Members of the Davis community once again pushed back against a proposal by UC Davis to potentially put housing on three fields lining the southern end of Russell Boulevard.
Sunny Shine delivered packets to each of the councilmembers with comments from the community against the proposal.
She said she talked to people who “know what the Russell Fields are, know how beautiful they are. They love them. They can’t understand why anybody would build on them, they think they are a treasure.”
Ms. Shine cited outgoing Senator Lois Wolk’s bill, SB 1386, which established “a state policy that protection and management of natural and working lands are a key strategy in meeting the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals.”
Senator Wolk’s bill noted that natural and working lands, which include parks and other open spaces, “remove carbon from the air and store, or sequester, that carbon.”
“Those fields are a place where people from all over the world can make friends – lasting friends,” Ms. Shine said. Whether “you are good or bad, you can play on those fields. It’s a beloved thing to everybody I talk to..”
She called saving the fields “such a no-brainer.”
Colin Walsh noted that a month ago there was an open meeting between ASUCD and the planners. That meeting, he said, was followed up with a meeting of the OASR (Office of Advocacy and Student Representation), with Bob Segar from UC Davis in attendance.
He said, “The city council and the city haven’t done that yet. So far every meeting with the LRDP has been closed. There are no minutes available and you have yet to take the issue up. This is the third time we’re here to ask – we would like you to take the issue up and consider the city’s role in this.”
Mr. Walsh said that on Thursday the planners are coming back to the OASR and they are going to propose some alternatives to building on the fields. “This is going to be a really good time to say that this isn’t an alternative that’s going to be good for the city,” he said.
Mr. Walsh then read from some of the comments they had received.
“UC Davis is expanding without concern for our community. This is a very good example – the continual expansion of the population and the necessary infrastructure have greatly altered the feeling of the community of Davis. To destroy these fields is a further example of the total lack of concern for the people of Davis by UC Davis. This open space defines the town-campus boundary in an inviting way. It’s a mainstay of Davis life…”
A number of other comments focused on the use of the fields for club and other sports, and that the development on those fields would limit space and potential practice time.
Another comment noted that, if these spaces disappear on the Russell fields, there will be an impact on the city parks as well. He concluded, “There is a real impact on the city that the city needs to consider.”
Mr. Walsh told the council, “We turned in about 450 comments like this to the university and you have them all in your packet.”
Eileen Samitz said that Citizens for Responsible Planning has a petition online which is asking that “UC Davis provide at least as much housing on the campus as other UCs are. Which is instead of providing only 40 percent of the student population – all the other UCs are providing 50 percent.”
She noted that UC Davis is planning to provide only 90 percent of incoming students with on-campus housing, where other UC schools are providing 100 percent of additional students with on-campus housing.
Ms. Samitz said, “Since UC Davis is going to be bringing in 5000 students within a few years – this is significant.”
“UCD has over 5300 acres, yet historically has provided the least amount of on-campus housing, and that has to change,” she said.
She noted in her op-ed from a few weeks ago, “We identified over 100 acres in the core campus where significantly more student housing could be located. We made it clear that the Russell Fields should not be paved over. It doesn’t need to be paved over because there is so much other land that they can be doing high density housing on.”
She noted that, while UC Davis is crying poverty, they just made a $60 million bid on Interland which would have stripped the city of hundreds of thousands in tax revenue.
“Not only is UCD negligent in providing housing for its students on campus, which is unfair to its students, it’s costing our city,” she said.
She said that the “mega-dorm” projects like Sterling Apartments and Lincoln40 are “not only inappropriate because of their size and their design” – those too would be subject to being master-leased. She urged the council to “always do what’s in the best interest of the city first.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There is a working group on campus made up of undergraduate and graduate students who are looking at solutions for student housing, both on campus and in the City. Will Sunny and Eileen’s groups listen to and accept their recommendations?
The University has a problem to solve – housing is only one part of it. If there is a better place to put classrooms and housing, they will find it.
When neighborhood activists angrily worked to protest and eventually cut off access to the City for West Village, that pretty much ended University/City public collaboration.
You forgot to mention ‘violently’…
pretty funny – to paraphrase
there is a group that you don’t know about and I can’t tell you about and they have not made their recommendations yet (if they ever do) but I am wondering if people will accept their recommendations.
ryankelly,
Before you make any more unwarranted assumptions, who is this on-campus working group? That sounds great and I would certainly like to meet with them and hear what ideas they have.
