There is an overwhelming sentiment that UC Davis needs to put a much larger percentage of housing on campus than they currently provide. The view is that the university is driving the current rental shortage in town and, therefore, they must take responsibility for the housing for the increased new enrollment, currently projected at 6000 students over the next decade.
Aside from the fairness issue, which resonates with me, there is also the transportation issue that university land will be in closer proximity to campus than other areas.
That said, if we look at the past and present discussion, pushing housing to the university does not appear to punt the housing discussion. One question we posed yesterday was where to put the housing if it is to be on campus.
Over the weekend, one resident of the nearby College Park neighborhood argued against putting houses along Russell Boulevard. He writes, “I write to make a case for retaining those two playfields just as they are rather than replacing them with three-story student apartments, as proposed in UCD’s 2017-27 Long-Range Development Plan. While the reasons to retain the fields are many, the main ones fall under three categories: aesthetics, traffic and impact on the nearest neighbors.”
Today, another letter suggested, “Everyone driving past the UC Davis campus along Russell Boulevard sees the historic and tranquil northern campus entrance, where discussions now raise a possibility of replacing this iconic and active vista with dormitories.”
They argue, “Surely we need to retain this lovely very historic northern entrance to our UCD campus, and not shift it to looking like another intersection such as the one at Anderson and La Rue, where dormitories loom over the sidewalks — cars and bikes always zooming by. We need to preserve this historic campus entrance.”
They conclude: “It is well known that our campus is blessed with the largest land holdings of any of the 10 campuses — there are many nearby preferable campus sites for constructing more dormitories that will offer students convenient access to central campus. Filling in the beautiful, functional and historic northern entrance to campus is a terrible idea.”
Bottom line: one area whether the university is suggesting it will put students has strong objections by the neighbors.
The same was the case when UC Davis approved West Village. But West Village had a decade-long planning process. The planning got delayed by an unsuccessful lawsuit by a neighborhood group. That ultimately led to the lack of access directly to the city of Davis through Russell Boulevard. West Village is still not completed, nearly 15 years after planning commenced.
Solano Park is another option. That was originally to be planned concurrently with Nishi. But those plans were delayed when students living there threatened protests.
What about Orchard Park, which several posters correctly cited in UC Davis’ planning failures? Orchard Park closed in July 2014 and remains closed, while Solano Park was finally scheduled to close this month.
However, a January article in the Aggie cited Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Jeff Gibeling, who claimed “redevelopment is yet to begin due to concerns about the cost effectiveness of the change as well as the possibility of rent increases post-development. Thus, in June 2014, all redevelopment plans were halted in order to find a new planning approach to the apartments that would focus on the students’ concerns. Even though planning stopped, Orchard Park still closed on July 31, 2014.”
“It wasn’t actually renovations. What we were initially talking about was the replacement of Orchard Park. It was based on an analysis that said it was much more cost effective to simply tear them down,” Mr. Gibeling told the Aggie. “We wanted to get a long lifetime out of the buildings, which meant starting from scratch.”
“The plan wasn’t very well-received by the community. After many discussions with students and administrators, the Chancellor said we were going to pause the planning process,” Mr. Gibeling said. “So we paused the planning process and created a different committee with much higher student representation to go through a different planning process. We had hoped it would take about six months and be done by the calendar year of 2014, but it wasn’t finished until May or June of 2015.”
The plan, at least back in January, was to reopen Orchard Park Apartments in the fall of 2018.
There is also the issue of affordability. The Aggie article noted, “While Orchard Park and Solano Park charged a little over $900 a month in rent, the costs of Russell Park, an off-campus alternative to Solano Park and Orchard Park, are significantly higher.”
There is some irony here. Some of the projects that UC Davis has undertaken and is proposing to undertake have been slowed by Davis community opposition. In that sense, it can be argued that UC Davis faces similar growth challenges as the city does.
The other problem is that, internally, they have a different set of problems that includes student protests, indecision and lack of affordability.
At some point, UC Davis needs to find a way to deliver more student housing, but these examples show it is hardly going to be as quick and efficient as we might want to see.
As I wrote yesterday, I suggest that the folks at Nishi, as well as UC Davis, look into models like Poly Canyon Village in San Luis Obispo. Poly Canyon Village, built long after I graduated from Cal Poly, houses 2700 students with apartments, amenities, restaurants and retail on 30 acres. It consists of nine 4- and 5-story buildings (so you don’t have to go to steel frames) and 618 apartment units with plaza and other space.
