By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – I was sitting down this week over coffee with a community member, when the conversation turned to housing and they asked me about the Housing Element and my take on it. The big problem in my view is not that we will be unable to meet the requirements for the 2021 to 2028 housing cycle, but, rather, what happens after.
This is the gigantic red flag for the city: “The City does not currently contain enough vacant land appropriately zoned for the development of the housing necessary to meet the City’s estimated housing needs for the period between 2021 and 2028…”
The city will meet the housing needs for this cycle, with a requirement “to rezone enough land to meet this need within three years of the adoption of the Housing Element.”
However, “Inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean that a property will be rezoned, and consent of the property owner to do so is required.”
For the last five or six years, I have from time to time (some would argue too frequently) pointed out that the city of Davis is facing a crisis (I intentionally use this word), because it is not only pricing middle income professionals of child rearing age out of the community but it is also running out of options for generating enough housing to address the problem in the future.
No one is really talking about this problem. The elected officials do not have any incentive to do so of course—they have a much shorter time horizon than 2028. Most will not be still on the 
council at that point.
The local paper has largely ignored the Housing Element and, while there seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that Davis—like much of the region and the state—has a housing crisis and in particular an affordable housing crisis, there has been little discussion of just how boxed in we are becoming in terms of options going forward.
I do think some of the proposals from the Housing Element can alleviate some of this impending concern.
The elimination of single-family zoning to allow duplexes and quadplexes on single-family home sites might help, if we address financial constraints on redevelopment.
The ability to rezone some of the strip malls to be mixed use, for instance, could help. You could argue that reducing or eliminating parking minimums could add land for use as housing (store people, not cars).
I also think the by-right proposal for infill would be helpful, as one of the chief hindrances to redevelopment in the downtown is that projects right now do not financially pencil out and Bay Area Economics (BAE) recommended streamlining the process to reduce burden and costs.
Finally, I would argue that preapproval of peripheral land could ease the burden as well. From the discussion earlier this week, it is clear that this would be highly contentious and controversial. I would venture to guess that the initial attempt will not work.
But I think that makes it incumbent on the council to squarely present the Davis Housing dilemma to the public. The problem is: we no longer have sufficient land for housing and our land use policies are making it difficult to change that.
Sustainable Growth Yolo live tweeted the discussion at the Planning Commission on the Housing Element.
I was especially interested to see the public comment portion. They broke down the calls—30 of them—as 11 opposing the Housing Element changes and 19 supporting some or all of the recommendations from the Housing Element Committee.
Opposition focused on things like: the Housing Element being infiltrated by student and developer interests, opposition to the removal of the one percent growth cap, opposition to preapprovals, and some focused on putting more housing on UC Davis.
The one percent growth cap figures to be a large area for pushback, but, from my perspective, it is almost a distraction. Without addressing the structural issues and finding a way to build housing more easily and finding locations to put it, we are never really going to push against that limit. It is worth noting that in the last 20 years, we have not come close to butting up against the growth cap.
So where do we start? We start with the need to understand that this is a problem. And for some people, it is not a problem. They have their homes in Davis. They like the Davis community as it is. They either do not have kids or their kids are grown. They are retired or closing in on retirement age.
So, for a sizable portion of the community, the fact that we do not have enough housing, the fact that our demographics are growing older and there is a shrinking number of families with school age children, and the increasingly unaffordability of housing for younger families is largely not a concern.
These debates tend to come with harsh value judgments that cut both ways. But when we do that, people do not hear the concerns of others, they dig into their position, and these battles get heated.
Instead, we need to start with a good assessment of the situation we face. And the alternatives that we have. If we can do it in a measured way that is data-based, we can have a discussion for what we want this community to look like in eight years when we have to address the next housing element, and then discuss ways to get there.
For me, I worry about the lack of understanding of our limitations. We have so much over the last 20 years attempted to preserve the character of our community that we are starting to learn that those very policies are also causing huge changes to the same character of our community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
“The problem is: we no longer have sufficient land for housing and our land use policies are making it difficult to change that.”
