For years I have heard the same dilemma over the notion that we cannot build our way out of the housing crisis. There are variants on that theme. As one person put it back in November, “I am doubtful we can build our way out given the regional pressures.”
Another person put it like this, saying that “we’re not likely to build our way to affordability.”
Or another: “We cannot simply build our way out of trouble which is the path many seem to be urging.”
Or still another: “But I am not going to pretend that building for them will ‘build our way out of trouble’ as you seem to believe.”
There is a legitimate point here that I think this is a thorny situation. People will correctly point out that Davis is not an island and therefore, if we build affordable housing to provide for our residents, it will draw from the regional demand and therefore our efforts to build more housing may be akin to a pin-prick of a large bubble and therefore have no real effect.
In some ways, that dilemma is acknowledged by the developers of West Davis Active Adult Community, who are looking into whether they can simply create supply for existing residents in hopes that the housing that they build does have a local impact.
At the same time, it is also why I believe our first step should be toward addressing student housing, which is a local problem that we can greatly alleviate through the creation of local supply –
since it is unlikely that students who do not attend our local university will flock here from out of town.
But there is a bigger problem than just student housing, and the solution is much more complicated overall.
I think comments by Mark West on Saturday and Sean Raycraft a few months ago hit the nail on the head here.
As Sean Raycraft acknowledged back in November: “Some have said we can’t build our way out of a regional crisis. Maybe they are right. So what is the alternative? Let it get worse through inaction?”
Mark West, yesterday, would reverse the question as well: “If we do not build more housing (otherwise known as – maintaining the current scarcity) how do you propose addressing the severe housing shortage in town?”
This is the problem we face. On the one hand, I agree with those who do not want to see us blow out our borders and produce runaway housing on the periphery. On the other hand, the current situation is not working.
Now there are those who continue to argue that the point is that the source of the problem is UC Davis and that is where the solution must ultimately come from. The irony is that their solution is to build housing – housing on campus. So is the argument that we can’t build our way out of our problems – only UC Davis can?
Here’s the thing, I fully agree that in the past UC Davis has not done nearly enough to address student housing demands. But I do not agree that UC Davis is the source of the problem – nor do I believe that an agreement with UC Davis will solve it.
There are several layers to this. The first is that UC Davis has agreed to add 8500 beds. That’s a little short of what we called for, but they are at least now in the ballpark. The 8500 beds by our calculation gets them up to about 46 percent of new students housed on campus. Realistically, we think UC Davis should go to 50 percent, and agree to provide housing for all first and second year students.
When I spoke to the students last spring, that seemed to be the sweet spot. The current housing market forces students in their first year, about in January or so, to go find housing – and most students have just turned 18, they just arrived in town, and now they are forced to find housing and make a difficult decision and hope they aren’t being taken advantage of.
By providing housing on campus for the first two years, UC Davis can alleviate that concern. At the same time, most students have told me that they don’t want to live on campus all four years, that they want to become part of the community, and they don’t want to have to live under the rules of a surrogate parent when they are 21 and 22.
A second point here is the mission of the university is to educate young people. Many of us received a first-rate education from the university and it is our turn to pay it forward to the next generation by providing the students a safe and secure place to live during their tenure as students.
To add to that, this community benefits tremendously from the presence of the university. It is the largest employer in the region. Many of us owe our livelihood directly or indirectly to the university. And not to be derisive of our neighbors to the south, without UC Davis, Davis would be Davisville, and would more resemble Dixon than the affluent and cosmopolitan community we are today.
As such, the notion that this is a one-way burden imposed by the university with no benefits is simply wrong-headed thinking. I am not saying that Davis should be required to provide 100 percent or even 70 percent of all student housing, but 50 percent or 40 percent (with students living outside of the area) seems very reasonable.
A final point here, even if UC Davis and Davis reached an agreement on student housing, as many have pointed out, student housing isn’t the only issue that we face on the housing front. We still have to figure out a way to add to Davis affordable (both small and big “A”) housing for families and workers, in a region where the housing market is super-heated.
In other words, even if we solve the student housing crisis, and I think we are on the cusp of doing so for the next ten years, we still have to figure out housing for others and that is far more tricky. That is another reason I have been eager to tackle the easier-to-fix and more severe student housing crisis.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree that there is a “bigger problem”, in that some folks just don’t want to accept that Davis has chosen a path of slow growth. However, I don’t agree that it’s “complicated”.
Cities such as Davis have a choice to make. They either continually respond to market demand (which is what most valley cities do, resulting in endless sprawl and/or over-densification), or they don’t.
Seems like the Vanguard is increasingly advocating for the former. I believe that this is at odds with the goals of most Davis residents.