Think about it, it has nearly twice the student population on only two-thirds of the acreage of Nishi. That could be built on Nishi or it could be built on UC Davis land to the west. But even that doesn’t get us anywhere close to 90 percent of the student population growth in the next decade.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“there are many nearby preferable campus sites for constructing more dormitories that will offer students convenient access to central campus. Filling in the beautiful, functional and historic northern entrance to campus is a terrible idea.””
“As I wrote yesterday, would suggest that the folks at Nishi as well as UC Davis look into models like Poly Canyon Village in San Luis Obispo.”
As someone who is not well versed in the landholdings and specific pros and cons of various university owned sites I see a major lack in these suggestions. What I am not seeing is the exact sites that are being proposed as the preferred locations for these suggestions. To those who believe that there are “many nearby preferable campus sites for constructing….” please be specific about where you have in mind.
Specifically for David, where would you envision this Poly Canyon Village like development be located ?
It would also be nice when addressing these questions if the proposer would include what they see as the advantages and disadvantages of their proposed location.
I would say either on Nishi itself or SW of the football stadium off La Rue.
“I would say either on Nishi itself or SW of the football stadium off La Rue.”
I would agree with the Nishi site. Would have to check out the area southwest of the football stadium.
The roughly 4.5 acre area SW of the Football stadium on Health Science Drive Does seem to be completely overlooked in the LRD and is both a disturbed landscape and underutilized. I could imagine student apartments there being popular with med and vet students, maybe all or part of it could be a health-science living community. Other UC’s often organize their housing into learning communities like that.
This Data should help the discussion:
Campus Undergrads Housed Size
UC Davis 25% 5,309 acres
UC Berkeley 27% 1,232 acres
UC Riverside 34% 1,931 acres
UC Merced 36% 810 acres
UC Santa Barbara 38% 1,055 acres
UC Irvine 41% 1,526 acres
UCLA 43% 419 acres
Cool stats… will give you the benefit of doubt that they are essentially correct. I have NO reason to think otherwise…
The data is obtained from US News and World Reports, individual UC Wikipedia pages, and where ever possible it has been corroborated with information on the individual UC websites.
I don’t see availability of land as an issue. The issues seem to be extreme concerns about affordability of the apartments as well as some community opposition to some locations. It also seems that the University Administrators just don’t see housing as a concern that they need to focus on.
Thanks Grok. Hard to dispute ‘evidence based’ rationale as to why UCD should take up more of the housing slack that they’ve created.
I don’t think anyone actually disagrees with that. The question is how much we can expect them to do and how quickly and what should be done within the city.
“we can expect them to do” I think this is the key variable. We expect them to do something that is in our best interests while I have not read one word about it is in their best interests. Housing students is not a profit center for them and based on evidence it is not viewed as a priority. They are in the business of educating students and provide whatever housing they have to to achieve that goal. Why would they want to building housing when everyone they can get as many students as they want without it? This is not a statement but a question.
I think that’s been the problem in the 30 years that this issue has been around. In Davis, UCD has always been able to have students live in Davis or surrounding areas. UCLA doesn’t have that luxury and therefore has accommodate far more students on campus.
David, I read these comments but they all seem like people engaged in solo sexual practices. Without a compelling reason that UCD would want to build housing or a path toward forcing them to do so nothing will change. Let me start with a couple of suggestions though as a new guy these have likely been considered and rejected previously.
Is it possible to refuse to accept on campus children to DJUSD by changing interdistrict policy?
Is it possible to legislate minimum levels of on-campus housing at the state level?
Is it possible to build housing on-campus that supports the educational mission of UCD? That is, some aspect of the housing is tied to university research?
Quickly…
The answer is yes, DJUSD has done it to bolster their enrollment and it is financially in their best interest to continue to do so.
My guess to the second is that the legislature can attempt to do that. What was interesting though is that the legislature had to offer moeny to UC to get them to take more instate students, so perhaps the answer is no.
One three – probably, but I’m no expert there and not completely clear what that would look like.
There is nothing that we (or the City) can do that will force the University to build more housing, where and when we want it. Sure, we can have high-level discussions, but in the end, the University will decide what is best for the University regardless of what we want. There is only one thing that we will accomplish by arguing about what the University ‘should do’ and that is to block or simply ignore the one thing that we can do to actually address the housing shortage. Build more apartments.
