
For clarity’s sake, consider a stylized example with just one buyer. That buyer is willing to spend $4,000 a month to buy House X. If the buyer could get a loan at 5.24% APR, he would pay up to $725,000 for that house. That defines his “demand” for that house under current conditions. But then, with all else held equal, the interest rates increase from 5.24% APR to 8.94% APR. He is still willing to spend $4,000 per month. However, at the higher interest rate, he can only afford a $500,000 mortgage. And that latter number defines his “demand” for the same house. As such, if interest rates rise, ceteris paribus, demand will fall.
In the real world, a number of factors have acted together to burst the housing bubble, deflating the demand for housing and lowering prices in our region.
“However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.”
For clarity’s sake, consider a stylized example with just one buyer. That buyer is willing to spend $4,000 a month to buy House X. If the buyer could get a loan at 5.24% APR, he would pay up to $725,000 for that house. That defines his “demand” for that house under current conditions. But then, with all else held equal, the interest rates increase from 5.24% APR to 8.94% APR. He is still willing to spend $4,000 per month. However, at the higher interest rate, he can only afford a $500,000 mortgage. And that latter number defines his “demand” for the same house. As such, if interest rates rise, ceteris paribus, demand will fall.
In the real world, a number of factors have acted together to burst the housing bubble, deflating the demand for housing and lowering prices in our region.
“However, the underlying need (demand) for housing has not been affected by the price distortions in the market and that demand is growing.”
For clarity’s sake, consider a stylized example with just one buyer. That buyer is willing to spend $4,000 a month to buy House X. If the buyer could get a loan at 5.24% APR, he would pay up to $725,000 for that house. That defines his “demand” for that house under current conditions. But then, with all else held equal, the interest rates increase from 5.24% APR to 8.94% APR. He is still willing to spend $4,000 per month. However, at the higher interest rate, he can only afford a $500,000 mortgage. And that latter number defines his “demand” for the same house. As such, if interest rates rise, ceteris paribus, demand will fall.
In the real world, a number of factors have acted together to burst the housing bubble, deflating the demand for housing and lowering prices in our region.
“That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.”
Amen, Matt! We need to make sure that business that generates tax revenue comes first, that developers pay their fair share for city services, then talk about developing housing. Before now the cart (housing) has been put before the horse (business that generates the necessary tax revenue to pay for city services that will be required for new housing).
“That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.”
Amen, Matt! We need to make sure that business that generates tax revenue comes first, that developers pay their fair share for city services, then talk about developing housing. Before now the cart (housing) has been put before the horse (business that generates the necessary tax revenue to pay for city services that will be required for new housing).
“That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.”
Amen, Matt! We need to make sure that business that generates tax revenue comes first, that developers pay their fair share for city services, then talk about developing housing. Before now the cart (housing) has been put before the horse (business that generates the necessary tax revenue to pay for city services that will be required for new housing).
“That doesn’t mean we should stop building housing, but it does mean that we need to identify sources of revenue other than construction $. For example, IMHO the Cannery should not move forward until it can demonstrate that it has committed commercial “lead tenents.” That will 1) add jobs to Davis, and 2) add tax revenues to Davis’ coffers. When those jobs have been committed by employers, then the owners of the Cannery can move forward with housing that is specifically tailored to the people who will be filling those jobs.”
Amen, Matt! We need to make sure that business that generates tax revenue comes first, that developers pay their fair share for city services, then talk about developing housing. Before now the cart (housing) has been put before the horse (business that generates the necessary tax revenue to pay for city services that will be required for new housing).
Obama trounces Hillary in the VA primary… YES, WE CAN!!! It’s Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” come to life!
Obama trounces Hillary in the VA primary… YES, WE CAN!!! It’s Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” come to life!
Obama trounces Hillary in the VA primary… YES, WE CAN!!! It’s Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” come to life!
Obama trounces Hillary in the VA primary… YES, WE CAN!!! It’s Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” come to life!
