This week we have been discussing the issue of rental housing – how much housing the university should provide, and how much the city should supply at this point. Clearly, there are disagreements in the community over this issue.
As I stated in yesterday’s column, “There is an overwhelming sentiment that UC Davis needs to put a much larger percentage of housing on campus than they currently provide. “
As one commenter put it, “UCD needs to get their priorities straightened out and (provide) much more housing on-campus, as the other UC’s and other teaching institutions have.”
I don’t think there is a question that UC Davis has not prioritized this. As Eileen Samitz has noted, at least twice in recent years UC Davis has agreed to increase their on-campus housing, but have failed to do so.
I do not think that most people would disagree with any of this. The question as I put it is what can we reasonably do to change their actions. The city has created their own subcommittee of Mayor Robb Davis and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson to work with the university on issues related to their Long Range Development Plan (LRDP).
Mayor Davis has already worked behind the scenes with UC Davis to convince them – for the time being, successfully – to increase plans to expand student housing.
Still – I think we have a problem here. UC Davis has shown, not just now but in the past, that they are willing to promise to increase on-campus housing options. The problem is that they haven’t followed through.
Is creating a subcommittee on LRDP or having an ongoing two-by-two, assuming that’s even possible, the answer? Maybe. But I do think we are being a bit overly optimistic here. After all, words are cheap and promises fall prey to difficult planning realities.
But there is more than that. UC Davis might be pressured into changing their policies, but at least looking at their history, I’m not sure why one would count on that. The legislature, which has a heckuva lot more power than local residents, had to bribe UC to change their admissions policies to admit more in-state students – and yes, that will have a trickle-down effect on us as well.
But my point here is that I think we’re being a bit naïve to think in the end a little pressure from council and the citizens is going to compel UC Davis to do something it doesn’t want to do.
And even if they do agree – as they have – there is no guarantee they will follow through in the long term.
That was part of the point of yesterday’s exercise demonstrating that UC Davis has a lot of problems with getting development proposals underway and completed. We have seen West Village, a logical location for additional housing, and yet it has been a 15-year process already.
As Don Shor pointed out, while UC Davis does have a lot of land, the amount of developable land is probably far less. Clearly, as we have suggested, the possibility exists for a high-density student housing location. As we noted, Cal Poly was able to house 2700 students on just 30 acres. UC Davis could find twice that to house 5400 or more students.
Still, the history of this suggests that UC Davis is not going to be able to move fast to address this issue and, with 6800 new students set to arrive in the next decade, the clock is ticking.
I am not supportive of an all on-campus approach here. I do believe that UC Davis needs to figure out a way to house that 90 percent, but that still leaves probably 3000 to 4000 beds that the city must provide or force students to commute from out of town – and, despite people’s ability to pull up available units on websites, the math from the last few years suggests that 10,000 people commute and there is not room for them or the expected increase in student population.
One poster asks quite reasonably: “Should Davis be forced to jump to building more housing every time the University plans to expand enrollment?”
This is actually a far more interesting and complex question than was perhaps intended. First of all, Davis doesn’t jump to do anything, especially build new housing. Part of why our vacancy rate is so low is that we haven’t done a lot of building, even as UC Davis has rapidly increased in size.
Second, I have problem with the implicit notion that this is an us against them world. In a lot of ways, we are UC Davis. A huge percentage of our community works for UC Davis and, therefore, our livelihood depends on the livelihood of UC Davis. I don’t see how we can separate that.
Our city brand and our core identity are inextricably linked to the university. While UC Davis itself is not calling all of the shots here, some of the growth is coming from above, some of the growth is at the core of trying to make a UC education more accessible and affordable for students.
Think of this as a critical company that is attempting to expand – they want to bring in more jobs and customers and we want to balk at providing at least some of the housing? That doesn’t sound like being a good partner.
On the other hand, I readily agree that UC Davis hasn’t been the best of partners either – they have not lived up to their agreements to provide for their share of housing.
I still think the key question is what is the fair share of housing that each side should provide? Some people seem to believe that Davis, the city, has no obligation whatsoever to provide for any of that housing. Given our relationship and the benefits a large portion of our community gains from UC Davis, I cannot go there.
