Last spring, when the Vanguard attempted to find data on the student housing crisis, the information that the university had was very limited. The university could not tell us how many students suffered from homelessness or housing insecurity with any kind of accuracy.
Fortunately the Graduate Student Association (GSA) along with UC Davis commissioned a UC Davis housing survey. We now have a much better picture of what is happening.
We don’t have the methodology or the final survey released, but the snippet that Don Gibson provides us is alarming.
For those who argued during the campaign that the student housing crisis was not a real crisis, these numbers say otherwise. It is a crisis and, as GSA President Don Gibson put it in his column on Sunday, “what we found was even more illustrative of a crisis than we expected.”
The numbers point to another area of frustration – I kept asking the city last year to give us a number as to how many beds we needed to add. The city never did that and we have had to rely on estimates.
We are still relying on that, but, based on this survey, Don Gibson concludes: “If UC Davis builds everything it says it will, and if all projects that have been passed and are currently in the 
queue for debate and decision get built, we will still have a shortage of at least 1,200 beds by the 2022-2023 school year.”
If true, that is probably going to fall on the city to address in a few years, but in the meantime we have other numbers to chew on.
The most alarming news is that the rate of homelessness and housing insecurity falls right around the systemwide average.
They find, “19% of UC Davis students report some form of homelessness or housing insecurity (couch surfing). As a middle-class university town, we can do better.”
The number we have is that 9 percent of students experienced homelessness during the course of a given school year and 19 percent are considered housing insecure.
Putting numbers to percentages, we get an idea of the extent of the problem.
That means if we assume 36,000 students, 3240 students experience homelessness at some point during the school year. Another 6840 are what we call housing insecure. We need more precise definitions of both, but let me step out on a limb and state: that number is too high.
Both numbers are far higher than previous estimates.
Don Gibson also finds that the numbers understate the nature of the problem. The rise of mini-dorms has acted to mask the extent of the housing problem. The reason is simple: the less housing we have, the more students are forced into higher density living arrangements. This takes the form of mini-dorms, where large numbers of students stuff themselves in huge numbers into formerly single family homes.
The campus survey estimates that there are at least 465 “mini-dorms” in Davis, defined as 1.5 renters per bedroom in a detached home. There are approximately 2200 students living in them.
The problem here is that you end up with neighborhood impacts in terms of noise, parties, and parking. Mr. Gibson argues that these numbers represent pent up demand for additional housing.
He writes, “To reduce impacts on family neighborhoods these students need more options.” This adds to the belief that by simply building more student housing, we can start reducing the incursion of students into single family housing.
If we could free up 465 single family homes that could be for-sale or rental homes for families, that is just as good as adding a modest sized housing development in Davis – without the need to blow out the borders or pass a Measure R vote.
Just with this limited release of numbers we have a much clearer picture as to what is going on. We have essentially two problems with housing right now – the first is we need to get the approved housing built, and second is we are likely going to need more housing than currently approved.
The first problem is one of some urgency. The university has agreed to build some 5200 beds within the next five years. But to do so, they must gain approval of their LRDP (Long Range Development Plan) and EIR (Environmental Impact Report).
The problem in the city is more dicey, as the city council has approved and with the current proposals could provide up to 4400 beds. But 3000 of those at Lincoln40 and Nishi are tied up in litigation. If allowed to simply build those beds, there is a chance they could open in time for the 2020-21 school year, certainly by 2021-22.
But right now they are looking at about 18 to 24 months of litigation, based on the speed of previous suits. That means at minimum another year or two that 3000 students will have to live on couches and in libraries and cram into more single family homes, displacing families and other current residents, creating noise and parking impacts.
But beyond the immediate picture, as we have pointed out, the LRDP is silent on the timing and roll out of the last 3800 units – a problem the city has pointed out time and time again. And now, Don Gibson estimates that even if all of that is built, we are still looking at a shortfall of at least 1200 beds in five years.
