Davis City Council Questions: Question 6 – Davis Downtown

Share:

This is our sixth of eight questions.  The candidates get exactly 250 words.  The answer was due at 9 pm on Thursday.

Question 6:  The city undertook the Davis Downtown Plan through a citizen-based commission.  Discuss your thoughts on the plan – address issues like: (A) Form-based code, (B) Densification, (C) Mixed-housing and residential housing in the downtown, (D) Parking and your overall thoughts on the plan going forward.


District 2

Will Arnold

In addition to being a key part of our updated General Plan process, major advantages of our Downtown Plan include finding space in town for increased densification and increased building height, as well as mixed use capability so we can get folks living working and shopping in one place and all of the benefits that come with that. In addition, form based codes are more resilient and flexible, allowing for predictability in future development, helping business and encouraging walkability.

Shared spaces, pedestrian amenities and plazas are a key feature at the very foundation of our Downtown Plan. These permanent improvements to our downtown landscape will build upon those that we have already undertaken, including the 3rd Street corridor, creation of outdoor dining plazas and, most recently, with street and parking lot closures to accommodate COVID-19 business support for outdoor dining and sales. The Downtown Plan calls for re-envisioning space allocation in key areas and will allow for the periodic closure of key streets, and the consideration of possible longer-term closures.

Implementation of our Downtown Plan and infrastructure will be a top priority of 2021, immediately following the adoption of the Plan. Private reinvestment projects that will come on the heels of the plan adoption will catalyze the funding for public infrastructure.

Colin Walsh

On my website (https://www.walsh4davis.com/principles) I lay out detailed principals for how our city should be governed using the acronym TRACK. In short, those principals are Transparent, Responsible, Accountable, Community-Oriented, and Knowledge-Driven. All of those apply here.

  1. A) Form-based codes seek to control the physical form, with a lesser focus on permitted uses. They have the potential to diversify and intensify use over traditional zoning that restricts use, ideally keeping the physical form pleasing but expanding the uses allowed and having the potential to add vibrancy and flexibility that single use zoning does not. Either zoning or form-based code, however, are susceptible to manipulation to allow for unexpected outcomes if a council does not follow the ideas behind TRACK.
  2. B) Reasonable densification will create more business and housing opportunities, but it should not be done at the expense of the character of the town and independent retailers.
  3. C) Mixed-use and residential housing in the downtown would be welcome, but it needs to come with stronger Affordable housing requirements.
  4. D) “Parking” would be better understood as part of the whole transportation picture. The downtown needs to be easily accessible including public transportation, active transportation, and automobiles. “Parking” is only one piece.

Overall, I worry that the draft downtown plan that has gone into the EIR process lacks popular community support especially regarding some of the building height issues. Without these issues being better resolved I worry that we are headed for a contentious process.


District 3

Lucas Frerichs

I’m excited about implementation of the new Downtown Plan! Downtown is the heart of our community and District 3.

The Downtown Plan is an example of a really solid community engagement process. I appreciate the energy and dedication that the 15 DPAC members put into crafting it. I’m also grateful that 12 of the 15 DPAC members have endorsed my re-election effort.

The future of Downtown Davis is to densify responsibly, and to provide an increased combination of vibrant mixed uses, including various types of needed housing above ground floor retail and office spaces.  Adding additional residents to Downtown Davis will benefit our community.

As Councilmember, I advocated for use of form-based codes to serve as a guide of what types of buildings can be built, and at what heights/# of stories. The new plan allows for buildings of up to seven stories as allowed uses, while we currently have mostly 1 & 2 story buildings with a smattering of 3 & 4 story buildings throughout downtown.

I also believe the key to building ANY project is proactive and sustained communication between developer/applicants and neighbors. The city should work to ensure this happens during the consideration of every project, regardless of location.

The next phase is pursuing the CEQA certification that overlays the boundaries of the plan. When finished, projects that come forward will qualify for CEQA clearance. This will provide certainty to applicants.  There are several downtown property owners waiting for CEQA clearance, before moving forward with their projects.


