The Davis City Council, which at times and in segments of the community may have about as much support as the US Congress, was heavily praised for their work in quickly getting together a strong letter to push for community needs and values with respect to the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP).
That is a good thing, as it restores the belief of some in the community that the council is working for the best interests of the community, while at the same time the strong document pushing back on the university will hopefully put to rest murmurs of a conflict of interest with respect to the mayor and a volunteer appointment at the university (a notion I have always believed had little ground in law).
Nevertheless, from a practical standpoint I do have some concerns with the tenor of some of this discussion.
I wish to address a number of separate but related thoughts.
First of all, I support the concept of the 100/50 housing commitment (by 100/50 I mean “UC Davis provide for a minimum of 100 percent of the projected enrollment of all new incoming students starting with the 2017 academic year and at least 50 percent of total UC Davis campus student population in the LRDP”). In my view, the university has done poorly with respect to building housing on campus, and even more poorly at following through on commitments.
I think it was important that the city added the request “that UC Davis develop an accompanying construction and financing implementation strategy to ensure the delivery of these units and facilities in a timely manner.” Quite simply, the university in the past has made commitments that they have not followed through on with respect to housing.
Realistically, I think it is a tall task for the university to get to 90/40 in ten years, let alone 100/50. That is not meant as a cop out for the university, but a realistic assessment of the situation.
However, at the same time, the university has to recognize that the city has even more severe constraints with regard to new housing. Proposals that are infill and do not require a Measure R vote like Sterling and Lincoln40 have received push back from the community. Proposals like Nishi, which would have provided about 1500 beds, have been voted down.
The bottom line is that, while the university is rightly criticized for not following through on their commitments, the city has not built a lot of student housing in the last decade and the combination has produced a situation that is not supportive of students.
It was also concerning to listen to some of the push back against the university on Tuesday night, as well as in the comment section of the Vanguard.
One comment that stuck out to me this was that the university was responsible for the growth creating the need for student housing. Well – duh. If we don’t have a university, we don’t need student housing. And if the university doesn’t expand enrollment, then we don’t need additional student housing. So, yes.
But the university announced that it had record applications for 2017. In a release, “UC Davis attracted a record high of 70,904 applicants for freshman study in fall 2017, a 3.5 percent increase over the previous fall, and made gains in diversity and accessibility measures among California residents.”
The notion that UC Davis alone is driving the need for more enrollment I think is a false narrative. Yes, there is a need for revenue – like all government and private entities – but what is driving the need for more enrollment is also the need for more young people to be educated.
The idea that UC Davis should slow down enrollment growth until it provides more housing runs smack into the face of the mission of a state university. As a community, we should be supporting the mission of UC Davis to educate our young people, rather than selfishly throwing up barriers to increased enrollment due to land use concerns.
Bear in mind that not only are we getting applications from traditional students, but also from historically underserved groups. The release this week: “Applications from historically underserved groups — African American, American Indian and Chicano/Latino — increased slightly, and they now represent 35.9 percent of California resident applicants.”
We need to encourage this.
So the bottom line for me is that, yes, UC Davis is going to have to provide more housing, but I disagree that this is simply a university problem and that the city has no obligation to provide additional housing.
To that end, I support the city’s call for more infill housing to provide additional units for students. I am not calling for a lot of new housing and the city is fairly limited in this capacity – mainly for political reasons – but the numbers that Jim Gray presented earlier this week kind of speak for themselves. The city hasn’t done enough to provide good and affordable student housing in the last decade.
Finally, I think we need to expand this conversation. Having a student housing item on the council agenda after students have gone on break is obviously going to be a hindrance to student involvement in the conversation.
But when Nishi was discussed and came on the ballot, there were a lot of student voices in the room. On Tuesday, I counted 14 people who came up and spoke at public comment. None of them were students. With the exception of Colin Walsh, all were over the age of 50. And I believe all of them were homeowners in town.
Without any sort of disrespect for any of the people who spoke – they were all thoughtful and articulate – it was not a diverse group of people coming forward. We really did not get the perspective of students or young families who are renters – again, not putting down those who spoke, but there is a whole other voice that was not in the room.