Duh.
Too bad that it took you fifteen years to figure this out. Maybe if you had realized this before locking in the boundaries by reauthorizing the annexation ordinance for another decade you would have credibility on the issue. Better late than never. But the big question remains when will you admit you have been wrong for all that time?
Under Measure D, changes to parcels of five acres or less for housing, if necessary to meet the City’s fair share housing requirement, are exempt. All housing approved under this exemption must be permanently affordable.
Are we taking advantage of this exemption?
In over 20 years nobody has proposed a project under this provision. Why? The obvious answer is the return on the investment isn’t high enough to generate interest.
Sadly, this could have been something the City Council might have looked at during the reauthorization process. There is a real possibility that by changing the percentage of affordable under this section to a mixture of affordable and market rate housing the CC could have incentivized construction.
The CC was too afraid of spending any political capital to honestly address the shortcomings of Measures J and R when placing Measure D on the ballot. For now we are stuck with Measure D. The CC could place an amendment before the voters to modify this exemption but don’t hold your breath waiting for them to take any risks on Measure D.
Is that exemption a joke? Was it written on April fools day? Were unicorns involved in writing it?
How does one get a return on investment if “all housing” must be “affordable”. The answer: subsidy. OK, name me source of permanent subsidy.
There’s your answer.
I held my breath. I turned blue. I died. Nope, still no change in Measure JeRkeD.
Limited equity housing built by non-profit organizations, such as Dos Piños.
https://davisvanguard.org/2020/07/guest-commentary-comparative-study-of-four-affordable-home-ownership-models-and-market-rate-ownership-and-renting-shows-strength-of-housing-cooperatives/
AKA ‘charity’ (aka as, ‘social justice’, to some).
There are several “issues”:
Affordable housing is achievable, IF “expectations” are reduced… if you go to basics, shelter, a place to sleep, a place to “be”… we have added aesthetics, more ‘room’, amenities, zero carbon impact, zero net energy, etc. to “basics”… something about putting 5 lbs of stuff into a 1 lb bag, and expecting to charge for it as if it was 0.25 lb of stuff… liberal arts majors see no problems with that, and say “why aren’t we doing that!”
We also have the issue of “affordable housing” as rental, or ownership… lots of variables to that… don’t have time, nor inclination to go fully into that here and now… gets not to just direct financial costs, but gets to social issues like wealth accumulation for any family, group, social segment…
But, if we went to the true basics, affordable housing is achievable… but we as a society, and particularly Davis, keep moving the goalposts…
currently in California the state is using a surplus in the 1% running up stocks and IPOs, and using the 75 billion in taxes accrued from stonk run ups… to pay people’s rents…
Synthetic Securitizations and credit swaps seem to go a long way in terrible companies that can’t even make money in Davis… like Gamestop…
Can’t everyone just use credit swaps and invest in AMC and gamestop (ect)… like the Mormon Church and others did?
How do you propose that we do that? And what exactly are the financial constraints you refer to?
.
That is only one part of the Davis Housing Dilemma. Another part is that each year, UC Davis contributes a incremental infusion of housing demand to Davis when it admits new students. Bottom-line any solutions to the Davis Housing Dilemma need to include a robust participation by UCD. In fact, as I have formally stated to the Planning Commission and to City Council and to City Staff, the Housing Element needs to include UC Davis as a voice at the table. California Law does not mandate that UCD must participate, but failure on the part of both the City and the University to make it happen is a failure on both their parts.
Further, a huge part of the increased housing demand in Davis is due to the increase in UC Davis enrollment each and every year since the 2005-2006 Academic Year (which saw an enrollment decrease of 351 students from the prior year) from 28,154 students to 40,032. That growth in UCD enrollment also comes with an resultant increase in the number of faculty and support staff of close to 4,900 FTEs. There simply isn’t the financial resources in the private housing development industry or the City of Davis budget to address the issue of providing affordable housing for those 12,000 additional students and 4,900 additional faculty and staff.