District 5

Connor Gorman

I really liked the process around the Downtown Plan and hope we replicate it for major decisions in the future while simultaneously centering the needs of marginalized communities and those who are the most impacted by a given decision.  I’m generally in favor of form-based code and also support densification and mixed use developments where appropriate, especially in and near the downtown and the UC Davis campus (I think this has a number of benefits in terms of housing, the environment, and downtown revitalization) as long as other conditions are met (both on the developer, like around affordability, and on the City, like making sure our Fire Department has a ladder truck).

Another possibility to explore further is a commercial vacancy tax and/or commercial rent control which could help incentivize (or require) the few landholders who own much of the downtown to treat their small business tenants better (both during and beyond the pandemic).

Finally, I’d be in favor of allocating more land to purposes other than vehicle traffic and parking while incentivizing (preferably through positive means rather than negative ones like fees) alternative modes of transportation (like walking, biking, and mass transit).  In particular, I think larger sidewalks and bike paths are important and I also support examining other potential uses, like more public green space or seating areas.  Plus, such spaces could benefit local businesses, though I’d want them to be accessible to everyone rather than being exclusively reserved for certain businesses (public land should remain public).

Rochelle Swanson

I am proud to have been a part of the early formation of the Downtown Plan. The goal being a plan reflective of community driven vision and certainty for investment and improvement. As the plan goes through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) phase, there will more opportunity for input. Ideally the adopted plan will successfully improve over previous layers of regulations and guidelines and will set a tone for an update to the full General Plan.

I support form-based codes because they lay out building types and scale for more predictable planning by providing a framework that lets prospective investors know the parameters for a particular project along with the overall desired flow of development.

The greater heights encourage mixed use projects which I believe is critical to a sustainable vibrancy of the Downtown. Densification and residential housing will enable a true live-work-play community. Not just more housing, but thoughtful placement which creates a steady presence of customers to businesses, ease of proximity to Amtrak, less reliance on driving and more opportunity for creating events that pull the community together. Dynamic activity in the downtown will also encourage more than local participation and will become a greater attraction for visitors. As the downtown area transforms, it will be important parking and street use is integrated to minimize traffic and support biking and walking, which includes maximizing the Amtrak parking lot. I want to see greater community inclusion as we go through these final stages of adoption.

Josh Chapman

As a member of this committee and a downtown retailer, I am fully supportive of the Downtown Plan.  My top priority throughout this process was making sure our Downtown becomes a more desirable location for residents with more jobs, mixed use housing, and a sense of identity that will allow more locals to live, work and play right here in Davis.

Downtown has tremendous potential to develop as a major regional destination. It needs a distinct identity and a mix of uses that would give it a competitive edge over other downtowns in the region and attract visitors from the greater Sacramento area as well as people commuting on I-80 between the Sierras and the Bay Area.

Form-based code provides predictable results in the planning and re-development process. Once EIR and CEQA are adopted this will provide predictability and a sense of certainty for developers looking to build projects downtown. This aspect of the plan is so important because it streamlines the process and negates the conflicting documents that are currently guiding our planning process.

Downtowns across the country are transforming from commercial centers into mixed-use neighborhoods. The benefits are many, including higher levels of safety, with more people present at all times of the day, and a more stable economy, due to a larger and more diverse consumer base.

A redeveloped, multi-story, mixed-use, downtown has been envisioned stretching back to the 1960’s. Regrettably, the execution has always fallen short. I want to help make this new plan a success!

Kelsey Fortune

This should be done for the entire city in the form of an updated general plan. Davis needs to be forward looking, and our community is well equipped with engaged and knowledgeable citizens to make an appropriate plan.

Form-based code gives developers concrete direction of what Davis is looking for as well as making the process faster for allowable changes and new infill development and allowing for appropriate flexibility within acceptable specifications.