Bottom line and perhaps where I part ways with some – I believe that both UC Davis and the city of Davis have an obligation to provide more housing than they are currently. For the university, I would look toward a small footprint, but dense project, toward the south end of campus. For Davis, I would look at small infill spots or places like Nishi close to campus, which can accommodate apartments and rental housing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is the 5th day in a row the Vanguard has published an article on this topic and it seems none of them have had any new research on the subject. The whiny repetitious “I don’t think the University will do it so Davis has to” is unhelpful and uninformative. I suggested several days ago that you go do some research on what is going on at other schools, but not only have you not done that, you have posted 5 articles without doing ANY new research at all.
The court watch stuff is interesting, but the local political stuff from this so called “news reporting organization” is looking more like just a whiny opinion blog every day.
Just look at Sean Raycraft’s article for a better example. Even though he is an active participant in the story, He does his research, he quotes participants, he cites the bills involved. Quoting from the comments others posted on yesterdays blog is not news, its blogging.
Slow news year?
David wrote:
> The question as I put it is what can we reasonably
> do to change their actions.
Just about everyone in Davis agrees that UC should build new housing just like almost everyone agrees that it is not good for a 10 year old boy to stay up late every night drinking Mountain Dew and playing video games.
We can complain to UC and hope not building any apartments in town gets them to build just like we can talk to the parent and tax soda, but in the end there is nothing the people in the city of Davis can do to “reasonably change the actions” of a a parent giving their kid too much soda or a university outside the city limits that does not build enough housing…
i’m not a big fan of your choice of analogies, because i think we probably have more we can do in your hypothetical case than the issue at hand. the vanguard analogy of the legislature and uc with regards to instate admissions is being ignored by the grok-samitz-harrington contingency.
I agree with Grok. These chronic pessimistic articles are counter-productive and tiresome. They do not even pretend to sound objective anymore and others are noticing this and commenting to me personally, and they are too fed up with the Vanguard to even post their complaints about it. Here a process of the City engaging with UCD on this housing issue has not even been given a chance to begin and the Vanguard is nothing but “gloom and doom” and if anything “sand in the gears”.
For instance, the City has had no communications with the UCD for decades, literally, on this housing issue so what would we expect? If UCD felt they could get away with postponing the building of housing while prioritizing their pet projects like the new Shrem art museum, the new music recital center and an International Student Center (all under construction now) with UCD’s $1 billion endowment fund, it should be no surprise that they would do so. No representation from the City side has objected forcefully enough to motivate those changes.
But now the community is engaged, and we have a City Council that is getting engaged on this issue. Yet there is not even any recognition in the article of the citizen engagement in the article, and minimizing the fact that a new Council sub-committee has been formed specifically on this issue and that all the Council members volunteered to be on that sub-committee because they fully understand that the community is fed up with UCD deferring their housing needs onto our community.
So this raises a question that Grok has asked before. Why isn’t the Vanguard doing any research on this issue revealing UCD’s negligence? Well, but then the Vanguard complains it doesn’t have time to investigate. Yet Vanguard certainly has had the time to beat the Katehi and Napolitano subject to death, doesn’t it?
Ok, so then even when the data is given to the Vanguard, it is ignored. Such as Grok’s interesting table of statistics yesterday on UC campus sizes, population and amount of UC housing provided. Well it was revealed that UCD has the most land of all the UC’s (around 4X more) yet UCD houses the least number of students than all of the other UC’s. AND of that meager amount of housing, UCD’s housing is primarily freshman dorms which only house the students for one year who are then forced off campus to find housing elsewhere.
So let’s talk about these subjects rather than the Vanguard’s defeatist attitude before City – UCD conversions have even begun. One of the most obvious hypocrisies of the Vanguard is while it constantly complains about the City’s financial problems, the Vanguard then turns around and advocates for our community to take on UCD’s housing responsibilities and the imposing the costs and impacts of that growth onto our community.
