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

Category: Housing

  • Don’t lose the opportunity for housing at University Mall site

    By David J Thompson

    Without a doubt, the University Mall site will be the greatest lost opportunity for housing in Davis in this ten year RHNA cycle. At 14+ acres, no other site presents the capacity for affordable housing as does University Mall. In terms of a real (not imagined) site that the developer wishes to re-develop, the closest proximity to the UCD campus of any site, the opportunity to reduce student traffic, an option to swap parking spaces for housing, with thoughtful site planning an ability to accommodate additional stories of housing, a valuable site for affordable housing, the possibilities are endless and the benefits accrue to many of us that envision the future projects that Davis must foster. 

    There will be no bigger loss to Davis’s needed future if a retail only plan is the regretful permanent outcome. There is no other site within Davis that provides such immediate and real value for the changes we need in land use.

    However, it seems like Brixmor is intent on replacing a mall with a mall. In this era which requires a radical rethinking of city planning can we really be so bankrupt of options that a redone mall is the only outcome? We need big changes where we have big opportunities. So the City must turn down the Brixmor plan.

    What could change the outcome?

    1. The City should pause the application process and enter into negotiations with Brixmor as to the best way for the City and the neighborhood to achieve a mixed use project. Every reasonable effort and inducement by the City should be looked at to encourage Brixmor to withdraw this present application and return with a mixed use application.
    2. Could the City use eminent domain to obtain the site for a housing only proposal that would eliminate the parking structures needed for the commercial site and replace it with housing? Repurposed as just housing at 40 units per acre the site can accommodate 560 apartments of which at 20% around 112 units would be affordable. The most ever affordable units in the history of Davis.

    What an achievement that could be for the Davis future many of us want to build.

    To the Planning Commission and City Council I ask you to pursue anything except a re-done mall.

  • Davis must grow up, not out

    By Judy Corbett, Robert Thayer, Stephen Wheeler and James Zanetto

    The Feb. 5 Davis Enterprise article stating that the City Council will examine ways of pre-approving housing developments on sites at the periphery of Davis in order to meet the city’s long-term “regional housing needs” allocation runs counter to the entire momentum of urban development economics and city finance.

    It is well known that by building dense, vital downtowns, with multi-story housing and walkable amenities, cities may not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but actually build more positive property tax flows. Building at the periphery does the exact opposite by reducing income per acre from property taxes while increasing infrastructure maintenance including roads, water, sewers, flood control, street trees, police, fire and garbage collection.

    Jeff Speck, author of “Walkable City Rules,” (Island Press, 2018) states that “communities that fund infrastructure with an eye to long-term return will invest in compact, mixed-use development — especially in historic districts — and not in sprawl.”

    Beginning with the 1974 “Costs of Sprawl,” considerable research studies have shown that dense urban areas return far more revenue per acre than peripheral, auto-oriented development; the former actually subsidize the latter. (See the case studies website of Urban3: https://www.urbanthree.com/case-study/ )

    Since the new Davis Downtown Plan addresses this, at least in the short term we need to avoid peripheral development that does not pay for its own ultimate financial impact on a wide range of city services. Portland, Ore., and the smaller California cities of Pasadena, Petaluma, Hercules and Lodi are examples of communities where the advantages of building strong downtowns can be observed today.

    (more…)

  • Rent Increases, Price Gauging, Collusion — Republican Stew

    2022-10-20 Porter Inflation

    U.S. Representative Katie Porter

    By Scott Steward

    Rents have gone up so fast it has surprised even colluding real estate software marketer RealPage. Again blocked by Republicans, the “A Place to Prosper Act”, renters rights and rent increase control, never reached debate. Rent is not increasing because it costs more to keep up properties. Rents are higher because it’s what enough people can be forced to pay. Owners are charging computer generated higher rents, knowing that it will cause higher vacancies, because they can—increasing homelessness. It’s that bad.

