By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – People I have spoken to who are supporters of more housing are excited about the passage of SB 9 by the Assembly. Assuming the Senate can reconcile with the Assembly Bill changes and Governor Newsom signs the bill—that scenario seems more likely than not at this point—that is at least a small piece of progress.
But as I have been laying out for weeks now, SB 9 is not likely to change much in Davis. Part of that is the cost of redeveloping existing homes into a duplex or a split lot/duplex. Part of that is the lack of anticipated new neighborhoods.
The overall housing problem is simple: Davis is running out of vacant land to put new housing in town. Davis does not have the ability to reliably develop on the periphery. And it’s too expensive to redevelop.
The city council, as I have pointed out a number of times, seems not to acknowledge this reality. Or perhaps they do and just don’t like to dwell on the negative.
I appreciated the ten recommendations put forward by Sustainable Yolo and adopted by the Housing Element Committee. These, too, are modest changes for the most part. Some of them are more symbolic. The council deferred on the single-family zoning but rightly anticipated the statewide changes.
The notion of higher targeted units, and repealing one percent growth, were largely symbolic and would not have helped.
One area that didn’t get enough attention was probably Recommendation 8: “Explore including a by-right approval process for housing projects which meet the current affordable housing ordinance as is and current zoning standards at the time of application.”
That has the potential to reduce costs of construction for projects that adhere to current zoning standards. It also puts the impetus on the city to update zoning standards through a General Plan update.
For some, the big gorilla in the room is Measure J. Without revisiting the argument, I don’t see a meaningful opportunity to eliminate Measure J—maybe ever. Certainly not in the foreseeable future.
In 2000, Measure J narrowly passed with 53 percent of the vote. By 2010 it was up to about 75 percent support. By 2020, it was up to about 83 percent support.
That seems to be moving in the wrong direction if you are thinking you want to eliminate it. Instead, what is happening it is becoming a permanent part of the landscape.
A more realistic approach, and one that I favor (unlike the elimination of Measure J), is a modification of it.
One of the approaches I have favored since probably 2016 is simply using a pre-approval mechanism. That doesn’t require any change to Measure J because the voters have to vote for it to be pre-approved.
For the first time this year, the idea that I have been floating for now five years, actually gained enough steam that it was part of the Housing Element discussions.
Still, it has a long way to go. The council immediately poo-pooed the idea.
“I don’t support the proposal to ‘pre-approve’ land inside the Mace Curve and Shriner’s and thus exempt them from Measure J/R/D. This approach probably would not work because any controversial proposal would still be subject to voter approval under state law via a referendum,” Dan Carson said.
While I think he has a point there, the key to that statement is “controversial proposal.” It is also worth noting that opponents of housing projects have not gone that route since Measure J was passed—they did for Wildhorse. But they did not do it for Cannery—much to my chagrin, in fact. And that was a 3-2 vote and the community was bitterly divided.
I would use the opposite argument as Dan Carson here—I would argue that the potential for a second vote is a failsafe in case the community feels that the pre-approval conditions become a “bait and switch.”
Another possible change to Measure J comes forward in this week’s staff report. Right now there is language that would exempt an affordable housing project from a Measure J vote—but that is too high a burden, given that you would need land and funding to make that happen.
We don’t know the exact proposal here.
Language in the staff report is vague.
“Amend the language already in Measure J/R/D that exempts from its public vote requirements projects that provide affordable housing or facilities needed for City services.”
“Amend Measure J/R/D to modify the existing exceptions to create meaningful opportunities to meet our needs for affordable housing and to provide other City facilities that benefit our residents.”
One commenter noted that there has to be a threshold added to this idea. Actually, there has to be a proposal added to this idea. Right now it is just that—an idea.
The problem with this proposal is, unlike the pre-approval, it would require a new vote of the people to enact. You can see exactly where the battlelines form on this one, and ultimately you have to thread a very delicate needle to get the numbers to a place where the public would support it in concept and yet still make it be financially viable.
These two modifications to Measure J—pre-approvals and expanded affordable housing exemptions—could become part of a new reform platform for housing.
Realistically, eliminating Measure J is a non-starter right now, but modifying it has a little bit of traction. Of course, we have yet to hear from the “leave Measure J as is forever” crowd.
Bottom line: Measure J is not going anywhere, but maybe we can modify it slightly.
Another day another article about housing in the City of Davis.
I have to wonder, since housing for UC Davis students is just as pressing an issue as housing for City of Davis residents, when will we see an article on the Vanguard entitled “Sunday Commentary: UC Davis Still Has a Chance to Be Bold on Housing”
The Vanguard would have a whole lot more credibility if there was a one-for-one balance between articles that call out the University for its role in the community’s housing shortage and articles that call out the City’s residents for their role in the community’s housing shortage.
An article that analyzes the sources of housing demand in the Davis community would be a good start. Such an article would clearly show how UCD has unilaterally injected tens of thousands of units of demand into the Davis housing marketplace at the same time as the aggregate economic development actions of the City’s government have added almost no jobs to the city, and as a result almost no additional demand for housing for the people filling those jobs. City residents wanting their elderly family members to move their retirement to a location here in Davis, so they can be close by, has probably added more housing demand to Davis than job growth has.