As a non-profit the Vanguard is supposed to be objective. Well its objectivity is disappearing and it is losing credibility in the process. In addition, it just becomes part of the problem and if anything is exacerbating the problem, rather than being part of the solution.
it was also revealed by don that a lot of that of that land isn’t developable and the vanguard actually referenced that. where do we develop then? you’re still stuck at richards which is controversial, west village which is cut off from the city, nishi which was defeated, orchard and solano which have been delayed and are redevelopment sites, and then maybe an out of the box site. but since you’re not going to put housing in certain ucd owned spots the land you’re talking about isn’t an apples to apples comparison
Davis Progressive,
Seriously, are you trying to say that with 5,300 acres that UCD cannot spare land for on-campus housing? Yet, it can spare land for a new multi-million dollar pet projects like the new art center and a new music recital center?
why do you keep repeating the 5300 number when don has pointed out without refutation that the real number of developable units is more like 640?
Just to repeat:
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 reasonably developable area of UCD for buildings and housing is about 1700 acres.
I assume nobody is proposing development of Russell Ranch or the Wolfskill orchards.
That’s not what Don said at all. what he actually said is
That’s mostly open land that has almost nothing on itthat he says can be developed. That is a huge amount of space and the University could easily house more than 100% of new incoming students on that alone. but no one is advocating it all be used for housing because there is still space within the 1,000 acres east of 113 that can be used too. In fact Don pointed out that
1,700 acres is bigger than all of the other campuses except for Riverside which is 1,931 acres. But Davis houses 10% fewer students than all other campuses but Berkelley and the City of Berkeley actually sued the university over the UCs LRDP growth plan.
Now I am not advocating a lawsuit here because that would be premature, just as all fo the pessimism here is premature. UCD has every chance to get it right in its LRDP, if you all stop wasting your time here and start calling and emailing the people I suggest yesterday the LRDP can improve.
While Berkeley is standing up to the University man of you are advocating that we jump when the university says jump. Well I am not jumping.
Eileen, you may not be aware the University is an AG college, something that takes LAND to grow for research and teaching?
Drive out there sometime and see. then imagine yourself as a student trying to get back to any other building on campus after a few hours in the hot sun working a little plot?
sorry don. my point is that the 5000 figure is not a real number, but it keeps getting thrown out. no one is saying that we shouldn’t have more housing on campus.
Miwok,
I think we all understand that. But since UCD has over 5,300 acres so they have plenty of land and can definitely spare some for their hosuign needs on campus. I imagine that the students who work out in any fields have to get back home from campus now after working in the fields and if they live in the City.
Eileen, How do you reconcile this statement:
with this statement?
ryankelly,
If you read my entire post it should seem pretty clear. The Vanguard has added no new information in this article. It is just another article in an endless series where David continues to repeat the same negative message and pessimism regarding the provision of on campus housing by UCD.
While I am loathe to defend UCD on anything, I listen and disbelieve the Press releases they use for denying people salaries and enough buildings, since they state they have ALL this research money, then take 50% of it for Administrative Overhead, yet it doesn’t get to the researchers.
Then they claim the STATE Money is the only money used for buildings, salaries, and benefits. They have always had this accounting problem, and with “foundations and Public-private” partnerships, they have no accountability once the money is “allocated”.
I tell you, Eileen, because you may have encountered these specious arguments. So, they have to agree to put housing in, then wait for the Legislature to “approve” it, THEN wait for the money from the state.
One year during Labor Negotiations, they gave out “Bonuses” of $82 Mil, while denying staff a four percent increase which would have cost $4mil. Yet they claimed they had “no money”. This exercise will be the same.
Nope. The problem is that you and others think that there is something that can be called a ‘fair share’ here. The University is going to do what it wants, on its own timeframe, and there is little to nothing that the City can do to change that. This isn’t a collaboration, and the entity responsible for that lack is the City and the policies that we have pushed from our no-on-everything mindset. The University doesn’t listen to the residents of Davis because we have spent the last few decades proving that we are bad neighbors. Get over yourselves folks, the University doesn’t care what you think.
