For much of the last few years while we have been undergoing a discussion of student housing here in Davis, we have had those who advocate less housing in town hold up UC Santa Cruz as a model. We have been told that an agreement between the city and university, the result of litigation by the city to control the expansion of the university, was the way to go.
One crack that started to appear in that narrative was the Santa Cruz city residents last June voting on an advisory vote to prevent further enrollment growth at the university. Worse yet, however, is the story by the San Jose Mercury News, that the campus is unable to provide housing for all the students living on campus.
Reports the paper: “Facing a shortage of housing for people who want to live on campus as the start of the fall quarter looms, UC Santa Cruz sent an email this week to faculty and staff asking them to open their homes to students.”
“The need is real and it is urgent, so I am reaching out to the faculty and staff community for help,” the Executive Director of Housing Services, Dave Keller, wrote. “Offering a room in your home to a student who has not been able to find housing for the school year would be a tremendous support to their success at UCSC.”
According to the article, the campus offers more housing on campus than many other public universities in the state, with about 9300 students or roughly half the student body, AND the school 
“guarantees two years of housing to incoming freshmen and one year of housing to incoming transfer students.”
Despite this, “several hundred students remain on its waitlist for housing, and there are not enough off-campus rental options on its Community Rentals page to accommodate them.”
Reports the paper: “The school offered admission to 35,000 students this year, and expects to enroll about 5,600 new undergraduates. After facing criticism for failing to admit enough transfer students, Santa Cruz admitted more than 7,000 this year, up from around 5,300 the previous year.”
Now the problem: “All of those students will need some place to live. And while living on campus at UC Santa Cruz is relatively expensive compared to housing costs at many other UC and CSU schools, living off campus isn’t cheap, either.”
“The local market rental rates have continued to increase with Silicon Valley influence,” Scott Hernandez-Jason, Director of News and Media Relations at UC Santa Cruz, said.
There are those who have argued that the city of Davis needs to reach an agreement with UC Davis, much as Santa Cruz and Berkeley have with their respective campuses, to mitigate the impact of continued enrollment growth.
Perhaps this is to the benefit of the community – although I would argue, as I have, that for the most part the benefit of UC Davis to Davis far exceeds the inconvenience of having to build more apartment buildings periodically.
Back in June, as reported by the Santa Cruz Sentinel on June 6: “Voters sent a clear message to UC officials eyeing sizeable enrollment growth to the Santa Cruz campus on Tuesday: Thanks, but no thanks.”
The voters were asked whether to oppose enrollment growth at UC Santa Cruz. The answer was overwhelming: 6526 people voted yes and only 2010 people voted no. That comes to 77-23 in percentages.
Excellent legal settlements unless you are students trying to get an education and to find a place to live.
The situation in Santa Cruz is of course far worse than in Davis. The cost of living on campus is expensive, but so too is the cost of rent off campus, where average rents have soared, according to the Mercury News article, beyond $2000, “with even individual rooms in homes running students around $1,000.”
In the meantime, “The university is in the process of trying to build thousands of new housing units specifically for upper-division students who would otherwise have to find off-campus accommodations. But the plan has generated some pushback from community members concerned about environmental impacts.”
Wrote Eileen Samitz: “The host cities of Santa Cruz, San Diego and Berkeley are all fed up with the UCs being opportunistic and have gotten excellent legal settlements from challenging the UCs in these cities.”
Is this really the model we want to follow?
By comparison, the issues at UC Davis have been relatively tame. The city has currently approved between 4200 and 4500 student beds. About 3000 of them at Lincoln40 and Nishi are tied up in litigation.
Meanwhile, the campus has pledged to build about 9050 beds by 2027.
The city and university have their differences of course, but rather than going to litigation, the two sides will have a mediator help them through their differences. That seems like the preferable route. But unless the differences can be resolved, the city will continue to have student housing shortfalls.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
But, but I thought it is was a ****crisis****.
You’ve mistaken my comment about the process with UC Davis being relatively tame for the housing situation for students, which I maintain is a crisis.
