The rent is high because Davis is a desirable place to live, and more people want to live here than there is housing.

I hear that from lots of people, but I've never viewed Davis as a "particularly" desirable place to live.

Davis is a good place to live if one "has to" live in the valley in the first place (e.g., due to various factors that people consider when choosing a place to live).

It would be interesting to see where people would actually want to live, if factors such as housing prices, job availability, weather, geography, amenities, traffic, and recreational opportunities were the same "everywhere".

My guess is that some place like Phoenix, AZ would suddenly have "no population", while some place like Santa Monica, Tiburon, or Atherton would have a lot more. Truth be told, the entire central valley, including Davis, would be devoid of population in that scenario. Nothing but farms, vernal pools, coyotes and burrowing owls.

The rent is higher in Davis than surrounding communities because of UCD students. One of the few groups who (almost) "need" to live close to, or on the campus.

For those who think the school system should be driving planning needs, Davis is NOT the most-desirable local place for families (e.g., for those with more-limited income/assets). The reason being that they can get so much more for their money, some 7 miles north (and still be quite close to UCD, and attend DJUSD schools if they so desire). Too bad that they don't pay DJUSD parcel taxes, though.

Truth be told, the "commute" from Woodland to UCD is probably easier and more direct than some of the more far-flung proposed developments in Davis. Including the proposed "golf course" development.

Though a "second-hand house" in Davis (e.g., a Stanley Davis house) is generally a better investment. You can get a nice one for about $750K, which is a better-deal (overall) than most new houses in Woodland.

For sure, families are NOT going to be moving into the shoebox-size units that the school boosters claim would be desirable for them. Families want decent-sized houses, yards, places to park, etc. In short, they have some of the most-negative impacts on traffic (e.g., "soccer Mom"), and demand plenty of costly amenities such as schools, parks, libraries, etc. Why any city would actively pursue that population is beyond me.

If Davis was REALLY that desirable, only Elon Musk would be able to afford a house in Davis. Try raising the price of a Stanley Davis home to 10 million, and see what the "demand" is for it.

Demand is a function of price. The higher the price, the less demand there is. And since Davis housing prices are approximately equivalent to the state median, that should tell us something about just how "desirable" Davis actually is compared to other communities in the state. (In other words, it's about average, in terms of desirability.)

"an adult, objective rebuttal of someone's position would be more helpful community discourse."

Alan's critique here was very helpful for my discourse. That's what I like about Alan's articles, they're never boring and get to the point with some humor and sarcasm involved. Alan hit on how something that was supposed to be forever is now somehow open for discussion. That's not how 'forever' works. Alan, don't ever change.

" . . . an adult, objective rebuttal of someone's position would be more helpful community discourse.

You're referring to someone who wears a donkey suit, outside of Vanguard fundraisers. But he is plenty-amusing, and is a talented writer. Seems to be a decent human being, as well.

To RO: Relative to the surrounding valley, Davis is desirable, and that's what matters: the region.

Are you sure about that? The region itself competes with other regions. Such competition would include "staying in place" (in whatever locale one is currently located in.) And Davis competes with places like Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, etc. As well as places like Woodland (for the reasons I mentioned).

I have a relative who recently moved to a retirement community in Rocklin, I think. (From a "desirable" Bay Area city.) She totally regrets it, which everyone in the family could have told her in advance. Plus, paid a bunch of capital gains taxes, when selling her old place.

Let me repeat: Davis sucks compared to most places in the Bay Area. If you don't believe me, go outside "right now" in either location. 102 degrees in Davis, as I write this. (One's eyebrows don't start singing until it reaches about 112 degrees, however.)

RO: "Seems to be a decent human being, as well."

I am a decent human being. Thanks for noticing :-|

I also use the words "fuck" and "shit" in blog posts.

Because I'm decent . . .

. . . and like to use swearzies

"I am a decent human being. Thanks for noticing"

I think this has to do with honesty/integrity; not necessarily "agreement" with any particular view. Which is also the reason I wouldn't put David in the same category as you.

Somehow, honesty/integrity shines through over time. Everything else doesn't really matter.

I have yet to see two people agree on everything, when being "honest". Though if I've totally being honest, anyone who doesn't agree with me is probably wrong.

(Assuming there's only two choices. A "binary" choice, as some might describe that.)

Stephanie (who sounds like a nice person) says:

"We are all concerned about finding a way to provide affordable housing and preserve agricultural land"

I don't want to give Stephanie a hard time but I have three questions (that I hope she will answer):

1. What is the maximum dollar amount of monthly housing cost that you would define as "affordable"?

2 Are you aware that at current interest rates, insurance rates and utility rates that it will be tough to build anything in CA that rents for less than $3K/month?

3. Where would you build "affordable" housing if not on agricultural land (maybe the back 9 of a course near Keith's house)?

P.S. I just looked and Zillow says that the blogger we all know and love lives in "affordable" housing just north of El Macero between a ~3,600sf home that Zillow says is worth $1.5mm and a ~2,800sf home that Zillow says is worth $1.3mm and I don't see any other vacant lots in the area...

P.P.S. When I was involved with politics n SF in the 90's I found out that a huge percentage of nannies, cooks and cleaning ladies who worked for big donors to the Mayor and the DNC had "affordable" housing (but I'm sure nothing like that would ever occur here in Davis)

Regarding affordable housing (or "any" type of new housing), my question is - who is it for? Seems to me that it's almost always for non-residents. In other words, the "purpose" it serves is to grow the size of the city.

Whereas places such as golf courses and natural areas serve existing residents (including non-human residents).