The bottom line is this: I think the city council did a very good job of representing the interests of the community here. Robb Davis articulated the need to preserve our farmland assets. The council articulated the need for the university both to do more in terms of their housing, as well as commit to a timeline.
The council also articulated the need for the city to provide more housing as well.
At the same time, I think both entities will be hard pressed to reach the 90/40 goal in the university’s position, as well as the city providing more infill. And finally, I would like the community to remember that the university’s mission is the education of young people, and cutting back on enrollment growth because we don’t want to build more housing – I think flies in the face of our commitment to higher education.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I am not calling for a lot of new housing and the city is fairly limited in this capacity – mainly for political reasons –”
Weak David.
“Robb Davis articulated the need to preserve our farmland assets.”
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
We need a measured balanced approach. The community is not where you are on this issue.
The antipathy towards UC Davis seems to have reached an all time high recently when that guy spoke at public comment a few weeks ago claiming to be a 30 year resident of Davis he argued that all students be housed on campus.
But why stop there? What Davis needs to do is go dig up Abbie Hoffman’s moldering grave and bring the body of the iconic baby boomer and political activist to Davis. Not as a counter weight to the offensive right wing schmuck the College Republican invited baiting the local lefties to oppose free speech.
No bring him here to lead all these old boomer Pwogressives in their dead ender opposition to growth. Hoffman can lead us zombie like in a “Weekend at Bernies” revival of his levitate the pentagon schtick chronicled so wonderfully in Norman Mailer’s “The Armies of the Night.” We get all these old people who forgot somewhere along the line that Davis is a college town to surround UC Davis and levitate it.
Once they get it in the air the big question will be who would want to take it? We could ask for volunteers but don’t expect Bolinas to make a bid. I mean what other community would want the burden of a world class UC campus with its multi-billion dollar a year research and operating budget, with its medical, law, veterinary, engineering and business schools?
No takers, oh well, I guess we could sequester it under a sarcophagus like the new 36,000 tonne containment structure they just placed over Chernobyl so that the locals aren’t overexposed. The City of Davis can become like the the area around Chernobyl where only the old who are less likely to get sick from exposure to the effects from being so close to the site remain. Davis will remain the home of its aging Oncelers who will remain here remembering when this was a great and vibrant community of old and young alike with great schools, parks, paved streets and free parking.
Caio’ Davis Vanguard.
“Just a word before you go…”
When I announced my candidacy in October 2013 I invited participants to turn and face different directions of the compass. First I talked about the fields around us and how it was imperative to conserve them (not “preserve” them–I don’t use that word) because they represent an incredible global resource. I also invited people to look east and south to acknowledge that some growth to provide for economic development was necessary–indicating that conservation is not the only goal. I also invited them to face the University and described a desire to create a more transparent and frank relationship in which both parties acknowledge their needs and the challenges presented by the other. Partnership must be honest.
Three years later I continue to try to balance these challenges. I feel I have been “part of the solution.” I have worked to bring Nishi and MRIC to the voters. One made it, one did not. The one that made it failed. I feel that I did my part. This and the previous CC has moved every housing project forward that has come to us. Unlike the University we do not control the land in the City and depend on those who do to bring us proposals. To date we have advanced each and every one brought to us.
Finally, on partnership with UCD. I think we have been a very faithful partner over the years. We have, in fact, provided housing for over 70% of Davis-based students and many faculty and staff over the past two decades. We have accommodated the growth of the student population. We subsidize transit that largely benefits the student population and have invested heavily to create bikeways that enable students to arrive on campus by that mode from all over town. Within three miles of campus the overwhelming majority (over 80%) arrive by these modes and on foot. That is because of what the City has done. Beyond that, we provide excellent safety services for students. Indeed, as I talked to parents of international students last fall many of them told me they had selected Davis because it was a “small and safe city.” We have been and will continue to be a faithful partner in these things and we are enriched because of the partnership.
The reality is that both UCD and the City face challenges because of population growth–both at the school, in the Sacramento region, but also because we are part of the broader Bay Area/Silicon Valley housing market now. The conversation we are having with UCD is in the face of these challenges and it would be a less than honest conversation if we did not both acknowledge these constraints and be clear about our needs given them.
