A tidal wave is building and it is difficult to know how it will end up impacting Davis. Across the state, attention is being focused on a statewide housing crisis. The state legislature, led by affordable housing advocates, are looking at ways to cut back on restrictions to new housing because the state is only building about 80,000 new homes a year when it needs about 180,000 new homes just to keep up with new demand.
What separates this movement from previous ones is that it is being led by affordable housing advocates, students in need of housing, and young professionals who cannot afford to buy homes. This is not the developer-driven movement from times in the past.
Here’s the thing – this is all coming to Davis. And how it starts to impact the political landscape here remains to be seen.
We have focused our attention heavily on a student housing crisis, and with good reason. UC Davis has been a huge driver of housing needs in Davis. We have a 0.2 percent vacancy rate. At the same time, the university is undergoing updating their Long Range Development Plan, which has put an even finer focus on the university’s shortcoming with respect to housing.
But, for those who believe that all of Davis’ problems are attributable to student housing needs and the failure of the university to provide for them – there is a second wave of danger.
The problem: people work in Davis, but do not live in Davis.
Clearly, we need more data here because we don’t have a good sense for the numbers. However, anecdotally we spoke recently with some folks who had surveyed some of the big companies in Davis that 
are not directly affiliated with the university. The finding was not surprising – almost none of the employees working at those companies actually live here in town.
These aren’t students. This is not university-driven housing needs.
It is a mix of people. Some are young professionals, including those with young families and kids, who drive to Davis every day and would like to live in the community that they work in – but they can’t because they either can’t afford it or the supply is not available.
Others are lower level employees who would like to live in Davis, but cannot afford it.
The university plays a role here as well, however. In addition to student arrivals, the university is adding faculty and staff to accommodate the student enrollment increases, and yet the university is only building a few dozen homes for faculty and staff at West Village.
Unfortunately, technical problems meant we had to cut our poll short, but the focus of it was the question of where the faculty and staff are going to live.
Looking at the year-old 2015/16 Campus Travel Survey, somewhere around 92 .5 percent of undergraduate students and 84 percent of graduate students live within five miles of campus – which basically means in town. But that number drops to 69 percent of faculty and less than 50 percent of staff.
As we add faculty and staff, and more students have to commute, that means that 10,000 people will be driving into town on a daily basis clogging our already congested roads and thoroughfares.
There are impacts for not having housing. The closer people live to campus, the more likely they are to get there by means other than an automobile. A very low percentage of students who live within two miles of campus drive to school on a regular basis.
However, almost everyone who commutes to town does so by themselves, in a car. That adds GHG emissions and it adds to traffic flows.
Unfortunately, as we have noted in the past, traffic analysis for new projects factors in only half the equation – the number of additional cars a place like Lincoln40 will produce due to residency – but it fails to account for the fact that many of those people were driving to the university and doing so via Richards Boulevard, and so, while Lincoln40 may add traffic on one end, it might reduce overall traffic impacts on the other.
But the offset is often not factored into traffic analysis. In other words, people are already coming to campus whether they live at Lincoln40, or in Woodland or Sacramento. However, if they live at Lincoln40 they are more likely to use a bike or walk than drive down 113 or come across the Causeway to exit at Richards – but our traffic models fail to take that into account.
The university clearly plays a role in generating demands for housing, but it is not the only factor. Scarcity and high costs of housing have forced many who work in Davis, but do not work directly at the university, to commute.
Some have pushed back against the notion of internal demand. But internal demand indicates the number of people who work in Davis, but do not live here and thus generate impacts on traffic and the environment through their commute to work.
Should we find a way to provide housing to them? Some have pushed back against this idea, arguing in effect that we cannot guarantee new housing will go to such people. That is certainly true. But we can guarantee that we will not have housing for those who work in this community – all we have to do is continue to do what we are doing right now.
The pressure is only going to get worse. There is a regional and a statewide housing crisis. That means that, for a long time, Davis has relied on other communities to provide housing for those who work here but do not live here, but that housing will become more scarce and more expensive.
There are those of course who would prefer that all new housing for students and apparently faculty and staff go on the UC Davis campus itself. While we agree that UC Davis needs to provide more in the way of housing, we suspect that people have also not fully thought through the potential consequences of such policies.
Putting a quasi-city of students, faculty and staff next to Davis, but outside of the city proper, could produce a number of less-than-ideal impacts, including the creation of an unincorporated city on the edge of town with its own commerce and services.
It is ironic that those who wish to preserve open space and agricultural land are willing to create policies that will eat up open space and agricultural land on the UC Davis campus, which will experience impacts similar to land that is outside the city.
Moreover, a movement is afoot at the grassroots level as well at the legislature to lower barriers to housing – and that movement is not coming from developers, but from affordable housing advocates and others.
