Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Yolo County and CA population growth projected to stall for decades

CA forecasts extremely slow population growth for next 4 decades for  Yolo County and California.

by Colin Walsh

The state of California Department of Finance released an update to its state population projections on July 19, 2023. These projections are based on Census 2020 data and demographic analysis. (link)

The state estimates the current population of California is 38,990,487 and that the population will increase to 39,508,492 by 2060. That is only a little over 500,000 or just slightly over a 1% increase in a 37 year period. This is essentially a year-over-year zero growth rate for the State of CA.

This halt to population growth in CA comes after a century of rapid growth that transformed CA from a sparsely populated state to the most populous state in the country. This projected lack of growth comes after 2 years of slight decline in population where the state lost more than ½ million people between 2020 and 2023.

CA pop growth


Closer analysis shows an estimated peak population in 2044 of 40,155,497. This projected 1.2 million increase over today’s population is still only a 3% increase in the total state population.

Pop growth detail

Yolo County

Yolo County’s current estimated population is 223,467 and it is projected to grow to 243,410 in 2060. This represents growth of 19,943 new Yolo County residents or 9% growth over the next 37 years for the county. The fastest year over year population growth for Yolo is projected to be .5% from 2031 – 2032 and 2034 – 2035.

Yolo pop growth

Year over year yolo

The California State Department of Finance is projecting slow but steady growth for Yolo County of between .4% and .5% or less from now through 2037, at which point growth will taper off and even decline before 2060. In the next decade, all of Yolo County is only projected to increase in population by 11,389.

Yolo year over year no.

 

Posted by

davisite

on

in

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

57 responses to “Yolo County and CA population growth projected to stall for decades”

  1. Roberta L. Millstein

    Thank you for sharing this, Colin. I hope our City Council takes this into consideration, especially given the large number of projects that have been approved already and are under construction or pending constructions (see https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects ). There are also the recently proposed downtown housing projects that will likely be approved.
    The 5 large peripheral projects that have recently been proposed may be far more than we need and certainly do not focus on affordable housing. (See map:https://gisportal.cityofdavis.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b33d874d6aa74a9788b27b618a938db6 )
    But maybe the City Council wants to be remembered as the folks who used up precious ag land in order to house wealthy folks from the Bay Area?

    Reply
  2. Colin Walsh

    Agreed Roberta, I haven’t added the numbers together yet, but I think the current projects proposed for Davis would provide more housing than the projected population growth for all of yolo county in the next decade.

    Reply
  3. Darelldd

    We should encourage more births. How else will we get our favorite “crisis” back?
    /s
    Darell

    Reply
  4. barbara r ruhmann

    When you consider there is a couple building houses in Florida in 100 days (HGTV), it really isn’t necessary to put in a full neighborhood at a time… Just an observation…

    Reply
  5. Keith

    Darelldd:
    “We should encourage more births. How else will we get our favorite “crisis” back?”
    LOL, is that a jab at the Vanguard where almost everything is a “crisis”?

    Reply
  6. Tuvia

    I don’t really have the necessary skills to determine if the agencies that created this report have a good track record of accuracy.
    What I do know is that even if population changes are negligible, we still really, really really really, really, really, really really need to densify and move people away from sprawl into central areas well served by mass transit and other means of sustainable mobility.
    In other words, we need to gradually depopulate all the sprawl.
    I suggest that we relocate I-80 south of Davis and move houses into the newly empty space along with denser housing facing the redeveloped and upgraded railway corridor.

    Reply
  7. Ron O

    Thanks for posting this, Colin.
    I noticed the following article a few days ago, as well:
    (Bloomberg) — “More than a century of long-term population growth in California could be over, according to new projections that show the state will have about the same number of people in 2060 as it does now.”
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/california-looks-into-the-future-and-sees-fewer-californians/ar-AA1ecXNl?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=9320a2acb9fd4ba7ae46505c87c902bb&ei=11
    However, the media (including the authors of the article above) continue to report this as “bad news”.
    The YIMBYs, the business interests supporting them, and their state politicians aren’t going to like this, either.
    Nor will those associated with public school systems:
    ” . . . and many population-related jobs such as school teachers will come under pressure since there’ll be fewer students.”
    Ultimately, this also impacts universities and college towns.

