Usually an introductory article is not going to tell you a lot about a candidate on the issues. But the article in the local paper interviewing newly-announced candidate Ezra Beeman is not the case. Mr. Beeman lays out very clearly where he stands on key issues.
This council election figures to be quite illuminating for the future of Davis, with clear lines of demarcation on important issues.
Here are some of the key points that Mr. Beeman raises in the article.
He told the interviewer that he moved back to Davis in 2015, and “he hadn’t been back for long when he realized how much the Davis of his childhood had changed, and not for the better.”
He is quoted saying that “new housing has taken the form of ‘large dorms’ like Sterling, as well as projects like the Cannery, which he considers a step backward from the days when Village Homes drew the attention of the world.”
“The quality of life I had remembered is increasingly under threat,” Mr. Beeman said in the interview. “Are the Davis values I moved back for still alive?”
He said, if there is no change in the direction the city is headed, “Davis could be a very different place a few years from now.”
Mr. Beeman cites a number of concerns “from the lack of housing to parking issues; a city budget shortfall to a struggling downtown.”
The article says he believes “until the elephant in the room is addressed: UCD’s failure to provide more on-campus housing for students.”
“That’s the number one issue for us to resolve,” he said.
The article continues: “Simply getting the university to house half the student population on campus would free up housing in town, improve parking and reduce traffic, he said.”
Mr Beeman points out, “We have stressors on our community caused by UC Davis. We fix that, and the stressor goes away.”
The article quotes him: “There has been talk, he said, and non-binding agreements between the city and university, ‘but we haven’t actually achieved anything concrete.’”
“It’s the definition of insanity,” he added to the interviewer. “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
“A strong case can be made that the behavior of the council has materially hurt the people of this city,” he said.
The article points out, “The city continues to approve developments that require a council majority vote because they are outside current zoning regulations and ‘there is no accountability for their net impact on the nearby and wider Davis community,’ according to Beeman.”
They continue, “Rather, they are focused on serving a single demographic, the highest paying one — students paying by the bed, he said. The city should stop approving those developments — ‘because I don’t think any of them were the right thing to do’ — and first require action on UCD’s part, Beeman said.”
“We’re going to need a strong coalition on the (City Council),” Beeman said to the interviewer. “I will not accept excuses, I will not accept delay. We are not going to accept this anymore. It’s the source of so many other problems in our community.”
The article summarizes: “He suggests a different approach, including changing developer fees to encourage development of a better mix of dwellings; establishing a development scorecard that transparently determines the ranking of a development in terms of net community benefits over time and geography; exploring creation of an auction of a pre-determined set of development rights to the highest net-benefit developer; and setting development targets to serve each segment of the community’s housing needs, including older and limited income individuals and families.”
“I want Davis not to lower its standards,” Mr. Beeman said, “but to move forward in a sustainable way.”
The comment that drew a lot of attention on social media was: “A strong case can be made that the behavior of the council has materially hurt the people of this city.”
Is that a statement that reflects the views of this community? I will be curious to see what Vanguard readers have to say.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If folk don’t see the dangers here, I can’t help them…
Part of the problem is that market rate multifamily housing is too expensive for most facilities.
Yeah, agree on the problem, but the proposed ‘solutions’ are much more problematic…
David,
Recognize it or not, but what you are beginning to see contained within this announcement and yesterday’s commentary article is the emerging recognition that the city is transforming to an increasingly “purpose built” community.
It’s not as obvious or clear cut as a Del Webb retirement community, but the trend is both relentless and undeniable in context of the university’s mandate for increasing enrollment. Today, before considering the recently proposed student housing projects, university and graduate students already account for some 40% of all adults 18 & Over in the City of Davis. As you add another 5,000-6,000 student residents (without commensurate increase in other household types) that percentage will only increase.
On top of our housing shortage, the absence of suitable employment opportunities to support young workers and more families, and this trend towards a permanent, growing category of university-age residents, together, pose major challenges for local K-12 school enrollment – which are only likely to become more so over time. Likewise, the growing influence of such a narrowly banded, permanent age demographic will inevitably result in a uniquely changing landscape for retail products and services.
To suggest that some in the community may be concerned about how this transformation is likely to play out should not be surprising, but to conflate such concerns with an antagonism (your words) towards students does a disservice to all concerned and only serves to further diminish the importance of the conversation.