Can Davis remain true to its slow-growth roots and yet find ways to provide for more of its housing needs, as the region is able to absorb less and less additional housing? That will be a critical question going forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“But the offset is often not factored into traffic analysis. In other words, people are already coming to campus whether they live at Lincoln40, or in Woodland or Sacramento. However, if they live at Lincoln40 they are more likely to use a bike or walk than drive down 113 or come across the Causeway to exit at Richards – but our traffic models fail to take that into account.”
This comment is sophistic. There are many routes to U.C. Davis and many places in Davis where would be Lincoln 40 residents are now living; most of the traffic you are saying would come in from out of town might well come from in town. There is no scientific model to back up your statement here; I suspect a secondary agenda.
“I suspect a secondary agenda.”
Do tell
Not sure how many (truly) “big companies” are in Davis. UCD is the primary employer.
Regardless, any “study” should also consider the number of people living in Davis who work “elsewhere”, including Sacramento. People and workers commute “all over the place”, not just one direction. If more housing is added, then some of those new folks will also be commuting OUTWARD.
It’s unfortunate that some people just can’t accept slow growth, and will put forth any desperate argument to undermine it.
Compared to other cities, I believe that Davis is already doing a good job in providing Affordable housing. Therefore, I’m not sure what the (“much-feared”, secretive) “housing advocates” are coming here to lecture us on. (Actually, we already have an “in-house” housing advocate, in the form of the Vanguard.)
“Compared to other cities, I believe that Davis is already doing a good job in providing Affordable housing.”
I’m just glad I put my beer down before I read this.
Beer? It’s 9:28 a.m.
How well is Folsom, Roseville, and Lincoln doing with providing Affordable housing? (Honest question, as I don’t know the answer.)
Of course, it’s one thing to plan for it, and another to fund it.
If the “housing advocates” are coming here to lecture us about the vacancy rate, I hope that representatives from UCD have a spot at the table.
Half the day is over – lol. Obviously joking.
I was trying to find my article from a few years ago as to just how few affordable units there are in the city.
David: The point being to compare Davis’ Affordable housing with other nearby cities (presumably, taking into account their respective sizes). And, while considering the funding that is available.
You haven’t offered any data
David: “You haven’t offered any data.”
Are you kidding me? I’m suggesting that anyone coming to Davis to lecture about the lack of Affordable housing better arrive with comparable data from nearby cities, to show how (supposedly) “deficient” Davis is. (They also might want to discuss how to fund more, if they’re not “satisfied”.)
I also think you’re interchange Affordable housing with the complaint about the affordability of housing. Two very different things.
David… your 5:04 post…
The term “affordable housing” is all over the place… affordable ‘ownership’, vs. affordable ‘rental’?… affordable, compared to what? Nearby locations, quality of housing (1 br. , 3 br?) , family income?
Extreme example: a janitor @ DJUSD, just hired, should not necessarily expect to find a 5 year old , 3 br., 2 ba. house, in Davis, that they could afford to own, even with a 40 year mortgage @ 3%… some may disagree, but I discount those views…
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-build-first-50-new-homes-faculty-and-staff-west-village-2018
By the way, why is the “poll” regarding this issue still showing up on the Vanguard?
That poll is useless. Everyone could vote multiple times.
Except, as Eileen points out only developers and their minions did so… yeah…
Howard: I don’t think she said that. Regardless, I believe that your comments (regarding voting multiple times) preceded Eileen’s comments.
It’s unimportant, at this point. (Perhaps the only remaining question is: Who was behind that poll?) Perhaps not a big deal, anyway. But again, David’s article today contained a somewhat misleading statement regarding this same issue, as noted above.
Howard, Developer minions are now referred to as “YIMBYs”.
I didn’t create the problem… I diagnosed it… and tested my diagnosis once (except for “elsewhere”). Am not going to bother to ES’s exact quote,but she sure indicated that she believed only developers were doing that… she sure didn’t allow as there might be others… and I strongly suspect there were, based on conversations I later overheard Farmers’ Market…
Let’s see… the “vote” button was gone… if all evidence of its (‘fun poll’) existence disappeared, there would be have a been a bunch of folk probably be asking the opposite question. Looks to me as if David, ‘split the baby’… maybe something I would have done, given the choices…
Don’t whine… if you look at the bar graphs, you ‘won’… ignore the numbers… everyone acknowledges it is not a significant indication of anything…
I closed the poll but didn’t remove it yet. Seriously guys but geesh
David writes an article and all the regular commenters chime in with snarky comments. End of discussion.
(I doubt that. However, David is the one who keeps “re-initiating” the conversation.) “David writes an article . . .” is not the correct terminology to use.
Most of us have had a lot of practice with this content. By “End of discussion” are you referring to the book?
https://www.amazon.com/End-Discussion-Outrage-Industry-Manipulates/dp/0553447777
100% of Davis Vanguard readers agree that the City should eminent domain the PG&E site and shopping center parking lots around town and provide incentives to residents of wider local streets so that tiny houses can be placed on them. Homeowners also provided permits and no cost in encourage the construction of second floors with separate entrances. After breakfast, California-based news outlets swarm City Hall the night after Council decides to sue UCD about their continuing enrollment. After lunch, Council announces design concept competitions for 1) Covering the below-grade parts of 113 in order to build housing and 2) Covering 80 within city limits in order to reduce noise pollution. Just before 5pm, Council announces that the City of Davis and hundreds of communities with housing within 1/4 of Interstate Highways are gathering in a class action to force the Federal govt. to reduce pollution on these corridors.
