UC Davis has agreed to increase its overall on-campus housing allotment from 28 percent currently to 48 percent. That comes to 9050 additional beds over the next decade, with 5200 of them to be built essentially right away and available for rent as soon as 2020 or 2021. While some have continued to push for UC Davis to go to 10,000 additional beds and get to 50 percent, it is important to evaluate where things currently stand.
With the voter ratification of Nishi, that is the approval of 2200 student beds. The council previously has approved Lincoln40 at 708 beds and Sterling at 540. Both Nishi and Lincoln40 are subject to litigation.
A few weeks ago the Planning Commission heard the proposal for Davis Live Student Housing, which features 440 student beds in 71 units. And still on the table is Plaza 2555 with its estimated 554 beds.
That puts the number of approved units in the city at 3448. There would be another 994 possible. That puts the total number of units in the city at 4442.
With the housing on campus, we are looking at 13,492 beds.
We could certainly push for UC Davis to add that extra 1000 beds. At this point, I’m not sure that is the most critical need for them to do. I would be more concerned that UC Davis actually 
builds the 9050 it has promised. So far there is a plan for UC Davis to add 5200 beds. Officials at UC Davis assure me that they are working on the remaining 3800 beds, but it is reasonable to be concerned that, five years from now when the public has moved on to other focuses, the pressure might not be on.
The community has taken at times a negative view of UC Davis in terms of their commitment to on-campus housing. While that is understandable, part of the problem has been that, really up until the passage of Measure J in 2000 by Davis voters, UC Davis didn’t need to have as large an on-campus housing stock as some of the more urban universities with more limited housing off campus.
As we have noted, the cost of housing on campus is much higher than it is off campus. Given that Davis is the second least expensive community to live in of the UC schools, with the average annual cost at just under $10,000 per room, it should not be surprising that UC Davis students would look to off-campus housing.
On the other hand, UC Davis is the second most expensive UC to live at on campus, at an average of $16,136 per year (with the rate even higher for a single occupancy room). By our calculations, the cost of living on campus is 60 percent higher than living off campus.
From the Vanguard’s perspective, the data suggests that one reason UC Davis has traditionally had a low on-campus housing rate is that they have not needed to add as much housing on campus. Housing off campus has traditionally been available and relatively inexpensive compared to other schools.
That means that, traditionally, students could find housing for much cheaper off campus, where they not only paid less in base rent, but faced more flexibility in the ability to split that rent as well as food costs.
Some have argued “the City should not be enabling UCD to continue in their negligence to provide the on-campus student housing needed for its own growth.” They add that “there is no excuse why UCD cannot provide 50% on-campus housing like UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz, UC Riverside, and UC Merced, particularly since UCD is the largest UC with over 5,300 acres.”
Again, one reason why UC Davis has offered less in the way of housing on campus is the combination of cost and need. That has freed up UC Davis to focus on other things.
But clearly, given changes in Davis’ growth policies since 2000, UC Davis is going to need to re-think its approach to on-campus housing.
And it has. Whether or not you think UC Davis has done enough, they have agreed to raise their on-campus housing stock from 28 percent to 48 percent in ten years.
There are two key stats that the chart tracks. One is the population increase of the city of Davis versus UC Davis. And the second is the enrollment as a percentage of the population.
The latter number trended downward from 1970 to 2000, going from a high of 55 percent in 1970 to a low of 42 percent in 2000. Likewise, the population increase of the city outstripped that of the university until 2010.
What that means is that, until Measure J in 2000, UC Davis enrollment growth was not driving the city’s growth needs. Rather, Davis and UC Davis were growing in tandem. In fact, Davis was growing at the same rate or faster.
UC Davis actually grew the least from 1990 to 2000, at only 8 percent – whereas from 1980 to 1990 it grew at 27 percent and from 2000 to 2010 it grew at 21 percent. You have to be a little careful because it is only a seven-year period, but from 2011 to 2017, UC Davis grew by 16 percent.
What that tells you is that UC Davis since 2000 has grown at about its historic rate, except for the during the 1990s when it essentially stopped growing.
What has changed, then, is not UC Davis policies for enrollment growth, but rather the city’s policies for growth that have slowed if not stopped since 2000. In 2000, the city population was 60,308. In 2016, it was 68,314.
For the first time, UC Davis had more growth, at 10,000 over the 17-year period, than Davis did at 8000.
There are those who would argue that Davis, by building more housing off campus, is enabling UC Davis’ growth policies. The reality is that, as Davis has approved more housing off campus, they have better been able to push UC Davis to add more housing on campus.
UC Davis is adding 9050 of the 13,492 beds. That means that they are accommodating 67 percent or two-thirds of the new student housing. That seems like a reasonable ratio going forward. In fact, I would argue that if UC Davis added beds for two of every three new students going forward, Davis should take that in a heartbeat.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
One of the keys in data analysis is context. The above article does a woeful job of that and just provides city of Davis population and UC-Davis enrollment numbers and growth percentages in their own little bubble without looking at, for example, the broader context of overall population growth in California. This leads to faulty conclusions.