The short-term problem is more severe, however. In the time it takes to get projects from approval to being opened, students are suffering and there is no short-term plan to address this housing shortfall – nor do the litigants seem to care about the impact that their suits are having on students living in housing insecurity and homelessness.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
David Greenwald said … “19% of UC Davis students report some form of homelessness or housing insecurity (couch surfing). As a middle-class university town, we can do better.”
David, you are sounding more and more like Fox News all the time. If the numbers being reported in the survey are to be believed, over 7,200 of the 38,369 UC Davis students (see UCD’s high-level-dashboard) are either homeless or couch surfing. Do you actually believe that is the case?
Setting aside the believeability of the 7,200 number, the question that is uppermost in my mind is why those students are going to the most important job in their life as either homeless or surfing from a couch? That is a commitment to their own education that is worthy of Jeff Spicoli.
How many of those students (whatever the real number is) are in their housing situation because they are voluntarily asserting their independence from the purse strings of their parents? How many of the 7,000 are housed by the University during the semester, but not on semester breaks? The list of “how manys” goes on and on, but that doesn’t make for good political spin, so instead the hyperbolic term “crisis” gets trotted out yet again in an attempt to inflame the rhetoric. Perhaps a lesson in counting to ten and a helping of due diligence is in order.
/rant
I’m quoting Don Gibson. As I said in the column, we don’t have the full study yet. Don Gibson’s column gave us a taste.
But how different is that from the reported total at other locations? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-hidden-problem-of-homelessness-on-college-campuses/
“Setting aside the believeability of the 7,000 number, the question that is uppermost in my mind is why those students are going to the most important job in their life as either homeless or surfing from a couch? That is a commitment to their own education that is worthy of Jeff Spicoli.”
Or the opposite? They have taken getting an education seriously enough that they get the college degree and have to sacrifice security in the process in hopes that it will help them in the long run.
“Or the opposite? They have taken getting an education seriously enough that they get the college degree and have to sacrifice security in the process in hopes that it will help them in the long run.”
That may be the case for a percentage of the California-resident undergraduate students. The vast majority have access to the fiscal resources of their parents, although many make the conscious CHOICE to declare their independence from those parental pursestrings. The “independence choice” comes with consequences, and for the community the expression “Your failure to plan does not constitute our emergency” For those students, if the independence choice does create an emergency it is a self-imposed emergency, and very far from a crisis.
For virtually all the students paying non-resident tuition, your statement does not apply.
For virtually all graduate students, your statement does not apply. They too have made a conscious choice to have and academic job/career at UCD, and in their case that choice also falls under the category of “Your failure to plan does not constitute our emergency”
There are a lot of students whose personal family situations do fit into your described model. They are often the first members of their family to go to college. They often are students on scholarship … who take the academic betterment opportunity they have very seriously … so seriously that the idea of going to class unprepared because they have been “borrowing” a temporary night of sleep on someon’s couch would be a serious compromise to their commitment to their education.
For the record, it is my understanding that the survey includes two students sharing a bedroom (could be the former living room) in a house as “housing insecure.” How is that any different from two students sharing a dorm room?
I’m with Matt on this. You could take a poll of people living in nice houses with pretty yards and a pool and they might tell you they’re housing insecure because they feel their mortgage and upkeep costs are too high.
… or sharing a room in a mini-dorm house the same way they shared a room in a University-supplied dorm the prior semester.
There is a massive amount of “entitlement” that is at play here … for example students feeling entitled to have a bathroom for every bedroom.
Such as local homeowners feeling ‘entitled’ to prevent others, especially students, from finding appropriate housing.
I have yet to hear from any student the professed desire or need for a private bathroom. It’s simply not on their list.
If that is the case David, then why are all ther student apartment complexes being built with one bathroom per bedroom?
Your statement is false as written. Lincoln40 and Sterling are the only two that are one bathroom per bedroom. Nishi has some four and four, but those are doubled up rooms. The other complexes are not one and one.