With real estate prices going crazy in the Bay Area more and more people are moving to the Santa Cruz Mountains (and even all the way over the hill to Santa Cruz and other coastal communities) and commuting to the Silicon Valley. This is not only displacing students but making people like my Deadhead friend Bill who bought a place outside Boulder Creek in the mid 80’s (about 10 years after his older brother took us to our first Dead show at the Cow Palace) sad as the Yuppies he hates keep buying homes around him…
P.S. Other than “Ron” who else in Davis has “held up UC Santa Cruz as a model”?
Just someone who was elected to the Davis City Council in June.
That makes two.
How is that a “crack”? Isn’t it in both the city’s and current students’ interests to restrict UC Santa Cruz’ future growth, in the absence of adequate housing? (In fact, isn’t that the “moral” thing to do?)
The vote in Santa Cruz is the result of the city’s efforts to gauge the preferences of its residents, before taking steps to renew the agreement with UC Santa Cruz (which currently includes restrictions on enrollment increases, among other mitigations). How is that not a “model” of what a city should do? Might the city of Davis consider taking similar steps?
Have they constrained growth or have they simply made it more difficult for students to find housing? The narrative has been that this is in the best interest of the community and the students, that’s not clearly the case based on this latest development.
Well, by limiting enrollment, that certainly helps keeps the demand for housing in check. I’d say that’s a benefit for current student and non-student renters, and for the stability of the city’s neighborhoods and plans. Probably a reason that it was overwhelmingly supported, as you noted.
“Well, by limiting enrollment, that certainly helps keeps the demand for housing in check.”
What the evidence of that? You’re assuming that that’s true. There is now evidence to the contrary being presented here.
That’s just common sense, less people lessens the demand. That doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
The point in question is whether they’ve actually limited enrollment
David: “The point in question is whether they’ve actually limited enrollment.”
Well, that’s pretty easy to figure out (since there are records of enrollment). Has UC Santa Cruz actually violated its agreement with the city? And, if so, have they also violated the other mitigations spelled out in the agreement?
If so, I’d suggest that UC Santa Cruz (and probably the UC system itself) has a potentially serious legal problem on their hands.
It seems to me that you are assuming a lot in that comment.
From Ron’s links: “While the 2005 LRDP projected a total enrollment of 19,500 on-camps students by 2020-2021, UCSC’s undergraduate enrollment will not exceed 17,500 during the life of the LRDP.”
Total enrollment for fall 2017: 19,457 Includes: 17,577 undergraduates. (https://admissions.ucsc.edu/apply/parents-and-guardians/prospective-students/facts.html)
That doesn’t include growth projected for 2018-19.
Maybe Ron can do some actual research and tell us what happened.
I’d suggest this is a good topic for the Vanguard, since David is the one who brought it up. Compare the agreement timeframe, with actual enrollments. And, determine if UC Santa Cruz reneged on that portion of the agreement (and if so, by how much, and what the possible legal ramifications of that are).
From what you posted, it appears that UC Santa Cruz might have exceeded the agreement by 77 students (depending upon what the agreement states, as well as its time period). If that’s the case, perhaps it’s not a big deal, or worth focusing on. Perhaps David believes that it’s worthwhile to look into this?
Here’s a summary of the agreement with UC Santa Cruz, which includes mitigations that reach far beyond the amount of student housing. Probably pretty difficult (even for the Vanguard) to create an argument against these mitigations, which include addressing traffic and fiscal impacts to the city resulting from UC Santa Cruz’ plans.
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
I thought UCSC agreed to limit enrollment, but now it appears they are increasing it again.
The fact is that enrollment pressures come to UC from the legislature, and the UCOP responds to that and then tells the campuses what to do. Davis added enrollment due to such pressures a couple of years ago.
Don: You’ll probably recall that the UC system was actually favoring enrollment of non-resident students (due to the much larger amount of tuition that they pay). Enrollment among California residents was actually dropping.
The legislature then gave the UC system more money, to enroll more California resident students.
UCD had unilaterally undertaken its own initiative (the “2020” initiative), to increase enrollment. UCD was not directed to do so. I don’t know if there was a similar initiative at UC Santa Cruz.
