Sunday Commentary: Council Elections in Fall Figure to Relitigate Measure H

By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor

Davis, CA – It may surprise people to realize that as recently as 2012 and even into 2014, land use was not on the radar of the Davis City Council.  Between the real estate collapse and the 75-25 route of Measure P in 2009 as well as the easy reelection of Measure J in 2010, land use seemed like a settled issue in Davis.

The pendulum has since swung back.  There have been five Measure J votes since 2016.  Affordable housing is listed by many voters as the top issue facing Davis.  And a measure not even on the ballot in November might be the most important issue.

I had to laugh when a commentor noted, “It is also curious that this survey begins with a backward looking question about Measure H instead of a forward looking question about decisions likely to come before the CC. Disc is dead but the Sierra Club begins by beating a dead horse.”

The answer given by Alan Pryor was accurate: “Probably more can be told of a candidate by what they supported or opposed in the past than by what they tell you they will support or oppose in the future.”

That’s true.  But it actually goes beyond that.  DiSC 2022 or Measure H is not only an important indicator of future votes, it is THE defining feature of this election.

One reason why Dan Carson appears to be in hot water and is facing two challengers is his decision to file a writ and challenge the No on H ballot language—and then, perhaps even more fatefully, his decision to seek attorney fees.

Gloria Partida in the meantime steered clear of that controversy, but her decision to twice support DISC and be on the subcommittee has earned the ire of at least some in the East Davis district that heavily opposed the measure.

As we have discussed many times, the voters have generally not punished councilmembers for supporting ballot measures the voters have opposed.  But, with district elections, that could change.

So, given those dynamics, isn’t Measure H—which is the backdrop for the council election—what everyone should be leading on?  In fact, I would argue all three of the questions in the survey are immensely important.

In both races, we have clear dividing lines for the voters to decide—and that’s what we want and what a survey is for.

On Measure H, in District 1, Bapu Vailta said, “I supported Measure H on affordable housing grounds.”  At the same time, “There were many good reasons to vote no on H; many people whose opinions I deeply value did so. Affordable housing should not be the only consideration when evaluating proposals, and DISC was flawed in many ways, including its traffic impacts and its effect on prime agricultural land.”

Vaitla was critical of Councilmember Carson, whose actions he called “a dangerous precedent.”  He added, “It will not and should not appear again on the ballot.”

Carson has not really addressed the lawsuit issue, but he didn’t back away from his support for Measure H, adding, “However, the voters have spoken and defeated the measure. After the election, I promptly stated publicly that I accepted their decision in keeping with our democratic process.”

Finally, Fortune said, “I did not support DISC. This project would have exacerbated our current housing shortage and created thousands of new commuters.”

District 1 voters will have a range of options here.

Meanwhile, with two candidates in District 4, Adam Morrill said he opposed Measure H and listed the reasons.

Gloria Partida supported Measure H and argued, “I believe that we need a diversified tax base support a resilient economy for when a downturn or other circumstance such as the loss of retail trends, pandemics or unforeseen situations happen.”

Again, the voters get a pretty clear choice.

They were also asked about the proposed peripheral housing projects on Covell and Mace.

Vailta said, “Of the three proposals that have been submitted thus far for the North/Northwest Davis periphery, I prefer Shriners. On-the-Curve and then Palomino have serious weaknesses.”

Carson noted, “To my knowledge, an official building application has been submitted to the city for only one of the three projects mentioned in this question and the council has not yet discussed whether the city should process any of them should applications for the additional projects mentioned come our way.”

He said, “Until such information comes forward, there is insufficient information to allow me to determine their merit and what if anything should happen with them.”

Fortune said, “In general, I am not a fan of peripheral development. I believe that at the very least, all three of these projects need to be improved.”

Adam Morrill said, “I oppose any developments that are not currently part of the General Plan, whether they are good for the community or not. “

Meanwhile, Partida said simply, “Every project that is to be put forward to the voters should meet all our planning requirements.”

On Measure J modifications, Vaitla does not support any modifications, Carson believes the measure could be improved on, and Fortune indicates that she is not in favor of direct democracy in general but “I understand the distrust that currently exists. As I am opposed to sprawl, I support the current renewal of this measure as it stands.”

Adam Morrill only supports removing the sunset date, while Partida said, “I believe that the community should have an opportunity to weigh in on the measure as it did when it was first adopted. I believe the current residents should be allowed to examine it and have a voice in its future.”

