Category: Uncategorized

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.

(more…)

(From press release) Soroptimist International of Davis awarded $12,000 in grants this spring through its signature Live Your Dream program, which offers cash and mentorship to women seeking education and training.

Women are encouraged each year to apply for the awards if they are the primary wage earners for their families, and need financial assistance to further their education or training. Recipients often persevere through hardships or challenging circumstances.

This year, SI Davis gave a boost to four women, with cash awards ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. These unrestricted grants may be used to offset costs that a scholarship would not cover, such as child care, transportation or other financial obligations that hinder a woman’s ability to reach her goals. Soroptimist International of Davis members remain in contact with the recipients, offering them mentorship and support.

(more…)

My support for Francesca Wright is based not only on her informed approach to specific issues facing the city from housing, especially affordable housing, and city services to climate change and diversity, but also and especially on the type of experience she will bring to governance.

As a professional and a grassroots organizer over many years, she starts a process at the level of what people say about their concerns and possible solutions based on their experience. That means her solutions to Davis problems will be shaped to address our needs and interests. Several times she has listened carefully to me, and though we may not agree on every point, I have complete confidence that she is committed to the kind of dialogue that will result in good public policy.

Wright has worked for and with public institutions such as the California Institute of Mental Health and several County “First 5” programs that support at-risk children and their families. Unlike her opponent, the strength of her qualifications and experience comes from her work at the community level, rather than within the bureaucracy. You can learn more about her work over the years at https://wrightfordavis.org/bio/ and also by reading her Platform.

With the city in need of a good listener, fresh approaches and someone who will engage in the spirit of collaboration, I urge residents of District 3 to vote for Cesca Wright.

Nancy Price
Davis

What is going on with the City Council?  Tuesday’s meeting was surreal.

By Roberta Millstein

First, Councilmember Bapu Vaitla, critic of NIMBYs who dare to say that projects should be better, suggested that the proposed University Mall redevelopment isn’t good enough.  Somehow, even though the site has been retail-only for decades, Councilmember Vaitla claimed that that use isn’t consistent with the General Plan – stating, among other things, that the project does not provide “a diversity of housing options” – and he called for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project.

If Councilmember Vaitla were a defender of the project as approved, he would likely say that an appeal like this was just a delay tactic.  But because it’s his objection to the project, he marshaled Davisites to come speak in favor of the appeal.

Then Councilmember Gloria Partida, who has consistently argued that we need more housing in Davis, voted to deny Councilmember Vaitla’s appeal, effectively guaranteeing that there would be no housing at the University Mall site (since the vote to hear the appeal had to be unanimous).

To further the up-is-down left-is-right Council meeting, the council – to a person – decided no, it will not go forward with putting any of four housing-projects-in-process on the ballot for November 2024.[1]  This is in spite of, again, all four councilmembers touting themselves as being pro-housing, and perhaps even more puzzling, in spite of the fact that two of the four councilmembers wrote the report suggesting that the Council take up the question of which project to put in process for November 2024.

A representative of one of the developers of the four projects even got up to say that nothing should be put in motion for November 2024!  Surely this was April Fool’s?  Nope, April 4.

(more…)

DAVIS, CA – In a stunning announcement today, the University of California, Davis revealed that it would be retiring its current team nickname, the “Aggies," in favor of a new name that better reflects the school's commitment to undergraduate students and the hefty tuition bills they pay. 

Effective immediately, the university's new nickname and mascot will be the “Ca$h Cow$.” The decision was reportedly made after a lengthy debate among university administrators about how to best celebrate the financial contributions of out-of-state and international students. 

"We felt it was important to honor our biggest contributors," said Chancellor Dairy Dismay. "We want our students to know that they're not just a number, they're a dollar sign," added Dismay. "And what better way to show them that than by making our mascot a literal representation of the financial burden they're shouldering?"

Reaction to the news was mixed on social media, with some observers praising the university for embracing its financial realities, while others criticized the decision as cynical and tone-deaf.

(more…)

Welcome to April, fools.

Al's Corner is about free speech.  Especially speech you don't like.  If you delete posts because you don't like them, you're an asshole. 

If the shoe fits, wear it.  On your asshole.  An asshole shoe.  Do they come in pairs?

Bon Ami says, "Hasn't Scratched Yet".  At Al's Corner we say, "Haven't Moderated Yet".  Though some day we will, but it will be on principals, not politics.  Someone blatantly violates the rules.  But unlike 'Disappearing Donny', we'll let you know what you did wrong, not simply disappear your comment into a progressive void.  (Full Disclosure:  I once had to moderate one of my own comments – and yes, I did inform myself of it.)

The 'topic' for this month is "Stomping Davis, Crushing Locales".

Based on a March 30th comment in the Davis Vanguard by Dave Hart:  "I’m tired of the emotional and knee jerk negative reaction of those, particularly on the fringe of town next to proposed new development. I would love to see these locales get crushed and I’m starting to feel that way about Davis. I can’t believe I’m saying it, but yeah, we need to be stomped on for being so intransigent and narrow."

Crush & Stomp your fellow citizens, those usual suspects, so intransigent and narrow.  Oh Davis YIMBYs!

Carry on . . .

Two articles today in the Davis Vanguard about ChatGPT. 

But ChatGPT is woke:

ChatGPT goes woke!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11646463/Conservatives-test-AI-ChatGPT-uses-responses-prove-going-woke.html

One quote:

"Developing anything, software or not, requires compromise and making choices, political choices, about who a system will work for and whose values it will represent."

