Letter: Support a Down Payment Assistance Program
December 03, 2024
On January 7th, the council will consider a city ordinance to create a Down Payment Assistance (DPA) Program—an initiative that can open doors for firsttime home buyers, particularly young families who can afford mortgage payments but struggle to save for a down payment.
DPA programs bridge this gap, offering loans that help families achieve the stability of home ownership and the potential for wealth building through property appreciation. Proven successful in other cities, DPA programs promote workforce housing, increase diversity, and offer a critical step toward addressing economic inequities.
These programs are flexible—structured as repayable loans or equity-sharing agreements—and recycle the payments plus interest, equity or both are paid back into the City Housing Trust Fund, creating a sustainable cycle of assistance. Prioritizing workforce families who live and work locally could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by shortening commutes.
With Measure Q’s passage in November, the city will have access to $11 million yearly in new funds. While there are many critical needs in our city, both our Housing Element and the Housing Trust Fund Appendix A of the Housing Element acknowledge the need for supporting first time home buyers. Allocating $1 million yearly to the DPA program could support 50 families with a $20,000 DPA—an impactful investment that strengthens our schools, diversifies our community, and enables wealth-building for those often excluded from home ownership opportunities.
Carpe diem—let’s seize this moment. Urge the council to create and fund a Down Payment Assistance program. Together, we can make home ownership a reality for more Davis families.
Interfaith Housing Justice Davis
No way should this measure be allowed to move forward unless....every homeowner receives a similar property tax break equal to the proposed amount, or $20K to be used over a period of 5 years. Therefore, every homeowner will be able to reduce their property tax bill by $4K per year for 5 years.
Posted by: tired taxpayer | December 03, 2024 at 02:28 PM
The most important consideration for a program of this type is for the City to take an $20,000 (if that is the DPA offered) equity interest on a percentage basis in the property so that when the house is eventually sold the funds (and the percentage equity increase earned) would be recycled back into the Housing Trust Fund and presumably made available for other first time buyers in the City. This could be accomplished by putting the sale proceeds into a segregated account to be used by the City only for just such future low income DPA subsidized purposes.
Otherwise, if the City does not take an equity interest in the property, we are just giving a windfall to the first time buyer as we saw in a previous low-income subsidized housing program run by the City where a number of the subsidized homes were gobbled up by those favored with connections to the City and then flipped for a profit which profit all accrued to the sellers of the flipped home.
And if the money is brought back to the City using such a mechanism, the City must segregate it into a separate Trust Fund account to be used ONLY for other subsidized DPA programs. Otherwise it will just be wasted by the City under the guise of "administering" the Housing Trust Fund and the monies just become a one-off program instead of the City's "investment" continuing into the future to subsidize other DPA programs.
Posted by: Alan Pryor | December 03, 2024 at 02:40 PM
This was the plan all along with q. So gross how the council promised this to the interfaith people ahead of time and then pushed the citizenry to go along with it.
Posted by: Pissed off | December 03, 2024 at 04:03 PM
Alan wrote:
> as we saw in a previous low-income subsidized housing program run
> by the City where a number of the subsidized homes were gobbled
> up by those favored with connections to the City
The main reason for a program like this is to give cash to "those favored with connections to the City" (a local blogger with the initials DG lives in a luxury "taxpayer subsided" condo in a South Davis neighborhood surrounded by million dollar homes). When I lived in SF most Section 8 vouchers were given out to wealthy donors slacker kids or household staff (I know one donor to a mayoe with the initals WB cut the pay of their cleaning lady after they got her a new Section 8 aprtment at half was she was paying for a market rent apartment).
P.S. The only reason I'm living in Davis is because I can't afford to buy a home like mine that would cost 3x more on the SF Peninsula or 10x more above Malibu with an ocean view. The best advice "Interfaith Housing Justice Davis" (and the Davis trachers union) could give to "young families who can afford mortgage payments but struggle to save for a down payment" is to "move to where you can afford to buy a house (but they won't ever say that since they don't want to lose the cash in the collection plate (or the ADA money for each kid so another reason for this program is to make the teachers and faith based groups happy)...
Posted by: South of Davis | December 03, 2024 at 07:47 PM
Seems to me that the condition of roads/bike paths is usually referenced when the city seeks more money (through taxes OR commercial development).
