The Sierra Club Yolano Group recently posed a series of local environmental-related questions to the Davis City Council candidates. Written responses are limited to 400 words for questions relating to the surface water project and 200 words for all other questions.
Although some of the positions taken by some of the candidates may not be consistent with official Sierra Club policy, the Sierra Club Yolano Group has not endorsed any of the candidates, believing that all have respectable environmental credentials and intentions.
This is the first of three parts.
1. Municipal Water Supply and Wastewater – Davis faces significant challenges with respect to future water availability and quality and wastewater quality. How do you propose the City should meet these challenges?
Lucas Frerichs
I believe that Davis/Yolo County needs a diversity of options when it comes to water supply. Mark Twain famously quipped, “in California, whiskey is for drinkin’, and water is for fightin’.” There is a long history in California of outside interests coming in, and sucking out groundwater and sending it southward for both the needs of customers in the LA Basin, and for the “big Ag” interests in the San Joaquin Valley. These interests don’t care about the well-being and future of Yolo County- they’re only interested in the water for their customers. It is important for us to prepare for our collective future, and to secure a stable source of surface water…the aquifer Davis currently extracts water from does not produce high-quality water.
I am not sold on the Design, Build, Operate, Financing (DBOF) model, and I would like to see a public utility explored/formed…much like East Bay Municipal Utility District. EBMUD has existed for nearly 100 years, and it is truly publicly owned- each ratepayer/owner gets a vote for the members of the Board of Directors, and this allows for direct accountability to the ratepayers/owners.
We could do MUCH better with conservation of water. Conservation is a major part of the solution, whether in agriculture, commercial or residential sectors. Currently, we do a really poor job as a City at conservation. How many times have we seen the sprinklers at the city parks/greenbelts on during a rainstorm? I know I have on MANY occasions. We could also easily implement gray water systems in new parks, developments, etc., and we should prioritize retrofitting the others as funding allows. As an example of how conservation works, Los Angeles has managed to cut its water usage by 20% since the 1980’s- all while seeing huge population gains. Why? It’s due to conservation measures, which were instituted during that time.
As to the proposed surface water project, I would also like to have seen a “build out” model of the innovative green features that could be implemented and their associated costs and benefits…this hasn’t been done.
There is no doubt that the proposed rate increases are startling for most and unaffordable for many, we need to get the water issue right, it is too big of an issue to get wrong. Also like to see additional education as to why the rate increases are proposed to be what they are.
Sue Greenwald
I would like to see citizens make their decisions based on more accurate information.
It would behoove us to find a fiscally manageable way to complete our long-term water/wastewater upgrades. First, we should start by disseminating more accurate information. For example:
We will NOT lose our water rights if we postpone the project while we start to pay off our wastewater treatment plant; we have a 40 year permit and jurisdictions do not lose water rights by postponing a project within the time frame of their permit.
We will NOT save money on our wastewater treatment plant by bringing in surface water. There is no technology short of reverse osmosis that will deal with both nitrogen and selenium and salinity, and we will not be forced to go to reverse osmosis because there is no way to dispose of the salt stream.
More importantly, we can probably meet our discharge requirements with our already planned new deep aquifer wells, replumbing intermediate wells for city landscaping, and introducing water softener regulation. We might need an extra deep well or two to account for downtime. Hardness of river water overlaps with hardness of our deep water anyway.
Future drinking water standards could make both groundwater AND surface water more expensive to treat. For example, endocrine disrupters in the surface water might need expensive treatment. The surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater, and the resultant high cost of treatment is one of the things that makes this project so expensive.
Our water costs will be far above average for the region and high even by statewide standards if we go forward with both projects as currently planned simultaneously.
There is no “rate structure” or conservation method that can bring costs down. The debt has to be paid regardless of how much water people use, and if someone pays less, someone else will have to pay more.
Currently, our surface water project and associated new capital expenditures plus the present value of the Conaway water purchase is over $200 million and our wastewater treatment plant (brought down from about $200 million to about $100 million) for a current total of about $300 million. This is still, unfortunately, a dangerously high debt burden for a city of 65,000.
We should try to get the costs of our water infrastructure improvements down, perhaps even by joining a larger project or phasing in the surface water project.
Brett Lee
I believe that we should number one, institute proactive measures to better match water quality to water use. Specifically we should use non-potable well water for irrigation of large greenbelts and parks. We should also require any new large development (ConAgra for instance) to be designed with a dual pipe system; an inside water system and a non-potable well water system for outdoor/landscape use.
We should actively encourage and support water efficiency measures around the home- fixtures, landscaping, etc. and for businesses. By reducing our overall usage of drinking water, it will allow us to build a smaller, less costly surface water treatment plant.
I do favor accessing the Sacramento River for our water needs, however I do not support the city’s proposal. The city’s proposal tries to bolt efficiency and conservation on the back end and as a result it is over-sized for our community’s needs.
The plant is currently spec’d at 40 mgd with plans to grow to 52mgd in 20 years. I would suggest that we can live with 28mgd and will be unlikely need any additional capacity for Davis’ needs. By accessing surface water, we will improve the outflow from our wastewater treatment plant and will be able to meet the forthcoming state standards and will be doing our part to protect the Sacramento River.
Stephen Souza
The City of Davis has throughout its history relied solely on groundwater for its water supply. The quality of the groundwater has progressively declined over time and forced the City to drill deeper and deeper wells to meet ever more stringent drinking water standards. At the same time, regulatory requirements for the City’s waste discharge into the Yolo Bypass and ultimately the Bay Delta have also become more restrictive. Current concentrations of Selenium in our groundwater will not meet the regulatory requirements of our discharge permit that will go into effect in 2017. In addition, Manganese levels in some of our wells are high enough that surface treatment is now being added at the wellhead.
Because the groundwater is hard, a high percentage of Davisites utilize water softeners which increases the Total Dissolved Solids concentrations to levels that will not meet future expected limits the Regional Water Quality Control Board will impose on our waste discharge.
Many years prior to the current regulatory environment, the City recognized a need to improve the quality and long-term reliability of our source water. The Davis City Council has actively supported and pursued a project to bring surface water to the community for over 20 years. The effort began with the development of a Water Master Plan in 1989, continued with collaborative studies with UC Davis, Woodland and other Yolo County agencies into the early 1990’s and reached a major milestone with the filing of our water rights application in 1994. Since our application was filed, the City completed an Environmental Impact Report in 2007 that analyzed an array of potential projects to address our water needs and recommended a preferred project to obtain surface water from the Sacramento River with a joint intake facility with the City of Woodland and Reclamation District 2035 (RD2035).
I see the access to surface water from the Sacramento River as another step in the responsible stewardship of our natural resources. The surface water project will eliminate a large unscreened intake facility and reduce the impact on fish populations in the river, it will improve the quality of our source water that will improve the quality of our discharge back into the Yolo Bypass and Bay Delta, and as analyzed in the EIR, it represents the lowest cost and most environmentally sensitive solution to our water supply and waste discharge needs.
Dan Wolk
The Clean Water Act was one of the major accomplishments of recent environmental history. The legislation, plus our location on the northern watershed of the Sacramento River Delta and our historic and complete reliance on groundwater, requires us to diversify our water supply and improve water quality. That is why I support obtaining surface water from the Sacramento River. I know it will be challenging, but this is one of the most stark examples of an “unfunded liability” I do not want to leave to my children and their generation.
However, we must ensure this gets accomplished in a smart, fair and affordable manner. While there is much to appreciate about the current conjunctive use proposal by Woodland and Davis – and the precious water rights upon which it is founded – it is by no means perfect, and I have spent much of my energy on the council in my short tenure seeking to get our community on the right path on this issue. There are a number of items to consider. We need to make sure any project is publicly operated and owned. We need to match any project with a robust conservation program and explore a water recycling program.