    Not one Republican voted for the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act. And if Republicans are the majority—you will never hear of the bill to make sure you are charged a fair price at the pump. Much more the opposite, put Republicans in power and you will fuel Putin’s Russian war, make Saudi’s rich and put American energy independence into the trash can.

    Corporate profits are at records. This is true not because these corporations are adding value, it is true because they are charging high prices. Pharmaceutical companies, cable companies, oil companies—an average of 53% increase in profits over the last 6 months. How? By raising prices well over their costs—just plain old “because they can.” Biden is not the owner of Moderna, Xfinity or Exxon—most of inflation is being caused by corporate greed.

    In the meantime Trump appointed judges ruled to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a similar ruse was used to undercut the EPA, (saying agencies have to have more explicit power from Congress.) Hogwash! Guess what else is funded outside of regular appropriations—Medicare and Social Security. These Judges want to serve up these 50+ year old protections, including women’s reproductive rights, to the carving knives of MAGA Republican controlled majorities in the House and Senate.

    Blame inflation on someone, that’s what Republicans are betting on even as their party will make the problem worse with giveaways to the rich and the same trickle down policies that gave 80% of us a zero increase in household income over the last 40 years. That’s their big idea.

    Democrats can be forced to make laws that put Americans first. That’s why we have made some gains to see that regular Americans get fair compensation and opportunity—that is what is best for the economy—for Democrats, Republicans, Independents and everyone.

  • Celebration of Abraham Rocks the Block in West Sacramento with Habitat for Humanity

    Rocks-the-block(From press release) On Saturday October 8 the Celebration of Abraham joined Habitat for Humanity Greater Sacramento to Rock the Block in West Sacramento. Our team comprised folks from all three Abrahamic traditions including Jewish (Renee Dryfoos, Gregory Guss, John Katonah and Dean Newberry), Muslim (Anne Kjemtrup, Kamal  Lemseffer and Timur Mamedov) and Christian (Mary Philip and Helen Roland Cramer). In addition to providing the interfaith work team, the Celebration of Abraham ran an on-line fundraising campaign and raised $1350 to supply the materials needed to work on the project.

    The specific project that the Celebration of Abraham worked on was painting the transitional housing that Shores of Hope provides to folks aging out of foster care. Shore of Hope is a nonprofit in West Sacramento that offers among other services transitional housing, Slavic Women’s Health Outreach, emergency shelter, and a Food Closet. (See Welcome to Shores of Hope )

  • Letter: Comments on Mr. Morrell’s take on homelessness in Davis

    I am writing to share my deep concern about the comments that Adam Morrill, a candidate for city council (District 4) has made regarding homelessness and those who experience homelessness.  His comments should trouble all of us. Despite our move to district elections, we remain one city and one community. I have spent well over decade working on issues related to homelessness, serving on the boards of Davis Opportunity Village, the Yolo County Homeless and Poverty. I am also a member of the Interfaith Housing Justice Group. Mr. Morrell’s approach to dealing with the homeless issue lacks an awareness of the scope of the problem as well as an understanding of the limits of the resources of local nonprofits.

    In the Davis Chamber of Commerce forum, he was asked about his approach to addressing homelessness. Early in the forum he referred to unhoused individuals as “violent transients.” He said that he thought a better solution to addressing homelessness than “kind of moving people along who are continually problems, people who aren’t interested in services” is “deeding over the sidewalks to the landlords because then it results in a “trespassing issue rather than just a camping issue.”” This approach will lead to criminalizing unhoused people. But he didn’t stop there, he went on to say that the city shouldn’t be in the business of social services and that these efforts are duplicative of what the nonprofits have already been doing. The nonprofits cannot solve the issue—they simply do not have the resources.

    My deeply held view is that all humans deserve to live with dignity, and that includes the right to be in stable housing and to receive appropriate services. And I believe local government – because of its role in housing policy, enforcing building codes, and protecting public health — has an important role in dealing with issue.  Mr. Morrill has a very restricted and troubling view of what it takes to build a community where everyone is safe.