This goes to the question of "need". It's almost as if the housing activists are running around like a chicken with their heads cut off, screaming "housing crisis" with no actual data, no definitions, no nothing. And yet, some are basing city, county, and state policy on this nebulous assumption.

Sure, there's homeless people, but what assumptions are being made regarding that population?

Worse, the vanguard has villainized and engaged in character assassination for years. That's what they do. the facts are not on their side so they go as low as they can.

Indeed. More-accurately, they encourage their resident peanut gallery supporters to do so in violation of their own supposed policies.

I don't see much of that on the Davisite.

SUCCESS!!!

Well, it appears being provocative and using swears can evoke a discussion. So I am vowing to be provocative and use swears more! It worked for Donald Trump after all (he says, provocatively).

Do notice, I made several points about housing and expressed my opinion. It's just couched in humor, sarcasm, and swears. But it's there -- in spades.

However, a couple of people criticized me and/or my writing style. These same people added nothing to the the conversation on housing. Nothing. Maybe, maybe, you could assume that they like DG, or breaking promises on forever, or paving land next to creeks, or are paid by developers. I don't know. Because they just criticized me. So I criticize them for -- not criticizing me, couldn't care less -- but for adding nothing to the conversation.

Or are they afraid of 'adult' conversations, that have swears and criticism? After all, CP said: "an adult, objective rebuttal of someone's position would be more helpful community discourse." Uh huh. Yup . . . . . . yup.

So by all means, rebut my rebut. Child conversations don't contain swears. Adult conversations do. Not that you have to swears. But y'all do gut to rebutt.

CW, I like burrowing owls. And as I'm sure you know, nothing personal to anyone, I was just pointing out that along with criticism of my stylistic extremism, nothing was added to the conversation on housing. I'm not using such aggressive on anyone who engages. The over-the-top is due to my status 'over there'. While I would have criticized 'over there', I am being outrageously outrageous due to the shut out. It didn't have to be that way.

Up to you, RM

Maybe you should throw me off the Davisite, and then I can hold the distinction of being the only person banned from both the Vanguard and the Davisite.

Then I'll have to start a Substack like Bob Dunning, or join Facebook and post with the loons on Beth Bourne's Facebook Page.

Or buy the Enterprise. For $1

It was plural, you and yours. I was calling everyone who uses the term "crisis" when it comes to housing: 'dumb asses'. So it wasn't a personal attack, it was a broad attack on a very large number of people in Davis.

"Housing Crisis" ends the conversation, just like "Genocide" ends the conversation. You've taken your stance, chosen your tribe. End of conversation. You say "Crisis" or "Genocide" and the other team is just "wrong". To 'them', there's no question that there is a crisis. So I lowered myself to their level with a conversation stopper. They say "Crisis", I say "Dumb Asses".

You asked about "dumbasses". Now you're moving the goal post.

Jesus F-ing Christ this is a stupid conversation, on both our parts. It's not even entertaining, which is all I ask of a conversation.

ACM didn't "attack" anyone "personally" he just pointed out that doing something makes people "like like" like unintelligent donkeys (I'm guessing he meant to write "look like" rather than "like like" and that 90% of us read it as "look like").

"But it's not due to a housing 'crisis', a term that you think creates a 'crisis', but actually just make you and yours like like dumb asses."

Maybe we can keep the Wildhorse back 9 and build high rise affordable like they did in LA to house the local homeless on the Wildhorse driving range (we can have a toad tunnel and owl tunnel under the building and a community garden in addition to the music room, art room, gym, TV lounge, computer room/library, and ground-floor cafe that they have in LA.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/19-story-first-class-housing-tower-opens-las-skid-row-features-art-music-rooms

“Maybe you should throw me off the Davisite, and then I can hold the distinction of being the only person banned from both the Vanguard and the Davisite.”

Good. Be the victim now.

“Then I'll have to start a Substack like Bob Dunning, or join Facebook and post with the loons on Beth Bourne's Facebook Page.”

Bob has 4,000+ subscribers. Go for it. And why are you name calling people on BB page?

When the lede heading has swear words attached to Greenwald, or anyone else’s name, I know I will not be enlightened, want to have a serious conversation about the topic and just be disappointed.

F say: "Good. Be the victim now."

Yeah . . . Yeah . . . be the victim . . . that's the ticket! Thanks, Frank!

F say: "Bob has 4,000+ subscribers. Go for it."

I'm sure I could get at least 17 subscribers. Some would be people's pets.

F say: "And why are you name calling people on BB page?"

I've never been on BB page. I'm not on any social media. If you mean the single word used, that's not exactly personal. Even if I'd characterize most everyone from both sides who post there that way. Still not personal. Global.

"When the lede heading has swear words . . . "

The exact swear in the lede headline was "*@#$%&". Literally. If your brain filled that in, blame your brain, not me.

F say: " . . . attached to Greenwald, or anyone else’s name . . . "

Yes, that was the name in the headline. The lede headline. Follow, lede, or get out of the way, as they say. Headline, sir or ma'am.

F say: "I know I will not be enlightened, want to have a serious conversation about the topic and just be disappointed."

Well, as I said, I gave my opinion on the topic, even if some y'all didn't like my delivery. And once again, as I previously stated, a reply of criticism but no opinion on the topic. If that's what floats your boat, keep 'em coming. But . . . if that's all the critics have to offer, don't expect, dear readers, to be enlightened.

Yeah, well, "*@#$%&" you, too, Ron.

Do you ever get the feeling some people don't get the joke?

Ronnie, I don't care who started it . . . and wait until you father gets home.