There is nothing to suggest that the future direction of the community should be anything other than a win-win for the city, the university and our growing population of energetic and youthful young students. However, very few communities exist with similar circumstances to those which have given rise to this type of shift in community composition. It is difficult to predict how such influences will play out over time, but it now seems clear that we can no longer afford to ignore the reality or the accompanying discussion which is sorely overdue.
Well put.
Very well put, and an excellent overview.
Davis has been a purpose-built community since the University Farm was established in 1908. Campus enrollment has always been large relative to the City population. In 1970, the enrollment was just under 13,000 (http://budget.ucdavis.edu/data-reports/documents/enrollment-reports/ehistav_a65cr.pdf) while the City population was about 23,000 (http://population.us/ca/davis/). The City to UCD ratio was about 1.75. The City grew 250% from 1970 to 2000, while campus enrollment only doubled over the same period, so the campus influence was diluted. Much of the City growth was for state government commuters living in East and South Davis. The campus had grown to 33,000 in 2014 while the City population was 66,000, the City/UCD ratio is 2.0, which is still more weighted toward City residents than in 1970. We are LESS impacted by UCD than for the first 60 years of UCD’s existence. If anything, we are getting back to where we were previously.
It’s ironic that 20 years ago the City debated about how we were losing the character of a college town because of the large new developments at Mace Ranch and Wildhorse that brought in Sacramento commuters who might not be as connected to the local community. Julie Partansky rode that sentiment to the City Council.
The point is not about the ratio of enrolled students, it is about the ratio and total count of university students “resident within the City of Davis” relative to the general population, the relative rate of growth of each sector and the capacity of the community to absorb such growth. By comparison with today, those were largely non-issues, owing to the available inventory of developable land, between 1970 and 2000. Related to that point would be the major imbalance in outbound commuter flow and the inability of the community to acquire additional lands to address suitable employment needs of emerging graduates and young families alike.
I think that many have identified the same issues that Ezra has identified. He has spoken of harms done over the entire time that he was gone, not necessarily the actions of any given City Council. What seems controversial to some is that he left the community for a time, returned to see it all at once as opposed to see these changes and problems developing over time as many of us have.
Does anyone really not want transparency, a well developed community plan, affordable housing for all who wish to settle here and an adherence by the university ( as well as the city ) to commitments that they have made ? Because this is the message I hear in Ezra’s position.
One problem I have is he is overly broad in his criticism. I actually attempted to simply cite his list of complaints, but now I’ll point out a few problems.
He is again using the language of “large dorms” to describe places like Sterling even though they are really not dorm structures. Large is a subjective term. We have limited space in Davis for student housing needs and a clear housing crunch. His solution is to blame UCD for failing to provide on-campus housing.
His interview reads like the hard no crowd.
David
“His solution is to blame UCD for failing to provide on-campus housing.”
That is not quite accurate. While it is true that Ezra has pointed out truthfully that the university did not meet its previous agreement with regard to housing construction ( as many others including yourself have agreed), he also points out what he sees as deficiencies in city council actions. I do not see this as Ezra demonizing any one group, but rather suggesting that the processes that have been used to date have left us with inadequate housing, divisiveness between the university and the city, and divisions within the city itself about how best to go forward. In these observations, he is not wrong. While I do not claim to know the best solution to these problems, I do know that the recent processes of essentially just letting the developers determine our fate ( see Cannery discussion) is not in the best interests of students, young families, established affluent or the elderly. Current process serves no one well except perhaps the developers and I do not blame Ezra for suggesting change.
The article says he believes “until the elephant in the room is addressed: UCD’s failure to provide more on-campus housing for students.”
And also points to “stressors caused by UCD”
I spoke with someone over the weekend who had relocated to Davis from Palo Alto. He called it a process of “hollowing out” where housing became unaffordable for younger families and young children disappear. Schools closed and the community changed into older, wealthier families, vying for limited housing, along with students and single people. He sees Davis going through the same process. We need to come to terms with this change. Davis is no longer the town of my youth (1960s & 70s), but I can’t see running for office with a platform of trying to recreate that community through planning and design when new 2-bedroom stacked condos start at $700K per unit.