I learned a lot just from this brief interchange.  The Vanguard will be asking questions of the candidates starting very shortly—and following up on some of these are a way to go.

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

18 Comments

  1. Walter Shwe

    In District 1 Carson is toast. The race will come down to the 2 able candidates opposing Carson.

    Measure J should always have a sunset date to allow voters to reconsider this ill advised measure.

    I opposed Measure H for 2 reasons, Councilmember Carson’s vindictive actions and the negative impact on traffic. More traffic equals more air pollution. Davis is in desperate need of more affordable housing, but Measure H was fundamentally flawed. I look forward to evaluating future housing proposals that will really address our City’s housing needs.

    1. Matt Williams

      Walter, in 1948 Harry Truman was believed to be toast and Tomas Dewey was loudly proclaimed as the winner of the Presidency.  It didn’t work out as expected, so don’t count Dan Carson out.

      I say the above as a 100% card carrying member of the “Anybody But Carson” portion of our community.  I believe he has brought federal-level autocracy down into our community with his lawsuit against his fellow citizens.  And then he doubled down by asking the courts to mandate that he be paid for approximately $70,000 of legal expenses that he wasn’t on the hook for because they had already been paid by the DiSC developer.  That was not only autocratic, it was mean-spirited.

      Further, the four years of Carson’s term on the Council have been a wasteland when it comes to any policy advancements.  He led the Council rejection of the Planning Commission unanimous decision on the University Mall redevelopment.  He led the BrightNight solar contract give away.  He single-handedly killed the efforts to improve internet service in Davis when he vociferously rejected the recommendations of the Broadband Advisory Task Force.  Those are just a few of the “downsides” of Carson’s term as Council member.  I look forward to hearing some positives that he accomplished from other Vanguard posters.

  2. Matt Williams

     

    Housing affordability was listed by the many voters as the top issue … not Affordable housing.

    .

    The reason that difference is meaningful is that the issue of housing affordability affects all housing in the community, whereas Affordable housing affects only the housing that has either deed-restricted reduced pricing below the market rate or limited duration reduced price due to government or non-government subsidies … and the present (and future) supply of Affordable housing is only a small portion of all housing in Davis.

    The above deals with for-sale housing. The percentage of Davis residents in rental housing exceeds the percentage that live in owner-occupied housing. The affordability of rental housing in Davis has a key driver that is escalating rental prices … the significant injection by the UCD student demographic of incremental demand into the Davis rental housing market by UCD students.

    On the one hand, Davis workers and low-income families have limited resources available to cover housing costs. On the other hand, UC Davis students (for the most part, but certainly not universally) do not have those same resource limitations. Their cost of housing is just one component of the cost of their education, and their parents frequently are the ones footing the bill for those costs. As a result, UCD students are in a position to be able to outbid workers and low-income families, regardless of how much access to information the workers and low-income families have.

    Until and unless that incremental demand from UCD students is dealt with, housing affordability in the Davis rental housing marketplace will only be smoke and mirrors.

    1. Ron Oertel

      Davis workers and low-income families

      Not sure that these two groups are the same, or live in the same type of housing.  For that matter, I don’t believe they’ve been defined, quantified, etc.  For example, some might believe that UCD workers are “Davis” workers.  There’s also those who live in Davis, but work elsewhere. And vice-versa – with no desire to change this.

      The following is a question that’s never asked, but simply seems to be “assumed” as a presumptive goal:

      is Davis “trying” to attract more low-income, non-resident families than it already has living in existing Affordable housing?  And if so, what’s the fiscal impact of that for the city (and the school system)?  Given that each student costs Davis more than they bring in from the state.

      I’m not referring to the state’s mandates, here. I’m just asking what the city’s interest/goal is, in continuing to “recruit” non-resident, low-income families to live in the city. And what the cost is, for doing so.

      But as far as rental housing is concerned, rent control can work particularly-well for long-term renters – such as some of the “local workers” (even with the Costa Hawkins law in place).

      There’s already statewide rent control that applies to these renters, but Davis could (if it was so inclined) create its own rent control ordinances, as some other cities do.  I know someone who benefits from it – significantly.

      And yet, there’s been no discussion at all, regarding implementing rent control in Davis. (Which would also help low-income families who are not living in Affordable housing – if there is such a group in the first place.)

