The Vanguard has long been critical of UC Davis’ on-campus housing policies, noting that the community and university had agreed that UC Davis would expand on-campus housing per an MOU – only to have the housing never built. And so when the issue of student housing started to emerge in the fall of 2015, in advance of the university’s planning for the Long Range Development Plan, it only made sense to push for the university to push for more housing on campus.
When the university released their first iteration they acknowledged they could not accommodate all enrollment growth with housing on campus, and later released a plan to accommodate 90 percent of new enrollment with housing on campus, an increase of roughly 6200 beds. It was an improvement, but it did not go far enough.
Community members and the council and other bodies agreed that the university should provide 100 percent of new enrollment with the possibility of on-campus housing and increase its overall share to 50 percent. That would be to add 10,000 beds to campus.
I remain in agreement with that resolution. However, where I part ways with some of the activists is that I also see the need for the city of Davis to add housing. This marks a definite shift for myself as well as the Vanguard which has long supported policies like Measure J/Measure R and other slow growth measures.
Truth be told, we remain supporters of these slow growth measures, however, we believe that the community does need to figure out ways to provide more housing and not just for students. We have a shortage of housing that is affordable for families as well.
For those who believe this marks a radical shift in the Vanguard’s philosophy, the truth is it is more an evolutionary shift. We have long opposed new peripheral housing and it should be noted 
that the current housing proposals in question are all infill projects with the exception of Nishi – which for many intents and purposes is also an infill project, surrounded on three of the four sides by existing development and containment between I-80 and the university.
What changed then? To understand that better, we should look at the housing discussion in April of last year (2017) on Sterling.
Student after student came forward at that meeting to talk about the impact of the housing shortage.
As one student put it: “Students and other Davis renters suffer from a severe housing shortage. This shortage causes a lot of rent increases and low to non-existent vacancy rates. I struggle from April to August to find a place to live in Davis and I had to prepare myself to be homeless if I could not find a place.”
While students have come out in favor of housing projects before, this time it was different. The voices were stronger, they were more personal, they were desperate, and the council, hearing those voices, felt compelled to act, even on what they acknowledged to be an imperfect project.
As Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee put it, “You can sense the desperation.” The situation is bad, and, as a former student, I think we owe it to the next generation of students to remove the issue of housing from their concerns about getting an affordable education.
It is one thing to know intellectually we have a 0.2 percent vacancy rate. It is another thing to hear of the impacts on the students. The students need to start looking for housing early in the process – and for some students, they end up moving onto campus in September and needing to find housing just two months later for the next year.
Samantha Chiang, then ASUCD Senate President Pro Tem, said that many students are “forced to start their housing search in November of their first year, only to not find a house and be forced to couch surf in the following year. We cannot be pawns in the game between the city and the university – we are consistently advocating on both ends to increase housing.”
The affordability factor is a problem.
At that meeting in April, Sara Williams, then a fourth-year student and the Chair of the ASUCD External Affairs Commission, noted that she has four jobs to pay her rent. Others aren’t so lucky, living on the couches of their friends or in their cars because they cannot afford the cost of rent.
Then are the nightmares for both renters and neighbors of absentee landlords and substandard conditions including lack of air conditioning, heat, and even electricity – and until the city passed the rental inspection ordinance, there was a lack of an enforcement mechanism to ensure that student renters are not being taken advantage of.
Following this meeting, the Vanguard reached out to the university and met with three students last May – Daniel Nagey is an ASUCD Senator, Sara Williams is the External Affairs Commission Chair, and Georgia Savage is the Director of the Office of Advocacy and Student Representation (OASR).
One of the questions was – what do the students want?
Sara Williams made the point, “We have been talking about how students would prefer to live on campus, but I really don’t want to go as far as to say that we would love to live there for all four years…
“That is what I want so badly for the university to step up on – housing 100 percent of the growth that they see in the long range development plan,” she added.
Daniel Nagey said, “That’s what we want to see, at least 50 (percent of the students on campus) if not more.”