Densification is the most sustainable way for Davis to move forward. Specifically building more in underutilized spaces and areas near downtown and campus without historical significance. This means working with neighborhoods to decide what would fit in currently and moving forward.

Mixed use is an amazing use of space. Allowing people to live where they work and play provides businesses a built in customer base and makes living without a private vehicle increasingly possible.

We allocate almost one third of downtown to streets for free. Let’s reallocate some of this space to businesses and pedestrians. I prefer decreasing reliance on private vehicles overall to specifically pricing parking downtown. If parking is priced in the future, I disagree that these funds should be spent only on improvements within the downtown neighborhood. Pricing parking does not only impact downtown. Things like public transit and bike path infrastructure across town would be obvious complementary uses for funds raised from parking fees.

Davis cannot remain the same in an ever-changing world. Let’s plan for the future we want.


For those interested in this topic, the Vanguard will host a Webinar on Monday, October 26.  More details and to register – click here.


Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

41 thoughts on “Davis City Council Questions: Question 6 – Davis Downtown”

  1. Don Shor

    (D) Parking and your overall thoughts on the plan going forward.

    They all support the downtown plan, except Colin has reservations, but only one of them (Kelsey Fortune) actually addressed parking. The plan calls for paid parking. We’ve already seen the pushback on that topic.

    My guess is the downtown plan will pass the next council, and then implementation will be, as Colin put it, contentious. I don’t think the public has bought into the idea of multi-story buildings downtown and parking meters. Everyone likes plazas and wants to close off streets, but that is generally not great for existing businesses. Basically future councils will pick and choose which parts of this plan they actually support when it comes time to review individual projects, and I see little reason to believe that it will streamline redevelopment proposals. And if someone would like to explain to me how affordable housing would be implemented in any downtown redevelopment that includes a residential component, and still be viable for actual development, please do so.

     

    1. Richard McCann

      One of our biggest problems is that existing businesses are so risk averse that they really have no idea what is best for them going forward. Our downtown is slowly dwindling away because those businesses have been able to adapt to the changing environment. We can either be beholden to an obsolete, mythological view about how the downtown was/should be, or we can make a better, more informed choice about how to proceed.

       

      1. Mark West

        “Our downtown is slowly dwindling away because those businesses have been able to adapt to the changing environment.”

        I disagree with you Richard. We have known since the ’60’s that the downtown was insufficient to support the shopping needs of the City’s residents, yet we did nothing to either expand the core area (as was proposed in in our first CASP) or to expand retail beyond the downtown (and the few small neighborhood centers). We prioritized subsidizing the property values (and rents) of a few downtown property owners (by limiting their competition) instead of meeting the needs of the City, its residents and its business owners. It is not the owners of downtown businesses who have failed to adapt, but rather the landlords and those politicians and City Staff members who ‘bend to their demands’ who are at fault.

      2. Don Shor

        they really have no idea what is best for them going forward.

        No comment. I think this just speaks for itself.

        Our downtown is slowly dwindling away because those businesses have been able to adapt to the changing environment.

        I assume you meant unable to adapt. Mostly we’ve seen retirements, businesses move due to sudden lease increase (Watermelon Music), and conversions to eateries, and the infusion of commerce and tax revenues from dispensaries. I’d be curious how the sales tax revenues were tracking before the pandemic. From the city’s standpoint, I don’t think it matters much whether a site is filled with restaurants or retail. It does have a significant impact on parking.

    1. larryguenther

      Yes Jim, I missed the deadline. Here’s my response. I did not read the other candidates responses before posting this.