      1. Matt Williams

        Not sure that these two groups are the same, or live in the same type of housing.

        .

        They aren’t the same groups Ron, and they frequently they don’t live in the same type of housing.  Why are either of those distinctions meaningful?

        Low-income families are very well defined/identified, and the US Census provides us with a number of Davis Workers each and every year in its On-The-Map reports. Given that public record identification and quantification, the questions you ask in your first paragraph are meaningless and irrelevant.

        The “is Davis trying …” question you ask is also meaningless and irrelevant, because it makes te same mistake that the Vanguard article made … Housing affordability was listed by the many voters as the top issue … not Affordable housing.

        Rent control typically is associated with the tenant, not the residence.  In the tenant-associated rent control model, every time a tenant changes the rent resets to the market rent level.  Given the massive annual turnover of apartments in Davis each year, tenancies typically last for a relatively short duration … frequently only a single year.  So rent control would have minimal effect on the rate of annual rent escallation.

        1. Ron Oertel

          They aren’t the same groups Ron, and they frequently they don’t live in the same type of housing.  Why are either of those distinctions meaningful?

          If one is trying to increase the amount of housing for one group (or another), isn’t it important to clarify this (including the amount needed, the cost, etc.)? In fact, has anyone determined if the need has already been met, in the first place?

          Low-income families are very well defined/identified, and the US Census provides us with a number of Davis Workers each and every year in its On-The-Map reports. Given that public record identification and quantification, the questions you ask in your first paragraph are meaningless and irrelevant.

          So, what’s the number?  And, how many have unsatisfactory housing – however that’s defined in the first place?

          The “is Davis trying …” question you ask is also meaningless and irrelevant, because it makes te same mistake that the Vanguard article made … Housing affordability was listed by the many voters as the top issue … not Affordable housing.

          Don’t know what “housing affordability” means, unless we’re referring to the “suggested” percentage that a given worker makes.

          Again, how many local workers live in unsatisfactory housing (e.g., in terms of cost), and how is anything that is realistically being proposed would lower those costs – assuming it’s even a problem in the first place?

          As far as the survey itself is concerned, does it consist solely of voters? And, does it include students?

          Who, exactly, is concerned about “housing affordability”, and for “whom”? Is any of this defined at all?

          Rent control typically is associated with the tenant, not the residence.

          Both are components of rent control.  Rent control does not “move” with the tenant – it depends upon him/her continuing to live at a particular address.

          What exactly is your point, in regard to your comment?

          In the tenant-associated rent control model, every time a tenant changes the rent resets to the market rent level.

          Already noted that.  (But again, that’s not necessarily a problem for “local workers” who don’t move.  My primary point in the first place.)

          Given the massive annual turnover of apartments in Davis each year, tenancies typically last for a relatively short duration … frequently only a single year.

          You’re apparently/primarily referring to students, not “local workers” or “low-income families”.  Though some students are local workers – for the relatively brief period of time that they’re living in Davis, on average.

          So rent control would have minimal effect on the rate of annual rent escallation.

          Not true, for “local workers” or “low-income families” (among those who rent and don’t frequently move).

          Again, I have yet to see anyone define much of anything, other than a blindly-stated need for “more” affordable housing. Which if worded differently, might be more-accurately described as a desire for “cheaper” existing housing – not more of it.

          And if the concern is for local workers (and low-income families), how is that not addressed by rent control – given that these groups probably don’t move very often? Especially when compared to students?

        2. Ron Oertel

          Again, how many local workers live in unsatisfactory housing (e.g., in terms of cost), and how is anything that is realistically being proposed would lower those costs – assuming it’s even a problem in the first place?

          So again, no one has put forth any numbers regarding how many local workers this applies to.  In other words, a bunch of workers not making enough to afford the housing that they’re already in. No salary information put forth, no housing costs, no location in which they live (or its cost), no income listed from other household members, etc.

          And (assuming these totally-unsupported claims have at least some validity), these workers don’t attempt to increase their income (or move to an area in which income/expenses are better-matched to their opportunities), and they’re just waiting around for developers to build some housing for them which is less-expensive than what they’re living in. All while whatever savings they have slowly dwindles, until they end up homeless – while still employed as a “local worker” (and taking no personal action to prevent that from occurring).

          And, the housing that they get evicted from ends up remaining vacant, since local workers cannot afford it.