We need to fully explore the West Sacramento intake/treatment alternative, which could potentially save millions. We need to make sure any rate system is fair and affordable and matched with a subsidy program. We need to explore the idea of creating – or having the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) serve as – a “rate payer advocate” for the city. Lastly, we need to actively engage with those at the county, state and federal levels to make sure we are maximizing any regulatory flexibility and obtaining as much funding as we can, including engaging in state water bond discussions – we aren’t isolated in our efforts to meet necessary higher standards statewide and in the Delta.
I look forward to having the WAC, a committee formed as part of a crucial motion I made last year, take a close look at all these issues as we move forward.
2. Fluoridation of Municipal Water – The Davis City Council will consider fluoridation of all municipal water in the future ostensibly to help prevent tooth decay. Do you support or oppose municipal water fluoridation?
Sue Greenwald
This is an interesting question, because on the one hand, much of the impetus for fluoridation came from an era before fluoride was included in most toothpastes, salt supplements and commercial beverages, and on the other hand much of the opposition to fluoride had historically come from extremist political groups. So council should try to put aside the history of the debate and try to examine the issue afresh.
The Sierra Club believes feels that fluoridation of drinking water is not the safest strategy for tooth decay prevention, either for the environment or for human health. Topical fluoride treatment is available. The Sierra Club recommends sodium fluoride rather than fluorosilicate compounds if water fluoridation is pursued.
On the human health risk side is fluorosis of the teeth and I have read that people with poor kidney function might not be able to clear the fluoride. The benefit could be fewer dental cavities, but I do not know how strong this effect is given our use of fluoride toothpaste.
I have an open mind on this issue, and would like to look more closely at the data concerning risk/benefit to human health and to the environment.
Brett Lee
I listened to Dr. Connett talk about his research about fluoride and the inappropriateness of ingesting fluoride through our drinking water. I must admit I found his talk compelling and he seemed very credible as did his research findings.
I have not heard any information from the “other side”. At this point I consider myself “actively” undecided. By this, I mean that I would need to hear compelling evidence to include fluoride in the water system, but at the same time, I would actively seek to hear from a proponent of fluoridation so I can more fully understand the issue.
Stephen Souza
There are natural levels of fluoride at about 0.2 ppm in Davis water. On January 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency announced a proposal recommending that water systems practicing fluoridation adjust their fluoride content to 0.7 ppm. California passed a law in 1995 requiring water agencies with more than 10,000 water service connections to fluoridate their drinking water supplies.
The American Medical Association, American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Surgeon General and the World Health Organization are among the many organizations that strongly endorse the use of fluoridated water. Today, about 70 percent of the U.S. populations have public water supplies that are fluoridated. Fluoridated water is the single most cost-effective strategy that a community can take to improve the oral health of its residents. Studies consistently show that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20 to 40 percent.
Fluoridation has been found to be safe by scientists and ruled proper by a California Court of Appeal in Hermine Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills in the 1973 decision. I believe fluoridation is beneficial to health and would be the proper thing to do.
Dan Wolk
Yes, I support municipal water fluoridation. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century. And as someone who has two small children, I am acutely aware of the benefits of fluoride on children.
Lucas Freirichs
I don’t have a background in public health, or dentistry, but I think we need to proceed with extreme caution when it comes to adding anything to our water supply….I lean strongly toward opposition of fluoridating the local water supply. There are increasingly valid concerns regarding the potential adverse impact of fluoridation on the environment, wildlife, and human health. Safer strategies and methods for preventing tooth decay are now available, and I think that these safer alternatives be made available and promoted.
If fluoride is added to municipal water supplies, sodium fluoride rather than fluorosilicate compounds should be used because the latter has a greater risk of being contaminated with such heavy metals as lead and arsenic.
And before any water supply is fluoridated, there should be a local assessment of the impact on affected aquatic ecosystems. This is true for Davis, as well. This assessment should examine background fluoride levels and estimate what the levels will be after fluoridation. We should also assess the effect of this increased fluoride on downstream aquatic ecosystems, especially considering how impacted the Delta region is, and how much we in Davis have an influence we have on it already.
Also, as the City is in a difficult situation with its budget, we need to be prioritizing what we spend our dollars on, and I’m not sure that we can afford additional costs at this time.
3. Con Agra Site Development – What percentage of the proposed Con-Agra development should be for residential vs. business use? Do you support a net zero energy development at the Con Agra site like the UC Davis West Villages development?
Brett Lee
50% Business park/business campus
25% Senior housing
25% Tiny Homes/Tiny Loft mixed dwelling/workspaces- for sale units that are built with a nod to the tiny homes movement. These spaces should be in the sub 1,000 sq ft range.
Net zero energy? Yes, absolutely. The year is 2012, not 1992. The fact that the current proposal moving forward for this site is not even close is really tragic. No solar panels on the residential component? Really? Unbelievable.
Stephen Souza
The Con-Agra development should be close to a 3 to 1 residential use to business use. Yes I support the target of zero net energy use, meaning that all of the buildings make as much energy as they use over the course of a year.
Some of the features should be: passive solar design and tree shading to reduce energy demand, equipment to further reduce energy use such as highly efficient heat pumps, on‐site renewable such as photovoltaic systems, solar hot water systems, night ventilation cooling, landscaping with native plants to reduce water usage and other water conservation measures, electric vehicle infrastructure and car and bike sharing facilities.
Dan Wolk
As you know, in February I voted to initiate the environmental study of the proposed Cannery Park proposal based on a land use plan that is primarily housing. I did so because I believe this project will provide housing for two main demographic groups – young families and seniors – who, based on recent population trends, should be of particular concern to our community. (The 25-44-year-old cohort has been distressingly shrinking in our community while the one that is 55-and-over has been growing significantly.)
Moreover, I supported focusing on housing because using it primarily as a business park, despite its zoning, is not a truly viable option. Lastly, I absolutely support making this a net zero energy development – a “Village Homes Part II.
Lucas Freirichs
I believe that if the Con-Agra site is developed, that it should be a mixed use project, and the applicant is entering the draft EIR phase of the project. There will be in the range of 20 public meetings/workshops/commission meetings, etc before the final draft goes to the City Council for an up or down vote, sometime in the next year or so.
I think that an all business park site at Con-Agra is the wrong way to go, particularly since the site is so far away from both the Hwy 113/Covell interchange or the I-80/Mace interchange. Imagine the truck traffic along Covell Blvd, if it is entirely a business park. There should be a mix of housing/commercial uses, and there are numerous things that need improvement there before any development is acceptable…including bike/ped access and emergency vehicle access.
I’d advocate for small houses on small lots, with an abundance of community spaces/ garden spaces, etc. I am also intrigued by Con-Agra’s proposed partnership with the Center for Land Based Learning, and the development of an urban farm for the site.
I would support a net zero energy development like the West Village site…we need to raise the bar for any future development…residential, commercial or industrial uses. My bottom line is that: we should work to have the best development for Davis, one that reflects our communities’ input and values.
Sue Greenwald
I came to the council shortly after the tomato canning factory closed. I was actually the one who initiated the rezone of the property from straight industrial to neighborhood compatible, high-tech park zoning with stringent design review and landscape requirements, including a number of conditional uses such as non-profits. Zoning such as this could include performance standards which would limit traffic generation to the amounts in the currently proposed project.