Georgia Savage pointed out, “The relief has come from the city – it has not come from the school. And the receptiveness to the looming problem of student homelessness, and the response to that, has largely been from our city versus the school (with which) we have also had these meetings and (are) pressuring.”
“They (the university) do give us a sense that they’re listening – it’s just that we never see anything come of those conversations,” Sara Williams said. “We’ve been talking about this since fall.”
The bottom line is this – the Vanguard continues to believe that UC Davis can and should build more housing than it has on campus.
The Vanguard has consistently argued that 40 percent of overall on-campus housing is not enough and that UC Davis needs to go to 50 percent.
Beyond this position it is important to understand the numbers here.
Right now the university in its Long Range Development Plan is proposing building about 6200 new beds for campus. The university is projecting, within ten years of growing, to be at just under 40,000 students. So the gap between the 40 percent proposed now and the 50 percent that we prefer is about 4000 beds.
So, in effect, what we are arguing is that there need to be about 10,000 new beds for students in the next ten years. Right now – even before additional campus growth – the city has a 0.2 percent vacancy rate which means, at any given time, of the 9969 units that were surveyed in the report (accounting for 83 percent of all multifamily housing stock) there were less than 30 units available to rent.
The city has already approved Sterling, and now we have several other proposals coming forward. Lincoln40 figures to be next, there is also Plaza 2555, Nishi, and Oxford Circle.
There has been a lot of debate over the type of housing we should have in Davis – the Vanguard has largely argued against the notion that these are “mega-dorms” and frankly, even if they are, if they provide housing to students, the largest renter group and the fastest growing, so what?
If we can find a way to add 5000 or so beds in the city, coupling that with the 6200 beds on campus, we have enough beds to alleviate the housing crisis.
The bottom line is that the situation is bad and we are in the position to do something to change it without hugely altering the fabric of our community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“without hugely altering the fabric of our community.”
I am honestly not sure what you mean by “hugely altering the fabric of our community”? Can you expand on what you would see as a huge alteration ?
Covell Village, Wildhorse, Mace Ranch – large peripheral subdivisions that expand the boundaries with low density and sprawling single family homes.
David
So without reference to the merits of any given project, I am understanding you to say that you do not see the building of large apartment complexes primarily of interest to students in various locations around town as “hugely altering the fabric of our community” even though they clearly alter the fabric of the immediately surrounding community in much the same way that “mini dorms” alter the fabric of their surrounding single family neighborhoods. Do I have this right ? Because I am thinking that there is not universal agreement with your definition as stated above.
I agree there is not universal agreement – hence the debate – but that is an accurate reflection of my view. I believe that mini-dorms in the middle of neighborhoods are far more disruptive to the fabric of the community than the projects we are seen proposed.
Nothing new to see here folks, move along . . .
He laments the fact that he no longer finds the comment section interesting and yet fails to do his part to ensure that it is.
Cool.
“I believe that mini-dorms in the middle of neighborhoods are far more disruptive to the fabric of the community than the projects we are seen proposed.”
Since we have not yet had time to see the impacts of these dorms on our communities, on what are you basing this opinion ? I live on a street that has three student co-ops and other than the fact that I would prefer they maintain their yards in better shape, have seen no significant disruption of the fabric of our community. I guess time will tell in my personal case as it is likely that Lincoln 40 will place my home directly between the “mini dorm”/student co-op model and the dorm model. I will get back with you on the direct impact in a few years.
It has to do with financial and non-financial impacts to the city, as well as missed opportunities to use remaining space for previously-planned purposes (e.g., industrial/commercial), or to house a broader range of populations – thereby helping to ensure that non-students are not displaced by UCD’s plans.
If those other needs are not met, some will then claim that there is no remaining space within the city to meet such needs. And, this will become a “justification” for sprawl.
From a broader perspective, it’s called “city planning”.
It doesn’t have anything to do with financial impacts to the city – that’s an excuse at best. It might have something to do with non-financial impacts to the city or at least the perception thereof. I also find the ongoing heart ache about lost opportunities rings hollow.