Below is a link to a table that adds overall U.S and California population growth to the timeframe of the analysis for context.
Several key points:
* California’s population growth rates have been very similar to that of the U.S as a whole for the 1990-2000, 2000-2010, and 2010-2017 time periods
*Despite the article’s conclusions that land use policies in Davis put in place in 2000 put a giant massive clamp on growth, population growth rates in Davis for 2000-2010 and 2010-2017 are just slightly below that of the U.S. and California as a whole.
* Meanwhile, enrollment growth at UC Davis dramatically increased to over twice the rate of California population growth from 2000-2010 and 3.7 times the rate for California from 2010-2017. In terms of absolute numbers (see last row in table), UC-Davis enrollment growth from 2010-2017 was 2.2 times more than the city of Davis’ population growth during that period, despite the city almost keeping pace with statewide and nationwide population growth rates.
*This housing”demand shock” coming exogenously from the university combined with a increasing shortfall in the provision of on-campus student housing has led to housing problems for the city of Davis and has pushed out Davis’ families and workforce, especially those who have to compete with students for more affordable housing options.
[There are plenty more conclusions to be drawn from looking at the data in a broader context, but this is a start.]
Table: Population and Enrollment Comparison: 1970-2017
You can always send me an image or chart to donshor@gmail.com and I can upload it.
thanks Don! I thought I had solved the issue by dragging the image to the comment window (and it looked like it worked in the editor), but it just left a bunch of weird code when posted
Yes, the 2020 initiative announced in 2011 by Chancellor Katehi is the main factor in the imbalance between housing and population. However, population growth in Davis is not 100% caused by UCD. Housing growth slowed dramatically in Davis after Measure J/R and enrollment growth didn’t slow — it increased. UCD tore down a lot of buildings, rebuilt a lot, and only added West Village plus some beds at Tercero. There was a big backlog created by their policies before, exacerbated by the 2020 Initiative and their success at meeting their enrollment plans, and also exacerbated by the failure to continue adding rental housing in town as we had traditionally done before.
Thus the need is for much more housing on campus, more housing in town, and a collaborative planning process for the future for any subsequent enrollment growth with the next LRDP.
Since any rental housing will, in the current market, be almost fully occupied by students, it makes sense to allow some projects that are marketed at them directly. Non-students can rent in those projects if they wish, but are unlikely to do so. Over the course of about a decade, projects provided for affordable housing (New Harmony) and single-family homes (The Cannery) but barely provided any rental units at all. I think the rentals at The Cannery are finally available now. The part of the market that was not addressed was the rental market for young adults, including those who are not UCD students.
The council and voters have finally taken actions that will add significantly to the rental market. It is likely that the apartment vacancy rate will start to improve. Possibly rent increases will moderate, though I have little hope that rents will go down or remain flat. Rents are increasing substantially in Woodland and Dixon due to the lack of rental housing in Davis. So the larger regional market has been affected by the shortage of rental units in Davis; I’d expect the rents in those communities will stabilize faster.
The fact that these issues are also happening in other communities doesn’t negate the extremely adverse impacts our market is having on young adults. I don’t know how many other communities are experiencing 0.2% apartment vacancy rates right now. Perhaps some are and are also trying to address their housing shortages.
I charted the UC Davis (purple), Davis (red) and state of California (gray) growth to illustrate that the key change was 2000. The city slowed its growth substantially while UC Davis went back to its pre-2000 growth rate.
I’d like to see a chart which shows the percentage increase over the years in non-resident student enrollments (who pay UCD full tuition costs in excess of $42K/year), vs. California resident enrollments.
I’m sure you can get that data from somewhere and create it
I’m sure that you’re not interested in doing so, as a “reporter”. (Wouldn’t fit your agenda.)
The last I checked, I don’t work for you. I’m not particularly interested in the difference between out of state and in-state enrollment. However, since you are, I would suggest you do the research.
Truth be told, you’re not interested in anything that doesn’t fit your agenda.
It’s your narrative. Do your own homework.
For the moment, I think it’s sufficient to point out some information that you’re not reporting. I’m not running a political blog.
I have no idea what that chart is actually showing as there are no y-axis labels.
On the other hand, as my table shows, City of Davis population growth rates were very similar to California as a whole for the 1980-1990, 2000-2010, and 2010-2017 time periods. For the 1990-2000 time period, Davis growth rates were about double that of California. But you apparently are treating this one decade out of the last four decades as the “normal” or natural condition: that Davis should grow at a rate twice that of California. I don’t know why that should be the case.
Looked at in context, the effects of the 2000 land use policy were to revert Davis back to statewide growth rates. This means that rather than being the no-growth community that some accuse, Davis has reasonably accounted for its share of statewide population growth.
Those are the growth percentages over time
What is the y-axis label?
It wouldn’t cooperate, so I killed it
Yeah, David, I would scrap that chart. It’s a mess, both graphically and conceptually.