As I said before the Feb 5 primaries, if Clinton didn’t knock Obama out on Super Tuesday, she was toast. All the states from February 6 to March 3 (save Maine) looked very favorable to Obama. This February sweep is building huge Obamamentum. Even with her 2:1super delegates lead, he’s going to have enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention. The only remaining controversy is going to be with the Michigan and Florida delegations. If they are seated, and that gives Hillary the win, that is problematic. If they are not seated, and that causes Hillary to lose, that’s problematic.
As I said before the Feb 5 primaries, if Clinton didn’t knock Obama out on Super Tuesday, she was toast. All the states from February 6 to March 3 (save Maine) looked very favorable to Obama. This February sweep is building huge Obamamentum. Even with her 2:1super delegates lead, he’s going to have enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention. The only remaining controversy is going to be with the Michigan and Florida delegations. If they are seated, and that gives Hillary the win, that is problematic. If they are not seated, and that causes Hillary to lose, that’s problematic.
As I said before the Feb 5 primaries, if Clinton didn’t knock Obama out on Super Tuesday, she was toast. All the states from February 6 to March 3 (save Maine) looked very favorable to Obama. This February sweep is building huge Obamamentum. Even with her 2:1super delegates lead, he’s going to have enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention. The only remaining controversy is going to be with the Michigan and Florida delegations. If they are seated, and that gives Hillary the win, that is problematic. If they are not seated, and that causes Hillary to lose, that’s problematic.
As I said before the Feb 5 primaries, if Clinton didn’t knock Obama out on Super Tuesday, she was toast. All the states from February 6 to March 3 (save Maine) looked very favorable to Obama. This February sweep is building huge Obamamentum. Even with her 2:1super delegates lead, he’s going to have enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention. The only remaining controversy is going to be with the Michigan and Florida delegations. If they are seated, and that gives Hillary the win, that is problematic. If they are not seated, and that causes Hillary to lose, that’s problematic.
If Obama goes to the convention with more delegates, his faction controls how the Michigan and Florida problem is addressed. It is now an exceeding long-shot that Hillary can win BIG enough in Texas and Ohio to stay viable(Obama already captured a larger Latino vote in VA today than Hillary). From here on out, her donor stream will dry up rapidly while Obama’s internet donor campaign grows daily.
If Obama goes to the convention with more delegates, his faction controls how the Michigan and Florida problem is addressed. It is now an exceeding long-shot that Hillary can win BIG enough in Texas and Ohio to stay viable(Obama already captured a larger Latino vote in VA today than Hillary). From here on out, her donor stream will dry up rapidly while Obama’s internet donor campaign grows daily.
If Obama goes to the convention with more delegates, his faction controls how the Michigan and Florida problem is addressed. It is now an exceeding long-shot that Hillary can win BIG enough in Texas and Ohio to stay viable(Obama already captured a larger Latino vote in VA today than Hillary). From here on out, her donor stream will dry up rapidly while Obama’s internet donor campaign grows daily.
If Obama goes to the convention with more delegates, his faction controls how the Michigan and Florida problem is addressed. It is now an exceeding long-shot that Hillary can win BIG enough in Texas and Ohio to stay viable(Obama already captured a larger Latino vote in VA today than Hillary). From here on out, her donor stream will dry up rapidly while Obama’s internet donor campaign grows daily.
Davis was built on prime ag land, so was Winters and Woodland. Saying El Macero is sprawl because it was built on prime ag land is absurd. It’s sprawl because it’s largely separate and distinct from the city proper.
Davis was built on prime ag land, so was Winters and Woodland. Saying El Macero is sprawl because it was built on prime ag land is absurd. It’s sprawl because it’s largely separate and distinct from the city proper.
Davis was built on prime ag land, so was Winters and Woodland. Saying El Macero is sprawl because it was built on prime ag land is absurd. It’s sprawl because it’s largely separate and distinct from the city proper.
Davis was built on prime ag land, so was Winters and Woodland. Saying El Macero is sprawl because it was built on prime ag land is absurd. It’s sprawl because it’s largely separate and distinct from the city proper.