So here’s a question for the Vanguard. Why are you not talking about the elephant in the room? Why aren’t you talking about the responsibilities of that elephant? Why aren’t you talking about the agent of housing demand over the last 40 years being responsible for providing an equal amount of housing supply.
Why aren’t you talking about the housing demand and housing supply ramifications of UC Davis Admits Record Number of New Undergraduates for Fall 2021
City council meets on Tuesday discussing this issue.
Okay, that explains today’s article, but the record number of admitted students are currently in the process of their arrival on campus, which means the record increase in housing demand is also in the process of its arrival. Have you written even one article about that current event happening right here in our community? Have you written even one Commentary sharing your opinion about the impact of UCD’s admission actions on local housing demand?
Right now I believe the more important discussion is the proposed changes to the city’s affordable housing policies. You are always welcome to submit your own pieces if you wish to discuss something else.
The demand for UCD to admit more students will not be limited by local politics. Sorry but the concerns of 100,000 locals are not going to win out over the demands of the other 40 million people in California. “Not going to happen, wouldn’t be prudent” as a former President would have said. As Katehi pointed out a decade ago Davis can get on board and prosper or UC will go around the city. Davis can grow with UC and suffer growing pains or fight UCD’s growth and suffer the pain of not growing. I prefer the former while it seems many prefer the later.
Ron, I’m not in any way saying that UC Davis should admit fewer students. You have never seen me argue for that, nor will you ever see me argue for that.
Paul Harvey used to break his daily radio shows into two parts. The first part covered the facts and opinions associated with whatever topic Paul had chosen to cover that day, and began with “Hello Americans, this is Paul Harvey. Stand by for NEWS!” After a break for a commercial Paul came back for the second portion of the program which he began by pronouncing “And NOW for the Rest of the Story!”
With regard to housing David and the Vanguard have been thorough about telling us to Stand by for News, but not so good (dare I say totally remiss) about telling the Rest of the Story. UCD has been given a near total pass on its complicity in the creation of what dDavid calls “the housing crisis in Davis.” His articles on housing would have a lot more credibility, and certainly be much better balanced news coverage if there were one article published about the Rest of the Story for every article published about the sins and evils of the citizens of Davis when it comes to housing.
The masthead of the New York Times says “All the News That’s Fit to Print” I would personally like to see the Vanguard follow that motto when it comes to housing. Right now the motto of the Vanguard when it comes to UCD’s role in our community’s housing shortage appears to be “Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil.”
Once Matt wants to discuss UC Davis rather than what is actually going to be voted on, on Tuesday.
.
David, I will be glad to discuss UC Davis any time, any where. In fact, I’m discussing UC Davis right here and right now. So, does that mean you will you will be holding up your end of your challenge tomorrow?
There is no access point to UC Davis. LRDP is done. The MOU is signed. Right now we are going through the housing element. It seems like you want to discuss ANYTHING but what’s on the table.
I was happy to see staff come forward with something for discussion about changing the Affordable exemption to Measure D to try to make it feasible. Carson gets credit for leading on this. I don’t know if he got the idea from me by reading my comments on the Vanguard or from his own analysis. Either way he talked about it and the staff responded. Striking the correct balance between Affordable, market rate, developer ROI and passing voter muster is going to require artful politics. I wish the Council and staff well in their deliberations and look forward to the discussion.
Matt
As I’ve pointed out several times, Davis has an obligation to provide a level of housing and services for UCD students. That’s the deal with state taxpayers in return for all of the investment they’ve funded in this community (which is why we’re not Dixon.) The share of student enrollment to City population has remained roughly the same over the last 50 years. That we need to add housing to meet student demand (which generates rental income for many City residents) is not something we should be surprised about. UCD is planning housing (and its slow process clearly demonstrates why the UC system is not a housing agency) in accord with its agreement with the City. Its now our turn. (And why do we want to disenfranchise students from City decision making by forcing them to live in a jurisdiction where they have no legitimate direct voting process?)
Richard, your statement “Davis has an obligation to provide a level of housing and services for UCD students” is a belief on your part. It is akin to a Christian person’s belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Just as I respect that Christian’s position that that belief is true, I respect a Jewish person’s position that that belief is not true.
The difficult aspect of most beliefs is that there is not clear evidence that they are true or not true, and as such they are impossible to prove one way or the other.
You appear to be providing evidence when you say “That’s the deal with state taxpayers in return for all of the investment they’ve funded in this community (which is why we’re not Dixon.)” I would be really interested to see the documentation of that “deal.” Please let us know where we can get a copy to read.
Regarding your comment about Dixon, Dixon has a much more robust retail economy than Davis has … and as a result a much, much, much better Sales Tax Revenues Per Capita than Davis has. Dixon does have less robust automobile sales, but otherwise outpaces Davis in almost all retail categories. The Redwood Barn retail sales category is probably better in Davis.
Davis does have a better services sector … doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. as well as restaurants and coffee shops, but with the exception of dine-in restaurants, none of those services generate sales tax.
So what are those UCD-provided net aggregate benefits to the City of Davis that are so much better than the UCD-provided net aggregate benefits to the City of Dixon?