It is also at odds with the significant effort made by many in Davis that has been made in the past, to reign in endless sprawl.
The Vanguard appears to be advocating for a return to the “old days”, when development interests ruled planning processes.
You mention slow growth. But you don’t define what it is or how your growth strategy comports with a vision for the future or how the two interact to create viability. Those are the essential questions. I think everyone I know in Davis, give or take, supports some version of slow growth. They may not however agree as to what that is.
Here’s what you said, above:
It seems like your arguments vacillate around some “undefined” middle ground. The problem with that approach is that it’s then up to you to define “how much” growth should occur (e.g., beyond SACOG requirements).
Market demand would clearly indicate that there’s a “need” to “blow out our borders” (or “over-densify”). If that’s not allowed, then you’re “denying” the ability for some to live in Davis. (The same thing that you’re complaining about.)
My view is a middle ground between those who apparently want little to no growth and want the university to add all of the new student housing and those who want to get rid of Measure R and don’t worry about the consequences.
We’ve been through this many times, already. Does the city’s responsibility include accommodating UCD’s plans to pursue non-resident students, who pay UCD $42,000/year in tuition?
What does that particular point matter? Is it your view that the city of Davis only should accommodate housing for California students?
An argument can be made that the city has some “responsibility” to California residents who choose to attend UCD.
I’d say that the responsibility does not extend to the situation in which UCD unilaterally pursues full-tuition students (as if it were a private institution).
Not trying to speak for Ron, but I believe that point matters for at least two reasons:
1. The policy of attracting non resident students for their higher fees has in the recent past affected California residents adversely. For example, my qualified son was not granted UCD acceptance at a time when similarly or lesser qualified non resident students were being accepted.
2. The families that can afford these higher out of state or out of country fees are also those who are likely to be competing for local housing, but with the advantage of being affluent enough to not need more affordable housing.
Tia: The counter to that point is that adding students from outside of California has enabled UC to not have to do increase tuition on California residents nearly as much.
That’s not the conclusion of a state audit:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article68782827.html
David
Yes, I know. But that was cold comfort for my son. Who by the way is doing fine now in a State University program.
David
Yes, I know that is the argument. But that was cold comfort for my son and others declined admission & does not take into effect the affordable housing component of the discussion which is where we started.
I’m not sure I’m following you on the affordable housing component?
Ron, if you have an issue with UC admission policy, you need to take it up with the Regents. But City policy will not change what the Regents will do. It is just like saying “I’ll hold my breath until you do what I want.” So we can foolishly try to stop a UC policy that you disagree with (but I don’t because I came here as an out of state student and have contributed to California’s economy for the last 40 years), or we can accept that we need to act as a locality in the face of what a large state institution is deciding to do based on statewide interests (not local ones.) You need to offer an alternative other than making fruitless demands.
Thought this was an interesting/related article (below), regarding “official goals” to build 30,000 more housing units in Sonoma County. I wonder what most residents (who are increasingly stuck in traffic, watching more housing spread out into the countryside) think of this.
Not to mention rebuilding in an area that has burned twice now, and will burn again. Subsidized to some degree, by the rest of us.
I’m looking forward to the next “housing market downturn”, at this point. Watch how quickly the “housing shortage” will magically disappear, at that point.
In any case, note the “urban growth boundaries” that have been approved more than once, by voters:
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8011910-181/fires-fuel-a-daunting-push?ref=most
Not much time to write, but I concur fully with what Ron say in his incisive and succinct opening contribution. Some of us, and I would argue many, judging by the vote on Nishi 1.0 do not, as one person put it to me recently, want Davis to become Dacaville or Wavis, or the Wacaville (my word) that the Vanguard clearly wants Davis to become.
There is, as Ron has stated many times before, one other baseline issue: Do the citizens of Davis agree that its land use policies should in large part be determined by the expansion plans and whims of UCD regardless of the fiscal and environmental costs? Put another way should Davis just be at the mercy of UCD expansion plans in what David absurdly calls a “symbiotic” relationship between town and gown (Remember that there was a housing crisis in Davis long before the “2020 Initiative,” and that this expansion initiative was NOT mandated by the state or the Regents)? Evidently the Davis Vanguard, the City Council, and almost all members of our Commissions, think we should be at the mercy of UCD. The California Supreme Court has ruled categorically on at least two occasions that a university cannot engage in uncontrolled expansion without regard for the welfare and environment of its host community.
At the end of the day the debate can be reduced to these two highly related issues.
And anyone who really believes that adding 13,000,-14,000 new beds in the core of downtown Davis is not going to have massive, and oftentimes highly adverse, cumulative impacts on Davis is truly living in Wacavile already.