First of all, it is really strange to graph a first-order derivative stat like rate of change over time rather than the standard way of graphing the absolute population/enrollment values, with rate of change inferred by the slope of tangent lines.
Secondly, it is even more bizarre to show this rate-of-change graph with continuous lines when you only have data points that are 10 years apart.
It works for your propaganda purposes to try to show some huge inflection point at the year 2000, but a much more honest approach would be to show all of the annual data points.
Strongly disagree with your second paragraph, Rik. Accentuates trends…
If by “accentuates trends” means “how to lie with data,” then yes I agree. There’s a reason why there are established conventions for the analysis and presentation of data. Those are data points with 10-year gaps, not lines.
Notwithstanding increases in student enrollments, the “growth people” have not explained why they generally seem to think that rental housing should be excluded from price increases, when all housing prices (including for-sale housing) have increased throughout California.
As if rental housing was in some kind of special category, in terms of growth/development limits (such as the one percent annual growth limit – which seems to have been completely abandoned in Davis).
If one wants to limit rental price increases, rent control can do so rather effectively (as Proposition 13 has done for ownership).
” the “growth people” have not explained why they generally seem to think that rental housing should be excluded from price increases”
I have not seen that position taken.
It’s stated almost daily, on here.
I think you’re mistaken. I have never seen anyone say that rental housing should be excluded from price increases.
Here’s an example, from above:
If you want to make things easier for lower-income folks (of any age), then pay them more (e.g., with a “living wage”), and/or establish rent control and stop weakening existing Affordable housing requirements.
Since this is happening throughout the state, that’s proof that never-ending development is not a solution.
There’s reasons that the slow-growth movement was established. And, it had nothing to do with attempts to increase prices.
It’s really unfortunate that the Vanguard is attempting to revert to the “old days”, when developers were in full control. For the past couple of days, David has gone so far as to suggest that the successful Nishi proposal is “proof” that Measure R isn’t working.
Good luck with that argument.
He’s not saying that rental housing should be *excluded* from price increases.
O.K. – Don has not “literally “stated that. However, he has continually (and ironically) referred to some of his own workers, and the struggles that some of them face. (While simultaneously suggesting that homeowners are simply interested in protecting their own investments, via growth controls.) I can find that quote from yesterday, if needed.
My main point is that rental housing is not in a “protected class”, regarding growth controls. (Even though we’ve now trashed the one-percent annual growth rate, in Davis.)
If one were to consistently exclude rental housing from growth controls (e.g., due to “housing insecurity”), then developers would focus exclusively on that, thereby rendering growth controls ineffective. (Also assuming that all renters are “housing insecure”.)
I don’t believe I have made that assertion. Others have.
I have frequently referenced young adults in the rental market. In Davis those are mostly UCD students, but it also includes a rather large number of people who live here and attend community college, or who work here and either live here or wish to live here. In the past it has included my grown children, their friends, and almost all of the hundreds of people who have worked for me over the years.
Where do you think the barista at Common Grounds lives? Where do you think she should live if she is working in Davis? What do you think it costs her to commute in to her job here if she lives elsewhere?
It’s not “ironic,” Ron. It’s real life. I gather you don’t interact with young adults very much. Notable that most of them simply don’t qualify for “affordable housing” here.
I have no expectation that housing will cost them less. It’s the complete lack of availability that has reached crisis proportions.
Rent control is not an answer in general, and it’s certainly not an answer for renters who move very often.
If her employer doesn’t pay her a sufficient wage (or if she doesn’t live in Affordable housing), then she might live elsewhere. (And, she might make that choice even if she could afford to live in Davis.)
In reality, Affordable housing, rent control, and the “build everything” mantra (in a hopeless attempt to reduce rent) are all the result of employers shifting their costs onto a community at large. (And, that goes for “non-profit” businesses, as well.)
If the price of that cup of coffee (or plant) sold to customers reflected the actual cost, then such costs would not be shifted onto (and subsidized by) the community at large. And, perhaps business owners might then have more respect for the goals of the community that they benefit from.
Ah, yes. “Elsewhere.” Takes care of that problem.
If there is a 0.2% apartment vacancy rate, she can’t live here. She probably doesn’t qualify for affordable housing.
Really. You actually believe that?
I don’t even know where to begin with this. Labor cost for fast food restaurants is usually about 25% of gross sales. Other restaurants are 30 – 40%. I’ll just leave it at that, along with your gratuitous insult.
The vacancy rate is a direct result of UCD’s enrollment, including its pursuit of non-resident students who pay full tuition costs. (That is another example of an entity shifting its costs onto a community.)
If you’re referring to long-term renters, I’m certain that they could find a place (e.g., when UC Davis is not in session). Of course, if all housing is designed primarily for students, then their options would be reduced.
Not sure why you’d state that.
If employers are not paying a sufficient wage for someone to live in a given community, than someone else is going to subsidize the cost (one way, or another). Note that the “cost” might include the abandonment of slow-growth policies and adverse long-term planning, as some on here seem to advocate.