I’d like to add a couple of points for thought regarding the original topic of this post. There will more than enough time in the coming 7 months to post on the presidential election.
There was a discussion earlier today regarding supply and demand. Housing prices throughout the state have increased significantly over the last few years because (1) the demand for housing was outstripping supply (numerous reasons for this) and because the cost of building materials was increasing rapidly (concrete, wood, copper, labor.) Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attrativeness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems. The impact is very similar to the outcome for numerous other slow growth cities that exist in rapidly growing population – only the wealthiest of prospective new residents can afford live in these areas. In our society, that means that college eductated retirees and married couples with no children are more able to afford to live in Davis than other groups. It shouldn’t be a surprise that our population of school age children is declining. The problems with our schools caused by slow growth and increased housing prices are just beginning.
Much has been written in this column regarding affordable housing and slow growth. Without housing growth, or significant contribution from government sources (ie higher taxes), affordable housing will not happen, unless of course, we build substandard materials and poor quality workmanship housing to be built. This is not complicated or really even controversial in cities with a population that understands the law of supply and demand.
We can argue about SACOG regulated growth mandates for years, and we can argue for months about why certain policies are the way they are. The facts are that CA population is expected to grow by approximately 30% over the coming 22 years (approximately 1.4% per year), and if Davis chooses to grow at a slower pace than the general growth rate, Davis will perpetuate and exacerbate the high cost of housing that exists today, and Davis will continue to be less and less socio economically diverse, the average age of the residents will inrease signifcantly with time, the public school system will be under tremendous pressure because of a declining student population and the aging, childless population will not want to spend its tax dollars for public education or services for children. If you’d like to see the future of Davis in this scenario, look 70 miles to the west at San Franciso.
I am a proponent of relatively high density growth in the same proportions as CA growth, in the downtown core, and on the periphery of Davis, on lands that are marginal for ag (BTW, regardless of what any study defines as “prime ag land”, any land that is used for alfalfa is marginal, otherwise the farmer would grow a higher value crop, that is less water intensive. That means much of the land on Davis’ northern boundaries would be eligible. We could build high density residential/business areas that would use less water (CA’s most precious resource), and not affect the food supply in any way.
I’d like to add a couple of points for thought regarding the original topic of this post. There will more than enough time in the coming 7 months to post on the presidential election.
There was a discussion earlier today regarding supply and demand. Housing prices throughout the state have increased significantly over the last few years because (1) the demand for housing was outstripping supply (numerous reasons for this) and because the cost of building materials was increasing rapidly (concrete, wood, copper, labor.) Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attrativeness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems. The impact is very similar to the outcome for numerous other slow growth cities that exist in rapidly growing population – only the wealthiest of prospective new residents can afford live in these areas. In our society, that means that college eductated retirees and married couples with no children are more able to afford to live in Davis than other groups. It shouldn’t be a surprise that our population of school age children is declining. The problems with our schools caused by slow growth and increased housing prices are just beginning.
Much has been written in this column regarding affordable housing and slow growth. Without housing growth, or significant contribution from government sources (ie higher taxes), affordable housing will not happen, unless of course, we build substandard materials and poor quality workmanship housing to be built. This is not complicated or really even controversial in cities with a population that understands the law of supply and demand.
We can argue about SACOG regulated growth mandates for years, and we can argue for months about why certain policies are the way they are. The facts are that CA population is expected to grow by approximately 30% over the coming 22 years (approximately 1.4% per year), and if Davis chooses to grow at a slower pace than the general growth rate, Davis will perpetuate and exacerbate the high cost of housing that exists today, and Davis will continue to be less and less socio economically diverse, the average age of the residents will inrease signifcantly with time, the public school system will be under tremendous pressure because of a declining student population and the aging, childless population will not want to spend its tax dollars for public education or services for children. If you’d like to see the future of Davis in this scenario, look 70 miles to the west at San Franciso.