Robb you have been consistent, no doubt, and I believe you have a vision but as David points out the community isn’t where I am at and likely not even where you are. At least not the part that matters in politics, those that can and do vote.
As Stills and Young sang “Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.
Moving this community is going to take leadership and I recognize that as an elected you must be tempered by political reality but David, like myself, is not bound by such decorum. This forum has offered me a place to make my case and although I have gone on incessantly about the failures of Measure R and the insensitivity of restricting housing supply or offloading your problems on others while failing to address them ourselves I have appreciated the opportunity to lead and challenge the prevailing dogma of this community. The problem that Davis faces today is that its karma has run over its dogma. Who will lampoon these crude sketches of Davis. With apologies to Robinson Jeffers “Be Angry at the Sun.”
I’m generally dismayed about the comments I see on the Vanguard that would have students be placed “as far from town as possible” – even some suggesting that they should be housed in temporary homes south of the highway on Old Davis Road. I was truly dismayed when West Village was not connected to Russell (for a while I was on the wait list for the faculty housing which is supposed to happen out there).
As a faculty member who has been in town for 12 years now, I appreciate the careful growth that Davis has undertaken. However, it seems that we are going overboard and that many of the older folks want to shut the door behind them.
Please look at Table 14 of the campus survey – in particular for the fraction of Employees and Faculty who commute from outside of Davis; 49% and 28%, respectively.
https://its.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015-16-Campus-Travel-Survey-Report.pdf
I am certain that the majority faculty who live out of town are the youngest faculty who cannot afford the price tag of a home in the Cannery and are moving to North North Davis to buy a home. (Compare to the 2010 survey and it seems that more of the faculty are commuting from out of town in 2015 – the data are presented differently so it is hard to quickly discern).
50% of the staff live out of town, too – staff with families who could send their kids to the Davis schools. Of course many do – but they don’t have to pay the local taxes (like Measure H). I don’t begrudge them this choice at all, but I feel like we are actually not giving them a choice to live in Davis since the Davis housing market is so under-supplied with housing that the prices are far out of the reach of the people who work at our largest employer.
Yes, the university has to increase housing on campus – and build as high up as it can. However, the town has to realize the that the lack of reasonably priced housing for young professional families will increase pressure on housing within the city. Investors will continue to buy houses first for their kids in university, and then for income. 7-10 students will be packed into these houses because they prefer the low rent and freedom to whatever the dorms will cost on campus. (Sure, they want to live on campus, but not with the restrictions that go along with it.)
I would love to see the demographic numbers of Davis. However, I speculate we are developing a bi-modal distribution of older wealthier empty nesters and college students; and the animosity toward these students will simply increase. Young families are being priced out – and it will continue to get worse.
The demographic shift is already present, as Matt Williams has posted several times. We have already lost a significant number of young professionals and their families due to the lack of appropriate housing and our ‘older wealthier empty nesters’ are continuing to push their favored approach of obstructing all new housing in order to keep more people from moving to town. They already have their homes (often multiple houses each) and don’t care what happens to anybody else.
Joseph:
The points you make can just as easily be explained by the UCD’s unilateral growth plans, without considering the needs of its own students, faculty and staff. (However, West Village will soon start construction on single-family homes that are expected to be priced under comparable market value.)
In general, I strongly suspect that Davis will not “build its way” towards a reduction in the cost of housing. Since the housing crash, prices have been recovering across the region, state, and country as well. However, since Davis has traditionally been more expensive than surrounding communities, I suspect that some will continue to choose to live outside of Davis (regardless of what’s built in Davis). Of those associated with the university, I suspect that staff members are the most likely to make this choice.
Overall, I find it “ironic” (suspicious?) that some pro-development types are among the most likely to discount (and possibly purposefully derail) efforts to encourage the university to provide sufficient housing on campus. (But, not “surprising”, I suppose.)
Slow-growthers have been leading the way, to provide sufficient student housing where it makes the most sense for all parties (on campus). (By “all parties”, I mean everyone with the exception of some development types on this blog.)