There is no insult in my statement. I was merely pointing out that if employers paid their employees a sufficient wage, then the resulting costs would (rightly) be passed on to their own customers, rather than the community at large. (And, perhaps some employers would not be able to compete.)
The vacancy rate is a direct result of the failure of UCD and private builders to provide sufficient rental housing for those who need it Most of those who need it are UCD students, but not all of them.
On what do you base this certainty, Ron? I know long-term renters who have been driven out of Davis by rent increases. Do you?
Here’s the insult, Ron:
You’re right – that insult was intended. (Partly in response to your other comment referenced below, regarding the motivations of homeowners. However, you’ve since partially explained the context of that statement.)
I would apologize, but still feel that you don’t respect the slow-growth goals of the community (including the one percent growth cap). And, have yet to acknowledge that some businesses are contributing to the relative lack of affordability, by failing to pay their employees a sufficient wage.) Thereby forcing costs and impacts onto the community at large (not to mention their own employees).
It is not unlike UCD pursuing full-tuition non-resident students, while simultaneously shifting costs and impacts onto the community (as well as their own students).
Ron… there is no such thing as “new progressive”… there are normal people, who grow in size and/or knowledge all the time, and the “regressives”, who want to see decreases in just about everything, but might settle for stasis…
Just want to thank Rik for this (from above):
If one relied upon solely upon David’s reporting, one might have a totally different perspective (if not a totally different “reality”).
Thanks Ron,
David’s, um “reality-challenged,” statements in the article like “What has changed, then, is not UC Davis policies for enrollment growth, but rather the city’s policies for growth that have slowed if not stopped since 2000,” that are clearly shown by a reasonable analysis of the data to be false, are definitely curious! They only make sense if someone is trying to lay the groundwork to get rid of Measure R…
I don’t agree, the city’s growth rate has reduced from over 3 percent to less than one percent. How is my comment false?
David:
1) where did your phrase about growth in Davis being “stopped” come from?
2) in the past 17 years, city of Davis population growth rates are highly consistent with both U.S. and California population growth rates. Unless you are inferring that Davis’ land use policies have somehow affected the state and nation as a whole, you are so far off base that it is laughable. That is the whole point of context. You provided no context in your article because yours isn’t an honest exploration of the data and trends, but merely a propaganda piece that seeks to distort the facts.
3) Contrary to your statement, UC-Davis’ enrollment clearly changed dramatically since 2000. Enrollment growth at UC Davis increased at over twice the rate of California population growth from 2000-2010 and 3.7 times the rate for California from 2010-2017.
You are referring to population growth. Much of this discussion is about housing growth; ie. housing starts. Those are two different numbers. I think it’s pretty easy to explain how there could be a growth in population without a corresponding growth in housing units.
Don makes a good, and important point. Since we moved to Davis, “for reals”, we always lived in a single DU… and, as a result of the two of us sharing a single bed, we went from adding two folk to the Davis population, to five. Two fledglings have departed Davis, but the three of us who remain (for now), still live in a single DU.
Don S.,
I am discussing the only data table embedded in the article; it happens to be about population and enrollment. The rest of David’s arguments are just as easily debunked as the hamhanded and transparently false attempts at propaganda they are. But one only has so much time in the day…
Question for you: is David’s so-called data “analysis”: 1) just a cynical gambit to try to win over low-information types? or 2) a sad result of his being so far on the left side of the Dunning-Kruger curve that he literally has no conception of what he does not know about demographic data analysis?
What matters to me is the 0.2% apartment vacancy rate. That has resulted from an increase in population without an increase in housing units. We need a large number of beds. We appear to be achieving that by means of
— UC committing to more housing construction, though IMO not enough.
— UC having students double up in units where they previously didn’t allow that.
— the city council approving more rental units, including some by the bed and others by the unit.
— the voters approving Nishi, which will include both bed- and unit-rentals.
Many on this blog have argued against all of the rental units that are geared toward students, pushing hard for the university to do more.
I want all of those things to happen. I’ve been saying that for over a decade on the Vanguard. I consider any apartment vacancy rate lower than 5% to be less than optimal and somewhat harmful to renters, especially young adults in the rental market. I consider any apartment vacancy rate lower than 1% to be a housing crisis for those renters. So anyone whose ledger of advocacy doesn’t add up to a lot more beds overall, public and private together, is IMO perpetuating the problem.
You get the housing starts data, do an overlay of that on population data, and I think you’ll see why we have a 0.2% apartment vacancy rate.
Don S. and Howard P.,
Yes, population change rates differ from household change rates differ from dwelling unit change rates, based on household size changes and vacancy rate changes. Those things are part of any thorough demographic change analysis.
But I just looked at the data, and the ratio of housing unit increase compared to population increase for 2010-2017 was greater in Davis than in both Yolo County as a whole and California.
What is the exact number of housing units that have been built in Davis 2010 – 2017? How many were rental units?