    Reply
  8. Ron O

    Tuvia: In other words, we need to gradually depopulate all the sprawl.
    Just curious – what do you propose to “do” with it, after it’s depopulated?
    Tuvia: What I do know is that even if population changes are negligible, we still really, really really really, really, really, really really need to densify and move people away from sprawl into central areas well served by mass transit and other means of sustainable mobility.
    The state and its residents are moving in the “opposite” direction. San Francisco’s population has been on a steep decline, public transit agencies throughout the Bay Area are experiencing a steep decline.
    Meanwhile, housing construction is booming in places like Folsom.
    In other words, they’re moving from “environmentally-friendly” living situations (well-served by public transit, in locations which often don’t even require air conditioning) to places that essentially require automobile use and air conditioning.
    And “how” is the state responding to that, you might ask? Well, they’re building a new 34-mile long freeway to serve the new development, for one thing.
    https://www.kcra.com/article/connecting-folsom-to-elk-grove-folsom-segment-of-capital-southeast-connector-expressway/41778694
    Tuvia: I suggest that we relocate I-80 south of Davis and move houses into the newly empty space along with denser housing facing the redeveloped and upgraded railway corridor.
    Not gonna happen, but even if it did – it would likely increase travel distances for those passing through (thereby increasing greenhouse gasses).
    For that matter, they’re going to “widen” I-80, not “move” it.

    Reply
  9. Greg Rowe

    Just a few comments. One commenter asked whether the agencies responsible for the creating the reports have a good track record. The report was issued by the CA Dept of Finance (DoF), which has a section devoted to demographic research. I became familiar with DoF research and publications when I studied demography at Cal State Fullerton in the early 1970s. At that time, the population reports and projections it produced were considered top notch, and I suspect that continues to be true.
    In terms of housing needs, this report will do nothing to change the Cycle 6 (2021 – 2029) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 2,075 housing units assigned to the City of Davis by SACOG. However, one would hope that this new report by DoF will be taken into account by the CA Dept of Housing and Community Development and SACOG in assigning a Cycle 7 RHNA allocation to the City of Davis.

    Reply
  10. Tuvia LLC

    Ron: I am well aware that most politicians are hypocrites in relation to their climate pledges and are facilitating more auto-centric development.
    My plan is a component of a general plan – ideally the General Plan update – that would restart railway service north to Woodland and would make significant improvements to the existing main line from the Bay Area to the east. I-80 would have a dedicated express public transportation lane all the way from the Bay Area to Lake Tahoe.
    The Yolo Bypass Bypass would only be able to be accessed west of Davis and just east of 113. So it would be smooth sailing between those points… However, the main traffic would in the eastern side lead straight over the industrial west side of West Sacramento straight into I-80 going east end north. In this section, it would also have on ramps specifically for the logistics providers in this area which would enable them to completely bypass surface streets.
    The Bypass Bypass would itself be constructed of three different designs in roughly four different sections: below grade roughly west of 105, elevated over the bypass, in a tunnel mostly for sound reasons on the west bank of the Deep Water Channel, and then elevated again over industrial West Sacramento until it joins with the existing I-80 structure.
    All of these components would provide significant reductions in greenhouse gases and VMT.
    People would be given the choice to keep their homes and move them to smaller lots and all the new opened spaces due to removal of I-80.
    Outside of the destinations of UC Davis campus and junior high, the cycling modal share in Davis is under 10%. No one is really doing anything about it, or is treading water at best. Even downtown is not particularly pedestrian friendly. This plan will help change all that and will make Davis a happier place.

    Reply
  11. Keith

    Colin, have you tried to submit this article to the Vanguard?

    Reply
  12. Colin Walsh

    Keith, I have not submitted it to the Vanguard. I am not sure I want to subject myself to the personal attacks just for trying to report on state and county population projections in a fairly straightforward way.