Those are the only complexes that have been approved. Davis Live is one bath per bedroom as well. To the best of your knowledge, what complexes are providing the traditional shared bathroom model?
Davis Live appears to have the same configuration as Nishi – the double occupancy rooms have attached bathrooms. It does not appear all the rooms do. Plaza 2555 and U-Mall do not have one bath/ one bedroom configurations.
“You could take a poll of people living in nice houses with pretty yards and a pool and they might tell you they’re housing insecure because they feel their mortgage and upkeep costs are too high.”
Keith: Your comment ignores that it is unlikely that the survey asked students to declare themselves housing insecure and rather created the figure from a list of characteristics such as being unable to afford rent. From reading articles there appears to be a relatively standard list of criteria involved.
David, when the survey asks about whether the student is unable to afford rent, is the student’s parents’ income included in the criteria calculations?
I don’t know. If the students are skipping meals and missing rent, does it matter if their parents income is included?
Yes, it matters a whole hell of a lot if the student is choosing to skip meals and miss rent rather than constructively and collaboratively dialogue with his/her parents to ask for the money needed to avoid skipping meals and missing rent. As I said before, “the failure of a student to plan their lives does not constitute an emergency for the community.”
Regarding rent affordability, according to data from the Zillow Rent Index (ZRI) Time Series that was sent to me, the average monthly apartment rent in Davis in January 2011 was just 6% above the California average, and in January 2018 the average monthly apartment rent in Davis was just 2% above the California average. Zillow’s compound annual growth rate of apartment rents in Davis is 3.03%, while the compound annual growth rate of apartment rents in California is 3.66%. So, Dais landlords have actually made apartments more affordable (relative toi the state as a whole) over that 7-year period.
With that said, the point Ken has made about the combined cost of tuition, fees, room and board for UCD’s peer-comparable universities is spot on. Looking at housing affordability in isolation separate from tuition and fees is myopic. The key measurement is total cost of education, just as total compensation costs for City of Davis employees is the relevant metric in other recent conversations.
“Yes, it matters a whole hell of a lot if the student is choosingto skip meals and miss rent rather than constructively and collaboratively dialogue with his/her parents to ask for the money needed to avoid skipping meals and missing rent. As I said before, “the failure of a student to plan their lives does not constitute an emergency for the community.””
That sounds good in theory. Actually it sounds incredibly demeaning and dismissive. But how much disposable income does the average parent actually have? For instance, on paper, my family makes decent income, but if our kids were in college, we would not be of much help to them financially. I wonder if you’re over-estimating the impact of parents. I don’t wish to go much further here, because we are in most ways flying blind and you’re passing an incredible amount of judgment on students.
regardless, the community’s emergency is the lack of housing.
Matt, David’s headline sounds like it could be on Fox (sensational right leaning spin) “or” on MSNBC/CNN/ABC/CBS/NPR (sensational left leaning spin) since we all know that there are not 7,000+ UCD students who are homeless “or” even “really” worried that they will be homeless. It is hard to get people excited with headlines like “Despite paying LESS than half what their peers at UC Berkeley, UCLA , Stanford and Harvard pay to rent an apartment near school the kids that got into UC Davis can’t stop complaining despite the fact that they could all transfer to UC Merced or Sac State and pay less in rent if they didn’t think that paying a little more to go to a higher rated school was a good investment”…
7000 students is not the homeless figure, it’s the housing insecure figure. 9% is the homeless figure.
I’m wondering if David (or a single other person) really thinks that there are 3,453 UC Davis students (9% of 38,369) that would be considered “homeless” by most people. From my work of the years with real “homeless people” (vs. the “homeless” kid staying with friends at Martis Camp over winter break when the dorms are closed or the kids who are staying at hostels backpacking through Europe this summer) the percentage of actual UC students that are (really in any traditional definition of the word) rounds to zero (we don’t have thousands of UC kids sleeping near the railroad tracks).