With financial help from the State, UCD could build the additional affordable housing on campus, which would mean that the increase in housing demand due to increased enrollment would be matched with an incremental increase in housing supply provided by UCD … housing for students, housing for faculty, and housing for staff.
If we ever annex the university into the city UC would have to be at the table.
Still your argument is that Davis somehow shouldn’t be accommodating the growth of the largest employer in the county (or the state for that matter). Its a bite the hand that feeds you argument.
No Ron, that is not my argument. My argument is that UC Davis should be (1) an active participant in the discussion of the problem, (2) an active participant in the formulation of solutions to the problem, (3) actively contribute a level of added housing supply that matches their contribution to added housing demand, and (4) tapping into its funding source, the State of California, to come up with the massive amounts of dollars needed to make student housing affordable.
I agree with point four. As to the other three UC has already done so. Maybe not to the liking of the locals but for some it will never be enough.
Under pressure from the locals UC has built West Village. Drive out Russell and look at how much housing UC has added. UC has raised the percentage of students it plans to house on campus. UC has also moved some of its its expansion to Sacramento avoiding conflicts with Davis residents altogether in that development.
I completely agree with all of Matt’s four points. UCD’s negligence in producing enough on-campus housing needs is the major factor causing the housing problems in Davis. The fact that UCD continues to throw gasoline on the fire by admitting more UCD students than ever before this year in the face of a housing shortage (that UCD has caused) and a pandemic, is clear evidence that they need to get more pressure from the City and our City’s leadership to stop worsening the housing problems for Davis and surrounding cities.
It is inexcusable that they are pushing 71% of their students off campus when they are the largest UC with over 5,300 acres and a 900-acre core campus. Plus, UCD is the only UC not providing at least 50% on-campus housing. Further, they continue to propose densities far lower then they are capable of doing. The City has approved two 7-story projects but UCD can’t seem to count to 6 stories or more? That is simply ridiculous.
On top of that, UC just got a huge infusion of funding from the State, so there is no reason why UCD can’t build far more on-campus housing and go taller like other campus including UC Berkeley and UC San Diego to help address the housing problems that UCD continues to create.
You are missing the point Ron. UC has done what you have described, but there has been no collaboration with any of the other regional players … the City and the County. They have essentially kept the community at arm’s length. That is true in housing. That is true in economic development. Remember what they wrote about DISC … “We don’t oppose it.” That is a far cry from, “We support it.”
Understanding the situation we face is indeed a good start, but knowing where we are is really meaningless unless we, as a community, have a clear Vision of what we want to become (what we want to be in 20 years). Right now Davis has no Vision … and has not had a Vision for over 20 years. In effect we have been a rudderless ship that has simply gone where the currents and the winds on the seas have taken us.
What is Davis now?
A former Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission described Davis as a community that has promised itself a rich complement of services, but also has chosen not to step up with the funding to pay for those services.” The City’s financial reports show that the amount that Davis is not paying each year is between $13 million and $15 million.
Is that your Vision of what Davis is, and should be?
The US Census reports that over 83% of the Davis residents who have jobs commute to those jobs outside the City Limits. Using that statistic, one possible description for what Davis is now is “A bedroom community … with retirement community and university community influences … where the vast majority of Davis residents who work, commute to those jobs outside the City Limits”
Is that your Vision of what Davis is, and should be?
To put the above questions into additional perspective it is useful to know that the US Census also reports that the daytime population of the City of Davis is over 20,000 people smaller than the nighttime population of the City of Davis. That puts an extremely large economic burden on local businesses, because of the reduced demand that comes with reduced population.
