Commentary: Growth is not the Answer to Schools Fiscal Problems

Saturday’s Sacramento Bee editorial once again raises the lack of growth specter as the culprit for the problems of Davis schools.

The argument is alluring and has been repeated by some throughout the community no doubt over the last several weeks. If the problem is declining enrollment–and that is unarguably a problem–the solution must be to grow–right?

The Sacramento Bee editorial writes:

“The school spirit in Davis is inspiring, but this community – like others around the region – needs to recognize an underlying cause of its declining enrollment. Famously resistant to new development, Davis is not adding adequate housing to serve employees at the University of California, Davis, and service workers in town. As a result, these workers commute into town, and their kids go to other school districts. As Davis’ population gets grayer, enrollment declines and the school district loses state funding as a result. Similar demographic trends are driving down enrollment in the San Juan Unified School District in Sacramento County, forcing bruising battles over the closure of schools.

With its affluence and civic pride, Davis may mirror the success of some Bay Area school districts in raising millions of dollars to keep classrooms intact.

But if equal energy were focused on providing adequate housing in Davis, this college town could grow (even if only slightly) and forestall some of the enrollment crises that are plaguing its counterparts.”

Sounds good. I even had a few people come up to me yesterday and cite the Sacramento Bee editorial as being right on. Without naming names, here, let’s just say, people are not looking at the big picture with regards to growth.

Similar arguments existed last summer when the county was talking about lack of revenue, and people were saying, hey we just need more housing. The problem with using housing as a means to produce revenue is that it doesn’t produce revenue on an on-going basis. So you can make revenue off development agreements, but once those homes are built, the cost of providing services ends up being a negative force on your revenue. So communities trying to finance themselves this way end up having to continuously grow. And if you take a look around at fast growth cities and counties, they are not in the black in terms of finances.

The can be said for school districts in fast growth or at least faster growth communities.

Parents–would you rather send your kids to Fairfield, Vacaville, Dixon, or Davis schools? It is really that simple.

There was a big article on the mess that is the Dixon School District–again, Dixon is one of the faster growth communities, certainly faster growth than Davis–yet they are having severe fiscal cuts backs as well.

Woodland continues to have contentiousness to the point where their board may face recall. West Sacramento, another fast growth city, cannot even get a facilities bond passed.

You are telling me that growth is the answer to schooling and education? Where’s the evidence of that.

This is an argument I would expect from Davis or regional developers, not from the Sacramento Bee.

Has declining enrollment harmed the school finances in Davis? No doubt. But it is not the only factor.

Fiscal mismanagement as we have detailed over the past month has taken its toll, robbing the district of resources and eating away at a reserve that could have been used to soften the blow of the impending crisis.

How about over-construction of the schools? If we end up closing Emerson, that will be one Junior High and one Elementary School closed not that long after the school district built two new elementary schools and one new junior high. We must ask an important question here–who told us we needed these schools to be built? Who did the demographics for the district that led to the new construction–that would be consultant Vern Weber, who now works for Total School Solutions. There have been many who have raised serious concerns about Mr. Weber’s projections.

It is easy to point the finger at declining enrollment. It’s an alluring and simplistic target, but it avoids tougher questions.

We should not base our land-use policies on growth in order to maintain our schools because that is a fleeting mechanism at best. Faster growth cities simply do not have better schools than Davis, nor do most cities that are larger than Davis.

And frankly it is backwards. Even if we decided to grow today, it would be five to ten years before housing was built and demographic trends reversed. So this is not a quick fix solution to begin with.

Second, we can better structure our land use policies, but to do so it cannot be large sprawl developments that build “McMansions.”

The city actually has a strong and reliable source it can use to produce housing for young families–the university. Young faculty is the most likely and most immediate source of young children. We simply need to produce housing that can accommodate these young families. The university is building West Village which will accommodate some of that type of housing, but I would recommend that the city and university partner to produce the type of housing that will enable young faculty members to move to Davis. That doesn’t require massive new growth or new sprawl, but rather smart planning and cooperation with the university.

However, let us not pretend that rising enrollment is a panacea. Like most solutions it is a double-edged sword. It will aid on the funding side of the ledger but that does not mean that ultimately we will benefit from rapidly rising growth. That does not mean that larger school districts are better than smaller ones or that you can find a lot of larger ones better than Davis.

The bigger issue for me is that we continue to have a responsible board that makes wise and prudent fiscal decisions. For many years we did not, but the current board for the most part has their act together and in the long run that is more important than trying to impose more growth on the Davis community.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

270 Comments

  1. davisite

    excellent analysis, DPD. The Davis school system could have contracted in an orderly fashion in response to the end of the run-away peripheral growth of the past 2 years and maintained( and even improved?)the quality. The $80 million/year education “feeding trough” is inevitably abused by those who can feed at it unless strict scrutiny is maintained by our part-time citizen Board and competent professional standards are practiced by District full-time management.

  2. davisite

    excellent analysis, DPD. The Davis school system could have contracted in an orderly fashion in response to the end of the run-away peripheral growth of the past 2 years and maintained( and even improved?)the quality. The $80 million/year education “feeding trough” is inevitably abused by those who can feed at it unless strict scrutiny is maintained by our part-time citizen Board and competent professional standards are practiced by District full-time management.

  3. davisite

    excellent analysis, DPD. The Davis school system could have contracted in an orderly fashion in response to the end of the run-away peripheral growth of the past 2 years and maintained( and even improved?)the quality. The $80 million/year education “feeding trough” is inevitably abused by those who can feed at it unless strict scrutiny is maintained by our part-time citizen Board and competent professional standards are practiced by District full-time management.

  4. davisite

    excellent analysis, DPD. The Davis school system could have contracted in an orderly fashion in response to the end of the run-away peripheral growth of the past 2 years and maintained( and even improved?)the quality. The $80 million/year education “feeding trough” is inevitably abused by those who can feed at it unless strict scrutiny is maintained by our part-time citizen Board and competent professional standards are practiced by District full-time management.

  5. Anonymous

    The best way to analyze this is to “follow the money” Who gained and how much. What companies were chosen to do the planning and construction? Were more teachers hired than necessary? The school district should write a report presenting this data because it is too much for a volunteer to do.

  6. Anonymous

    The best way to analyze this is to “follow the money” Who gained and how much. What companies were chosen to do the planning and construction? Were more teachers hired than necessary? The school district should write a report presenting this data because it is too much for a volunteer to do.

  7. Anonymous

    The best way to analyze this is to “follow the money” Who gained and how much. What companies were chosen to do the planning and construction? Were more teachers hired than necessary? The school district should write a report presenting this data because it is too much for a volunteer to do.

  8. Anonymous

    The best way to analyze this is to “follow the money” Who gained and how much. What companies were chosen to do the planning and construction? Were more teachers hired than necessary? The school district should write a report presenting this data because it is too much for a volunteer to do.

  9. Mike

    There is a relatively simple solution to the problem of declining enrollment: Ban Condoms. Within a few years, we would see a significant increase in the number of children attending Davis schools and our budget would balance once more. In fact, we could set a modest goal of one new child per household in the next three years.

  10. Mike

    There is a relatively simple solution to the problem of declining enrollment: Ban Condoms. Within a few years, we would see a significant increase in the number of children attending Davis schools and our budget would balance once more. In fact, we could set a modest goal of one new child per household in the next three years.

  11. Mike

    There is a relatively simple solution to the problem of declining enrollment: Ban Condoms. Within a few years, we would see a significant increase in the number of children attending Davis schools and our budget would balance once more. In fact, we could set a modest goal of one new child per household in the next three years.

  12. Mike

    There is a relatively simple solution to the problem of declining enrollment: Ban Condoms. Within a few years, we would see a significant increase in the number of children attending Davis schools and our budget would balance once more. In fact, we could set a modest goal of one new child per household in the next three years.

  13. tansey thomas

    Mike, banning condoms was indeed a “simple solution,” However, I am puzzled as to why there is not as great a push for revenue generating business growth as the misguided push for housing at this time. Also, I heartily agree with
    DPD’s assertion about the need to partner with the university for housing for young families of their staff, faculty and students as a source of children.

  14. tansey thomas

    Mike, banning condoms was indeed a “simple solution,” However, I am puzzled as to why there is not as great a push for revenue generating business growth as the misguided push for housing at this time. Also, I heartily agree with
    DPD’s assertion about the need to partner with the university for housing for young families of their staff, faculty and students as a source of children.

  15. tansey thomas

    Mike, banning condoms was indeed a “simple solution,” However, I am puzzled as to why there is not as great a push for revenue generating business growth as the misguided push for housing at this time. Also, I heartily agree with
    DPD’s assertion about the need to partner with the university for housing for young families of their staff, faculty and students as a source of children.

  16. tansey thomas

    Mike, banning condoms was indeed a “simple solution,” However, I am puzzled as to why there is not as great a push for revenue generating business growth as the misguided push for housing at this time. Also, I heartily agree with
    DPD’s assertion about the need to partner with the university for housing for young families of their staff, faculty and students as a source of children.

  17. local young adult

    Mike, bad idea,
    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on weather or not they like our current growth policy.

  18. local young adult

    Mike, bad idea,
    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on weather or not they like our current growth policy.

  19. local young adult

    Mike, bad idea,
    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on weather or not they like our current growth policy.

  20. local young adult

    Mike, bad idea,
    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on weather or not they like our current growth policy.

  21. Anonymous

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region. Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

  22. Anonymous

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region. Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

  23. Anonymous

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region. Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

  24. Anonymous

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region. Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

  25. Anonymous

    local young adult said…

    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    If the University offers housing in University-owned housing, why is that unfair? All employers offer packages of benefits to their employees. Those packages differ from employer to employer. The University is simply customizing its benefits to match the needs of its employees.

    Now if the City offered special housing rates to University employees, that would definitely be unfair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on whether or not they like our current growth policy.

    In an ideal world where demand for housing was only local your premise would be correct. However, the demand for housing in Davis is Regional, and there simply will never be enough supply to meet that demand. As a result, people from outside Davis with higher incomes will consistently outbid the local Davis employees at the time the new house comes on the market.

  26. Anonymous

    local young adult said…

    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    If the University offers housing in University-owned housing, why is that unfair? All employers offer packages of benefits to their employees. Those packages differ from employer to employer. The University is simply customizing its benefits to match the needs of its employees.

    Now if the City offered special housing rates to University employees, that would definitely be unfair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on whether or not they like our current growth policy.

    In an ideal world where demand for housing was only local your premise would be correct. However, the demand for housing in Davis is Regional, and there simply will never be enough supply to meet that demand. As a result, people from outside Davis with higher incomes will consistently outbid the local Davis employees at the time the new house comes on the market.

  27. Anonymous

    local young adult said…

    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    If the University offers housing in University-owned housing, why is that unfair? All employers offer packages of benefits to their employees. Those packages differ from employer to employer. The University is simply customizing its benefits to match the needs of its employees.

    Now if the City offered special housing rates to University employees, that would definitely be unfair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on whether or not they like our current growth policy.

    In an ideal world where demand for housing was only local your premise would be correct. However, the demand for housing in Davis is Regional, and there simply will never be enough supply to meet that demand. As a result, people from outside Davis with higher incomes will consistently outbid the local Davis employees at the time the new house comes on the market.

  28. Anonymous

    local young adult said…

    DPD and Tansey,
    What if you are a young person with a family and you don’t work with the university? Then you have no opportunity with university housing. Not very fair.

    If the University offers housing in University-owned housing, why is that unfair? All employers offer packages of benefits to their employees. Those packages differ from employer to employer. The University is simply customizing its benefits to match the needs of its employees.

    Now if the City offered special housing rates to University employees, that would definitely be unfair.

    The lack of growth is a reason for the drop in enrollment at DJUSD, but not the only reason. The real question you should be looking into is if our growth policy in Davis produces the housing supply that young families want/ and current residents that want to downsize. (do they want to live in infill? ). Also you should look into the long term demographics of Davis and what our community will look like in 10 years with only 50 or so new residential units being produced in a year and how many of those units will be taken up by students.

    That would be good information.

    I think that would help people make a better choice on whether or not they like our current growth policy.

    In an ideal world where demand for housing was only local your premise would be correct. However, the demand for housing in Davis is Regional, and there simply will never be enough supply to meet that demand. As a result, people from outside Davis with higher incomes will consistently outbid the local Davis employees at the time the new house comes on the market.

  29. Anonymous

    The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.
    Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?? Have you gone by the “vacant” building we had to have built(because infill was THE way to go for new residential)at 5th & G streets?? Still think that’s the way to go for housing?? Craigslist has several units of that building posted on their site. I’m not buying!

  30. Anonymous

    The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.
    Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?? Have you gone by the “vacant” building we had to have built(because infill was THE way to go for new residential)at 5th & G streets?? Still think that’s the way to go for housing?? Craigslist has several units of that building posted on their site. I’m not buying!

  31. Anonymous

    The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.
    Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?? Have you gone by the “vacant” building we had to have built(because infill was THE way to go for new residential)at 5th & G streets?? Still think that’s the way to go for housing?? Craigslist has several units of that building posted on their site. I’m not buying!

  32. Anonymous

    The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.
    Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?? Have you gone by the “vacant” building we had to have built(because infill was THE way to go for new residential)at 5th & G streets?? Still think that’s the way to go for housing?? Craigslist has several units of that building posted on their site. I’m not buying!

  33. don shor

    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families. UCD projects about 5000 new students over the next several years. West Village will house about 3000 of those. Unless new apartments are built, the remainder of those students will be grouping together and renting lower-priced homes in the community, crowding out employees and young families who would be buying in that price range.
    Unless more apartments are built, Davis will continue to have a shortage of lower-end housing. It is easier and faster to zone for apartments than to come up with new subdivisions.

  34. don shor

    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families. UCD projects about 5000 new students over the next several years. West Village will house about 3000 of those. Unless new apartments are built, the remainder of those students will be grouping together and renting lower-priced homes in the community, crowding out employees and young families who would be buying in that price range.
    Unless more apartments are built, Davis will continue to have a shortage of lower-end housing. It is easier and faster to zone for apartments than to come up with new subdivisions.

  35. don shor

    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families. UCD projects about 5000 new students over the next several years. West Village will house about 3000 of those. Unless new apartments are built, the remainder of those students will be grouping together and renting lower-priced homes in the community, crowding out employees and young families who would be buying in that price range.
    Unless more apartments are built, Davis will continue to have a shortage of lower-end housing. It is easier and faster to zone for apartments than to come up with new subdivisions.

  36. don shor

    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families. UCD projects about 5000 new students over the next several years. West Village will house about 3000 of those. Unless new apartments are built, the remainder of those students will be grouping together and renting lower-priced homes in the community, crowding out employees and young families who would be buying in that price range.
    Unless more apartments are built, Davis will continue to have a shortage of lower-end housing. It is easier and faster to zone for apartments than to come up with new subdivisions.

  37. MBA

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.
    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.

  38. MBA

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.
    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.

  39. MBA

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.
    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.

  40. MBA

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.
    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.

  41. tansey thomas

    “don shor said…
    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families.”

    Don, this used to work before investors started buying up such housing for rentals.

  42. tansey thomas

    “don shor said…
    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families.”

    Don, this used to work before investors started buying up such housing for rentals.

  43. tansey thomas

    “don shor said…
    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families.”

    Don, this used to work before investors started buying up such housing for rentals.

  44. tansey thomas

    “don shor said…
    Increased housing for students, i.e. apartments, would help free up affordable housing for new families.”

    Don, this used to work before investors started buying up such housing for rentals.

  45. Christine

    I think the decision to build Koramatsu was in response to the ‘promise’ made to people who bought new homes in that area. This was NOT a good basis for the decision and was recognized as a probable death knell for Valley Oak at the time it was decided.

    The threat to close Emerson is new. Most of us can recall how terribly overcrowded the junior highs were before Harper was built.I think the original plan was to gradually (as funds became available) convert Harper into a second high school and make both high schools 4 year institutions. The reduction to two years at Holmes and Emerson would relieve their overcrowded conditions.

    The enormous improvements made in the physical plant of Davis High School are wonderful and I am sure everyone appreciates them. I remember being a little depressed by the facility when my kids were attending there in the early nineties. However, that money is not now available for making Harper into a fully functioning high school.

    Davis High has also been much too large for the past 10 years or more. The ideal size for a high school is 800-1200 students, when a school reaches 2000 or more, for only 3 grades, it is too big.

    Even though enrollment is declining, I do not believe it is declining that much. I remember someone posting the actual numbers on this blog not too long ago.

    Davis High offers wonderful opportunities and programs, but with a huge enrollment, many of these programs become too competitive and exclude students unless they are ‘stars’. Football, basketball, the Madrigal Choir, orchestra, even the girls’ hockey team are now completely out of reach for very talented students who could have easily qualified when there was less competition.

    So what is the answer? I don’t know. I am not really clear how much of the financial crisis in the Davis schools is the result of some of the poor decisions we have read about here on this blog, and how much is due to falling enrollment, and fiscal problems on the State level. That is why it is hard for me to understand exactly how the problems in Woodland and Dixon are relevant to Davis.

    I do think we would have a better world in general if every family had more than two children. This would mean more children without more development. It would not require more housing, but more sharing within the home, more opportunities for growth and independence for individual children and less sense of individual entitlement (a hallmark of Davis residents).

    I know Mike was being satirical and that I am in a hated minority for believing this, but banning condoms (or less of a contraceptive mentality in general) certainly would not help the developers,and it might help all of us be better stewards of what we already have.

  46. Christine

    I think the decision to build Koramatsu was in response to the ‘promise’ made to people who bought new homes in that area. This was NOT a good basis for the decision and was recognized as a probable death knell for Valley Oak at the time it was decided.

    The threat to close Emerson is new. Most of us can recall how terribly overcrowded the junior highs were before Harper was built.I think the original plan was to gradually (as funds became available) convert Harper into a second high school and make both high schools 4 year institutions. The reduction to two years at Holmes and Emerson would relieve their overcrowded conditions.

    The enormous improvements made in the physical plant of Davis High School are wonderful and I am sure everyone appreciates them. I remember being a little depressed by the facility when my kids were attending there in the early nineties. However, that money is not now available for making Harper into a fully functioning high school.

    Davis High has also been much too large for the past 10 years or more. The ideal size for a high school is 800-1200 students, when a school reaches 2000 or more, for only 3 grades, it is too big.

    Even though enrollment is declining, I do not believe it is declining that much. I remember someone posting the actual numbers on this blog not too long ago.

    Davis High offers wonderful opportunities and programs, but with a huge enrollment, many of these programs become too competitive and exclude students unless they are ‘stars’. Football, basketball, the Madrigal Choir, orchestra, even the girls’ hockey team are now completely out of reach for very talented students who could have easily qualified when there was less competition.

    So what is the answer? I don’t know. I am not really clear how much of the financial crisis in the Davis schools is the result of some of the poor decisions we have read about here on this blog, and how much is due to falling enrollment, and fiscal problems on the State level. That is why it is hard for me to understand exactly how the problems in Woodland and Dixon are relevant to Davis.

    I do think we would have a better world in general if every family had more than two children. This would mean more children without more development. It would not require more housing, but more sharing within the home, more opportunities for growth and independence for individual children and less sense of individual entitlement (a hallmark of Davis residents).

    I know Mike was being satirical and that I am in a hated minority for believing this, but banning condoms (or less of a contraceptive mentality in general) certainly would not help the developers,and it might help all of us be better stewards of what we already have.

  47. Christine

    I think the decision to build Koramatsu was in response to the ‘promise’ made to people who bought new homes in that area. This was NOT a good basis for the decision and was recognized as a probable death knell for Valley Oak at the time it was decided.

    The threat to close Emerson is new. Most of us can recall how terribly overcrowded the junior highs were before Harper was built.I think the original plan was to gradually (as funds became available) convert Harper into a second high school and make both high schools 4 year institutions. The reduction to two years at Holmes and Emerson would relieve their overcrowded conditions.

    The enormous improvements made in the physical plant of Davis High School are wonderful and I am sure everyone appreciates them. I remember being a little depressed by the facility when my kids were attending there in the early nineties. However, that money is not now available for making Harper into a fully functioning high school.