Ron Glick came up with Healthy Davis Together as his example, but that benefit is just as available to Dixon residents as it is to Davis residents. It takes them 10 extra minutes to drive to a Healthy Davis Together location, but Dixon residents are just as welcome as Davis residents when they get there.
Recently there is the MOU between the City and UCD that resulted in the recent addition of 3500 beds on campus.
Historically there wasn’t a formal agreement because there was a symbiotic relationship between UC and the City of Davis whereby UC built the campus and the locals built the infrastructure and prospered doing so. UC had to provide housing for the Freshmen but other than that the housing for both students and faculty got built in the city. This changed in the last 30 years with the rise of no growth sentiments in the City but arguing the relationship didn’t exist because it wasn’t formalized in writing seems a little revisionist.
Ron, your points are correct as written, but they address the relationship between the City and its residents and UCD.
Richard’s point was at a different level. Specifically, that the City and its residents have an obligation/ deal with state taxpayers to provide a level of housing and services for UCD students in return for all of the investment they’ve funded in this community (which is why we’re not Dixon.)
I’m glad you brought up the MOU, because, if UCD does abide by the terms of the MOU and provide on-campus housing for 100% of its enrollment increases going forward, then the increased demand for housing that UCD creates with its students will be met with an equal increase in the on-campus supply of housing. Thus the student housing problem appears to be solved without Richard’s expressed belief about the city’s obligation having to be acted on.
Your second paragraph leads me to wonder exactly why you have chosen to bring this subject up when the actual issue faced by the council tomorrow has relatively nothing to do with student housing.
I also think your second paragraph is flawed on a number of fronts and suggest you re-read what the MOU actually says.
David, that is a question I believe you need to ask Richard and Ron. I was responding to their comments.
I also think your second paragraph is flawed on a number of fronts and suggest you re-read what the MOU actually says.
I think you meant third paragraph. Responding as such … the language of the MOU is pretty straightforward. I bolded certain particularly pertinent passages.
C. Housing. Through this MOU, the University commits to provide on-campus housing for 100% of the actual student population in excess of the baseline enrollment number of 33,825 students, as defined in the 2018 LRDP EIR (the “LRDP enrollment’). The University’s LRDP baseline number of beds is 9,818. The University will increase the total number of student housing beds on the UC Davis campus, at minimum, according to the following schedule:
1. By fall 2019, the University shall have no less than 10,500 student housing beds on the Davis campus;
2. By fall 2021, the University shall have no less than 12,500 student housing beds on the Davis campus;
3. By fall 2023, the University shall have no less than 15,000 student housing beds on the Davis campus;
4. In the event the actual number of newly enrolled students, as defined above, surpasses the number in the 2018 LRDP EIR projection starting in the fall of 2023, University will meet and confer with City and County to establish a plan to ensure the commitment to house the additional new students.
D. Housing Guarantee. As evidence of its 100% commitment in paragraph C, the University hereby agrees to make a single payment to the City and County, in a total amount equivalent to $500 per bed, including any beds for which payment was made to the City and County on a prior date, for each bed that is not delivered within six months of each of the above dates. Any such payments will be split between the City and County as follows: 80% to the City and 20% to the County. The parties agree that, in the event that factors that are outside of the University’s control cause delays for any of the housing projects identified in the July 2018 LRDP Housing Update, including but not by limitation, third party litigation or the University’s inability to obtain financing, the deadlines identified above may be amended, as agreed upon in writing by the parties which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. City and County shall confer with, at a minimum, ASUCD, GSA, and other community stakeholders with respect to the use of any funds received as a Housing Guarantee.
E. Additional On-Campus Housing Projects. Through the projects identified on the July 2018 LRDP Housing Update as Planned Projects through 2030, totaling 9,050 beds above the 2018 LRDP EIR baseline of 9,818 beds, the University has undertaken to identify and conduct preliminary planning work for projects sufficient to create housing for up to 48% of the total student population projected in the 2018 LRDP on the University campus. The University restates its commitment to providing on-campus housing for a sufficient portion of its student population to ease the various pressures that are currently facing both students and community residents, and to work collaboratively with the City and County to measure and track progress, identify areas for improvement, identify barriers, and remedy issues that arise. For transparency and public accountability purposes, the University will include in every Regents Item for a student housing project, a progress
update on proportion of on-campus housing and progress towards the 48% goal.
F. Joint Housing Report. The City, the County, and the University will partner to create and publish an annual Joint Housing Report, to be issued no later than September 1, 2019 and each year thereafter for the duration of the 2018 LRDP. Any costs for external staff or resources needed to prepare the report will be shared equally by the University, the City, and the County.
So this is what you said: “if UCD does abide by the terms of the MOU and provide on-campus housing for 100% of its enrollment increases going forward, then the increased demand for housing that UCD creates with its students will be met with an equal increase in the on-campus supply of housing. Thus the student housing problem appears to be solved”
So there is a massive flaw in this MOU that doesn’t seem evident to anyone. You are building extra on campus capacity and attempting to house most first and second year students. But eventually those students will move from on-campus to the community, probably in year two or three. When that happens, you still will need more housing in the community to meet that increased demand. SO even with 100% agreement and the MOU, it’s not going to as you say, “solve” the student housing problem. (And of course none this has anything to do with the Housing Element tomorrow).