Given regional housing demand, increased job creation by UC Davis, and the costs and problems inherent in building infill, Davis needs to begin the process of adding another peripheral subdivision. All of the infill and densification debates are tinkering around the margins and unlikely to provide meaningful amounts of housing, affordable or otherwise. They might allow the city to squeeze through this RHNA cycle, assuming the state housing department is flexible, but getting through the next one requires that the city and the voters address the lack of available development sites in the next few years. The planning process should have begun when the chancellor’s 2020 initiative was announced in 2011. We all had the numbers and knew what they meant then. But starting a decade later is better than not starting at all.
UC Davis has no reason to come to the table about this issue. They negotiated an agreement with the city, have been building a lot of housing on campus, and have no incentive to try to work with a city whose residents are often actively hostile to them. They likely feel they’ve done their part. The city simply needs to make sure they are living up to their part of the bargain that is in place.
Activist groups would do well to press the UC Office of the President on the affordability of housing on all UC campuses. UC is in a position to try innovative approaches to housing affordability. But their policies are not within the city’s area of influence and are not anything local political leaders can address. So while engaging the Chancellor’s office and the UCD planners on the issue of affordability would be reasonable up to a point, it’s really a systemwide issue addressed at the level of the regents and the UCOP. My understanding is that the Chancellor has some latitude on issues like this, but not much: housing cannot lose money for UC, and affordability strategies typically involve losing money on a project.
I just wanted to say that again.
I fully agree. This is an Office of the Chancellor level issue and falls within the purview of the Chancellor’s student housing initiative (https://www.ucop.edu/student-housing-initiative/). Ultimately, this should be something addressed through the state budget process. Our local state legislators should be advocating for that.
Strange, how some on here totally ignore the fact that the vast majority of cities (e.g., along the entire coast) are not expanding their boundaries, and yet are subject to the same type of RHNA requirements.
But unlike the local development activists in/around Davis, some of those communities are pushing back.
In any case, the state has completely failed to address the expanded amount of sprawl that’s taking place, largely as a result of increased telecommuting.
The original (claimed) idea behind RHNA requirements was to encourage infill, where jobs are located and to discourage sprawl. Since folks are increasingly-able to work from home, the original claimed reasons for RHNA has been significantly weakened.
More importantly, the state is doing virtually nothing to prevent the resulting sprawl. This is similar to enacting a tax-restriction measure (e.g., Proposition 13), without a corresponding measure to control spending.
From article below (originally from the NY Times):
House Hunters Are Leaving the City, and Builders Can’t Keep Up (msn.com)
“Strange, how some on here totally ignore the fact that the vast majority of cities (e.g., along the entire coast) are not expanding their boundaries, and yet are subject to the same type of RHNA requirements.”
The situation in Davis is complicated by high costs for construction, a difficult planning process, lack of vacant interior parcels, and constrictive requirements for peripheral development. In short, it is expensive to do redevelopment for reasons laid out in the BAE report and difficult to plan on peripheral development with Measure R. The proposals have called for addressing both of those factors.
Again, all of those factors are far more challenging in coastal (and near-coastal) cities (which aren’t expanding their boundaries, and yet are subject to the same type of RHNA requirements).
This also happens to be where the vast majority of the state’s population lives.
I don’t know if they are or are not. We’ve analyzed our own situation and that’s where we are.
Is that right? You “don’t know”?
Here’s some help for you.
More cities than ever are protesting RHNA allocation of homes they’ve been told to plan for – Orange County Register (ocregister.com)
Marin supervisors push back against huge state housing mandate (mercurynews.com)
Of course in Davis, the council went-ahead and approved megadorms (despite not fully-counting toward RHNA requirements so far, and despite being warned about that possibility. And continued to approve them, after at least a couple council members indicated that they would no longer do so. And, after the planning commission unanimously rejected one of them (redevelopment of University Mall).
Apparently, SACOG does not consider student housing as a “city need”, so far at least.
And, despite the fact that even students apparently prefer to avoid group housing. All of the pricey studios and 1-bedrooms have been sold-out for some time, at Sterling.
UC Davis Luxury Apartments | Sterling 5th Street (sterlinghousing.com)
I’m not sure that my link debunks my point as you think it does.