In any case, it’s not likely that UC Santa Cruz would agree to limit enrollment (even when facing litigation), if its “parent company” (the UC system) told them that this was not possible. (And yet, UC Santa Cruz did agree to limit enrollment, presumably with the full knowledge and acceptance of the UC system itself.)
The fundamental question is whether it is moral to restrict educational opportunities for the less well off so that the more well off can live comfortably in their insulated communities. If there’s an alternative proposal for how to improve the economic opportunities of the younger generation without adversely impacting the perceived quality of life in Davis, then we can proceed with demands to limit access to UCD. But until a viable alternative is proposed and vetted, we have little standing to make these demands.
Richard: Is it “moral” for UC to give priority to non-resident students (over California residents) who pay UCD in excess of $42,000 per year?
I’ve posted articles which show this (including the results of state audits), several times now. Here’s one, again:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article68782827.html
From article: “The broad and blistering report also found that academic standards were lowered for thousands of nonresident admissions and that UC has not developed an actual cost of instruction to guide decisions about tuition.”
Woops – my error:
Non-residents now pay in excess of $43,000 in tution and fees to UCD.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/admissions/cost/tuition-fees-non-residents
Richard
There are a number of “fundamental” questions that are posed when weighing the well being of the “less well off” against the “economic opportunities” of the next generation….
For example, who was considering the well being of the “less well off” including those who had inhabited the Lincoln 40 site for in some cases more than 30+ years when there was land available on campus on which displacement of the “less well off” would not have been required?
Who was considering the Californian children who were more highly qualified, but did not obtain placement in a UC due to acceptance of less highly qualified but more prosperous foreign students?
With these kinds of housing problems affecting multiple UC’s, is it time to consider opening another campus?
I do not ask these questions expecting an answer, but only to illustrate that when we are discussing complex issues, there are frequently more than one “fundamental” question and it is best not to oversimplify.
Well, they can and they did, but until any new campus acquires the reputation of the others, the application rates aren’t going to be there.
https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/factsheets/2018/fall-2018-applications-table1.pdf
For the record, I have advocated more housing on campus and more housing off-campus for students to meet our housing needs. I voted Tuesday night for the 440 new beds that the Davis Live project offers, and supported both Nishi 1.0 and 2.0, which will bring us 2,200 beds. But I have also advocated that the campus do more to house its own students on campus.
The city-campus Santa Cruz agreement slowed the growth in university enrollment, prompted the university to take its own obligations to build housing more seriously, and resulted in mitigation of traffic and other impacts resulting from university growth. The problems you describe in Santa Cruz would be worse if they had not taken that route.
The recent public vote in Santa Cruz reflects the fact that the campus is developing a new Long Range Development Plan that contemplates significant increases in enrollment, and the town is pushing back against it. My bet is that they will eventually negotiate a new agreement to replace the one that exists now for the old LRDP.
I believe the course we are now on of negotiating with UC Davis to ensure they actually deliver the student housing they are promising in a timely fashion, and of seeking their help to deal with the impacts of campus growth on traffic, parking, and city services, is exactly what we should be doing. And, of course, any agreement should meet the specific needs of our community. We are not Santa Cruz. But their approach of insisting that the campus help deal effectively with the very real impacts of campus growth made sense for them and makes sense for us too.
I’m out of town for a funeral and won’t be able to continue this discussion but wanted to make my approach clear.
I agree 100% with the comments of Ron and Dan, even if I have disagreed with the latter on the extent to which the City has gone to “accommodate” UCD before they have made any cast iron commitments to a build out timetable and signed a binding legal agreement as Santa Cruz and UCSC have done. It cannot be reiterated too strongly, as Ron points out, (and the point was made in a long “white paper” by Greg Rowe) at the beginning of this year, that the “2020 initiative” was a Linda Katehi initiative and not a mandate imposed by the state legislature or by the UC system. This initiative also gave priority to enrolling out of state students.
It is also worth repeating that in several cases the California Supreme Court has upheld the right of host cities to sue their universities for mitigation expenses, and not challenged Santa Cruz’s attempt to limit enrollment growth.