I’m new to the conversation so I’d like some clarification.
Where does the MOU make any mention about a 2 year window for students living on campus being counted towards the student housing numbers? The way the info out of UCD reads that it’s just straight student population on top of the base 35K number (which is still a lot of students). So yeah, this doesn’t solve the problem but it goes towards helping the situation. $500 bucks (a year?) isn’t much of a settlement to pay to the city for beds not built for students.
It doesn’t make reference to a two year window. That’s where I see the fatal flaw in it.
I guess I don’t understand. What’s the issue? 100% housing (over the base 35K) is being committed by UCD for their students. Why are you bring up 2 years and leaving campus? I mean sure students can do that. They can do that now. But at least they will have housing options and the city won’t have to commit resources for planning to house students in the future….at least that’s the way it reads to me.
The issue is that the MOU is to provide housing for 100 percent of student growth. But providing beds on campus isn’t going to keep 100 percent of growth on campus. Students are likely going to stay at most two years on campus – if that. So realistically campus growth spills out into the community. Don’t get me wrong, having housing for 48-50 percent of all students on campus is far better than 29 percent, but where is the evidence that they will stay on campus?
David, that is where the 48% threshold comes in.
Right now the percentage is approximately 27% … essentially all the first yerar students plus the transfers. That means all the second year students currently move off campus. So the demand for off-campus housing is 73% of enrollment. When UCD reaches (or exceeds) 48% then the off-campus housing that is currently devoted to covering 21% of the enrollment will be freed up by those students being handled on campus.
You’re talking like a bean counter. See my response to Keith for the problem with that in the real world.
You’re also now ignoring the 100% part of the equation and only focused on the 48-50 percent.
What students choose to do isn’t really the issue. If they want to pay more for Davis housing (assuming home prices and rents keep going up) that’s their business….but at least they have the option to stay on campus; it’s not like they sign up for UCD and there’s nowhere to go. Yes there will still be spillover. But in theory not much more than what there is now.
Based on your previous post (a few days ago?) about student housing and UCD’s plan for growth; I said that UCD didn’t include the city in it’s plan for growth (back in 2010) and that spilled over and adversely effected the city. But going forward; if UCD goes through with this MOU (which I think is binding?) then…uh…YAY for UCD! It’s not a complete solution but it certainly significantly mitigates the solution. We can continue to work on solutions for the other 52% of the students (I still say to create a high density mixed use student living/entertainment district near A and 1st/2nd streets….the city could get net positive income by drawing out of town visitors to spend their money as well as focusing and capturing student spending/sales tax revenue).
Now, I could argue that UCD’s funding for neighborhood and street improvements is pretty weak…but that’s another discussion.
This bit I found interesting as I’ve been griping about how UCD doesn’t contribute to property or sales tax. I’d prefer if UCD contributed for student housing parcel tax for on campus units (at least ones near the city borders). I’m not sure what “school and library” tax equivalent is.
Those are the special parcel taxes that Davis voters have approved on top of the regular property tax.
“What students choose to do isn’t really the issue. ”
Actually it is the issue because it’s a free market. Most students prefer to live off campus after the first or second year. It’s also cheaper to live off campus. Basically to get students to stay on campus you have to work against tendency and in some ways against interest. To do that you have to change the incentive structure and there are two ways to do that. One is to lower the cost of on-campus housing. That’s not going to happen. The other solution is to force them to through scarcity – but if you force through scarcity you are still creating a bottleneck situation off campus to then reverse the flow on campus. But in a free market, suppliers will recognize this and build more capacity in town.
Once again Don, thank you for the info. The school parcel tax, I’m familiar with ($7o0 and something bucks I think?) but it didn’t even occur to me that’s what it was referring to. I totally forgot about the library parcel tax…it’s like $100 isn’t it?
The issue is that we’re looking at two different issues. You’re looking at it as one of affordability and options for student housing. I’m simply looking at it as lessening the impact of student burden on the city of Davis. You’re right it is a free market. Students are welcome to live in town if they want to. From my perspective; I just don’t want the city to plan and expend resources on students that choose to live in Davis. I think the next discussion should be how the city can BENEFIT by planning and providing services to students within it’s borders.
I agree we are looking at this differently. I’m arguing that you really can’t do what you are proposing however without creating problems that blowback on the city.
Except that the voters of Davis have chosen to constrain supply.
@David
I’m all ears, what is this “blowback”? As it stands now, some students will choose to live in the city. Some will live on campus and some will have to live elsewhere.
@Don
Supply constraints exist in most free markets. Builders constrain housing supply because they don’t want to take financial risks. Lack of infrastructure constrains housing supply…..ie…I don’t want to clog up our roads with more traffic with more housing.
This is from 2018…
Don Gibson is Chair of the ASUCD Graduate Student Association (GSA) Housing Task Force and a member of the Chancellor’s Affordable Housing Task Force. He noted his op-ed from the weekend.
He added a new finding: “The density of the units in Davis for multi-families has gone from 2.4 to almost 3.”