    Reply
  13. Keith

    I understand Colin, but supposedly attacking the author of outside submitted articles is against the Vanguard comment policy. So the moderator is supposed to stop such personal attacks.

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    Colin: The odd thing is that the YIMBY-types aren’t going to be happy about this projection, even though it means that demand for housing is leveling-off. As such, the projections might indeed be subject to “challenges” by those folks.
    Sort of like how they saw “no connection” between the creation of (claimed) jobs at DISC, and demand for housing.
    I’ve concluded that some of these people (including those at the state level) simply “want” continuous growth and development. As mentioned, leveling-off of population is (also) usually reported in a “negative” manner by mainstream media, as well.
    The population has simply been “shifting” from areas where it has the least environmental impact (e.g., existing housing and infrastructure in the Bay Area), to areas where it has the most impact (continued sprawl in/near the valley). And the state is completely “silent”, regarding that.
    A similar issue is state support to “rebuild” in high-risk fire zones, and spread the resulting cost to “everyone else”. Usually with some kind of slogan (such as “Paradise Strong”) which is intended to generate support (and to disguise the cost and danger). With such slogans repeated by mainstream media in support.
    (Pretty sure that entirely-predictable fires are stronger – despite the slogan.)

    Reply
  15. R Keller

    Contrast these projections with those of Tim Keller (no relation), one of the founders of the Orwellian-named “Sustainable Growth Yolo” (or as I call them “Yolo Growth”), a YIMBY-backed front group who had proposed that Davis alone should have a population of 120,000 to 150,000 in the coming decades, an increase of 53,000 to 83,000 people.
    See my critique of his “analysis” here: https://www.davisite.org/2023/06/how-big-does-davis-need-to-be-a-lot-smaller-than-growth-advocates-want-you-to-think.html
    As I stated in the article and in related comments, TK’s analysis was ludicrous and ignored actual demographics. The latest DOF-projected population growth of 19,943 for the year 2060 for all of Yolo County demonstrates this. Even assuming as much as 30% of this countywide growth would occur in Davis would yield only a population growth of 6,000 over the next almost 4 decades, or 9-14 times less than Yolo Growth’s prescription.

    Reply
  16. Roberta L. Millstein

    I understand Colin, but supposedly attacking the author of outside submitted articles is against the Vanguard comment policy. So the moderator is supposed to stop such personal attacks.
    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    Oh, that’s a good one, Keith.

    Reply
  17. Alan C. Miller

    “I have not submitted it to the Vanguard. I am not sure I want to subject myself to the personal attacks just for trying to report on state and county population projections in a fairly straightforward way.”
    Live a little! There is nothing more enlivening than having your own personal troll, incubated from the Davis Vanguard comment section.

    Reply
  18. R Keller

    Speaking of incubated trolls on the Vanguard comment section, anybody heard from “Craig Ross” lately?

    Reply
  19. Alan C. Miller

    RK: Speaking of incubated trolls on the Vanguard comment section, anybody heard from “Craig Ross” lately?”
    Rather than incubated, that may have been a ‘fabricated’ troll.
    But happy to meet you anytime, Grand Craig, for, I dunno, a MENSA session at Sudwerk at 5pm.

    Reply
  20. Ron O

    [edited]
    Well, that’s what the Vanguard moderator/commenter “allowed”, instead of an actual link to this Davisite article. You can see that via the link below.
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/07/commentary-looking-at-the-city-uc-davis-dynamic-in-terms-of-housing-and-growth/#comment-474740
    Not sure why, as that same “commenter/moderator” has occasionally submitted articles/comments on the Davisite itself. Is the Davisite really that “secret/shunned”, at this point?
    And wasn’t that same commenter/moderator treated with respect on the Davisite when he’s participated on it? (Granted, he has not necessarily been treated with respect in regard to how he moderates the Vanguard, and he hasn’t participated in those articles/comments). But isn’t the example above an example of one of the more “mild” reasons that some have expressed concern regarding his moderating “duties”?
    At least he posted the rest of the particular comment in question.