          Are these the type of totally-unsupported, underlying claims which are being used to change city planning?  Is this really how this is done?

        3. Matt Williams

          If one is trying to increase the amount of housing for one group (or another), isn’t it important to clarify this (including the amount needed, the cost, etc.)? In fact, has anyone determined if the need has already been met, in the first place?

          .

          No, it is not.  No individual project is going to be able to address all the needs of both groups … and even within either of the respective groups there is significant variability of needs (e.g. the needs of a family with no children are different from families with children, and the needs within families with children vary as the number of children goes up.  Further when families include three generations the needs also change.  The answer to your last question is “yes” Both California HCD and SACOG have made a determination on that.

          So, what’s the number?  And, how many have unsatisfactory housing – however that’s defined in the first place?

          .

          You can get that number by contacting California HCD

          Don’t know what “housing affordability” means, unless we’re referring to the “suggested” percentage that a given worker makes.

          .

          If you don’t know what that means, then consider finding out what it means as your homework assignment.  Let us know when you have acquired that knowledge.

          Again, how many local workers live in unsatisfactory housing (e.g., in terms of cost), and how is anything that is realistically being proposed would lower those costs – assuming it’s even a problem in the first place?

          As far as the survey itself is concerned, does it consist solely of voters? And, does it include students?

          Who, exactly, is concerned about “housing affordability”, and for “whom”? Is any of this defined at all?

          .

          Those all sound like rhetorical questions that are bouncing around in your skull.  Since they are rhetorical in nature, the only person who can provide an answer that will satisfy you is you yourself.  As a result chasing down those answers for yourself is your second homework assignment.

           

          Both are components of rent control.  Rent control does not “move” with the tenant – it depends upon him/her continuing to live at a particular address. But, that’s not necessarily a problem for “local workers” who don’t move.

          .

          Agreed, for many local workers that won’t be a problem, but for many it will.  According to the Census in 2019 the City (not including any jobs on campus, only jobs in the City Limits) had 15,984 people employed, but only 4,291 of them lived in the City.  Lots of movement in those numbers.  In addition, again according to the Census there were approximately 17,500 UCD students living in the City Limits and housing affordability was very high on the feedback they have been giving to UCD’s administration.  Rent control will not be of much help for students because of the short duration of the vast majority of their leases.

          The rest of your comment was more rhetorical questions and/or observations.  You are the best person to answer those questions.

           

        4. Ron Oertel

           

          Me:  If one is trying to increase the amount of housing for one group (or another), isn’t it important to clarify this (including the amount needed, the cost, etc.)? In fact, has anyone determined if the need has already been met, in the first place?

          In fact, they aren’t simply the “best people” to answer those questions – it’s their responsibility to do so, when pushing for growth and development.

          So far, no one has even challenged them.

          Matt:  No, it is not.  No individual project is going to be able to address all the needs of both groups … and even within either of the respective groups there is significant variability of needs (e.g. the needs of a family with no children are different from families with children, and the needs within families with children vary as the number of children goes up.

          Who said anything about an individual development (or any development at all)?

          Again, the actual need hasn’t been defined.  It could be that the “need” has already been met.

          Further when families include three generations the needs also change.

          Again, what is the definition of “need”, here?  How many families are in that situation, and have housing which isn’t satisfactory for them?

          And, is any housing that’s potentially planned going to meet their “needs”?

          The answer to your last question is “yes” Both California HCD and SACOG have made a determination on that.

          You yourself have noted that HCD/SACOG’s numbers are arbitrary.  I already noted in my initial comment that I was not referring to whatever they “assign” – which appear to be targets for growth, not for pre-existing need.

          Me:  So, what’s the number?  And, how many have unsatisfactory housing – however that’s defined in the first place?.

          Matt:  You can get that number by contacting California HCD.

          Again, the arbitrary growth that HCD is forcing upon California cities has nothing to do with my question.  I had already clarified this in my initial comment.  And regardless, those numbers are already known (and discussed on local blogs).

          Me:  Don’t know what “housing affordability” means, unless we’re referring to the “suggested” percentage that a given worker makes..

          Matt:  If you don’t know what that means, then consider finding out what it means as your homework assignment.  Let us know when you have acquired that knowledge.

          I obviously already understand the second part of that phrase.  But again, the survey itself does not define it.