    Davis High has also been much too large for the past 10 years or more. The ideal size for a high school is 800-1200 students, when a school reaches 2000 or more, for only 3 grades, it is too big.

    Even though enrollment is declining, I do not believe it is declining that much. I remember someone posting the actual numbers on this blog not too long ago.

    Davis High offers wonderful opportunities and programs, but with a huge enrollment, many of these programs become too competitive and exclude students unless they are ‘stars’. Football, basketball, the Madrigal Choir, orchestra, even the girls’ hockey team are now completely out of reach for very talented students who could have easily qualified when there was less competition.

    So what is the answer? I don’t know. I am not really clear how much of the financial crisis in the Davis schools is the result of some of the poor decisions we have read about here on this blog, and how much is due to falling enrollment, and fiscal problems on the State level. That is why it is hard for me to understand exactly how the problems in Woodland and Dixon are relevant to Davis.

    I do think we would have a better world in general if every family had more than two children. This would mean more children without more development. It would not require more housing, but more sharing within the home, more opportunities for growth and independence for individual children and less sense of individual entitlement (a hallmark of Davis residents).

    I know Mike was being satirical and that I am in a hated minority for believing this, but banning condoms (or less of a contraceptive mentality in general) certainly would not help the developers,and it might help all of us be better stewards of what we already have.

  48. Christine

    I think the decision to build Koramatsu was in response to the ‘promise’ made to people who bought new homes in that area. This was NOT a good basis for the decision and was recognized as a probable death knell for Valley Oak at the time it was decided.

    The threat to close Emerson is new. Most of us can recall how terribly overcrowded the junior highs were before Harper was built.I think the original plan was to gradually (as funds became available) convert Harper into a second high school and make both high schools 4 year institutions. The reduction to two years at Holmes and Emerson would relieve their overcrowded conditions.

    The enormous improvements made in the physical plant of Davis High School are wonderful and I am sure everyone appreciates them. I remember being a little depressed by the facility when my kids were attending there in the early nineties. However, that money is not now available for making Harper into a fully functioning high school.

    Davis High has also been much too large for the past 10 years or more. The ideal size for a high school is 800-1200 students, when a school reaches 2000 or more, for only 3 grades, it is too big.

    Even though enrollment is declining, I do not believe it is declining that much. I remember someone posting the actual numbers on this blog not too long ago.

    Davis High offers wonderful opportunities and programs, but with a huge enrollment, many of these programs become too competitive and exclude students unless they are ‘stars’. Football, basketball, the Madrigal Choir, orchestra, even the girls’ hockey team are now completely out of reach for very talented students who could have easily qualified when there was less competition.

    So what is the answer? I don’t know. I am not really clear how much of the financial crisis in the Davis schools is the result of some of the poor decisions we have read about here on this blog, and how much is due to falling enrollment, and fiscal problems on the State level. That is why it is hard for me to understand exactly how the problems in Woodland and Dixon are relevant to Davis.

    I do think we would have a better world in general if every family had more than two children. This would mean more children without more development. It would not require more housing, but more sharing within the home, more opportunities for growth and independence for individual children and less sense of individual entitlement (a hallmark of Davis residents).

    I know Mike was being satirical and that I am in a hated minority for believing this, but banning condoms (or less of a contraceptive mentality in general) certainly would not help the developers,and it might help all of us be better stewards of what we already have.

  49. Anonymous

    Anon 3/23/08 12:25 PM
    writes:
    “Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.”

    The suburban “growth” mantra is what’s old. What’s needed is a more diverse tax base, including much more light industry. We should be taking advantage of our access to the major railway access and build more warehouses, especially on the old cannery land.
    Also, somr thought could be given to opening customer service call centers here too.
    Then more of our kids could get jobs.
    As DPD pointed out, depending on new housing construction for money to run the city is a one-time close-ended deal. Light industry would continue to pay.
    A concerned Davis citizen since 1996.

  50. Anonymous

    Anon 3/23/08 12:25 PM
    writes:
    “Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.”

    The suburban “growth” mantra is what’s old. What’s needed is a more diverse tax base, including much more light industry. We should be taking advantage of our access to the major railway access and build more warehouses, especially on the old cannery land.
    Also, somr thought could be given to opening customer service call centers here too.
    Then more of our kids could get jobs.
    As DPD pointed out, depending on new housing construction for money to run the city is a one-time close-ended deal. Light industry would continue to pay.
    A concerned Davis citizen since 1996.

  51. Anonymous

    Anon 3/23/08 12:25 PM
    writes:
    “Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.”

    The suburban “growth” mantra is what’s old. What’s needed is a more diverse tax base, including much more light industry. We should be taking advantage of our access to the major railway access and build more warehouses, especially on the old cannery land.
    Also, somr thought could be given to opening customer service call centers here too.
    Then more of our kids could get jobs.
    As DPD pointed out, depending on new housing construction for money to run the city is a one-time close-ended deal. Light industry would continue to pay.
    A concerned Davis citizen since 1996.

  52. Anonymous

    Anon 3/23/08 12:25 PM
    writes:
    “Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.”

    The suburban “growth” mantra is what’s old. What’s needed is a more diverse tax base, including much more light industry. We should be taking advantage of our access to the major railway access and build more warehouses, especially on the old cannery land.
    Also, somr thought could be given to opening customer service call centers here too.
    Then more of our kids could get jobs.
    As DPD pointed out, depending on new housing construction for money to run the city is a one-time close-ended deal. Light industry would continue to pay.
    A concerned Davis citizen since 1996.

  53. fun facts

    christine
    FYI
    Football has been one of two no cut sports at DHS. The last time the program had cuts was 25 years ago.
    140 kids participate in it every year.
    Track is they other non cut sport
    160 kids participate in it.

  54. fun facts

    christine
    FYI
    Football has been one of two no cut sports at DHS. The last time the program had cuts was 25 years ago.
    140 kids participate in it every year.
    Track is they other non cut sport
    160 kids participate in it.

  55. fun facts

    christine
    FYI
    Football has been one of two no cut sports at DHS. The last time the program had cuts was 25 years ago.
    140 kids participate in it every year.
    Track is they other non cut sport
    160 kids participate in it.

  56. fun facts

    christine
    FYI
    Football has been one of two no cut sports at DHS. The last time the program had cuts was 25 years ago.
    140 kids participate in it every year.
    Track is they other non cut sport
    160 kids participate in it.

  57. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe.”

    Actually very little of it was anti-growth, it mostly focused on debunking the myth that growth is a panacea to these kinds of problems.

    ” You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.”

    The cost of housing is a problem, but it is a regional as well as a statewide problem, it doesn’t seem likely to be solved by local policies.

    The person who cites the 30 minute travel rule is forgetting just how many people live within a 30 mile radius of Davis.

    ” Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.”

    I’m not opposed to infill development, but again, the point I’m making here is that none of this solves the problems in the schools. You’ve conveniently ignored addressing the crux of my point–that faster growth cities are likewise having severe problems with their schools and it is certainly not clear that any in this region are doing better than Davis schools both in terms of overall performance or in terms of current fiscal crisis.

    Contrary to your point this was not an essay about growth, it was an essay about schools.

  58. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe.”

    Actually very little of it was anti-growth, it mostly focused on debunking the myth that growth is a panacea to these kinds of problems.

    ” You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.”

    The cost of housing is a problem, but it is a regional as well as a statewide problem, it doesn’t seem likely to be solved by local policies.

    The person who cites the 30 minute travel rule is forgetting just how many people live within a 30 mile radius of Davis.

    ” Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.”

    I’m not opposed to infill development, but again, the point I’m making here is that none of this solves the problems in the schools. You’ve conveniently ignored addressing the crux of my point–that faster growth cities are likewise having severe problems with their schools and it is certainly not clear that any in this region are doing better than Davis schools both in terms of overall performance or in terms of current fiscal crisis.

    Contrary to your point this was not an essay about growth, it was an essay about schools.

  59. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe.”

    Actually very little of it was anti-growth, it mostly focused on debunking the myth that growth is a panacea to these kinds of problems.

    ” You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.”

    The cost of housing is a problem, but it is a regional as well as a statewide problem, it doesn’t seem likely to be solved by local policies.

    The person who cites the 30 minute travel rule is forgetting just how many people live within a 30 mile radius of Davis.

    ” Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.”

    I’m not opposed to infill development, but again, the point I’m making here is that none of this solves the problems in the schools. You’ve conveniently ignored addressing the crux of my point–that faster growth cities are likewise having severe problems with their schools and it is certainly not clear that any in this region are doing better than Davis schools both in terms of overall performance or in terms of current fiscal crisis.

    Contrary to your point this was not an essay about growth, it was an essay about schools.

  60. Doug Paul Davis

    “Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe.”

    Actually very little of it was anti-growth, it mostly focused on debunking the myth that growth is a panacea to these kinds of problems.

    ” You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.”

    The cost of housing is a problem, but it is a regional as well as a statewide problem, it doesn’t seem likely to be solved by local policies.

    The person who cites the 30 minute travel rule is forgetting just how many people live within a 30 mile radius of Davis.

    ” Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.”

    I’m not opposed to infill development, but again, the point I’m making here is that none of this solves the problems in the schools. You’ve conveniently ignored addressing the crux of my point–that faster growth cities are likewise having severe problems with their schools and it is certainly not clear that any in this region are doing better than Davis schools both in terms of overall performance or in terms of current fiscal crisis.

    Contrary to your point this was not an essay about growth, it was an essay about schools.

  61. Anonymous

    Davis needs more funding per student – more housing development will not help that problem. However, more business development would help – something other than car sales would be green. The other alternative is a much higher parcel tax. The focus needs to change from not doing things to making changes that will make a difference

  62. Anonymous

    Davis needs more funding per student – more housing development will not help that problem. However, more business development would help – something other than car sales would be green. The other alternative is a much higher parcel tax. The focus needs to change from not doing things to making changes that will make a difference

  63. Anonymous

    Davis needs more funding per student – more housing development will not help that problem. However, more business development would help – something other than car sales would be green. The other alternative is a much higher parcel tax. The focus needs to change from not doing things to making changes that will make a difference

  64. Anonymous

    Davis needs more funding per student – more housing development will not help that problem. However, more business development would help – something other than car sales would be green. The other alternative is a much higher parcel tax. The focus needs to change from not doing things to making changes that will make a difference

  65. Matt Williams

    MBA said…

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.

    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.
    mba, your logic fails a simple numeric test on several levels.

    Whenever I go to UCDavis Medical Center to see my doctor I budget 20-30 minutes. Usually it takes 20, but occasionally 30. That means the whole Downtown Davis job market is available within your 20-30 minute standard. That makes the regional jobs-housing highly skewed toward jobs.

    Second, UCDavis creates approximately 7,000 new alumni each year. A huge proportion of those alumni leave Davis knowing that if they had the chance they would stay. If you did a survey of all current Davis households you would find that a huge proportion of those households contain one or more UCD alumni. Mine does. Does yours.

    Third, other than San Francisco, no other city in Northern California has a concert hall as good as the Mondavi. But a quick comparison of the diversity of the Mondavi’s offerings to the Opera House’s shows that the Mondavi provides better choice and more diversity. Add that to the synergies with Northern California’s fines University, and the best schools in the CSMA, and you have a huge amount of “external demand” for Davis housing.

    Supply is a minor factor in the cost of housing in Davis when compared to demand.

  66. Matt Williams

    MBA said…

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.

    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.
    mba, your logic fails a simple numeric test on several levels.

    Whenever I go to UCDavis Medical Center to see my doctor I budget 20-30 minutes. Usually it takes 20, but occasionally 30. That means the whole Downtown Davis job market is available within your 20-30 minute standard. That makes the regional jobs-housing highly skewed toward jobs.

    Second, UCDavis creates approximately 7,000 new alumni each year. A huge proportion of those alumni leave Davis knowing that if they had the chance they would stay. If you did a survey of all current Davis households you would find that a huge proportion of those households contain one or more UCD alumni. Mine does. Does yours.

    Third, other than San Francisco, no other city in Northern California has a concert hall as good as the Mondavi. But a quick comparison of the diversity of the Mondavi’s offerings to the Opera House’s shows that the Mondavi provides better choice and more diversity. Add that to the synergies with Northern California’s fines University, and the best schools in the CSMA, and you have a huge amount of “external demand” for Davis housing.

    Supply is a minor factor in the cost of housing in Davis when compared to demand.

  67. Matt Williams

    MBA said…

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.

    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.
    mba, your logic fails a simple numeric test on several levels.

    Whenever I go to UCDavis Medical Center to see my doctor I budget 20-30 minutes. Usually it takes 20, but occasionally 30. That means the whole Downtown Davis job market is available within your 20-30 minute standard. That makes the regional jobs-housing highly skewed toward jobs.

    Second, UCDavis creates approximately 7,000 new alumni each year. A huge proportion of those alumni leave Davis knowing that if they had the chance they would stay. If you did a survey of all current Davis households you would find that a huge proportion of those households contain one or more UCD alumni. Mine does. Does yours.

    Third, other than San Francisco, no other city in Northern California has a concert hall as good as the Mondavi. But a quick comparison of the diversity of the Mondavi’s offerings to the Opera House’s shows that the Mondavi provides better choice and more diversity. Add that to the synergies with Northern California’s fines University, and the best schools in the CSMA, and you have a huge amount of “external demand” for Davis housing.

    Supply is a minor factor in the cost of housing in Davis when compared to demand.

  68. Matt Williams

    MBA said…

    ALL REAL ESTATE IS LOCAL! The idea housing prices are only slightly affected by regional housing prices.

    Most professionals consider 20-30 minutes car ride a max for the affect on real estate.

    WEST SAC, WOODLAND, DIXON our are comps and Davis a 30 percent more.

    Its the lack of growth that has limited the supply and availability of housing in Davis.

    No other reason.

    Their is no way that the average person in Davis is as dumb as some of the anonymous posters on here are.
    mba, your logic fails a simple numeric test on several levels.

    Whenever I go to UCDavis Medical Center to see my doctor I budget 20-30 minutes. Usually it takes 20, but occasionally 30. That means the whole Downtown Davis job market is available within your 20-30 minute standard. That makes the regional jobs-housing highly skewed toward jobs.

    Second, UCDavis creates approximately 7,000 new alumni each year. A huge proportion of those alumni leave Davis knowing that if they had the chance they would stay. If you did a survey of all current Davis households you would find that a huge proportion of those households contain one or more UCD alumni. Mine does. Does yours.

    Third, other than San Francisco, no other city in Northern California has a concert hall as good as the Mondavi. But a quick comparison of the diversity of the Mondavi’s offerings to the Opera House’s shows that the Mondavi provides better choice and more diversity. Add that to the synergies with Northern California’s fines University, and the best schools in the CSMA, and you have a huge amount of “external demand” for Davis housing.

    Supply is a minor factor in the cost of housing in Davis when compared to demand.

  69. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.

    Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

    Anonymous, you may want to check your numbers. According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    The contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is neither a suburban nor infill model. On February 7th Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio provided a Fiscal Considerations in review of Housing Development Opportunites to the Housing Element Steering Committee. The bottom-line of Paul’s report was that unless a new residential unit was valued at $450,000 or higher, the cost of providing services to the projected residents of that residential unit exceeded the revenues generated by the unit.

    Paul’s report begs two questions, 1) What proportion of the Davis workforce can afford a house that costs in excess of $450,000? and 2) Will the typical family purchasing a house that costs in excess of $450,000 have Elementary School age children?

  70. Anonymous

    Republicans, developers and their friends have a “hard on” for the people of Davis, and big mouths to match. Even if they have no “standing” in our community, they pretend they’re entitled to weigh in opportunistically on an issue which doesn’t affect them and which they think constitutes a “gotcha” moment. While the SacBee did us a favor by broadcasting our delemma, this OPED piece is just more freemarket motivated drivel designed to pander to their readership who detest Davis.

  71. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.

    Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

    Anonymous, you may want to check your numbers. According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    The contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is neither a suburban nor infill model. On February 7th Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio provided a Fiscal Considerations in review of Housing Development Opportunites to the Housing Element Steering Committee. The bottom-line of Paul’s report was that unless a new residential unit was valued at $450,000 or higher, the cost of providing services to the projected residents of that residential unit exceeded the revenues generated by the unit.

    Paul’s report begs two questions, 1) What proportion of the Davis workforce can afford a house that costs in excess of $450,000? and 2) Will the typical family purchasing a house that costs in excess of $450,000 have Elementary School age children?

  72. Anonymous

    Republicans, developers and their friends have a “hard on” for the people of Davis, and big mouths to match. Even if they have no “standing” in our community, they pretend they’re entitled to weigh in opportunistically on an issue which doesn’t affect them and which they think constitutes a “gotcha” moment. While the SacBee did us a favor by broadcasting our delemma, this OPED piece is just more freemarket motivated drivel designed to pander to their readership who detest Davis.

  73. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.

    Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

    Anonymous, you may want to check your numbers. According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    The contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is neither a suburban nor infill model. On February 7th Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio provided a Fiscal Considerations in review of Housing Development Opportunites to the Housing Element Steering Committee. The bottom-line of Paul’s report was that unless a new residential unit was valued at $450,000 or higher, the cost of providing services to the projected residents of that residential unit exceeded the revenues generated by the unit.

    Paul’s report begs two questions, 1) What proportion of the Davis workforce can afford a house that costs in excess of $450,000? and 2) Will the typical family purchasing a house that costs in excess of $450,000 have Elementary School age children?

  74. Anonymous

    Republicans, developers and their friends have a “hard on” for the people of Davis, and big mouths to match. Even if they have no “standing” in our community, they pretend they’re entitled to weigh in opportunistically on an issue which doesn’t affect them and which they think constitutes a “gotcha” moment. While the SacBee did us a favor by broadcasting our delemma, this OPED piece is just more freemarket motivated drivel designed to pander to their readership who detest Davis.

  75. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Sadly typical anti-growth diatribe. You neglect to mention that the Davis population is disproportionately skewing older and this is a result of land-use policies that have raised housing prices to what are the most expensive in the region.

    Secondly, your contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is based on the old suburban pattern of growth. The truth is that new infill development, multi-use for example does pay for itself and many times over.

    Time to start considering new paradigms. The old “no growth” mantra is wearing out.

    Anonymous, you may want to check your numbers. According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    The contention that growth doesn’t pay for itself is neither a suburban nor infill model. On February 7th Davis Finance Director Paul Navasio provided a Fiscal Considerations in review of Housing Development Opportunites to the Housing Element Steering Committee. The bottom-line of Paul’s report was that unless a new residential unit was valued at $450,000 or higher, the cost of providing services to the projected residents of that residential unit exceeded the revenues generated by the unit.

    Paul’s report begs two questions, 1) What proportion of the Davis workforce can afford a house that costs in excess of $450,000? and 2) Will the typical family purchasing a house that costs in excess of $450,000 have Elementary School age children?

  76. Anonymous

    Republicans, developers and their friends have a “hard on” for the people of Davis, and big mouths to match. Even if they have no “standing” in our community, they pretend they’re entitled to weigh in opportunistically on an issue which doesn’t affect them and which they think constitutes a “gotcha” moment. While the SacBee did us a favor by broadcasting our delemma, this OPED piece is just more freemarket motivated drivel designed to pander to their readership who detest Davis.

  77. Sue Greenwald

    New subdivisions are an essential fact of life during some phases in a city’s natural history.

    And when they are built, they create huge
    fluctuations in enrollment,
    such as we are seeing now.

    Young families move in and new schools are built. Then the children leave home, but the parents stay on, and school enrollment declines. It takes many decades before a subdivision becomes mature, with populated by young, middle-aged and old alike, as the houses slowly change hands.

    This happened in the post-war subdivision that I grew up in. It was populated almost exclusively by young families. A new school was built. We grew up, left home, but our parents stayed. I heard that the Cabin John elementary school was closed. (It was a school in an older part of town.) I am sure that must have caused a lot of grief and turmoil. Maybe the school could have been saved with a modest tax and smaller enrollment. I had moved on, so I don’t know the details. When I return to visit now, there is a mixture of old and young families.