Dan, how is adding
If there’s very little on-site parking (enabled by a new local regulation that eliminates parking minimums)?;
If there is parking also for guests south of the train tracks (in a structure incorporated into the 80-Richards modifications and 80 bus/HOV lane project that includes a regional bus hub)?;
If the Downtown has a 15 mph design speed (enabled by new and more legislation)?;
If the new density makes frequent transit services financially-doable?;
If there are children and elders moving around, happily and without care?;
If there’s a bike-priority street such as 3rd, with safe and efficient access to UCD campus by bike that also supports Downtown businesses along the way?
Todd
That is an impressive string of six “ifs”. If we could rely on that, it would be lovely. However, the history of The Cannery should not be forgotten.
The City of Davis hired a very impressive consultant team to guide the re-design – really, the return – of a human-scaled Downtown. With their help – and a lot of work – the citizens of Davis will gain an anti-Cannery that will turn our Holy, Anachronistic, Anti-Egalitarian Pennyfarthing back to the Light Side of The Force.
In regards to:
WDAAC is sprawl, personified. And even worse because its residents won’t be as mobility independent as others, or as they could be if they lived e.g. in the re-developed for mixed use no parking-minimum City Hall and DJUSD blocks between A and C and 5th and 7th.
The WDACCer spin is that housing will become available for school children-producers (families) in more central areas as the empty nester and elder is massaged into the periphery. But there’s no guarantee that this housing will be purchased by families – in the worst-case it’s simply great business for local real estate agents who massage sails to speculators or landlords looking to milk the scarcity+deep pockets student housing gestalt that will exist for some time, even if dense and sensible, not car-dependent, and fun & life-proximate home construction picks up considerable steam.
Despite your spinnaker referent “message sails”, I actually agree with you at the 65% level as to WDACC project… for flood plain, utility and the senior mobility aspects…
As one of the quoted posters, I would like to clarify a part of my position. First, I am in favor of constructing housing that meets our actual needs first before we consider making exceptions for other forms of housing that do not directly meet identified needs. This is the reason that I remained neutral on Sterling ( for other reasons than are relevant here), spoke in favor of and voted for Nishi 1, and am in support of Nishi 2 and Lincoln 40 although I will be directly and in my mind probably adversely affected by its proximity to my home.
What I take strong exception to is those who would portray projects which do not meet actual demonstrated needs such as students housing, little a affordable housing, as meeting needs or being good for the entire city when in fact the only folks who will benefit will be those affluent enough to afford luxury accommodations, the developers and the investors. The proponents of projects like The Cannery and Trackside frequently speak as though they are helping to drive down costs or meet community need. While it is certainly their right to propose projects and to build them with city council approval, I would certainly appreciate “truth in advertising” and that has not consistently been the case as witnessed by the recent Cannery ask for additional concessions.
It seems unlikely that developers would be pursuing the megadorm proposals to this degree, if UCD was not pursuing non-resident, full-tuition students. (Even if the megadorms are not primarily occupied by non-resident students, UCD’s decision is having an impact on the entire rental market, and on the city as a whole.)
And – as you have witnessed, some are also attempting to use the vacancy rate to justify developments such as an “overly-large” Trackside proposal. (Now that I think about it, wouldn’t some of the wealthier/non-resident students or faculty consider living in Trackside? Presumably, they might qualify to live there.)
Developers are pursuing student apartments/ housing because there is a scarcity of housing in town.
Exactly. And UCD is creating much of that scarcity, via its pursuit of non-resident students who pay full tuition costs, without much thought regarding how that impacts the city as a whole.
And the city has contributed to the scarcity by not building market rate multifamily housing in more than a decade.
The “city” doesn’t build anything. The vacancy rate in the “build anything” surrounding communities is around 2%. That also impacts the vacancy rate in Davis.
The article above (regarding Sonoma county) describes a “housing shortage”, as well. (I believe it’s around 2% there, as well.)
It’s likely a leftover impact from the recession.
Unfortunately, the only proposals that Davis is getting are for megadorms/student housing, largely as a result of UCD’s pursuit of non-resident students.
The Vanguard advocates addressing the “symptom”, instead of the underlying “problem”. (And actually, the problem created by UCD is not exactly “new”, even though the pursuit of non-resident students is a more recent event.)
“The city doesn’t build anything”
Ok, wise guy.
”the only proposals that Davis is getting”
If it fills a need, what difference does it make? Shouldn’t the choice of developers tell you what is driving the market?
”symptom”
I discussed that in the article in great detail.
David: I strongly disagree that the need created unilaterally by UCD (and enabled by developers) should (effectively) dictate the planning process. We’ve already discussed the downsides to that, repeatedly (fiscal impacts, opportunity costs, displacement of non-student renters, no guarantee that UCD won’t continue on the same course, etc.).