Arguing about when and where the University should build more housing is nothing more that a smokescreen effort to prevent Davis from building more housing. The ‘if we don’t build it, they won’t come’ approach to life that many here clearly believe in. Just another example of the selfish, ‘no on everything’ mindset that has taken over the town.
I don’t know anybody who disputes that UCD should build more housing and provide for a larger percentage of their student population. Unfortunately, statistics like this are being used in furtherance of a position that no new rental housing should be built in town. That the housing problem is UCD’s to solve, and only theirs.
Also, much of the acreage of UCD is actually farmland. It would be more accurate to compare the actual core campus acreage where housing is likeliest to occur. UCD conserves their prime farmland just as the city of Davis and Yolo County do.
That is a point I made too. How much of Grok’s “Davis is flush with land” argument fails to consider the fact that UC Davis is the top ag and food science university in the world?
Frankly – That is only half the argument, the other half is UC Davis provides less housing than all of the other UCs and the other UCs do it with much less land. UC Davis can easily build more housing like the other UCs and maintain plenty of ag research land.
Frankly
“UCD conserves their prime farmland just as the city of Davis and Yolo County do.”
Heaven forbid that I should “put words in anyone’s mouth”. So I will pose this as a question. If you believe that UCD has the right, or should conserve their prime farmland, should not the city and county have the right to do the same ?
I realize you addressed your question to Frankly, but since you were quoting me I’ll also answer. I believe each agency should make every effort to conserve their best farmland and focus development where it is unlikely to encourage further peripheral development (sprawl) onto prime farmland. So you develop on existing poorer soils (near the hospital, for example), or where development has already occurred. In other words, conservation of prime farmland is one of the guiding goals of planning for UCD, the city, and the county, but not an absolute determinant.
UCD’s farmland is for its business. The farmland around Davis is not for its business… except those NIMBY fools in town that think EVERYTHING is their business and demand their farmland moat to encircle the town to keep out those NIMBY-undesirable people from living here.
UCD has a legitimate reason to preserve its farmland because the Glide family owns much of the adjacent farmland and has made it clear in their estate trust that UCD will never own a square inch of that land. So this is all the farmland that UCD will ever own adjacent to the campus.
There is no equivalency here. Fail.
Grok – I think you are relatively new posting here (welcome!). This stuff has been debated for three+ years. The point here is that all the UCD land that would be reasonable for building student housing is just going to inflame other NIMBYs in town.
The arguments against more peripheral housing around Davis are clearly irrational, selfish and entitled… irrational in that the traffic and people impacts are going to happen regardless as UCD population grows. Irrational in that impacts are going to happen if we don’t build more housing and have more commuters. Irrational in that these same complaints are going to happen if UCD builds the housing instead of Davis. Irrational in that Davis gets these impacts without any tax revenue benefits. The selfish part is the NIMBY effect… opposition will be from any neighborhood next to the new housing development. The entitled part is Measure J/R. Fools that really should be precluded from blocking needed development are giddy with their entitled sense of power with Measure J/R.
I may be new posting here, but I am certainly not new to this debate. I will certainly agree that Davis politics are painful because there are many different interest groups who are involved and they often want different things. One can see this as a negative because it makes it much harder to get things done, but I would prefer to see it as a positive. Davis is lucky to have so many engaged citizens and if we are willing to work together to see each others point of view, we can come up with ways to move forward, and the outcomes can be better for everyone.
So please don’t write people off as just irrational, selfish NIMBYs. I wont write you off as a right wing reactionary pro growther.
Unfortunately, there are many that are.
Well I have lived in Davis and have for 40 years, so I don’t think I would have if I was that. How many for you?
There is always a line of reason. We can see those that are far outside the line and they are deserving of those labels.
What I reject is the blocking of the needs from dynamic and organic change occurring.
I would not support a big housing development just for the sake of growing the city. But Davis is clearly in need of more housing. Clearly in need of more commercial space. You and others are blocking the filling of those needs because you (yes “you”) don’t want Davis to change.
Take the labels. I think you know that you deserve them.
I am not going to get into a name calling fight with you frankly. The point is not that you are any of those things, the point is we are not going to make any progress by putting people in boxes and applying labels. Who cares if someone has lived in Davis 15 years like the Mayor or 80 years like John Whitcombe. I would Trust Rob over Johnny any day.
I hope you have a great evening.