And on your second point, the university is creating their own problems by trying to grow their student population too rapidly to extract triple tuition out of non-residents primarily. And then they don’t even have the infrastructure in place to accommodate their current student population no less bringing on a huge influx for UCD revenue.
On-campus housing should have been at the top of UCD’s list of priorities when they decided to bring in 4,500 more non-resident students to cash in on the high tuition they were charging them since these kids are hundreds to thousands of miles from their families. UCD should have been implementing sustainable planning as they claim to embrace by building far more on-campus housing for a much higher number of their students like the other UC campuses are.
Eileen said . . . “should have been at the top of UCD’s list of priorities when they decided to bring in 4,500 more non-resident students to cash in on the high tuition they were charging them since these kids are hundreds to thousands of miles from their families.”
Eileen, was that enrollment increase decision made by UCD itself or was it made by UC’s Regents and Office of the President?
Matt,
Former Chancellor Katehi developed the “UCD 2020 Initiative” to add 4,500 non-resident students to UCD by 2020 to extract triple tuition from them for revenue for UCD. So the “UCD 2020 Initiative” is a non-mandated UCD plan, not from UCOP.
Meanwhile, many concerns were raised by the “UCD 2020 Task Force” regarding the significant infrastructure that would be needed for this aggressive growth plan including 300 more faculty, 400-600 more staff, classrooms, research and office space, but very little about student housing needs. Given that the campus is already overcrowded and stretched to accommodate the current student population, this was really poor planning by UCD.
That doesn’t answer the question – just because she developed a plan does not mean the idea of adding student originated with her.
Chamber Fan,
Not sure what you are saying. The “UCD 2020 Initiative” defined 5,000 more students to be added by 2020. 4,500 non-residents and 500 California residents. Since Katehi was promoting the “UCD 2020 Initiative” from 2011 soon after she became Chancellor at UCD, to generate more revenue for UCD from charging high tuition to non-residents, what are you saying?
Yes, that is right – in 2015. It was because the State had reduced funding and Katehi used this to put pressure on Gov. Brown. But then the State increased funding for UC’s in 2016 and the plan was changed to focus the increase in enrollment for CA residents.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-press-release-governors-revised-budget
http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/06/18/52498/uc-required-to-show-it-s-enrolling-california-stud/
These articles only support part of the claim. They show, “State increased funding for UC’s in 2016.”
They do not show that, ” the [UCD 2020] plan was changed.”
In fact these articles do not even mention UCD.
Well, in Fall 2016 there was an increase in enrollment at UC Davis of 1,000 CA residents and an increase in enrollment of only 148 international students. So the plan to have 4,500 of 5,000 additional international students over 5 years is clearly not being followed. I wish Eileen would drop this.
so you admit the articles you just posted don’t show what you claimed.
then you post some incidental evidence that still doesn’t prove what you claim.
what is your agenda here?
Oh, C’mon. I just think that Eileen has the wrong data. I referenced those articles to confirm that Gov. Brown increased funding after the first year of the 2020 plan in Jan. 2016 for UC’s (including UCD), but with the agreement that the increase in enrollment would be primarily CA residents. This answered Eileen’s claim that the plan had not changed from the initial plan. Eileen’s focus on international students is mysterious and what type of student is not a factor in land planning.
It really doesn’t matter. The increase in students is happening with a target of 5,000 additional students being admitted through 2020. The apparent plan is to continue this trend with the student population increasing to 39,000 by 2025. The university clearly cannot build enough units to house 39,000 students in this time period.
Ryankelley, I completely agree that the most important thing is the increase in students, but the articles you posted don’t mention UCD at all yet alone the specific UCD 2020 plan so they do not show that the plan changed they just show that there is a separate state initiative. Why do you care so much whether the students are international students brought in under the UCD 2020 plant?
Your suggestion however that UCD can not build enough housing seems pretty ridiculous. The campus is huge, and they apparently have a ton of money if they could afford to drop $60 million to buy the Interland property.
You should ask Eileen this question. She’s the one making a big deal about it.
I don’t think that it is reasonable that UCD can build nearly a complete City of 39,000 in the next 8 years to house everyone of its students on UCD land, especially when certain areas bordering the City of Davis are being demanded to be left unchanged. I don’t think that the local landlords would appreciate all of their tenants be diverted to on campus housing. The University has committed to providing housing for 90% of the increase by 2025, meaning about 9,000 new beds. So the City would feel around 1,000 people looking for housing. If they can’t find it in Davis, they will have to live elsewhere and commute to campus.