    Towns with new subdivisions are good and natural, but experience huge problems with fluctuating enrollment. Mature cities that are built-out are also good and natural. Of course, the average age of citizens will creep up somewhat in a built-out city. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

    In fact, world population growth is forecast to plateau around 2050, and the average age of people world-wide will increase. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, if the planet is to remain habitable.

    Sooner or later Davis will be built out. I don’t know whether that will happen when we collide with Woodland and Dixon, or whether it will be sometime before that. But when we are built out, we will have to deal with fewer children per neighborhood, and a slightly older average population.

    Personally, I am willing to spring for a parcel tax to keep neighborhood schools opened.

  78. Sue Greenwald

    New subdivisions are an essential fact of life during some phases in a city’s natural history.

    And when they are built, they create huge
    fluctuations in enrollment,
    such as we are seeing now.

    Young families move in and new schools are built. Then the children leave home, but the parents stay on, and school enrollment declines. It takes many decades before a subdivision becomes mature, with populated by young, middle-aged and old alike, as the houses slowly change hands.

    This happened in the post-war subdivision that I grew up in. It was populated almost exclusively by young families. A new school was built. We grew up, left home, but our parents stayed. I heard that the Cabin John elementary school was closed. (It was a school in an older part of town.) I am sure that must have caused a lot of grief and turmoil. Maybe the school could have been saved with a modest tax and smaller enrollment. I had moved on, so I don’t know the details. When I return to visit now, there is a mixture of old and young families.

    Towns with new subdivisions are good and natural, but experience huge problems with fluctuating enrollment. Mature cities that are built-out are also good and natural. Of course, the average age of citizens will creep up somewhat in a built-out city. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

    In fact, world population growth is forecast to plateau around 2050, and the average age of people world-wide will increase. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, if the planet is to remain habitable.

    Sooner or later Davis will be built out. I don’t know whether that will happen when we collide with Woodland and Dixon, or whether it will be sometime before that. But when we are built out, we will have to deal with fewer children per neighborhood, and a slightly older average population.

    Personally, I am willing to spring for a parcel tax to keep neighborhood schools opened.

  79. Sue Greenwald

    New subdivisions are an essential fact of life during some phases in a city’s natural history.

    And when they are built, they create huge
    fluctuations in enrollment,
    such as we are seeing now.

    Young families move in and new schools are built. Then the children leave home, but the parents stay on, and school enrollment declines. It takes many decades before a subdivision becomes mature, with populated by young, middle-aged and old alike, as the houses slowly change hands.

    This happened in the post-war subdivision that I grew up in. It was populated almost exclusively by young families. A new school was built. We grew up, left home, but our parents stayed. I heard that the Cabin John elementary school was closed. (It was a school in an older part of town.) I am sure that must have caused a lot of grief and turmoil. Maybe the school could have been saved with a modest tax and smaller enrollment. I had moved on, so I don’t know the details. When I return to visit now, there is a mixture of old and young families.

    Towns with new subdivisions are good and natural, but experience huge problems with fluctuating enrollment. Mature cities that are built-out are also good and natural. Of course, the average age of citizens will creep up somewhat in a built-out city. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

    In fact, world population growth is forecast to plateau around 2050, and the average age of people world-wide will increase. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, if the planet is to remain habitable.

    Sooner or later Davis will be built out. I don’t know whether that will happen when we collide with Woodland and Dixon, or whether it will be sometime before that. But when we are built out, we will have to deal with fewer children per neighborhood, and a slightly older average population.

    Personally, I am willing to spring for a parcel tax to keep neighborhood schools opened.

  80. Sue Greenwald

    New subdivisions are an essential fact of life during some phases in a city’s natural history.

    And when they are built, they create huge
    fluctuations in enrollment,
    such as we are seeing now.

    Young families move in and new schools are built. Then the children leave home, but the parents stay on, and school enrollment declines. It takes many decades before a subdivision becomes mature, with populated by young, middle-aged and old alike, as the houses slowly change hands.

    This happened in the post-war subdivision that I grew up in. It was populated almost exclusively by young families. A new school was built. We grew up, left home, but our parents stayed. I heard that the Cabin John elementary school was closed. (It was a school in an older part of town.) I am sure that must have caused a lot of grief and turmoil. Maybe the school could have been saved with a modest tax and smaller enrollment. I had moved on, so I don’t know the details. When I return to visit now, there is a mixture of old and young families.

    Towns with new subdivisions are good and natural, but experience huge problems with fluctuating enrollment. Mature cities that are built-out are also good and natural. Of course, the average age of citizens will creep up somewhat in a built-out city. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that.

    In fact, world population growth is forecast to plateau around 2050, and the average age of people world-wide will increase. That is a good thing, not a bad thing, if the planet is to remain habitable.

    Sooner or later Davis will be built out. I don’t know whether that will happen when we collide with Woodland and Dixon, or whether it will be sometime before that. But when we are built out, we will have to deal with fewer children per neighborhood, and a slightly older average population.

    Personally, I am willing to spring for a parcel tax to keep neighborhood schools opened.

  81. Anonymous

    Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis. After eight years on the council the mayor is completely unrepentent for the policies she has supported that have driven housing prices in Davis through the roof and locked young families out of the Davis market killing the schools in the process.

    Even if it were true that under her absurd model, where people eventually reach some sort of equilibrium with their schools in a mature subdivision, she doesn’t realize that restricting supply retards this process by making homes unaffordable to anyone who isn’t an heir or have equity somewhere else as they turn over. This is, of course, why the turn over in Davis results in families with older children on average moving in.

    Her sad defense of her policies reads more like a Paul Ehrlch fantasy from the 1970’s or Malthus from the 1790’s than anything relevant today.

    Yes mayor we are probably going to move to Woodland where we can get a house as big as the one you live in for $300,000 less. With the money we save we can afford to drive into Davis for the Coop and Farmers Market increasing our carbon footprint and clogging your streets and parking lots. We probably won’t come in for everything and find a coffee shop to hang out in in Woodland depriving your good friend Sinesa of all that money we spend in his coffee shop while supplying sales taxes to Woodland.

    We will take our little capitates to the Woodland schools that will hire away the best teachers laid off in Davis to fill the new schools they have built in Woodland with developer dollars. So spout whatever rationalizations you want about how supply and demand doesn’t work in the housing market or effect the schools while thousands of homes go on the auction block all around the region. Watch those of us who work for a living and try to provide a decent home and education for our children move on to greener pastures. Maybe if you had kids or a job you would understand.

  82. Anonymous

    Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis. After eight years on the council the mayor is completely unrepentent for the policies she has supported that have driven housing prices in Davis through the roof and locked young families out of the Davis market killing the schools in the process.

    Even if it were true that under her absurd model, where people eventually reach some sort of equilibrium with their schools in a mature subdivision, she doesn’t realize that restricting supply retards this process by making homes unaffordable to anyone who isn’t an heir or have equity somewhere else as they turn over. This is, of course, why the turn over in Davis results in families with older children on average moving in.

    Her sad defense of her policies reads more like a Paul Ehrlch fantasy from the 1970’s or Malthus from the 1790’s than anything relevant today.

    Yes mayor we are probably going to move to Woodland where we can get a house as big as the one you live in for $300,000 less. With the money we save we can afford to drive into Davis for the Coop and Farmers Market increasing our carbon footprint and clogging your streets and parking lots. We probably won’t come in for everything and find a coffee shop to hang out in in Woodland depriving your good friend Sinesa of all that money we spend in his coffee shop while supplying sales taxes to Woodland.

    We will take our little capitates to the Woodland schools that will hire away the best teachers laid off in Davis to fill the new schools they have built in Woodland with developer dollars. So spout whatever rationalizations you want about how supply and demand doesn’t work in the housing market or effect the schools while thousands of homes go on the auction block all around the region. Watch those of us who work for a living and try to provide a decent home and education for our children move on to greener pastures. Maybe if you had kids or a job you would understand.

  83. Anonymous

    Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis. After eight years on the council the mayor is completely unrepentent for the policies she has supported that have driven housing prices in Davis through the roof and locked young families out of the Davis market killing the schools in the process.

    Even if it were true that under her absurd model, where people eventually reach some sort of equilibrium with their schools in a mature subdivision, she doesn’t realize that restricting supply retards this process by making homes unaffordable to anyone who isn’t an heir or have equity somewhere else as they turn over. This is, of course, why the turn over in Davis results in families with older children on average moving in.

    Her sad defense of her policies reads more like a Paul Ehrlch fantasy from the 1970’s or Malthus from the 1790’s than anything relevant today.

    Yes mayor we are probably going to move to Woodland where we can get a house as big as the one you live in for $300,000 less. With the money we save we can afford to drive into Davis for the Coop and Farmers Market increasing our carbon footprint and clogging your streets and parking lots. We probably won’t come in for everything and find a coffee shop to hang out in in Woodland depriving your good friend Sinesa of all that money we spend in his coffee shop while supplying sales taxes to Woodland.

    We will take our little capitates to the Woodland schools that will hire away the best teachers laid off in Davis to fill the new schools they have built in Woodland with developer dollars. So spout whatever rationalizations you want about how supply and demand doesn’t work in the housing market or effect the schools while thousands of homes go on the auction block all around the region. Watch those of us who work for a living and try to provide a decent home and education for our children move on to greener pastures. Maybe if you had kids or a job you would understand.

  84. Anonymous

    Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis. After eight years on the council the mayor is completely unrepentent for the policies she has supported that have driven housing prices in Davis through the roof and locked young families out of the Davis market killing the schools in the process.

    Even if it were true that under her absurd model, where people eventually reach some sort of equilibrium with their schools in a mature subdivision, she doesn’t realize that restricting supply retards this process by making homes unaffordable to anyone who isn’t an heir or have equity somewhere else as they turn over. This is, of course, why the turn over in Davis results in families with older children on average moving in.

    Her sad defense of her policies reads more like a Paul Ehrlch fantasy from the 1970’s or Malthus from the 1790’s than anything relevant today.

    Yes mayor we are probably going to move to Woodland where we can get a house as big as the one you live in for $300,000 less. With the money we save we can afford to drive into Davis for the Coop and Farmers Market increasing our carbon footprint and clogging your streets and parking lots. We probably won’t come in for everything and find a coffee shop to hang out in in Woodland depriving your good friend Sinesa of all that money we spend in his coffee shop while supplying sales taxes to Woodland.

    We will take our little capitates to the Woodland schools that will hire away the best teachers laid off in Davis to fill the new schools they have built in Woodland with developer dollars. So spout whatever rationalizations you want about how supply and demand doesn’t work in the housing market or effect the schools while thousands of homes go on the auction block all around the region. Watch those of us who work for a living and try to provide a decent home and education for our children move on to greener pastures. Maybe if you had kids or a job you would understand.

  85. Sue Greenwald

    Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply.

    You also won’t believe this, but I would support some new peripheral subdivision development if I believed it would bring prices down. I don’t, so I support development when it seems to be good planning and serves a specific unmet need.

    Finally, as to having children: Be grateful that you were able to have them, because not everyone is so fortunate. You are very blessed.

  86. Sue Greenwald

    Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply.

    You also won’t believe this, but I would support some new peripheral subdivision development if I believed it would bring prices down. I don’t, so I support development when it seems to be good planning and serves a specific unmet need.

    Finally, as to having children: Be grateful that you were able to have them, because not everyone is so fortunate. You are very blessed.

  87. Sue Greenwald

    Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply.

    You also won’t believe this, but I would support some new peripheral subdivision development if I believed it would bring prices down. I don’t, so I support development when it seems to be good planning and serves a specific unmet need.

    Finally, as to having children: Be grateful that you were able to have them, because not everyone is so fortunate. You are very blessed.

  88. Sue Greenwald

    Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply.

    You also won’t believe this, but I would support some new peripheral subdivision development if I believed it would bring prices down. I don’t, so I support development when it seems to be good planning and serves a specific unmet need.

    Finally, as to having children: Be grateful that you were able to have them, because not everyone is so fortunate. You are very blessed.

  89. Robin

    Overall, our school district enrollment has NOT changed much since around 2001 — although it increased a bit for a few years after that and then dropped off a bit in the past 2 years. There are slightly more older students and somewhat fewer elementary students than in 2001.

    The biggest change is that we built a new junior high (with slightly higher capacity than Emerson) and 2 new elementary schools. So it is no surprise that we have over-capacity. And each extra school costs more money to operate (for the same number of students) because of administrator costs and energy costs.

    The second significant change is that costs of running a school district have increased (even if the school district has same number of students and the same number of facilities) and the ADA reimbursement from the state has not kept pace.

    Slow growth did not create our current problems.

  90. Robin

    Overall, our school district enrollment has NOT changed much since around 2001 — although it increased a bit for a few years after that and then dropped off a bit in the past 2 years. There are slightly more older students and somewhat fewer elementary students than in 2001.

    The biggest change is that we built a new junior high (with slightly higher capacity than Emerson) and 2 new elementary schools. So it is no surprise that we have over-capacity. And each extra school costs more money to operate (for the same number of students) because of administrator costs and energy costs.

    The second significant change is that costs of running a school district have increased (even if the school district has same number of students and the same number of facilities) and the ADA reimbursement from the state has not kept pace.

    Slow growth did not create our current problems.

  91. Robin

    Overall, our school district enrollment has NOT changed much since around 2001 — although it increased a bit for a few years after that and then dropped off a bit in the past 2 years. There are slightly more older students and somewhat fewer elementary students than in 2001.

    The biggest change is that we built a new junior high (with slightly higher capacity than Emerson) and 2 new elementary schools. So it is no surprise that we have over-capacity. And each extra school costs more money to operate (for the same number of students) because of administrator costs and energy costs.

    The second significant change is that costs of running a school district have increased (even if the school district has same number of students and the same number of facilities) and the ADA reimbursement from the state has not kept pace.

    Slow growth did not create our current problems.

  92. Robin

    Overall, our school district enrollment has NOT changed much since around 2001 — although it increased a bit for a few years after that and then dropped off a bit in the past 2 years. There are slightly more older students and somewhat fewer elementary students than in 2001.

    The biggest change is that we built a new junior high (with slightly higher capacity than Emerson) and 2 new elementary schools. So it is no surprise that we have over-capacity. And each extra school costs more money to operate (for the same number of students) because of administrator costs and energy costs.

    The second significant change is that costs of running a school district have increased (even if the school district has same number of students and the same number of facilities) and the ADA reimbursement from the state has not kept pace.

    Slow growth did not create our current problems.

  93. Diogenes

    Sue Greenwald said:

    “Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply. “

    I’ve seen this argument made several times by the no-growth advocates. This argument is unproven because you don’t know how prices would have grown in Davis had there been no growth in the last few years. And while many of you believe that Davis is immune to the most basic and universal laws of supply and demand, it isn’t. In the last few years, prices have skyrocketed all over CA, even where new supply was incredibly high. Prices are now coming down in those high supply areas, because ultimately, supply and demand always have to come in balance. The longer supply and demand adn the larger the mismatch goes without balancing, the bigger the bubble, and hence the decline in values in many of those towns ro cities.

    Two other points – While many no growthers makes the same unproven argument that Sue makes above, the counter argument is much easier to prove – housing prices in Davis are not going to become more affordable unless there is new growth of family sized homes. Infill locations would/will be great for apartments and seniors, but unless they units and common areas are large enough for families with kids, then they will choose live elsewhere.

    I know many who read this blog are anti growth, and I wouldn’t suggest it is the cure for everything. But it is the cure for some things – more affordable housing being one.

  94. Diogenes

    Sue Greenwald said:

    “Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply. “

    I’ve seen this argument made several times by the no-growth advocates. This argument is unproven because you don’t know how prices would have grown in Davis had there been no growth in the last few years. And while many of you believe that Davis is immune to the most basic and universal laws of supply and demand, it isn’t. In the last few years, prices have skyrocketed all over CA, even where new supply was incredibly high. Prices are now coming down in those high supply areas, because ultimately, supply and demand always have to come in balance. The longer supply and demand adn the larger the mismatch goes without balancing, the bigger the bubble, and hence the decline in values in many of those towns ro cities.

    Two other points – While many no growthers makes the same unproven argument that Sue makes above, the counter argument is much easier to prove – housing prices in Davis are not going to become more affordable unless there is new growth of family sized homes. Infill locations would/will be great for apartments and seniors, but unless they units and common areas are large enough for families with kids, then they will choose live elsewhere.

    I know many who read this blog are anti growth, and I wouldn’t suggest it is the cure for everything. But it is the cure for some things – more affordable housing being one.

  95. Diogenes

    Sue Greenwald said:

    “Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply. “

    I’ve seen this argument made several times by the no-growth advocates. This argument is unproven because you don’t know how prices would have grown in Davis had there been no growth in the last few years. And while many of you believe that Davis is immune to the most basic and universal laws of supply and demand, it isn’t. In the last few years, prices have skyrocketed all over CA, even where new supply was incredibly high. Prices are now coming down in those high supply areas, because ultimately, supply and demand always have to come in balance. The longer supply and demand adn the larger the mismatch goes without balancing, the bigger the bubble, and hence the decline in values in many of those towns ro cities.

    Two other points – While many no growthers makes the same unproven argument that Sue makes above, the counter argument is much easier to prove – housing prices in Davis are not going to become more affordable unless there is new growth of family sized homes. Infill locations would/will be great for apartments and seniors, but unless they units and common areas are large enough for families with kids, then they will choose live elsewhere.

    I know many who read this blog are anti growth, and I wouldn’t suggest it is the cure for everything. But it is the cure for some things – more affordable housing being one.

  96. Diogenes

    Sue Greenwald said:

    “Anonymous 10:53:

    Historically, there has been very little relationship between supply and price when it comes to Davis housing. You seem to be aware of the analysis of this issue. I know you don’t want t believe this, but I can’t wish this away. Building new houses has not brought down prices in Davis, because, apparently, the demand is so elastic that it has always outstripped the supply. “

    I’ve seen this argument made several times by the no-growth advocates. This argument is unproven because you don’t know how prices would have grown in Davis had there been no growth in the last few years. And while many of you believe that Davis is immune to the most basic and universal laws of supply and demand, it isn’t. In the last few years, prices have skyrocketed all over CA, even where new supply was incredibly high. Prices are now coming down in those high supply areas, because ultimately, supply and demand always have to come in balance. The longer supply and demand adn the larger the mismatch goes without balancing, the bigger the bubble, and hence the decline in values in many of those towns ro cities.

    Two other points – While many no growthers makes the same unproven argument that Sue makes above, the counter argument is much easier to prove – housing prices in Davis are not going to become more affordable unless there is new growth of family sized homes. Infill locations would/will be great for apartments and seniors, but unless they units and common areas are large enough for families with kids, then they will choose live elsewhere.

    I know many who read this blog are anti growth, and I wouldn’t suggest it is the cure for everything. But it is the cure for some things – more affordable housing being one.

  97. Anonymous

    I just don’t buy the argument Diogenes. You have basically a regional housing market and any new housing built in Davis would be a veritable pin prick compared with the overall demand. So it is pretty easy to see that we would have to build a lot of homes to really impact the cost of housing in Davis.

    As such, I think the better approach is to build to fill specific needs.

    While I am sympathetic to the young adult who posted, the fact of the matter is that there is really no entitlement to living in any community and if we build to accommodate everyone who desires to live here, the basic factors that draw us all to Davis could very well be destroyed.

    I guess it’s easy to put labels on people, I’m not anti-growth. What I am is against the kind of growth we’ve had in Davis the past twenty years. And I’m also against the kinds of arguments made here that growth will solve various things.

  98. Anonymous

    I just don’t buy the argument Diogenes. You have basically a regional housing market and any new housing built in Davis would be a veritable pin prick compared with the overall demand. So it is pretty easy to see that we would have to build a lot of homes to really impact the cost of housing in Davis.

    As such, I think the better approach is to build to fill specific needs.

    While I am sympathetic to the young adult who posted, the fact of the matter is that there is really no entitlement to living in any community and if we build to accommodate everyone who desires to live here, the basic factors that draw us all to Davis could very well be destroyed.

    I guess it’s easy to put labels on people, I’m not anti-growth. What I am is against the kind of growth we’ve had in Davis the past twenty years. And I’m also against the kinds of arguments made here that growth will solve various things.