You asked the question, I provided an answer. (You can refer to the “analysis” regarding Sterling that you posted, if you don’t believe the permanent/ongoing financial loss to the city. Even after you started using your “own” numbers in the model.)
You can also refer to your own statements, regarding the need for commercial development in the city, as well as providing housing for non-students.
I’m starting to think that the issue (regarding UCD’s impacts) goes beyond student housing. Note the other issues (such as limiting motor vehicle traffic, and related financial contributions), in the agreement between Santa Cruz and its adjacent UC:
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
And I provided a response to your answer. I’ve pointed out time and time again the problems with your interpretation of the Sterling analysis. It does not result in a permanent or ongoing financial loss to the city. In fact, in the short term, it is a financial benefit to the city (plus it fills a dire need for housing) and in the longer term it is no worse than fiscally neutral and if you are going beyond probably 20 years – you’re really no longer talking about the impact of a development.
That is a false statement, as shown in the model you posted. (By the way, I forgot to add “ever-increasing” financial loss to the city.)
On a related note, I’d still like to know what the “revenues” and “costs” actually consist of. For example, did the “revenues” account for the fact that the city receives a very limited share/percentage of property taxes?
I think it’s safe to assume that city staff analysis reflects the commonly-understood revenue sharing of property taxes. But if you’re really curious, contact Kelly Fletcher, Budget Manager, at kfletcher@cityofdavis.org and I’m sure your questions will get answered promptly.
Thanks, Don. I may do that at some point. However, I’m not sure that it came from city staff. (And, I certainly wouldn’t “assume” that it reflects the city’s expected share of property taxes received.)
Ron: No. Because with one-time monies factored in, even by year fifteen the project is a net positive. And you continue to refuse to answer the question – at one point are we no longer talking about development impacts. There is a reason they stop calculating at year 15 after all.
. . . then you’re likely misusing the model. You’d need to look at what those one-time monies are used for (which are intended to offset one-time costs).
The “reason” might be due to the fact that the model shows an ever-increasing loss to the city, starting in that year. (Assuming that the “revenues” and “costs” were calculated correctly in the first place.)
I find it odd that you simultaneously acknowledge and deny what the model shows.
A more important question might be, does the city’s finance and budget commission analyze and report on these types of developments? (I understand that they don’t, other than perhaps peripheral developments.)
(Actually, if the model itself factors in one-time money, that might be further evidence of a problem with the model.)
Again, it seems like something the finance and budget commission should examine. Especially since there’s several large-scale “megadorm” proposals.
What is the cumulative impact on the city regarding these proposals (financial, and otherwise)? And, why wouldn’t UCD be expected to help offset some of those impacts, as UC Santa Cruz is doing for their adjacent city?
If I wasn’t clear, the one-time monies are not factored into the model. however, there is a clear fiscal advantage to the city over the course of the 15 years.
And you’re wrong, at some point you are no longer talking about the impact from development. 15 years down the road actually seems to long anyway.
According to you, that point “coincides” with the year that the ever-increasing loss to the city begins, according to the model. (How convenient, for someone who refuses to acknowledge the loss in the first place.)
Again, since there are several large-scale megadorm proposals, it seems like something the finance and budget commission should analyze and report on. (And yet, I understand that there are no plans to do so, with the possible exception of proposed peripheral developments.)
David
With regard to your post of 9:32, two thoughts.
1. I feel that the claim that it “has nothing to do with fiscal impacts to the city” is far too narrow and short sighted. Of course population and the economics of the inhabitants of a city have an impact on the fiscal well being of that city. Personal economics and community economics are completely intertwined. This seems so apparent to me that I feel I may be misunderstanding your post. Perhaps you were speaking very narrowly in response to Ron ?
2. I am not sure which “heart ache” about missed opportunities you find hollow. You have on many occasions bemoaned the opportunities missed by not adopting any of the “innovation centers”. I felt much worse, enough to write a piece about the lost opportunity for some sort of rehabilitative center at the former site of Families First. I assure you there was nothing “hollow” about my feelings about this lost opportunity, both for the city and the region.