I think that the currently proposed residential project is a mistake from a planning perspective and from a pro-high= tech and non-profit perspective. This is the only significant piece of high-tech zoned land in the city, it was historically industrial and, if well designed, could allow people to walk and bike to work, bring some coffee shops and restaurants to the area and be an asset to the neighborhood. I suggested a compromise of 25 to 30% high-tech/non-profit zoning, with a requirement that a certain amount of finished high/tech industrial lots be on the market before housing units are sold.
If anyone thinks that hi-tech needs to be on a freeway — a dated concept — they should check out this link to a map of Cambridge MA, where high-tech is located in clusters throughout the city and far from any freeways http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/ed/pubs/ed_company_map.pdf.
What is missing in the answers on ConAgra is any mention of fiscal neutrality (though Sue has mentioned this in the past).
Small, green lots sound great but they are expensive and smaller less expensive houses are harder to pencil out fiscally.
WE face a serious structural deficit brought about by past City Council negligence on wages and benefits for City employees. We cannot afford to ignore the fact that housing often does not generate enough revenue for a City to pay for the increased services needed. I don’t find pie-in-the-sky ideas very reassuring at all.
Most lofts are located in downtown areas. ConAgra is not really walking distance to downtown (though it is an easy bike ride). I would think Sr housing would work closer to downtown, supermarkets and health care centers.
Solid comment Dr. Wu. The challenge that ConAgra (and all peripheral developers) faces is that unless the sale price of the for sale housing gets above $500,000, the “burden” associated with the cost of services that government provides to the residents exceeds the revenues generated by property taxes. Building larger homes would solve that fiscal challenge, but it would do very little to address the housing profile of those Davis residents and Davis workers who need/want housing in Davis.
ConAgra needs to expand its commitment to Davis in order to change that “burden” vs. revenue imbalance. As one of this country’s largest agricultural corporations, ConAgra spent $81 million, $78 million, and $78 million on research and development expense in fiscal 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. ConAgra would be well served by collaborating with UCDavis to be one of the lead tenants in the Food/Ag Hub portion of UCD’s Innovation Hub. That way ConAgra would be a permanent member of the Davis community and the calculation of how ConAgra “pencils out fiscally” will be the sum of their exit from the Cannery site and their permanent presence on a Food/Ag Hub site close to the UCD campus like Nishi. That would be a win-win-win for Davis, UCD and ConAgra, especially since ConAgra already contributes significant dollars each year to UCD in support of Ag/Food research.
I would like to thank Dan and Stephen for providing a thoughtful and evidence based assessment of the benefits of Fluoridation of the public water supply. A top priority for families with children under 5 years of age is the access to quality dental care and water fluoridation has been proven to provide protection from dental caries. It is the most cost effective way to provide dental care to children and help them avoid the pain associated with dental repairs. The comments provided by the other candidates were disappointing. The facts are clear for water fluoridation. There are are multiple high quality studies showing the benefit and no substantial data to support the “fears” of fluoride.
Thank you, Dr Stephen Nowicki.
MCAH Advisory Board Member and Developmental Pediatrician.
[quote]What is missing in the answers on ConAgra is any mention of fiscal neutrality [/quote]
[quote]ConAgra would be well served by collaborating with UCDavis to be one of the lead tenants in the Food/Ag Hub portion of UCD’s Innovation Hub. That way ConAgra would be a permanent member of the Davis community and the calculation of how ConAgra “pencils out fiscally” will be the sum of their exit from the Cannery site and their permanent presence on a Food/Ag Hub site close to the UCD campus like Nishi. That would be a win-win-win for Davis, UCD and ConAgra, especially since ConAgra already contributes significant dollars each year to UCD in support of Ag/Food research.[/quote]
Both comments are spot on!
[quote]I would like to see citizens make their decisions based on more accurate information…The surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater…[/quote]
I too would like to see citizens receive accurate information. Since when is surface water more polluted than groundwater? Groundwater contains selenium, arsenic, boron, manganese, chromium, hexachromium, nitrates, TDS, salinity. Please cite sources/research as evidence that surface water is MORE polluted than ground water…
From [url]http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Pollution-of-Groundwater.html[/url]
[quote]For many years, people believed that the soil and sediment layers deposited above an aquifer acted as a natural filter that kept many unnatural pollutants from the surface from infiltrating down to groundwater. By the 1970s, however, it became widely understood that those soil layers often did not adequately protect aquifers. Despite this realization, a significant amount of contamination already had been released to the nation’s soil and groundwater. Scientists have since realized that once an aquifer becomes polluted, it may become unusable for decades, and is often impossible to clean up quickly and inexpensively.
The various ways to respond to site contamination can be grouped into the following categories:
Containing the contaminants to prevent them from migrating from their source;
Removing the contaminants from the aquifer;
Remediating the aquifer by either immobilizing or detoxifying the contaminants while they are still in the aquifer;
Treating the groundwater at its point of use; and
Abandoning the use of the aquifer and finding an alternative source of water.
Read more: Pollution of Groundwater – river, depth, effects, important, types, system, source, oxygen, human http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/Pollution-of-Groundwater.html#ixzz1ssvmQY00%5B/quote%5D
Note the last solution: “Abandoning the use of the aquifer and finding an alternative source of water.” We need to approach the water issues w an open mind, without misinformation, to achieve the best solution possible, taking into account all factors. In essence a honest and above board cost-risk-benefit analysis…
Sue: [i] The surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater
[/i]
Not true.
[b]@Elaine Musser and Don Shor:[/b]I have to say that I am really surprised that you guys don’t know that Sacramento River water right below the Colusa drain is intrinsically much more polluted than our groundwater.
Ask Professor Frank Loge, who is an expert in water and who as also a member of the Water Advisory Committee to describe to you what pours into the Sacramento River from the Colusa drain. His description is quite graphic.
Professor Loge’s expertise, taken from his website, is: “water reuse, fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and optimization of existing treatment technologies and design of new treatment systems.”
To Dr. Steve: Re: “I would like to thank Dan and Stephen for providing a thoughtful and evidence based assessment of the benefits of Fluoridation of the public water supply. A top priority for families with children under 5 years of age is the access to quality dental care and water fluoridation has been proven to provide protection from dental caries.”
Excuse me Dr. Steve, but a one line response from Dan Wolk referencing a decades old quote from CDC hardy qualifies as a “thoughtful and evidence based assessment “.
Firstly, the CDC is advancing the same industry line that the dental community has advanced for years. But it is “old” science much as the justification for the now discontinued use of DDT was “old” science. Please read the recent issue of Scientific American (http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second Thoughts About Fluoride, Scientific American Jan-08.pdf) to get the real facts on the recent science of fluoridation from a world renowned panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Science..
Secondly, most of the “studies” showing any efficacy of fluoridation have been debunked in recent years after being shown to be biased and riddled with statistical falsehoods. All reputable recent studies show none or virtually no efficacy of fluoridation in reducing cavities. In fact, the Europeans have as low or lower cavity rates than in the US and virtually nobody fluoridates in Europe.
Thirdly, if the medical and dental communities really believe that “access to quality dental care” is one of the keys to dental health, then why are there ONLY TWO general practice dentists in the entire Yolo Co. that take new Denti-Cal patients. Where is the dental community in providing dental health care to the most underserved segment of our society? I’ll tell you where…they are missing in action and it is entirely due to the fact that Denti-Cal does not pay them enough money.
