Rich Rifkin: Only way to reduce our housing shortage is to build housing
- May 25
- 4 min read
Imbroglio was recently the New York Times word of the day. I’ve long known it to mean, “a complicated altercation” or a “scandal, especially a political scandal.” Yet the first definition listed by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary is “an embarrassing misunderstanding.”
What we have in Davis, when it comes to developing new housing units, is just that — an embarrassing misunderstanding.
Conspicuous among the reasons many in Davis oppose Measure V — the Village Farms housing development on our current ballot — is that the homes in this project are too expensive for ordinary families and thus will do nothing to make Davis more affordable or attract families with school-aged children.
That conclusion, based on the best empirical evidence, is an imbroglio. It’s drawn by those who don't understand the law of supply and demand.
What studies have repeatedly shown is that when housing supply is artificially restricted, the price goes up for all classes of buyers and renters. And the opposite normally occurs when the supply grows sufficiently. Housing prices across the board fall, even when a substantial amount of new residences are built for the high end.
That’s the law of supply and demand.
In parts of our country where government policies have allowed housing growth to keep up with demand, there is no affordability crisis. In places like urban California, where restrictions on new construction have severely constrained the growth of new residences, it’s next to impossible for most young families to buy a house.
In a 2018 academic article, “The Economic Implications of Housing Supply,” Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko note that entrenched homeowners are the main reason new housing is highly constrained, and those restrictions harm those with less money.
“In a democratic system where the rules for building and land use are largely determined by existing homeowners, development projects face a considerable disadvantage, especially since many of the potential beneficiaries of a new project do not have a place to live in the jurisdiction when possibilities for reducing regulation and expanding the supply of housing are debated,” Glaeser and Gyourko wrote.
Opponents of Measure V argue that the homes planned for Village Farms are too expensive. As a result, they think this development will exclusively attract wealthy, older buyers who (I guess) want to move to Davis from the Bay Area or Southern California, and therefore greater supply will not make Davis more affordable.
The official ballot argument against Measure V alleges the development offers up, “Unaffordable housing, where 80% of the project is market-rate housing costing $740,000 - $1,300,000, which is not affordable to most local workers and families with young kids.”
Will the cheapest homes for sale really cost $740,000?
In an op-ed for The Davis Vanguard, longtime Davis resident Nathan James Harper addresses that claim: “The $740,000 figure in the city report is an average price, not the lowest price. Average and minimum are not the same thing. This number comes from a consultant (BAE Associates) hired by the city of Davis to assess the economic costs and benefits of the project to the city.
“Their report is clear: the $740,000 figure was not obtained by asking the developer what their expected home sizes and costs were, but rather an average size (1,741 sq. ft.) and cost for other medium density units in Davis. The No campaign either did not understand that distinction or chose to ignore it.”
Mr Harper adds, “Seventy percent of homes in the development will be for-sale attached or on small lots — 150+ townhomes and half-plexes starting in the $400,000s (900-1200 sq ft. range), and 850+ modest homes estimated to start in the $500,000s, significantly less than the Davis median resale price of roughly $1 million in 2025.”
In a recent post on the nextdoor app, Bruce Sutton claims, “Village Farms is constructing housing only ‘affordable’ to high income families … and making contributions to the city of Davis for the city to possibly construct affordable housing in the future.
“It is not accurate to state that Village Farms is affordable to all income households in Davis. Moderate and lower households will not be able to ‘afford’ the 1,800 homes planned for Village Farms to be constructed by the developer.”
Even if the affordability arguments by the opponents of Measure V were true, it’s certain that adding 1,800 residential units to our housing stock will significantly impact the housing shortage we have in Davis. That new supply represents a win for those hoping to buy older, existing houses in our city.
By contrast, rejecting this proposal will do just the opposite. It will artificially stop the growth of Davis housing, and all else held equal that makes it less likely young families will be able to purchase any homes in our city.
According to Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and his co-authors of the 2025 paper, “Build, Baby, Build: A Plan To Lower Housing Costs for All,” it is our shortage of housing and lack of new construction to meet demand that is at the heart of the affordability problem in the United States.
“The burden of soaring housing costs is primarily driven by the fact that the United States does not have enough housing to meet demand,” Bernstein, et al. write. “Home construction in the United States fell significantly after the Great Recession, and we have not returned to pre-2008 levels.”
Bernstein and his co-authors add, “We cannot make headway on housing affordability over the long run without seriously scaling up home building at the same time.”
If you are concerned about housing affordability in Davis, a Yes vote on Measure V makes sense.
Hopefully you don’t decide based on an embarrassing misunderstanding.
— Rich Rifkin is a Davis resident; his column is published every other week. Reach him at Lxartist@yahoo.com.