What is interesting is that the citizens of Santa Cruz seem to have more basic and nuanced understanding of the costs of almost unrestrained enrollment growth by their guest university than their Davis counterparts. As somebody who goes to Santa Cruz several times a year (and has been doing so since the 1970s) I am guessing that fact is that they see, among other things, the traffic, housing, and related infrastructure burden that UCSC’s growth has contributed to.
I suspect that in 5-7 years from now when the full impacts of UCD’s growth come home to roost, the majority of Davis citizens may feel differently. But by then it will be too late!!!
“suspect that in 5-7 years from now when the full impacts of UCD’s growth come home to roost, the majority of Davis citizens may feel differently. But by then it will be too late!!!”
I don’t really agree with this. In my view the biggest impact of UCD growth happens when we have inadequate housing. That can be addressed with a few infill apartment complexes. That’s not a big impact on the broader community.
This is exactly what I suspect will occur. Especially if Lincoln40, Nishi, and the other megadorms are built. (And, without a bicycle/pedestrian overpass between Olive and UCD.)
I’m thinking of “hanging around” some key impacted intersections at that time, just to watch what happens!
The negative fiscal impacts will probably take longer (and by then, no one will be calculating the impacts). The same is true regarding the loss of space for commercial activities, non-student rentals, facilities for those in need (e.g., the “Families First” site), . . . .
Why the housing for UC students is such a big problem and struggle to find place to rent. ? I remember when my daughter was studied in UC Santa Cruz more than 20 years ago and it was no different situation than I am reading today on DV about . Housing for students should be a priority for UC and for the city administration where universities is located . Without UC Davis , Davis as City would not mentioned anywhere. Would be noticed one the map as a bigger valley as same as Lodi is where I live . Quiet nice place without housing problems for students .
Jerry: At the rate that the city of Davis is approving student housing developments, I’m not even sure that UCD needs to do anything regarding student housing. (Unfortunately, this has other negative impacts for the city, some of which are noted elsewhere on this thread.)
There may be an argument regarding “which way” the football is moving. The city seems to be running with the football in the wrong direction/goalpost, regarding its own (broader) interests.
Davis has approved 4500 beds. UC Davis still needs to get their 9050 for it to make an impact. Why do you keep going here?
David: You’re primarily referring to the presumed “backlog”, as a result of UCD’s prior enrollments.
There are also other, pending student housing development proposals in the city’s pipeline. So far, the city hasn’t seen one that it doesn’t “like”.
I’ve shown you the math before the last time you brought up this point, the math hasn’t changed and it doesn’t add up to 9050.
David: Nothing that you’ve noted here has anything to do with my comment. You’re referring to a backlog, which I udnerstand is the result of UCD’s prior failure to honor prior agreements, while simultaneously/unilaterally pursuing even more students.
Strange, how you claim to be concerned about the city’s fiscal condition, non-student renters, commercial development, etc., but are so unconcerned about the impact of approving nothing but student housing, in the city.
Perhaps you’re counting on undermining Measure R, to “solve” all of those (other) issues that you constantly focus on.
“for the most part” is right, and the less part is all the housing insecurity, from real or de-facto homelessness to couchsurfing, roomsharing and living room to bedroom conversions to less housing choice for students and others.
Housing capacity that provides choice and encourages and facilitates landlords to be fair is just as important as accessing higher education. Housing at the right price point has not kept up with demand, from university students and workers in Silicon Valley and so on.
The legislature has screwed up. We need a new mechanism that works better for our region.
Ron: “Strange, how you claim to be concerned about the city’s fiscal condition, non-student renters, commercial development, etc., but are so unconcerned about the impact of approving nothing but student housing, in the city.”
It’s not that strange if you accept that we have different views of what those impacts are.
My view is that student housing is going have a neutral and negligible impact on city finances. The impact of approving it is likely to be positive, since the lack of student housing is encroaching into other realms. And the negative impact, I just don’t see it either fiscally or on land use. We’re talking about a few apartment complex most of which is inside existing urban boundaries.