          More importantly, is this the “goal” of whoever is pushing for growth?  In other words, are they examining local salaries of a given group of low-income workers, examining their household salaries, and then making some kind of assumption that a developer will provide cheaper housing for them?

          Is that what’s being advocated, on here (and by the city, itself)?

          Me:  Again, how many local workers live in unsatisfactory housing (e.g., in terms of cost), and how is anything that is realistically being proposed would lower those costs – assuming it’s even a problem in the first place?
          As far as the survey itself is concerned, does it consist solely of voters? And, does it include students?
          Who, exactly, is concerned about “housing affordability”, and for “whom”? Is any of this defined at all?

          Matt:  Those all sound like rhetorical questions that are bouncing around in your skull.  Since they are rhetorical in nature, the only person who can provide an answer that will satisfy you is you yourself.  As a result chasing down those answers for yourself is your second homework assignment.

          They are not rhetorical questions – they are questions that anyone pushing for growth in the city should be answering.

          Me:  Both are components of rent control.  Rent control does not “move” with the tenant – it depends upon him/her continuing to live at a particular address. But, that’s not necessarily a problem for “local workers” who don’t move.
          Matt:  Agreed, for many local workers that won’t be a problem, but for many it will.

          According to the Census in 2019 the City (not including any jobs on campus, only jobs in the City Limits) had 15,984 people employed, but only 4,291 of them lived in the City.

          So, the goal is to build housing that will entice them to move to Davis?  Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is a viable goal, or even desired by those employed?

          And in fact, could many of these workers afford to do so if they were so inclined, already?  (The numbers you listed would include those who are making “high” salaries, as well.)
          Could it be that others in the same household don’t work in Davis, and have no desire to move there?

          Lots of movement in those numbers.

          Don’t know what “movement” means in this context, but there are lots of unknowns in those numbers.

          In addition, again according to the Census there were approximately 17,500 UCD students living in the City Limits and housing affordability was very high on the feedback they have been giving to UCD’s administration.  Rent control will not be of much help for students because of the short duration of the vast majority of their leases.

          Your initial comment referred to “local workers and families”, not students.  And were there high numbers of students participating in that survey in the first place – who aren’t necessarily referring to “local workers and families”?

          We could discuss student housing (and whether or not the city has an “obligation” to provide cheap housing for them (vs. the university itself), but that’s another subject.

          The rest of your comment was more rhetorical questions and/or observations.  You are the best person to answer those questions.

          No – I’m not.  The best people to answer these questions are those who are blindly pushing for growth and development, without even defining “need” or how that claimed need would be satisfied by what they’re pushing for. In fact, they’re the only ones who have a responsibility to both ask and answer those types of questions.

          And yet, so far – no one has even challenged them. Instead, they look at a poorly designed survey (which doesn’t define or answer anything whatsoever), and base their push on that. A survey, for that matter – which might have been primarily completed by students (not local workers/families).

          And they wrap that up in a package, and call it “city planning”.

        5. Ron Oertel

          Kind of interesting:

          I suspect that some of those who work in the city, but live “outside” of the city might actually live on campus.

          But again, a complete breakdown/examination of these numbers would be in order for anyone pushing for more growth, including the total income in a given “non-resident” household, whether or not they already own a house outside of city limits (which makes it less-likely they’d move), the “price point” which could potentially motivate a renter or owner to move to Davis (vs. a surrounding community), whether or not the type of housing would be desired by those groups (e.g., garage space), how that type of housing would be “limited” to the targeted groups, etc.

          Also, the “type” of local job that we’re referring to (e.g., a coffee shop – which are not unique to Davis and experience a high turnover rate), vs. someone with a more stable, higher-income job (who can already afford to move to Davis, but chooses not to).

          Not to mention how many people live in Davis, but work outside of the city.

          Often times, households contain members who work in different locales.  In such a case, I assume that the growth people would advocate for “splitting the difference” (e.g., a new housing development in the flood zone/bypass between Davis and Sacramento).

        6. Matt Williams

          Who said anything about an individual development (or any development at all)?

          Again, the actual need hasn’t been defined.  It could be that the “need” has already been met.

          .

          Arguably the need is 15,984 people employed, less the 4,291 who already live within the City Limits.  You didn’t specifically say anything about an individual development, but where have you seen one development that houses 11,693 workers plus their significant others?  In simple mathematical terms multiple developments that can and will target different market segments will be needed to meet a market demand of that mathematical magnitude .