HeyRon, you live in friggin Davis… home to UCD. You benefit from living in Davis. The state CSU and UCD systems are in demand as your politics have contributed to an economic situation where kids need a college degree if they are to have half the prosperous life you are privileged to enjoy. Don’t like the growth? Well I can introduce you to many places in CA that are not growing. I am guessing that you would say you won’t like those places. But you are acting like a selfish child enjoying the beneficial lifestyle of this college town while denying the actual requirement of college town growth. You are not alone in this instance, but that cannot be your salvation as I know those people and they are mostly not great company… although they generally have lived here much longer than you.
Jeff: I’m not the one advocating to change existing plans, undermine Measure R, and automatically accommodate whatever that UCD decides to do, regardless of its impact on the city.
So if you lived in Folsom you would demand that Intel build housing for all their employees on Intel property?
Jeff: For one thing, Intel pays taxes. UCD doesn’t.
Beyond that, some have correctly pointed out that there are downsides to economic expansion. Such as where would new workers live, will they displace existing residents, etc.
This is a primary reason that folks are moving from the Bay Area to the Sacramento region.
“For one thing, Intel pays taxes. UCD doesn’t.”
UC Davis hires people who pay taxes.
If you want the exact number of housing units built by year by type, as required by local ordinance the City of Davis has produced a detailed annual report for the past 11 (I think) years. I don’t know where (or if) they have those archived on-line.
Looking at the UC Davis Housing survey numbers in 2010 and 2016 shows an increase of 334 units ~47 units/year on average (about one new unit for each 100 new people in town since 2010)…
http://housing.ucdavis.edu/vacancy-report/
Off the top of my head, the housing projects in town in that period that I can think of are The Cannery and New Harmony, plus some smaller infill ones. I’m curious what it adds up to. I can’t think of any significant rental units added in that time period. Maybe I can find it on the city web site.
The point being, I’m not really interested in what the ratio is, or how Davis compares with California’s median. I’m concerned with our present condition in the rental market.
I found the data in a City of Davis Staff Report dated 3/13/2018 entitled
I compiled this for you:
Housing units built 2010-2017 in city of Davis
(based on summaries of building permits issued for new residential units)
Single-family (detached and attached): 587*
Multi-family ownership 78*
Multi-family rental 262
Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) 56
TOTAL 983
* some of these could be rental or end up being rented in the future
Interestingly, the rate of growth in housing units in Davis for 2010-2017 using this data (and 2010 Census data as the base) is HIGHER compared to the housing unit growth rates in Yolo County as a whole and California (based on 2017 CA Dept. of Finance data and 2010 Census data)!
This is one of the two numbers I am looking at: 262 rental units added in seven years. 37 units per year.
Meanwhile, per the City of Davis:
From the census bureau, the city’s population increased from 65,636 in 2010 to (est) 68,986 in 2017, an increase of 3,350 residents.
So this is the other number I am looking at: 197 people per year.
Generally about 55% of Davis residents are renters.
I think you can see the problem.
Can you show us where these 900 units have been built? I’m very skeptical
Since that is building permits issued, that actually sounds about like The Cannery and New Harmony plus some smaller ones. Not sure where the ADU’s are.
That is a really convoluted and bizarre comparison. And it is wrong. It is a straightforward manner to compare housing unit growth estimates (for all housing units) directly to population growth estimates.
Here ya go: Based on City of Davis data for housing unit growth (City of Davis Staff Report dated 3/13/2018) from 2010 to 2017, and Census data for existing housing units in 2010, and comparing that with 2010 Census and 2017 Census Quickfacts data for population… the growth rate for housing units in Davis slightly exceeded that of the population growth rate from 2010-2017.
And this data for housing unit growth also shows that the rate of growth in housing units in Davis for 2010-2017 was HIGHER compared to the housing unit growth rates in Yolo County as a whole and California (these are based on 2017 CA Dept. of Finance data and 2010 Census data).
Can you show us the data YOU have that makes you skeptical?
If you want to go ahead and check the 2018 City Staff report, it lists all of the locations of the 2017 units. You could then pull those project building permits and confirm each individually. Then you could go back to each yearly staff report since 2010 and check those locations against building permits for each year. Go right ahead and please report back when you have done this and found any discrepancies. Until then it is, to my knowledge, the best summary of new housing unit construction by year that we have for the city of Davis.
No, I don’t have any data. But I’ve lived the rental life for four years.
Go ahead and pull the reports from the city for each year. They describe the project breakdown by unit type.
Turns out you were totally wrong about this hypothesis. Based on City of Davis data for housing unit growth (City of Davis Staff Report dated 3/13/2018) from 2010 to 2017, and Census data for existing housing units in 2010, and comparing that with 2010 Census and 2017 Census Quickfacts data for population… the growth rate for housing units in Davis slightly exceeded that of the population growth rate from 2010-2017.
Enough said.
There’s a danger at blindly looking at data and not understanding the system. My guess is, they aren’t counting the 10 students living in my house as residents.
You went from saying that you don’t trust the City Staff reports enumerating the building permits issued by year based on no data whatsoever, to saying you have 10 students in your house. Non sequitur.