That means that in 2000, the average unit had 2.37 (rounded up to 2.4) people per unit and it now has almost 3 people per unit. This is not due to changes in the structure of units, and there have been almost no additional units built in that time – that is due to more students moving into existing housing units.
He said, “Not as many students as I suspected were actually leaving town – they were just having to double-up in rooms.”
He said, “That’s led to the mini-dorm problem that has garnered a lot of discussion here in town.”
* * * * *
For the most part, students have not chosen to move out of town. They have preferred doubling up to living on campus. So in order to convince them to live on campus – you have to either dramatically lower the price (see today’s article) and constrain supply in town (which leaves the housing crisis problems as before).
You don’t want the impact on town and yet are continuing the policies that cause the impact on town.
I’ve said before that if the city really cared about the “mini-dorm” problem they could just regulate it with ordinances. Anti-mini-dorm ordinances have not gone well in CA courts. But the issue was that the ordinances discriminated against renters and not homeowners. So the solution is to come up with ordinances that discourage mini-dorms that do not disseminate between owners and renters.
I’m just spit balling some ideas here:
Allow the number of residents to = the number of bedrooms in a residence +1 (with the exception of children).
Allow cars per unit = base line of 1 per bedroom up until 2 bedrooms. After that .5 car credit per bedroom above 2 bedrooms. Option to pay $1,000/Y for extra car. (this would effect me as I have 3 vehicles).
HEAVILY enforce noise nuisance ordinances that trigger resident and vehicle to bedroom checks.
Students and other young adults are finding ways to reduce their housing costs so they can live here. Your solution is to make it illegal for them to do that?
Exactly how am I ignoring the 100% part of the equation? If UCD produces enough additional housing to cover 100% of the enrollment increase above the baseline enrollment of 33,825, then the additional students are taken care of. If the Section C capacity numbers are the enrollment increase guides then you get the following future enrollments
Baseline ……. 33,825
Fall 2019 …… 34,507
Fall 2021 …… 36,507
Fall 2023 …… 39,007
So far the actual enrollment numbers have been
Baseline ……. 33,846
Fall 2019 …… 34,106
Fall 2020 …… 34,191
Fall 2021 …… 3?,???
The Fall 2023 commitment of 15,000 total beds gets UCD to 38.5%. Getting to 48% in Fall 2023 adds an additional 3,700 on-campus beds beyond what is needed for the 100%. So, I’m focused both on the 100% and the 48%.
.
Is that the student version of “White Privilege” … “Youth Privilege”? Is the students’ preference to live off-campus a right or a privilege? How does living off-campus improve the quality of their education.
With that said, your “It’s also cheaper” point has some validity, and the existing supply of legacy rental housing in the City, which is much cheaper than new construction rental housing, will continue to be available.
.
You don’t appear to have been listening to Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Presidency. On-campus housing is definitely a key component of the cost of higher education. In fairness to your point, Governor Newsom doesn’t seem to be focused on the cost of education these days … and the opportunity to use some of the $70 billion budget surplus to that end, but that may change once the Recall is behind us. One can only hope.
.
Another solution is for UCD to increase the on-campus residency requirement from one year to two years.
.
Market-driven solutions have their limitations. You have been saying over and over again that we don’t have any available land within the City Limits to build on, so will your market solution actually come to pass? And even if the City does somehow actually annex agricultural land on its periphery, is a developer going to believe a peripheral location far from campus is a good location for student housing?
David listed mini-dorms as a problem for the city as a result of UCD’s policy that only covers 48% of their student population.
I simply provided some ideas for solutions to the mini-dorm problem that was presented to me.
I choose not to treat students as some mystical endangered unicorn that needs to be specially protected and cared for. Housing for students is between them and UCD. They are welcome to live in the city just like everyone else in every other place in this country….if they can afford it.
They’re not a problem for the city. They’re sometimes a problem for the nearby neighbors. They’re a shining example of the free market at work.
David listed it as a problem or potential problem.
Nearby neighbors as in Woodland and Dixon?
Or the nearby neighbors within the city that have to put up with mini-dorms? To which I’d say that those annoyed nearby neighbors constitutes the city.
Sure if the free market wants to continue to allow it.
Technically I quoted someone else who mentioned that Mini-dorms were a natural and probable consequence of scarcity of housing. Treating the symptom of that rather than the actual problem seems like an odd policy approach.
Keith, did you ever consider that moving to a college town was not the bit fit for you?
Matt,
First, Ron G’s point is just a different statement about the most important aspect of that symbiotic relationship. It’s a more formal statement of that relationship. My point is that Davis residents can’t just turn around and say they will no longer support this relationship no more than you can tell your spouse to get out of the house because you’re tired of living together. And this case it’s not really possible to get a divorce. If a resident doesn’t like the relationship, they can move away.
See my discussion about social covenants below. There are many complex obligations in our society today. We expect communities around military bases to be welcoming to the soldiers stationed there. These are not faith based–these covenants are important to the basis functioning of society. We now face this dilemma on vaccinations. No one had to compel polio or measles vaccines but the covenant that drove that has fallen away. We had a covenant about serving in the military when drafted until the Vietnam War shattered our trust in the government on foreign policy. These covenants are unwritten and should NOT be written–we need to continue to function with implicit understandings–we should not all have to be lawyers.