Actually Ryankelley, seems like your the one grinding away on the international student subject because of some problem you have with Eileen’s mention of the UCD 2020 plan. You even seemed to admit you mislead people about the contents of articles you linked earlier.
Now you post that you “don’t think that it is reasonable that UCD can build nearly a complete City of 39,000 in the next 8 years to house everyone of its students on UCD land,” No one has suggested that but you. it is completely ridiculous argument.
then you post, “I don’t think that the local landlords would appreciate all of their tenants be diverted to on campus housing. ” Are you attempting humor?
Seems like your undermining your credibility pretty thoroughly – such as a blog commented could be credible to start with.
RKelley – What the University has told us at the LRDP meetings is that currently 10% of students choose to live outside of Davis, so when they plan on increasing the housing by 90% they are doing so with the assumption that 10% want to live out side of Davis.
The University is operating under a false assumption and clearly should be building more housing on campus. They should be planning to build for more than 100% of the enrollment increase so they can also catch up with past deficits of housing construction.
MikeY, read on to the next thread where I ask Eileen why she is so concerned about international students.
rkelley, you mean look at the thread where you repeatedly try to bait Eileen.
No, not baiting. She seems to feel that international students especially need to be housed on campus and I see no difference in need for international vs. domestic students. If she thinks that this argument is key to her campaign of the University building many 10’s of thousands of beds on University land, I suspect she will not be convinced otherwise.
Eileen has not even mentioned international students on here once. What is your problem? Frustrated that your baiting efforts aren’t working?
Eileen, what you are missing is that the Fall UCD enrollment for 2016-17 is at 37,395, which is already 6,000 over the 2012-13 base of 31,396. If that growth rate continues, the Fall 2020 enrollment will be 12,000 over the 2012-13 base, not 5,000.
I realize that you want to keep a laser focus on your demonization of the UCD Brass, but there are additional forces at work in the enrollment situation. My personal belief is that the revenue enhancement initiative is coming from the Regents and the Office of the President.
You’re right. She has only referred to non-resident students. I’m not sure if she means non-CA residents or non-U.S. residents. Since she has referred to these students as paying triple the tuition, she seems to imply that she is talking about non-U.S. residents. Regardless, I don’t see why non-resident students are in greater need of housing on campus than residents.
I don’t know why you think that I’m baiting her or what you think I’m trying to get her to say.
I see the problem, you are maybe just not familiar with the UCD 2020 initiative and UC policy on Non-CA resident students. Hopefully this helps clear up your confusion. Eileen is quoting from the UCD 2020 initiative that calls for an increase of 4,500 non CA residents to be enrolled by 2020. All students that do not have established CA residency pay the higher price. It would have been clearer if Eileen included the CA in her statements, but anyone familiar with the plan and the policy would recognize that is what she is saying..
Your injection of the word international into the dialog certainly makes it look like you are trying to bait different issues, but maybe you just did not understand the difference.
I can’t answer about exactly why out of state students have greater housing needs, but I have heard UCD administrators say so.
I don’t recall anything in the 2020 Initiative that specified any number of non-resident admissions. The issue came up later, unrelated to the 2020 Initiative, and in response to blowback from legislators about non-resident admissions the UCOP directed the campuses to add more resident students. UCD was told to add 1000 more CA residents. So that’s on top of the 2020 Initiative.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/chancellor-announces-plan-grow-enrollment-jobs
Grok, how do you explain the fact that we are only half way through the 2020 initiative duration (four years out of eight) and have already achieved an enrollment increase of 6,000 (33% above the original 4,500 goal)?
The annual growth has been 748, 1,284, 2,676 and 1,291 in those first four years. With similar increases in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 the actual enrollment increase will be 12,000 rather than 4,500. How do you explain that?
Don, There are many documents about the 2020 initiative that show the total increase in enrollment planned is 5,000 students. This article from the Davis Enterprise shows the 4,500 non resident scenario. http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd/ucd-green-lights-bold-growth/
Matt, 4,500 is just part of the 5,000 increase in the 2020 initiative. As Don points out, the 2020 initiative is only part of the increase in enrollment. I can’t verify the rest of your numbers.
Grok said . . . “I can’t verify the rest of your numbers”
Those eight words were the best joke told in America today Grok. I’m glad I didn’t have a mouth full of liquid when I read your words. It would have sprayed all over my keyboard. A much more honest statement by you would have been “I really don’t want to deal with the reality of those numbers.”
However, I’ll be glad to help you with a step by step verification process.
— First step, you go to ucdavis.edu.
— Second step, you search the UCD site for the word “enrollment.”