Please refer to the tables I posted early on:
* city of Davis population in 2010: 65,622 (2010 Census); pop. in 2017: 68,986 (Census Quickfacts estimate). Compound annual growth rate 2010-2017= 0.72%. Pop. growth = 3,364
* California population in 2010: 37,253,956 (2010 Census); pop. in 2017: 39,536,653 (Census Quickfacts estimate). Compound annual growth rate 2010-2017= 0.85%. Pop. growth =2,282,697
* UC-Davis enrollment in 2010: 30,449; enrollment in 2017: 37,850. Compound annual growth rate 2010-2017= 3.16%. Enrollment growth = 7,401
CONCLUSION #1: population growth rates in Davis for 2010-2017 were just slightly below that of California. Enrollment growth at UC Davis was 3.7 times the rate for California population growth from 2010-2017. In terms of absolute numbers, UC-Davis enrollment growth from 2010-2017 was 2.2 times more than the city of Davis’ population growth.
The clear problem is that through massive enrollment increases combined with lack of on-campus housing, UC Davis is providing exogenous demand for housing units far beyond existing growth rates in the state as a whole.
Now for housing units:
* city of Davis housing units in 2010: 25,869 (2010 Census); housing units in 2017: 26,852 (City of Davis building permit data of 983 units added to 2010 figure). Compound annual growth rate 2010-2017= 0.52%. Increase = 983 units
* California housing units in 2010: 13,670,304 (2010 Census); housing units in 2017: 14,072,272 (Cal. Dept. of Finance estimate). Compound annual growth rate 2010-2017= 0.41%. Increase = 401,968 units
Further calculations:
* The ratio of Davis’ population increase to new housing units from 2010-2017 was 3.42: 1
* The ratio of California’s population increase to housing unit increase from 2010-2017 was 5.68: 1
[It’s, of course, not that simple because persons per household figures change over time in response to demographics (and sometimes to housing shortages and surpluses), and vacancy rates change too. For example, the CA Dept. of Finance estimates that Davis went from 2.55 persons/household in 2010 to 2.62 persons/HH in 2017 and that California went from 2.90 persons/household in 2010 to 2.96 persons/HH in 2017]
CONCLUSION#2: Davis had a slightly higher growth rate in housing units than California for 2010-2017. Davis also built more housing units relative to its population increase than California did from 2010-2017.
SUMMARY: Seen from this perspective, Davis has provided more than its reasonable share of housing units to meet overall statewide demand. UC Davis has not provided sufficient on-campus housing to meet the demand created by its enrollment increases and this surplus demand has impacted the city of Davis, especially families and workers who have to compete for affordable rental housing with students.
The problem with all of your analysis, Rik, is that it is irrelevant how Davis compares to the state median. You seem very concerned with those ratios and comparisons. Why does it matter how Davis compares to the rest of the state when Davis has a 0.2% apartment vacancy rate?
In a university town it isn’t really surprising that the university is providing most of the growth.
So what? Do you assert that UCD should provide for 100% of the housing for which it creates demand? Housing in a university town is a shared responsibility.
Davis has not provided a reasonable share of housing units to meet the demand in Davis. UCD has also not done its part. That is why we have a 0.2% apartment vacancy rate.
I don’t know any other way to say this: your comparison to California averages and medians could not be more irrelevant to the discussion. California is a huge state with extraordinarily diverse metropolitan areas, rural areas, suburbs, all of which you are agglomerating into some comparative proof that evidently leads you to believe we don’t need to build more rental housing.
Thus you become part of the problem.
Wow. The “problem” is folks like you, who assert that Davis has some undefined “reasonable” obligation to jump whenever UCD says so, even if they’re pursuing full-tuition non-resident students. And, the heck with the fiscal and other impacts on the city, existing student and non-student renters, and slow growth policies in general.
There is no agreement in place between the city and UCD, even as you and David pretend that there is one.
At the same time, David has begun putting forth false arguments (that have been thoroughly taken apart by Rik, today) in an obvious attempt to undermine Measure R.
Disgusting. Hope folks wake up to what the Vanguard is doing. You’d think that the win on Nishi would be enough, but I guess not.
At this point, the Vanguard is a disservice to the community.
“At this point, the Vanguard is a disservice to the community.”
Honestly, take this as a compliment. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. As Don points out, indexing Davis’ growth to the state of California is not exactly an apples to apples comparison. The housing crisis was created because Davis’ population growth decreased and housing development decreased at a time when UC Davis saw its growth rate return to it’s traditional levels. The answer to the housing crisis was always going to be a combined effort. Lost in the discussion here is the fact that UCD has actually provided two-thirds of the approved housing for the next ten years. Would Ron’s vaunted agreement be much different? Rik has not explained what’s wrong with this in his view.
“Disgusting. Hope folks wake up to what the Vanguard is doing. You’d think that the win on Nishi would be enough, but I guess not.”
What does this even mean? What has the Vanguard advocated for beyond Nishi and the two projects in the pipeline? What are you so afraid of?
The fact that you take that as a “complement” is telling.