Fourthly, we have all the fluoride we need in toothpastes. Any more in our water is potentially harmful to our health and could cause flourosis of teeth (which your dentist can gladly fix with cosmetic dentistry for hundreds of dollars per tooth – but please, no low-income Denti-Cal patients). Remember that the effect of fluoride on dental enamel development is entirely topical…it has to be applied to the surface of the teeth to be effective. Drinking fluoride to prevent cavities is like drinking sunscreen to prevent sun burn. It is just a plain dumb and potentially harmful practice. And does it really make sense to put fluoride in our potable water when only about 1.5% of our municipal water supply is actually used for drinking water. Why fluoridate our irrigation water, our shower water, and the water we use to flush our toilets. That is just wasteful.
Fifthly, almost all fluoride in use now is fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride. These are waste by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. If they were not sold to water treatment plants it would have to be disposed of a Class 1 hazardous waste. There are absolutely no purity standards for this type of fluoride put into our water.
Dozens of communities are now abandoning fluoridation in droves. An excellent source of this and other information with tons of referenced and peer-reviewed articles on fluoridation and its harmful effects is the Fluoride Action Network – http://www.fluoridealert.org/.
See also the previous Vanguard article on fluoridation at https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4444:time-to-talk-about-the-qfq-word-fluoride-in-the-woodland-davis-water-project-&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86
Sue: surface water is not, repeat not, “intrinsically more polluted that groundwater.” You didn’t qualify your statement, so it amounts to fear-mongering. You know that any water will be treated.
The public will not be drinking Sacramento River water out of the ditch. For you to suggest that the water Davis residents would be getting from the Sacramento River is [i]in any way[/i] more polluted than what comes out of the ground is simply wrong, irresponsible, and I find it quite surprising.
You DO know that the ground water contains many things that the surface water will not contain. Anybody who wants to compare groundwater to surface water, in this regard, can simply look at the water quality reports for City of Davis, UC Davis, and Sacramento city water. Among those things we have now are the boron, chromium, and arsenic. So what you are implying with your comment on this thread is even worse: that somehow the surface water is less safe (“more polluted”) than the groundwater. Not true.
Sorry – The above reference to the Scientific American article of fluoridation was messed up in translation when uploading to the Vanguard – try http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second Thoughts About Fluoride, Scientific American Jan-08.pdf.
Here is a working link to the Scientific American article on fluoridation that Alan has tried to post. It is a nicely balanced piece that does a good job of presenting both sides of this issue.
http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second Thoughts About Fluoride, Scientific American Jan-08.pdf
Dang, looks like folks will need to cut and past the blue part and the black part through “pdf” to get to this piece. Here is a working link to the 2008 Scitentific American article on fluoridation that Alan has tried to post. It is a nicely balanced piece that does a good job of presenting both sides of this issue. http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second Thoughts About Fluoride, Scientific American Jan-08.pdf
[b]THE WEST SACRAMENTO OPTION[/b]
Space limitations to these answers did not allow for a full discussion. Like Dan Wolk, I am hopeful that the West Sacramento option can produce the kind of serious savings that we obtained with the Tchobanoglous/Schroeder wastewater redesign.
Since this is a campaign questionnaire, I should add that I was the one who initiated the re-examination of this option by investigating what happened to the West Sacramento option that had been our preferred option years ago.
Staff had told us that West Sacramento had pulled out of the deal. Upon investigation, other sources said that people from West Sacramento at the time challenged that description, saying that Davis had pulled out of the deal.
This raised all kinds of alarms to me. I mentioned this to our new city manager shortly after he came, and he immediately made plans to talk with West Sacramento.
Whatever the history, because of this contact made by our new city manager, we learned West Sacramento is very interested in partnering with Woodland and Davis to use their existing intake and treatment plant. This is the sort of larger project to which I was referring.
I hope that all of the misinformation that has been disseminated to citizens, such “we will lose our water rights” or “the wastewater treatment plant will cost more if we don’t proceed immediately”, or “we cannot meet or discharge requirements if we don’t proceed immediately” do not panic us into embarking prematurely on a project that is too expensive. There are likely to be less expensive options. Remember what happened with the wastewater treatment plant.
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/SacRiverwaterupdate.pdf[/url]
[b]Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2010 Update
[/b]
“Overall, the Sacramento River provides good quality raw water. The raw water can be
treated to meet all drinking water standards using conventional water treatment
processes. No persistently present constituents that require special treatment
processes have been identified in the river.”
Here is what Dan Wolk and Sue are referencing about the West Sacramento option. It was in the 3/20 council packet. I’ve uploaded it to my server because links to city documents don’t work: [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/SurfaceWaterSupplyOptions.pdf[/url]
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]Both sources of water can be treated to be safe. Groundwater requires much less treatment, because it starts off much cleaner.
Again, I have talked with a number of experts were not too thrilled about drawing water from below the Colusa drain.
Again, I would refer you to Professor Frank Loge for a description of the situation.
When the government itself states that “fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical”, when the CDC recommends against regularly using fluoridated water to mix infant formula, and when the ADA recommends giving fluoride supplements only to children at high risk of dental decay, it is time to reconsider the wisdom of fluoridating a community’s drinking water.
[ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm ]
[ http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm ]
[ http://jada.ada.org/content/141/12/1480.full.pdf+html ]
Adding fluoride to the water makes it difficult and expensive to avoid ingesting it, half of which accumulates in calcium bearing tissues in the body and remains there for many years. In children, that translates into an average of 32% of American children having varying degrees of irreversible dental fluorosis (very mild, mild, moderate, or severe). [ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm ]In everyone, it translates into more and more fluoride accumulating in the bones, which increases both their density and their fragility. Roughly half of the studies on bone fracture and “optimally fluoridated” water show bone fractures increasing in fluoridated areas. How many prevented cavities are one broken hip worth?
[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897754 ]
Data shows that fluoridating water prevents few, if any, cavities. Dental decay has decreased in mostly-unfluoridated western Europe at least as quickly as it has in the U.S.
[ http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/index.aspx ]
The 1990 Journal of Dental Research article on the late 1980’s national survey of dental caries reports a mean reduction in decay of 18% overall. But a look at the bottom of Table 6 reveals that 18% is a mean difference of only .60 DMFS (Decayed Missing or Filled Surfaces) in a child’s mouth, which has a maximum of 128 surfaces. Put another way, the mean difference of DMFS’s between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities is .60/128, or less than one half of one percent DMFS’s.
Even this largely pro-fluoridation article admits, among other things, that in part of the U.S., decay was lower in unfluoridated areas and that “Neither of these NIDR-conducted national epidemiological studies was designed to enquire into the cause of this decline.“
[ http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/nidr-dmfs.aspx ] (You can also see this as an e-article at the UC Davis Medical School library.)
===============================
For folks who want a thorough and well-balanced introduction to this topic, I recommend the 2008 Scientific American article with the kludgy link that you need to cut and paste: [ http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second Thoughts About Fluoride, Scientific American Jan-08.pdf ]
For one man’s change from fluoridation promoter to fluoridation opponent after he actually looked at the data, I recommend John Colquhoun’s “Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation.” It is also just a plain good read about one man’s personal journey. [ http://fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm ]
For an easy-to-digest short (29 min.) video that explains why fluoridating water is not a good idea, see “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation”, which includes input from a dentist, and a toxicologist, among others. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY ]
For an excellent, thoroughly-footnoted overview of why fluoridating water is not a good idea see the piece “Fifty Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation.” The fifty reasons are arranged with categories that make it easy to find areas of interest. [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm ]
For those who want to learn about susceptible populations and the problems of not being able to control the dose of fluoride when water is fluoridated, I recommend Part 2 of the 2006 NRC Report “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards”, which is about maximum allowable limits but contains information relevant to the medical effects of water fluoridation. [ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=23 ]
Yes, this is a lot of material to read and understand, but any candidate or council person who thinks it is a good idea to put a substance intended to treat humans into our water supply owes it to every one of us to inform himself of the risks and benefits of the universal treatment that he wants to impose on all of us without everyone’s informed consent. I see signs of a willingness to do this work in Sue Greenwald’s, Brett Lee’s, and Lucas Freirichs’ statements. But, sadly, I see unquestioning parroting of old, worn out endorsements in Steve Souza’s and Dan Wolk’s statements.