— Third step, you click on the first link Enrollment Reports | Budget & Institutional Analysis
— Fourth step, click on the Student Population Summary – Fall
— Fifth Step, write down the Total Student Population (37,395) for Fall 2016
— Sixth Step, click on the Fall Quarter Records 2015 link
— Seventh step, write down the Total Student Population (36,104) for Fall 2015
— Eighth step, click on the Average Annual Enrollment link.
— Ninth step, write down the 2012-13 total (31,396) in the next to last column
— Tenth step, write down the 2013-14 total (32,144) and change (748) in the last two columns
— Eleventh step, write down the 2014-15 total (33,428) and change (1,284) in the last two columns
Now with the numbers verified, I pose the original question to you,
How do you explain the fact that we are only half way through the 2020 initiative duration (four years out of eight) and have already achieved an enrollment increase of 6,000 (20% above the original 5,000 goal)?
The annual growth has been 748, 1,284, 2,676 and 1,291 in those first four years. With similar increases in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 the actual enrollment increase will be 12,000 rather than 5,000. How do you explain that?
Eileen, It may have been a goal at one time to admit 4,500 international students, but it isn’t a current goal. But I wonder, what does it matter – the type of student?
I’m certain that the working group will release their report when they are done.
ryankelly,
What makes you think the 4,500 additional student goal has changed? And the type of student matters because they non-residents are being specifically targeted so UCD can extract the triple tuition from them. And as I explained, since these students are so from their home and families, the least UCD can do is provide on-campus housing for them. 4,500 more students by 2020 is a very significant increase in student population.
Also, why are you reluctant to release who the “working group” is? You seem to be quite the “insider ” on this. Since you brought it up, why not share your info?
A student is a person, regardless of where they come from. It doesn’t matter how much they pay for tuition. The University is increasing its admission by 5,000 students by 2020, but the vast majority of that increase is students from California and no longer focused on international students since the State started increasing UC funding. Your argument still works, but it is unnecessary to harp on the type of student (domestic or international).
As far as the working group – I just know about it. I don’t have much information on it. I don’t know who is on it, other than it is half graduate students and half undergraduate students. I don’t know when they meet or if they even have contact information. I do know that they are not limiting their work to just the campus, but also looking at the City of Davis and surrounding communities.
ryankelly,
Not sure why you keep on ignoring the point I made and explanation regarding the significance of the non-resident students and them needing on-campus housing more-so, since they are so far from home and their families. But let’s just say that I do agree with one section of your comment where you said “Your argument still works”.
Beyond that, I am not sure where you got the idea that the majority of UCD adding 4,500 more students by 2020 is being switched to California residents, because that is simply not true. More California resident students are being admitted in addition to the “UCD 2020 Initiative” due to the deal between Gov. Brown and UC President Napolitano for the $25 million in State funding. This year that was 1,100 more California residents for UCD.
“since they are so far from home and their families.” So you think students from San Diego should just drive back and forth every day?
I don’t accept that a student from China needs on campus housing more than a student from Los Angeles. They just both need housing.
Eileen – I agree UCD should house more students, but I wish you would drop the foreign/ out of state angle.
ryankelly, quielo, and Chamber Fan (since you all seem to be the same person posting under multiple names),
Wow nice try to try to create a divisive issue which this is not. The term non-resident is relevant because it is the operative term defining the 90% of the purpose and intent of the “UCD 2020 Initiative” and it is a major part of the definition of this plan. So why don’t you just stop trying so hard to “spin” this. You are so obvious.
But yes, I do agree with you that all of the students at UCD should have the option to live on-campus whether they are from California or not. But non-resident students are so far from home and their families that it would help them to have the option to live on campus the entire time they attend UCD. But instead, the vast majority of them are forced off campus out of the freshman dorms after their first year at UCD. What a “welcome” that is for non-resident and resident students by UCD. UCD recruits them and extracts high tuition from all of them (but note: triple tuition from non-residents). Then UCD basically says to their students, after your freshman year living on campus in a dorm, you need to vacate the dorm to let the new freshmen in. Then UCD basically creates this new situation for their students: finding housing becomes the students problem, which is irresponsible of UCD, since the University is doing everything they can to avoid building the amount of on-campus student housing needed for its own self-directed growth.
Meanwhile, all the other UC’s are stepping up, while UCD the largest UC campus in the system with the worst track-record of building on-campus housing historically, wants to continue avoiding their student housing responsibilities.
Bottom line is that this is a complete lack of planning by UCD.
They’re not.
What a side show.
Its pretty simple really.