“hugely altering the fabric of our community”
Excuse me, but what the hell does this even mean?
It is clear to me when I read something like this that the author is prone to anxiety and hand-wringing about the unknown. Which leads me to my suggestion that maybe developers that propose new development projects should be required to fund some cognitive behavior therapy counselors to made available to anyone feeling upset about the thought of change to the periphery of the city, or change to a particular neighborhood.
In 1908 when then Governor George Pardee selected the recently incorporated Davisville (name changed to Davis) as the sight of a new UC campus, Davis NIMBYs were beside themselves with opposition. They were upset that by opening a UC campus next to the community would hugely alter the fabric of the community and cause much more horse and buggy traffic.
They were correct. The fabric of Davis was altered and there was more traffic. Thank God for that.
With respect to material change, there are generally three type of people: those that lead, those that should follow, and those that should just get the heck out of the way. Davis seems to be filled with a large percentage of a forth type… The NIMBY resistance… these people believe they are worthy of a leadership role, but lacking the vision and capacity to lead, all they can do is lead the NIMBY resistance… thus blocking the progress of the true leaders and those that are willing followers.
Just imagine all those places you have traveled to and like… and would see yourself being happy living there. Those community amenities that would be attracted to did not get built from the NIMBY resistance. They got built by people with vision and capital. They were developed by leaders with visions that were compelling to followers knowing that they themselves lacked the creativity and/or capital to do the same.
With the backdrop of the same world-class research university that provides much of the community assets and amenities that those in the NIMBY resistance value about this place they call home, Davis is uniquely positioned with copious opportunity to develop and grow in was that the rest of the world would envy. The leverage of absolute demand and community veto power are tools, that if combined with world-class planning and design resources, can result in building the most advanced, environmentally-correct, transportation-connected developments on the planet.
But the NIMBY resistance continues to cause the community to squander these opportunities while creating yet more problems and challenges for the community.
I don’t hold out much hope that Davis will continue to thrive with the NIMBY resistance in control. Measure J/R is their primary resistance tool to exploit. There are just too many of them in Davis and they have developed a development decision participation entitlement that has broken the system.
“It is clear to me when I read something like this that the author is prone to anxiety and hand-wringing about the unknown”
Not at all. It’s probably better to focus on the issues rather than make assumptions about the author.
I assumed you were just reflecting the opinions of others but generally don’t subscribe to the same level of hand-wringing. Sorry I did not make that clear.
But it provided a great quote to tee off on.
And it begs some discussion about what that really means. Otherwise is is just a bunch of hyperbole.
Can someone please define what this fabric is?
I do think there are legitimate concerns that people have about the character of the town – it’s what has drawn me toward Davis and compelled me to stay even though in many ways, I can no longer afford to live here. Where I think people have made a grave mistake is that in their pursuit to keep Davis as it has been, they are actually causing harm to what can will be will in the future.
Not just in the future, as the damage is already apparent if you take off your rose-colored glasses.
The problem is we have a mindset of preservation and protection of what we have, when what we need is a mindset of creating opportunities for the future. Economic development involves opportunity creation, expanding the economic pond to the benefit of all. Preservation and protection are the antitheses of that because instead of expanding that economic pond, they lead to it drying up.
“ damage is already apparent if you take off your rose-colored glasses.”
What makes you believe that I have rose-colored glasses? In fact, what have i said to make you believe, I think things are alright now?
I don’t, but many in town still wear them, and as you were referring to others in the statement I quoted “people have made a grave mistake” I thought it would be obvious I was referring to them as well.
Nothing
Mark: You did use the second person rather than the third person, so that might have been a point of confusion?
I agree I could have written it better.
Jeff
“With respect to material change, there are generally three type of people: those that lead, those that should follow, and those that should just get the heck out of the way.”