Be careful Mark… beware generalizations… i.e.,
As an “older” (depending on definition) semi-“empty-nester” (one has “flown”, another has appeared to have flown; one fledgling remaining) I resent lumping us into the “obstructionist” thing.
Nishi was flawed, not for growth, but the time, place and particularly manner of that growth. If it had primary access to UCD, with only EVA, bike/ped access from W Olive, would have strongly supported it… it didn’t… the UCD connection always appeared to be “iffy”. Perhaps a smoke screen, as UCD never bought off on, nor supported the connection.
Personally, I favor growth in residential and non-residential uses… particularly infill, the area under the “Mace curve”, and the “Covell Village” site… except for existing sites, I’d argue that tho’ “unannexed”, those are basically ‘infill’.
Joseph:
I can only speak for myself, and no one else. But, from what I’ve observed, “slow-growthers” are in fact leading the way to encourage more student housing on campus. And, there’s been some success/movement in that direction. (Not sure how this is “blocking all manner of development”, or “choking the horse”, etc.)
Regarding single-family housing, the Cannery hasn’t even been completed. Chiles Ranch (workforce housing) and Grande are in the pipeline, as are several hundred single-family homes at West Village.
There are also Affordable housing developments in the pipeline.
Yes – I’m aware of the extra $25 million that our state government is providing as an incentive to the entire UC system, to increase in-state enrollments (which had actually been dropping). UC had been threatening further reductions regarding in-state enrollments, prior to that incentive.
Sorry for making you feel ‘lumped,’ I was referring to the echo chamber crowd that frequents this environ, not the few folks who favor facts over politics (and other selfish pursuits). I too fit the ‘older’ profile, and though two have flown the coop, it will be a few years yet before the last one fledges.
Every proposed project will be flawed, so we will always be judging the balance of benefit vs cost. We all need to make that decision for ourselves and though my conclusion on Nishi was different than yours I don’t find fault in your logic. What I oppose are those who knowingly push false information in an effort to sway the uninformed. That too is a frequent occurrence on this site.
Agreed.
@Ron, I and many of my friends agree that slow growthers have gone overboard and have used fear tactics in the community to block all manner of interesting development. Your claim of speaking for the majority of the town is false, but you’ll continue to make it as you hold the reins back and choke the horse.
I “love” these indisputable and irrelevant points such as “I suspect that some will continue to choose to live outside of Davis (regardless of what’s built in Davis). Of those associated with the university, I suspect that staff members are the most likely to make this choice.”
Your point is irrelevant because we are not actually giving them a choice.
As Mark West points out, the bimodal demographic already exists and is certain to get worse – this is not the recipe for a healthy thriving community.
You’ll also recall that UC Davis has been required by the governor to grow to provide for the needs of the state as a whole – and in order to do so in a cost effective way because of the lowered amount the state contributes per student, it has also chosen to go further to internationalize itself.
You won’t convince me and I won’t convince you. Demographics have a way of not caring about any of this.
One last thing before the bell tolls Robb. When you talk about preserving our farmland people don’t hear the nuances you describe above. They hear save every square inch. Davis has saved quite a bit of farmland on its borders perhaps more effort could be put into saving more families.
Just talked to a friend at after school pick up. He told me they bought a house in Vacaville. Another fabulous family lost to the indifference of Davis’ housing policy. Great guy, advanced degree from UCD, wife has one too. Both talented and employed, two beautiful kids. I don’t know how long they will keep the kids in DJUSD? Sad to see another great family leave.
An equally important point is that construction on University property also destroys farmland. West Villiage was built on some of what was historically some of the best farmland in the region. Just because the land is owned by the University does not make it a better location to build housing.
You might have asked people to look East (Old East) and see that not only farmland preservation, but historic preservation is important to Davis (we have so little of it). But you didn’t.
Just a reminder that it is important to us, Old East Davis. And I don’t mean scouring the books and laws and consultants to minimize to what only has to be done under the law, but to actually follow the spirit of the Design Guidelines and preserve the character of the Neighborhood while allowing for growth. That kind of neighborhood historic preservation.