The issue is that Davis needs to support having more families with young kids to keep our schools open, and our workforce to keep revenue coming into the City with sales tax. So, what we need is rental housing for these folks designed as 1-, 2- and 3- bedroom apartments, not a glut of mega-dorms which are predominately 4- and 5- bedroom luxury suites designed for students only.
Since UCD has over 5,300 acres it need to build the student housing to support its own students and it needs to be affordable. Other UC’s are doing it and so there is no reason why UCD can’t.
As i have pointed out to you on a number of occasions, multi-family housing is neither well suited toward nor affordable for families.
David,
You keep advocating to increase the number of mega-dorm beds in the City to try to argue that it would reduce the rent costs, yet you selectively don’t argue this same point for multi-family for families and local workers.
The Vanguard apparently has no care or concern about the need for rental housing for families and local workers. Instead, the Vanguard advocacy is to continue enabling UCD to deflect its housing needs off campus which is not sustainable planning in any way, nor can that control student rental housing costs long term like on-campus.
Finally, trying to argue that there is not need for apartments for families is another really absurd opinion of yours.
First of all, I reject the notion that we have mega-dorm proposals
Second, what I said is that market rate apartments are not affordable for families, you have yet to make a counter-argument. In fact, you have yet to come forward with any data whatsoever, I’m doing all the leg work here and you just reject it out of hand without even making a logical argument.
UCD does have a lot of land, but since few students either want to live on campus or can afford the extremely high (even WITHOUT a meal plan) rent on campus I’m wondering if Eileen wants us to restrict more housing in the city to seniors like the new place on B Street (where I heard a former Davis Mayor is moving) and/or ban “students” from renting homes or apartments in “family” neighborhoods.
No Ken. I simply want UCD to provide more affordable on-campus student housing like the other UC’s are, and that UCD is capable of providing.
Also, I want to see more 1-,2- and 3- bedroom apartments built to offer rental housing for all, instead of just mega-dorms with exclusionary student-only housing. So that means students could live there as well as families and local workers because of the inclusionary design of 1-,2- and 3- bedroom apartments.
I have posted links in the past that show that the other UC schools do NOT provide “affordable” housing they have (for the most part) housing that is MORE expensive than the already expensive housing on the UCD campus. I am waiting for Eileen to post a link for “affordable” on campus housing at the other UC schools. If I am wrong I am happy to admit it (and I’ll make my friends that are paying ~$2K a month for their kids to SHARE a room at Cal and UCLA happy).
The LA Times wrote that kids are moving off campus to save money since rent is cheaper in Westwood (one of the highest rent areas of CA):
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-dorm-costs-20150816-story.html
P.S. Unlike the new places on B St and the proposed West Davis development that “excludes” people who are not seniors I have not heard of anyone propose housing in Davis that “excluded” anyone so I would also love to see Eileen post a link to this “exclusionary” housing she talks about…
P.P.S. If Eileen does not like “exclusionary” housing I’m wondering if she is aware that people not connected with the University are “excluded” from renting on campus…
UC has a simple solution to this problem. They just define any added housing as affordable.
http://ucop.edu/student-housing-initiative/
and then….
Presto! New housing is affordable!
It’s magic Don. The affordable housing crisis is fixed by calling it affordable.
Ken,
Thanks for this info because it points out how on campus housing has its definite advantages for students as one of the UCLA students testified:
“Besides making it easy to meet new friends, dormitory life allows students to concentrate on their studies without the hassles of off-campus life, she said. “You don’t have to worry about cooking, cleaning and paying your own utility bills,” said Gonzalez, who receives financial aid.”
But trying comparing UCD which has 5,300 aces of land and is the largest UC in the system with historically the least amount of on-campus housing, to UCLA which has no available land is ridiculous. Land is the limiting factor in-terms of availability and cost, relative to the affordability of housing. UCD has over 5,300 acres and one of the worst track records in terms of providing on-campus student housing. That is simply inexcusable.
Also UCLA which does not have anywhere near that volume of land as UCD, so there is NO excuse why UCD does not have much more on-campus affordable student housing.
Plus, UCD apparently has a 22% vacancy rate at West Village. That sure sounds like a huge UCD management incompetency issue, particularly when UCD at the same time tries to whine about the vacancy rate in the City.