          Your final two sentences above are simply rhetorical.  Further, “could” is a probability word with possible values that range between 0% and 100%.  To make the probablility range meaningful meaningful you need to narrow the range.  With that said, I believe there is 0.000% chance that the needs of 11,693 workers have been met.

          Again, what is the definition of “need”, here?  How many families are in that situation, and have housing which isn’t satisfactory for them?

          .

          More rhetorical questions from you.  You clearly have answers to your own questions in mind.  Please feel free to share those answers

          You yourself have noted that HCD/SACOG’s numbers are arbitrary.  I already noted in my initial comment that I was not referring to whatever they “assign” – which appear to be targets for growth, not for pre-existing need.

          .

          HCD’s publicly shared numbers are only the tip of their numbers iceberg.  Please feel free to contact them and ask them to share with you the numbers behind the numbers.

          For the record I don’t think that HCD/SACOG’s numbers are arbitrary.  I think they are subjective based on HCD/SACOG’s set of assumptions and underlying data.

          They are not rhetorical questions – they are questions that anyone pushing for growth in the city should be answering.

          .

          If you don’t recognize those as your own personal rhetorical questions, then you don’t understand the term “rhetorical question.”

          Don’t know what “movement” means in this context, but there are lots of unknowns in those numbers.

          .

          There are indeed unknowns in those numbers, and even if the numbers actually get to a point of actually being known at any point in time they will quickly “move” back to being unknown because of the massive fluidity in the marketplace.

          One of your personal rhetorical devices is to ask for information that it is impossible to either obtain or provide.  You are a master at using that rhetorical device to firmly place obstacles in the way of anything that you do not like … or morally approve of … or both.  That is your M.O.

          Time’s yours.

           

           

        7. Ron Oertel

          Arguably the need is 15,984 people employed, less the 4,291 who already live within the City Limits.

          “Arguably” is not the right word for this.  “Ignorantly” or “misleadingly” would be more accurate, due to the reasons already discussed.

          You didn’t specifically say anything about an individual development, but where have you seen one development that houses 11,693 workers plus their significant others?  In simple mathematical terms multiple developments that can and will target different market segments will be needed to meet a market demand of that mathematical magnitude .

          You’re right – I didn’t say anything about a development – you did.  But assuming that housing developments come forward to meet this claimed need, how do you know if “local workers” will actually be the ones who occupy those housing units?  Wasn’t this an issue with The Cannery?  How do you know if their income would be sufficient to purchase or rent the proposed housing?  What is their income, in the first place?

          And since those numbers include higher-wage workers, wouldn’t that subgroup be able to afford pre-existing housing – which is available every hour of every day throughout every year?  (If you don’t believe that, I’d suggest searching Zillow or other real estate websites.)  And if they choose not to take advantage of the pre-existing housing, is there actually an “unmet need”, here?

          I’m stating that the actual need itself hasn’t actually been defined – in almost any way.

          Again, who are these workers?  Are they college students living on campus, but working in the city (e.g., at a coffee ship) while they attend college?

          Does it include those who choose to get “more for their money” by living in a nearby community?

          Does it include those who could easily live in Davis (in existing housing), but choose not to?  (Note that the numbers you present, assuming they’re accurate – also include high-income workers who could easily live in Davis.)

          Does it include household members with only one person who works in Davis, and other household members who do not?

          Does it include those who have already purchased in a community such as Spring Lake, and aren’t likely to sell their house to “downsize” the size of the house they have to live in Davis?  Not to mention the massive expense of buying and selling, to move to a community that isn’t much different (and is more of a hassle – e.g., as it becomes more dense and/or full of megadorms)?

          Probably giving up amenities such as adequate garage space which meets their own perceived “needs”?

          If you’re going to put forth this type of argument, how many Davis residents work outside of the city (e.g., in Sacramento)?  Following the logic of what you seem to advocate, shouldn’t they move out of Davis to Sacramento? Shouldn’t some growth advocates in Sacramento be “on the job”, advocating to house more workers who shouldn’t be living in Davis – according to this argument?

          Your final two sentences above are simply rhetorical.  Further, “could” is a probability word with possible values that range between 0% and 100%.  To make the probablility range meaningful meaningful you need to narrow the range.  With that said, I believe there is 0.000% chance that the needs of 11,693 workers have been met.