I am a proponent of relatively high density growth in the same proportions as CA growth, in the downtown core, and on the periphery of Davis, on lands that are marginal for ag (BTW, regardless of what any study defines as “prime ag land”, any land that is used for alfalfa is marginal, otherwise the farmer would grow a higher value crop, that is less water intensive. That means much of the land on Davis’ northern boundaries would be eligible. We could build high density residential/business areas that would use less water (CA’s most precious resource), and not affect the food supply in any way.
I’d like to add a couple of points for thought regarding the original topic of this post. There will more than enough time in the coming 7 months to post on the presidential election.
There was a discussion earlier today regarding supply and demand. Housing prices throughout the state have increased significantly over the last few years because (1) the demand for housing was outstripping supply (numerous reasons for this) and because the cost of building materials was increasing rapidly (concrete, wood, copper, labor.) Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attrativeness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems. The impact is very similar to the outcome for numerous other slow growth cities that exist in rapidly growing population – only the wealthiest of prospective new residents can afford live in these areas. In our society, that means that college eductated retirees and married couples with no children are more able to afford to live in Davis than other groups. It shouldn’t be a surprise that our population of school age children is declining. The problems with our schools caused by slow growth and increased housing prices are just beginning.
Much has been written in this column regarding affordable housing and slow growth. Without housing growth, or significant contribution from government sources (ie higher taxes), affordable housing will not happen, unless of course, we build substandard materials and poor quality workmanship housing to be built. This is not complicated or really even controversial in cities with a population that understands the law of supply and demand.
We can argue about SACOG regulated growth mandates for years, and we can argue for months about why certain policies are the way they are. The facts are that CA population is expected to grow by approximately 30% over the coming 22 years (approximately 1.4% per year), and if Davis chooses to grow at a slower pace than the general growth rate, Davis will perpetuate and exacerbate the high cost of housing that exists today, and Davis will continue to be less and less socio economically diverse, the average age of the residents will inrease signifcantly with time, the public school system will be under tremendous pressure because of a declining student population and the aging, childless population will not want to spend its tax dollars for public education or services for children. If you’d like to see the future of Davis in this scenario, look 70 miles to the west at San Franciso.
I am a proponent of relatively high density growth in the same proportions as CA growth, in the downtown core, and on the periphery of Davis, on lands that are marginal for ag (BTW, regardless of what any study defines as “prime ag land”, any land that is used for alfalfa is marginal, otherwise the farmer would grow a higher value crop, that is less water intensive. That means much of the land on Davis’ northern boundaries would be eligible. We could build high density residential/business areas that would use less water (CA’s most precious resource), and not affect the food supply in any way.
I’d like to add a couple of points for thought regarding the original topic of this post. There will more than enough time in the coming 7 months to post on the presidential election.
There was a discussion earlier today regarding supply and demand. Housing prices throughout the state have increased significantly over the last few years because (1) the demand for housing was outstripping supply (numerous reasons for this) and because the cost of building materials was increasing rapidly (concrete, wood, copper, labor.) Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attrativeness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems. The impact is very similar to the outcome for numerous other slow growth cities that exist in rapidly growing population – only the wealthiest of prospective new residents can afford live in these areas. In our society, that means that college eductated retirees and married couples with no children are more able to afford to live in Davis than other groups. It shouldn’t be a surprise that our population of school age children is declining. The problems with our schools caused by slow growth and increased housing prices are just beginning.
Much has been written in this column regarding affordable housing and slow growth. Without housing growth, or significant contribution from government sources (ie higher taxes), affordable housing will not happen, unless of course, we build substandard materials and poor quality workmanship housing to be built. This is not complicated or really even controversial in cities with a population that understands the law of supply and demand.
We can argue about SACOG regulated growth mandates for years, and we can argue for months about why certain policies are the way they are. The facts are that CA population is expected to grow by approximately 30% over the coming 22 years (approximately 1.4% per year), and if Davis chooses to grow at a slower pace than the general growth rate, Davis will perpetuate and exacerbate the high cost of housing that exists today, and Davis will continue to be less and less socio economically diverse, the average age of the residents will inrease signifcantly with time, the public school system will be under tremendous pressure because of a declining student population and the aging, childless population will not want to spend its tax dollars for public education or services for children. If you’d like to see the future of Davis in this scenario, look 70 miles to the west at San Franciso.