Finally, I have no idea what you are talking about with your claims that unless you are a senior you are excluded at the B St. project. I have not heard anything about this. Where did you get this information?
Given that, it seems ironic you hold out hope for UCD housing a solution to the crisis. While they may have the land, the rest of the data do not lend themselves to that solution.
Eileen is correct that the B Street Apartment is no longer seniors only as it was originally proposed (however it still “excludes” any non owner occupants):
“When the complex was first envisioned, Jim Kidd, the developer who proposed the project, actually wanted the condominiums to be geared toward seniors only, speaking last year during the pre-application phase about the need for more senior housing in Davis. But after learning that it would be difficult to fill the 14 units in the complex with couples who would qualify for the age restriction, Kidd pulled back from the requirement.”
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/council-approves-mission-residences-condominium-project-for-b-street/
Eileen mentions that “dormitory life allows students to concentrate on their studies without the hassles of off-campus life”. It costs about $2K a month to SHARE a room at UCLA. If four guys rented a three bedroom unit in LA and shared two rooms they could find some to live in the third bedroom and cook and clean for them full time still spend less money than living in the dorms.
P.S. Do you have a link to the West Village Vacancy rate? Does it include the “vacant” homes (that have not been built yet) or did you get the information from your source that told you about the “affordable” housing at the other UC schools…
David,
Actually, you have made clear that UCD is the solution to the student housing shortage. UCD has a boatload of empty beds at West Village and so it is up to UCD to fix that screwed up situation. Particularly, while UCD has the audacity to complain about the City’s 0.4 % vacancy rate while UCD has a 22% vacancy rate at West Village.
So whose fault is that major screw up? Are you going to try to blame the City for UCD’s incompetency and then on top of that claim, that the City needs to subsidize UCD’s gross incompetency and irresponsibility to their students to provide them the needed on-campus affordable student housing?
Oh yes David, then on top of that it looks like you want Davis to subsidize UCD’s negligence on providing its needed student housing and that the City needs to ask the community to increase its taxes to compensate for UCD’s incompetency and failure to provide the needed on-campus housing on its 5,300 acre campus?
Seriously?
A boatload is 400 which they apparently cannot fill because their costs are too high despite the housing crisis.
Families will not rent expensive apartments in Davis, when the same cost will rent a single family home in a neighboring community. Likely, these will attract students or young professionals, without children. Planning in the 1970’s planned for 75,000 residents by now, with a need for 12 elementary schools. We are growing, but struggling to maintain enrollment for 7 schools. Getting students out of existing housing in mini dorms in residential neighborhoods and apartments, and reducing the rate of rental increases might be a better option.
Except for the Nishi project right? 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartments… etc etc etc.
By the time he would take office, the voters will have decided on Nishi and the other projects that he apparently opposes will likely be approved and underway. So I would be more interested in his take on the West Davis Active Adult Community, and also futher discussion of this from his website:
How can conditions be improved to attract and retain new businesses?
Sharla
“I can’t see running for office with a platform of trying to recreate that community through planning and design when new 2-bedroom stacked condos start at $700K per unit.”
That is good. Neither are any of the current city council candidates. I feel that a “sound bite” from Ezra’s piece is being used to falsely characterize him as wanting to re create the Davis of 30 years ago as opposed to acknowledging that many of the problems he names do indeed exist and that they way that we have approached them over the years has exacerbated problems rather than solving them. I would say that “look at the result” would be an appropriate framing for whether or not much of what Ezra has said is objectively true.
Tia, all I hear from Mr. Beeman is the same approach to housing at the local and state level that I can get for free at any low rent coffee shop. UCD could house every single student and there would still be a housing crisis for young families. The underlying economy has changed since “the old days” and we can’t build our way out of a housing shortage by relying on local developers. There is demand for housing in Davis from people that don’t currently live here let alone the people that have jobs here or go to school here. Every single community that isn’t a s**thole community is seeing rents and prices outpacing inflation. It seems like the bubble that never really pops. It seems to me that Ezra is throwing red meat to anyone who pines for a solution to good quality development by the private sector. He can’t deliver any more than the people who have been on the council over the last 30 years because the basic profit motive favors what is being done already…more crap. Nice stuff is not profitable and affordable at the same time.
Dave Hart
“Nice stuff is not profitable and affordable at the same time.”