      Form-based code: yes. Most issues residents have had with recent projects are issues of building mass and scale. Densification and mixed-use: yes. To significantly reduce our carbon footprint, we have to drastically reduce automobile use. To do that we need viable public transit. For that, we need density. Additionally, density and mixed-used zoning allow walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. This allows more varied goods and services downtown (or elsewhere) and makes a more resilient economy. Parking: address the parking situation in several ways, including re-vamping the X-permit system. User-paid parking in lots and not on streets is completely backwards. One of the biggest issues the lead consultant brought up was placemaking. Simply stated, if the downtown becomes a place people want to be, our re-imagined downtown will be a success. If it is not a welcoming environment, it will fail. As a member of the Downtown Plan Committee, it seemed to me that people were not central to the discussion. Building form and placement are important, but so are things like exterior spaces and connectivity. Christopher Jones’ video on E St. plaza is illustrative of both real community engagement and people-centered design and implementation. One great thing about our downtown as it exists, is the urban canopy. In many places downtown, one sees more tree canopy than building facade. This makes a welcoming, enjoyable place to be. The current plan would allow removal of existing trees through ministerial permit. Will we have a great downtown, or just a tall downtown?

  2. Ron Glick

    “The future of Downtown Davis is to densify responsibly,…”

    Responsibly densify? Sounds like an oxymoron to me yet they all seemed to agree.  The result, a community of magnificent spatial inequality, with the masses squeezed into smaller spaces and rent servitude, surrounded by 40 acre plus estates beyond the city limit.

    Back in the day CC members used to talk about smart growth. That was another oxymoron. I think the rule should be anytime something you know is wrong is coupled with a word to soothe the opposition you should beware.

    1. Mark West

      “Responsibly densify? Sounds like an oxymoron to me…”

      Perhaps you need to get out of town a bit… There are many neighborhoods filling east coast cities where neighboring homes share external walls. Even the ‘mansions’ for the wealthy in many of these cities were often constructed this way. These communities of row houses are far denser than what we have here in Davisville, yet still offer comfortable living (with yards) to residents. You don’t have to build 10 stories tall to utilize land more efficiently than we do locally.

      1. Ron Glick

        Fair point Mark but I think you are missing my bigger point. The push to densify inside the city limit and preserve farmland outside the city limit has created spatial inequality of dense living and 40 acre estates. Even at the density of my house a 40 acre parcel could hold a hundred or more single family homes. At the densities developers use today one 40 acre parcel could have close to 400 homes.

        1. Mark West

          I didn’t miss your point, Ron, I disagree with it. I have no problem with 40 acre estates in the county. Requiring a minimum acreage (20-50 acres) in order to build a house outside of an existing city is how rural counties stay that way. The real problem comes when counties ignore those minimums and allow exceptions for neighborhoods of mini-estates to form on the outskirts of existing cities. El Macero is an easy example, but there are many more examples nearby. City housing should be dense, and country housing should be sparse, it is the ‘inbetweeners’ that need to be blocked and if already existing, annexed.

        2. Ron Glick

          I guess we do disagree. I’d prefer more tweeners of .2acre lots where people could enjoy having a little space and a garden. I wish more people could have what I have. I believe the impediment to doing so is a romanticism to preserve a rural lifestyle for a few at the expense of having a suburban lifestyle for many. The idea of cramming more and more people into the same space is okay according to many in order to preserve large estates but this vision neglects to recognize how densifying Davis changes Davis.

          1. Don Shor

            Amazing how many deliveries we’re doing to Spring Lake these days. And Dixon is about to add 1000 homes right along the freeway on the south side of town. The overwhelming preference of people buying homes is a house with a yard.

          2. David Greenwald

            That may be their preference, just like things like SUVs and Minivans are certain people’s preferences, but that may not be sustainable.

        3. Ron Glick

          The single family detached home has been a mainstay of family formation since the end of WWII when suburbia as we know it today started in Levittown, New York.

          The irony here is that most of the current CC members live in in single family detached homes and a majority of the CC candidates do as well. Yet somehow they fail my ultimate test of leadership, that is to lead by example, instead envisioning a future for others that they don’t live themselves.

        4. Ron Glick

          “That may be their preference, just like things like SUVs and Minivans are certain people’s preferences, but that may not be sustainable.”

          Sustainable? In what time frame is anything sustainable?