    Reply
  21. Alan C. Miller

    “Granted, he has not necessarily been treated with respect in regard to how he moderates the Vanguard”
    I resemble that remark.a

    Reply
  22. R Keller

    It’s a truism at this point that anything David Greenwald says regarding city planning and growth issues is wrong, but his latest howler needs attention:
    “July 26, 2023 at 5:20 am
    Mostly more people are leaving and less people are entering the state DUE TO HIGH HOUSING COSTS. Poll after poll shows that’s the number one reason by far for people leaving. So this idea that Ron is pushing that we don’t need housing because of declining population exactly ignores that that is the proximate cause of the decline.”
    Had he bothered to actually look the latest round of California DOF population forecasts, he would have seen that declining births and increasing deaths is the main driver. In fact, net migration out of the state is projected to be relatively minimal and declining for 2024 to 2026, with net migration into the state again happening by 2027, reaching 50K/year by 2028, and remaining at similar levels through 2060. On the other hand, while births are estimated to outnumber deaths in 2023 by about 98,000, by the year 2060 deaths are projected to outnumber births by about 118,000.
    Of course the Shrew didn’t hesitate for a second in being an enthusiastic lackey for Greenwald’s uniformed drivel, saying:
    July 26, 2023 at 5:42 am
    “This is yet another instance where David is correct and Ron is wrong. Circular thinking by NIMBYs is sometimes utilized to justify their zero housing zealotcy.”
    And Tim Keller replied to that terrible so-called “moderator” Don Shor:
    “July 25, 2023 at 7:16 pm
    Don, these growth projections are great, I think they can be used to validate some of the assumptions in my model.”
    His “model” of course” was a ridiculous exercise to try to justify massive growth for Davis and Yolo County at a rate 10x greater than actual projections done by professional demographers. His assumptions were complete garbage, which produced the garbage results of his “model”
    And the clown show continues…

    Reply
  23. R Keller

    Don Shor also had this doozy of a comment:
    “July 25, 2023 at 11:42 am
    Good to know that people who are citing this article approvingly as justifying slow-growth policies are obviously willing to see Davis grow by 0.5% each year for a decade, and then by 0.4% each year for the next decade.
    Now I’m just trying to remember when the last time was that Davis grew by 0.4% or 0.5% for any sustained period of time.”
    1) until recently, the City of Davis has a 1% annual housing unit growth cap which was considered a cornerstone of its slow growth policies. The fact that the State of CA is now projecting Yolo County as a whole to only have an annual average growth rate (AAGR) for population for 2023-2033 of 0.45% and 0.23% for 2023 to 2060 is a big deal.
    2) I’m going to ignore the ” obviously willing” part, but obviously, the overall projected Yolo County growth rate should only be considered as an upper bound for projecting Davis’ growth rates. Good planning principles would call for more of the growth to be focused in West Sacramento, which is far closer to major employment centers than Davis. SACOG’s planning principles support this.
    3) As far as “the last time was that Davis grew by 0.4% or 0.5% for any sustained period of time,” that Don claims he doesn’t know about, the last two decades are that period of time. The AAGR for housing units for Davis was 0.60% in the past two decades from 2003 to 2023: 0.54% for 2003 to 2013 and then a slight increase to 0.66% from 2013 to 2023. In other words, the data says the opposite of what Don thinks. “Obviously” he shouldn’t complain about those past growth rates being too small.
    (link for the misinformation thread: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/07/commentary-looking-at-the-city-uc-davis-dynamic-in-terms-of-housing-and-growth/

    Reply
  24. Nick Schmalenberger

    Even if the state doesn’t grow, Davis may still grow, because Davis has so many nice attractive features like bike paths and the University. Are any other cities or towns copying Davis? No? Then people will keep wanting to move to Davis, and if the incumbent residents enjoy these things, it’s immoral to deny that to anyone else.
    When the slow growth people, the conservatives of Davis, still insist in their wickedness to stop growth, claiming to protect farmland, they are really wanting to protect their own property values. It’s definitely not renters who are the conservatives of Davis!
    The effect is that people still move in, but it’s alot of doctors and lawyers instead of people with less money but who are motivated for learning to come from around the world. The effect is to stop Davis from becoming more educated and culturally diverse. Yes, this is not the Vanguard. A vanguard is not made of conservatives!