We often hear that said. However, my position is that this is unknowable since no developer that I have met and talked with ( now quite a few projects in Davis) has ever been willing to share what they mean by “pencil out”. This leaves me with some skepticism about whether it is actually the case. But recent council decisions would suggest that some council members are willing to just take developers at their word, a somewhat risky business given the current changes being requested by the Cannery as an example.
Also, there seems to be quite a bit of subjectivity about what is “nice”. When we remodeled my current home, we did it on a fairly low budget and I found the results “nice” although they were certainly not the “top of the line”. I am sure that some of the students needing a place to live might define “nice” very differently than you or I might.
Just as when you took out a mortgage, the builder has to demonstrate that they can pay back the loans they will use for construction financing, property purchase, etc. In order to do that, they have to show the lender that the project will have sufficient revenues. Those numbers will vary all over the place, depending on what type of loans they are getting, how many investors there are, what they are using for collateral, etc. There are, I am sure, industry standards for this, since similar standards exist for home mortgages.
That is what they mean by “pencil out.” I really don’t understand why this is so mysterious to you, nor why you choose to impute dishonesty on the developers (“some skepticism about whether it is actually the case”).
Next time you see Jeff, get him to explain it to you.
There is generally a standard 8-12% ROI expectation in real estate transactions. For development projects it will probably be higher.
Rate of return expectation on investments is affected by risk, the cost of capital, time and the alternatives.
If you borrow money to invest in a development project, then the rate of return needs to be enough to pay the lender’s interest due on the note until you sell the finished project and can pay off the note…. with the remaining profit enough to pay you for your time and services.
If you use your own capital, then the rate of return would need to be enough to at least match the returns of alternative investment options plus increases relative to the quantified risk of loss and the time to achieving the returns. The longer the time period to repay the investment, generally the higher the risk. That is why the rate for a 30-year mortgage is greater than it is for a 15-year mortgage…. and why someone with a lower credit score can pay a higher interest rate.
The bottom line is that there are too many variables to generalize.
Suffice it to say, if a developer moves forward with a project then the ROI pencils out. If the developer does not move forward, then it does not.
It is not up to those without skin in the game of the project to question the developer’s determination that the project pencils out or not. In fact, it would be absurd to do so.
We can start by not rezoning commercial sites to mega-dorms. We need those parcels for economic development, instead of the City subsidizing UCD housing needs when UCD has plenty of land and is fully capable of providing the needed on-campus student housing like the other UC campuses are.
It is very costly to assemble the disparate parcels we have in Davis into one large space for a commercial/industrial development that will add economic value. That’s why we see the peripheral projects that are proposed. A study I posted last year found that just assembling the parcels added 15% to 40% to cost of land for a project.
I really believe that the peripheral MRIC project would’ve passed a Measure R vote if they had stuck to a commercial/industrial development as was originally planned and had not muddied the water by trying to introduce housing.
Richard: You seem to be making an assumption that all commercial/industrial development requires massive-sized parcels outside of city boundaries.
On a related note, there doesn’t seem to be any commercial/industrial proposals (outside, or inside city boundaries) that don’t include housing. What does that tell you, regarding developers’ actual goals (in terms of maximizing their profits)?
Even Nishi has eliminated the (“bothersome”) innovation center component.
“What does that tell you, regarding developers’ actual goals (in terms of maximizing their profits)?”
Tells me that if we want to sole our commercial shortage, we need to fix our housing crisis first
In my opinion what it might tell voters is that developers know how tough it is to get a Measure R housing project approved in Davis so they will try and push new housing projects under the guise of being for commercial/industrial development.
It seems to be that the housing crisis has created a shortage in the market and therefore is overwhelming the incentive to develop other types of housing.
Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Already, there’s supposedly an “imbalance” regarding the ratio of housing vs. commercial development. In other words, there’s already an excess of housing development compared to commercial development.
Pretty sure that you’ve made this point repeatedly, as well. (At least, from what I recall.)
Suggest that you at least have some consistency in your arguments.
That we have incorporated so many financial demands, environmental standards, restrictive zoning, misc. exactions, frivolous lawsuits, etc., on developers, that it is no longer profitable to build the type of projects that we want and need. And yes, Measure R is one of those significant financial demands. If we want to really solve our housing and fiscal crises, we need to take a fresh look at all of our requirements and determine how best to incentivize the types of projects that we need.