    I urge those who live in District 4 to vote for Gloria Partida.

    Helen Roland Cramer

  • Winter Shelter for our Unhoused Residents

    Why non-congregate (e.g. hotel/motel-based) shelter is the best solution

    (From press release)

    Background: The City of Davis, in coordination with several stakeholder organizations, is planning for winter shelter for our homeless Davis and Yolo County neighbors. The current proposal being advanced by the City’s Social Service and Housing Department is to use the city-owned house at 512 5th Street as congregate shelter for up to 10 people, with Davis Community Meals and Housing (DCMH) providing staffing, case management and administration of the program.

    HEART of Davis (formerly Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter) is enthusiastically supportive of and interested in contributing to sheltering those who need it during the cold winter months. We stand ready to provide volunteers to provide food and other resources to those in need. However, we firmly believe that the 5th Street house is the wrong venue for this purpose at this time, for the following reasons:

    • The 5th St facility is far too small to address the need. Historically, there have been at least 20-25 people needing cold weather shelter on a nightly basis in Davis. Sacramento homeless camp sweeps will likely increase the need.

    • As a congregate shelter it may well be a source of COVID-19 outbreaks, during which time it will have to be closed, as has been the case with the 4th and Hope Shelter in Woodland.

      • During the closures, the only alternative will be using motel or hotel rooms for non- congregate shelter, or to provide nothing at all.
      • The California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) shelter guidance (dated May 6, 2022) advises: “ When possible, the use of alternative housing sites or non-congregate settings should be considered in lieu of congregate shelters.” (See the attached rationale, written by Dr. Sheri Belafsky, UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences, in consultation with the Yolo County Public Health Officer).

    • Some hotel rooms will be needed anyway for the vulnerable population. Those who are at highest risk for COVID will need to be sheltered in separate motel/hotel rooms to minimize health risks.

      • The City will then be implementing a second track of non-congregate shelter, which will require separate management. The City could reduce management costs and staff time by running just one non-congregate shelter program.
      • It will be very difficult to for our volunteers to provide food at two locations

    Projected Costs: The room costs of such a program, assuming ~20 people per night for 4 months (120 days) would be 20 rooms x $100/night x 120 nights= $240,000. Demand each night will depend on the weather and other factors, such as screening criteria. HEART of Davis has offered a matching contribution $25K, which has thus far not been accepted by the city. Additional fundraising to pay for rooms, supplies, and other resources will be needed, and possible sources would be other organizations in Davis who support the homeless, the local business community, and, of course, the city.

    What you need to know: Dana Bailey, Director of Davis’ Department of Social Services and Housing, is hosting a meeting with multiple interested organizations on Thursday, October 6, to present her current plan. The City Council will discuss this item at its October 18 meeting.

    What you can do: Please spread the word to your networks and constituencies that the City Council needs to direct staff to pursue shelter options that can accommodate 20 or more people, such as a motel- based shelter. Please contact City Council members directly using the contact information below. Tell them:

    1. Winter shelter for our homeless neighbors is desperately needed in Davis.

    2. The proposal to use the city house for congregate shelter is both inadequate to address the need, and unsafe, from a public health point of view.

    3. Motel/Hotel-based shelter, like that provided last year, is probably our best option at this time, since we know how to run such a program and it needs to be up and running in a month.

    4. The City needs to, and can, find resources to run such a program. All that is needed is the political will.

    5. The Council should direct staff to focus on non-congregate shelter options that can house 20+ people/night.

    Please contact the City Council, and plan to attend the October 18 City Council meeting. Spread the word!