UCD is increasing enrollment as a result they need more:
class rooms
teachers
housing
playing fields and athletic space
That’s all true no matter where the students come from. There is no reason UCD can’t accomplish these goals.
Eileen, I’m not going to even answer your allegation that I am three people.
A student should not be given preferential or different treatment, because they are international students. They pay more in tuition, because tuition for CA residents are subsidized by CA taxpayers. If they want to attend UC Davis, they need to pay the full cost of attending. They each deserve similar access to housing that other similar students have. All students who rent housing are living away from home. All students need a place to live.
ryankelly,
I completely agree that all students need a place to live which is all the more reason why UCD needs to stop neglecting their responsibilities to provide far more on-campus housing like the other UC’s are doing.
It is inexcusable that UCD has been dropping-the-ball for years on not building the on-campus housing, particularity for their now accelerated student population growth for revenue.
Quielo wrote:
> So you think students from San Diego should
> just drive back and forth every day?
I don’t understand where a student comes from or what they pay in tuition has anything to do with a debate on housing. Does an “in state” student from Chula Vista who lives ~8 hours away have an easier time finding housing off campus than an “out of state” student from Reno who lives ~2.5 hours away?
Seems like rkelly and south of Davis are trying to bait Eileen into saying something untoward about international students. To her credit Eileen is not taking the bait.
Hey, I didn’t consider that, but she seems to feel that international students is one student population that should be house on campus the entire time they are here.
You are so off base. Eileen never even used the word international once. It was you and the others trying to bait her that are using the word international over and over again.
You’re right. She refers to them as non-residents.
“Quielo’s postings have gotten more and more aggressive and antagonistic” Eileen, I asked three times the same question, are your sites closer or further from the downtown core then the site proposed by UCD. Your answers have been evasive at best even though it seems to be a simple and straightforward question. I ask a simple question and you obfusticate, I ask again and you obfusticate again, I ask a third time and you obfusticate a third time. Not accepting a nonanswer is interpreted by you as “aggressive and antagonistic”.
In addition to refusing to answer through obfustication you have been insulting towards me as I don’t subscribe to your “pet” rag. Since you have indicated several times that not subscribing to a paper copy of the DE is somehow the sign of a serious character flaw I went to their website and described my journey there in a way that supported my original assertion that the DE was completely irrelevant.
BTW I think it’s a little rude to be promoting the DE on the DV website but David does not seem to mind.
quielo,
I did answer your question (Nov. 16, 1:51 pm) when I said that the sites were on or near the core campus and therefore would be near the downtown.
Your tone, your language, and your repeated false accusations are just a testimony to how you choose to attack rather than discuss. Now you try to pit the Vanguard against the local newspaper, and you continue your line of attack on me.
Eileen, We’ll just have to wait to see what the University does with your suggested alternative sites for housing and your recommendation that all non-CA residents be provided housing on campus.
here you go again.
you continue to misattribute things to Eileen.
Since I don’t know who “we” is when she speaks on this issue, I can only attribute them to her. Since she is part of “we,” isn’t the attribution correct? Since she is one of the people commenting here on these two issues, can I not comment back directly to her?
Apparently there is no OK comment other than those posted by yourself and a few of your friends.
How do you reduce the carbon footprint by taking away from where they can walk to services and placing them far away where they will want to have cars? Did Sunny explain how that works?
quielo,
Because we identified plenty of UCD acreage on or near the core campus where much more student housing can be built.
Further away from the core or closer?
quielo,
Perhaps you did not read what I wrote, I said on or near the core campus.
“I said on or near the core campus” And I am aware that could mean anything. The advantage of Russell is being close to the services of downtown Davis. Is your proposed housing closer or further from downtown Davis?
quielo (=ryankelly=Chamber Fan),
The alternative on-campus student housing sites we identified are on or near the core campus, so they will be close to downtown. Not sure why you are trying to beat this subject to death. Also, looks like you don’t read the Davis Enterprise. Wow, so much for you supporting our downtown, which incidently includes our community newspaper.
Why does anyone read the “Davis Enterprise”? There is 100X more interesting information here.
“The alternative on-campus student housing sites we identified are on or near the core campus, so they will be close to downtown” Not true, West Village could be said to be near the campus but is not near downtown and will encourage people to own cars.
“Not sure why you are trying to beat this subject to death. ” Just trying to get a straight answer. Despite asking three times I still don’t have one. You oppose a defined proposal by offering a mystery proposal and resent someone asking about it’s specifics.
quielo, why in the world do you need a specific proposal from Eileen? That’s ridiculous.