See my response about Dixon below. Dixon is clearly much smaller because it has not received the large investment from state taxpayers. The per capita numbers are irrelevant–if anything, it illustrates how reliant Davis is on outside state funds to maintain its quality of life and higher real estate values.
I listed earlier that the education level of the parents in town lifts the education experience at DJUSD (research shows parents’ education is much more important than teacher training or funding.) In general the entertainment, dining and retail choices have been much more varied than Dixon’s. One problem of late has been the narrowing of those choices in Davis, but that’s a recent development that is a different conversation. (BTW, I don’t see HTD promoting its program in Dixon which is the key to its success here. Also, I doubt that 99% of the teachers in Dixon are vaccinated.)
.
Richard’s analogy would work in Berkeley or in Los Angeles or any of the other cities where the university and the city are “married” … where the university is in the City Limits. The problem that UCD and the City of Davis have is that they are only neighbors. Through accidents of history they were made “separate and unequal” jurisdictions. And as I pointed out in my comment above, they have been very, very distrustful neighbors for all of the 23 years that I have lived here. So Richard’s analogy of them being spouses living together is not consistent with their respective individual and collective behavior/actions.
Actually I would say that people living in Davis chose to move to a college town.
Richard McCann said … I listed earlier that the education level of the parents in town lifts the education experience at DJUSD (research shows parents’ education is much more important than teacher training or funding.) In general the entertainment, dining and retail choices have been much more varied than Dixon’s. One problem of late has been the narrowing of those choices in Davis, but that’s a recent development that is a different conversation. (BTW, I don’t see HTD promoting its program in Dixon which is the key to its success here. Also, I doubt that 99% of the teachers in Dixon are vaccinated.)
I agree with Richard that the education level of the parents in town lifts the education experience at DJUSD. But Richard stops his analysis there instead of looking at how where that parental education is being actively used.
The two graphics below help us do that further looking. The first graphic, from the US Census showing job inflow and outflow for Davis, shows that 20,347 Davis residents leave the City Limits to go to their job. The second graphic, from the City of Davis Housing Element, shows that 4,719 of the people who have jobs with UC Davis live in the City Limits. Some quick math (dividing 4,719 by 20,347) tells us that only 23% those high education level parents hone their educational skills at UCD. The remaining 77% of those high education parents hone their educational skills at jobs with the State of California, and the US Government, and at many different medical centers, and law offices and accounting firms and other professional firms in the Sacramento Region, and the Bay Area, and beyond.
Giving UCD all the credit for the high education level of parents in Davis is hyperbolic.
You’re getting cute with your replies now….you quoted someone else’s response as a reply to my question to you about “what consequences”. Thus implying that even though you quoted someone else’s comment about mini-dorms…that was your reply to my question.
Again, you and I are looking at different issues. I’m looking to mitigate the impact of UCD’s need for student housing on the city of Davis. I’m not trying to solve UCD’s student housing problem. (That is a discussion that requires a mutually beneficial agreement between UCD and the city and not simply spill over and accommodation).
Not you’re getting personal. Your response here and to Matt have been the simple this is a college town schtick. Essentially saying: this is how it is and how it should be. Wow….congratulations David…you’ve become a socio-political CONSERVATIVE (at least on the local level). Well, I am one of the growing number of Davisites that have little to nothing to do with UCD. Are you implying that Davis is not a fit for me? That Davis can’t be inclusive for us “townies”? I wasn’t originally here fully by choice. But I’m here now. My wife was born and lived here for 18 years….so we have Davis roots (so if we’re questioning cultural fit bona fides…)…in fact I recently moved another family member here.
But all this is irrelevant. Because my statements have all been mostly objective and rational….ie. UCD should do what’s best for them. The city of Davis should do what’s best for the city. And the two should work together for what’s best for both.
Scene: A Davis townie archeologist is lowered by rope into an underground pit of a frat house temple. As the archeologist reaches the floor he must carefully navigate the treacherous floor. On his previous archeological digs he had found snakes and scorpions on the floor of such temples. Here he’s found crumpled beer cans of Natural Light and bottles of some Pliny craft beer on the floor threatening his footing. As he creeps through the frat temple he is careful not to awaken the inhabitants that due to their nocturnal habits (partying all night) and could become irritable if disturbed. Suddenly the Davis townie archeologist trips over a mini-trampoline on the floor (the kind the natives play some ball game with). Some of the frat natives are disturbed. The UCD townie archaeologist sees the frat zombies pull out their weapons. The frat zombies begin to fire a barrage of paintballs at the archeologist. The archaeologist quickly dodges, ducks, dips, dives and dodges as he was taught by the great Patches O’Houlihan. The archaeologist makes into a room deeper into the temple. And on a raised platform of an alter sat a golden Ark (the box like thing carried around). One much like the fabled Ark of the Covenant. But instead of two golden cherubim statuettes facing each other on the lid; two golden statuettes of a pair of college kids facing each other playing hacky sack as statuettes on the lid of the ark. This was the legendary Ark of the Davis Student Housing Covenant. It’s power flows from the same source as the mystical Amulet of Sur-Vey. The Ark carried the mystical magic that bound the city of Davis to obligated to serve it’s great lord UCD (or at least caused many to think the city was bound to UCD). Just as the frat zombies descended on the archeologist he opened the Ark and closed his eyes. The avenging/rezoning Angel Sterling emerged and swept away the frat zombies and took them nearby to a newly created student housing location. The stunned frat zombies looked around and discovered new areas to play beer pong and cornhole in their new temple. To the tune of a triumphant John Williams blaring brass march, the archeologist took the Ark of the Davis Student Housing Covenant and placed into storage in Woodland. Unknown to the archeologist and his comrades, the Ark began to secretly burn with power and would soon force a mystical obligation on the city of Woodland.