  99. Anonymous

    I just don’t buy the argument Diogenes. You have basically a regional housing market and any new housing built in Davis would be a veritable pin prick compared with the overall demand. So it is pretty easy to see that we would have to build a lot of homes to really impact the cost of housing in Davis.

    As such, I think the better approach is to build to fill specific needs.

    While I am sympathetic to the young adult who posted, the fact of the matter is that there is really no entitlement to living in any community and if we build to accommodate everyone who desires to live here, the basic factors that draw us all to Davis could very well be destroyed.

    I guess it’s easy to put labels on people, I’m not anti-growth. What I am is against the kind of growth we’ve had in Davis the past twenty years. And I’m also against the kinds of arguments made here that growth will solve various things.

  100. Anonymous

    I just don’t buy the argument Diogenes. You have basically a regional housing market and any new housing built in Davis would be a veritable pin prick compared with the overall demand. So it is pretty easy to see that we would have to build a lot of homes to really impact the cost of housing in Davis.

    As such, I think the better approach is to build to fill specific needs.

    While I am sympathetic to the young adult who posted, the fact of the matter is that there is really no entitlement to living in any community and if we build to accommodate everyone who desires to live here, the basic factors that draw us all to Davis could very well be destroyed.

    I guess it’s easy to put labels on people, I’m not anti-growth. What I am is against the kind of growth we’ve had in Davis the past twenty years. And I’m also against the kinds of arguments made here that growth will solve various things.

  101. yes to a parcel tax

    “Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis.”

    Oh, come on. The current parcel tax is $200 per year for a single family home. Considering the cost of buying a house in Davis is well north of $300,000, that $200 or even an additional parcel tax is not what is keeping people from affording a house in Davis.

  102. yes to a parcel tax

    “Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis.”

    Oh, come on. The current parcel tax is $200 per year for a single family home. Considering the cost of buying a house in Davis is well north of $300,000, that $200 or even an additional parcel tax is not what is keeping people from affording a house in Davis.

  103. yes to a parcel tax

    “Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis.”

    Oh, come on. The current parcel tax is $200 per year for a single family home. Considering the cost of buying a house in Davis is well north of $300,000, that $200 or even an additional parcel tax is not what is keeping people from affording a house in Davis.

  104. yes to a parcel tax

    “Yet another parcel tax from the mayor driving up housing costs that keep young families from being able to afford housing in Davis.”

    Oh, come on. The current parcel tax is $200 per year for a single family home. Considering the cost of buying a house in Davis is well north of $300,000, that $200 or even an additional parcel tax is not what is keeping people from affording a house in Davis.

  105. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53 and Diogenes,

    In follow-up to the point made by Anonymous 8:04 about Regional demand, I’d be interested in your answer to the following question, “What is (or how would you go about quantifying) the actual demand for Davis housing?” a variant on that question is, “What proportion of the demand for Davis housing is internal and what proportion is external?

    To help with the second question I propose the following definitions of internal and external. Internal demand comes from 1) the people who currently live in Davis, 2) the people who currently work in Davis, 3) the employees of companies/business that want to locate in Davis and 4) the senior parents of current Davis residents who need/want to live in the same community as their child(ren) for health and/or emotional support reasons.

  106. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53 and Diogenes,

    In follow-up to the point made by Anonymous 8:04 about Regional demand, I’d be interested in your answer to the following question, “What is (or how would you go about quantifying) the actual demand for Davis housing?” a variant on that question is, “What proportion of the demand for Davis housing is internal and what proportion is external?

    To help with the second question I propose the following definitions of internal and external. Internal demand comes from 1) the people who currently live in Davis, 2) the people who currently work in Davis, 3) the employees of companies/business that want to locate in Davis and 4) the senior parents of current Davis residents who need/want to live in the same community as their child(ren) for health and/or emotional support reasons.

  107. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53 and Diogenes,

    In follow-up to the point made by Anonymous 8:04 about Regional demand, I’d be interested in your answer to the following question, “What is (or how would you go about quantifying) the actual demand for Davis housing?” a variant on that question is, “What proportion of the demand for Davis housing is internal and what proportion is external?

    To help with the second question I propose the following definitions of internal and external. Internal demand comes from 1) the people who currently live in Davis, 2) the people who currently work in Davis, 3) the employees of companies/business that want to locate in Davis and 4) the senior parents of current Davis residents who need/want to live in the same community as their child(ren) for health and/or emotional support reasons.

  108. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53 and Diogenes,

    In follow-up to the point made by Anonymous 8:04 about Regional demand, I’d be interested in your answer to the following question, “What is (or how would you go about quantifying) the actual demand for Davis housing?” a variant on that question is, “What proportion of the demand for Davis housing is internal and what proportion is external?

    To help with the second question I propose the following definitions of internal and external. Internal demand comes from 1) the people who currently live in Davis, 2) the people who currently work in Davis, 3) the employees of companies/business that want to locate in Davis and 4) the senior parents of current Davis residents who need/want to live in the same community as their child(ren) for health and/or emotional support reasons.

  109. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53

    Your taking Mayor Greenwald to task as the “flag bearer” of Davis’ housing problems is incomplete at best. Arguably the most significant factor in the shortage of affordable workforce housing in Davis is UCDavis failure to provide on-campus student housing at the level of the UC system-wide goal of 42% of each campus’ total student population.

    How poorly has UCD fallen short of this 42% system-wide goal? UCD, has not provided more than 23% student on-campus housing. With 30,000 students that 19% shortfall equates to 5,700 students who are jacking up the demand for affordable/workforce housing in the City of Davis. As a result the current apartment vacancy rate in Davis is 0.7%.

    How many of the 7,702 Davis workers (out of 19,362 total) who currently live outside Davis would be able to live in Davis if UCD did its part? IMHO, the answer is “A whole lot!” if those 5,700 students were residing on the Campus rather than in the City.

    As noted in the Housing Element Steering Committee’s report to Council:

    Substantially more core campus high density student apartments are needed to provide permanent affordable housing for the entire average student term. The reasons for high density apartment housing on-campus include:

    1)It can be legally dedicated to UC Davis students.

    2)It can better absorb fluctuations in the number of new student admissions.

    3)It would provide significant reductions in transportation, traffic, and parking issues created by the commuting of thousands of students.

    I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing. Many sophomores, Juniors and Seniors would be glad to live on campus if the opportunity were offered by UCD.

  110. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53

    Your taking Mayor Greenwald to task as the “flag bearer” of Davis’ housing problems is incomplete at best. Arguably the most significant factor in the shortage of affordable workforce housing in Davis is UCDavis failure to provide on-campus student housing at the level of the UC system-wide goal of 42% of each campus’ total student population.

    How poorly has UCD fallen short of this 42% system-wide goal? UCD, has not provided more than 23% student on-campus housing. With 30,000 students that 19% shortfall equates to 5,700 students who are jacking up the demand for affordable/workforce housing in the City of Davis. As a result the current apartment vacancy rate in Davis is 0.7%.

    How many of the 7,702 Davis workers (out of 19,362 total) who currently live outside Davis would be able to live in Davis if UCD did its part? IMHO, the answer is “A whole lot!” if those 5,700 students were residing on the Campus rather than in the City.

    As noted in the Housing Element Steering Committee’s report to Council:

    Substantially more core campus high density student apartments are needed to provide permanent affordable housing for the entire average student term. The reasons for high density apartment housing on-campus include:

    1)It can be legally dedicated to UC Davis students.

    2)It can better absorb fluctuations in the number of new student admissions.

    3)It would provide significant reductions in transportation, traffic, and parking issues created by the commuting of thousands of students.

    I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing. Many sophomores, Juniors and Seniors would be glad to live on campus if the opportunity were offered by UCD.

  111. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53

    Your taking Mayor Greenwald to task as the “flag bearer” of Davis’ housing problems is incomplete at best. Arguably the most significant factor in the shortage of affordable workforce housing in Davis is UCDavis failure to provide on-campus student housing at the level of the UC system-wide goal of 42% of each campus’ total student population.

    How poorly has UCD fallen short of this 42% system-wide goal? UCD, has not provided more than 23% student on-campus housing. With 30,000 students that 19% shortfall equates to 5,700 students who are jacking up the demand for affordable/workforce housing in the City of Davis. As a result the current apartment vacancy rate in Davis is 0.7%.

    How many of the 7,702 Davis workers (out of 19,362 total) who currently live outside Davis would be able to live in Davis if UCD did its part? IMHO, the answer is “A whole lot!” if those 5,700 students were residing on the Campus rather than in the City.

    As noted in the Housing Element Steering Committee’s report to Council:

    Substantially more core campus high density student apartments are needed to provide permanent affordable housing for the entire average student term. The reasons for high density apartment housing on-campus include:

    1)It can be legally dedicated to UC Davis students.

    2)It can better absorb fluctuations in the number of new student admissions.

    3)It would provide significant reductions in transportation, traffic, and parking issues created by the commuting of thousands of students.

    I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing. Many sophomores, Juniors and Seniors would be glad to live on campus if the opportunity were offered by UCD.

  112. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:53

    Your taking Mayor Greenwald to task as the “flag bearer” of Davis’ housing problems is incomplete at best. Arguably the most significant factor in the shortage of affordable workforce housing in Davis is UCDavis failure to provide on-campus student housing at the level of the UC system-wide goal of 42% of each campus’ total student population.

    How poorly has UCD fallen short of this 42% system-wide goal? UCD, has not provided more than 23% student on-campus housing. With 30,000 students that 19% shortfall equates to 5,700 students who are jacking up the demand for affordable/workforce housing in the City of Davis. As a result the current apartment vacancy rate in Davis is 0.7%.

    How many of the 7,702 Davis workers (out of 19,362 total) who currently live outside Davis would be able to live in Davis if UCD did its part? IMHO, the answer is “A whole lot!” if those 5,700 students were residing on the Campus rather than in the City.

    As noted in the Housing Element Steering Committee’s report to Council:

    Substantially more core campus high density student apartments are needed to provide permanent affordable housing for the entire average student term. The reasons for high density apartment housing on-campus include:

    1)It can be legally dedicated to UC Davis students.

    2)It can better absorb fluctuations in the number of new student admissions.

    3)It would provide significant reductions in transportation, traffic, and parking issues created by the commuting of thousands of students.

    I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing. Many sophomores, Juniors and Seniors would be glad to live on campus if the opportunity were offered by UCD.

  113. Anonymous

    “I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing.”

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

  114. Anonymous

    “I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing.”

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

  115. Anonymous

    “I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing.”

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

  116. Anonymous

    “I would personally add that UCD should seriously consider increasing its student dorm capacity so that they can provide more than one year of housing.”

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

  117. Anonymous

    Sure Matt the university has an impact on the city but to solve it you need the university to build more housing. More here more there its still more and look at the fight about west village. Maybe I see the mayor as the symbol of the nimby’s but she is clearly a nimby herself.

    As for the cheap shot at the mayor about children I’m sorry I just was expressing my outrage at her unsympathetic policies towards those that have less economic power because they are trying to make ends meet while providing for their families and trying to educate their children.

    Still there were so many points she fails to address let me reiterate; people living nearby who drive into town because housing is so much cheaper nearby using more gas, parking and causing traffic congestion, that the schools in Woodland are so much more fiscally healthy than Davis and will probably hire away some pink slipped teachers since Woodland issued no pink slips to permanent staff this month, that the historical difference between home prices in Davis and Woodland is at an all time high because Woodland built into the bubble and Davis didn’t and finally, that housing prices in Davis were stagnant while Wildhorse was under construction showing that increasing supply does restrain price appreciation.

    As for all those questions posed about internal and external demand I don’t claim to have all those answers or to even understand all the questions. I just know that I have lived in this town a long time and feel its time to move to Woodland where the kids would be able to have more room without breaking the bank. I will miss living in Davis but I won’t miss the selfish nimby’s like the Mayor.

  118. Anonymous

    Sure Matt the university has an impact on the city but to solve it you need the university to build more housing. More here more there its still more and look at the fight about west village. Maybe I see the mayor as the symbol of the nimby’s but she is clearly a nimby herself.

    As for the cheap shot at the mayor about children I’m sorry I just was expressing my outrage at her unsympathetic policies towards those that have less economic power because they are trying to make ends meet while providing for their families and trying to educate their children.

    Still there were so many points she fails to address let me reiterate; people living nearby who drive into town because housing is so much cheaper nearby using more gas, parking and causing traffic congestion, that the schools in Woodland are so much more fiscally healthy than Davis and will probably hire away some pink slipped teachers since Woodland issued no pink slips to permanent staff this month, that the historical difference between home prices in Davis and Woodland is at an all time high because Woodland built into the bubble and Davis didn’t and finally, that housing prices in Davis were stagnant while Wildhorse was under construction showing that increasing supply does restrain price appreciation.

    As for all those questions posed about internal and external demand I don’t claim to have all those answers or to even understand all the questions. I just know that I have lived in this town a long time and feel its time to move to Woodland where the kids would be able to have more room without breaking the bank. I will miss living in Davis but I won’t miss the selfish nimby’s like the Mayor.

  119. Anonymous

    Sure Matt the university has an impact on the city but to solve it you need the university to build more housing. More here more there its still more and look at the fight about west village. Maybe I see the mayor as the symbol of the nimby’s but she is clearly a nimby herself.

    As for the cheap shot at the mayor about children I’m sorry I just was expressing my outrage at her unsympathetic policies towards those that have less economic power because they are trying to make ends meet while providing for their families and trying to educate their children.

    Still there were so many points she fails to address let me reiterate; people living nearby who drive into town because housing is so much cheaper nearby using more gas, parking and causing traffic congestion, that the schools in Woodland are so much more fiscally healthy than Davis and will probably hire away some pink slipped teachers since Woodland issued no pink slips to permanent staff this month, that the historical difference between home prices in Davis and Woodland is at an all time high because Woodland built into the bubble and Davis didn’t and finally, that housing prices in Davis were stagnant while Wildhorse was under construction showing that increasing supply does restrain price appreciation.

    As for all those questions posed about internal and external demand I don’t claim to have all those answers or to even understand all the questions. I just know that I have lived in this town a long time and feel its time to move to Woodland where the kids would be able to have more room without breaking the bank. I will miss living in Davis but I won’t miss the selfish nimby’s like the Mayor.

  120. Anonymous

    Sure Matt the university has an impact on the city but to solve it you need the university to build more housing. More here more there its still more and look at the fight about west village. Maybe I see the mayor as the symbol of the nimby’s but she is clearly a nimby herself.

    As for the cheap shot at the mayor about children I’m sorry I just was expressing my outrage at her unsympathetic policies towards those that have less economic power because they are trying to make ends meet while providing for their families and trying to educate their children.

    Still there were so many points she fails to address let me reiterate; people living nearby who drive into town because housing is so much cheaper nearby using more gas, parking and causing traffic congestion, that the schools in Woodland are so much more fiscally healthy than Davis and will probably hire away some pink slipped teachers since Woodland issued no pink slips to permanent staff this month, that the historical difference between home prices in Davis and Woodland is at an all time high because Woodland built into the bubble and Davis didn’t and finally, that housing prices in Davis were stagnant while Wildhorse was under construction showing that increasing supply does restrain price appreciation.

    As for all those questions posed about internal and external demand I don’t claim to have all those answers or to even understand all the questions. I just know that I have lived in this town a long time and feel its time to move to Woodland where the kids would be able to have more room without breaking the bank. I will miss living in Davis but I won’t miss the selfish nimby’s like the Mayor.

  121. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

    There isn’t a simple answer to that question, but if I have to distill all my conflicting thoughts down to one word then it would be “Yes.” The problems I have with the West Village project almost all revolve around 1) the loss of the prime agricultural research land, and 2) the projected reality that West Village will only provide housing for 3,000 of the 5,000 student increase projected by UCD in the coming years. Bottom-line, it is not enough, and it really doesn’t address the undergraduate population, which is the group that has the biggest impact on the affordable rental housing market in Davis.

    With those negatives said, West Village does address both Staff and Faculty housing needs, which does positively impact the davis workforce housing situation. It also addresses married student housing. Those plusses make my ultimate answer the “Yes” that it is.

  122. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

    There isn’t a simple answer to that question, but if I have to distill all my conflicting thoughts down to one word then it would be “Yes.” The problems I have with the West Village project almost all revolve around 1) the loss of the prime agricultural research land, and 2) the projected reality that West Village will only provide housing for 3,000 of the 5,000 student increase projected by UCD in the coming years. Bottom-line, it is not enough, and it really doesn’t address the undergraduate population, which is the group that has the biggest impact on the affordable rental housing market in Davis.

    With those negatives said, West Village does address both Staff and Faculty housing needs, which does positively impact the davis workforce housing situation. It also addresses married student housing. Those plusses make my ultimate answer the “Yes” that it is.

  123. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

    There isn’t a simple answer to that question, but if I have to distill all my conflicting thoughts down to one word then it would be “Yes.” The problems I have with the West Village project almost all revolve around 1) the loss of the prime agricultural research land, and 2) the projected reality that West Village will only provide housing for 3,000 of the 5,000 student increase projected by UCD in the coming years. Bottom-line, it is not enough, and it really doesn’t address the undergraduate population, which is the group that has the biggest impact on the affordable rental housing market in Davis.

    With those negatives said, West Village does address both Staff and Faculty housing needs, which does positively impact the davis workforce housing situation. It also addresses married student housing. Those plusses make my ultimate answer the “Yes” that it is.

  124. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    I agree with the comments but I have a question. Were you supportive of the West Village development?

    There isn’t a simple answer to that question, but if I have to distill all my conflicting thoughts down to one word then it would be “Yes.” The problems I have with the West Village project almost all revolve around 1) the loss of the prime agricultural research land, and 2) the projected reality that West Village will only provide housing for 3,000 of the 5,000 student increase projected by UCD in the coming years. Bottom-line, it is not enough, and it really doesn’t address the undergraduate population, which is the group that has the biggest impact on the affordable rental housing market in Davis.

    With those negatives said, West Village does address both Staff and Faculty housing needs, which does positively impact the davis workforce housing situation. It also addresses married student housing. Those plusses make my ultimate answer the “Yes” that it is.

  125. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:15,

    Dormitories need to be close to the campus core, therefore the kind of fight that took place regarding West Village would be much less of an issue IMHO. Imagine if you will that the current Vet School High Rise was one of three such buildings in a cluster rather than the free-standing monolith that it currently is. Or as an alternative, that Toomey Field is replaced by a high rise dormitory complex of similar size to the existing campus classroom/academic buildings around it. Putting 5,700 students in close proximity to Downtown would infuse much needed spending into many Downtown businesses without converting prime agricultural land.

    All the freed up student rental housing would be available opportunities that Davis workers like yourself could move to.

    With that said, I don’t see a solution to the kind of single-family affordable housing you and your family appear to be looking for. No matter how many houses are built, there will always be enough people who currently do not either live or work in Davis who are willing to pay the premium for access to the Quality of Life amenities that Davis provides.

    Those “external” people will very likely go to the Mondavi a half a dozen times a year. They will be able to afford the higher prices that “boutique” shopping commands, they will bring their High School age children to the high quality Davis Schools. And they will probably bring the kind of substantial savings account and stock portfolio balances with them that their more numerous years of climbing the Corporate/Economic Ladder has given them time to amass. It sounds like you are still on one of the lower rungs of that ladder, and are still building both your family and your career. In that case, if space for your children is a major determinant of your family’s Quality of Life, you may be doing the right thing by moving. The new Davis Police Chief recently faced the same decision as you do, and he chose space.

    If I hear you correctly you, like many others have come to love the amenities that Davis provides. You dispar the fact that any new community you move to will not have those amenities. Am I correct? If I am you have just done an excellent job of describing why Davis housing commands a 20% premium over the housing of nearby cities. Unless they tear down the Mondavi that premium will continue to exist in perpetuity.

  126. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:15,

    Dormitories need to be close to the campus core, therefore the kind of fight that took place regarding West Village would be much less of an issue IMHO. Imagine if you will that the current Vet School High Rise was one of three such buildings in a cluster rather than the free-standing monolith that it currently is. Or as an alternative, that Toomey Field is replaced by a high rise dormitory complex of similar size to the existing campus classroom/academic buildings around it. Putting 5,700 students in close proximity to Downtown would infuse much needed spending into many Downtown businesses without converting prime agricultural land.