Its the Universities obligation to nail down the specifics.
Eillen’s article and map in in the Enterprise sure did point out a lot of options for UCD – way more than they need. You keep focusing on West Village and ignoring all of the many many other options.
quielo,
Your comment is pretty revealing of: Why does anyone read the “Davis Enterprise”?
So while you are advocating “for” the the need for student housing to be near the downtown, you don’t even read and undermine support for our community newspaper, which is the main media to support the downtown.
Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Further, if you want the specifics, why don’t you invest in buying a subscription to the Davis Enterprise so you can actually get an idea of what you are trying to talk about since you have not even read my Op-ed nor seen the map with it.
Eileen – your posting on the Vanguard. That’s where the conversation seems to be happening.
Eileen,
Upon your direction I went to the DE website. There was an article about Sunrise Rotarians which I declined to read, a forum sections with a letter about building another road to the casino which is not a cause that arouses my passion. There was also a technical piece on pets and vinegar … edited
So why again does anyone read the DE? And where is this article you keep referring to?
And BTW, are you Grok?
quielo:
Eileen, Grok and I are separate posters. Three different individuals.
When I saw this posting by quielo, it struck me as being weird. Perhaps it is the sentence construction, but to even bring up obituaries was just inappropriate. But clearly, the interpretation was not the same by all. Was it intended to be humorous? Well it wasn’t. But this is not the only problem.
Quielo’s postings have gotten more and more aggressive and antagonistic. Quielo does not want to discuss, but wants to badger and insult. So it degrades the conversation that could be productive because of the bullying and condescension by posters like quielo. It just discourages more folks who are not so politically driven from participating in the discussion.
Eileen has a script that she favors. When someone challenges that script, her first response generally is to simply repeat herself. If the challenge continues, her next approach is to attack the challenger, with a favorite tack being to question their identity (or whether multiple challengers are really just one person). If Eileen thought that reading the Enterprise article was important for quielo to understand her argument, she could have supplied the link (David probably should be faulted here as he could have supplied the link when he chose to quote from the article for his purposes). Instead, Eileen chose to further attack quielo and received an admittedly testy response. The whole exchange could have been avoided (along with all the bandwagon comments) had Eileen simply answered the original question.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. Eileen does not represent the City and has no standing for telling the University where to build housing. Her assertions that she identified ‘better’ locations on campus is nothing but her opinion and will be of no consequence to the final decision by the University. It is a shame, though, that she (and her friends) won’t put her energy towards suggesting appropriate places for new apartments in Davis to help address the City’s housing shortage (something that we actually have control over).
“David probably should be faulted here as he could have supplied the link when he chose to quote from the article for his purposes”
Wait, what? what are you talking about? this article is all original material?
If the quote below was referring to an op-ed posted here, then my comment is not accurate and I apologize. If it was referring to the one in the Enterprise, then it is. Either way, you would benefit your writing by including the links to your source material, or at least posting a date/title by which it could be determined.
She published the op-ed in both, but I was actually quoting her during her public comment where she read from it briefly.
The dialogue in the long series of posts above is classic sock puppet stuff. It’s a crisp clean advertisement/argument for eliminating anonymous posting on the Vanguard.
Totally agree Matt. It’s obvious that the anti-everything crowd is using sock puppets to try and support their positions while at the same time attacking quielo over nothing. Anonymous posting isn’t the problem, multi aliases are.
Eileen
“On-campus housing should have been at the top of UCD’s list of priorities when they decided to bring in 4,500 more non-resident students to cash in on the high tuition they were charging them since these kids are hundreds to thousands of miles from their families.”
Eileen makes an interesting point here. Many of the rapid city growth proponents are actually making the same point with regard to the city that they criticize Eileen for making with regard to UCD. I hear many rapid growth advocates saying that the city has not planned ahead and either promoted peripheral growth and/or infill and they consider this bad city policy for failing to meet housing needs even though the amount of housing needed is not well defined.
Then on the other hand they defend UCD for not planning ahead or building adequately for its housing needs even when those increased numbers are clearly defined. There tend to be two lines of reasoning that are used. Either we cannot force the university to do anything and therefore should address the problem that they have knowingly created without our input. Or the “altruistic” argument with some variation of “Think of the poor students who have no place to live. How can we be so selfish as to not want to help them. ” However, this argument never seems to get extended to UCD. We do not hear these same folks saying “How can the university be so selfish as to admit students at exorbitant costs to them and/or their parents and still not provide them with places to live ?”