You should probably also read the guidelines for comments page.
https://davisvanguard.org/about-us/comment-policy/
The above neglects that UCD is an ag school and therefore has large amounts of land dedicated to crops and animals.
Quielo,
No one fails to recognize this. It is just ridiculous to anyone to try to claim that with over 5,300 acres UCD does not have enough land to build adequate housing to support their own growth on campus. Yet, UCD can magically find land on campus for their pet projects like an art center and yet another music recital center both under construction. I mean please….
Perhaps they think they are are in the education business and not in the housing business?
Quilo, You can’t be in the education business if your students don’t have a place to live. The Other UC’s are creating that housing themselves.
quielo
“The above neglects that UCD is an ag school and therefore has large amounts of land dedicated to crops and animals.”
While this is certainly true, it neglects the fact that UCD saw fit to use some of its land for the Mondavi Center and for the new museum. Now I greatly appreciate both of these facilities, but I do think it is fair question why the university has enough land for these pursuits, but not enough to house their students ?
If I am not mistaken, the building of those ego shrines was funded by outside donations. Certainly the Mondavi Center was. It almost bankrupted the Mondavi family.
The core campus is a little over 1000 acres, depending on how you include the South Davis portion. The map above calculates to about 1056 acres.
The part of the campus west of 113 is about 3300 acres measuring from 113 to Road 98. The developable part of that is probably about 640 acres unless you’re going to move the airport and
fill in the wild area along Putah Creek.
So the comparable area of UCD for buildings and housing is about 1700 acres.
Seems like South Campus could be part of the discussion, particularly now that we have Whole Foods downtown. There are a number of buildings between Putah Creek and I-80 and the water treatment plant is there, so there is already some infrastructure. What if UC Davis created place(s) for students to have “small houses” and/or a trailer park in South Campus? They could even require incinerator toilets.
Don’t over look the 1,500 acre UCD Russell Ranch that is less than 5 miles from the main campus. Davis has considerable Agricultural research area available.
You want to develop housing on Russell Ranch? I didn’t include that in the acreage totals because I consider that a total non-starter. It would be completely irresponsible planning.
Don, I appreciate the way you were pointing out developable land. I was only pointing out that there is extensive Ag research area land available beyond that.
All of these locations, except UC Merced, are much different than UC Davis . All of these campuses are located in much more urban, highly developed locations, with strong local economies and very expensive off campus housing as options for students. Arguably, Santa Barbara is not very urban, but is a coastal community with significant physical barriers to development and very, very expensive real estate due to its location.
UCD, with Davis, Woodland, Dixon and West Sacramento offers students many proximate alternatives at reasonable prices (excepting the those located in the city of Davis).
Since the issue of the “affordability” of the apartments seems to be a foremost concern, What would the cost of apartments be for a “Poly Canyon Village” type development? Also, what is the difference between what we see in West Village and the “Poly Canyon Village” model?
It looks like $935 for a single room, $720 for shared and $548 for a double suite bedroom.
How does that compare to other apartments in the area?
It depends how you calculate. The university seems to have a different model for charging than a private apartment. A private apartment has a set rent and the more people that live in that dwelling, the less it costs. The university seems to only slightly lower the cost for a private to a shared dwelling. Now I know some apartments are going to a rent by bed model, and I’m not sure how those compare to the situation that’s most familiar to me.
David wrote:
> It looks like $935 for a single room
That would be $2,805/month for a three bedroom apartment
At current interest rates you can get a $630,000 home loan for less than $2,805/month.
Grok wrote:
> How does that compare to other apartments in the area?
Here is a nice three bedroom SLO home (with a two car garage) for $2,300/month
https://slo.craigslist.org/apa/5703112758.html
Grok,
Thanks much for these great statistics which reveal that UCD has an the embarrassingly lowest amount of on-campus housing out of all the UC’s despite having the largest amount of land of more than 5,300 acres. Meanwhile, keep in mind that the majority of that small amount of on campus housing is freshman dorms housing the students for only for first year, so the result is they are essentially housing even less students or the entire 4-5 years that they attend UCD. This is why the emphasis of what UCD needs to built now is a lot more on-campus apartments.
I don’t have the same elegant complete data to show, but looking at other UC Campuses one thing that is very clearly different from Davis is other campuses have significant UC owned housing options for students past the first year. The most egregiously unmet need at Davis is non-first year dorm space. It seems like there is space for new dorm buildings near Trecero t. Also, the Regan Hall complex that is being redeveloped in the new LRDP should be much larger dorms.