I am a proponent of relatively high density growth in the same proportions as CA growth, in the downtown core, and on the periphery of Davis, on lands that are marginal for ag (BTW, regardless of what any study defines as “prime ag land”, any land that is used for alfalfa is marginal, otherwise the farmer would grow a higher value crop, that is less water intensive. That means much of the land on Davis’ northern boundaries would be eligible. We could build high density residential/business areas that would use less water (CA’s most precious resource), and not affect the food supply in any way.
diogenes, the conceptual framework of your post is sound. However, some of the details are flawed. The reality is that Davis’ population has grown at an approximately 2.6% rate since the City-County Pass Through Agreement was signed. In virtually the same period 1990 through 2007 California’s population grew at an approximately 1.57% rate from 29,760,000 to 37,700,000.
The upshot of those numerical facts is that the second half of your statement, “Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attractiveness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems” is true, but the first half of your statement is false.
In addition, the second half of your statement is overly simplistic. The price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has commanded a 20% premium over similar homes and property in the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. ; and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs.
More recently, the Mondavi Center has been added as an extremely high quality Cultural attraction. Sacramento doesn’t have a venue that is anywhere near the Mondavi’s quality, and unless you are into Opera, neither does San Francisco.
Davis is, and will in all likelihood continue to be, a college town with a professional, more upscale population, which also accepts the concepts of zero-population growth to a much greater extent than other cities’ populations do. Lots of people don’t want that. There are other communities within a stone’s throw that have a different character and economic/social mix. Davis is just one component of a larger regional residential population. As such, school enrollments will decline, but the residents will willingly pay the higher taxes needed to continue to provide a high quality education to the youth of Davis.
diogenes, the conceptual framework of your post is sound. However, some of the details are flawed. The reality is that Davis’ population has grown at an approximately 2.6% rate since the City-County Pass Through Agreement was signed. In virtually the same period 1990 through 2007 California’s population grew at an approximately 1.57% rate from 29,760,000 to 37,700,000.
The upshot of those numerical facts is that the second half of your statement, “Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attractiveness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems” is true, but the first half of your statement is false.
In addition, the second half of your statement is overly simplistic. The price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has commanded a 20% premium over similar homes and property in the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. ; and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs.
More recently, the Mondavi Center has been added as an extremely high quality Cultural attraction. Sacramento doesn’t have a venue that is anywhere near the Mondavi’s quality, and unless you are into Opera, neither does San Francisco.
Davis is, and will in all likelihood continue to be, a college town with a professional, more upscale population, which also accepts the concepts of zero-population growth to a much greater extent than other cities’ populations do. Lots of people don’t want that. There are other communities within a stone’s throw that have a different character and economic/social mix. Davis is just one component of a larger regional residential population. As such, school enrollments will decline, but the residents will willingly pay the higher taxes needed to continue to provide a high quality education to the youth of Davis.
diogenes, the conceptual framework of your post is sound. However, some of the details are flawed. The reality is that Davis’ population has grown at an approximately 2.6% rate since the City-County Pass Through Agreement was signed. In virtually the same period 1990 through 2007 California’s population grew at an approximately 1.57% rate from 29,760,000 to 37,700,000.
The upshot of those numerical facts is that the second half of your statement, “Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attractiveness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems” is true, but the first half of your statement is false.
In addition, the second half of your statement is overly simplistic. The price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has commanded a 20% premium over similar homes and property in the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. ; and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs.
More recently, the Mondavi Center has been added as an extremely high quality Cultural attraction. Sacramento doesn’t have a venue that is anywhere near the Mondavi’s quality, and unless you are into Opera, neither does San Francisco.