For example, the story focused on Marin County, which was required (as of January 31) to produce 3500 units for the next cycle, 1674 of them for low or very low income people. Granted that is for unincorporated Marin County, but they have large urbanized unincorporated areas. It’s not clear to me that that is somehow a worse challenge than Davis faces.
BTW, worth noting this…
“”“The interplay is simply. If you don’t reach your numbers you are subject to the SB 35 ministerial approvals for projects coming up,” Moulton-Peters said, “which really does take local decision-making out of land use planning. It is a very frightening scenario.”
Under SB 35, any municipality or county that fails to build the amount of housing assigned to it by ABAG is subject to a streamlined approval process for new housing projects.””
Also this:
“Leelee Thomas, a Marin County planning manager, said that while complying with the housing mandate will be a challenge, the county is in desperate need of more affordable housing.”
Marin of course is far less affordable than Davis. But we will have huge challenges reaching our affordable housing requirements – even though we need to as well.
And finally, I find it laughable that you berate the city of Davis for building four apartment complexes that it desperately needed. The largest of which was also approved by 60 percent of the voters.
Here’s what the article said:
And yet, you claim that you “didn’t know” that other locales throughout the state (which aren’t expanding their boundaries) are subject to the same type of requirements. And this is only ONE example.
I’m glad that you find it amusing that the city has created a situation that makes it more-challenging to address RHNA requirements. If I had to guess, Nishi would have lost had voters understood the problem with student housing (vs. RHNA requirements). Also, I understand that there’s no Affordable housing planned at all, at Nishi.
“The fact that UCD continues to throw gasoline on the fire by admitting more UCD students than ever before this year in the face of a housing shortage (that UCD has caused) and a pandemic, is clear evidence that they need to get more pressure from the City and our City’s leadership to stop worsening the housing problems for Davis and surrounding cities.”
LOL.
UC continuing its mission to increase human capital through education is placing such an undue burden on Davis and the surrounding cities by providing highly skilled workers and huge influxes of budget, grant and research capital into the local community. Shame on UC for foisting itself upon the people of Davis.
UC (and other educational systems, including SCU and DJUSD) main mission (unstated, but lots of evidence), is to be a ‘business’… and ensure that their administrators, management, professors, staff, are generously compensated… they claim to be ‘altruistic’ (gotta’ sell the product), but… it’s a business, pure and simple… true elsewhere in government, as well…
Therefore, parking, and student housing, don’t fit with the “business plan”…
A certain former president, and a current governor (decline to mention which state, because there is more than one) fully understand this… and succeeded in ‘using’ that, for their own purposes (and, to get elected)… the ‘lessons’ carry over into other levels of government, but to a lesser degree, as they have less ‘power’…
Shame on UCD for doing nothing to provide housing on-campus for its workers and families as well as not nearly enough housing for its students on-campus. UCD’s Orchard Park site on campus for grad student housing is still vacant after 7 years and they claimed that they would be providing some staff and faculty housing but they keep dragging their heels.
So, it is UCD more responsible than anyone else for not having housing for its workers and families, including its grad students as well. All of this negligence by UCD is inexcusable.
Even the UCD Student Housing Task Force asked for more on -campus housing and other actions to help address the housing issues that UCD is causing including slow down on admissions. It is also inexcusable that UCD will not even agree to having a donation fund, like other universities have had success with, for more on-campus housing. This was one of the Task Forces points (see below). I am including specific language here from the Task Force document.
From: Turning the Curve on Affordable UCD Student Housing
1) “Limit future enrollment increases. The time has come for an era of much slower, incremental growth in the student population, enabling the campus to catch up with infrastructure needs, including housing, classroom space, and student support services.”
2) “Increase the campus housing supply by building more units. We welcome the Chancellor’s recent decision to increase the target of new housing units to be built on-campus to include 9,050 beds, but our analysis of the available data suggests that number needs to be higher in order to reverse the trend toward increasingly unaffordable housing.”