You write in very concrete, stereotypical terms. You do not even mention another, vital group. Those that prefer a calm, deliberative form of evolution over time. You seem to believe that all who accept change, must accept it at the rate preferred by the most ardent developers. And yet, in my travels, many of the places I have most appreciated have been those that have allowed very old, sometimes ancient, as in rural France of the 1100’s to coexist in close proximity to newer developments. It is entirely possible to respect one’s past, both distant and recent, while planning for the future. I am at a loss as to why, in this country, we seem to cling to an oppositional point of view when collaboration and mutual acceptance is a viable alternative.
Tia,
I hope you are not equating Davis to rural France of the 1100’s. Is that your expectation… that Davis be like Rural France and that all the new development be done in other communities? That would be an interesting (and somewhat absurd in my opinion) vision; but at least it is a vision.
If this is a shared vision that you and others have, you should become leaders to help promote it. For example, if other surrounding communities are going to have to accommodate more students and the tech business programs of UCD, then you and others believing this to be the best vision for Davis should be working on what that plan looks like and how it would work. You will also need to factor the lack of tax revenue that will plague Davis and what we will need to supplement the cost of running the city and all the desired programs. Since there are no other communities in California doing the same, I think you would have to put a great deal of effort into formulating how this looks and works.
Fantastic new ideas don’t just materialize into actions… it takes leadership to make them so. Maybe you are working as a leader on this vision for Davis, but I have yet to see anything formulated. All I see is strong reactionary opposition.
That is my point about the lead, follow or get out of the way. Leaders are few, but critics are really a dime a dozen, and if given enough power to influence decisions for change, the critics will become a tyranny of the majority.
Maybe I can get behind this “Davis as Rural France of the Twelfth Century” vision. But someone needs to take the leadership required to put it together and present it. But nebulous fear-based opposition that developments will change will “hugely alter the fabric or character of our community” are not credible nor respectable.
Jeff
“if other surrounding communities are going to have to accommodate more students and the tech business programs of UCD, then you and others believing this to be the best vision for Davis should be working on what that plan looks like and how it would work. “
I am not sure where the tongue in cheek part of your post ends and reality begins. I am quite sure that no one believes I am advocating for 1100’s France. I was responding only to your suggestion that every community must develop at the speed of those desiring the most rapid change.
As for making alternative suggestions, I have a number of times on the Vanguard. Most recently I put forward my support for a solution favored by both Chancellor Katehi and Chancellor May which is to move some of the demand of the university to other regional areas such as Woodland or Sacramento which might be more amenable to some of the inherent demands and requirements of the university. I see this as regional opportunity rather than Davis attempting to hoard the benefits of the university.
As an Ob/Gyn, I put forth a number of innovative projects some of which were broadly accepted and some of which were not. I am not a city planner or community activist and as such have no practical experience in these areas. I do not think this means that I have to remain silent, or “get out of the way”. Even though I have no expertise, this does not mean that I may not have views which are worth considering precisely because they come from a different perspective.
Mark
“Economic development involves opportunity creation, expanding the economic pond to the benefit of all”
Again, I would like to stress that not all “opportunity creation” turns out to be “to the benefit of all”. To avoid needless confrontation, I am not going to use any examples from Davis, although they exist. I am going to mention Redwood City where my daughter lives. I recently house sat for her for 2 weeks. They are rapidly developing ( gentrifying) a portion of their downtown by the RR tracks. Many of the shops are lovely and the neighborhood is great for walking, browsing and eating. However, there are many that are not benefiting from this change, those that are being displaced. I looked up a number of small mom and pop operations which upon looking for them were noted to be closed. Enquiry at adjacent shops led to a predictable refrain. A shrug accompanied by, “yeah, they had to move out when their building was demolished or because they could not afford the rent any more.” Now you may see this as just “the cost of doing business”. But please, at least acknowledge that not everyone benefits. Sometimes the idea of “constructive destruction” is nothing more than destruction for those most directly affected.