    Reply
  25. Colin Walsh

    Nick – First, you are missing that the state projected very slow growth in Yolo County. That is covered clearly in the article. It is not broken out by City, but considering trends, that will largely be split between Davis Woodland and West Sac.
    Are other cities and towns copying Davis? Yes Davis had bike paths starting 50 years ago – but today Davis is copying other places for bike path innovation, not coming up with something new. What you are demonstrating is Davis Exceptionalism. The idea that Davis is better than everywhere else. Davis is certainly a nice place, but so are many other places. Just like you like Davis better, some people prefer to live in Dixon, or Woodland or Winters etc. and that is OK.
    Your equating of preserving farm land with wickedness is comical. Where do you think your food comes from? You do realize that Yolo County is a major ag producer right? That UCD is one of the top Ag schools in the world?
    Your assertion that there is some group of slow growth people working together to artificially raise property values lacks any substantiation. you seem to just be looking for a strawman.
    I do agree with you that Davis and California have a housing affordability issue. That’s why I have been urging the Council to adopt a stronger affordable housing policy. The Councils approach that has lead to massive new development proposals with almost no affordable housing will only further gentrify the city and enrich the real-estate developers.
    schilling for developers is hardly leading a “vanguard”

    Reply
  26. Ron O

    “When the slow growth people, the conservatives of Davis, still insist in their wickedness to stop growth, claiming to protect farmland, they are really wanting to protect their own property values.”
    The “slow growthers” aren’t the ones who advocated for thousands of claimed new jobs (at DISC), with no plan on where to house them.
    That would be the development activists, who advocated for that.

    Reply
  27. Nick Schmalenberger

    Yes of course Yolo County is a major ag producer, but Davis already drove out it’s cannery, as did Woodland. The university is still in a good place for teaching about agriculture, but the actual production has long left. If people in Davis really cared about agriculture, they would make it easier for more farmworker’s children to go to school at Davis, and some of them will return to farming.
    Another objection people have to growth, is that it puts too high a burden on incumbent residents for expanding water and sewer systems, such as the change to Sacramento River water. Well this is the exact reason why Mello-Roos taxes exist, and I remember around the time of the Covell Village debate someone from the assessor’s office telling me that Wildhorse was underassessed for Mello-Roos purposes. If these developments were assessed properly, they would be even more unaffordable, but it just shows that they were designed with far too little density to begin with.
    Instead, it’s just obstruction at every turn. The proposals for high density rental housing in Davis such as at the University Mall (I love the alien exhibit though) or Nishi went nowhere due to mindless conservatism, when these projects didn’t threaten farmland at all. The conservatives aren’t working together to raise property values, they’re just working together to stop anything else from happening to increase the housing supply as good neighbors and fellow travelers on spaceship Earth should do when unhoused and underhoused people live among us.

    Reply
  28. Nick Schmalenberger

    Here’s another idea, if Davis really should have districts for Council seats, gerrymander it so at least one district is mostly students and renters so that group is consistently represented in the Council, instead of just the landed gentry of Davis. I’m glad you also find the wickedness comical, that was my main motivation for using that word. Hehehe. Davisites should also recognize though, that despite the common association of conservatism with movements unpopular in Davis like book banning, trying to stop environmental change is just as conservative as banning books.

    Reply
  29. Colin Walsh

    Nick, The council looked at gerrymandering a district that would be majority student and it was not possible because concentrations of students are spread out across the city. Frankly, students would have a better chance at getting elected if there were no districts at all. Students have won previously in city wide elections.