Davis is, and will in all likelihood continue to be, a college town with a professional, more upscale population, which also accepts the concepts of zero-population growth to a much greater extent than other cities’ populations do. Lots of people don’t want that. There are other communities within a stone’s throw that have a different character and economic/social mix. Davis is just one component of a larger regional residential population. As such, school enrollments will decline, but the residents will willingly pay the higher taxes needed to continue to provide a high quality education to the youth of Davis.
diogenes, the conceptual framework of your post is sound. However, some of the details are flawed. The reality is that Davis’ population has grown at an approximately 2.6% rate since the City-County Pass Through Agreement was signed. In virtually the same period 1990 through 2007 California’s population grew at an approximately 1.57% rate from 29,760,000 to 37,700,000.
The upshot of those numerical facts is that the second half of your statement, “Prices in Davis have escalated faster than the state at large because of the comparatively slow growth (to the rest of the state) and the attractiveness of the city, primarily because of the university, and secondarily, the public school systems” is true, but the first half of your statement is false.
In addition, the second half of your statement is overly simplistic. The price of homes and property anywhere in the Davis school district has commanded a 20% premium over similar homes and property in the surrounding communities. This long-term premium for Davis home prices rests on five factors:
1. The university;
2. The relative quality of Davis public schools;
3. The low crime rate and relatively high rate of social harmony;
4. The physical infrastructure of Davis, including the parks, trees, bike paths, green belts, etc. ; and
5. The amenities of Davis, including the economically viable downtown, farmers market, numerous restaurants and coffeehouses, programs for kids and senior programs.
More recently, the Mondavi Center has been added as an extremely high quality Cultural attraction. Sacramento doesn’t have a venue that is anywhere near the Mondavi’s quality, and unless you are into Opera, neither does San Francisco.
Davis is, and will in all likelihood continue to be, a college town with a professional, more upscale population, which also accepts the concepts of zero-population growth to a much greater extent than other cities’ populations do. Lots of people don’t want that. There are other communities within a stone’s throw that have a different character and economic/social mix. Davis is just one component of a larger regional residential population. As such, school enrollments will decline, but the residents will willingly pay the higher taxes needed to continue to provide a high quality education to the youth of Davis.
i think this distinction between internal vs. external growth is spot-on, matt, as is the attention paid to the manner of housing that would fulfill that internal demand.
too often it’s all just lumped together, but there is a real loss as a community when those who grow up here, go to school here and who work here are shunted into other communities. while this isn’t a sedentary subsistence community we’re talking about, and people do leave town and move into town from outside, there is a real loss of community and of character when that internal demand is not met, or even taken as a valid concern. part of what makes a college town a college town is professors being able to live in town, and students being able to live and stay in town after graduation.
and it is a gross waste of gas to make the service class commute in from out of town while residents commute to sacramento. as gas gets scarcer, these patterns will become increasingly unteneble.
higher density stuff within walking distance of downtown strikes me as the best way to absorb that internal demand without sprawling in low-density developments, with the corresponding built-in (but rarely accounted for) costs, but then i’ve been a bit of a broken record on that account.
i think this distinction between internal vs. external growth is spot-on, matt, as is the attention paid to the manner of housing that would fulfill that internal demand.
too often it’s all just lumped together, but there is a real loss as a community when those who grow up here, go to school here and who work here are shunted into other communities. while this isn’t a sedentary subsistence community we’re talking about, and people do leave town and move into town from outside, there is a real loss of community and of character when that internal demand is not met, or even taken as a valid concern. part of what makes a college town a college town is professors being able to live in town, and students being able to live and stay in town after graduation.
and it is a gross waste of gas to make the service class commute in from out of town while residents commute to sacramento. as gas gets scarcer, these patterns will become increasingly unteneble.
higher density stuff within walking distance of downtown strikes me as the best way to absorb that internal demand without sprawling in low-density developments, with the corresponding built-in (but rarely accounted for) costs, but then i’ve been a bit of a broken record on that account.
i think this distinction between internal vs. external growth is spot-on, matt, as is the attention paid to the manner of housing that would fulfill that internal demand.
too often it’s all just lumped together, but there is a real loss as a community when those who grow up here, go to school here and who work here are shunted into other communities. while this isn’t a sedentary subsistence community we’re talking about, and people do leave town and move into town from outside, there is a real loss of community and of character when that internal demand is not met, or even taken as a valid concern. part of what makes a college town a college town is professors being able to live in town, and students being able to live and stay in town after graduation.