As I said before, you must really dislike Dixon. Also, as I said before, it’s not like UCD is going anywhere. If the city chooses not to plan to house more students (more than anyone else…ya know…treat them like everyone else)….it’s not like UCD will suddenly transform into a giant robot and walk away. And if Davis is going to change into one of it’s neighboring towns, can it get some of the restaurants in Winters that aren’t simply pizza, burgers or burritos? I’d like a Spanish restaurant or maybe some good Peruvian food.
By that logic, is the city of Davis also obligated to the Woodland Costco for providing retail services to the people of the city of Davis? How about Winters? The people of the city of Davis enjoy their wineries and food festivals? How about West Sacramento? They’ve got that barn thing….open to the public as well as Raley Field; lots of Davisites enjoy watching a River Cat’s game.
I know your belief in the city’s obligation to UCD is built upon mystical faith. But let me try to appeal to your reason. UCD and the city act in their own self interests (as most economic based decisions are…it’s rational). UCD expands without the vote of the people of city of Davis (which is UCD’s right since it’s outside of the city’s jurisdiction). UCD only builds student housing if it pays for itself. What’s left over spills out into the surrounding communities. In the very least shouldn’t the city of Davis operate with the same self interested mindset?
” it’s not like UCD is going anywhere”
That’s sort of true.
But not the complete picture.
UC Davis chose to put Aggie Square in Sacramento. They chose to look at Sacramento for the World Food Center. And they chose not to get behind the DISC project. So there are in fact consequences.
Do you have direct causal evidence that supports your narrative? I mean, I know I’d prefer to put my innovation business park/housing complex in Sacramento over podunkville. And isn’t UC Medical Center the primary reason Aggie Square was built where it was? I think it’s nearby isn’t it?
As for DISC. Why would UCD choose to support it or not support it? What’s in it for UCD? Wasn’t DISC a private development? UCD wasn’t a partner was it? (I don’t know the details of these projects so I’m asking).
I’ll tell ya what. If UCD’s campus can transform into a giant robot; I’ll support the notion that UCD can leave anytime it wants, just on the coolness factor alone.
It’s part speculation, part based on conversations I have had over the years. UC Davis isn’t going to suddenly become UC Sacramento, but they are going to put more money and energy into their Sacramento campus now. UC Davis could have put its full backing behind DISC, they didn’t. They came out with a half-butt statement. That was their choice. The bottom line: they don’t view the Davis community as a reliable partner and give me a break, Davis isn’t podunkville. You make your choices. They are making theirs.
My point being, wasn’t UCD going to do that anyway (put more money and energy into their Sac Campus)?
Well, yeah….it serves them no purpose to back it. They don’t stand to gain anything directly by it. They would only stand to lose if they backed it with no direct upside. If they gave a verbal statement that backed it; there would be public expectation that UCD should some how support it in some fashion or another (direct funding, rental of space…etc…).
I’ll let you in on a not so secret secret: NOBODY considers the Davis community as a reliable partner. Look around at the business parks and companies moving to places like Vacaville. I know some builders and they wouldn’t even consider building in Davis. Look, I’m not anti-UCD or anti-students. What I oppose is the irrational notion that the city is obligated to support UCD. I’m all for partnering with UCD. If I were in charge of Davis and UCD came to me (or I went to talk to them) and they said; we’re thinking of building a giant business park in the city limits but we need some housing to go along with it. I’d say: absofreakinlutely! I’ll even host the first beer pong tournament (or whatever that trampoline ball game thing the kids play these days is) for the students at the new housing development.
“Podunkville” is a relative term. To San Francisco, Davis is podunkville. People from New York City or even L.A. consider San Francisco podunkville. When I lived in San Jose, I knew people that referred to Sacramento as “Sacramentucky”. I’ll change my mind about Davis podunkville when I can get a much better selection of restaurants and drinking establishments….where I have multiple options watching/listening to a band play in the middle of the week….where I can go to a world class museum and look at art exhibits, science exhibits (Explorit is cool but it’s small)….. I wanna go to a Japanese Cherry Blossom or Obon festival. I’d like to celebrate the Chinese new year with a big parade. I’d like to celebrate some Spanish festivals….preferably in Spain but I’d like a local version.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Me specifically? Davis residents in genera?
We have social covenants of all kinds that are not written down. We do many things for the common good with the understanding that on the whole it benefits society at large. Vaccination is a good example where we do this to protect the most vulnerable in our society because generally most of these diseases are risky to the vast majority of the population. Social covenants are not mystical faith–they are often rooted in game theoretic actions in participants act based on expectations about the future. You can try to diminish the importance of this obligation of Davis residents, but it is part of our larger social fabric.