How long does it take a comment to be screened and put up? One that I ‘posted’ roughly 30 min ago is still not showing up.
When the government itself states that “fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical”, when the CDC recommends against regularly using fluoridated water to mix infant formula, and when the ADA recommends giving fluoride supplements only to children at high risk of dental decay, it is time to reconsider the wisdom of fluoridating a community’s drinking water.
[ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm ]
[ http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm ]
[ http://jada.ada.org/content/141/12/1480.full.pdf+html ]
Adding fluoride to the water makes it difficult and expensive to avoid ingesting it, half of which accumulates in calcium bearing tissues in the body and remains there for many years. In children, that translates into an average of 32% of American children having varying degrees of irreversible dental fluorosis (very mild, mild, moderate, or severe). [ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm ]In everyone, it translates into more and more fluoride accumulating in the bones, which increases both their density and their fragility. Roughly half of the studies on bone fracture and “optimally fluoridated” water show bone fractures increasing in fluoridated areas. How many prevented cavities are one broken hip worth?
[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897754 ]
Data shows that fluoridating water prevents few, if any, cavities. Dental decay has decreased in mostly-unfluoridated western Europe at least as quickly as it has in the U.S.
[ http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/index.aspx ]
The 1990 Journal of Dental Research article on the late 1980’s national survey of dental caries reports a mean reduction in decay of 18% overall. But a look at the bottom of Table 6 reveals that 18% is a mean difference of only .60 DMFS (Decayed Missing or Filled Surfaces) in a child’s mouth, which has a maximum of 128 surfaces. Put another way, the mean difference of DMFS’s between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities is .60/128, or less than one half of one percent DMFS’s.
Even this largely pro-fluoridation article admits, among other things, that in part of the U.S., decay was lower in unfluoridated areas and that “Neither of these NIDR-conducted national epidemiological studies was designed to enquire into the cause of this decline.“
[ http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/nidr-dmfs.aspx ] (You can also see this as an e-article at the UC Davis Medical School library.)
===============================
For folks who want a thorough and well-balanced introduction to this topic, I recommend the 2008 Scientific American article with the kludgy link that you need to cut and paste: [ http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second Thoughts About Fluoride, Scientific American Jan-08.pdf ]
For one man’s change from fluoridation promoter to fluoridation opponent after he actually looked at the data, I recommend John Colquhoun’s “Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation.” It is also just a plain good read about one man’s personal journey. [ http://fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm ]
For an easy-to-digest short (29 min.) video that explains why fluoridating water is not a good idea, see “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation”, which includes input from a dentist, and a toxicologist, among others. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY ]
For an excellent, thoroughly-footnoted overview of why fluoridating water is not a good idea see the piece “Fifty Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation.” The fifty reasons are arranged with categories that make it easy to find areas of interest. [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm ]
For those who want to learn about susceptible populations and the problems of not being able to control the dose of fluoride when water is fluoridated, I recommend Part 2 of the 2006 NRC Report “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards”, which is about maximum allowable limits but contains information relevant to the medical effects of water fluoridation. [ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=23 ]
Yes, this is a lot of material to read and understand, but any candidate or council person who thinks it is a good idea to put a substance intended to treat humans into our water supply owes it to every one of us to inform himself of the risks and benefits of the universal treatment that he wants to impose on all of us without everyone’s informed consent. I see signs of a willingness to do this work in Sue Greenwald’s, Brett Lee’s, and Lucas Freirichs’ statements. But, sadly, I see unquestioning parroting of old, worn out endorsements in Steve Souza’s and Dan Wolk’s statements.
‘message added. your post will be screened by an administrator” ???
Fluoridation comment, part 1:
When the government itself states that “fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical”, when the CDC recommends against regularly using fluoridated water to mix infant formula, and when the ADA recommends giving fluoride supplements only to children at high risk of dental decay, it is time to reconsider the wisdom of fluoridating a community’s drinking water.
[ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm ]
[ http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm ]
[ http://jada.ada.org/content/141/12/1480.full.pdf+html ]
Adding fluoride to the water makes it difficult and expensive to avoid ingesting it, half of which accumulates in calcium bearing tissues in the body and remains there for many years. In children, that translates into an average of 32% of American children having varying degrees of irreversible dental fluorosis (very mild, mild, moderate, or severe). [ http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm ]In everyone, it translates into more and more fluoride accumulating in the bones, which increases both their density and their fragility. Roughly half of the studies on bone fracture and “optimally fluoridated” water show bone fractures increasing in fluoridated areas. How many prevented cavities are one broken hip worth?
[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897754 ]
Data shows that fluoridating water prevents few, if any, cavities. Dental decay has decreased in mostly-unfluoridated western Europe at least as quickly as it has in the U.S.
[ http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/index.aspx ]
The 1990 Journal of Dental Research article on the late 1980’s national survey of dental caries reports a mean reduction in decay of 18% overall. But a look at the bottom of Table 6 reveals that 18% is a mean difference of only .60 DMFS (Decayed Missing or Filled Surfaces) in a child’s mouth, which has a maximum of 128 surfaces. Put another way, the mean difference of DMFS’s between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities is .60/128, or less than one half of one percent DMFS’s.
Even this largely pro-fluoridation article admits, among other things, that in part of the U.S., decay was lower in unfluoridated areas and that “Neither of these NIDR-conducted national epidemiological studies was designed to enquire into the cause of this decline.“
[ http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/nidr-dmfs.aspx ] (You can also see this as an e-article at the UC Davis Medical School library.)
Fluoridation comment, Part 2
For folks who want a thorough and well-balanced introduction to this topic, I recommend the 2008 Scientific American article with the kludgy link that you need to cut and paste: [ http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second Thoughts About Fluoride, Scientific American Jan-08.pdf ]
For one man’s change from fluoridation promoter to fluoridation opponent after he actually looked at the data, I recommend John Colquhoun’s “Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation.” It is also just a plain good read about one man’s personal journey. [ http://fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm ]
For an easy-to-digest short (29 min.) video that explains why fluoridating water is not a good idea, see “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation”, which includes input from a dentist, and a toxicologist, among others. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY ]
For an excellent, thoroughly-footnoted overview of why fluoridating water is not a good idea see the piece “Fifty Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation.” The fifty reasons are arranged with categories that make it easy to find areas of interest. [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm ]
For those who want to learn about susceptible populations and the problems of not being able to control the dose of fluoride when water is fluoridated, I recommend Part 2 of the 2006 NRC Report “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards”, which is about maximum allowable limits but contains information relevant to the medical effects of water fluoridation. [ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=23 ]
Yes, this is a lot of material to read and understand, but any candidate or council person who thinks it is a good idea to put a substance intended to treat humans into our water supply owes it to every one of us to inform himself of the risks and benefits of the universal treatment that he wants to impose on all of us without everyone’s informed consent. I see signs of a willingness to do this work in Sue Greenwald’s, Brett Lee’s, and Lucas Freirichs’ statements. But, sadly, I see unquestioning parroting of old, worn out endorsements in Steve Souza’s and Dan Wolk’s statements.
Barbara and Alan: Pdf links often get truncated. Also, I don’t know why there was any delay.
Don: When I broke my comment into two smaller parts, they came up right away. There may be a comment length limit.