The question I have is why are you comparing the issue of student homelessness to the general problem of homelessness?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-hidden-problem-of-homelessness-on-college-campuses/
Perhaps there is an underlying semantic/definitional issue… “homeless” vs. “unsheltered” vs. “stable & longer term (say, one year) well-sheltered” vs. “housing insecure”…
I never considered the dorms or my student apartments “home”… where I slept, where I ate, where I had access to showers/toilets, and where I could sleep and study… but not “home”… I was always “well-sheltered”, and it was stable for a year.
I think the term housing insecure is probably better than homeless. Part of the problem is illustrated by Ken’s comments – the conflation of the homeless term in general with its usage here probably clouds the issue.
I’m wondering what data Ken is relying on to question this survey’s central finding? I’m also wondering what number of homeless students would Ken find acceptable?
David Greenwald asks … “The question I have is why are you comparing the issue of student homelessness to the general problem of homelessness?”
The answer to that question should be self evident. Homelessness is the circumstance when people are without a permanent dwelling, such as a house or apartment. People who are homeless are most often unable to acquire and maintain regular, safe, secure and adequate housing. It is a term that does not discriminate between people based on demographic characteristics … such as being a registered student at a University.
You are using “homelessness” in a very similar manner to how you use “crisis” … as a convenient term of political spin.
Once again, not my study or my data. So to say “I’m using it” is not completely accurate. But again, I’ll caution you – we don’t know what student homelessness looks like, and yet you are presupposing we do.
Matt… with all due respect…
Can’t think of anything that is “permanent”, unless we want to go into the metaphysical places…
All highlighted words are very subjective… one of the significant problems in this discussion…
Does “adequate” mean protected from weather, room to move around, a place to cook, eat, defecate/urinate, have basic electricity, heating/cooling, or also full wi-fi, other amenities… depends ho you ask…
No, by writing about it, you are presupposing you do. You could have chosen not to write the article that you did … until there was verifiable data. But you did not choose to take that route, and now you are complaining about my comments that neither 19% nor 9% of the 38,000+ UCD students fit the definition of Homelessness … the circumstance when people are without a permanent dwelling, such as a house or apartment. People who are homeless are most often unable to acquire and maintain regular, safe, secure and adequate housing.
I’m not being dismissive of the students, just looking at them as allowable deductions on their parents’ Income Tax Return.
All good points Howard. For me, the definition of “adequate” (for a student who has chosen the “job” of getting a higher education degree) is constructively supporting an 8-10 hour per day, six-day-a-week focused concentration on the requirements and challenges of creating enough personal intellectual capital so that the ROI of the “job” is positive.
Matt… with all due respect, you are not thinking this through…
Assumes there are parents contributing, and/or in a position to do so. Not universal.
New tax codes… haven’t studied those on this, as does not apply to me, but in the previous codes, housing was not deductible beyond “dependent exemption“… not a tax credit, and limited. So, if housing was say $12 k per year, and the exemption was $3,000/year, and your parents were in the 15% marginal tax bracket, parents would be out-of-pocket $9,000/year, plus $2,550/year ( $11,550. total). Then there was the tax credit for tuition… also limited…
Not sure if that latter still exists under the new tax codes.
Your economic ‘logic’ fails, big time… I paid my tuition via merit scholarship; books and ‘spending money’ via summer jobs… both my parents and I were very “stretched”… both worked ‘blue collar jobs’, and if I had had a sibling, probably would not have had the opportunity to attend and graduate from UCD. Tuition in the 70’s was trifling compared to now.
Even adjusting for inflation, UCD tuition, plus Davis/UCD housing costs would have been “the impossible dream” for me…
Howard… with all due respect, I’ve never said, nor implied, that there is a universal rule. However, I suspect there is a pretty consistent process that virtually all high school students who are considering college/university go through. They sit down with their parents and discuss the options. In effect they undergo a personal LRDP process.