David
Priority of this discussion should be question “Where is the beef” or in different wards : Where are the new housing units for students in UC Davis and other UC campuses. The affordable housing for students is outrageously neglected problem and never ending story on DV . It is must be a reason behind that UC and City of Davis neglecting the problem and applies ” Don’t care policy “
Thread cleanup: 5 comments removed.
Santa Cruz has had an adversarial relationship with UCSC since day one.
Our town and gown relationship was vastly improved when Bob Black was on the city council.
Well, the fiscal analysis for Sterling doesn’t show that. Other analyses for Nishi also don’t show that. The analyses that the city has been relying upon is completely unexplained, regarding the 75% “across-the-board allocation” method that was used. (Unfortunately, an external consultant was not used for Nishi 2.0. However, the consultant used for Nishi 1.0 apparently did not agree with the method that was being used by the city’s finance and budget commission.)
But, rather than rehash this again, let’s move on to your next statements.
This type of statement essentially states that “UCD is going to do this anyway”, so let’s just accommodate it – regardless of the impact on the city. And, it should be noted that you apparently don’t support possible litigation, to rectify the situation. (Even though doing so may reduce the number of new students that UCD pursues, at least until the issue is settled.)
This may be your most important “deflection”. You’re downplaying the number of approved and pending proposals in the city, which are resulting in conversions of sites that served the community is other ways (e.g., those that provided services for others in need, such as Families First, commercial spaces – such as Plaza 2555), and space that could have been used for a broader range of renters (including non-students).
And, you’re simultaneously advocating for a weakening of Measure R, apparently because you’re simultaneously advocating for sites within the city to be converted to student housing.
(Note that I likely won’t be able to respond to any additional comments, perhaps until sometime after you see this comment.)
“Well, the fiscal analysis for Sterling doesn’t show that. ”
I disagree. That’s exactly what the fiscal analysis of Sterling shows. In 15 years, the impact is slightly negative, but the sum total of the fiscal impact over those 15 years is positive. I would consider that fiscally neutral.
UC Davis is going to do their thing. You may be able to get them to modify their plans somewhat, as the LRDP process shows. But at the end of the day, they are an independent entity and going to do their own thing.
“You’re downplaying the number of approved and pending proposals in the city, which are resulting in conversions of sites that served the community is other ways (e.g., those that provided services for others in need, such as Families First, commercial spaces – such as Plaza 2555), and space that could have been used for a broader range of renters (including non-students).”
That’s one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that right now, spaces that could be used for a broader range of uses are being sucked up by students because of the shortage of housing. The number of single family homes that have been converted to mini-dorms is growing. Is it better to build apartments nearer to campus to accommodate those uses, or better to allow it to continue?
“And, you’re simultaneously advocating for a weakening of Measure R, apparently because you’re simultaneously advocating for sites within the city to be converted to student housing.”
I have not called for the weakening of Measure at all. Part of my point here is that most of this can be accomplished as infill.
I would as well, if 1) the development was torn down at the end of 15 years, or 2) if time itself ended in 15 years. However, if neither of those events occur, the projected annual deficit will increase for each year thereafter – according to the data in the model.
Is it your position that every single development in Davis is losing money? Because I guarantee you every factor that is in play for Sterling is in play for them.
I don’t know about every single development, but as a whole – yes. That’s why the city is facing fiscal problems. The cost of services provided for developments is exceeding the revenue taken in.
This isn’t my “position” – it’s shown by the state of the city’s finances.
That’s precisely my point. The problem of financing is city specific not project
That is not true. The fiscal analyses that have been performed show that individual developments create negative (and increasing) deficits to the city. There’s also numerous articles citing this as a reason that many cities have avoided approving more housing, throughout California.
Causing a severe shortage of housing in many communities. People have to live somewhere.
The long-term cost of any development, including the house you live in, is a function of the city’s overall costs. It isn’t specific to the project being proposed. It basically derives from unsustainable costs of city employees, particularly the pensions, and the fact that property taxes only increase by the limits established by Prop 13.