There also seems to be a purposeful misunderstanding regarding the reason that newcomers (and some old-timers) seek housing in places like Woodland. It's not necessarily that they can't afford Davis - it's that they get so much more for their money elsewhere. Young families in particular value garages, yards, etc. Plus, Davis is increasingly a hassle to move around within, has no Costco, etc. It's probably easier to get to campus from parts of Spring Lake, than it is from the some of the farther reaches of Davis itself. And couples usually aren't working in the same locale (or even the same city) in the first place. Sacramento is a bigger draw for that than some seem to realize. (That's another reference to a "purposeful misunderstanding".)
There's no actual "problem to solve", here - other than the reluctance of the school system to downsize. But again, if some of the faith-based organizations want more locations for housing, some of them have plenty of space to do so themselves.
Actually, I take that back. There is a problem to solve here, but it primarily consists of those who seek problems to match their already-established "solution" - a form of "Vanguardism". Sometimes backed by "research".
Posted by: Ron O | December 03, 2024 at 08:41 PM
"With Measure Q’s passage in November, the city will have access to $11 million yearly in new funds."
No, it'll just fill a hole.
"Carpe diem—let’s seize this moment. Urge the council to create and fund a Down Payment Assistance program. Together, we can make home ownership a reality for more Davis families."
Um, how does that work, exactly? Without more stock, you aren't getting more families - the number of units remains the same. All you are doing is making it so those who can't afford a house able to compete with those who can afford a house. This then inflates the market with the infusion of cash, raising prices modestly for all buyers, and putting more money in the hands of sellers. Not to mention all the bureaucracy added and those that will game the system.
Would you 'affordable housing' advocates please GET REAL.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | December 04, 2024 at 10:22 AM
Without more stock, you aren't getting more families - the number of units remains the same.
It is possible to get "more families" (overall) without increasing the number of units. Depends upon who is "replacing" current occupants, over time. And how "family" is defined.
Though I'd ask (not necessarily of you) what the "right number" of families is, as well as other preferred demographics. And how that would supposedly be maintained into the future.
Posted by: Ron O | December 04, 2024 at 03:56 PM
I'll go ahead and answer my own question (since no one else has responded to it).
How about 200 families - defined as two parents and somewhere around 1.6 kids (the latter of which reflects the actual number of births per woman in the U.S. over the course of a lifetime, these days). Easily fitting-into a Stanley Davis home in East Davis, for example.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-nightly/2024/07/30/the-political-shockwaves-of-americas-falling-birth-rates-00171799
Posted by: Ron O | December 04, 2024 at 08:15 PM
One other thing that "Faith Based Groups" and the Teachers Union rarely mention is that the number of people that attend and Faith Based Services or have more than one kid has been dropping for the past 50 years. In left leaning areas the number of people attending weekly services (and putting money in the collection plate) is dropping even faster just like less people who want to live in Davis are even thinking about having kids (and helping the schools boost ADA funding). Gay couples can adopt, but ony a small percentage do, and while "trans woman may be real women" they don't have a lot of kids...
Posted by: South of Davis | December 05, 2024 at 10:58 AM
SOD say: " . . . the number of people attending weekly services (and putting money in the collection plate) is dropping . . . "
The solution may be housing on Holy Ground. All remaining 'faith'-ers can consolidate in a single facility to save money -- sharing Saturday & Sunday in two-hour chunks -- and all remaining surplus formerly-faith-based properties can become 7-story, family-friendly high-rises (no childless people).
Why? To mega-pump children into the school district in order to save the school district in order the save the children. Consolidate Holy Ground! Save the children!
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | December 05, 2024 at 06:57 PM
It's a farce that the district needs more children to strengthen the schools. All it does is prop up keeping teachers and staff on the payroll. Davis needs to downsize its school system to the needs of the city's actual student demographics.
Posted by: Keith | December 06, 2024 at 11:41 AM
Allen miller please do a song about this genius idea.
Posted by: Faith cooperative. | December 06, 2024 at 01:49 PM
Allen wrote:
> The solution may be housing on Holy Ground.
> All remaining 'faith'-ers can consolidate in a single facility to save money
I was at a chapel on a US military base in Germany years ago that was set up for Christian, Jewish and Muslim services to save money (to get rid of Jesus on the cross you just needed to push the corner of the wall and it would spin around). My friend in the Army showed me a bunch of other doors that they would open and close to convert the room for different religions (it turns out that even different Christian religions wanted to see different stuff)...
Posted by: South of Davis | December 07, 2024 at 08:11 AM
"to get rid of Jesus on the cross you just needed to push the corner of the wall and it would spin around"
Laughing out loud.
I wish we could do the same with members of the City Council during meetings.
Posted by: Alan C. Miller | December 07, 2024 at 10:00 AM