          What, exactly – is their “need”?  They “need” to work at an underpaid job in Davis (while living outside of Davis), for example?  They have no other choices?

          I feel bad for those who actually believe this.  Apparently, they believe that some developer is going to come in, provide them with cheaper housing than they already have in some surrounding community, thereby allowing them to continue to work in that “oh so hot” job market that supposedly “is” Davis.  Perhaps earning them $1 more per hour at the local coffee shop, than the coffee shop in their own town.
          Again, what is the definition of “need”, here?  How many families are in that situation, and have housing which isn’t satisfactory for them?
          .

          More rhetorical questions from you.  You clearly have answers to your own questions in mind.  Please feel free to share those answers.

          Again, I’m not the one claiming that there’s a vague, undefined “need”.  Those who are claiming it are responsible for defining what that means, and how any development would meet those needs (e.g., in terms of price, amenities, etc.).

          You yourself have noted that HCD/SACOG’s numbers are arbitrary.  I already noted in my initial comment that I was not referring to whatever they “assign” – which appear to be targets for growth, not for pre-existing need.

          HCD’s publicly shared numbers are only the tip of their numbers iceberg.  Please feel free to contact them and ask them to share with you the numbers behind the numbers.

          There’s more?  Coming from the same organization that is attempting to force San Francisco to grow, despite a declining population and a housing market that’s now in a significant downturn?

          For the record I don’t think that HCD/SACOG’s numbers are arbitrary.  I think they are subjective based on HCD/SACOG’s set of assumptions and underlying data.

          Pretty sure you previously used the word arbitrary.  Do I need to search previous articles to find this?  In any case, if you want to call them “subjective” now, I wouldn’t necessarily object to that.

          I’d call them “growth goals”, instead.  Not actually doing anything to help existing residents (e.g., already living in a given city, or in a surrounding community), at all.  (Again, a reason I support rent control, instead.)

          Again, at the most basic level, meeting this “unmet need” would require someone to move from wherever they’re living, into a brand-now housing unit that would supposedly be “cheaper” than where they’re currently living – presumably in a city that’s markedly cheaper than Davis is, in the first place.

          On what planet does something like this ever occur?  Is this what they’re teaching in college economic courses, these days?
          They are not rhetorical questions – they are questions that anyone pushing for growth in the city should be answering..

          If you don’t recognize those as your own personal rhetorical questions, then you don’t understand the term “rhetorical question.”

          Not true – again, I’m not the one advocating for growth and development, supposedly to meet some totally-undefined “need”.

          Don’t know what “movement” means in this context, but there are lots of unknowns in those numbers.

          There are indeed unknowns in those numbers, and even if the numbers actually get to a point of actually being known at any point in time they will quickly “move” back to being unknown because of the massive fluidity in the marketplace.

          Indeed – people move in/out of Davis all the time.  There’s also a lot of fluidity regarding “need”.  Even using any definition (which hasn’t actually been put forth) by the growth advocates.

          I think we’d have an easier time defining what a “woman” is.

          One of your personal rhetorical devices is to ask for information that it is impossible to either obtain or provide.  You are a master at using that rhetorical device to firmly place obstacles in the way of anything that you do not like … or morally approve of … or both.  That is your M.O.

          You’re either purposefully, or accidentally misunderstanding the point.  I’m not the one claiming a staw-man “need”. I’m questioning those who claim there is one, how they define it, and how they propose to “fix” it (e.g., the price point at which they believe local, non-resident workers will “flood back into the city”, from wherever they’re living.

          Those are not rhetorical questions.  They are based upon what is being claimed on here (and by some of the local politicians).

          The “need” is a belief, not a “fact”. And yet, some are pushing to act upon a belief, which would likely not even address the result that they claim to be pursuing.

        8. Ron Oertel

          Thought I’d look up the census data, myself.  For 2019 (the last year available on that website), the following data is shown:

          9,155 employed in Davis, but living outside of Davis.

          11,325 living in Davis, but employed outside of Davis.

          https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/

          In other words, this shows that Davis is housing even more than its “fair share” of workers.  There’s a net outflow to other cities/locales, for employment.

          As such, there’s a couple thousand workers who need to move outside of Davis, per what Matt is suggesting.  Either that, or start tearing down some housing in Davis, to ensure than “inflow/outflow” are balanced.  🙂

          My fifth comment for the day, in this article.