          One of the biggest fallacious axioms of Davis politics is that we have to reduce auto use to reduce our carbon footprint. Thus we need to make Davis less livable by cramming more people into the same space. This is looking backward at a desire for a policy that can be empirically seen as never having been popular. Densification is a second failed axiom. This can be evidenced by the number of young families buying new homes in Spring Lake. People voting with their feet or sleep as the case might be.

          Together the CC candidates all fail because the policy goals of a city detached from reality create a landscape of people choosing single family homes and cars in nearby towns and commuting into Davis. A reality in opposition to what our would-be leaders envision. We need leaders that can see the world as it is and adapt changing technologies to give people the lifestyle  they actually want while at the same time making the world a better place for everyone. We need leaders that can visualize a future based on current and future best practices and not dominated by failed academic arguments of the past.

          To reduce carbon footprint and increase sustainability we should be looking forward to a world with electric vehicles of many types powered by renewable energy generated predominantly  by rooftop solar on single family homes with children to fill our schools, parks and bike paths .

          Renewable energy generation is now cost competitive with carbon. Last week I read it in Barron’s the weekend magazine of The Wall Street Journal. The same day I heard Al Gore say it to Fareed Zakaria on his Sunday talk show.  Made me wonder if Al Gore reads Barron’s. LOL!

          To reduce our carbon footprint we should also get the City to stop paying to fly CC members and staff off on vacations disguised as business or training. To reduce carbon footprint we should have solar powered electric busses that are convenient for moving people from the periphery into downtown. To reduce carbon footprint we should re-examine our solid waste program in response to current conditions with an eye towards sequestering more carbon and more methane capture with fewer vehicle miles traveled. To reduce carbon footprint we should incentivize people switching to electric tools instead of small gas engines.

      2. Bill Marshall

        These communities of row houses are far denser than what we have here in Davisville, yet still offer comfortable living (with yards) to residents.

        Sure, if you like a 10 yd by 5 yd, yard (like many I’ve seen, Alexandria VA, SF, Daly City, etc…. works for many people… makes sense… but not a ‘product’ I’d choose… but it is efficient as to land use, and a good product (fit) for very many folk… also tends to be more energy-efficient, as less external walls and glazing for climes that run hot and cold…

        Malvina Reynolds wrote about a design challenge, if not done correctly…

        I don’t believe Davis should mandate that product, but certainly should be completely open to it, and not impede it…

  3. larryguenther

    Yes Jim, I missed the deadline. Here’s my response. I did not read the other candidates responses before posting this.
    Form-based code: yes. Most issues residents have had with recent projects are issues of building mass and scale. Densification and mixed-use: yes. To significantly reduce our carbon footprint, we have to drastically reduce automobile use. To do that we need viable public transit. For that, we need density. Additionally, density and mixed-used zoning allow walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. This allows more varied goods and services downtown (or elsewhere) and makes a more resilient economy. Parking: address the parking situation in several ways, including re-vamping the X-permit system. User-paid parking in lots and not on streets is completely backwards.
     
    One of the biggest issues the lead consultant brought up was placemaking. Simply stated, if the downtown becomes a place people want to be, our re-imagined downtown will be a success. If it is not a welcoming environment, it will fail. As a member of the Downtown Plan Committee, it seemed to me that people were not central to the discussion. Building form and placement are important, but so are things like exterior spaces and connectivity. Christopher Jones’ video on E St. plaza is illustrative of both real community engagement and people-centered design and implementation. One great thing about our downtown as it exists, is the urban canopy. In many places downtown, one sees more tree canopy than building facade. This makes a welcoming, enjoyable place to be. The current plan would allow removal of existing trees through ministerial permit. Will we have a great downtown, or just a tall downtown?

  4. Keith Echols

    So somebody gave all the city council candidates a New Urbanism pep talk about a magical tool called “Form Based Codes”….ooh…it sounds like some mystical text from the ultra secret society Stonecutters for running local government from behind the scenes.