Now we can continue to shout at the wind complaining about what the University should do, or we can start addressing the problem at hand. We have a severe housing shortage in town. Yes, the University can help address that problem, but it is our responsibility to do what we can to fix it on our own (Anything the University does is really just ‘gravy.’) Our real-world responsibility is to build sufficient apartments to meet the needs of our residents, and if we want to be constructive in the conversation here we should be focusing on where in town we should build those apartments.
Those of you who prefer to bloviate about the University thinking anyone is listening are free to return to the VG echo chamber now.
“The University is going to do what it wants, on its own timeframe, and there is little to nothing that the City can do to change that.”
that point was made in this piece
MW
“This isn’t a collaboration,”
To state the something is not a collaboration does not mean that it could not be one, or that collaboration would not be a better approach.
On this point, I agree. However, I draw (almost) the opposite conclusion. If we continually (and forever) try to meet market demand by approving overly-dense infill, the city will become increasingly difficult to navigate and reside in. And, it would hardly make a dent in demand or the price of housing.
ok, so what do you do if you agree that uc can’t be compelled to build housing
DP: “ok, so what do you do if you agree that uc can’t be compelled to build housing.”
I didn’t say that – you did. However, “compelled” is probably too strong of a word. In any case, the efforts of some (including Eileen) have already made a drastic difference, regarding the University’s plans.
I suggest that we don’t try to “solve” all of the consequences of the University’s actions, by destroying the livability of Davis. I also suggest that we allow some breathing room, for the University to respond.
no, the efforts have only changed one thing – what the plan looks like. that’s a piece of paper. how much did it take to get uc to add more in-state students?
Eileen and others have been shouting in an echo chamber of their own minds. They have done nothing to change the actions of the University.
Not building apartments, resulting in the expansion of mini-dorms throughout town is what is destroying the livability of Davis. In contrast, rational growth will improve the quality of life for all in town.
The University has failed to live up to its promises on housing for more than two decades. How much ‘breathing room’ do you believe they need?
It seems that the recent commitment to house 90% of new enrollment means nothing to you.
Endless development (including overly-large scale infill) would have a far greater impact than so-called “mini-dorm” conversions, on all residents. (Considering the constant focus regarding this issue from pro-development types, it seems strange that no one in my neighborhood has done this – to my knowledge.)
The University has never previously agreed to house 90% of new enrollments. Since you’re obviously concerned about the University’s commitment, have you joined Eileen’s ongoing efforts?
Ron wrote:
> It seems that the recent commitment to house 90%
> of new enrollment means nothing to you.
The new students start class in about 6 weeks and Orchard Park has been sitting vacant and fenced off for two full years now.
1. Do you really believe that UCD will build housing for 90% of the new students?
2. Where will this housing be located and when will this housing be completed?
3. Do you think any of the new students moving here in September will get a chance to live in the new housing before they graduate?
DP: What? The University has recently agreed to house 90% of new enrollment. This is a substantial change.
It seems that you’re advocating for endless development to meet market demand, regardless of the effect on the city’s current 66,000 residents.
this is the problem. ucd hasn’t agreed to anything. all they did was put a figure in their preliminary lrdp. nothing has been approved. even when it’s approved, there will be no enforceable contract. what happens if they build nothing for ten years? NOTHING.
DP:
Since you’re obviously quite concerned about it, I’d suggest that you join Eileen’s ongoing efforts. Have you done so?
Seems like some of those who complain the loudest (and are pessimistic) about the University’s plans are the same ones who refuse to get involved.
the point is: even if i agreed with the effort, it would be a waste of time. but you do give me an idea of trying to organize people to lobby eileen samitz to see she’ll advocate on some issues. that could be interesting.
Well, it’s interesting to note that you don’t agree with the effort to encourage the University to house its own students. I’d suggest that you’re clearly in the minority, regarding that view. And, that you’re going to have a difficult time convincing anyone that the city should approve more overly-dense infill (or peripheral development), as a “preferred alternative”. (Except for those who may have a vested financial interest in doing so.)