The “barriers to entry” are very significant for a lot of students. As you have described, they were for you and your parents, and as a result you applied for, and were granted, a merit scholarship. Is it incorrect to say that the LRDP you and your parents developed together included both the food and housing and books and ‘spending money’ needs … and the clear expectation of income from both summer jobs and school year jobs. I suspect that for families that are very “stretched” like you were, the discussions are more significant than they are for families with more fiscal resources.
With that said, the fact that tuition and fees in the 70’s was trifling compared to now only increases the barriers to entry for those students from “stretched” families looking to earn a college degree … often the very first ever in their family. The LRDP for those families may well include living at home and/or only attending University for the third and fourth year.
Bottom-line, for those “stretched” family students, couch surfing as a means of residency is contrary to the principles of the LRDP the student and his/her family have drawn up. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of couch surfers come either from students whose families are less “stretched” than yours was, or for students who don’t stick to the LRDP plan they drew up with their parents.
Let’s not get into tax code semantics. More often than not the tax status of UCD undergraduate students is as dependent minors on their parents’ 1040, and the parents get the standard deduction for that dependent minor when they file their tax return. Graduate students are a different animal.
In closing, I’m advocating for an accountability process. Studentsd who make personal life choices that cause them to be housing insecure (couch surfing for example) do not fit the final criteria of Homelessness. They are able to acquire and maintain regular, safe, secure and adequate housing. They simply do not choose to organize their life (and their commitment to their academic career) to do so.
> why are you comparing the issue of student homelessness to the general problem of homelessness?
Is that not what the student in the protest picture is doing?
I have said my peace … I’m off to climb mountains in Rocky Mountain National Park.
Nice to see some pushback from others, today.
Plenty of pushback, but none of it is based on anything other than assumptions about what they think the number ought to be.
David Greenwald said . . . “Plenty of pushback, but none of it is based on anything other than assumptions about what they think the number ought to be.”
That is an erroneous assumption on your part. I personally do not believe there is any answer to what “the number ought to be.” For me this isn’t about any number at all. It is about personal accountability. The students being discussed have made the choice to pay UCD tuition and fees so that their focused “job” in life is to get an education. That “job” comes with room and board costs in addition to the tuition and fees. On would hope that the student and his/her parents sat down and put together a multi-year budget to determine whether they could actually afford the “job” at UCD they aspired to. If they can’t afford a UCD education, as Ken has pointed out there are more affordable alternatives … as well as considerably more expensive alternatives.
Channeling Paul Masson and Orson Welles, my bottom line on this study, and the fact that you have chosen to write an article about it is “I will drink no whine before its time.”
There’s also alternatives to attend less-expensive community colleges (for the first couple of years), and THEN transfer to a State University or UC. Which simultaneously provides an opportunity for at least some young adults to continue living at home, during the first couple of years of college. And, it results in the EXACT SAME DEGREE, as if one attended a State University or UC for the entire period.
I did this myself, years ago.
A culture shift (regarding expectations to immediately leave home, upon graduating from high school) has already been occurring, for the past few years. (I can cite articles, regarding this.) However, this was already the “norm”, for many Asian families.
Since this approach drastically reduces costs, it would also likely reduce the need for personal student loans, which seem to be increasing at a rate/amount that is greater than the increase in value of a college degree.
The comments (particularly from Matt, and also Ken) went much further than that, and call into question your assumptions and definitions of a crisis.
Perhaps there’s some separation occurring, between what the Vanguard advocates, vs. the views of the community as a whole.
It wasn’t my survey. The students and university conducted it. We haven’t seen anything other than a summary of findings. The students are a lot closer to the situation than either you, Matt or Ken. The findings in the survey gibe with findings of other surveys across the UC and they gibe with what I have heard anecdotally from students.
Is that your definition of the “community, as a whole”?
Matt’s points regarding a self-inflicted/voluntary crisis ring true, to a large degree. (Ken also touched on that, in a different way.)
And, it’s about time that someone pointed it out.