Re: Con-Agra, it is very frustrating that none of the candidates is advocating for affordable housing or any policy that will address the serious shortage of rental housing for young adults in Davis.
Senior housing, tiny houses, young families 25 – 44? How about [b]young adults 18 – 24?[/b] The people who work in our stores, the UCD staff, the non-UCD students? I realize they aren’t a major voting bloc, but they’re the ones paying a premium in this market right now because of insufficient housing.
I will take Don’s comment a step further. We all saw the headlines re: Picnic Day. We have a huge number of single family residences in Davis that don’t have families in them. They have been converted to rentals for groups of students, who have a whole different life style and noise profile. Its a simple reality of supply/demand.
On top of that Mrs. Katehi’s plan is to add 5,000 additional students to UCD’s enrollment in the very near future. History says that UCD will only provide on-campus housing for 1,000 of those 5,000. That means an addition of an approximately 4,000 bed increase to the already overburdened supply/demand equation for rental housing in Davis.
UCD’s expansion and how to respond to it is one of the top 5 issues facing Davis, and so far there is virtually nothing being said about it by the candidates.
Wasn’t there workforce housing planned on Olive Drive some years back that got redirected into being special needs housing somewhere along the line?
Let’s see… a treatment plant at each well-head, vs. a single treatment plant… anyone want to guess, both on a capital and operational basis, which will be more costly?
Re: the comments from Don and Matt.
We’re losing the 25-55 and 0-18 demographic groups, while the populations of seniors and college students are growing. These loses are partly explained by the greying of the population, but our rates of erosion are higher than the surrounding communities as well as the statewide average.
This demographic shift is quite concerning to many in the community because it negatively impacts both school enrollments and the city’s economic base.
While the argument that we should serve these growing population groups with additional housing stock makes sense on a superficial level, this course of action is contrary to the best interests of the city. From a policy standpoint, we really need to be doing everything we can to correct the demographic shift by attracting more working adults (particularly those with children).
Given the Davis growth policies, there is no way the city can build its way out of the student housing deficit. Likewise, we cannot realistically build enough senior housing to satisfy demand. The majority of the new construction at the University Retirement Community went to seniors moving to Davis from other communities. The fact is that we are becoming a nationally and internationally recognized retirement destination.
What is Davis going to look like in the future? Are we going to work to restore a healthy demographic balance, or are we going to continue to evolve into a community increasing dominated by college students and seniors?
Excellent points psdavis. I’ll try and share my own personal perspective on them in order.
1) The loss of the 0-18 demographic group is due to three things IMHO, A) decreasing birthrates in families. For example I have 3 brothers and sisters, but only 1 child of my own and my siblings have 1, 1 and 3 children respectively. I believe that trend is the norm rather than the exception. B) there is an increasing number of dual working families that simply choose to have no children at all. C) The typical residency tenure of a Davis home approaches (and in many cases exceeds) 18 years, so the ages of the owners’ children (if they have any) often exceeds 18.
2) I do not think that any of those three trends is going to change, nor is there anything that Davis can do to change those three trends, other than make sure that any senior housing that is built directly addresses internal Davis demand.
3) There is no reason for members of the 55 and over population cohort to move away from Davis. The Quality of Life here is outstanding. UCD’s strategy to add 5,000 students is going to mean that the 18-25 year old cohort is going to swell, so . . .
4) I believe the only way to address the losses in the 25-55 population cohort is to focus on jobs growth in Davis. The City of Davis needs to do a much better job of working with UCDavis to attract high paying, intellectual-capital-oriented jobs to Davis. We need to be actively supporting UCD’s Innovation Hub strategy to bring a portion of the research jobs of companies like ConAgra to Davis.
5) Regardless of what we do, the net result of all 4 of the points above is going to mean a continued decline in school enrollments. Our School Board needs to accept that reality and either “right size” the district’s facilities, or increase its efforts to attract out of district students, or both.
6) In addition to bringing new jobs to Davis, we need to take the necessary steps in order to better educate ourselves about what Davis has to offer. Jeff Boone has published here the stat that Davis’s retail/service sales per capita are less than $6,000, while the state-wide average is close to $12,000. I personally don’t think that that is because Davis has substantial deficits in what is offered here. I think it is rather because we don’t do enough to “BuyLocalDavis.” Our economic base will be substantially more robust if we all take the time to educate ourselves on the goods and services that we have in our own community, and look to buy those goods and services locally rather than from sources outside Davis.
Bottom-line, I think the chances of “restoring the previous demographic balance” is highly unlikely due to forces that are well beyond Davis’ control, but we can take meaningful steps to make the most of our newly evolved demographic mix.
Matt: I disagree that we are forced to accept the changing demographics and downsize the school system and/or increase our reliance on out-of-district students.
In my opinion, this path leads ultimately to a significant decline in the quality of the Davis school system. The perceived quality of our schools is one of the main pillars propping up our property values which, in turn, directly translates into quality-of-life.
The solution is simply providing appropriate housing stock. And we do not have to let Katehi’s enrollment ambitions or groups like CHA dictate these choices.
Secondarily, as you mentioned, economic development (jobs) is a key piece of the puzzle. I think most people would prefer that Davis evolve into less of a bedroom community by building a stronger employment base. However, this is not a requirement to correct the demographic problem.
By focusing on rebuilding the 25-55 population, we are also solving the problem with the 0-18 population. Because of the trends in birth rates, family size, etc. that you pointed out, we may need to over-correct to rebuild our census of school age children to a sustainable level.
Davis can continue to be great, but we are going to have to work at it. The city is beginning to stagnate. From my vantage point, I see no credible evidence that UCD is going to solve the problem for us. It’s going to require forward-looking vision and leadership from within the community.
psdavis: why are you so concerned about one particular demographic? I am much more concerned about the premium paid by 18 to 30 year olds who rent in this market. Neither you, nor any of the candidates, has addressed our population demographic with the most pressing need: the younger renters who are facing a rental market with vacancy rates well below the 5% that is considered healthy. The university’s plans will override any other housing considerations if we don’t provide 4000 more beds for young adults.
“The solution is simply providing appropriate housing stock.”
Yes: apartments. The city controls three things. The location, the density, and the specific design details of any particular project. For some reason, council members like to micromanage the details (see Stephen Souza’s response above). But the city can determine that ConAgra will be residential, and the city can dictate the highest density housing only for that site. Voila: you have apartments (or, if you like, Brett’s micro-houses — though I consider that a definite niche market).
When Davis was the fastest-growing city in Yolo County (late 80’s – 90’s), and the schools were bursting at the seams, the district built three new elementary schools. In retrospect, we know they only needed one. The solution isn’t to use housing policy to fill schools. It is for the district to appropriately use its facilities for the existing and project population.
I don’t know where this sudden focus on this one demographic (25 – 44) came from. I think it is contrived, frankly. As long as Dixon, Woodland, and West Sac are over-building less expensive housing, that is where new home buyers will go. Especially if we have 5000 new students at UCD crowding out of the dorms, overflowing from the limited apartment stock, and filling up what would be starter homes.
[quote]Sue Greenwald: The surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater
Sue Greenwald: Groundwater requires much less treatment, because it starts off much cleaner.
Sue Greenwald: I am hopeful that the West Sacramento option can produce the kind of serious savings that we obtained with the Tchobanoglous/Schroeder wastewater redesign.[/quote]
On the one hand you are arguing surface water is more polluted than groundwater, then contradictorily advocating for a surface water project – the West Sacramento option. You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]@Elaine Musser and Don Shor:I have to say that I am really surprised that you guys don’t know that Sacramento River water right below the Colusa drain is intrinsically much more polluted than our groundwater.