Davis should view the growing student population as an opportunity, not a burden. By constructing more student housing in and around Davis, we enhance tax revenues, provide construction jobs and most importantly, provide enhanced business opportunities for our retail, service and restaurant owners, all of whom pay sales taxes to the city, salaries to workers, all while earning their own and income and building wealth. If Davis doesn’t provide the living space for students, then enterprising real estate developers will build in Dixon Woodland and West Sacramento, and Davis will lose the revenue opportunity.
Davis would reap all of those same benefits if the students where housed on campus. The people who loose out if the housing is on campus are the Davis property management companies and local landlords.
No, the restaurants will not pick up the same amount of business – ucd will provide dining services for those on campus. Plus, you assume that UCD is going to provide housing. I disagree. With Davis, Woodland, Dixon and West Sac all less than 15 minutes away, UCD will allow many of the students to live off campus rather than build enough housing for them all. I do think it is likely that UCD will add housing – but it will not be nearly enough and it will take a long time. Davis has an opportunity to take advantage of this revenue source, or it can watch it go to other nearby towns.
“UCD will provide dining services for those on campus” for dorms, but not for apartments – just look at the apartments that are already on campus.
“Davis has an opportunity to take advantage of this revenue source” Davis will take advantage of the revenue source if the housing is built on campus or in the city, but it will be better for the city if the students are housed on campus. The money in expanding enrolment at UCD is with housing the faculty and staff in Davis not the students. Faculty and staff are much bigger contributors to the local economy. Get students out of the single family houses and back on campus and get those houses on the market so families can buy them and move in. That’s where the real money is.
Adam Smith,
Actually, it is quite the contrary. If the City were to take on UCD’s growth it winds up costing Davis residents for the infrastructure for it like waste water treatment and City services (fire, police etc.) particularly for 3-5 bedroom apartments. Our City already has enough financial problems without taking on UCD’s housing responsibilities and the costs and impacts that come with it.
i don’t buy it. first, did davis just build a wastewater facility with no growth capacity – where’s matt williams when we need him. fire is not going to add employees due to a few infill projects – so that’s nonsense just as the city’s fiscal analysis on nishi was with regards to police and fire. police is short handed from what i understand but a few added projects aren’t going to change need. so other than hook up charges, i’m not buying the strain on city services. wasn’t this the whole point of minnicozi?
Eileen wrote:
> Actually, it is quite the contrary. If the City were to take on
> UCD’s growth it winds up costing Davis residents for the
> infrastructure for it like waste water treatment and City
> services (fire, police etc.)
Eileen must not know that if UC builds 100 units on the school side of Russell the city and state gets zero in property tax revenue, the schools get zero in parcel (or per unit) school taxes and the city is not paid for any of the city services like waste water. If a 100 unit student apartment is built on the Davis side of Russell the city and state will get abut $250,000 a year in property taxes lot of school parcel tax revenue and get paid for city services like waste water (and get paid more and more each year as the city services bills keep going higher and higher)…
If student housing is built on the UCD side of Russell the housing does not use city services like waste water.
School taxes are paid by parcel, so a 100 unit complex built in Davis pays the same as a single family home no matter how many kids from the apartments go to school in Davis.
If extensive new student housing is built on UCD or in Davis, Davis will still get all of the sales tax revenue when they shop or go out to eat in Davis and there will still be a bunch of new construction jobs. if it is built on campus, the construction jobs might even pay better.
I am telling you, if the housing is built on campus the people who miss out are property managers and landlords. Building lots of student apartments, especially if they are less expensive, would be terrible for Tandem or other apartment owners.
But new construction is not cheaper. Ever.
The people who are already loosing our the students who take out loans to pay for their education’s living expenses.
Tandem owns and manages units on the UCD campus “and” in Davis:
http://www.tandemproperties.com/communities/the-colleges-at-la-rue/
The rich and politically connected always find a way to make more money…
South of Davis,
Since you do not live in Davis you just how much Davis residents pay to basically subsidize UCD housing really does not affect, you does it? You have posted some really baseless arguments trying to advocate for your position because it is a fact that multifamily is revenue negative for the City.
However, I do find it interesting that you as a non-Davis resident continue to advocate for more housing in Davis, including for UCD.