    Reply
  30. Colin Walsh

    Nick, your posts are significantly challenged when it comes to the history of Davis and the region.
    Yolo county continues to be a major ag producer.
    Davis did not “Drive out its cannery” Hunts restructured and eliminated 7,000 jobs world wide.
    https://www.foodonline.com/doc/hunt-wesson-to-close-canning-plant-in-califor-0001#:~:text=Hunt%2DWesson%20Inc.%20will%20close,jobs%20worldwide%2C%20see%20related%20article.
    There is still a cannery located between Davis and Dixon. Tomatoes have been recently replaced by almonds as the top crop in Yolo County, but there is still major tomato production.
    UC Davis has the highest number of first in the family college students, and DJUSD continues to have the children of farm workers in it’s schools
    Your Mello-Roos argument is nonsensical. On the one hand you want Davis to be more affordable, and then you argue that the taxes should be higher. Those are directly at odds with each other.
    You claim obstruction at every turn, and then cite 2 large developments that were approved by City Council that the developers have not built. University Mall, the Developer declared that the housing component would not “pencil out” and the City Council let them back out of the development agreement and zoning that required there to be housing in that project. The Nishi developer has failed to get approval from the Union Pacific Railroad for the railroad crossing needed for the development. In fact, no housing development in Davis has been rejected in over 10 years.
    If you want to place blame for a failure to provide affordable housing – look at the City Council’s significant weakening of the affordable housing ordinance. Look at the failure to comply with the state housing element requirements and the state rejection of Davis’s Housing Element. These council actions directly benefit wealthy real-estate developers.

    Reply
  31. Keith

    Nick’s premise that it’s the conservatives that are the problem is so laughable in a town that votes 85% Democrat.
    In a town that voted 83% for Measure J.
    So the remaining 15% that vote conservative must wield a lot of power if it’s the conservatives that are stopping growth.

    Reply
  32. Ron O

    I find it laughable when some claim that aligning themselves with conservative development interests is “liberal” or “progressive”.
    But what’s even more laughable is using the label “conservative” as if it was a Scarlett letter.
    This is right out of the YIMBY playbook. The old “twisteroo”, as it were.

    Reply
  33. Alan C. Miller

    I think NS is trolling us, based on this comic statement:
    . . . people will keep wanting to move to Davis, and if the incumbent residents enjoy these things, it’s immoral to deny that to anyone else.
    Anyone who wants to live in Davis can, and it should be subsidized by taxing the existing residents against their will? . . . because that’s the only way that could happen . . . which of course would just attract more people to Davis to take advantage of the local people subsidizing their housing. If I wanted to live in Atherton or Beverly Hills to take advantage of the lifestyle amenities in those bergs, should Atherton and Beverly Hills residents subsidize my move, because to deny that would be immoral ? Do you have another mehtodology to fund everyone moving to Davis to prevent what you deem immoral denying? Because if you have no plan, you’re assertion of immorality is fucked in the head, and implying immorality invokes morality based on a universal religious-value system such as Christianity, which implies you are a conservative.

    Reply
  34. Nick Schmalenberger

    The Campbell’s facility near Dixon is NOT in Yolo County, and definitely not something Davis can take credit for. It’s sad people think that people who vote “Democrat” can’t be conservative, just because you’re liberal maybe on social issues doesn’t mean you can’t be conservative about the environment, or liberal on national issues but conservative on local issues.
    For the Mello-Roos taxes, I’m not arguing they should be higher, I’m saying that those entire developments were designed with such low density that they had to be underassessed to even be affordable to the doctors and lawyers. If Wildhorse was built with the density that was proposed for the University Mall apartment project that failed due to the Davis conservatives wickedness, or proposed for Nishi or is proposed now for Downtown, Davis might be in a little better shape of housing affordability.
    The failure to comply with state law for building Davis’ share of housing can only be described as conservative, no matter if anyone intends that or would admit to it. It’s like that cartoon of the person biking, they push a stick into the wheel, the bike crashes, and then they’re like oh what happened??? That’s what Davis is doing with housing. There’s still hope for Nishi and the Downtown projects to get built and be affordable, Davis just needs to walk the walk instead of just talking. “think locally act globally” really means NIMBY.