Please forgive my ignorance on this issue, but the fields belong to UC Davis, correct? If yes, then what role does the city or Davis citizenry have in terms of their decisions on land usage. Are their any legal requirements for approval by the city council?
If the City can pass a resolution about a pipeline in North Dakota, they can pass a resolution about the fields that border the city.
Yeah I guess so.
Yes
Advisory, at most. The City Council may have some influence, but that will be tempered by past interactions that have, until recently, not been particularly congenial on the City’s part. The joint fire management was the first big test of the ‘new’ relationship between the City and the University, yet despite the success of that initiative, there are those on the City side trying to end it.
The citizenry should have no expectation of influence except that provided by their elected representatives (City and State).
No, none.
Bill
To the best of my knowledge there are no formal or legal requirements that any Davis residents or the city council can resort to. But I see this issue a little differently. I see it as a matter of acting as a good neighbor in good faith. When I have made outdoor revisions to my property, my next door neighbors had no legal claim to keep me from doing anything that I wanted to on my own property. And yet, each time I have gone to speak to them first to get their input. Are my plans compatible with their uses of their property ? Is what I am planning to do going to cause them any problems or concerns ? If there are equal choices from my point of view, do they have a preference ? I understand that I am not obligated to do this, but this is neighborly and can pay off in the future for both of us when new changes are planned. Having made the first foray into active collaboration, it is more likely to be successful in the future.
I honestly do not understand why we do not all do this. With all due respect to Mike Harrington, I think that the only folks who would lose from this type of planning strategy would by the lawyers.
There are also CEQA requirements that the University will start to address in their EIR once they have finalized the Draft LRDP.
That’s my understanding. However, the University system (including UC Davis and the entire campus, itself) is publicly-owned. It is not a private corporation (although some might argue that private interests are infiltrating the system in the form of grants, etc.).
I would ask what role the University’s plans should have in terms of decisions made by the city and Davis citizenry. (Especially when the University has demonstrated a lack of consideration for the city, regarding its enrollment plans.)
I think the university needs to drop this proposal and focus on realistic locations for on-campus housing.
I completely agree Chamber Fan.
I firmly believe that the University’s focus on international students is primarily driven by pursuit of $$$ (and not “altruistic” goals).
From my perspective, the University’s pursuit of international students (who pay much higher tuition) is yet (another) sign that the University is acting more and more like a private, for-profit institution. (And, it causes me to have even less “sympathy” for the University, regarding the difficulties that it is foisting upon the city.)
One might argue about the “causes” (e.g., cutbacks in state funding, lack of financial accountability by the University). But, the “end result” (negative impacts on the city) is the same, regardless of cause. (Kind of inexcusable, that the University is not even willing to allow sufficient housing to be built on campus, when there are apparently companies who are willing to do so at no cost to the University.) And then, we apparently have some “developer-types” who are more than willing to exploit this situation, to the detriment of the city.
If the University was actually structured as a “for-profit” entity, the entire city would be “up in arms”, at this point.
Please sign the petition to save Russell Fields
https://www.change.org/p/save-ucd-s-howard-russell-toomey-a-st-fields
Seems people here think that UC should build all the new housing for students and perhaps faculty and staff and that the city should support that position but only where the citizens of Davis want that growth to occur. Its such a weird thing to ask of the city because what skin is the city willing to put in the game? Until the city starts taking some responsibility for accommodating some of the regional growth I don’t see why UC should pay any attention to the city. The people of this community have done little besides trying to obstruct the university’s growth at every turn for more than a decade. Why UC should care what the city thinks is beyond me.
Misanthrop:
You have it backwards. But, rather than repeating previous comments, I understand that there’s also nothing preventing the University from entering into master leases (or outright purchases) of existing or new apartment complexes in the city (thereby preventing non-students from living in them and leaving the city to cover all costs and burdens), without contributing one dime in taxes to help offset costs.
Despite this problem, the city is nevertheless accommodating its “fair share” of regional growth, as administered by SACOG. At this point, the city does not receive “credit” for exceeding SACOG requirements. (In fact, I understand that exceeding these requirements can encourage SACOG to assign a higher “fair share” allotment during the next round of allotments/requirements. There appears to be some unknowns and disputes regarding exactly how SACOG develops these requirements.)
You seem to conveniently overlook that more than 50% of the UCD students already live in Davis.
I don’t ignore it I accept it and think it is a healthy place for them to live with a relatively short commute in a bikeable community. My point is that UCD is a growing institution with insatiable demand for its product, a UC education. It will continue to grow just as world population continues to grow. Its premier biological, agricultural and environmental expertise probably means demand for its services will increase at an accelerating pace.