and it is a gross waste of gas to make the service class commute in from out of town while residents commute to sacramento. as gas gets scarcer, these patterns will become increasingly unteneble.
higher density stuff within walking distance of downtown strikes me as the best way to absorb that internal demand without sprawling in low-density developments, with the corresponding built-in (but rarely accounted for) costs, but then i’ve been a bit of a broken record on that account.
i think this distinction between internal vs. external growth is spot-on, matt, as is the attention paid to the manner of housing that would fulfill that internal demand.
too often it’s all just lumped together, but there is a real loss as a community when those who grow up here, go to school here and who work here are shunted into other communities. while this isn’t a sedentary subsistence community we’re talking about, and people do leave town and move into town from outside, there is a real loss of community and of character when that internal demand is not met, or even taken as a valid concern. part of what makes a college town a college town is professors being able to live in town, and students being able to live and stay in town after graduation.
and it is a gross waste of gas to make the service class commute in from out of town while residents commute to sacramento. as gas gets scarcer, these patterns will become increasingly unteneble.
higher density stuff within walking distance of downtown strikes me as the best way to absorb that internal demand without sprawling in low-density developments, with the corresponding built-in (but rarely accounted for) costs, but then i’ve been a bit of a broken record on that account.
Matt –
I don’t disagree that Davis can continue to be a viable small city if it continues its zero growth path. Whether the preponderance of citizens in Davis want what results from that is far less clear to me. The lack of socio-economic diversity, the ever increasing elitist, exclusionist character of a city that continues to be too expensive for the general population to afford, and the need to increase taxes for schools and libraries against population in which fewer have children or have need to go to the library is not the city that many who liver here want. The result in many cities with this character is that the public schools, parks, etc fail because the citizens fail to support the necessary taxes, while while the facilities that provide for cultural activities, and the interests and needs of seniors and retirees increase because of demand for them. San Francisco, Carmel and San Clemente, CA Naples and Sarasota Florida, are all examples.
Matt –
I don’t disagree that Davis can continue to be a viable small city if it continues its zero growth path. Whether the preponderance of citizens in Davis want what results from that is far less clear to me. The lack of socio-economic diversity, the ever increasing elitist, exclusionist character of a city that continues to be too expensive for the general population to afford, and the need to increase taxes for schools and libraries against population in which fewer have children or have need to go to the library is not the city that many who liver here want. The result in many cities with this character is that the public schools, parks, etc fail because the citizens fail to support the necessary taxes, while while the facilities that provide for cultural activities, and the interests and needs of seniors and retirees increase because of demand for them. San Francisco, Carmel and San Clemente, CA Naples and Sarasota Florida, are all examples.
Matt –
I don’t disagree that Davis can continue to be a viable small city if it continues its zero growth path. Whether the preponderance of citizens in Davis want what results from that is far less clear to me. The lack of socio-economic diversity, the ever increasing elitist, exclusionist character of a city that continues to be too expensive for the general population to afford, and the need to increase taxes for schools and libraries against population in which fewer have children or have need to go to the library is not the city that many who liver here want. The result in many cities with this character is that the public schools, parks, etc fail because the citizens fail to support the necessary taxes, while while the facilities that provide for cultural activities, and the interests and needs of seniors and retirees increase because of demand for them. San Francisco, Carmel and San Clemente, CA Naples and Sarasota Florida, are all examples.
Matt –
I don’t disagree that Davis can continue to be a viable small city if it continues its zero growth path. Whether the preponderance of citizens in Davis want what results from that is far less clear to me. The lack of socio-economic diversity, the ever increasing elitist, exclusionist character of a city that continues to be too expensive for the general population to afford, and the need to increase taxes for schools and libraries against population in which fewer have children or have need to go to the library is not the city that many who liver here want. The result in many cities with this character is that the public schools, parks, etc fail because the citizens fail to support the necessary taxes, while while the facilities that provide for cultural activities, and the interests and needs of seniors and retirees increase because of demand for them. San Francisco, Carmel and San Clemente, CA Naples and Sarasota Florida, are all examples.
diogenes, your points are well taken, but with that said you are painting the bleakest of views. Your outcome presupposes inevitability, which I personally don’t subscribe to. I have confidence in Davis. There is a consistent liberal, even progressive, undercurrent that makes complacency highly unlikely. We will learn from the past and make the future better as a result.