        9. Matt Williams

          How do you know if “local workers” will actually be the ones who occupy those housing units? How do you know if their income would be sufficient to purchase or rent the proposed housing?  What is their income, in the first place?

          .

          Another set of unanswerable rhetorical question … with an unknowable answers unless one has a crystal ball.

          And since those numbers include higher-wage workers, wouldn’t that subgroup be able to afford pre-existing housing – which is available every hour of every day throughout every year?

          .

          Actually, according to the annual Census jobs data, very few of the jobs within the City Limits are “higher-wage” jobs.  A handful … many of which are City of Davis firefighters and administrators.  As a result your “able to afford” statement is factually correct, but largely irrelevant.

          Again, who are these workers?  Are they college students living on campus, but working in the city (e.g., at a coffee ship) while they attend college?

          .

          I suggest you contact the US Census Bureau to get answers to those questions.  They publish updated reports every year, so they clearly have the data.

          If you’re going to put forth this type of argument, how many Davis residents work outside of the city (e.g., in Sacramento)?  Following the logic of what you seem to advocate, shouldn’t they move out of Davis to Sacramento?

          .

          I am neither putting forward an argument nor advocating for anything.  I’m simply sharing data that is in the public domain that some folks may not have run into.

          What, exactly – is their “need”?  They “need” to work at an underpaid job in Davis (while living outside of Davis), for example?  They have no other choices?

          .

          More rhetorical questions. Since they are part of your rhetoric/argument/advocacy, I will leave it to you to find answers to them.  Please share the answers when you find them.

          I’m not the one claiming a straw-man “need”

          .

          No, but you are the one claiming a straw man “no-need.”

          The “need” is a belief, not a “fact”. And yet, some are pushing to act upon a belief, which would likely not even address the result that they claim to be pursuing.

          .

          Your “no need” is also a belief, not a fact. And yet, you are pushing to act upon that belief, which would likely not even address the result that you claim to be pursuing.

        10. Matt Williams

          Thought I’d look up the census data, myself.  For 2019 (the last year available on that website), the following data is shown:

          9,155 employed in Davis, but living outside of Davis.

          11,325 living in Davis, but employed outside of Davis.

          Ron’s numbers are incorrect.  He chose the wrong settings and selected only a portion of the Jobs in the City Limits.  The graphics below show the correct numbers:

          11,693 employed in Davis, but living outside of Davis.

          20,528 living in Davis, but employed outside of Davis.

           

          https://www.davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Screen-Shot-2022-09-05-at-4.06.03-PM.png

           

        11. Ron Oertel

          Thanks for pointing that out, Matt.

          It’s even “worse” than I thought – Davis has an “over-supply” of housing. Pretty difficult to argue that more “workforce housing” is needed, when most existing workers (who live in Davis) commute elsewhere, for a job.

          So if they add more “workforce housing”, there’s no jobs for them anyway.  They’re going to have to start tearing down housing, for it to be “in balance”.  🙂

          Of course, some of that giant arrow outward should be pointed toward UCD.

          In all seriousness, I don’t think that most of those working in Sacramento would want Sacramento to “come to” Davis. Just as those living in Roseville don’t want Sacramento in their backyards.

           

        12. Matt Williams

          Ron, you are making the mistake of painting the situation with a unilateral broad brush.  There are at least three major components of housing in Davis.

          (1) Bedroom community housing for people whose jobs are part of or serve the many components of the State government in California.

          (2) Student (and faculty and staff) housing for UCD’s enrollment and staffing

          (3) Workforce housing for people with jobs in Davis

          Each of those three components has its own distinct characteristics.  They are different enough that I don’t think you can to treat them as being the same, as you have done in your comment.

          Arguably, there is a fourth major component that has become more and more of a factor over the past 25 years … retirement housing.  The “big three” above probably should be thought of a s a “big four.”

  3. Dave Hart

    Adam Morrill said, “I oppose any developments that are not currently part of the General Plan, whether they are good for the community or not. “

    That shows inflexibility.  It is a bureaucratic response that elevates the General Plan from a planning guide or a statement of intent to an enforceable regulation.  While I am as frustrated as anyone regarding the lack of movement on updating the General Plan, I recognize it as a framework, like the budget, intended to provide guidance and demonstrate our goals, not a straight jacket set of rules.

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