The developer of MRIC likely decided that they needed housing to make the project financially possible. If we didn’t want that housing, our response should have been to negotiate a reduction in the upfront costs of a commercial only project in order for that to move forward. I suspect the developers of the other proposed project also decided they needed housing, so they moved their project to Woodland where there are fewer requirements and housing is acceptable. Repeating (ad nauseum) that we wanted a commercial only project without making any material changes to our demands does nothing but ensure that nothing is built.
I find it fascinating Ron that you do not believe market factors matter.
David,
I find it fascinating that the City is trying to rezone commercial parcels for mega-dorms. If the City needs economic development, why is the City considering re-zoning the limited commercial land in the City left for mega-dorms?
Mark: the “financial demands, environmental standards, restrictive zoning, misc. exactions, frivolous lawsuits, etc.” that you’re referring to have (so far) only discouraged commercial developments. Those same factors (and perhaps even more of them) apply to residential developments, as well. And yet, there never seems to be a shortage of residential proposals.
Regarding the “innovation center” that’s being pursued in Woodland, that (ironically) provides yet another example of lack of demand for commercial development (unless it also includes housing). Even with housing, I’m wondering if that development is attracting commercial tenants. (Even if it is, then one might ask how many regional “innovation centers” can be supported by the market.)
I find it (perhaps purposefully?) “naïve” to suggest that developers are not pursuing the greatest profit, even if it doesn’t meet the needs/goals of a community. Especially if they have a blog (and others) “leading the charge” to change zoning in a manner that better-suits developers’ goals.
Again, haven’t you repeatedly suggested that we ALREADY have an imbalance in the ratio of housing, vs. commercial development? How would adding even more housing (e.g., by changing existing commercial/industrial parcels to accommodate even more residential development) address that problem?
It says nothing at all about the demand, Ron, though that explanation certainly fits with your preferred narrative. What it says is that we have made commercial construction too damn expensive and risky, so nothing is being proposed. That was true with apartment construction as well, until developers figured out that building 4 and 5 bedroom apartments made the projects work financially with the current standards. The City has control over those costs. We can reduce them and get projects built, or increase them and make sure there are no developments at all.
Ron: Profit is determined by the market and scarcity.
Mark: The “megadorm” proposals simply show that under the current system (and the city’s willingness to change existing zoning), that’s where developers can make the greatest profit.
That may be further evidence that fees are too low, for multi-bedroom, double-occupied megadorms. (In any case, we already know that they’re money-losers for the city in the long-term, based upon the only analysis that’s actually been done.)
Really? Gee, you’re so smart oh exalted one!
Just to clarify, you’re suggesting that the city’s needs and goals should be determined by (and continually respond to) market demand. You’re so “in tune” with a pro-development point of view at this point that it’s laughable.
And yet, you still haven’t addressed how adding even more housing will help address the already-existing excess of residential development, compared to commercial development.
Well then David, there are a boatload of empty beds on the UCD campus. Why are you not focusing on that issue, rather then continuing on trying to get the City to remedy the student housing problem that UCD is responsible for?
You’re asking private individuals and companies to invest money – their money – in these projects – so you want them not to seek a return on their investment? Unless the city develops the land itself, they have to rely on the market.
The city remedy seems to produce housing faster that is at least 50 percent cheaper than what the campus can do.
The city is subsidizing the cost of housing for UCD’s benefit, and is sacrificing it’s own (other) needs to do accommodate it. That’s one reason it might be “cheaper”.
In any case, how much of a “crisis” is it, if West Village has a 22% vacancy rate?
I’d also note that “estimates” regarding market rates (for new housing) are about as reliable as postings on a blog.
You are incorrect sir. What you are seeing is the difference between a market rate apartment and the non-market rate costs on the UC Davis campus.
Not seeing anything that I’ve posted as incorrect.
By the way, you’ve continued to avoid addressing how adding even more housing will “help” address the already-existing excess of housing, compared to commercial development. (Probably about the third of fourth time you’ve avoided it, in this thread alone.)
So David, you clearly are advocating for the City to subsidize UCD’s gross negligence to provide affordable on-campus student housing and you are advocating against UCD on-campus student housing now (which is the only way to control student housing costs long-term). wow….