    All the freed up student rental housing would be available opportunities that Davis workers like yourself could move to.

    With that said, I don’t see a solution to the kind of single-family affordable housing you and your family appear to be looking for. No matter how many houses are built, there will always be enough people who currently do not either live or work in Davis who are willing to pay the premium for access to the Quality of Life amenities that Davis provides.

    Those “external” people will very likely go to the Mondavi a half a dozen times a year. They will be able to afford the higher prices that “boutique” shopping commands, they will bring their High School age children to the high quality Davis Schools. And they will probably bring the kind of substantial savings account and stock portfolio balances with them that their more numerous years of climbing the Corporate/Economic Ladder has given them time to amass. It sounds like you are still on one of the lower rungs of that ladder, and are still building both your family and your career. In that case, if space for your children is a major determinant of your family’s Quality of Life, you may be doing the right thing by moving. The new Davis Police Chief recently faced the same decision as you do, and he chose space.

    If I hear you correctly you, like many others have come to love the amenities that Davis provides. You dispar the fact that any new community you move to will not have those amenities. Am I correct? If I am you have just done an excellent job of describing why Davis housing commands a 20% premium over the housing of nearby cities. Unless they tear down the Mondavi that premium will continue to exist in perpetuity.

  127. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:15,

    Dormitories need to be close to the campus core, therefore the kind of fight that took place regarding West Village would be much less of an issue IMHO. Imagine if you will that the current Vet School High Rise was one of three such buildings in a cluster rather than the free-standing monolith that it currently is. Or as an alternative, that Toomey Field is replaced by a high rise dormitory complex of similar size to the existing campus classroom/academic buildings around it. Putting 5,700 students in close proximity to Downtown would infuse much needed spending into many Downtown businesses without converting prime agricultural land.

    All the freed up student rental housing would be available opportunities that Davis workers like yourself could move to.

    With that said, I don’t see a solution to the kind of single-family affordable housing you and your family appear to be looking for. No matter how many houses are built, there will always be enough people who currently do not either live or work in Davis who are willing to pay the premium for access to the Quality of Life amenities that Davis provides.

    Those “external” people will very likely go to the Mondavi a half a dozen times a year. They will be able to afford the higher prices that “boutique” shopping commands, they will bring their High School age children to the high quality Davis Schools. And they will probably bring the kind of substantial savings account and stock portfolio balances with them that their more numerous years of climbing the Corporate/Economic Ladder has given them time to amass. It sounds like you are still on one of the lower rungs of that ladder, and are still building both your family and your career. In that case, if space for your children is a major determinant of your family’s Quality of Life, you may be doing the right thing by moving. The new Davis Police Chief recently faced the same decision as you do, and he chose space.

    If I hear you correctly you, like many others have come to love the amenities that Davis provides. You dispar the fact that any new community you move to will not have those amenities. Am I correct? If I am you have just done an excellent job of describing why Davis housing commands a 20% premium over the housing of nearby cities. Unless they tear down the Mondavi that premium will continue to exist in perpetuity.

  128. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:15,

    Dormitories need to be close to the campus core, therefore the kind of fight that took place regarding West Village would be much less of an issue IMHO. Imagine if you will that the current Vet School High Rise was one of three such buildings in a cluster rather than the free-standing monolith that it currently is. Or as an alternative, that Toomey Field is replaced by a high rise dormitory complex of similar size to the existing campus classroom/academic buildings around it. Putting 5,700 students in close proximity to Downtown would infuse much needed spending into many Downtown businesses without converting prime agricultural land.

    All the freed up student rental housing would be available opportunities that Davis workers like yourself could move to.

    With that said, I don’t see a solution to the kind of single-family affordable housing you and your family appear to be looking for. No matter how many houses are built, there will always be enough people who currently do not either live or work in Davis who are willing to pay the premium for access to the Quality of Life amenities that Davis provides.

    Those “external” people will very likely go to the Mondavi a half a dozen times a year. They will be able to afford the higher prices that “boutique” shopping commands, they will bring their High School age children to the high quality Davis Schools. And they will probably bring the kind of substantial savings account and stock portfolio balances with them that their more numerous years of climbing the Corporate/Economic Ladder has given them time to amass. It sounds like you are still on one of the lower rungs of that ladder, and are still building both your family and your career. In that case, if space for your children is a major determinant of your family’s Quality of Life, you may be doing the right thing by moving. The new Davis Police Chief recently faced the same decision as you do, and he chose space.

    If I hear you correctly you, like many others have come to love the amenities that Davis provides. You dispar the fact that any new community you move to will not have those amenities. Am I correct? If I am you have just done an excellent job of describing why Davis housing commands a 20% premium over the housing of nearby cities. Unless they tear down the Mondavi that premium will continue to exist in perpetuity.

  129. Sue Greenwald

    To address the comments that the Mayor is a NIMBY regarding the campus West Village project:

    Remember, I proposed, and still passionately advocate for, University housing across the street from my own neighborhood on the land around the Toomey field area.

    I have always said that I support University student, faculty and staff housing on campus, but would prefer that it by split among different areas of campus to avoid extreme traffic congestion, and because I think that some housing near the core (and hence my neighborhood) would help the downtown merchants, and provide the more urban housing options that I myself enjoy so much.

  130. Sue Greenwald

    To address the comments that the Mayor is a NIMBY regarding the campus West Village project:

    Remember, I proposed, and still passionately advocate for, University housing across the street from my own neighborhood on the land around the Toomey field area.

    I have always said that I support University student, faculty and staff housing on campus, but would prefer that it by split among different areas of campus to avoid extreme traffic congestion, and because I think that some housing near the core (and hence my neighborhood) would help the downtown merchants, and provide the more urban housing options that I myself enjoy so much.

  131. Sue Greenwald

    To address the comments that the Mayor is a NIMBY regarding the campus West Village project:

    Remember, I proposed, and still passionately advocate for, University housing across the street from my own neighborhood on the land around the Toomey field area.

    I have always said that I support University student, faculty and staff housing on campus, but would prefer that it by split among different areas of campus to avoid extreme traffic congestion, and because I think that some housing near the core (and hence my neighborhood) would help the downtown merchants, and provide the more urban housing options that I myself enjoy so much.

  132. Sue Greenwald

    To address the comments that the Mayor is a NIMBY regarding the campus West Village project:

    Remember, I proposed, and still passionately advocate for, University housing across the street from my own neighborhood on the land around the Toomey field area.

    I have always said that I support University student, faculty and staff housing on campus, but would prefer that it by split among different areas of campus to avoid extreme traffic congestion, and because I think that some housing near the core (and hence my neighborhood) would help the downtown merchants, and provide the more urban housing options that I myself enjoy so much.

  133. Food for Thought

    After reading all the comments, it gave me much food for thought. Firstly, cheap shots are abhorrent and nonproductive, indicating small minds. Secondly, the point that not enough student housing has caused us some problems in the city makes sense. Because there is not enough student housing on campus, students must search out rentals throughout the city itself. And they often end up renting HOMES that have been purchased by investors. These are homes that are not available to purchase.

    So the university itself is the cause of some of the disconnects, either directly or indirectly. Because it is also a fact that university towns generally are more expensive to live in bc the public sees them as more desirable. Why? Because the kids going to the schools are usually more academically bright (their parents are often PhDs teaching at the University) and the parents are wealthier, so the school systems are better. More desirable school systems drive up the price of houses.

    The University usually provides other amenities, such as shows, exhibits and other sorts of entertainment not found in most cities, which makes the surrounding city another draw.

    I think there are many reasons Davis homes are more expensive, which may have nothing to do with growth policies, etc. Nevertheless, we need more revenue, and more indiscriminate housing growth is not necessarily the answer. I agree with some other posters on this blog, that we need to seriously consider more business, which will generate tax revenue.

    But what do we do about citizens who work in Davis, but cannot afford to live here. It does seem as if encouraging UCD to build more student housing might help. More smart growth could help as well, but what that would be is not clear to me. I sure as heck would not want to live in “infill” myself – which is essentially tenement living. But it does seem as if we need some sort of workforce housing for middle or low middle income families to live in. How to achieve that is the question, without encouraging projects like the now defunct Covell Village – which would have built nothing but McMansions for wealthy older out of town folks to move into.

  134. Food for Thought

    After reading all the comments, it gave me much food for thought. Firstly, cheap shots are abhorrent and nonproductive, indicating small minds. Secondly, the point that not enough student housing has caused us some problems in the city makes sense. Because there is not enough student housing on campus, students must search out rentals throughout the city itself. And they often end up renting HOMES that have been purchased by investors. These are homes that are not available to purchase.

    So the university itself is the cause of some of the disconnects, either directly or indirectly. Because it is also a fact that university towns generally are more expensive to live in bc the public sees them as more desirable. Why? Because the kids going to the schools are usually more academically bright (their parents are often PhDs teaching at the University) and the parents are wealthier, so the school systems are better. More desirable school systems drive up the price of houses.

    The University usually provides other amenities, such as shows, exhibits and other sorts of entertainment not found in most cities, which makes the surrounding city another draw.

    I think there are many reasons Davis homes are more expensive, which may have nothing to do with growth policies, etc. Nevertheless, we need more revenue, and more indiscriminate housing growth is not necessarily the answer. I agree with some other posters on this blog, that we need to seriously consider more business, which will generate tax revenue.

    But what do we do about citizens who work in Davis, but cannot afford to live here. It does seem as if encouraging UCD to build more student housing might help. More smart growth could help as well, but what that would be is not clear to me. I sure as heck would not want to live in “infill” myself – which is essentially tenement living. But it does seem as if we need some sort of workforce housing for middle or low middle income families to live in. How to achieve that is the question, without encouraging projects like the now defunct Covell Village – which would have built nothing but McMansions for wealthy older out of town folks to move into.

  135. Food for Thought

    After reading all the comments, it gave me much food for thought. Firstly, cheap shots are abhorrent and nonproductive, indicating small minds. Secondly, the point that not enough student housing has caused us some problems in the city makes sense. Because there is not enough student housing on campus, students must search out rentals throughout the city itself. And they often end up renting HOMES that have been purchased by investors. These are homes that are not available to purchase.

    So the university itself is the cause of some of the disconnects, either directly or indirectly. Because it is also a fact that university towns generally are more expensive to live in bc the public sees them as more desirable. Why? Because the kids going to the schools are usually more academically bright (their parents are often PhDs teaching at the University) and the parents are wealthier, so the school systems are better. More desirable school systems drive up the price of houses.

    The University usually provides other amenities, such as shows, exhibits and other sorts of entertainment not found in most cities, which makes the surrounding city another draw.

    I think there are many reasons Davis homes are more expensive, which may have nothing to do with growth policies, etc. Nevertheless, we need more revenue, and more indiscriminate housing growth is not necessarily the answer. I agree with some other posters on this blog, that we need to seriously consider more business, which will generate tax revenue.

    But what do we do about citizens who work in Davis, but cannot afford to live here. It does seem as if encouraging UCD to build more student housing might help. More smart growth could help as well, but what that would be is not clear to me. I sure as heck would not want to live in “infill” myself – which is essentially tenement living. But it does seem as if we need some sort of workforce housing for middle or low middle income families to live in. How to achieve that is the question, without encouraging projects like the now defunct Covell Village – which would have built nothing but McMansions for wealthy older out of town folks to move into.

  136. Food for Thought

    After reading all the comments, it gave me much food for thought. Firstly, cheap shots are abhorrent and nonproductive, indicating small minds. Secondly, the point that not enough student housing has caused us some problems in the city makes sense. Because there is not enough student housing on campus, students must search out rentals throughout the city itself. And they often end up renting HOMES that have been purchased by investors. These are homes that are not available to purchase.

    So the university itself is the cause of some of the disconnects, either directly or indirectly. Because it is also a fact that university towns generally are more expensive to live in bc the public sees them as more desirable. Why? Because the kids going to the schools are usually more academically bright (their parents are often PhDs teaching at the University) and the parents are wealthier, so the school systems are better. More desirable school systems drive up the price of houses.

    The University usually provides other amenities, such as shows, exhibits and other sorts of entertainment not found in most cities, which makes the surrounding city another draw.

    I think there are many reasons Davis homes are more expensive, which may have nothing to do with growth policies, etc. Nevertheless, we need more revenue, and more indiscriminate housing growth is not necessarily the answer. I agree with some other posters on this blog, that we need to seriously consider more business, which will generate tax revenue.

    But what do we do about citizens who work in Davis, but cannot afford to live here. It does seem as if encouraging UCD to build more student housing might help. More smart growth could help as well, but what that would be is not clear to me. I sure as heck would not want to live in “infill” myself – which is essentially tenement living. But it does seem as if we need some sort of workforce housing for middle or low middle income families to live in. How to achieve that is the question, without encouraging projects like the now defunct Covell Village – which would have built nothing but McMansions for wealthy older out of town folks to move into.

  137. Diogenes

    I am glad to see Matt Williams and “food for thought” making credible arguments that the supply of housing in Davis does have an impact on costs (neither of them argue for growth necessarily, except by pointing out that more dorms or university housing would create more housing). They are, of course, correct – supply and demand have an impact on housing prices, and almost everthing else.

    “Food for thought” also makes a point about wealthy out-of-towners moving into Covell Village type developments. His point may be right for a portion of homes that were to built there, but there were also affordable living units to be built there, that would have provided additional housing for families.

    Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.

  138. Diogenes

    I am glad to see Matt Williams and “food for thought” making credible arguments that the supply of housing in Davis does have an impact on costs (neither of them argue for growth necessarily, except by pointing out that more dorms or university housing would create more housing). They are, of course, correct – supply and demand have an impact on housing prices, and almost everthing else.

    “Food for thought” also makes a point about wealthy out-of-towners moving into Covell Village type developments. His point may be right for a portion of homes that were to built there, but there were also affordable living units to be built there, that would have provided additional housing for families.

    Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.

  139. Diogenes

    I am glad to see Matt Williams and “food for thought” making credible arguments that the supply of housing in Davis does have an impact on costs (neither of them argue for growth necessarily, except by pointing out that more dorms or university housing would create more housing). They are, of course, correct – supply and demand have an impact on housing prices, and almost everthing else.

    “Food for thought” also makes a point about wealthy out-of-towners moving into Covell Village type developments. His point may be right for a portion of homes that were to built there, but there were also affordable living units to be built there, that would have provided additional housing for families.

    Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.

  140. Diogenes

    I am glad to see Matt Williams and “food for thought” making credible arguments that the supply of housing in Davis does have an impact on costs (neither of them argue for growth necessarily, except by pointing out that more dorms or university housing would create more housing). They are, of course, correct – supply and demand have an impact on housing prices, and almost everthing else.

    “Food for thought” also makes a point about wealthy out-of-towners moving into Covell Village type developments. His point may be right for a portion of homes that were to built there, but there were also affordable living units to be built there, that would have provided additional housing for families.

    Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.

  141. Anonymous

    Student housing should be built in areas providing the most benefit to students. If Davis had a great downtown it might make sense to build housing on the east side of campus. However, that is not the case and all of the recreational facilites are on the west side – so the west side is where the action is. They can shop at Costco in Woodland and at Trader Joes down the street.

  142. Anonymous

    Student housing should be built in areas providing the most benefit to students. If Davis had a great downtown it might make sense to build housing on the east side of campus. However, that is not the case and all of the recreational facilites are on the west side – so the west side is where the action is. They can shop at Costco in Woodland and at Trader Joes down the street.

  143. Anonymous

    Student housing should be built in areas providing the most benefit to students. If Davis had a great downtown it might make sense to build housing on the east side of campus. However, that is not the case and all of the recreational facilites are on the west side – so the west side is where the action is. They can shop at Costco in Woodland and at Trader Joes down the street.

  144. Anonymous

    Student housing should be built in areas providing the most benefit to students. If Davis had a great downtown it might make sense to build housing on the east side of campus. However, that is not the case and all of the recreational facilites are on the west side – so the west side is where the action is. They can shop at Costco in Woodland and at Trader Joes down the street.

  145. Food for Thought

    “Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.”

    I agree. I don’t think we want to transition to a retirement community, but want a mix of older and younger folks. Especially in light of what is happening with our schools. It just makes sense to have those working in Davis able to live in Davis. In fact, most of the city staff do not live in Davis, yet influence the political process far too much. They do not always take into account what is best for Davis, because they do not live here. If you live in a town you work in, you are more willing to put your efforts toward making your community the best it can be.

  146. Food for Thought

    “Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.”

    I agree. I don’t think we want to transition to a retirement community, but want a mix of older and younger folks. Especially in light of what is happening with our schools. It just makes sense to have those working in Davis able to live in Davis. In fact, most of the city staff do not live in Davis, yet influence the political process far too much. They do not always take into account what is best for Davis, because they do not live here. If you live in a town you work in, you are more willing to put your efforts toward making your community the best it can be.

  147. Food for Thought

    “Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.”

    I agree. I don’t think we want to transition to a retirement community, but want a mix of older and younger folks. Especially in light of what is happening with our schools. It just makes sense to have those working in Davis able to live in Davis. In fact, most of the city staff do not live in Davis, yet influence the political process far too much. They do not always take into account what is best for Davis, because they do not live here. If you live in a town you work in, you are more willing to put your efforts toward making your community the best it can be.

  148. Food for Thought

    “Finally, unless affordable family housing is provided for in Davis, the population of the city will transition to older, wealthier residents who can afford the housing and who appreciate amenities like the Mondavi Center. I don’t have a problem with that result per se, but we should all understand that that generally speaking, that group doesn’t have school age children and is not supportive of increasing taxes for schools and libraries and the like.”

    I agree. I don’t think we want to transition to a retirement community, but want a mix of older and younger folks. Especially in light of what is happening with our schools. It just makes sense to have those working in Davis able to live in Davis. In fact, most of the city staff do not live in Davis, yet influence the political process far too much. They do not always take into account what is best for Davis, because they do not live here. If you live in a town you work in, you are more willing to put your efforts toward making your community the best it can be.

  149. Matt Williams

    At the risk of repeating myself 8>) it is worth repeating the following:

    According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    Those numbers say that Davis is a long way from becoming a ghetto for the elderly.

  150. Matt Williams

    At the risk of repeating myself 8>) it is worth repeating the following:

    According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    Those numbers say that Davis is a long way from becoming a ghetto for the elderly.

  151. Matt Williams

    At the risk of repeating myself 8>) it is worth repeating the following:

    According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    Those numbers say that Davis is a long way from becoming a ghetto for the elderly.

  152. Matt Williams

    At the risk of repeating myself 8>) it is worth repeating the following:

    According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors. 7% of the Davis population is 65 and over, while 11% of the Sacramento-Yolo CMSA is 65 and over. Further those percentages are the same in both the 2000 and 2006 Census information. Further, 8% of the Davis population is in the 55-64 age group, while 10% of the CMSA popumation is in that group.

    Those numbers say that Davis is a long way from becoming a ghetto for the elderly.

  153. Food For Thought

    “According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors.”

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different. Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

  154. Food For Thought

    “According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors.”

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different. Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

  155. Food For Thought

    “According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors.”

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different. Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

  156. Food For Thought

    “According to Table 2 in the Bay Area Economics study done for the Housing Element Steering Committee, Davis lags behind the Sacramento CMSA in its proportion of seniors.”

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different. Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

  157. Anonymous

    I was just thinking about all the development along road 102 and how people who live there but work in Davis need to drive farther than if that development was at the Davis end of 102. For people who can’t afford to love in Davis but work here this really amounts to leap frog developent if for no other reason it does so based on the additional miles driven and their impacts. Essentially by not building on the periphery of Davis the decision makers lose taxes and school children to Woodland while impacting the environment more than might otherwise be the case. Maybe all of this is good for those selfish people who already can afford Davis.

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

  158. Anonymous

    I was just thinking about all the development along road 102 and how people who live there but work in Davis need to drive farther than if that development was at the Davis end of 102. For people who can’t afford to love in Davis but work here this really amounts to leap frog developent if for no other reason it does so based on the additional miles driven and their impacts. Essentially by not building on the periphery of Davis the decision makers lose taxes and school children to Woodland while impacting the environment more than might otherwise be the case. Maybe all of this is good for those selfish people who already can afford Davis.