As existing sites are used for student housing, the resulting densification and loss of sites for other uses will eventually be used to “justify” sprawl.
What’s dictating the planning process is the scarcity of housing. You realize at one point in time, half the people living in this town worked at UCD. Add to that the 20,000 or so students who live in town. This is a university town, of course the university is going to dictate the planning process. It has since it became a UC. You’re argument ignores history.
David,
Mega-dorms do nothing to help with the need for multi-family rental housing by families and local workers. The letter to the editor in the Enteprise you brought up yesterday makes clear that families are being pushed out of our multi-family rental housing and this is clearly due to UCD’s gross negligence for over two decades to provide the needed on-campus housing for its own growth.
Apparently you now support “let the market decide our planning for us”, but that attitude usually does not work well for the community, because it is often not good planning and not consistent with the community’s vision for the City. I find it astonishing that you would take such a position.
When there is scarcity, families will be pushed out of multi-family rental housing because they can no longer afford market rate prices. This is the point I’ve been making over and over again. The answer is to create surplus supply.
Well that second sentence is where your “narrative” is wrong, and plenty of people including myself, disagree with you. In fact, it would almost seem that you would make such a statement to simply motivate discussion just to generate comments on the Vanguard. I mean come on….
So let’s just say that there is plenty of evidence that UCD is primarily responsible for the impacts on our City’s rental housing because they have grossly neglected to produce the needed on campus housing for its owner growth for years. UCD only has 29% on-campus housing which is primarily freshman dorms where the students are forced off campus after their first year. So UCD is forceing 71% of its camous studtn population off campus every year.
Meanwhile, UCD is the largest UC with over 5,300 acres, so there is absolutely no excuse why they have not provided far more student housing on campus. In addition, there is no excuse why they can’t provide the needed 10,000+ additional beds on-campus (not only 8,500 beds) for the 50/100 plan. Six other UC’s have committed to providing 50% on campus housing, but UCD is still resisting it even though they have plenty of land to provide it.
By the way David, what happened to your advocacy for your proposed 85:15 plan? I guess you have abandoned that position at this point and now, instead, you are expecting the City to continue enabling UCD to deflect its housing needs on the the City. Plus, you continue avoid bringing up the need for multi-family rental housing for non-students, or at best, make it secondary. It really is disappointing to see you continue to run interference for UCD.
Just wait, I got more coming that you’ll find fascinating on this front.
”What happened to your adovocacy for your proposed 85:15 plan?”
UC Davis gave us the 85 percent. 8500 of 10,000 beds.
Eileen, I’m going to correct you once again. Most of that 5300 acres is prime agricultural land that you and many others have been striving to preserve with the City’s growth limits. Either you need to stop making this claim, or it’s clear that you’re a hypocrite.
[moderator] no name-calling, please.
[Moderator] I use the term in the objective, defining mode, the same as calling somebody male or female. It is only pejorative if you find such definitions objective. Definition of hypocrisy: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
Here’s the reference on the amount of land that UCD uses for agricultural research–it’s over 3,000 acres: http://www.caes.ucdavis.edu/news/articles/2015/04/uc-davis-ranked-no-1-in-world-for-ag.
Eileen, I posted stats in an earlier story that shows that UCD students are a small share of the City population than they were in 1970. The share shrunk over the next 30 years, but it hasn’t rebounded substantially since then. The issue is a lack of housing in general with the hide regional demand for Davis housing. Stan Forbes was wrong 20 years ago that the quality of our schools and community drive the housing and rental prices, and he’s still wrong. Accept that by trying to slam the gates behind you, you’re causing other housing problems.
“I’m not sure I’m following you on the affordable housing component?”
It matters to the students who do not have much money whether or not their are double occupancy rooms available and other less expensive housing. It does not matter to those to whom expense is no issue and can select rooms that could house more than one student for themselves alone if they so choose or can opt for less expensive housing in order to have more to play with even if they could easily afford more expensive housing.
I’m wondering if Tia can estimate the percentage of students where “expense is no issue” (my estimate is WAY under 1% since for even most on the “top 1%” expense is an issue)
I an still friends with a couple guys from college whose parents were both MDs and they had a lot more money than me (whose parents didn’t graduate from college) but for them (and everyone I knew even richer than tham) “expense was a BIG issue” and they would not be able to rent a place like this even if they wanted to:
https://sacramento.craigslist.org/apa/d/exceptional-4-bedroom-home/6477599488.html
“expense is no issue” is indeed a relative term… for us and for our daughter, we could “afford” the housing, by making significant sacrifices in other areas, and/or going into debt…
“affordable” doesn’t mean “painless”…
If it is truly “unaffordable” you don’t do it. You can’t.
“Choices” is a different matter…