Meanwhile, you are also advocating for no new apartments for families needing rental housing (that you, yourself needed for your family, until you got a house to rent in Davis). wow….
I won’t speak for what David is advocating.
I advocate that we have private developers build market-rate housing in town, with whatever ‘affordable’ percentage is possible without making the projects non-viable. And that UCD build as much housing on campus as possible.
Between those two sources of housing we finally have an opportunity to break the logjam and begin to see an improvement in the apartment vacancy rate in town. With more rental housing and more beds on campus, it is possible that we will see some starter homes become available for families — homes that are currently occupied by groups of students.
I know that if we don’t build all of what I’ve just outlined, the rental situation will get worse and young adults — students and non-students — will pay the price in ever-increasing rents or high commuting costs.
Anything that impedes the projects that have been proposed will make things worse for current and future renters in Davis.
David, maybe you should be blogging on why UCD is building non market rate housing on campus. What are the roadblocks that need to be addressed in order for them to build more affordable housing. Maybe that’s something you could use your blog to advocate for?
The word subsidized is misplaced here, Eileen. There is no subsidy.
Keith: You seem to believe I can wave a magic wand and get data from the university, it’s not so simple. But as Ken has showed, the non-market rate costs are not endemic to UC Davis.
David,
Ken has shown no such thing and I pointed that out in my response to him. In fact, he claimed that B St. housing was all senior housing which is also completely incorrect.
So, clearly David you and the Vanguard support the position of “Davis needs to subsidize UCD’s student housing shortage” which is clearly due to UCD’s negligence.”
At the same time, you and the Vanguard support the position of “Davis should not build apartment for families”, and instead, Davis should only build 5,000 – 6,000 mega-dorm beds for students only.”
So let’s just say we agree to disagree on both of these points. My position is that any new multi-family housing needs to be design so that anyone can live in it, families, local workers, or students. This is because that works for the community as a whole, not just enabling UCD to continue deflecting its housing needs off campus (i.e. 71% of UCD students are forced off-campus after their freshman year.)
And also, UCD needs to provide far more on-campus housing than they are proposing including the 50/100 plan which calls for at least 10,000 beds on campus. These on-campus beds are needed sooner than later because of UCD’s over-ambitious growth including their self-directed “UCD 2020 Initiative”, to add 5,000 more students to the UCD campus by 2020. UCD is doing this to extract triple tuition from 4,500 of these students who will be non-residents. Yet, UCD has not provide the on-campus housing for this aggressive growth.
UCD claims to support sustainable planning, yet UCD does not practice what it preaches. There is no excuse why UCD cannot provide 50% on-campus student housing like the other UC’s particularity since UCD has 5,300 acres, more than any other UC?
The bottom line is that UCD can, and needs to provide the affordable on-campus student housing needed by its students on its enormous campus (the largest campus in the UC system).
Ron: “Not seeing anything that I’ve posted as incorrect.”
Now that I would mark as correct.
Especially the “not seeing” part.
When I read Ezra’s announcement I came away with two impressions:
1. He wants Davis to stop changing.
2. He wants Davis to have good schools, moderately-priced housing, great parks and modest taxes.
My reaction to No. 1 is that change can be controlled but not stopped, and that trying to stop it is a fool’s errand. My reaction to No. 2 is that you probably can’t have all that given the external market demand for Davis housing, but you certainly can’t have it without some kind of commercial development to underwrite the cost, and that means change.
My initial conclusion is that Mr. Beeman isn’t a reasonable candidate.
It’s still sort of early in the campaign, so perhaps he can refine his message and change my perceptions. But from where I sit, he’s off to a rough start.
Jim
I have not shared your impression that Ezra does not want Davis to change. My impression is that what he does not want is for us to change in a manner advantageous to only one group in our community, but in a way that is a win-win rather than the winner take all paradigm that seems to have dominated to date.
It sounds like both Eileen and Ezra believe that UCD should be building more housing on campus. Now Eileen and Ron are telling us that UCD has a 22% vacancy rate at the newer than average nicer than average apartments in the West Village.
If UCD really does have OVER one and five on campus units sitting empty it seems like they won’t be in a big hurry to build more stuff (that is forced to be expensive by many reasons including prevailing wage laws) that will sit empty.