LOL, maybe David didn’t but it looks like someone else might be imbibing early this morning.
must have missed that “fun poll”
From this Commentary, my body is simply metabolizing a vision of the reality we need to accept if we want to have a more resilient and wealthy city. You will still be able to park your modest motor vehicle near the Libertarian bookstore, even in the future some people associated with ANTIFA have ironically been elected to Council.
By “metabolizing a vision” you are taking the vision and converting it to feces?
This comment brought to you by Todd Edelonion
David,
I am glad to see that you are acknowledging that housing is a problem is a California-side issue (and other more highly populated states like New York.) So while it is clear that this is not a Davis-only issue, what does differ here is that UCD is producing a huge part of housing demand as its student population grows, and yet drags its heels to take action which would be effective in solving the problem that they are primarily responsible for. This is not hard to understand, yet it is hard to believe that your article, like the one today, tries so hard to ignore the reality of how to get to a real solution. That would be, UCD providing the 50/100 plan of housing for its student population, which solve a whole bunch of other problems.
First, one of the most important reasons why far more student housing is needed on campus is because it is the only way that student housing costs can be controlled long-term, unlike in the City or anywhere else off-campus.
Second on-campus housing cuts out the commuting, parking and other environmental impacts on the City and on the environment in general. On-campus housing reduces the energy usage and subsequent back-up of traffic (i.e. be it from cars or bicycles which would need to interrupt off-campus traffic to cross streets). So on-campus housing helps reduce impacts towards the global warming and climate change.
Third, the provision of much more on-campus housing would significantly relieve pressure on the off-campus housing situation so that non-students like our families and workers can have access to housing, particularly rental housing.
So these are just a few of the important benefits of UCD doing what the other UC’s campuses are smart enough to do, which is build the housing now to be able to recruit the best students by providing them with housing on-campus that they can afford, and making it easy for the students to get to and from their classrooms on-campus especially in adverse weather like in the winter.
So, UCD providing far more on-campus housing than they are proposing is the only way this housing situation will improve. And since the other UC’s are doing it, there is no reason why UCD can’t do it particularly when UCD is the UC with the most land.
With all of the repetitive articles on this subject, why hasn’t the Vanguard asked UCD why are they going to the enormous expense of demolishing Webster Hall on Oxford Circle, only to replace a 3-story structure with only 4-stories? What haven’t we seen this subject covered at all by the Vanguard, and how UCD continues to minimize the number of beds it is producing, rather than maximizing the number of beds like the other UC’s are producing?
I don’t know what answer UCD planners would give, but the practical answer is that the cost per square foot of construction goes up significantly when you go from mid-rise to high-rise. High-rise buildings are more dangerous in a fire and have special requirements. Five floors/75′ seems to be the cutoff.
Links here for more readability:
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/construction%20costs%20per%20material.png
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/highrise%20definition.png
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/midrise%20vs%20highrise%20costs.png
You have it pretty much nailed as to construction cost… the other variable, that can offset that, is the price/value of the land… sometimes, big time. See, Manhattan…
Davis is no Manhattan, tho’… would expect construction unit costs to govern, big time…
I’m fairly sure we asked them that question already and got a non-answer.
I would take faculty, at least, out of the equation. I know a lot of faculty who live outside of Davis (e.g., Sacramento, Berkeley, or even SF), and all of them do so by choice — they want a more urban environment, or they have a spouse who they are splitting a commute with. The number of faculty I know who would like to live in Davis but don’t because of the cost is very small, and I have no reason to think that my sample is unrepresentative (if anything, my field is on the lower end of faculty salaries, not the higher end).
Based on the travel survey, the numbers could back your comment up. There’s only a relatively small number of faculty to begin with (just over 2000) and 70 percent already live in the city. So thats believable
On the other hand, there are over 7000 staff members and only half live in Davis.
It may be that a greater percentage of staff (as compared to faculty) would like to live in Davis but do not because they can’t afford it, but you’d need to do a survey to have any certainty about that. It is also possible that staff are acting similarly to faculty. In particular, I know that people who don’t have children and/or prefer an urban lifestyle tend to feel less drawn to Davis.
I would guess that many WITH children would take advantage of the ability to send their children to Davis schools via their connection to UCD or Davis (and drive them there from surrounding communities), while simultaneously avoiding the school district parcel tax that Davis property owners are subject to.
Maybe so, Ron. I don’t know.
From what I can see, there is ‘drift’… article is “not just about UCD” … that said, it is not clear if folk are subsequently talking about students, faculty, and/or staff… just an observation… nothing more, nothing less…