If you break down those costs, the driver is employee compensation increases, not the development itself. Look at Sterling, why does it go negative in year 15? Projected employee compensation increases outstrip generated revenue. It’s a city issue. You need to understand the mechanism behind the posts that you are regurgitating otherwise your analysis falls flat.
Don: “It isn’t specific to the project being proposed.”
It absolutely is. And, the analyses show this (when they’re actually performed, as with Sterling).
A city is a collection of individual developments. If those individual developments weren’t creating/contributing to a deficit, then the city wouldn’t be experiencing one, either. If you “add” to the problem by creating more developments, the deficit to the city will increase. Again, this is one reasons why many cities have avoided approval of housing.
It’s simple logic. The sum of the individual components is equal to the whole. And, the problem is not unique to Davis.
It absolutely is not. The same analysis of your neighborhood would show the same thing.
If there was no housing in Davis, and no people living here needing services, it is true that the city (which would not exist) would not have a deficit.
Leading to a serious shortage of housing statewide. People have to live somewhere. You just want to shift the effects of regional growth somewhere else.
Those two statements seem to conflict with each other, depending upon what you meant by that statement.
I’m sorry that you don’t like facing the fact that housing developments generally contribute to deficits, but that’s simply the way it is. That’s what analyses show, and it’s demonstrated by the fiscal problems that most California cities are facing.
I won’t be able to respond further, for awhile.
This is factually untrue. You have, in fact, called for a weakening of Measure R. (Not in this article, but in others.)
I have not
You’ve called for changes to Measure R, to remove developers’ requirement to actually put forth a proposal. That’s a “weakening” of Measure R.
That’s not a change to Measure R. Measure R would remain untouched. What I am proposing can be done under current law.
Well, I don’t know how. But, the effect would be the same. A weakening of the normal Measure R process.
If you don’t know how, maybe you shouldn’t judge?
Given all of the approved and pending (“in the pipeline”) student housing proposals, it’s difficult to see why UCD would be motivated to build any student housing. Approved developments include Sterling, Lincoln40, Nishi, Davis Live.
Some of the pending proposals in the city include Plaza 2555 and University Mall.
Taken together, I understand that the approved and pending proposals would accomodate more than UCD’s planned growth in enrollment, under their new LRDP. (Leaving UCD to possibly deal with the backlog that was created in the past.)
Perhaps the more important mitigations (from the perspective of the entire city) have to do with traffic and fiscal impacts to the city – as a result of UCD’s plans (combined with the city’s apparent willingness to accommodate UCD’s housing needs). If that isn’t addressed during mediation or litigation, look for constant advocacy of a “Hail Mary” development proposal outside of city limits (which will also include housing – partly because student housing is using up available spots within the city), and which the Vanguard will likely continue to advocate for.
So here’s a question then: everyone has pushed for the university to accommodate half of the student population on campus. That comes to about 10,000 additional beds. We have approved less than half of that number. The university agreed to build 9050 beds which would get them to 48 percent. Everyone seems to agree that we need to build more than just the additional student growth. Everyone includes: council, county board of Sups, UC Davis itself, ASUCD, and Eileen Samitz (among other activists). So why is this even being raised by use as an issue?
Frankly, I didn’t initially realize that the city’s approvals, along with pending proposals have actually addressed all of UCD’s student enrollment growth plans.
What you’re referring to is the perceived “backlog”, which UCD has been ignoring for years. Those backlog of students are already living somewhere, even if in less-than-ideal situations – which may not even be entirely accurate regarding all of them.
I understand the mechanism.
The problem with your argument (that you make time-and-time again) is that you’d prefer to separate the cost of providing services for a development (from the development, itself), and then “re-allocate” those costs to the city at large.
Even worse, you’re suggesting that this “re-allocation” be done at the exact same time that the development goes “into the red”, as far as its impact on the city and existing residents.
If you’re going to analyze the cost to a city resulting from a development over a period of time, that’s going to include the costs of serving the development over time.
An analogy (for your approach) would be separating the cost of maintaining a car (and allocating it to some “non-auto expense” category).
And, we haven’t even discussed the eventual cost of capital replacement (e.g., the portion that would be appropriately allocated to a development), over time.