David you stated:
Well David, UCD has the luxury of having 5,300 acres of which they can certainly spare for a lot more high-density on-campus housing. UCD certainly doesn’t use that excuse that they don’t have enough land to spare when they want to built yet another art center or another music recital center as they are right now, do they?
There is absolutely no excuse why UCD cannot build a lot more high density apartments on-campus. Yet, you continue to argue for Nishi in denial of the poor air quality health impacts, the traffic gridlock and costs to Davis residents, not to mention the lack of affordability of the housing that was proposed (“A” or “a”). So you can keep trying to make excuses for UCD, but the fact is UCD needs to step up and take responsibility for their own housing needs on their land using their water, their own waste water and on-campus safety (police and fire) and other services rather than try to continue to hoist their growth issues onto our community.
“There is absolutely no excuse why UCD” Why do they need an excuse? They have other priorities and don’t care. Why should they?
Quielo,
This is where UCD needs to get their priorities straightened out and providing much more housing on-campus, as the other UC’s and other teaching institutions have. This is clearly one of those priorities for their students needs.
How does that benefit UCD?
I don’t think there is a question that UCD has not prioritized this, the question is how much we can reasonably do to change their actions.
“I don’t think there is a question that UCD has not prioritized this, the question is how much we can reasonably do to change their actions.” I completely agree that is the question and without an answer nothing is going to change.
If it was up to me I would put micro apartments between the Binning tract and the Golf Course with a bunch of paring and a transit center. Let people who drive from Dixon take the 113 to Covell and go north on 99D while people from Woodland can exit 29 and go south on 99D. The direct bus goes to campus from there. It would be nice to have a covered bike path in the area as well. Thers is already medical, food, coffee and shopping in the area and no doubt someone will open a cheap beer place as well.
David, I think this is a very fair question. There is a lot that can be reasonably done to change their actions.
The city council recently initiated an LRDP subcommittee. It is very important that this subcommittee work to pressure the University. Please write to Rob Davis rdavis@cityofdavis.org and Rachel Swanson rswanson@cityofdavis.org and ask them to prioritize UCD building more housing as an issue to take up with the University.
For years the City Council has had no specific subcommittee or appointed liaison with the University. It has only just recently been proposed be Council member Lee that the City form a subcommittee to meet with the university on a regular basis. This subcommittee should be formed ASAP and they should work with the University on the housing issue, and pressure the university to do more.
Poeple should write and call their City Council members and encourage them to do so.
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-council/who-s-who
Individuals should write letters and call the Campus Planning and Community Resources Office
Main Office
376 Mrak Hall
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Robert Segar
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Campus Planning and Community Resources
rbsegar@ucdavis.edu
Skip C. Mezger
Campus Landscape Architect
scmezger@ucdavis.edu
Christina De Martini Reyes
Assistant Landscape Architect
cdreyes@ucdavis.edu
Chris M. DiDio
GIS Specialist
cmdidio@ucdavis.edu
People should write to the acting Chancellor
Ralph J. Hexter
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
(530) 752-2065
People should write to the UC Regents
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/about/members-and-advisors/index.html
Write to your state representatives.
Write to the Davis Enterprise.
The Vanguard should right and publish well researched articles that point out the issue.
finally encourage your friends and neighbors to do the same.
quielo
“Why should they?”
Because they are a public institution, not a private one.
Exactly right Tia.
Tia,
Archimedes said, in the Doric speech of Syracuse : “Give me a place to stand and with a lever I will move the whole world.”
Given a lever you can move UCD. Moralizing or reproaching or building imaginary sandcastles is not a lever. If you can find a lever you can solve the problem.
Mark West
Talking of smokescreens Mark West, I’d turn your argument on its head. While some fast growth advocates are sincere in wanting to address the student housing problem, for many years in Davis (and long before the low vacancy rate and fast growth of the UCD student pop.) there has been a concerted lobby, led by people like Mark West, that want all kinds of development almost without regard to the environmental or infrastructural costs.
Indeed if Nishi had passed it would have made a minor dent in the student housing deficit, and student housing was not one of the prime reasons why many supported Nishi. Thus people like Mark West hide behind the student housing deficit issue, absolving UCD largely of any responsibility for student housing so they can promote their other growth agendas on behalf of their own and other interests.