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

  159. Anonymous

    I was just thinking about all the development along road 102 and how people who live there but work in Davis need to drive farther than if that development was at the Davis end of 102. For people who can’t afford to love in Davis but work here this really amounts to leap frog developent if for no other reason it does so based on the additional miles driven and their impacts. Essentially by not building on the periphery of Davis the decision makers lose taxes and school children to Woodland while impacting the environment more than might otherwise be the case. Maybe all of this is good for those selfish people who already can afford Davis.

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

  160. Anonymous

    I was just thinking about all the development along road 102 and how people who live there but work in Davis need to drive farther than if that development was at the Davis end of 102. For people who can’t afford to love in Davis but work here this really amounts to leap frog developent if for no other reason it does so based on the additional miles driven and their impacts. Essentially by not building on the periphery of Davis the decision makers lose taxes and school children to Woodland while impacting the environment more than might otherwise be the case. Maybe all of this is good for those selfish people who already can afford Davis.

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

  161. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different.

    The skewing isn’t as much as you might expect. The 2006 Davis proportion of Over 65 year-olds goes up from 7% to 9%, which is still well below the CMSA’s 11%. The Davis proportion of 55-64 year-olds jumps from 8% to between 10% and 11%, which is virtually identical the the CMSA’s number for that age bracket if you back out the UCD and Sac State student numbers.

    Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

    That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand. National studies project that 15% of the people in the Over 55 year-old age bracket would like to move into more manageable living accomodations. Davis has 9,635 residents over 55. If the national numbers hold true, then approximately 1,500 Davis residents would like to move toone form or another of age-friendly housing. If ratchet that 1,500 down to an approximation of households with one or more 55 year-olds, the “internal” demand is approximately 1,000 senior units.

    Given the 1% growth guideline/cap, it would take more than 4 years of buildout to exhaust that “internal” demand. Add to that the fact that each senior household that moves within Davis to an age-friendly unit will be opening up their current residence for a family, the aging factor you have referred to is minimal, if not non-existant.

  162. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different.

    The skewing isn’t as much as you might expect. The 2006 Davis proportion of Over 65 year-olds goes up from 7% to 9%, which is still well below the CMSA’s 11%. The Davis proportion of 55-64 year-olds jumps from 8% to between 10% and 11%, which is virtually identical the the CMSA’s number for that age bracket if you back out the UCD and Sac State student numbers.

    Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

    That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand. National studies project that 15% of the people in the Over 55 year-old age bracket would like to move into more manageable living accomodations. Davis has 9,635 residents over 55. If the national numbers hold true, then approximately 1,500 Davis residents would like to move toone form or another of age-friendly housing. If ratchet that 1,500 down to an approximation of households with one or more 55 year-olds, the “internal” demand is approximately 1,000 senior units.

    Given the 1% growth guideline/cap, it would take more than 4 years of buildout to exhaust that “internal” demand. Add to that the fact that each senior household that moves within Davis to an age-friendly unit will be opening up their current residence for a family, the aging factor you have referred to is minimal, if not non-existant.

  163. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different.

    The skewing isn’t as much as you might expect. The 2006 Davis proportion of Over 65 year-olds goes up from 7% to 9%, which is still well below the CMSA’s 11%. The Davis proportion of 55-64 year-olds jumps from 8% to between 10% and 11%, which is virtually identical the the CMSA’s number for that age bracket if you back out the UCD and Sac State student numbers.

    Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

    That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand. National studies project that 15% of the people in the Over 55 year-old age bracket would like to move into more manageable living accomodations. Davis has 9,635 residents over 55. If the national numbers hold true, then approximately 1,500 Davis residents would like to move toone form or another of age-friendly housing. If ratchet that 1,500 down to an approximation of households with one or more 55 year-olds, the “internal” demand is approximately 1,000 senior units.

    Given the 1% growth guideline/cap, it would take more than 4 years of buildout to exhaust that “internal” demand. Add to that the fact that each senior household that moves within Davis to an age-friendly unit will be opening up their current residence for a family, the aging factor you have referred to is minimal, if not non-existant.

  164. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    Except that the percentages are very skewed because there are so many students in Davis. If you took students out of the equation, you might find the statistical results quite different.

    The skewing isn’t as much as you might expect. The 2006 Davis proportion of Over 65 year-olds goes up from 7% to 9%, which is still well below the CMSA’s 11%. The Davis proportion of 55-64 year-olds jumps from 8% to between 10% and 11%, which is virtually identical the the CMSA’s number for that age bracket if you back out the UCD and Sac State student numbers.

    Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.

    That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand. National studies project that 15% of the people in the Over 55 year-old age bracket would like to move into more manageable living accomodations. Davis has 9,635 residents over 55. If the national numbers hold true, then approximately 1,500 Davis residents would like to move toone form or another of age-friendly housing. If ratchet that 1,500 down to an approximation of households with one or more 55 year-olds, the “internal” demand is approximately 1,000 senior units.

    Given the 1% growth guideline/cap, it would take more than 4 years of buildout to exhaust that “internal” demand. Add to that the fact that each senior household that moves within Davis to an age-friendly unit will be opening up their current residence for a family, the aging factor you have referred to is minimal, if not non-existant.

  165. tansey thomas

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership. Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also? Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community? Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees? These are some things that seem beyond our control.

  166. tansey thomas

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership. Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also? Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community? Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees? These are some things that seem beyond our control.

  167. tansey thomas

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership. Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also? Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community? Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees? These are some things that seem beyond our control.

  168. tansey thomas

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership. Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also? Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community? Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees? These are some things that seem beyond our control.

  169. Diogenes

    Matt Williams:

    I have not looked at this study as much as you have, so it isn’t possible for me to comment directly on it. In general, I think we should be very wary of averages though….there is a saying that you can drown in water that averages an inch deep. Analytically, I think the most important factors to look at is the growth rate of seniors and houselds without children relative to others groups. I am not partial or biased against or for either, I just think that Davisites should know what is and will happen to them as a result of the idealogical no-growth thought process.

  170. Diogenes

    Matt Williams:

    I have not looked at this study as much as you have, so it isn’t possible for me to comment directly on it. In general, I think we should be very wary of averages though….there is a saying that you can drown in water that averages an inch deep. Analytically, I think the most important factors to look at is the growth rate of seniors and houselds without children relative to others groups. I am not partial or biased against or for either, I just think that Davisites should know what is and will happen to them as a result of the idealogical no-growth thought process.

  171. Diogenes

    Matt Williams:

    I have not looked at this study as much as you have, so it isn’t possible for me to comment directly on it. In general, I think we should be very wary of averages though….there is a saying that you can drown in water that averages an inch deep. Analytically, I think the most important factors to look at is the growth rate of seniors and houselds without children relative to others groups. I am not partial or biased against or for either, I just think that Davisites should know what is and will happen to them as a result of the idealogical no-growth thought process.

  172. Diogenes

    Matt Williams:

    I have not looked at this study as much as you have, so it isn’t possible for me to comment directly on it. In general, I think we should be very wary of averages though….there is a saying that you can drown in water that averages an inch deep. Analytically, I think the most important factors to look at is the growth rate of seniors and houselds without children relative to others groups. I am not partial or biased against or for either, I just think that Davisites should know what is and will happen to them as a result of the idealogical no-growth thought process.

  173. Matt Williams

    tansey thomas said…

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership.

    Agreed, tansey. That is one of the reasons I believe a strategy of freeing up affordable housing in the existing supply has more likelihood of success than building new affordable units … especially single-family homes. I believe 1) local workers are more likely to take on the burden of fixing up a previously-owned home, and 2) people who have to spend meaningful commuting hours each week (more often than not) want a home that is “ready to wear.”

    Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also?

    That would be rather Orwellian.

    Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community?

    The numbers in the Bay Area Economics study provided to the Housing Element Steering Committee support a “No” answer to that question. However, the Paul Navasio report to the Council presents a picture that appears to say that building any houses that sell for less than $450,000 produce more expenses for the City than revenues. If the Council decides the only fiscally responsible way to respond to that fact is to only approve expensive housing projects, then it is inevitable that the answer to your question will soon become a “Yes.” That is a truly horrible possibility. IMHO, one of the most important questions our City Council candidates need to address between now and June is how they will modify the City’s revenue model to generate additional revenues from sources other than Developer fees and property taxes.

    Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees?

    Don’t know

  174. Matt Williams

    tansey thomas said…

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership.

    Agreed, tansey. That is one of the reasons I believe a strategy of freeing up affordable housing in the existing supply has more likelihood of success than building new affordable units … especially single-family homes. I believe 1) local workers are more likely to take on the burden of fixing up a previously-owned home, and 2) people who have to spend meaningful commuting hours each week (more often than not) want a home that is “ready to wear.”

    Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also?

    That would be rather Orwellian.

    Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community?

    The numbers in the Bay Area Economics study provided to the Housing Element Steering Committee support a “No” answer to that question. However, the Paul Navasio report to the Council presents a picture that appears to say that building any houses that sell for less than $450,000 produce more expenses for the City than revenues. If the Council decides the only fiscally responsible way to respond to that fact is to only approve expensive housing projects, then it is inevitable that the answer to your question will soon become a “Yes.” That is a truly horrible possibility. IMHO, one of the most important questions our City Council candidates need to address between now and June is how they will modify the City’s revenue model to generate additional revenues from sources other than Developer fees and property taxes.

    Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees?

    Don’t know

  175. Matt Williams

    tansey thomas said…

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership.

    Agreed, tansey. That is one of the reasons I believe a strategy of freeing up affordable housing in the existing supply has more likelihood of success than building new affordable units … especially single-family homes. I believe 1) local workers are more likely to take on the burden of fixing up a previously-owned home, and 2) people who have to spend meaningful commuting hours each week (more often than not) want a home that is “ready to wear.”

    Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also?

    That would be rather Orwellian.

    Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community?

    The numbers in the Bay Area Economics study provided to the Housing Element Steering Committee support a “No” answer to that question. However, the Paul Navasio report to the Council presents a picture that appears to say that building any houses that sell for less than $450,000 produce more expenses for the City than revenues. If the Council decides the only fiscally responsible way to respond to that fact is to only approve expensive housing projects, then it is inevitable that the answer to your question will soon become a “Yes.” That is a truly horrible possibility. IMHO, one of the most important questions our City Council candidates need to address between now and June is how they will modify the City’s revenue model to generate additional revenues from sources other than Developer fees and property taxes.

    Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees?

    Don’t know

  176. Matt Williams

    tansey thomas said…

    Concerns to consider: There is no way without City ownership we can limit or prevent investors from buying up for sale housing and converting to rentals, thus blocking new families and City employees from ownership.

    Agreed, tansey. That is one of the reasons I believe a strategy of freeing up affordable housing in the existing supply has more likelihood of success than building new affordable units … especially single-family homes. I believe 1) local workers are more likely to take on the burden of fixing up a previously-owned home, and 2) people who have to spend meaningful commuting hours each week (more often than not) want a home that is “ready to wear.”

    Re the issue about commuters to Davis, what about the percentage of Davis folks who live here and commute elsewhere to jobs – does that mean they should live where they work also?

    That would be rather Orwellian.

    Another question, how close is Davis to becoming a bedroom community?

    The numbers in the Bay Area Economics study provided to the Housing Element Steering Committee support a “No” answer to that question. However, the Paul Navasio report to the Council presents a picture that appears to say that building any houses that sell for less than $450,000 produce more expenses for the City than revenues. If the Council decides the only fiscally responsible way to respond to that fact is to only approve expensive housing projects, then it is inevitable that the answer to your question will soon become a “Yes.” That is a truly horrible possibility. IMHO, one of the most important questions our City Council candidates need to address between now and June is how they will modify the City’s revenue model to generate additional revenues from sources other than Developer fees and property taxes.

    Is it true that Davis is being promoted nationwide as an ideal place for retirees?

    Don’t know

  177. Food For Thought

    “Food For Thought: Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.”

    “Matt Williams: That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand.”

    Thanks for the statistics on leaving out students in the equation. It is very helpful when viewing the issue of whether Davis is “graying”. That said, when senior developments are built, they tend to draw in outsiders. That is what happened with Eleanor Roosevelt Circle for instance. It started out and was designed to be a seniors only mixed income (low to middle income) facility. There was almost no market for the middle income units, so the entire complex ended up being primarily for low income Section 8. Many of the units ended up being filled by folks from outside Davis.

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities. Too often, when senior facilities are built, it brings in a slew of outsiders, especially in a town like Davis that has lots of amenities that seniors enjoy, e.g. Mondavi, downtown restaurants, boutique shopping.

    However, sometimes health considerations force the issue. Seniors who cannot care for themselves, or are worried that no family is around to care for them, will opt for moving into senior facilities. Yet they can end up being driven out of the facility if the rent/costs of the facility go too high (as in Atria Covell Gardens recently). Senior housing is an extremely complex issue, yet developers tend to use it as a wedge to begin development where heretofore it has been unacceptable. Covell Village is rearing its ugly head yet again through the guise of Davis needing more senior housing. I doubt very much that Davis is in need of $600,000 homes and up for seniors (as was proposed by Covell Village), or an expensive continuing care facility very much like URC (as was proposed by Covell Village), which is cost prohibitive for most seniors other than retired professors.

  178. Food For Thought

    “Food For Thought: Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.”

    “Matt Williams: That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand.”

    Thanks for the statistics on leaving out students in the equation. It is very helpful when viewing the issue of whether Davis is “graying”. That said, when senior developments are built, they tend to draw in outsiders. That is what happened with Eleanor Roosevelt Circle for instance. It started out and was designed to be a seniors only mixed income (low to middle income) facility. There was almost no market for the middle income units, so the entire complex ended up being primarily for low income Section 8. Many of the units ended up being filled by folks from outside Davis.

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities. Too often, when senior facilities are built, it brings in a slew of outsiders, especially in a town like Davis that has lots of amenities that seniors enjoy, e.g. Mondavi, downtown restaurants, boutique shopping.

    However, sometimes health considerations force the issue. Seniors who cannot care for themselves, or are worried that no family is around to care for them, will opt for moving into senior facilities. Yet they can end up being driven out of the facility if the rent/costs of the facility go too high (as in Atria Covell Gardens recently). Senior housing is an extremely complex issue, yet developers tend to use it as a wedge to begin development where heretofore it has been unacceptable. Covell Village is rearing its ugly head yet again through the guise of Davis needing more senior housing. I doubt very much that Davis is in need of $600,000 homes and up for seniors (as was proposed by Covell Village), or an expensive continuing care facility very much like URC (as was proposed by Covell Village), which is cost prohibitive for most seniors other than retired professors.

  179. Food For Thought

    “Food For Thought: Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.”

    “Matt Williams: That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand.”

    Thanks for the statistics on leaving out students in the equation. It is very helpful when viewing the issue of whether Davis is “graying”. That said, when senior developments are built, they tend to draw in outsiders. That is what happened with Eleanor Roosevelt Circle for instance. It started out and was designed to be a seniors only mixed income (low to middle income) facility. There was almost no market for the middle income units, so the entire complex ended up being primarily for low income Section 8. Many of the units ended up being filled by folks from outside Davis.

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities. Too often, when senior facilities are built, it brings in a slew of outsiders, especially in a town like Davis that has lots of amenities that seniors enjoy, e.g. Mondavi, downtown restaurants, boutique shopping.

    However, sometimes health considerations force the issue. Seniors who cannot care for themselves, or are worried that no family is around to care for them, will opt for moving into senior facilities. Yet they can end up being driven out of the facility if the rent/costs of the facility go too high (as in Atria Covell Gardens recently). Senior housing is an extremely complex issue, yet developers tend to use it as a wedge to begin development where heretofore it has been unacceptable. Covell Village is rearing its ugly head yet again through the guise of Davis needing more senior housing. I doubt very much that Davis is in need of $600,000 homes and up for seniors (as was proposed by Covell Village), or an expensive continuing care facility very much like URC (as was proposed by Covell Village), which is cost prohibitive for most seniors other than retired professors.

  180. Food For Thought

    “Food For Thought: Secondly, even if we are not a graying community, we will become one if we build big senior housing facilities/developments as were envisioned by Covell Village and Oeste Ranch.”

    “Matt Williams: That is only true if those facilities/developments cater to “external” demand.”

    Thanks for the statistics on leaving out students in the equation. It is very helpful when viewing the issue of whether Davis is “graying”. That said, when senior developments are built, they tend to draw in outsiders. That is what happened with Eleanor Roosevelt Circle for instance. It started out and was designed to be a seniors only mixed income (low to middle income) facility. There was almost no market for the middle income units, so the entire complex ended up being primarily for low income Section 8. Many of the units ended up being filled by folks from outside Davis.

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities. Too often, when senior facilities are built, it brings in a slew of outsiders, especially in a town like Davis that has lots of amenities that seniors enjoy, e.g. Mondavi, downtown restaurants, boutique shopping.

    However, sometimes health considerations force the issue. Seniors who cannot care for themselves, or are worried that no family is around to care for them, will opt for moving into senior facilities. Yet they can end up being driven out of the facility if the rent/costs of the facility go too high (as in Atria Covell Gardens recently). Senior housing is an extremely complex issue, yet developers tend to use it as a wedge to begin development where heretofore it has been unacceptable. Covell Village is rearing its ugly head yet again through the guise of Davis needing more senior housing. I doubt very much that Davis is in need of $600,000 homes and up for seniors (as was proposed by Covell Village), or an expensive continuing care facility very much like URC (as was proposed by Covell Village), which is cost prohibitive for most seniors other than retired professors.

  181. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities.

    That AARP stat is consitent with the stat I got which is that 15% want to move,which means 85% don’t want to move. Also, as others have pointed out in the past, many of the seniors who want to downsize do not want to do so by moving into a senior community. Rather thay want to move into a senior-friendly residence in a community with mixed ages and mixed family types.

  182. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities.

    That AARP stat is consitent with the stat I got which is that 15% want to move,which means 85% don’t want to move. Also, as others have pointed out in the past, many of the seniors who want to downsize do not want to do so by moving into a senior community. Rather thay want to move into a senior-friendly residence in a community with mixed ages and mixed family types.

  183. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities.

    That AARP stat is consitent with the stat I got which is that 15% want to move,which means 85% don’t want to move. Also, as others have pointed out in the past, many of the seniors who want to downsize do not want to do so by moving into a senior community. Rather thay want to move into a senior-friendly residence in a community with mixed ages and mixed family types.

  184. Matt Williams

    Food For Thought said…

    According to AARP, most Americans want to remain in their own homes(80%)- and do not want to downsize to senior facilities.

    That AARP stat is consitent with the stat I got which is that 15% want to move,which means 85% don’t want to move. Also, as others have pointed out in the past, many of the seniors who want to downsize do not want to do so by moving into a senior community. Rather thay want to move into a senior-friendly residence in a community with mixed ages and mixed family types.

  185. Anonymous

    Of course seniors want to stay in their homes. What have been the alternatives? Nursing homes? Tiny apartments cut off from others? Come on! Furthermore, Prop. 13 traps them in their homes. They can’t move because they can’t afford to move. As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.

  186. Anonymous

    Of course seniors want to stay in their homes. What have been the alternatives? Nursing homes? Tiny apartments cut off from others? Come on! Furthermore, Prop. 13 traps them in their homes. They can’t move because they can’t afford to move. As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.

  187. Anonymous

    Of course seniors want to stay in their homes. What have been the alternatives? Nursing homes? Tiny apartments cut off from others? Come on! Furthermore, Prop. 13 traps them in their homes. They can’t move because they can’t afford to move. As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.

  188. Anonymous

    Of course seniors want to stay in their homes. What have been the alternatives? Nursing homes? Tiny apartments cut off from others? Come on! Furthermore, Prop. 13 traps them in their homes. They can’t move because they can’t afford to move. As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.

  189. don shor

    “or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential.”

    that differential has been about the same for as long as I’ve been following it, since the mid-1970’s. 10 – 20% difference in median home price between Davis, Dixon, and Woodland, occasionally a bit higher. At the moment the median home price in Woodland is nearly 40% lower than Davis, which is by far the biggest discrepancy I’ve ever seen and is much higher than it was in 2007.