3)“Identify funds to support student housing…” including philanthropic sources… like USC. which raises millions in private donations to help fund student housing in USC Village.
4) “Design for Affordability and Prioritize Affordable Designs in New Campus Housing.”
Bill Text – SB-35 Planning and zoning: affordable housing: streamlined approval process. (ca.gov)
SB 35…
Has not been tested by ‘certified’ judicial proceedings… might not be…
Constitutionally, the State Legislature, ABAG cannot dictate to Counties/Cities… nor can SACOG… they can coerce/extort by not recommending, disbursing their, State funds…
The bill was NOT a “constitutional amendment”… it would likely fail under a constitutional challenge (State and/or Federal), if one is brought…
Might, and may well be, a good concept, worthy of implementation, but it is “limp” (pun intended, given the author/sponsor’s name) as to being anywhere near “the law of the land” (pun somewhat intended)…
Beware the terms “required”, or “shall”… they oft are associated with a “bluff”… it is good to understand ‘poker’… you don’t necessarily have to have the ‘best hand’ to win…
Based on what? This appellate case has been certified for publication: https://www.thomaslaw.com/blog/the-first-district-finds-application-of-sb-35-to-charter-cities-is-constitutional-and-requires-city-to-ministerially-approve-a-mixed-use-residential-development/
I did not realize it had been adjudicated, gone to the appellate court level, and certified. I sit corrected…
Yes, UCD should do more projects like Aggie Village, a project that was annexed into the city so the residents can vote in our city elections. It is no accident of geography that one project, the one built for faculty, on UC land was annexed into the city while the thousands of student living on campus remain disenfranchised from city elections.
Annex the land into the city so that students can vote in Measure D elections and I’m with you on more student housing on campus. Otherwise supporting housing construction for students on UC land but not in the city is the kind of voter manipulation you would expect to see in Texas, Georgia or Arizona. Maybe even worse.
Actually, as someone intimately involved in the discussions, that(those) assertion(s) have only a kernel of truth… part of it was indeed geography… it was deemed infeasible to have sanitary sewage transported to the UCD sewage treatment plant… it was going to be costly to extend the UCD water system to serve the site… Davis Commons and Aggie Village was a “package”… both needed a san. sewage lift station (which they share) to connect to the City san. sewer… both needed access to a City street (First)… both would benefit from City PD and FD being ‘first responders’… the City wanted the sales tax from Davis Commons, and impact, MR contributions to fund the initial, and on-going costs of mitigating street (traffic), san. sewer, other public services impacts… those were 95% of the mutual goals (UCD and City) for annexation…
The voting thingy might have been 80% (tops) of the remaining 5%… don’t know who your ‘sources’ were/are, or whether you are just theorizing…
West Village was almost the complete opposite… made little sense, practically, economically, for that area to be served by City san. sewer, stormwater drainage, and even water… and as to street access/traffic, it made little sense, particularly given the resistance from the City ‘neighbor‘hoods to the north… there were indeed some who pushed for annexation as to voting issues, but with all the infrastructure issues, including capacity, initial costs, maintenance, etc. , and logical PD, FD response times, it was pursued, but dropped.