Finally, let me ask Mark West and David and their flock this: So you think the city has little alternative but to take prime responsibility for the building of student housing? If so, then may I ask not just where you would put this housing, but how many units you think it is desirable or feasible for the city to build to accommodate UCD’s growth? Where is your limit? 1,000 units, 1,500, 2,000 or more, or do you even have any limits???
On the periphery. A few thousand ought to do it.
I don’t know why you put me with Mark, we don’t really agree on this. I have suggested that the city could find 30000 to 4000 beds in town to alleviate some of the pressure and work with the university on ways to accommodate the rest.
Davis wrote:
> I have suggested that the city could find 30000 to 4000
> beds in town to alleviate some of the pressure
If just half the homeowners were to rent a room to a UCD student we would have beds for 7,000 students.
I wonder what “excuse” most people have for not helping to lower the vacancy rate in town (and making a little extra cash)?
Please demonstrate where I have hidden my views behind any such issue. I have been very forthright about where I stand on economic vitality, housing, and environmental issues, despite your best efforts to label me with your inaccurate claims and accusations.
Davis has an obligation to our residents to provide decent housing, jobs, and economic opportunity with the overriding requirement that the community pay our bills. We have failed on all accounts. We as a community have a ‘no on everything’ mindset, where we first oppose every potential change, then demand that someone prove that our worst fears will not be realized before we reconsider. As a consequence, we fail to act when action is required, making our problems that much worse.
The rental housing shortage is not new. Neither is the University’s failure to supply sufficient housing. Eileen has been very good about telling us all about the University’s failure at living up to its promises about student housing. What has changed? Why, given the history that Eileen has clearly spelled out, does anyone believe that the University will do better this time? Any proposed solution that requires the University to live up to its promises on housing is not a real solution, but rather another excuse not to act. The only real solution to the problem is to build more apartments in the City.
The ‘if we don’t build it, they won’t come’ approach to housing doesn’t work. The people who need housing are already living in our community. They are crammed too many into too small apartments and turning our neighborhoods into mini-dorm complexes. Our community is being destroyed from within as mini-dorms take over the homes that typically would go to our young families and those needing more affordable options. We have already seen significant damage to the community as Matt pointed out several times with his analysis of the demographic changes over the past decade.
The activists in town love to argue in favor of things that will never happen as an excuse to not address real problems. Sue Greenwald, for example, made a career of arguing in favor of infill over peripheral development, as long as that infill occurred at the PG&E site, which she knew would never happen in her lifetime. The same, I think can be fairly said about all of you now arguing vociferously about where and when the University needs to build more housing to fix our rental housing shortage. Not a solution, just another excuse not to act.
“We have already seen significant damage to the community as Matt pointed out several times with his analysis of the demographic changes over the past decade.”
I see this differently.
Matt has pointed out significant changes in the community with his analysis of demographic changes over the past decade. Whether or not these changes are causing significant “damage” or not is a matter of individual opinion. I do not share the doom and gloom view of decreasing students in our classrooms or increases in the number of college students displacing young families. I see these as natural reflections of anticipated changes affecting a community whose demographics are largely university driven.
“Davis has an obligation to our residents to provide decent housing, jobs, and economic opportunity with the overriding requirement that the community pay our bills”
I agree with this statement. And I find it incomplete. Davis also has an obligation to provide a safe, healthy environment for all of its citizens, both those in already existing homes to the degree possible, and certainly for those in homes still to be built. I do not agree with Mark that there are large numbers of people ( maybe a few) who have a “no growth” mindset. I do however, believe that there are significant numbers of people who feel that new projects should meet the needs not only of those who will live on site, but will also meet the environmental and safety needs of the entire community.
If your goal is for Davis to reflect the wants of the retiree (and soon to be) community, with the protection of their perceived ‘quality of life’ being paramount, then the demographic shift is a good thing. If however, your goal is for Davis to respond to the needs of all of its residents, with a vibrant and evolving community being paramount, then you will understand that the demographic shift is an indication of our failure.
Davis is not a retirement community, so our policies should reflect the needs of the entire community, not just the wants of the old and wealthy.
Seriously? You sound like someone who perhaps is a current or former UCD administrator or someone very interested in much more development in Davis, perhaps being a developer, or development-related, or in real estate. Might that be the case?
Wrong on all counts, I am just trying to differentiate between complaining and actual solutions. I’ll stop now, feel free to continue to complain.