    Lucas Frerichs

    Mayor

    City Council District 3

    Term Ends: 2024

    lucasf@cityofdavis.org

     

    Will Arnold

    Vice Mayor

    City Council District 2

    Term Ends: 2024

    warnold@cityofdavis.org

     

    Dan Carson

    Councilmember
    Elected "At large"

    (resides District 1)
    Term Ends: 2022

    dcarson@cityofdavis.org

     

    Josh Chapman

    Councilmember

    City Council District 5

    Term Ends: 2024

    jchapman@cityofdavis.org

     

    Gloria Partida

    Elected "At large"

    (resides District 4)
    Term Ends: 2022

    gpartida@cityofdavis.org

     

    Attachment. Analysis from Dr. Sheri Belafsky
    Rationale for non-congregate shelter whenever feasible this winter:

    • While case rates and hospitalizations have been trending down over the past month, significant virus circulation remains throughout California—including Sacramento and Yolo counties. Per CDC data, Yolo County currently has a “low community level”, however, “community transmission”, which reflects the presence and spread of COVID–19, is still “substantial”. (https://www.yolocounty.org/government/general-government-departments/health-human- services/adults/communicable-disease-investigation-and-control/covid-19)

    • Currently, the behavior of the COVID-19 virus is unpredictable, and the development of new variants this winter is possible.

    • Congregate emergency winter shelter constitutes a high-risk transmission setting for a population disproportionately at high risk for COVID-19 complications.

    • CDPH’s shelter guidance (dated May 6, 2022) advises: “When possible, the use of alternative housing sites or non-congregate settings should be considered in lieu of congregate shelters.” (https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/infection-control-guidance- clients-congregate-shelter-including-homelessness.aspx). CDPH also advises that “Non- congregate housing should also be prioritized for:… those who are at high-risk for severe COVID-19 infection or medical complications should they become infected, such as people over 65 or those who have underlying health conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 infection.”

    • CDC recommendations for “medium” community levels include:

    • In the event of COVID-19 outbreaks, other shelters with congregate housing have been forced to close intermittently with subsequent urgent re-housing of their guests in motel rooms to isolate.

  • Why DiSC matters for the City Council election

    Some of DiSC’s proponents called it a tiny city. That suggests it is a microcosm of Davis as a whole and all of the issues it faces.

    DCC with DiSC in background-2By Roberta Millstein

    In a recent interview with the Davis Enterprise, Gloria Partida said that “I know that people right now are very focused on what happened with Measure H” but that being a member of Council is “not a one-issue job.”

    However, Measure H represents a large number of central and key issues that future Davis City Councils will have to weigh in on.  It would have been bad for Davis in variety of ways, as Davis citizens widely recognized when they rejected the project by an almost 2-1 margin. 

    Thus, a candidate’s stance on Measure H speaks volumes about their values and how they would govern.  Gloria Partida (District 4), Dan Carson (District 1), and Bapu Vaitla (District 1)  were strongly in favor of Measure H.  In contrast, Kelsey Fortune (District 1) and Adam Morrill (District 4) strongly opposed Measure H.

    As the No on Measure H campaign emphasized in its ballot arguments and campaign literature, each of the following issues was relevant to the proposed project. In no particular order:

    (more…)

  • An evening with Leah Rothstein

    Document copy

    By Ellen Kolarik 

    It was November 18, 2019 and Richard Rothstein, author of The Color of Law was nearing the end of his presentation to a full house at Davis Community Church.  More than 200 people remained for the Q&A. 

    A member of the audience asked “How can we maintain that small town feel and still deal with our housing issues?”

    The reply? “That small town feel is a euphemism for a segregated community.”

    Those of us that were involved in putting on that event were excited and proud that our community was open to hearing tough information about who we are as a country and as a community.  But, how to move forward?

    Interfaith Housing Justice Davis (IHJD) formed as a response to Rothstein’s call to action.  IHJD is a loose coalition of faith organizations in Davis who advocate for changes in city policy to encourage more affordable housing, the first step in desegregating a community.