As to on campus folk voting in Davis… old joke about the Pope and birth control stances… “He no play’a the game, he no make’a the rules’…”
With no City revenues likely from West Village and/or the dorms, to fund public projects, public safety, O&M for streets, it would very clearly be “representation without taxation”… but, could vote to raise taxes, spend the tax revenue of others…UCD would still own the land… no property tax… they are served by the existing UCD system as to infrastructure… residents on UCD land have no “skin in the game”…
Those who live on campus, are NOT disenfranchised for voting… on Federal, State, County issues… that is a ‘big lie’ that they are “disenfranchised” (kinda like the ‘big lie’ about the Nov 2020 elections) … just City of Davis issues… where they may ‘benefit’, but have nearly zero ‘burden’ as to votes… there are some who know this, don’t admit this… because they want the voters to sway for THEIR purposes…
Now, if the annexation proponents would insist on full mitigation (past, current, future) fees upfront, and an ironclad guarantee for covering future costs (O&M, etc.), I will listen… until then…
Most people bought up houses to live in Davis and commute to work elsewhere… college students do the same thing…
The big concern should be the community being insane like Houston… and over developing the land we have available… like old farm land… and getting rid of the natural water drainage system we have for the seasons when we have sufficient, or more than sufficient rain. Those floods that were wrecking the Federal Flood Insurance programs… for years… were all from Houston residents voting to develop on their extra old farm land… which was the only thing keeping them from flooding. We live on flood plains too… if it weren’t for 2 damns… Folsom and Berryessa… we’d be flooded every winter… and even with those in tack… we can have flooding from block to block, from clogged up sewer drains in town, when we have normal amounts of rain.
This winter was not enough rain…
Woodland… Dixon… Vacaville, West Sacramento and Sacramento are all viable living options… for ucd students…
Sacramento is more fun than Davis anyways.
(I had 30-40 minute commutes to NYU from my Brooklyn Dorm… Greta Gerwig lived in my neighborhood and she commuted to Columbia… commutes are part of life in California, and the rest of the country; it’s a privilege one often takes for granted when they don’t have to commute)
We have reached a point where we are driving out non-student single adults from our community due to exorbitant rents. There are no affordable places to rent in Davis for single adults, even with full time jobs. These are the younger non-professional workers. So we are pushing young families out of Davis and we are also pushing our young adults out of Davis. It doesn’t matter that UC Davis is building housing as fast as they can. It directly benefited Davis landlords to block or slow the building of housing in Davis. Rather than have thoughtful and creative planning that supports a more sustainable mix of demographics, we have limited Davis to those fortunate to get in when it was cheaper and those that can afford to get in now. We have no working class left in Davis. We are rapidly losing our middle class. We have a growing homeless population. Eventually we will start losing that cash cow – UC Davis students – as UC Davis turns into more of a commuter school.
There’s quite a bit that’s incorrect regarding your claims, but especially this one:
UC Davis students are not a “cash cow”. They are the opposite, from the city’s fiscal point of view. Even Sterling (with its exorbitant rents) is a fiscal money-loser, after a number of years.
And apparently, SACOG does not consider student housing to be a “city need”. The city was warned about that possibility before they approved all of the megadorms, but they did so anyway. And now, those parcels can’t be used for others, and/or to meet RHNA requirements.
Ironically, even students don’t seem to like student/group housing, as demonstrated by the sold-out studios and single-bedroom units at Sterling (while “group” housing is still available).
Students also (generally) have little money to spend in the city.
Students’ education is subsidized by the state in the first place. If anything, the state is a “cash cow” for UCD, as are the non-resident students (at least those who pay full tuition).
I’m not referring to the city’s fiscal point of view. I’m talking about the viewpoint of owners of rental housing. Why rent to a family or a single non-student when you can rent to students at $800-900 or even $1000 per month each? How is it that I have to co-sign every lease for my adult son? It is what the “market will bear.” It is driving renters out of town in search for better, more affordable living. Opposition to planning and development has changed Davis and it isn’t a good change.
You said that “we” will start losing that cash cow – UC Davis students. I understood “we” to mean the city itself. And from that perspective, they are definitely not a cash cow.
The reason that you have to co-sign a lease for your son (wherever he’s attending) is not necessarily due to rental amounts.
In any case, the concern you expressed is one of the reasons that some advocated against DISC. (Of course, that also assumes that the commercial activity was actually viable.)
Of course, the most environmentally-friendly (and controlled) place to house students is on campus. UCD retains ownership of the land, and is responsible for all associated costs. The key is density there, as well.
Nothing you have said addresses the issues I have raised.
There is no consistency in your comments, as already-noted. Your initial claim is incorrect, as already-noted.