Ask Professor Frank Loge, who is an expert in water and who as also a member of the Water Advisory Committee to describe to you what pours into the Sacramento River from the Colusa drain. His description is quite graphic.
Professor Loge’s expertise, taken from his website, is: “water reuse, fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and optimization of existing treatment technologies and design of new treatment systems.” [/quote]
A comment such as “water reuse, fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and optimization of existing treatment technologies and design of new treatment systems” does not equate to your fallacious statement “surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater”. I think Frank Loge would be very surprised at your “characterization” of his position. Frank Loge is a member of the WAC and a member of its SWOT analysis subcommittee, and I have never heard him make statements that are even remotely in the realm of what you are saying he said. Again, if I ask him about this, will he tell me that surface water is more intrinsically polluted than groundwater?
[quote]I hope that all of the misinformation that has been disseminated to citizens, such “we will lose our water rights” or “the wastewater treatment plant will cost more if we don’t proceed immediately”, or “we cannot meet or discharge requirements if we don’t proceed immediately” do not panic us into embarking prematurely on a project that is too expensive. There are likely to be less expensive options. [/quote]
I agree that misinformation is not a good thing, especially from a sitting Council member…
psdavis, I hear your point, but respectfully disagree that we can do anything meaningful to get parents to choose to produce more children. If you accept that demographic reality then it is easy to see that in order to produce X numbers of students in the school district you are going to have to have a greater number of family households. The US Census Bureau website contains “community profile” information from the past 2 or 3 rounds of Census data. One of the data points is [i]Number of Households with a member under the age of 18[/i] My suspicion is that in Davis that data point has been trending down from 1990 to 2000 to 2010.
So, I would say that “accept the demographics” is a bit too strong, but “be realistic about the demographics” is more accurate.
Regarding your comment about not letting Mrs. Katehi’s enrollment ambitions dictate our choices, I think that again there are statistics that provide evidence that we can’t ignore the impact of students on housing in Davis. In simple terms, one way the increased student housing demand gets accomodated is by the conversion of single family houses from owner occupation to non-owner occupation and/or the rental of apartments and single family houses to groups of students rather than to families. I strongly believe we should begin tracking the proportion of single family homes for which the tax bill goes to a different address than the property. That is a clear hallmark of a rental. I think we will see that there has been a significant downward trend in the proportion of owner occupied houses in Davis . . . and in the wake of Picnic Day it isn’t hard to understand the impact that that trend has on the quality of family life in many Davis neighborhoods.
Bottom-line, you and I completely agree with respect to your final two paragraphs.
Thank you for the conversation.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”psdavis: why are you so concerned about one particular demographic? I am much more concerned about the premium paid by 18 to 30 year olds who rent in this market. Neither you, nor any of the candidates, has addressed our population demographic with the most pressing need: the younger renters who are facing a rental market with vacancy rates well below the 5% that is considered healthy. The university’s plans will override any other housing considerations if we don’t provide 4000 more beds for young adults.”[/i]
That is indeed the “Elephant in the Room.” To torture the animal metaphors, if Council doesn’t proactively address this issue than they will be playing “Ostrich with their heads in the sand.”
Don: The city has already provided more than its fair share of student housing. It’s time for UCD to step up.
Turning large chunks of Davis into something like Isla Vista to accommodate UCD’s growth ambitions is not the solution.
It’s also fair to point out that this growth is not even focused on educating more California students. Katehi’s plan is to dramatically increase foreign student enrollment in order to help solve her budget problems.
I think PSDAVIS has a very good point here.
I don’t know what the current figures are, but a few years ago – pre-West Village – UCD lagged in terms of percentage of students in on-campus housing.
Moreover, if UCD indeed plans to go to 40K students, that’s a huge burden to place on the city.
[quote]…if UCD indeed plans to go to 40K students, that’s a huge burden to place on the city.[/quote]
Amen!
psdavis and David, I completely agree with you that the best solution is for UCD to house on-campus more than its historical 20%-25% proportion of students, but the market reality is that the City can not place preconditions on any UCD enrollment expansion initiatives, nor can the City fully control where the students (who aren’t housed on campus) will go to find their housing. Working in collaboration with UCD is the ideal solution, but there are no guarantees that such collaboration is going to fully mitigate the looming addition to the already existent problem, let alone begin repairing the negative impacts that the massive student rental housing demand have produced for the demographic Don has described.
David, if you open the document “UC Housing In The 21st Century” shown on the following UC web page [url]http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/facultystaff/housing.html[/url] and available through the following link [url]www.ucop.edu/busops/documents/htfreport.pdf[/url], you will see that UCD committed to achieving a target of 40% of its students housed on campus. I don’t know what the most current number is with the opening of West Village, but the historical percentages have been in the 20% – 25% range, and I would seriously doubet if they have changed much from that historical level. To think that UCD is going to suddenly change course is wishful thinking IMHO.
As a City, we need to be prepared for the eventuality that the student population does expand and the on-campus provision of housing does not appreciably change. It isn’t either/or. It is both/and. We absolutely do have to work with UCD to try and collectively address the issue, while preparing for several different scenarios.
UC Davis plans to add 5000 more students in the next decade. They are unlikely to provide more than 1000 beds, if that many. That’s the reality. But even if they provided 40% of that, we still need 3000 more beds.
Matt: My point is that if the city provides enough single family housing the schools will fill up. It’s a mathematical certainty.
Determining the precise number of homes required to accomplish this over time would, of course, require very complex projections based on census data, economic data, demographic trends, real estate demand, employment growth, regional competition, etc. But isn’t this what planning is all about? My guess is that neither the City of Davis nor the DJUSD staffs have the skill set to make adequate projections; but certainly this type of expertise must exist somewhere within the university and/or the consulting industry.
While it would be nice to have lots of new housing targeted to college students and seniors, the economic reality is that the city has limited capability to deliver any housing whatsoever. The growing hole in the 25-55 demographic, in my opinion, takes precedence.
[i]The growing hole in the 25-55 demographic, in my opinion, takes precedence.[/i]
Thus the people least able to afford it, our renters, pay a premium.
[quote]Working in collaboration with UCD is the ideal solution …[/quote]Matt: It takes two to collaborate. From what I see, UCD is forcing its agenda on the city.
I agree with you completely about the problem of conversion of single family housing to student rentals. The city needs to do everything in its power to discourage this activity.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”Matt: My point is that if the city provides enough single family housing the schools will fill up. It’s a mathematical certainty.
Determining the precise number of homes required to accomplish this over time would, of course, require very complex projections based on census data, economic data, demographic trends, real estate demand, employment growth, regional competition, etc. But isn’t this what planning is all about? My guess is that neither the City of Davis nor the DJUSD staffs have the skill set to make adequate projections; but certainly this type of expertise must exist somewhere within the university and/or the consulting industry.”[/i]
More good dis cussion psdavis. Thank you. Lets explore that “mathematical certainty” a bit. The average occupancy of a Davis single family residence according to Bay Area Economics is approximately 2.5. Two parents and half a child. So based on that we would need two new houses added to the Davis housing stock in order to ad one student to the Davis Schools enrollment. What is the current shortfall in students in your perspective? How many new houses does that enrollment infusion require? Do we have the jobs in Davis to employ the parents of those new homes in Davis, or are you proposing that these new homes essentially be Sacramento bedroom community homes?
Wouldn’t recruiting out of district students be a much quicker and more effective way to increase School District enrollments and thereby keep up the quality of Davis’ schools?