What you are advocating Tia is protecting the few at the expense of the many, which has been the mindset in Davis for the better part of 60 years (at least). It is the primary reason that the problems associated with our downtown that the community recognized and addressed in the 1961 core area specific plan, still exist today. Protectionist policies stifle economic vitality and are bad for the economic health of the community.
Economic development is intended to provide opportunities for all to improve their quality of life. Opportunity, not a guarantee. How individuals take advantage of those opportunities is entirely up to them. Businesses shut down all the time for a variety of reasons, so it really isn’t appropriate to blame redevelopment activity or economic development for the closures. For all you know, the businesses you lament losing were only marginally successful before and would have shut down anyway. With a more vibrant and expanded economic environment, the owners and employees of those old businesses have the same opportunities provided to all residents to improve their quality of life through owning or working for a more successful venture if they so choose.
Mark
“What you are advocating Tia is protecting the few at the expense of the many”
No, Mark. As usual, when you tell me what I am advocating for, you are frequently incorrect. I gave an honest accounting of experiences I had in another community including actual conversations with individuals who provided information. I made no assumptions and did not make anything up. While it is true that businesses close for many reasons, it is also true that some are driven out of business by increasing rents or other expenses. It seems that you think this is just fine. But I think it is a fair statement that this process of “rejuvenation” or “gentrification” does not benefit everyone, which was your assertion to which I was responding.
I am not advocating “protection of the few at the expense of the many”. I am advocating a balancing of the needs of those already present with the needs of those who wish to join the community. There is a big difference between these points of view and hope that people will appreciate my viewpoint as I express it rather than as you try to reconstruct it.
Tia – one ongoing challenge of ‘conversing’ with you is that you do not take responsibility for the obvious outcome of your advocacy. The impact of protecting the few shops in their run-down building as you want is to put the few ahead of the many, whether you are specifically advocating for that outcome or not. I am sorry that my shortcut way to discussing that situation rankles you.
It benefits the community as a whole, building wealth and new jobs, and is part of the process of creating opportunities for all. It is important, however, to separate the impact of the overall process to that of a single project. I am talking about the overall process and mindset of economic development, whereas you appear to be more concerned about the specifics of a single project. They really are different subjects that should not be conflated.
Mark
“The impact of protecting the few shops in their run-down building as you want is to put the few ahead of the many, whether you are specifically advocating for that outcome or not.”
What rankles me, is your continuous and I believe deliberate choice to misrepresent my position. I have never suggested “protecting a few shops in their run-down building”. My very first comment at CC was that I was delighted when I heard that a renovation of this site was planned. My comments are on record and can be checked easily. What I had hoped for was a collaborative project that would represent a win-win-win for the developers/investors, the city, and the immediate neighbors as well as the businesses currently at this site. I believe that this is entirely possible to achieve but not considered because the first two groups are unwilling to consider processes outside the way they see as the norm. If one can change a neighborhood affecting others lifestyles, why could one not even consider changing one’s own business practice so as to obtain a mutually beneficial project ?
Often, but not always, “collaborative” means he third party gets their way, and if they don’t, there are claims that the process is flawed, or the other two parties weren’t willing to “collaborate”… seen that a bunch… just saying…
I have been involved in large number of situations where there is apparently no amicable resolution, and some decided to show all their cards, and a true win-win was achieved… everyone realizing their self-interests could have a common solution. Not “compromise”, nor “collaboration” (I call it “problem-solving”)…
Ask someone who grew up in France in the 1940’s how they feel about the term “collaborator”… better hurry, as they are more and more rare… there are often more than three parties… some would assert that the ‘neighbors’ trump the community as a whole. I don’t.
Tia:
I joined you in your desire not to speak about local projects and was referring to your comments about what you found in Redwood City, lamenting the businesses that closed due to redevelopment.
Have a nice day.
Seems like it wasn’t avoided. 🙂
Ron
Another day, another fail. I take it all in good spirits. On blogs and social media I have found that there will always be those that prefer a staged attack, even if untrue, over simply putting forward their own ideas. I admit to being very “rankled” by those who insist on telling me who I am and what I think rather than sticking to who they are, and what they think.