Really? Matt’s point regarding a self-inflicted/ voluntary crisis ring true? Based on what? You have no data. You have no kids. You have no connection to students as far as I can tell. So what are you basing it on other than your own prejudices and preferences against additional housing?
I detect some anger, in your response. Also, it seems that having kids is a precursor to having knowledge regarding this issue, in your view.
Are you stating that what Matt noted is not true? (I noticed that you did not respond to many of his points. Nor did you fully respond to Ken.)
Matt’s missing a lot of key points.
For most students, the issue of homelessness is one of lack of availability of affordable housing, not a true threat of living on the streets. But the point here is a combination of things: (1) cost of living, (2) lack of housing, (3) lack of affordable (small a) housing. That is creating a housing crisis. We have until this point not had any hard data on numbers and form. We have not seen a full release yet. His points jump the gun. And they ignore the hardships needlessly created by constraining housing for students.
Just like for most students starvation has nothing do do with the “lack of affordable restaurants” in town, for most (almost all) students, the issue of “homelessness” is not related lack of availability of affordable housing. The homeless issue and affordable housing issue are almost totally unrelated (I say “almost” since there may be one guy out ever couple hundred who says “I moved in to this tent under the freeway since I could only “afford” $500/month and my rent for my room went up to $550/month). For years Davis was a great public school in a blue state with apartment rents almost as low as crappy public schools in red states. It is a bummer that UC Tuition is not under $1K a year and rents are not under $100/month like they were 40 years ago, but the tuition at UC Davis is still close to the lowest of all the top 100 colleges in America and the apartment rents are still way lower than the rents around almost every top rated school in the Bay Area, Los Angeles Area, Portland, Seattle, NYC or Boston/Cambridge.
I am hoping that the data from this survey is detailed enough so that we know exactly how many students are living in their car or sleeping in the library.
> And they ignore the hardships needlessly created by constraining housing for students.
Says the guy who says he’s still in favor of Measure R.
> I am hoping that the data from this survey is detailed enough so that we know exactly how many students are living in their car or sleeping in the library.
On that we agree . . . . . . . . . . . still hoping . . . . . . . . . . still hoping . . . . . . . . . .
Mildly amusing… had no car to sleep in in college… hard to sleep on a bike…
First of all for any new apartments we should never, even have private car parking in the same footprint where housing (beds) can be. I’ve argued this before – actually very early in my residency in the Davis Vanguard Comment Nation I pushed for more housing and less cars at Sterling 5th in the same foorprint. Clearly I was not convincing enough, so here’s a new question about it: When allowing some parking, e.g. at Davis Live, it is argued that that’s because some people have cars and need them. That cannot be denied, but how can that be more important than housing? How can the convenience of 71 car owners be more important than the housing of perhaps the 20 to 25 people who could live on the bottom level of Davis Live if it was apartments instead of parking stalls, especially as campus is across the street and not only bikes of all sorts but carshare is available to residents?
’“Single-family house” is one thing; “single-family home” is another. We can have a biological family, or a chosen one, or a mix… what’s important is impact: A upper-limit of tenants is reasonable, but what’s the difference between a three-bedroom house with a married couple and four kids sharing two rooms and a six-people sharing those three bedrooms? Obviously homes have different sizes and can be optimized for different uses, but e.g. six students in that house are not displacing that biological family. Parking impacts can be strictly limited by design, lease and parking permits. For nearly all of my adult life in three countries I’ve lived in apartments of different sizes, all were more or less flexible enough for anyone, any type of group. Eileen Samitz is right: The best design scenario is based on size variation. A 1:2 bathrooms to bedrooms ratio is adequate, with a 1.5 bathroom minimum, mostly because bathroom space is expensive. However taller buildings without parking could have a 2:3 ratio as they are more space efficient (per footprint).
71 out of 440 people having cars seems a reasonable number and is in line with the surveys that show about 30 percent of students have cars. Going lower than that, isn’t going to reduce car ridership.