    Who controls the British crown?

    Who keeps the metric system down?

    We do, we do!

    Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
    Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
    We do, we do!

    Who holds back the electric car?
    Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
    We do, we do!

    Who robs cave-fish of their sight?

    Who rigs every Oscar night?

    We do!

    We do!

    Anyway….hey I love mixed use properties as much as the next guy….actually more…..the only time I’ve ever spoke with a city Council person about city stuff (I’ve talked to one about playgrounds but that doesn’t count) was with the mayor a few years ago at the Farmers Market (he had a booth there to explain some city planning stuff).  I basically complained that I missed being able to walk everywhere…that I missed the simple pleasure of walking a few blocks and getting a cup of coffee or a bite to eat (something I was used to having lived in San Francisco for 10 years).

    But in all seriousness….it seems to me that some of the City Council candidates have a Field of Dreams kind of philosophy to city planning and growth….”If we build our Utopia….they will come”.   But is this true?  Right now downtown is a mess of pizza, burger and burrito places with a couple of Thai places, a few yogurt shops…and a book store.  And I like all that stuff….   It’s a student’s paradise (well it would be if there were more bars).  But let’s be honest; if the real adults (okay…seasoned adults) want to go out and enjoy themselves for more than a quick bite to eat it’s a drive to Sacramento, all the way to the Bay Area or maybe to Dixon for dinner.   Let’s face it…downtown Davis is dominated by mostly by stores that cater to the student end of the socio-economic market spectrum.  Do the candidates believe that if there’s suddenly denser planning of mixed use retail, office and residential…that downtown will magically transform on it’s own?   I guess the question I have is: is there really that much pent up demand for expensive (semi) urban professional housing (condos on top of commercial).  Is there such huge demand for more commercial and office space downtown?  

    It seems to me that first you need job/commercial growth in Davis.  Then you get the commercial retail growth.  Then you get residential growth.  Job growth in Davis comes from opening up business parks.  Few businesses that come out of universities end up in downtown office space.  Most end up in Class B (and usually C) office space in big business parks. I will say this again…in my experience start up companies seek CHEAP OFFICE SPACE…(they also need to be close to their source of capital, others in their industry and customers).   Yes those office parks aren’t pretty and they don’t fit the New Urbanism utopia that seems to be envisioned by the candidates.  But I will say that these ugly business parks generate revenue for the city.  They create more commercial opportunities in the city.  They bring more professionals into the city to live….that’s when you start building out those mixed use…downtown…walkable form based code planned areas.  So….jobs first…then revenue…then a nice walkable, renewable, sustainable, inclusive, organically planned and designed form based code community….maybe Davis will get it’s Whole Foods back which brings me to my South Park reference: the episode “The City Part of Town” (the entire episode was about the gentrification of part of the town with lots of hip mixed use urban planning in order to attract a Whole Foods to town).

      1. Keith Echols

        I’m all for New Urbanism (and form based code).  I’ve been a proponent of it for 15 years…..right after I profited by adding to the urban/suburban sprawl of a bunch of cities in the Central Valley.

        I just thought it was funny how “form based code” showed up in 3 or 4 of the candidates answers….like it was some cool new urban planning magic.

        But my primary point is how their utopian  new urbanist vision seems to be their answer to fix everything.  I share their vision….cause I like being able to walk and take public transit everywhere.  But I believe that vision is the end result and not the cause of the change needed.  So I seriously ask…is there really existing pent up demand for office space downtown?  Is there pent up demand for retail space downtown?  Is there pent up demand for professional residential space downtown (condos)?   Again, I don’t oppose this kind of growth…in fact I look around at many of the one story building downtown, 5th street and along F street and can envision higher urban density and transit corridor density.  But I think you need the controlled sprawl of some new business parks (and I have issues with the DISC project but at least it’s a step in the right direction….a poor step…but a step) to feed the financial growth necessary to achieve the new urbanist vision.