I certainly don't agree with some of the political views used as examples in the article, but clearly a political bias is shown when the machine calls out writing about subjects as being 'inappropriate'.  If you can't see how this could so easily be manipulated by whomever is in power, you aren't being real about the concerns.

Regarding Mass Shootings:

Gavvy Newsom: <i> "What the hell is wrong with us? Society becomes how we behave. We’ve allowed this to happen. It doesn’t have to be this way. It wasn’t always this way. Decades ago it wasn’t this way. We’ve allowed this to happen.” </i>

Us who? We who?

(more…)

Rik Keller, Housing Consultant and Affordable Housing Advocate

 

Davis City Council comments 1/17/2023

Item 5: Inclusionary Multifamily Rental Housing Ordinance Review 

 

I have comments on the product and process:

 

1) It is an overly simplistic, opaque study with bad assumptions.

• The pro forma analysis has a lot of “black box” qualities: Doesn’t show the calculations used or major assumptions, so it is not possible to adequately vet, double-check, and critique the methodology, assumptions, and calculations.

• The study doesn’t use a sophisticated pro forma analysis: it is very crude and basic and doesn't allow changes in parameters of things like number of stories, unit sizes, and parking construction types and configurations.

• Because of this simplistic and opaque approach, it doesn’t offer flexibility in analysis or running different scenarios beyond the very limited canned ones shown.

• One terrible assumption: it considers one major parameter as given—the underlying land price. 

• If even the 100% market units don’t reach the 12% IRR threshold in the pro forma, then that tells me that the land price assumption is too high because we have had recent development proposals for multifamily development

• The fact is that land value varies by its scarcity and demand.

• This is a massive flaw as the City’s own density, parking, and inclusionary requirements have large effects on this parameter and hence development feasibility.

• If you increase affordable housing requirements, you reduce the bidding demand price for land

• In reality, land costs are not fixed and are influenced by the IRR that projects can achieve. If you make more affordable units required, that should actually lower land costs because the rate of return is now lower.

• Another issue: bringing up reducing/eliminating development/impact fees as the only feasible way to make projects work. If projects don’t cover their own impact costs, you are increasing City debt and subsiding developer profits. I’m shocked that this is the only solution put on the table by the consultants.

• There is also a statement on page 39 that “No incentives are needed in a policy that requires 15% – 25% of small, workforce units.” However, there is no data or analysis provided for this assertion. 

• In actuality, small units don’t usually end up providing affordability. The most expensive components of units are the kitchens and HVAC systems. Small units have much higher per square foot costs.

• The City of Davis has seen this inefficiency in the exorbitant proposed rents for the Olive Drive Mixed Use Project even after eliminating parking requirements.

 

2) Ironically, one good thing about the study is that it shows the City’s planning failure in targeting densities and incentives to get maximum production of affordable units.

• It states “Downtown’s new form based code does a great job at removing barriers to development. Unfortunately, this limits our options to offer development incentives as part of the policy.” and the “Residential high density zone encourages development that is denser than what is typically seen in areas outside of Downtown Davis and already removes commonly known barriers to multifamily development.”

• But a terrible assumption of the report is that the City can’t modify its density and parking requirements so that they can be used as incentives for increased affordable housing requirements.

• If you allow too much default density and reduce parking requirements in a given zoning district up front, you have given away for nothing incentives that you could offer for affordable housing production.

 

3) There is a failure in City’s process with the Housing Element Update lead to this.

• It has now been almost 5 years since the City scrapped its Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) for its interim ordinance that drastically weekend Inclusionary requirements.

• After breaking deadlines multiple times, back in May 2021, staff stated that it would finally provide a “comprehensive update” to the AHO as part of the HEU. But the HE just ended up kicking the can down the road further.

• The very limited nature of the report under review right now demonstrates the need to comprehensively address housing policy, not do it piecemeal like this.

• We must think holistically:

• The City lost an opportunity with the HEU, and needs to to re-group with actual affordable housing advocates leading policy rather than an advisory group stacked with development interests that pushed failed free-market trickle-down approaches.

• A proper approach is to carefully craft incentives such as increased density and reduced parking requirements that offset affordability requirements. Simply having large allowable densities and allowing by-right development without strengthening affordability requirements is bypassing half of the equation. Density does not necessarily (and usually doesn’t) equal affordability. Providing half of the equation in terms of incentives without receiving the other half in terms of actual commitments to affordability is missing the point.

 

Conclusion: This study is a poor excuse for a comprehensive analysis of the City’s actual policy option for increasing affordable housing production. The analysis put its thumb firmly on the scale to try to justify a weakening of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements. They claim that the requirements eat into developer profit margins and make it so projects won’t “pencil out,” In contrast, actual economic analysis of  the results of implementing inclusionary programs does not bear this out:

•  “The most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices” (National Housing Conference’s (NHC) Center for Housing Policy: “Separating Fact from Fiction to Design Effective Inclusionary Housing Programs.” https://nhc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Separating-Fact-from-Fiction-to-Design.pdf

• “In fact, inclusionary policies may even promote more market-rate development in cities with very constrained housing markets…There is no credible evidence to suggest that inclusionary housing policies lead to lower rates of housing production. This is likely because developers are able to adapt to flexible inclusionary housing policies by bargaining over land prices and adjusting their profits in the short run.” landowners.https://inclusionaryhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Economics-of-Inclusionary-Housing-Policies-Effects-on-Housing-Production_a.pdf

 

The City should use evidence-based local policy solutions that further goals for inclusive, equitable, and affordable housing solutions.This process and product is not adequate.

The Davisite wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy (8th night of) Hanukkah, and a Happy Solstice!!

– your friendly admins, Colin & Roberta