There are indeed a few fine historic buildings in old east Davis that are worthy of being preserved. Over the years these buildings have seen drastic changes to their immediate neighborhood, with little (if any) impact on their character as historic buildings. They will continue to exist as fine historic buildings as long as their owners take care of them, regardless of how much the neighborhood continues to change around them. There is no reason or justification to believe that the neighborhood itself needs any special consideration or preservation, nor should the wants of the noisy neighbors be put ahead of the needs of the community at large.
We’ll just disagree on that and call it a freakin’ day.
From article: ” . . . and a volunteer appointment at the university . . .”
Not planning to discuss this at length. But, just wondering if “volunteer” means unpaid / uncompensated?
Strange, I always thought that the mission of a state university was primarily to provide education to those from the state. (Not necessarily non-resident students who happen to have $.)
http://catalog.ucdavis.edu/mission.html
There is a lot at odds between UCD’s mission and the Davis NIMBYs and NOEs.
Well… democratic planning can sometimes unintentionally privilege those with the means to engage (older, whiter, home-owning). There is a wealth of research on this. Someone, mostly likely Colin Walsh, was literally spending $$$$ on Facebook ads over Russell Fields and is still spending money on it. Meanwhile, folks who might advocate for tenants and have done so in the past/are tenants are just too busy and would likely never had the financial means to waste cash on Facebook adds over something as small as that (sorry but in the grand scheme of things, whether or not one site is selected in a non-binding plan for development is relatively low priority). If they’re spending considerable money and time on that, they will be spending even more on even bigger things. The anti-growther crowds here Live Action Role Play (LARP) that they are the little guy, the Davis against the Goliath. Nahhh… The little guy are low income working families and low income students who cannot afford on or off campus housing in this town and who are legally shut out of most affordable housing developments (this applies to the latter group). These groups’ needs are only mentioned opportunistically by others, if at all.
Matthew:
You make some valid points. Of course, there are organizations (including, but not limited to SACOG) that are advocating for Affordable housing. (Davis has built a significant amount of Affordable housing, with more to come.)
Regarding Russell Fields, I personally wasn’t much involved in it, although I appreciate the outcome. (I suspect that it will benefit those who attend the university, as well as faculty/staff, as well.)
I sincerely appreciated your thoughts regarding the LRDP, and look forward to further comments regarding it. (Probably not from me, as I’m planning to sign off, today. At least, for awhile.)
Forgot to add:
I understand that the upper income limits to qualify for Affordable housing are relatively high/generous.
My understanding Ron is that the local affordable housing specifically prohibits students. So to Matthew’s point there is no student renter advocacy. I’ve noticed that many of the posters here prefer to stick students in the most inconvenient locations possible while insisting that the monied class cannot take eighth instead of Russell as it would be too inconvenient.
http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=5698
quielo:
Regarding Affordable housing and students, that’s my understanding, as well. I guess that the assumption/argument is that students (in general) are “temporarily” low-income. (That assumption is questioned in another comment, below – regarding the value of a college degree these days.) On a separate note, I believe that many of the non-resident students that the university is pursuing come from wealthy backgrounds, to be able to afford the cost of non-resident tuition.
In general, campus housing is the most convenient location for students, and does not require a commute through the city, up to several times each day (e.g., between classes). Also, I understand that many students (and perhaps faculty/staff) supported the decision regarding Russell Fields. Saving Russell Fields does not equate to a reduction of housing that can be provided on campus.
Here are some fun numbers from the Census:
[snipped because this doesn’t handle tables well]
The percentage of home owners under the age of 35 in Davis has dropped from 12.6% in 2000 Long Form Census to 5% in 2010-2015 ACS. In contrast, the drop was only 13.7% to 9% in Woodland, 13.5% to 10.6% in Vacaville. And young people as a share of home owners increased in Sacramento (12.3% to 12.5%) and West Sacramento (10.5% to 14.1%).
(Ala the 2000 Long Form, 2005-10 American Community Survey and 2010-15 American Community Survey.)
I’m all for more housing on campus as well, but the problem with “Campus do everything!!!!” is it doesn’t address the fact that the home-ownership opportunities for young families in this town are not being addressed. Students moving on campus will make it easier for these young families to rent (less competition as students stay on campus) but it doesn’t tackle the underlying issue of accessing ownership, beyond the possibility that fewer owner occupied units will be converted to mini-dorms as the rental market cools.