    Reply
  35. Ron O

    Given that this article notes that the state’s population is no longer growing, the only thing that continued sprawl accomplishes is the relocation of people within the state.
    Usually from areas that are more environmentally-sustainable (e.g., less-conducive to cars, not requiring air conditioning) to areas which accommodate multiple cars, require air conditioning, etc.
    As an example of this, probably half the people in the Sacramento region came from the Bay Area.
    Now, whether or not someone wants to label this observation as “conservative” or “progressive” literally makes no difference to me.

    Reply
  36. Colin walsh

    Nick you sound like Trump. Ignore the facts and just keep spewing mean spirited catch phrases and insults. If you can acknowledge basic facts like – UMall was approved at higher densities and the developer themselves pulled the project because the housing was not financially viable – how do you expect people to believe anything else you write?

    Reply
  37. Nick Schmalenberger

    I mean “think globally act locally” really means NIMBY, like people are concerned about global growth, yeah it means a lot of environmental changes that are hard to deal with. But if a place like Davis or Lafayette or Los Altos only consider it as a local problem for them to solve locally, it’s too easy for the people who already own land to just go la la la not happening here. Whats the problem I don’t see any problem we fixed OUR growth problem, every other place in the world should just do like Davis and Lafayette! Davis needs to take it’s share, and even if the state says growth overall for the state is going to be less, Davis still needs to take a bigger share to atone for its past wickedness in this area. Lafayette and Los Altos are beyond hope.

    Reply
  38. Colin Walsh

    Did you even read the headline of the article? Population growth for Yolo county and all of CA is projected to stall for decades.

    Reply
  39. Ron O

    Ultimately, one only has a limited amount of influence regarding their local community, let alone the entire world. Not just regarding growth issues, but all issues.
    Hence the saying, “think globally, act locally”. You do what you can, and what’s feasible.
    Most of California (more specifically, business and political interests they support) have been “beyond hope” in regard to the amount of sprawl they’ve pursued, and continue to pursue.
    There’s your “wickedness” – which has never been in short supply. Nor has the reaction from the “wicked” ever been in short supply, when they’re challenged.
    But now, they’re running out of (additional) people to support that continued pursuit. As a result, they can only encourage people to move FROM areas within California that are more environmentally-stable.

    Reply
  40. Nick Schmalenberger

    Yes growth in the state overall may slow, that’s the whole point of this article, but then why should Davis just be let off the hook? Housing in Davis would then remain unaffordable. I have zero interest in becoming a real estate tycoon, comparisons of me to Trump are hilarious, I only hope to move back to Davis when it’s affordable again. As for the UMall, it was only “approved” with so much extra requirements piled on and the number of units allowed to build decreased, that it wasn’t really a sincere approval. That’s why it turned out not to be financially viable.

    Reply
  41. Alan C. Miller

    “Wickedness”, “Immorality” — sounds like a reactionary religious fanatic to me.

    Reply
  42. Nick Schmalenberger

    My only religion is humanism. My opinions about what’s wicked or moral are my own, formed by living in Davis from 1987 – 2010, and such books as The Witch of Blackbird Pond which Mrs. Beavers assigned to my second grade class. In that book, I saw the town’s peoples bad treatment of Kit Tyler and Hannah Tupper as wicked. I don’t expect other people to share these opinions exactly, or use those words, but I know many people in Davis put high value on cultural diversity and education, and I like that very much.
    Please understand that in spite of all good intentions, the effect of “slow growth” policies in Davis has created housing unaffordability much more than in other places, and that has hurt the values of education and cultural diversity in the town. Conservatism is not a popular value in Davis, which is why it’s important for people to see it as an effect of slow growth they may not like.

    Reply
  43. Colin Walsh

    There you go again Nick spewing complete misinformation about something you seem to know little or nothing about. Very Trump like.
    The main changes to UMall? the heigh was lowered slightly, and a very small amount of affordable housing that could be paid for with in-leu fees were added. Hardly onerous requirements. Further – the developer was extremely clear. They are not a housing company and do not want to build housing at U-Mall and could not make it “pencil out.”
    And you still don’t seem to have read the article. growth stalls for Yolo County, not just the state.