I actually agree with Samitz. UC needs to build more on-campus housing and UC needs to clear any of its own decks that don’t see building housing as a part of the mission. Measure R means Davis isn’t going to build the housing this community needs. Where we differ is I believe we need a crash program to build what we need both on campus and off.
I think there are some sad unintended consequences of the defacto no growth proclivities of Davis and that UC building more housing contradicts those proclivities. UCD building more is still peripheral development and much of the land they wisely bought in the 90’s is prime ag land. West Village like much of Davis sits atop some of the best farmland in the world. In an ideal world we would recognize that we should build our high density housing on class II soils first as a priority not whether its public or private land.
Another thing that makes me sad is that forcing all the new housing onto campus makes Davis a less democratic city since UC is not part of Davis. Building only where students can’t vote in the city further exacerbates this ugly dynamic. Over the years I have heard many arguments why building where students can’t participate in Davis politics is a good idea. I remain unconvinced and find the unwillingness to make voting participation a priority shameful.
Finally, I remain unconvinced that the financial costs and benefits of building housing on the Davis periphery cannot be made a positive for the city’s finances. Many other communities seem to be able to make it work and Davis has higher prices due to lack of additional supply while demand for a UC education continues to increase. I recall reading that the problem isn’t on the revenue side its on the spending side. I would like to see those who understand the details bring a discussion to better understand the micro dynamics of Davis as opposed to the macro dynamics upon which this opposition is founded.
My understanding from people in the university business but not with UCD is that UCD is one of the few UC campuses with room for major new programs and they are trying to grow their empire. Also the possibility of an open Chancellorship has to entice certain top executives. Therefore unless they can be convinced they have to build housing to maintain student growth, maintain harmony with the adjoining community, or further their educational mission, nothing will change.
I have already suggested that DJUSD could be a useful lever in negotiations.
Last sentence is an interesting thought, and may well have merit to pursue. Likelihood of success is probably 5-9%, but I’ve won a bunch of money over the years by trying the long odds… I just don’t do it on a regular basis.
Why not pursue that avenue? Can’t hurt, might be productive… little risk, high potential gain… damn good wager…
How? I can’t remember how you suggested bringing the district into this issue.
If you look above you will see”
“Is it possible to refuse to accept on campus children to DJUSD by changing interdistrict policy?
Is it possible to legislate minimum levels of on-campus housing at the state level?
Is it possible to build housing on-campus that supports the educational mission of UCD? That is, some aspect of the housing is tied to university research?”
To expand on this by denying DJUSD schools to visiting profs and grad students it may make UCD less attractive as a destination and cause pain in the C-Suite. Likely the most effective path is to bundle a number of sticks and offer a carrot. For example new units could be designed with a rooftop cultivation area complete with grazing goat. This may incent engineering, and agriculture to support it. In addition offering space for building with a transit hub near the Binning tract would solve some parking and access issues for them.
Just complaining is highly unlikely to result in positive actions.
No. They aren’t inter district transfers. The campus is in the Davis school district. The school district boundaries are not the same as the city boundaries. The district has to accept any eligible student who resides within the district boundaries. These are the district boundaries:
http://apps.schoolsitelocator.com/?districtCode=92907
Thank you Don, this is an area I know little about. according to the state boundaries are drawn by the county committee unless the district is chartered by the municipality. Has the concept of making DJU a city chartered district?
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/do/
The county committee has the power to establish trustee areas, rearrange the boundaries of trustee areas, abolish trustee areas, adopt one of the alternative methods of electing governing board members, and increase to seven or decrease to five the number of members of the governing board in any school district or community college district. (EC 5019) It has no authority, however, in a situation involving a school district governed by a board of education provided for in the charter of a city or city and county
Davis is not a charter city, if that’s what they mean. There’s no other school district that would logically take the students if DJUSD attempted to coerce this. The housing is not in Solano County, so they wouldn’t be assigned to Dixon school district.
The reality is that parents who live on campus don’t pay property taxes directly, nor indirectly through their rent. They don’t pay the parcel taxes. They are basically like inter district students in that regard: the district gets the ADA funding for the child, but nothing more. Increasing the number of school-age kids living on campus would increase costs to Davis property tax payers.
More to the point, though, I don’t like the idea of using students as pawns in Davis growth battles. If they’re in the district, IMO they are welcome here. They tend to bring diversity and enhance the district in many ways. My kids were at Valley Oak, which is where the kids from Solano Park and Orchard Park attended, and it was the most international school in the district.