    Things are a bit anomalous right now. The median home price in Woodland has dropped 12% in the last quarter. Median home price in Dixon has dropped almost 15%. Median home price in Davis hasn’t dropped this quarter.

    Davis is a more desirable place to live, has a higher turnover, and has a steady supply of new home buyers due to the university.

  190. don shor

    “or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential.”

    that differential has been about the same for as long as I’ve been following it, since the mid-1970’s. 10 – 20% difference in median home price between Davis, Dixon, and Woodland, occasionally a bit higher. At the moment the median home price in Woodland is nearly 40% lower than Davis, which is by far the biggest discrepancy I’ve ever seen and is much higher than it was in 2007.

    Things are a bit anomalous right now. The median home price in Woodland has dropped 12% in the last quarter. Median home price in Dixon has dropped almost 15%. Median home price in Davis hasn’t dropped this quarter.

    Davis is a more desirable place to live, has a higher turnover, and has a steady supply of new home buyers due to the university.

  191. don shor

    “or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential.”

    that differential has been about the same for as long as I’ve been following it, since the mid-1970’s. 10 – 20% difference in median home price between Davis, Dixon, and Woodland, occasionally a bit higher. At the moment the median home price in Woodland is nearly 40% lower than Davis, which is by far the biggest discrepancy I’ve ever seen and is much higher than it was in 2007.

    Things are a bit anomalous right now. The median home price in Woodland has dropped 12% in the last quarter. Median home price in Dixon has dropped almost 15%. Median home price in Davis hasn’t dropped this quarter.

    Davis is a more desirable place to live, has a higher turnover, and has a steady supply of new home buyers due to the university.

  192. don shor

    “or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential.”

    that differential has been about the same for as long as I’ve been following it, since the mid-1970’s. 10 – 20% difference in median home price between Davis, Dixon, and Woodland, occasionally a bit higher. At the moment the median home price in Woodland is nearly 40% lower than Davis, which is by far the biggest discrepancy I’ve ever seen and is much higher than it was in 2007.

    Things are a bit anomalous right now. The median home price in Woodland has dropped 12% in the last quarter. Median home price in Dixon has dropped almost 15%. Median home price in Davis hasn’t dropped this quarter.

    Davis is a more desirable place to live, has a higher turnover, and has a steady supply of new home buyers due to the university.

  193. Food For Thought

    “As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.”

    Tell that to the Atria Covell Garden folks, who saw their rent increase by as much as 16% over two years. And that doesn’t include the increase in costs for assisted living services. This is how seniors are often priced right out of town. My contention is that we need senior housing that caters to the need of current seniors. It is not necessarily desirable to import seniors from elsewhere…for a myriad of reasons.

  194. Food For Thought

    “As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.”

    Tell that to the Atria Covell Garden folks, who saw their rent increase by as much as 16% over two years. And that doesn’t include the increase in costs for assisted living services. This is how seniors are often priced right out of town. My contention is that we need senior housing that caters to the need of current seniors. It is not necessarily desirable to import seniors from elsewhere…for a myriad of reasons.

  195. Food For Thought

    “As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.”

    Tell that to the Atria Covell Garden folks, who saw their rent increase by as much as 16% over two years. And that doesn’t include the increase in costs for assisted living services. This is how seniors are often priced right out of town. My contention is that we need senior housing that caters to the need of current seniors. It is not necessarily desirable to import seniors from elsewhere…for a myriad of reasons.

  196. Food For Thought

    “As the general population greys (yes, even Davis which obviously has a huge population of Baby Boomers despite all the attempts at doctored statistics here in this comment chain) they will be looking for and someone will provide new models of housing that will probably include small units, enhanced protection and sense of community, social halls, etc. This will be a good thing.”

    Tell that to the Atria Covell Garden folks, who saw their rent increase by as much as 16% over two years. And that doesn’t include the increase in costs for assisted living services. This is how seniors are often priced right out of town. My contention is that we need senior housing that caters to the need of current seniors. It is not necessarily desirable to import seniors from elsewhere…for a myriad of reasons.

  197. Anonymous

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth adgenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    If we had chosen to stay here, there would be another young family active in the city, spending our money locally as young families do and reducing the carbon footprint of city by biking into work and school on our bikes.

    Instead, we will come here to work and promptly leave and spend our dollars elsewhere as the majority of UCD employees do while using your roads and polluting your air. This is what the bickering has brought you.

  198. Anonymous

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth adgenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    If we had chosen to stay here, there would be another young family active in the city, spending our money locally as young families do and reducing the carbon footprint of city by biking into work and school on our bikes.

    Instead, we will come here to work and promptly leave and spend our dollars elsewhere as the majority of UCD employees do while using your roads and polluting your air. This is what the bickering has brought you.

  199. Anonymous

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth adgenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    If we had chosen to stay here, there would be another young family active in the city, spending our money locally as young families do and reducing the carbon footprint of city by biking into work and school on our bikes.

    Instead, we will come here to work and promptly leave and spend our dollars elsewhere as the majority of UCD employees do while using your roads and polluting your air. This is what the bickering has brought you.

  200. Anonymous

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth adgenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    If we had chosen to stay here, there would be another young family active in the city, spending our money locally as young families do and reducing the carbon footprint of city by biking into work and school on our bikes.

    Instead, we will come here to work and promptly leave and spend our dollars elsewhere as the majority of UCD employees do while using your roads and polluting your air. This is what the bickering has brought you.

  201. Anonymous

    What bickering are you referring to? The fact that the residents of Davis do not want this to become another example of urban or suburban sprawl like so much of the Valley? The fact that we want a say in how we grow? The fact that many of us wish to protect our surrounding farmland and internal open space? What bickering are you referring to?

    I don’t have a problem developing to meet our internal needs. My concern is that usually when we develop, we just develop.

    Want to talk about slow growth–what slow growth? Up until maybe the last five years, Davis has had extremely rapid growth, look at the city’s population in 1960 and compare it to today.

  202. Anonymous

    What bickering are you referring to? The fact that the residents of Davis do not want this to become another example of urban or suburban sprawl like so much of the Valley? The fact that we want a say in how we grow? The fact that many of us wish to protect our surrounding farmland and internal open space? What bickering are you referring to?

    I don’t have a problem developing to meet our internal needs. My concern is that usually when we develop, we just develop.

    Want to talk about slow growth–what slow growth? Up until maybe the last five years, Davis has had extremely rapid growth, look at the city’s population in 1960 and compare it to today.

  203. Anonymous

    What bickering are you referring to? The fact that the residents of Davis do not want this to become another example of urban or suburban sprawl like so much of the Valley? The fact that we want a say in how we grow? The fact that many of us wish to protect our surrounding farmland and internal open space? What bickering are you referring to?

    I don’t have a problem developing to meet our internal needs. My concern is that usually when we develop, we just develop.

    Want to talk about slow growth–what slow growth? Up until maybe the last five years, Davis has had extremely rapid growth, look at the city’s population in 1960 and compare it to today.

  204. Anonymous

    What bickering are you referring to? The fact that the residents of Davis do not want this to become another example of urban or suburban sprawl like so much of the Valley? The fact that we want a say in how we grow? The fact that many of us wish to protect our surrounding farmland and internal open space? What bickering are you referring to?

    I don’t have a problem developing to meet our internal needs. My concern is that usually when we develop, we just develop.

    Want to talk about slow growth–what slow growth? Up until maybe the last five years, Davis has had extremely rapid growth, look at the city’s population in 1960 and compare it to today.

  205. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:33 said…

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    Perhaps instead of complaining, you should be thankful you can afford to live in California. Your story plays out across America thousands of times every day. I grew up in Philadelphia, and when I talk to my old school classmates and they complain about all the snow and cold weather, I frequently reply by telling them to come join us in California. Even though they currently own their houses, their reply is, “I (We) can’t. The price of housing in the whole state of California is so much higher than our house in Philadelphia is worth. That makes the mortgage (needed to make up the purchase price difference)just too high for us. It is clear that life in California must be as good as you say it is, because the nationwide demand generated by people who want to move to California certainly has driven the housing prices up.”

    There isn’t much I can say to them when they say that to me. It is clear that California simply can’t build enough houses to meet the nationwide demand … and the rate of home building in California has been astronomical.

    Now getting to your situation, I did a quick check of the Davis MLS and there are 10 properties listed for under $300,000, and another 14 properties listed between $300,000 and $350,000. Do none of those 24 houses provide you with what you are looking for? Where do they fall short?

    Finally, your statement “… the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community” is confusing. How does a city’s feelings about growth reflect on you and your family?

  206. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:33 said…

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    Perhaps instead of complaining, you should be thankful you can afford to live in California. Your story plays out across America thousands of times every day. I grew up in Philadelphia, and when I talk to my old school classmates and they complain about all the snow and cold weather, I frequently reply by telling them to come join us in California. Even though they currently own their houses, their reply is, “I (We) can’t. The price of housing in the whole state of California is so much higher than our house in Philadelphia is worth. That makes the mortgage (needed to make up the purchase price difference)just too high for us. It is clear that life in California must be as good as you say it is, because the nationwide demand generated by people who want to move to California certainly has driven the housing prices up.”

    There isn’t much I can say to them when they say that to me. It is clear that California simply can’t build enough houses to meet the nationwide demand … and the rate of home building in California has been astronomical.

    Now getting to your situation, I did a quick check of the Davis MLS and there are 10 properties listed for under $300,000, and another 14 properties listed between $300,000 and $350,000. Do none of those 24 houses provide you with what you are looking for? Where do they fall short?

    Finally, your statement “… the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community” is confusing. How does a city’s feelings about growth reflect on you and your family?

  207. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:33 said…

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    Perhaps instead of complaining, you should be thankful you can afford to live in California. Your story plays out across America thousands of times every day. I grew up in Philadelphia, and when I talk to my old school classmates and they complain about all the snow and cold weather, I frequently reply by telling them to come join us in California. Even though they currently own their houses, their reply is, “I (We) can’t. The price of housing in the whole state of California is so much higher than our house in Philadelphia is worth. That makes the mortgage (needed to make up the purchase price difference)just too high for us. It is clear that life in California must be as good as you say it is, because the nationwide demand generated by people who want to move to California certainly has driven the housing prices up.”

    There isn’t much I can say to them when they say that to me. It is clear that California simply can’t build enough houses to meet the nationwide demand … and the rate of home building in California has been astronomical.

    Now getting to your situation, I did a quick check of the Davis MLS and there are 10 properties listed for under $300,000, and another 14 properties listed between $300,000 and $350,000. Do none of those 24 houses provide you with what you are looking for? Where do they fall short?

    Finally, your statement “… the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community” is confusing. How does a city’s feelings about growth reflect on you and your family?

  208. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:33 said…

    Let me give you my example.

    Both my husband and I work for UCD. We both have advanced degrees but are not UCD faculty and therefore get no preferential treatment regarding seed loans or campus sponsored housing. We have 2 children, 5 & 8. We rent here currently and have been for the last 4 years. We are currently in the market to buy.

    We are only looking at Woodland, Winters, and Dixon. Why? Because we can’t afford anything else. And I am ok with that because the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community.

    Perhaps instead of complaining, you should be thankful you can afford to live in California. Your story plays out across America thousands of times every day. I grew up in Philadelphia, and when I talk to my old school classmates and they complain about all the snow and cold weather, I frequently reply by telling them to come join us in California. Even though they currently own their houses, their reply is, “I (We) can’t. The price of housing in the whole state of California is so much higher than our house in Philadelphia is worth. That makes the mortgage (needed to make up the purchase price difference)just too high for us. It is clear that life in California must be as good as you say it is, because the nationwide demand generated by people who want to move to California certainly has driven the housing prices up.”

    There isn’t much I can say to them when they say that to me. It is clear that California simply can’t build enough houses to meet the nationwide demand … and the rate of home building in California has been astronomical.

    Now getting to your situation, I did a quick check of the Davis MLS and there are 10 properties listed for under $300,000, and another 14 properties listed between $300,000 and $350,000. Do none of those 24 houses provide you with what you are looking for? Where do they fall short?

    Finally, your statement “… the more I hear from the residents and their no growth agenda, the less I want to do with the community” is confusing. How does a city’s feelings about growth reflect on you and your family?

  209. Matt Williams

    Looking into the MLS listings further illuminated an interesting point that hasn’t been discussed thus far. Specifically, a significant part of the problem is that when people move to Davis they rarely leave. As a result the number of houses available for sale is extremely low. As noted above, Davis has 24 homes for sale with prices up to $350,000. Woodland has 224 homes for sale in that same price bracket. Those respective rates of housing turnover are astounding. Woodland (with a population of 49,132)appears to be a very mobile community by comparison to Davis. I think I am going to add “stable community” to the list of factors that cause Davis houses to command a price premium at the time of sale.

  210. Matt Williams

    Looking into the MLS listings further illuminated an interesting point that hasn’t been discussed thus far. Specifically, a significant part of the problem is that when people move to Davis they rarely leave. As a result the number of houses available for sale is extremely low. As noted above, Davis has 24 homes for sale with prices up to $350,000. Woodland has 224 homes for sale in that same price bracket. Those respective rates of housing turnover are astounding. Woodland (with a population of 49,132)appears to be a very mobile community by comparison to Davis. I think I am going to add “stable community” to the list of factors that cause Davis houses to command a price premium at the time of sale.

  211. Matt Williams

    Looking into the MLS listings further illuminated an interesting point that hasn’t been discussed thus far. Specifically, a significant part of the problem is that when people move to Davis they rarely leave. As a result the number of houses available for sale is extremely low. As noted above, Davis has 24 homes for sale with prices up to $350,000. Woodland has 224 homes for sale in that same price bracket. Those respective rates of housing turnover are astounding. Woodland (with a population of 49,132)appears to be a very mobile community by comparison to Davis. I think I am going to add “stable community” to the list of factors that cause Davis houses to command a price premium at the time of sale.

  212. Matt Williams

    Looking into the MLS listings further illuminated an interesting point that hasn’t been discussed thus far. Specifically, a significant part of the problem is that when people move to Davis they rarely leave. As a result the number of houses available for sale is extremely low. As noted above, Davis has 24 homes for sale with prices up to $350,000. Woodland has 224 homes for sale in that same price bracket. Those respective rates of housing turnover are astounding. Woodland (with a population of 49,132)appears to be a very mobile community by comparison to Davis. I think I am going to add “stable community” to the list of factors that cause Davis houses to command a price premium at the time of sale.

  213. Anonymous

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

  214. Anonymous

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

  215. Anonymous

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

  216. Anonymous

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

  217. wdf

    We only just succeeded in buying a place in Davis a few years ago. I don’t think I could afford my own house in the current market. It feels like a rather modest house for what we paid for it, but I’m grateful we have it. We made a conscious decision that our current goal was good neighborhoods and schools for our kids. We gave up on the thought of a decent-size house.

    When we bought our house, it was also a rather cutthroat environment at the low end of the market. You had to be ready to make an offer practically on the day it went onto the market.

    I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.

  218. wdf

    We only just succeeded in buying a place in Davis a few years ago. I don’t think I could afford my own house in the current market. It feels like a rather modest house for what we paid for it, but I’m grateful we have it. We made a conscious decision that our current goal was good neighborhoods and schools for our kids. We gave up on the thought of a decent-size house.

    When we bought our house, it was also a rather cutthroat environment at the low end of the market. You had to be ready to make an offer practically on the day it went onto the market.

    I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.

  219. wdf

    We only just succeeded in buying a place in Davis a few years ago. I don’t think I could afford my own house in the current market. It feels like a rather modest house for what we paid for it, but I’m grateful we have it. We made a conscious decision that our current goal was good neighborhoods and schools for our kids. We gave up on the thought of a decent-size house.

    When we bought our house, it was also a rather cutthroat environment at the low end of the market. You had to be ready to make an offer practically on the day it went onto the market.

    I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.

  220. wdf

    We only just succeeded in buying a place in Davis a few years ago. I don’t think I could afford my own house in the current market. It feels like a rather modest house for what we paid for it, but I’m grateful we have it. We made a conscious decision that our current goal was good neighborhoods and schools for our kids. We gave up on the thought of a decent-size house.

    When we bought our house, it was also a rather cutthroat environment at the low end of the market. You had to be ready to make an offer practically on the day it went onto the market.

    I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.

  221. Food for Thought

    “I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.”

    I very much doubt that the Covell Village project would have helped you, unless I have my facts wrong. The homes contemplated were mostly in the $600,000 range and up. I assume there might have been some affordable housing in the mix, but it would have probably been for low income people. It is the middle income folks that are hardest hit with lack of housing options.

    I also agree with Matt Williams assessment, that CA homes in general are way more expensive as compared to the rest of the country. And Davis is more desirable and has far less homes for sale than other cities in the surrounding area – which most likely is explained by the proximity of UCD. It doesn’t make everyone in Davis an elitist – it is just the facts as they are. We need better housing options for middle income folks who work in Davis.

  222. Food for Thought

    “I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.”

    I very much doubt that the Covell Village project would have helped you, unless I have my facts wrong. The homes contemplated were mostly in the $600,000 range and up. I assume there might have been some affordable housing in the mix, but it would have probably been for low income people. It is the middle income folks that are hardest hit with lack of housing options.

    I also agree with Matt Williams assessment, that CA homes in general are way more expensive as compared to the rest of the country. And Davis is more desirable and has far less homes for sale than other cities in the surrounding area – which most likely is explained by the proximity of UCD. It doesn’t make everyone in Davis an elitist – it is just the facts as they are. We need better housing options for middle income folks who work in Davis.

  223. Food for Thought

    “I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.”

    I very much doubt that the Covell Village project would have helped you, unless I have my facts wrong. The homes contemplated were mostly in the $600,000 range and up. I assume there might have been some affordable housing in the mix, but it would have probably been for low income people. It is the middle income folks that are hardest hit with lack of housing options.

    I also agree with Matt Williams assessment, that CA homes in general are way more expensive as compared to the rest of the country. And Davis is more desirable and has far less homes for sale than other cities in the surrounding area – which most likely is explained by the proximity of UCD. It doesn’t make everyone in Davis an elitist – it is just the facts as they are. We need better housing options for middle income folks who work in Davis.

  224. Food for Thought

    “I definitely like having sensible development, but my sympathies do lie heavily w/ other young families who would like to buy in to Davis. I voted for the Covell Village project.

    I just wonder if any project has any chance of passing a Measure J vote these days.”

    I very much doubt that the Covell Village project would have helped you, unless I have my facts wrong. The homes contemplated were mostly in the $600,000 range and up. I assume there might have been some affordable housing in the mix, but it would have probably been for low income people. It is the middle income folks that are hardest hit with lack of housing options.

    I also agree with Matt Williams assessment, that CA homes in general are way more expensive as compared to the rest of the country. And Davis is more desirable and has far less homes for sale than other cities in the surrounding area – which most likely is explained by the proximity of UCD. It doesn’t make everyone in Davis an elitist – it is just the facts as they are. We need better housing options for middle income folks who work in Davis.

  225. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 9:32 AM said…

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

    Gwynster, to the best of my knowledge there is no amount of compassion that can change the economic realities of California. What exactly do you want Davis residents to do? If there were 1,000 new homes miraculously put on the market by Developers next month, what proportion of them would you expect would be priced under $350,000 by those developers?

    Do you dispute the existence of the substantial Regional demand from non-Davis residents looking to take advantage of the higher quality of life that Davis offers? If you don’t, what is to prevent the individuals who make up theat Regional demand from bidding up the price of the houses for sale on the Davis market?

    I empathize with your frustration about the high cost of both California housing and Davis housing, but until California changes its quality of life to match Michigan’s or Mississippi’s or Pennsylvania’s the price of housing here will continue to be high.

    I am sure you want to live in Davis for many of the same reasons myriads of other people want to live in Davis
    — the Mondavi Center
    — the University
    — the high quality public schools
    — the stability of the community
    — the excellent access to public transportation
    Those reasons have virtually nothing to do with growth and/or growth rate of housing. Feel free to take your frustration out on me. I don’t mind being your scapegoat. Just remember that the challenges Davis faces in dealing with Regional demand for its housing would be there if Davis doubled in size. Zip Codes 93101 through 93199 are living testament to that reality.