As much as Ezra (and Ron & Eileen) seem like nice people just “wishing” Davis would continue to have good schools, moderately-priced housing, great parks and modest taxes without change probably won’t stop Davis from changing.
Actually, I recall that David is the one who initially pointed this out.
Regarding commercial development, some (including myself) have pointed out that the city is converting commercial/industrial sites within the city to accommodate student housing, despite the vacancy rate at West Village.
Truly, a world/planning process turned upside-down.
Unless something has changed since the last DIR ruling I saw, prevailing wage laws aren’t an issue. DIR initially ruled against the university and said that PW had to be paid at West Village, but it later reversed itself in response to a legal challenge.
David
“The city remedy seems to produce housing faster that is at least 50 percent cheaper than what the campus can do.”
This is an honest question since I will not pretend to have knowledge about the building constraints faced by the UC. The question for me is, at least 50 % cheaper than what the campus “can do” or than the campus “chooses to do ” ? One question for me is, since the university did not choose to meet its previously agreed upon housing commitment, why would we think that they will choose ( or be able to) meet their new agreement.
Contrary to what some may think, although this surely sounds as though I am blaming the university, I am certainly not blaming the students. I believe that if the university cannot or will not house the students, someone must, and that some one must therefore be the city.
I have not gotten to the bottom of this question. Despite the land costs, there are structural reasons why construction costs are higher on campus, even by a private entity. From talking to the students though, it seems that the university is funding programs through housing fees as well which adds on additional costs. Students are able to find ways to save on food that they cannot with a meal plan. There are market efficiencies that do not exist for on-campus housing, that do for off-campus. All these factors appear to combine to create huge costs and we are not talking about small cost differentials, we are talking 50 percent on-campus versus off-campus.
“There are market efficiencies that do not exist for on-campus housing, that do for off-campus”
I would be very interested in what these are and why other campuses do not seem to be plaqued by these same lack of efficiencies.
For one thing, UC Davis’ cost of housing is right around what the cost of housing is for other UCs, so I’m not exactly sure that the idea that other campus have avoided these problems is an accurate assessment.
Don
“That is what they mean by “pencil out.” I really don’t understand why this is so mysterious to you, nor why you choose to impute dishonesty on the developers “
There is nothing mysterious to me about the process you explained so clearly. What is a mystery is why the developers will not state what that is in dollar amounts.
I will be happy to explain to you why I have a lot of skepticism. When the Cannery was still being debated, I attended one of the public outreach meetings. I asked the question, knowing that they would not have exact numbers, what their rough estimate would be for the range of prices on single family homes. No one cared to state a number but instead responded basically with what you posted. I was not satisfied and so pushed a little. At the time newish homes in the North Star area were selling in the 5-600K range, so I threw out those numbers. One of the speakers after hemming and hawing stated that this was probably a reasonable estimate. The actual price of the homes in question is in the 800-900k. Now I realize that there will be increased construction costs as time passes, but neither of the presenters said a single word about that, nor the fact of which I am sure they were aware that they would be advertising these high end homes in the Bay area. So you can use the words “impute dishonesty” if you like. I am making an accurate recounting of the actual conversation. Dishonesty may be too strong a word, but then, it was not mine. I would say “not forthcoming” is a better choice.
You are basically asking private developers to tell you what they think the market rate will be at the time of buildout.
Capital rules. Without it nothing gets built. The Rate of Return on a capital investment is none of your business unless you are supplying the capital. Suffice it to say that since the goal is a rate of return, if the developer says it does not pencil out then it means that there is insufficient expected ROI relative to the cost, time and risk factors.
We had developers pull out of two innovation park proposals because they determined that the projects would not pencil out. The evidence is that they pulled out. If the projects would have penciled out they would have pursued them.
“Pencil out” means make at least the target return on investment, which will vary with project circumstances. But if the market supports pricing that exceeds the target return, you can’t expect the project owner to turn down the additional profit.
(Jeff posted while I was composing, but there’s enough difference that I’ll leave my part as-is.)
If it is a “mystery” to Tia why developers won’t give the exact selling price or rent for a project that has not started and may not even be be completed for five years I’m wondering if she can tell us what her hospital will charge for a pap smear and c section in 2023.
Good point.