The primary goal here is not to reduce use of cars, but to increase the amount of housing. 30% of students have their own cars, and Davis Live residents can own cars, but park them remotely so that they don’t take space away from housing, and via parking permit policy not in the neighborhood. A side effect is that there will be less driving because cars are not so convenient to use. Having a car doesn’t have to mean that one has it in their own bedroom (i.e. very close to their residence), or in this case someone else’s bedroom.
You’re prioritizing one student’s car parking space over the living space of another student. That’s not as reasonable as it could be if the primary goal is to have housing.
Sterling 5th could have had at least 15% more housing, with less traffic (if owned cars had to be parked elsewhere) in the same footprint, if the parking structure was used for apartments.
Of course it’s nice to have convenient access to a car! But it’s nicer to have access to a bed, right?
I see it as a balance. I can see a logic for reducing the amount of parking. I do not think what you’re proposing is practical.
I agree with Todd that I would like to see higher density, but sadly as I see the percentage of overweight out of shape undergrads increasing every year along with the percentage of undergrads driving late model European cars I want to remind Todd that any new projects without parking will probably not force more students to get in shape and ride everywhere but just force the kids living in the building without on site parking to park in the neighborhoods making friends that drive to visit park a half mile away when they come over or families with more cars than driveway spaces to circle around for a half hour every night looking for parking (like people do so often in SF where many apartments have no parking)…
This seems to be a recurring theme with you.
No one except people with ADA placards will be able park their own cars here or nearby.
There is no one to visit using your car if they don’t live there because you can use a car to visit them.
Students who are happy to not have cars will live here, and those who need them will live here and park remotely, or live where they can park (and in effect trade spaces for students who can live car-free.)
We can’t just throw the term “balance” around to make us seem reasonable when we’re arguing for less housing during a housing crisis.
> and via parking permit policy not in the neighborhood.
So, a different neighborhood.
> A side effect is that there will be less driving because cars are not so convenient to use.
So, people will take Uber to their car, drive to their apartment, go where they are going, drive back to their apartment, drive to their remote location, and take Uber back to their apartment. Could increase driving.
> I do not think what you’re proposing is practical.
You are speaking to the man who wants to put a roof on I-80.
> just force the kids living in the building without on site parking to park in the neighborhoods making friends that drive to visit park a half mile away when they come over or families with more cars than driveway spaces to circle around for a half hour every night looking for parking
Ken A. speak truth that consultant pushing for parking maximums don’t want spoken.
Like Todd I wish more kids would ride bikes (and I wish my kids friends out of shape friends could ride over the Pole Line overpass without having to get off their bikes and push) but sadly as I see students of all ages getting bigger I see them riding bikes less and taking Uber and Lyft more so if we don’t add parking at the site of new student housing the kids will most likely just park somewhere else.
> This seems to be a recurring theme with you.
Similar to how tasteful vegetative barriers are a recurring theme with you?
> I wish my kids friends out of shape friends could ride over the Pole Line overpass without having to get off their bikes and push
Now they have electro-power assist, so no need to gain strength for biking anymore!
Another reason to be anonymous since I think some in Davis would call CPS if they found out I was making my kids ride up and over the overpasses in town including Mace and Richards next to the cars (people already freak out that I let my nine year old ride around town by himself vs. transporting him in a minivan car seat like most parents)…
> people already freak out that I let my nine year old ride around town by himself vs. transporting him in a minivan car seat like most parent
Is there a betting pool on who has the leaner-meaner kids? Free-range or strapped in?
How dare you let you children on an overpass without their giant plastic bubble!
> very early in my residency in the Davis Vanguard Comment Nation I pushed for more housing and less cars at Sterling 5th in the same foorprint. Clearly I was not convincing enough
There is correlation between pushing for something convincingly in the Davis Vanguard comment section and outcome?
Yes, but it takes about a decade of sustained effort.
Maybe. But correlation is different (big time) from causation.
> correlation is different (big time) from causation.
. . . or cessation.