The types of housing that have been built over the recent years have been overweighted IMHO toward Single Family homes in the Above Moderate Income category. I believe we need to step back from that trend. We need to focus on jobs/housing so that we don’t build homes without building jobs.
Bottom-line, we can pay attention and make a better future than the one you paint, or we can be complacent and your worst fears will come to pass.
diogenes, your points are well taken, but with that said you are painting the bleakest of views. Your outcome presupposes inevitability, which I personally don’t subscribe to. I have confidence in Davis. There is a consistent liberal, even progressive, undercurrent that makes complacency highly unlikely. We will learn from the past and make the future better as a result.
The types of housing that have been built over the recent years have been overweighted IMHO toward Single Family homes in the Above Moderate Income category. I believe we need to step back from that trend. We need to focus on jobs/housing so that we don’t build homes without building jobs.
Bottom-line, we can pay attention and make a better future than the one you paint, or we can be complacent and your worst fears will come to pass.
diogenes, your points are well taken, but with that said you are painting the bleakest of views. Your outcome presupposes inevitability, which I personally don’t subscribe to. I have confidence in Davis. There is a consistent liberal, even progressive, undercurrent that makes complacency highly unlikely. We will learn from the past and make the future better as a result.
The types of housing that have been built over the recent years have been overweighted IMHO toward Single Family homes in the Above Moderate Income category. I believe we need to step back from that trend. We need to focus on jobs/housing so that we don’t build homes without building jobs.
Bottom-line, we can pay attention and make a better future than the one you paint, or we can be complacent and your worst fears will come to pass.
diogenes, your points are well taken, but with that said you are painting the bleakest of views. Your outcome presupposes inevitability, which I personally don’t subscribe to. I have confidence in Davis. There is a consistent liberal, even progressive, undercurrent that makes complacency highly unlikely. We will learn from the past and make the future better as a result.
The types of housing that have been built over the recent years have been overweighted IMHO toward Single Family homes in the Above Moderate Income category. I believe we need to step back from that trend. We need to focus on jobs/housing so that we don’t build homes without building jobs.
Bottom-line, we can pay attention and make a better future than the one you paint, or we can be complacent and your worst fears will come to pass.
Matt.. take up “legal” residency in Davis proper(anyone have a vacant room or granny flat that he could use as a mailing address?) THEN, you can sit on the Planning Commission!
Matt.. take up “legal” residency in Davis proper(anyone have a vacant room or granny flat that he could use as a mailing address?) THEN, you can sit on the Planning Commission!
Matt.. take up “legal” residency in Davis proper(anyone have a vacant room or granny flat that he could use as a mailing address?) THEN, you can sit on the Planning Commission!
Matt.. take up “legal” residency in Davis proper(anyone have a vacant room or granny flat that he could use as a mailing address?) THEN, you can sit on the Planning Commission!
Serious question … are you mocking me or encouraging me? 8>)
Serious question … are you mocking me or encouraging me? 8>)
Serious question … are you mocking me or encouraging me? 8>)
Serious question … are you mocking me or encouraging me? 8>)
Matt… definitely, you would be an asset to the Planning Commission although I fear you would not get a majority vote unless we change the Council majority in June.
Matt… definitely, you would be an asset to the Planning Commission although I fear you would not get a majority vote unless we change the Council majority in June.
Matt… definitely, you would be an asset to the Planning Commission although I fear you would not get a majority vote unless we change the Council majority in June.
Matt… definitely, you would be an asset to the Planning Commission although I fear you would not get a majority vote unless we change the Council majority in June.