David: “Truth is in the eye of the beholder”. (Wow – it certainly is when you choose to disregard the facts that Rik posted, which essentially took apart your graph.)
Prior to the election, you stated that there was no threat to Measure R, regardless of who was elected to the council. And yet, since Gloria and Dan were elected, you apparently believe there’s some opportunity for you to begin a campaign to undermine Measure R, as evidenced by your articles since then.
There’s a word for folks who purposefully misrepresent things. Perhaps you should ponder if that applies to you.
Also, regarding UCD, there’s nothing to ensure that they’ll follow-through on their plans (while continuing to increase enrollment). And yet, you want the city to “do its part” – whatever that is. Regardless of how fast UCD might choose to grow, or how much housing they actually build.
Regarding a comparison with other communities’ growth rate, that’s a perfectly valid comparison. Apparently, you believe that SACOG fair share growth requirements are not applicable, either. (Although Davis will now exceed those requirements, some other communities fall short.)
“The fact that you take that as a “complement” is telling.”
I think most people can read between the lines on that one.
“Prior to the election, you stated that there was no threat to Measure R, regardless of who was elected to the council. And yet, since Gloria and Dan were elected, you apparently believe there’s some opportunity for you to begin a campaign to undermine Measure R, as evidenced by your articles since then.”
As usual, your comment reflects a lack of understanding of the points made. (1) The election of Gloria and Dan has nothing to do with whether or not there is a threat to Measure R. (2) I have no intention of beginning a campaign to undermine Measure R.
“There’s a word for folks who purposefully misrepresent things. Perhaps you should ponder if that applies to you.”
I think there’s a saying about a pot and kettle that may apply here.
“Also, regarding UCD, there’s nothing to ensure that they’ll follow-through on their plans (while continuing to increase enrollment). ”
Which is a point I made to Eileen this weekend – rather than trying to squeeze another 1000 beds out of them, the focus ought to be on insuring that they go beyond the first 5200 that are in the works.
” you want the city to “do its part – whatever that is. Regardless of how fast UCD might choose to grow.”
I think the city has largely done its part in building or committing to build one-third of the new beds needed.
“Apparently, you believe that SACOG fair share growth requirements are not applicable, either. ”
I’m more concerned with providing the housing we need at this time than external mandates – either direction frankly.
Ron… I am aware spelling errors and grammar are supposed to be off-limits for comment, BUT (your 9:13 post), where you substitute the word “complement” for the actual quote, “compliment” is a tad egregious… significant difference in meaning…
Howard: Do you really believe that your comment added anything to this discussion?
Yes, I misspelled it. David used the word “compliment”.
“Do you really believe that your comment added anything to this discussion?”
I asked myself the same question about several of the comments you made from the previous day as well, particularly your insult of Don, who volunteers his time on here and has bent over backwards to accommodate perceived attacks on you.
That’s b.s.
The comment I made in response to Don still applies: There’s a lack of respect for the goals and existing plans of the community, from some in business who simultaneously enjoy the benefits of operating in Davis. That might apply to some non-profit businesses, as well.
It’s actually not an insult – it’s just a fact. I made an error when I initially agreed that it was an “insult”.
Regarding moderation, you’ve got to be kidding. Lack of moderation in general is apparently one reason that another blog was started, in Davis.
Comments that require moderation shouldn’t even need to be pointed out, in the first place.
And yet, here’s what Don said – just yesterday:
https://davisvanguard.org/2018/06/sunday-commentary-decline-old-school-progressivism-davis/#comment-385818
I am not asserting that is the motive of those who oppose growth. Try looking at who the “they” was in that discussion.
O.K., you’re “explaining” that mistaken point of view, I guess.
Ron.. unless you have lived here since, say 1979, and live in a house constructed well before that, you have little standing, in my opinion, to regale against “growth”… seriously… you have little credibility, to me…
A “newbie” wanting to exclude all other newbies who came after you… if you don’t like what’s happening, want no growth, feel perfectly feel to leave and loosen up a dwelling unit.
Since Don is speaking on behalf of his own employees, I wonder if they openly tell Don their view of their employer, and the wage that they’re receiving. (That would go for any employer, not just Don.)
Howard: Honestly, I don’t care much about your view of me. You have a strange/unexplained aversion to growth controls, as well as existing zoning.
Note that I can’t afford to live anywhere near my original Bay Area home, but (unlike some) I don’t complain about it.
Ron… too funny… your grits were paid for by the government agencies, right?
This is about housing.
Actually, it was in the Bay Area that I first witnessed the positive effects of growth controls. But, not before witnessing a lot of damage, first. And yet, even there, some continue to rail against growth controls.
It’s really a never-ending battle. And now, development forces are trying to collaborate with those who have been priced out (due to insufficient wages for the area that they’re in).
It sure is nice to have someone commenting here, who compiles relevant facts.
“If you’re referring to long-term renters, I’m certain that they could find a place (e.g., when UC Davis is not in session).”