    Reply
  44. Ron O

    Davis is dirt-cheap, compared to the locations where probably half the townsfolk came from.
    In other words, priced out of their original hometowns due to the unbridled pursuit of economic development. Perhaps it’s the folks behind that, to which the following video clip would apply:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DHknZNTwQ
    Or perhaps the entire capitalistic system is ultimately “wicked”, including the desire (some might say “encouragement”) to sell or rent one’s property for as much as the market will bear.
    Then again, you might need those proceeds for the “next” move, as well – especially if it’s back to a locale that’s a LOT more expensive than Davis is.
    Due to that evil capitalistic system, again.

    Reply
  45. Ron O

    “I only hope to move back to Davis when it’s affordable again.”
    Well, if you’re coming from the Bay Area, it’s definitely/already “affordable”.
    There’s definitely some decent single-family houses in Davis in the $700K range.
    And personally, I think they’re a better deal than spending that same amount (or more) for a new one in Woodland (Spring Lake), for example.

    Reply
  46. Keith

    Hey Nick, I moved to Davis from San Mateo where housing prices are through the roof. If Davis is wicked then San Mateo is the outright devil.

    Reply
  47. Ron O

    By the way, does anyone know what’s occurring with the following 96-unit development, which has been “coming soon” for well-over a decade?
    https://foutshomes.com/chiles-ranch/
    Or the other (30-unit) development (from this same developer), which has been “coming soon” ever since it was purchased from the former owner of the convalescent facility previously located on this site?
    https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/715-pole-line-road-subdivision
    Perhaps “Nick” would be interested in one of these units, if he/she is not satisfied with the wicked, pre-existing housing options.

    Reply
  48. Nick Schmalenberger

    Ron is right, that capitalism is the original wickedness here. But if somehow the only acceptable new developments in Davis are less dense developments, that either don’t pencil out anyway or don’t add much to the housing supply, then Davis isn’t really doing its part to stop capitalism of housing. In my opinion that is exceptionally wicked. Like 30 units or 96 units aren’t much, 500 or 1000 unit developments would be a good start.
    Yes San Mateo is slightly more expensive than Davis, I lived there for 5 years and luckily was able to rent a comparatively cheap apartment (1521 Lago St, my place was $1700/month but I think it’s now well over $2000/month), but I knew from the start it wasn’t a place to permanently live. So I moved to Roanoke Virginia, which is a beautiful diverse city, with great bike paths, although hillier than Davis. The median home price is $280k and I bought a great house for $180k.
    People who already made a pile of money in the Bay Area aren’t who Davis should want to be affordable for. Davis should want to be affordable for foreign and first generation students and teachers, and people who currently don’t have any home at all. Anyone else remember Steve Inness, what a good person he was? Maybe if Davis could just have given him his own place and a little income, he would still be with us today.

    Reply
  49. Colin Walsh

    Nick, I understand you haven’t been living in davis recently, but that is no excuse for continuing to post such factually challenged comments. Please get better informed on Davis today before making such sweeping unsupportable claims.
    No housing project has been rejected in Davis in over 10 years. Developers are drilling on major projects that have already been approved. The UMall developer removed the housing from that project. There are 5 major projects proposed on the periphery of Davis totaling thousands of new houses. Three of the largest verticals housing projects are proposed for the downtown. But you know what is lacking in the proposals? Affordable housing, or even housing that fits the lower cost options you’re asking for. That’s not “slow growth people” doing this. That is developer money and developer friendly council people.

    Reply
  50. Alan C. Miller

    NS, thanks for being here. Though I don’t agree with all that you say, or even find that some of it makes sense, it’s good to have someone here who goes against the prevailing thought here so that people have something to push against and get a more lively discussion. You also don’t take things as personally or get as personally insulting as many here, including myself. I welcome more of your input.

    Reply

Leave a reply to R Keller Cancel reply