        1. Ron Oertel

           So I seriously ask…is there really existing pent up demand for office space downtown? 

          No.

          Not anywhere, actually (due to Covid / telecommuting). There’s a glut of it.

          Is there pent up demand for retail space downtown? 

          No.

          Is there pent up demand for professional residential space downtown (condos)? 

          Maybe – like Trackside.  More like retirees, probably.

          I don’t actually know what a “professional” is, in this case. A university professor, without a family?

    1. Ron Glick

      There are a few dining options for adults in town that don’t require driving to another city. Symposium comes to mind. Hopefully it will still be there when the pandemic ends.

      As for the future of downtown people already avoid the place for anything other than coffee, alcohol, pizza or burritos or getting nails done. The services in West Davis are far superior to downtown. Trader Joes, Pete’s Coffee and Noah’s Bagels, walking distance to Willett, Chavez, Emerson, DHS, medical services, a hospital. gas stations and auto mechanics.

        1. Ron Glick

          Market place  serves the neighborhood with short commutes, bikes or by foot. If every neighborhood is considered sprawl where are people supposed to live?

    2. Kelsey Fortune

      We have a severe housing shortage. If we can build housing to move students and young professional closer to campus and downtown (where they want to be), then houses that are currently falling apart and renting to students will come on the market for “real adults,” as you so kindly put it, to purchase. The majority of the staff at the university do not live in town, they commute. Can you imagine Davis if those families could actually live where they work and spend their free time in Davis? Nobody is talking about just bringing more students; it’s not our choice. We’re talking about making room for more of your “real adults” which will bring in the kind of retail and restaurants “real adults” are looking for.

      Also a quick reminder that Davis wouldn’t be what is it without the university. Davis can support locally owned small businesses is primarily because of the university. If we could generally stop pushing against the students and embrace them as a major part of our community, we would be much more successful.

      1. Bill Marshall

        Be glad I can’t vote against you (I can’t vote in your district).   Your 5:11 post is degrogatory, incorrect, and immature, at best… but, stay healthy, good luck in the election, and seek maturity… you have control over two of those…

        1. Ron Glick

          I think it is the most sensible thing I’ve read from Ms. Fortune to date. I don’t see what put the bee in your bonnet Bill.

          I’m not sure that building apartments for students would make landlords divest single family homes because our supply deficit is so great but it is at least a step in the right direction.

        2. Alan Miller

          Odd. I didn’t see anything derogatory, incorrect, or immature in Ms. Fortune’s reply.

          Nor did I, but I saw plenty of those things in WM’s reply – seriously, dude, WTF ?!?

        3. Bill Marshall

          Ms Fortune…

          I sincerly apologize for my Sunday, 6:02 post… without going into the triggers, my words were poorly chosen.  Except the part,

          stay healthy, good luck in the election,

          Those, I do not retract…

      2. Keith Echols

         If we can build housing to move students and young professional closer to campus and downtown (where they want to be), then houses that are currently falling apart and renting to students

        Ah…this myth rears it’s head again!  No simplistically adding to the supply does not reduce demand and therefore prices in the housing market.   I’ll letcha in on a little secret that I’ve kept trying to tell people here….BUILDERS DO NOT BUILD HOMES WITH THE INTENTION OF DRIVING DOWN HOME PRICES.  They will constrain the supply to get maximum value for their homes.

        Also a quick reminder that Davis wouldn’t be what is it without the university.

        This is also irrelevant.  The University isn’t going anywhere….even if all the students ended up living in Dixon.

        1. Keith Echols

          Generally speaking it’s difficult to mass produce housing at a rate that makes it worth it to significantly reduce profit margins.   A move towards pre-fab housing would help the construction side of this problem.   But then there’s the sales side of it.  It takes time to sell a house.  In 2018 the average Days on Market for a home in Yolo County was 46 days back in 2018….and that’s the lowest it’s been in the last 3 years.  The highest was in Jan 2020 at 80 days (it’s currently at 55 days).

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