While it would be nice to have lots of new housing targeted to college students and seniors, the economic reality is that the city has limited capability to deliver any housing whatsoever. The growing hole in the 25-55 demographic, in my opinion, takes precedence.
Don, I did it again. Can you delete the last paragraph of my latest response to psdavis? Thanks.
psdavis said . . .
[i]”Matt: It takes two to collaborate. From what I see, UCD is forcing its agenda on the city.
I agree with you completely about the problem of conversion of single family housing to student rentals. The city needs to do everything in its power to discourage this activity.”[/i]
That is one way to see the UCD/City relationship. I’m afraid that there is plenty of mud to go around to all parties. The real question for me is “are we going to repeat the past, or are we going to forge a new relationship going forward?”
Matt: If housing stock is created specifically to attract families with kids, the number of children per household will exceed 0.5. This can be accomplished by employing multiple strategies. Tot lots. Marketing, marketing, and more marketing. Bike paths. Family-friendly floor plans. Yards. These sorts of things attract families with kids, as well as people planning families.
Jobs is a separate issue. In an ideal world there would be suitable jobs for everyone that lives in Davis. In the real world, many people are going to commute to optimize their employment. The best we can do is try to drive local economic development in parallel to minimize further erosion in the jobs/housing ratio. That being said, it would be a mistake to tie housing directly to jobs. The later may not materialize despite our best efforts. At the very least we need to try and keep our school census from collapsing.
Importing students from surrounding school districts helps us and hurts them. I guess this is a workable interim strategy if you set aside the social issue. It’s certainly not a sustainable solution.
[i]I agree with you completely about the problem of conversion of single family housing to student rentals. The city needs to do everything in its power to discourage this activity.[/i]
The city has no power to discourage that activity.
What I am curious about is why you and the council candidates are so totally unconcerned about the current situation of the Davis rental market, and so concerned about providing housing for one particular demographic.
By the way, here are the enrollment trends.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DJUSDenrollment.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/DJUSDenrollment.png[/url]
According to an article from the Enterprise in 2011, “… new projections indicate enrollment could fall to 8,270 students by 2020-21.”
[quote]@Elaine Musser and Don Shor:I have to say that I am really surprised that you guys don’t know that Sacramento River water right below the Colusa drain is intrinsically much more polluted than our groundwater.
Ask Professor Frank Loge, who is an expert in water and who as also a member of the Water Advisory Committee to describe to you what pours into the Sacramento River from the Colusa drain. His description is quite graphic.
Professor Loge’s expertise, taken from his website, is: “water reuse, fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and optimization of existing treatment technologies and design of new treatment systems.”
A comment such as “water reuse, fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and optimization of existing treatment technologies and design of new treatment systems” does not equate to your fallacious statement “surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater”. I think Frank Loge would be very surprised at your “characterization” of his position. Frank Loge is a member of the WAC and a member of its SWOT analysis subcommittee, and I have never heard him make statements that are even remotely in the realm of what you are saying he said. Again, if I ask him about this, will he tell me that surface water is more intrinsically polluted than groundwater?[/quote]
I spoke w Frank Loge, and he indicated this is a mischaracterization of what he said. I hope to have his response printed in the Vanguard tomorrow morning…
[quote]Sue Greenwald: @Elaine Musser and Don Shor:I have to say that I am really surprised that you guys don’t know that Sacramento River water right below the Colusa drain is intrinsically much more polluted than our groundwater.
Ask Professor Frank Loge, who is an expert in water and who as also a member of the Water Advisory Committee to describe to you what pours into the Sacramento River from the Colusa drain. His description is quite graphic.
Professor Loge’s expertise, taken from his website, is: “water reuse, fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and optimization of existing treatment technologies and design of new treatment systems.”
ERM: A comment such as “water reuse, fate and transport of contaminants in the environment and optimization of existing treatment technologies and design of new treatment systems” does not equate to your fallacious statement “surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater”. I think Frank Loge would be very surprised at your “characterization” of his position. Frank Loge is a member of the WAC and a member of its SWOT analysis subcommittee, and I have never heard him make statements that are even remotely in the realm of what you are saying he said. Again, if I ask him about this, will he tell me that surface water is more intrinsically polluted than groundwater?[/quote]
I spoke w Frank Loge, and he indicated this is a mischaracterization of what he said. I hope to have his response printed in the Vanguard tomorrow morning…
This is the problem with saying what you think someone else said. Better to ask their permission and get a direct quote…
psdavis said . . .
[i]”Matt: If housing stock is created specifically to attract families with kids, the number of children per household will exceed 0.5. This can be accomplished by employing multiple strategies. Tot lots. Marketing, marketing, and more marketing. Bike paths. Family-friendly floor plans. Yards. These sorts of things attract families with kids, as well as people planning families.”[/i]
I understand your optimism psdavis, but I don’t agree with it. Lets start with the fact that data from the U.S. Census Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2010, Average Number of People per Family Household:
Family Households: 78,833,000 (78.8 million)
Average Family Household Size: 3.24
People Under 18 in Family Households: 0.94
People 18 and over in Family Households: 2.3
Further, that same U.S. Census shows that 46% of all married couple households have no children.
Now lets look at those 0.94 and 46% numbers through the lens of the demographic data associated with Davis. That same U.S. Census says “The most educated women are the most likely never to have had a child.” The number of children under 18 per family household where the wife has a Bachelors Degree drops from the 0.94 average down to 0.61.
Throw in the fact that housing costs in Davis are significantly higher than in the average for the U.S. and you end up with fewer homeowners who are still anticipating having an additional child, and higher numbers of homeowners whose youngest child is well into their K-12 education years.
Do you really think you are going to be able to use marketing to “select” the kinds of homeowners you desire? The sorts of things you have described will indeed attract families with kids, but in Davis they are likely to be people who are planning families with fewer children (if not no children).
JMHO
Matt: This is all just pure speculation. The one thing we know for sure is that if you build enough single family houses the schools will fill up.
More fun facts. Within the DJUSD there are 560 kids in kindergarten and 710 in 12th grade. In contrast, the two numbers are essentially at parity both statewide and in Yolo County (i.e. the number of kids entering kindergarten and graduating are about the same). Our numbers for Davis would look even worse if we had a dropout rate similar to the county and state (which I assume we don’t).
Yes, and if that kindergarten cohort continues at about that rate, the projections I cited above from the Enterprise article will put DJUSD enrollment 150 or so lower than today. I.e., about what it was ten years ago. Why is this a problem urgent enough to guide our housing policies? And how will a bunch of single family homes address the rental problem?
psdavis, I’m not sure I understand your numbers. Since school districts vary so much in population, how does having the same number of kindergarden students mean anything. 560 from a population of 65,000 would be very different than 560 from a population of 50,000. Can you help me out of my confusion?
Bottom-line, Don, it isn’t urgent enough to guide our housing policies.
Actually it isn’t pure speculation. I just googled “DJUSD” and “kindergarten students” and got the DJUSD enrollment demographics study. Here is some info from page 7 of that report
5) Student Yield Factors – Ten-Year Projections – Closely related to the planned residential development units are Student Yield Factors. The Student Yield Factors, when applied to planned residential development units, determine how many additional students will be generated from new construction within the District.
Table 6– Student Yield Factors
Student Yield Factors – District Wide*
Type……… SFD ___ MFA ___ APT
K-6 Students. 0.418 _ 0.208 _ 0.295
7-8 Students. 0.150 _ 0.102 _ 0.094
9-12 Students 0.130 _ 0.034 _ 0.075
===================================
Total…….. 0.698 _ 0.344 _ 0.464
When you weight those three totals together you get remarkably close to the 0.61 (or less) figure from my post above.