You’re clearly not a renter Ron, you don’t know what the hell you’re even talking about. First of all, I can’t find housing in Davis if I wait past January. Second, you’d understand that they rent places for 12 months here, even though students only live here 9 months. So if you try to find a place in say July, you can’t. You just have no clue. Quit talking out of your butt.
Craig: Just to clarify, none of these 133 places are available? And, no other websites have available rentals?
https://www.trulia.com/for_rent/Davis,CA/
In any case, what specific steps have you taken with the entity (UCD) which is causing this situation?
Try renting them and see what what happens.
I’m a renter and I know what happens because I’ve been on both ends of taking over a lease early and getting out of a lease early (as recently as last December). You assume the lease for the remainder of the term and it gets renewed on a September to September basis after that.
Must be nice if true. Moving off my couch at the end of this week.
Question (for anyone): Do leases on campus run for a full year? (If not, then that could be an advantage for students.)
Craig Ross said: “Must be nice if true. Moving off my couch at the end of this week.”
It’s true. That’s how the leases work. It’s not totally nice though, because I still need to sue my old landlord to get the remainder of my security deposit back…
That incident did inspire me to get involved in local housing issues though, so I am using my long-term affordable housing consulting background to provide community-based analysis and advocacy for real affordable housing programs/projects (rather than the fake ones being marketed by some), and to consult with City leaders to provide stronger renter protections for security deposit return and similar issues.
I hope that when Rik says “real affordable housing programs/projects” that he knows that all “affordable” housing needs to be “subsidized” by someone and I’m wondering who he wants to “subsidize” the cost of housing to make it “affordable”? We could increase the sales tax again, add another parcel tax or just make the people renting new apartments pay an extra $100/month so the guy down the hall can pay less.
Inherent fallacy in that… a tiny cohort of individuals had (were given) huge, unadulterated license for the GP’s, and the PC and CC adopted their shrek as “vox populi”… staff, with more experience, and less “agendas” were ignored as to input.
Was involved for the last three GP’s, amendments…
Seeing how the “sausage was made” (yeah, Upton Sinclair referent), most recent GP’s have been a “jungle”… those chosen to participate were selected by the CC, and, reflected their views, or even went further ‘liberal’ (in reality, regressive/controlling)…
So, do I have much respect for the planning docs? NO! I know how they were arrived at! Too damn bad that they were not subject to a vote… they were ‘fiat’… under the false guise of “participatory”/democratic…
Shakespeare had it right, the evil someone does lives on… the good is oft interred with their bones…
Oh… Upton Sinclair is widely noted as a “progressive”…
Well, the renewal of the parks tax, at least.
As a reminder, here’s a list of the city’s proposed mitigations regarding the EIR for the LRDP:
Conversely, UCD wants to be “reimbursed” for the use of their land, for the Nishi development (however it’s stated in the MOU). Despite the fact that the development will serve its own students.
“Well, the renewal of the parks tax, at least.”
It’s almost like you don’t know what taxes people pay and how the city gets funded.
You’re reaching well-beyond the comment I made.
Ron: I said, “UC Davis hires the papeople who pay the taxes.”
Your response was: “the renewal of the parks tax at least.”
So how else am I to take your comment, when it ignores the sales and property tax that is 99 percent of the city’s base.
I wasn’t ignoring it. However, your focus on the city’s financial challenges (including the failure of the road maintenance tax) overlooks the city’s proposed mitigations, regarding the costs and impacts that UCD is foisting upon the city.
Pretty sure that you understood that, but chose (instead) to make a comment to try to undermine and call into question a commenter (me, in this case), which seems to be a political technique that you sometimes employ. Which adds nothing but negativity and distraction to the conversation.
You and Don set the tone for others.
Your comment listed a $49 a year tax, as I stated, I had no idea how to take it.
As for the mitigation, I might be interested in a more balanced analysis in the costs versus benefits of UC Davis. My suspicious is we come out way ahead here, but that’s an analysis for another time.
David G: you could make substantive comments about the details of each of the City’s proposed mitigations regarding the EIR for the LRDP. But instead you choose to spend your time leveling insults and quibbling about tiny statements.
You are just poking about in the ashes of your burned-down argument in the original article and trying to salvage something by creating new mistruths such as that a reasonable comparison of Davis to statewide and national growth rates to counteract your previous falsehood that Davis’ land use measures have “stopped” growth is calling for some sort of “indexing”. This gambit of yours is a failure. The annual housing unit growth rate in Davis from 2000-2017 was very close to that of California as a whole (0.79% CAGR vs. 0.88%) and was slightly greater in 2010-2017
Please state clearly for the record what geography is acceptable for a basis of comparison of growth rates.
Only the incorporated area in California? Davis had a higher growth rate in housing units from 2010-2017
Woodland? Same.
Yolo County as a whole? Same.
Howard’s 11:52 a.m. comment has been reported. It has no place in this discussion.
And really, it started with David’s 11:46 a.m. comment. it would be nice if David and the Vanguard take some responsibility for the result.
Yeap – I’m “daring” to comment on the tone and moderation of the Vanguard.
Thanks.