  226. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 9:32 AM said…

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

    Gwynster, to the best of my knowledge there is no amount of compassion that can change the economic realities of California. What exactly do you want Davis residents to do? If there were 1,000 new homes miraculously put on the market by Developers next month, what proportion of them would you expect would be priced under $350,000 by those developers?

    Do you dispute the existence of the substantial Regional demand from non-Davis residents looking to take advantage of the higher quality of life that Davis offers? If you don’t, what is to prevent the individuals who make up theat Regional demand from bidding up the price of the houses for sale on the Davis market?

    I empathize with your frustration about the high cost of both California housing and Davis housing, but until California changes its quality of life to match Michigan’s or Mississippi’s or Pennsylvania’s the price of housing here will continue to be high.

    I am sure you want to live in Davis for many of the same reasons myriads of other people want to live in Davis
    — the Mondavi Center
    — the University
    — the high quality public schools
    — the stability of the community
    — the excellent access to public transportation
    Those reasons have virtually nothing to do with growth and/or growth rate of housing. Feel free to take your frustration out on me. I don’t mind being your scapegoat. Just remember that the challenges Davis faces in dealing with Regional demand for its housing would be there if Davis doubled in size. Zip Codes 93101 through 93199 are living testament to that reality.

  227. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 9:32 AM said…

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

    Gwynster, to the best of my knowledge there is no amount of compassion that can change the economic realities of California. What exactly do you want Davis residents to do? If there were 1,000 new homes miraculously put on the market by Developers next month, what proportion of them would you expect would be priced under $350,000 by those developers?

    Do you dispute the existence of the substantial Regional demand from non-Davis residents looking to take advantage of the higher quality of life that Davis offers? If you don’t, what is to prevent the individuals who make up theat Regional demand from bidding up the price of the houses for sale on the Davis market?

    I empathize with your frustration about the high cost of both California housing and Davis housing, but until California changes its quality of life to match Michigan’s or Mississippi’s or Pennsylvania’s the price of housing here will continue to be high.

    I am sure you want to live in Davis for many of the same reasons myriads of other people want to live in Davis
    — the Mondavi Center
    — the University
    — the high quality public schools
    — the stability of the community
    — the excellent access to public transportation
    Those reasons have virtually nothing to do with growth and/or growth rate of housing. Feel free to take your frustration out on me. I don’t mind being your scapegoat. Just remember that the challenges Davis faces in dealing with Regional demand for its housing would be there if Davis doubled in size. Zip Codes 93101 through 93199 are living testament to that reality.

  228. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 9:32 AM said…

    Matt,
    That is exactly the attitude I expect from a Davis resident. Congratulations on living up to the sterotype portrayed in the Jim Wasserman SacBee opinion piece.

    I’m in the same boat as the young UCD family who posted above. The fact is 350k is too high for most UCD employees, especially recent hires. They are not all professors. Do you have any idea how poorly lecturers, lab staff, clericals, and other semi-skilled UCD workers are paid? Gwynster

    Gwynster, to the best of my knowledge there is no amount of compassion that can change the economic realities of California. What exactly do you want Davis residents to do? If there were 1,000 new homes miraculously put on the market by Developers next month, what proportion of them would you expect would be priced under $350,000 by those developers?

    Do you dispute the existence of the substantial Regional demand from non-Davis residents looking to take advantage of the higher quality of life that Davis offers? If you don’t, what is to prevent the individuals who make up theat Regional demand from bidding up the price of the houses for sale on the Davis market?

    I empathize with your frustration about the high cost of both California housing and Davis housing, but until California changes its quality of life to match Michigan’s or Mississippi’s or Pennsylvania’s the price of housing here will continue to be high.

    I am sure you want to live in Davis for many of the same reasons myriads of other people want to live in Davis
    — the Mondavi Center
    — the University
    — the high quality public schools
    — the stability of the community
    — the excellent access to public transportation
    Those reasons have virtually nothing to do with growth and/or growth rate of housing. Feel free to take your frustration out on me. I don’t mind being your scapegoat. Just remember that the challenges Davis faces in dealing with Regional demand for its housing would be there if Davis doubled in size. Zip Codes 93101 through 93199 are living testament to that reality.

  229. Black Bart

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong. Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves. You live in a college town that is a great economic engine for the state. 10,000 new homes would make the town livable for thousands of additional people improving their quality of life. Of course this would impact the people who already live here and that is the rub, not that there isn’t the space or the need or the market profitability, no, the problem is one of selfish self interest and nothing more.

  230. Black Bart

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong. Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves. You live in a college town that is a great economic engine for the state. 10,000 new homes would make the town livable for thousands of additional people improving their quality of life. Of course this would impact the people who already live here and that is the rub, not that there isn’t the space or the need or the market profitability, no, the problem is one of selfish self interest and nothing more.

  231. Black Bart

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong. Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves. You live in a college town that is a great economic engine for the state. 10,000 new homes would make the town livable for thousands of additional people improving their quality of life. Of course this would impact the people who already live here and that is the rub, not that there isn’t the space or the need or the market profitability, no, the problem is one of selfish self interest and nothing more.

  232. Black Bart

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong. Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves. You live in a college town that is a great economic engine for the state. 10,000 new homes would make the town livable for thousands of additional people improving their quality of life. Of course this would impact the people who already live here and that is the rub, not that there isn’t the space or the need or the market profitability, no, the problem is one of selfish self interest and nothing more.

  233. How about costs of new housing

    “Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves.”

    And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.

    Matt Williams is correct here – many factors go into determining the price of homes – including amenities and their cost. I am hesitant to approve any new housing that will cost the city more money because it cannot pay for the amenities it has without raising taxes or fees. Remember, we are going to be hit with a huge increase in water and sewer rates over the next ten years…

  234. How about costs of new housing

    “Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves.”

    And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.

    Matt Williams is correct here – many factors go into determining the price of homes – including amenities and their cost. I am hesitant to approve any new housing that will cost the city more money because it cannot pay for the amenities it has without raising taxes or fees. Remember, we are going to be hit with a huge increase in water and sewer rates over the next ten years…

  235. How about costs of new housing

    “Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves.”

    And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.

    Matt Williams is correct here – many factors go into determining the price of homes – including amenities and their cost. I am hesitant to approve any new housing that will cost the city more money because it cannot pay for the amenities it has without raising taxes or fees. Remember, we are going to be hit with a huge increase in water and sewer rates over the next ten years…

  236. How about costs of new housing

    “Additionally, if you built 2000 or 10,000 new homes you would at some point break the back of the housing market. You could do this without leap frog development by developing all frontier parcels on the edges of Davis coupled with the university taking its share. It isn’t that it couldn’t be done it is only that people who already own selfishly don’t want anyone else to live here. Just think how many nimby’s who read this will think oh my god 10,000 new homes like its the end of civilization as we know it. I say get over youselves.”

    And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.

    Matt Williams is correct here – many factors go into determining the price of homes – including amenities and their cost. I am hesitant to approve any new housing that will cost the city more money because it cannot pay for the amenities it has without raising taxes or fees. Remember, we are going to be hit with a huge increase in water and sewer rates over the next ten years…

  237. wdf

    “And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.”

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

  238. wdf

    “And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.”

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

  239. wdf

    “And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.”

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

  240. wdf

    “And how do you propose that the city pay for all the amenities that would have to go along with these extra houses – such as fire, police, maintenance? There are many facets to housing demands. You can build new houses, but the amenities available can determine the price of houses, and can also make people hesitant to allow more building if the city cannot pay for those additional amenities. If you are a senior on a fixed income, too much in the way of additional taxes can price you right out of your home.”

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

  241. Doug Paul Davis

    Unfortunately it does not wash out, in fact, it is not even that close in the end. For reference see the discussion of the costs of the West Village and how much it would cost either the university or city to provide services. Local government simply does not get enough in property taxes to offset the cost of city services.

  242. Doug Paul Davis

    Unfortunately it does not wash out, in fact, it is not even that close in the end. For reference see the discussion of the costs of the West Village and how much it would cost either the university or city to provide services. Local government simply does not get enough in property taxes to offset the cost of city services.

  243. Doug Paul Davis

    Unfortunately it does not wash out, in fact, it is not even that close in the end. For reference see the discussion of the costs of the West Village and how much it would cost either the university or city to provide services. Local government simply does not get enough in property taxes to offset the cost of city services.

  244. Doug Paul Davis

    Unfortunately it does not wash out, in fact, it is not even that close in the end. For reference see the discussion of the costs of the West Village and how much it would cost either the university or city to provide services. Local government simply does not get enough in property taxes to offset the cost of city services.

  245. Anonymous

    West Village is a special case because the university would be subject to a different property tax structure than a private residence in a subdivision.

  246. Anonymous

    West Village is a special case because the university would be subject to a different property tax structure than a private residence in a subdivision.

  247. Anonymous

    West Village is a special case because the university would be subject to a different property tax structure than a private residence in a subdivision.

  248. Anonymous

    West Village is a special case because the university would be subject to a different property tax structure than a private residence in a subdivision.

  249. Matt Williams

    wdf said…

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

    wdf, in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee, City Finance Director Paul Navasio listed the following Revenue Estimates for a $400,000 sale price home:

    Property Tax = $14,000
    In-Lieu of VLF = $6,511
    Sales Tax = $7,246
    Prop 172 = $268
    Franchise tax = $340
    State/other taxes = $1,095
    Total Revenues = $29,460

    His estimates for Expenditures for that same $400,000 home were:

    General Government = $2,779
    Comm Development = $664
    Parks Maintenance = $4,334
    Recreation = $701
    Social Services = $75
    Police = $10,007
    Fire = $5,861
    Transportation = $5,647
    Total Expenditures = $30,067

    Bottom-line Expenditure exceed Revenues by $30

    Note:
    — VLF means Vehicle License fees.
    — Prop 172 is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to Police, Fire, DAs and Corrections services provided by the City.

  250. Matt Williams

    wdf said…

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

    wdf, in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee, City Finance Director Paul Navasio listed the following Revenue Estimates for a $400,000 sale price home:

    Property Tax = $14,000
    In-Lieu of VLF = $6,511
    Sales Tax = $7,246
    Prop 172 = $268
    Franchise tax = $340
    State/other taxes = $1,095
    Total Revenues = $29,460

    His estimates for Expenditures for that same $400,000 home were:

    General Government = $2,779
    Comm Development = $664
    Parks Maintenance = $4,334
    Recreation = $701
    Social Services = $75
    Police = $10,007
    Fire = $5,861
    Transportation = $5,647
    Total Expenditures = $30,067

    Bottom-line Expenditure exceed Revenues by $30

    Note:
    — VLF means Vehicle License fees.
    — Prop 172 is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to Police, Fire, DAs and Corrections services provided by the City.

  251. Matt Williams

    wdf said…

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

    wdf, in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee, City Finance Director Paul Navasio listed the following Revenue Estimates for a $400,000 sale price home:

    Property Tax = $14,000
    In-Lieu of VLF = $6,511
    Sales Tax = $7,246
    Prop 172 = $268
    Franchise tax = $340
    State/other taxes = $1,095
    Total Revenues = $29,460

    His estimates for Expenditures for that same $400,000 home were:

    General Government = $2,779
    Comm Development = $664
    Parks Maintenance = $4,334
    Recreation = $701
    Social Services = $75
    Police = $10,007
    Fire = $5,861
    Transportation = $5,647
    Total Expenditures = $30,067

    Bottom-line Expenditure exceed Revenues by $30

    Note:
    — VLF means Vehicle License fees.
    — Prop 172 is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to Police, Fire, DAs and Corrections services provided by the City.

  252. Matt Williams

    wdf said…

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

    wdf, in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee, City Finance Director Paul Navasio listed the following Revenue Estimates for a $400,000 sale price home:

    Property Tax = $14,000
    In-Lieu of VLF = $6,511
    Sales Tax = $7,246
    Prop 172 = $268
    Franchise tax = $340
    State/other taxes = $1,095
    Total Revenues = $29,460

    His estimates for Expenditures for that same $400,000 home were:

    General Government = $2,779
    Comm Development = $664
    Parks Maintenance = $4,334
    Recreation = $701
    Social Services = $75
    Police = $10,007
    Fire = $5,861
    Transportation = $5,647
    Total Expenditures = $30,067

    Bottom-line Expenditure exceed Revenues by $30

    Note:
    — VLF means Vehicle License fees.
    — Prop 172 is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to Police, Fire, DAs and Corrections services provided by the City.

  253. Matt Williams

    wdf said…

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

    wdf, in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee, City Finance Director Paul Navasio listed the following Revenue Estimates for a $400,000 sale price home:

    Property Tax = $14,000
    In-Lieu of VLF = $6,511
    Sales Tax = $7,246
    Prop 172 = $268
    Franchise tax = $340
    State/other taxes = $1,095
    Total Revenues = $29,460

    His estimates for Expenditures for that same $400,000 home were:

    General Government = $2,779
    Comm Development = $664
    Parks Maintenance = $4,334
    Recreation = $701
    Social Services = $75
    Police = $10,007
    Fire = $5,861
    Transportation = $5,647
    Total Expenditures = $30,067

    Bottom-line Expenditure exceed Revenues by $30

    Note:
    — VLF means Vehicle License fees.
    — Prop 172 is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to Police, Fire, DAs and Corrections services provided by the City.

  254. Matt Williams

    wdf said…

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

    wdf, in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee, City Finance Director Paul Navasio listed the following Revenue Estimates for a $400,000 sale price home:

    Property Tax = $14,000
    In-Lieu of VLF = $6,511
    Sales Tax = $7,246
    Prop 172 = $268
    Franchise tax = $340
    State/other taxes = $1,095
    Total Revenues = $29,460

    His estimates for Expenditures for that same $400,000 home were:

    General Government = $2,779
    Comm Development = $664
    Parks Maintenance = $4,334
    Recreation = $701
    Social Services = $75
    Police = $10,007
    Fire = $5,861
    Transportation = $5,647
    Total Expenditures = $30,067

    Bottom-line Expenditure exceed Revenues by $30

    Note:
    — VLF means Vehicle License fees.
    — Prop 172 is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to Police, Fire, DAs and Corrections services provided by the City.

  255. Matt Williams

    wdf said…

    I may have to claim partial ignorance, here. W/ more housing, there will be more additional property/parcel taxes coming in. Wouldn’t the proportional increase in housing units make up for the proportional increase in city services (fire, police, sanitation)?

    The implication in “how about costs…” comments seems to be that it is not a proportional increase in revenues w/ services. Please explain…

    wdf, in his presentation to the Housing Element Steering Committee, City Finance Director Paul Navasio listed the following Revenue Estimates for a $400,000 sale price home:

    Property Tax = $14,000
    In-Lieu of VLF = $6,511
    Sales Tax = $7,246
    Prop 172 = $268
    Franchise tax = $340
    State/other taxes = $1,095
    Total Revenues = $29,460

    His estimates for Expenditures for that same $400,000 home were:

    General Government = $2,779
    Comm Development = $664
    Parks Maintenance = $4,334
    Recreation = $701
    Social Services = $75
    Police = $10,007
    Fire = $5,861
    Transportation = $5,647
    Total Expenditures = $30,067

    Bottom-line Expenditure exceed Revenues by $30

    Note:
    — VLF means Vehicle License fees.
    — Prop 172 is a half-cent sales tax dedicated to Police, Fire, DAs and Corrections services provided by the City.

  256. Matt Williams

    Black Bart said…

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong.

    Bart, the numbers do not lie.

    In 1998 999 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.8% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 1999 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $133, up 9.9% from the same period the year before.

    In 1999 another 926 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.2% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 2000 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $150, up 12.8% from the $133 of the same period in 1999.

    Bottom-line, increase in Supply did not decrease housing costs. The Demand for Davis housing is so elastic that virtually no amount of increase in Supply will meet the Demand.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM
    said…

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM, sorry it took me some time to get the historical numbers, but I hope they answer your question. There in fact wasn’t any price stagnation during the Wildhorse build out.

  257. Matt Williams

    Black Bart said…

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong.

    Bart, the numbers do not lie.

    In 1998 999 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.8% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 1999 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $133, up 9.9% from the same period the year before.

    In 1999 another 926 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.2% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 2000 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $150, up 12.8% from the $133 of the same period in 1999.

    Bottom-line, increase in Supply did not decrease housing costs. The Demand for Davis housing is so elastic that virtually no amount of increase in Supply will meet the Demand.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM
    said…

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM, sorry it took me some time to get the historical numbers, but I hope they answer your question. There in fact wasn’t any price stagnation during the Wildhorse build out.

  258. Matt Williams

    Black Bart said…

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong.

    Bart, the numbers do not lie.

    In 1998 999 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.8% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 1999 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $133, up 9.9% from the same period the year before.

    In 1999 another 926 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.2% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 2000 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $150, up 12.8% from the $133 of the same period in 1999.

    Bottom-line, increase in Supply did not decrease housing costs. The Demand for Davis housing is so elastic that virtually no amount of increase in Supply will meet the Demand.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM
    said…

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM, sorry it took me some time to get the historical numbers, but I hope they answer your question. There in fact wasn’t any price stagnation during the Wildhorse build out.

  259. Matt Williams

    Black Bart said…

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong.

    Bart, the numbers do not lie.

    In 1998 999 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.8% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 1999 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $133, up 9.9% from the same period the year before.

    In 1999 another 926 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.2% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 2000 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $150, up 12.8% from the $133 of the same period in 1999.

    Bottom-line, increase in Supply did not decrease housing costs. The Demand for Davis housing is so elastic that virtually no amount of increase in Supply will meet the Demand.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM
    said…

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM, sorry it took me some time to get the historical numbers, but I hope they answer your question. There in fact wasn’t any price stagnation during the Wildhorse build out.

  260. Matt Williams

    Black Bart said…

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong.

    Bart, the numbers do not lie.

    In 1998 999 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.8% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 1999 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $133, up 9.9% from the same period the year before.

    In 1999 another 926 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.2% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 2000 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $150, up 12.8% from the $133 of the same period in 1999.

    Bottom-line, increase in Supply did not decrease housing costs. The Demand for Davis housing is so elastic that virtually no amount of increase in Supply will meet the Demand.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM
    said…

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM, sorry it took me some time to get the historical numbers, but I hope they answer your question. There in fact wasn’t any price stagnation during the Wildhorse build out.

  261. Matt Williams

    Black Bart said…

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong.

    Bart, the numbers do not lie.

    In 1998 999 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.8% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 1999 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $133, up 9.9% from the same period the year before.

    In 1999 another 926 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.2% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 2000 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $150, up 12.8% from the $133 of the same period in 1999.

    Bottom-line, increase in Supply did not decrease housing costs. The Demand for Davis housing is so elastic that virtually no amount of increase in Supply will meet the Demand.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM
    said…

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM, sorry it took me some time to get the historical numbers, but I hope they answer your question. There in fact wasn’t any price stagnation during the Wildhorse build out.

  262. Matt Williams

    Black Bart said…

    If you put 1000 new homes on the market in Davis it would in fact depress the market even further and reduce prices. I don’t know what they would end up selling for but your suggestion that they would not have an economic impact is wrong.

    Bart, the numbers do not lie.

    In 1998 999 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.8% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 1999 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $133, up 9.9% from the same period the year before.

    In 1999 another 926 new single-family-home building permits were issued. That was a 4.2% increase in the single-family housing supply. In the 1st Quarter of 2000 the Average Price Per Square Foot of single-family home sales in Davis was $150, up 12.8% from the $133 of the same period in 1999.

    Bottom-line, increase in Supply did not decrease housing costs. The Demand for Davis housing is so elastic that virtually no amount of increase in Supply will meet the Demand.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM
    said…

    Still I haven’t heard any response to the supply and demand influence that Wildhorse had while it was being built or the current premium on housing in Davis over the historical differential. No growth policies are elitist and discriminatory I just want the mayor to remember that the next time she shows up on MLK day.

    Anonymous 3/24/08 2:59 PM, sorry it took me some time to get the historical numbers, but I hope they answer your question. There in fact wasn’t any price stagnation during the Wildhorse build out.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for