    (more…)

  • Part 2 Candidate Responses to the Sierra Club Yolano Group Questionnaire for the 2022 Davis City Council Election

    Sierra Club logo

    Land Use and Housing Development – Downtown Core and Student Housing

    Introduction – As has been our custom for over 20 years, the Sierra Club Yolano Group prepares a wide-ranging questionnaire and presents it to candidates in races of interest to our local membership. The questionnaire for the 2022 Davis City Council race received answers from all 5 candidates in the 2 of the 5 City Council Districts for which an election is held in Novemeber, 2022.

    The candidates, listed in alphabetical order by their first name, are:

    District 1 (West Davis): – Bapu Vaitla, Dan Carson, and Kelsey Fortune

    District 4 (East Davis ) – Adam Morrill, Gloria Partida

    Questions asked were in the following general categories:

    Part 1 – Land Use and Housing Development – Peripheral Development

    Part 2— Land Use and Housing Development – Downtown Core and Student Housing

    Part 3 – Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases

    Part 4 – Transportation Management

    Part 5 – Waste Management

    Part 6 – Toxics in the Environment and Other Environmental Issues

    Part 1 in this series can be viewed by clicking on that article's title above which is linked to the earlier publication.

    This is the 2nd in the series of articles and focuses on Land Use and Housing Development – Downtown Core and Student Housing and provides candidate responses to the following questions:

    (more…)

  • Where have all the babies gone?

    Screen Shot 2022-07-09 at 10.22.28 AMBy Dave Taormino

    Davis has been gradually losing its innate college town character. The level of civility in civic discourse continues its decline as demonstrated in the recent Measure H campaign. The 1960 – 70s mid-western ethos that prospered when Davis and UCD set out on their mutually aligned growth paths has deteriorated with urban-like political fighting. The midwestern neighborly values that were once well established have given way to a divisive approach to community engagement. In housing development discussions, the person you disagree with is characterized as evil, dishonest, a liar, etc. Why? In part because Davis’s 40 years of restrictive housing and growth policies has spawned and feeds unintended and unnecessary discord with little visible, offsetting benefits.

    Here are some of the impacts:

    1. Less than 40% of our TOP City management live in Davis. Nearly all the major City decision makers and their families live elsewhere. Their family life and personal civic involvement is not here.
    2. The percentage of Davis Police and Fire Department personnel who live in Davis is much lower than the TOP management. In essence, their family and hearts reside elsewhere.
    3. The vast majority of North, North Davis homeowners are individuals employed at UCD or a Davis business. They cannot afford to live here. A sizable number have children commuting daily with their parents to attend Davis schools, a good outcome for us.
    4. In the Cannery, roughly 80% of the buyers had no relationship to Davis or UCD, although some had grown children living here. Most came from the Bay Area and Marin County, exactly where the Cannery developers heavily advertised. It was an intentional strategy not intended to attract local UCD faculty, staff, and other Davis workers. In the 546 homes, an unbelievably low number of school age children actually live there. Something like 26 new students resulted from Cannery’s 546 homes plus apartments. In the 80’s and early 90’s a “Cannery-type neighborhood” would have generated 300 – 400 new students. Where have all the families with or capable of having babies gone?
    5. Approximately 1,000 Elementary through High School students commute daily to our schools. Without these commuting students some neighborhood schools would close. Imagine the rancor and anger that would result should neighborhood school closures be considered. The civic anger, neighborhood vs neighborhood would likely be greater than the recent Measure H arguments. The School District has done a masterful entrepreneurial job in “recruiting” out of Davis parents/children to attend our neighborhood schools. For how long can those creative efforts be sufficient? A university-oriented community NEEDS GREAT schools. Great schools require children from childbearing age parents living here and as a result contributing to a wholesome, family friendly, inclusive community. That was “the 1960’s and 1970’s Davis civic perspective” when UCD embarked on its original and now continuing growth plan.

    The list could continue, but you get the point.

    (more…)