Many residents of this city are like rocks in the river, opposing that growth or trying to micromanage it. We don’t want to expand our borders to help the supply of housing meet demand. We don’t want West Village and if must have it we don’t want it to have direct access to our streets. We think its fine if staff and young faculty commute from neighboring communities by car rather than provide the infrastructure needed for them to live in Davis. We oppose increasing residential infill and density while also opposing annexation of land for expansion at current or even increased densities. We demand UC must solve its own growth issues while offering nothing and then try to tell UC what it can and can’t do on its own land. We may be neighbors and shareholders of the state but we are lousy neighbors and minor shareholders. We don’t lead by example. Why would we expect UC to be good neighbors to us? I would expect them to act in what they see as their own self interest just as the people of this city do.
+1
+2
the council has no authority to push anything on UCD>>>in fact, in the pecking order in CA, the UCD is acttually at a higher level than the town of Davis…..which would be nothing more than a Woodland or Dixon if not for UCD>>>>oh wait a minute, Woodland and Dixon are now way better than Davis, and easier to get to the downtowns and to campus…right?
But, if it becomes a showdown …UCD will win…
unless folks like Sunny Shine taps into that trust fund…and the former Dean of whatever school or college doesn’t like it either..
you know those who lived on the high priced streets across from the UCD campu…
If folks like that open up their pocketbooks to UCD>>>.then maybe what the citizens think will matter, right?
You are either ignorant, or lie (again) Marina… (unless you can cite law to the contrary)
UCD is co-equal with “the town” of Davis, just like DJUSD… neither has real legal power over the other… an attorney might be able to share more nuances… I’m not an attorney…
Davis is not a “town”, but a Municipal Corporation… a “City”… [Cites will be provided on request, but Guinda and Madison, Esparto, are truly “towns”…]
Please consider not stating as “fact”, things you cannot support by cites, or are flat-out wrong (it would be a lie if you have reason to know it’s wrong)… what little credibility you have is at risk… IMHO
Hi Marina,
I want to point out that UCD is still accepting comments on the LRDP. From talking with the planners my sense is they genuinely want to hear what stake holders have to say. The City just has not told them anything publicly.
Here is the website – you can send them comments your self if you want.
http://campustomorrow.ucdavis.edu/mail_forms
Also, if you go look at the comments on the Change.org petition (please sign it while your there) you will see that the hundreds of comments are certanly not written by the people who live on College Park.
https://www.change.org/p/save-ucd-s-howard-russell-toomey-a-st-fields
UCD actually does listen…the best listener who also acted was LK….
I tried to sign the change.org last night it from outside the US< but I couldn’t get the translater to work and couldn’t figure out some of the words, right?
I was kinda rare as I always filled out surveys and participated and spoke out..
depends on who is running this and who is making the ultimate decisions on this topic….as far as the UCD survey ….I am having less and less time for UCD/Davis issues…lovely gorgeous weather here and an amazing sunset 🙂
Lots of numbers are being thrown around.
Here are some references:
http://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/content-analysis/academic-planning/enrollment-planning.html
See the paragraphs under Long-range enrollment planning. The last LREP was in 2008. “Due to changes in State funding and other funding mechanisms, as well as increases in undergraduate enrollment and slow progress toward graduate growth, the University decided to develop a new LREP.” This new LREP went through 2020-2021.
2008 LREP (System-wide): http://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/LREP080401_2.pdf See Page 13 for proposed enrollment projections for UC Davis in 2008.
Then there’s this update in June 2014 for UC Davis’ 2020 Initiative: https://www.ucdavis.edu/sites/default/files/upload/files/2020-initiative-update.pdf
Then in 2015, this report was filed: http://www.ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/legreports/15-16/UCsThree-YearFinancialSustainabilityPlan-11-30-15.pdf
Page 5: “the plan includes an increase of 5,000 California undergraduate students and 600 graduate student in 2016-2017 compared to 2014-2015, followed by sustained enhanced access with annual increases of 2,500 resident undergraduates and 700 graduate students per year.” (Note: Of this 5,000 increase UC Davis’ share was 1,000 students. )
Page 7: “Nonresident Supplemental Tuition will continue to play an important role in the University’s finances. Additional revenue is projected from increases in undergraduate Nonresident Supplemental Tuition of 8% in 2016-2017 and 5% in subsequent years. The University’s plan also includes a reduction in the growth of the University’s nonresident population each year.” (Bolding mine.)
.