Regarding (new) home ownership opportunities in the city, I suspect that it won’t get much better than it is right now (e.g., the Cannery, with Chiles Ranch (workforce-oriented housing) and Grande, etc., coming on soon). The Cannery does provide reasonably-priced, multi-story townhouses, as well as nicer homes with fully independent granny units (that can be rented out for extra income). (Personally, I think that resale homes provide better value than new homes, in general.)
I believe that West Village will provide ownership opportunities (for those with a connection to the university), but with the underlying land remaining the property of UC Davis. I believe that this will help ensure affordability, at those homes are re-sold/purchased into the future.
I don’t argue with anything David said, but would point out that the Mayor and Council had little choice but to bring the resolution to a vote this week. That’s because UCD plans to release the CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) for a 30-day comment period on January 4. As required, by CEQA, the IS must provide a project description, and up until now that description has included housing just 40% of the 2027 enrollment on campus and 90% of the new incoming students. It would be very difficult to change that formula after the IS had been released, hence Council’s request for this change and postponement of the NOP until the draft LRDP can be revised accordingly. The only options would have been to either issue a revised IS later (with no assurance UCD would be willing to do so), or to hope that the 40/100 formula would be included among the range of EIR “alternatives” studied and would have emerged as the “environmentally superior” alternative. Both options provided only a tenuous opportunity for the Council’s wishes to be considered.
The fact that students were on break when Council took up the matter was just an unfortunate coincidence of the LRDP schedule. It is open to conjecture whether students would have attended the meeting if it had occurred when UCD was in session, and even more conjecture whether the majority of those who might have attended would have opposed or supported the Council action. I personally can’t imagine why students would oppose the university constructing more on-campus housing that would make it more convenient less time-consuming to get to and from class (although that benefit won’t occur until current students have long since graduated).
On another subject David mentioned. I likewise saw the news about the high number of UC applicants. But earlier this week an article with a different perspective was published in the Wall Street Journal. It said that a larger number of high school graduates nationwide are bypassing college and seeking training in technical trades. These aren’t the typical assembly line jobs of the past that required virtually no skills, but in many cases are jobs that require skills, intelligence and training. As the article noted, some of these jobs pay better than jobs for college graduates, and don’t entail decades of paying off college loan debt. An article in yesterday’s WSJ described how some retirees are now seeing their social security checks reduced because the federal government is starting to withhold funds to pay off the retiree’s still lingering federally guaranteed student loan.
And a college degree does not always lead to a good job. A neighbor recently told me that her recently graduated daughter is now working at a food co-op, and a friend of the daughter is working at a Starbucks after recently obtaining a master’s degree. Both jobs could have been obtained with just a high school degree. Maybe some of those applying for college admission may want to seriously consider what major they’ll pursue. If all the only jobs they can reasonably expect to get after 4 – 6 years of college is stocking grocery shelves or making coffee, the investment of time and tuition may not be worth it. That may sound harsh, but it is the reality today.
Finally, I support the Mayor’s response to David’s commentary. He makes many good points. I greatly appreciate his leadership in bringing the resolution and letter to a vote on Tuesday night.
I’m not surprised that this is finally occurring. When everyone has a college degree, and no one has the ability to fix and maintain cars, houses, pave roads and other public works projects, etc., guess which types of education/training will be more valuable/lucrative? (If not already that way.) Seems that blue-collar trades provide greater and more lucrative opportunities to own and operate your own business, as well.
Make no mistake about it – people go to college primarily to become more employable. When that is no longer viable (and simultaneously leads to massive personal costs and debt), college enrollment may actually drop. (Of course, it also depends upon the choice/field of study, as well as personal abilities.)
A friend was just telling me that his son who went to Jesuit HS in Sacramento and after a year in college decided to become a mechanic is now making over $80K a year and owns his own home. He often works on cars owned by his college educated friends that are making $40K still living at home paying off student loans.
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2010/05/degreegap-500×416.jpg