We only need to look at the difference in population and housing prices between Dixon and Davis to see that there is a strong market preference to live in Davis. To reinforce this, Davis also is substantially larger than West Sacramento with much higher housing prices despite West Sacramento offering a much shorter commute to the other major regional employer.
Woodland Costco hasn’t provided Davis with taxpayer money with no apparent direct services or goods in return. Everything you list is part of direct economic transactions. You haven’t offered what the direct economic transaction between state taxpayers and Davis residents other than the investment flows from the state. What is Davis offering in return?
Not everything is acting in one’s direct self interest. Our biggest problem in America today is that this myth has become a dominant philosophy over the last 50 years, and now society is in chaos and increasingly inequitable. Economic rationality also is a myth (and I’m a professional economist.) The research increasingly shows that premise is false and that we need to move beyond that to reflect actual decision making. UCD and Davis are not self interested adversaries (are you an adversary with your spouse?)–they must be partners working together to achieve the state’s goals.
So what are those laws and ordinance thingies? Why do they exist if we can just all assume we’re all on the up and up and that we can properly predict how everything will turnout within the frame work of an unwritten social covenant (you should build the golden ark I described in precious posts). If the past 5 years has taught us anything, it’s that the social norms and covenants are breaking down. If you’re afraid of writing laws and rules down; then I have to question what you’re afraid of.
As for vaccinations? I believe the state democrats were considering a state wide mandatory vaccine mandate (I think they dropped it). Leaving it up to everybody…even when it’s in their own self interest leaves us with a significantly undervaccinated population.
What is your point? (and man…you really don’t like Dixon do you? lol).
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I used Woodland Costco as an example of another employer outside of Davis’ city limits. Woodland Costco provides affordable rotisserie chicken. UCD provides covid testing. Costco provides free samples (they stopped during the pandemic but I think they stated again….but I still don’t think it’s a good idea to try samples). But if you’re again implying the intangible benefits UCD provides over Costco. Well, take out those tablets from the golden ark of the UCD Housing Covenant and list them (I hope those tablets weren’t smashed by Moses too).
You haven’t offered what the direct economic transaction between state taxpayers and Davis residents other than the investment flows from the state. What is Davis offering in return?
Davis residents like all other residents of the state pay state taxes. The state funds UCD. That money is for UCD. UCD and the city have their own interests (the key is to find their common interests and work together). You’re still trying to play up the magical connection you believe exists between UCD and the city which would leave the city obligated to UCD.
Economic rationality also is a myth
I’d argue that the problem with economic rationality is that assumes rational thought by people. But that’s not the same as self interest. People’s perception of their own self interests can often be different than a more relatively objective view of their interests (vaccinations are a good example). People’s perceptions are often clouded by emotion or limited information or understanding. But I’m not sure this is an argument against rational economics on the macro level. It’s always important to consider context when applying models, statistics and theories.
I never said they were adversaries (you’re not reading my posts well enough). Being self interested and being partners are not mutually exclusive. I’ve said that solutions need to be found that benefit both parties (I’ve even suggested a few). But I will continue to oppose the irrational (which you admit is irrational) belief that the city is obligated to UCD because of some intangible social covenant.
.
Richard, I think you need to add the word “Ideally” at the beginning of your sentence above. Ideally the University and City should not be self interested adversaries, but for the 23 years that I have been a resident of this fair community, there has been precious little cooperation/collaboration between the University and the City. Healthy Davis Together is the one exception to that. Hopefully it is a portent of many more win-win collaborations to come. I’m hopeful, but … unfortunately what is the ideal and what is the historical reality are far, far apart. The distrust between UCD and the City runs very deep.
.
There are two flaws I see in the above statement . The first flaw is that it does not simultaneously look at the obligation of the University to address the consequences of its unilateral decisions to expand its enrollment. The second flaw is that you appear to be looking at building housing within the City Limits as the only possible solution. You do not at all acknowledge or analyze the option of the Univirsity providing housing for its enrolled students on campus.
Keith E
What action in the “free” market is going to prohibit mini-dorms? That would take a regulatory intervention by the City.
What action in the “free” market is going to prohibit mini-dorms? That would take a regulatory intervention by the City.
The threads are becoming pretty busy. But here is what I posted above which is clearly a regulatory intervention by the city.
Are they actually thinking of moving the city corporation yard?
Maybe they are thinking about other properties. Your guess is as good as any. I can see why they don’t want to be specific about what properties they are thinking about. Naming a property is sure to get push back from someone.
“Keith, did you ever consider that moving to a college town was not the bit fit for you?”
I always find this line of attack to be rude. If you disagree with me maybe you shouldn’t live here is a pathetic non-argument. I’ve heard it myself from people I disagree with and I will not easily forgive those persons.
It reminds me of the people with the “America love it or leave it” bumper stickers during the Vietnam War. Only now its Davis, love it or leave it. The obvious response is the one I used the last time someone said to me that people who thought a certain way shouldn’t live here. “That’s what they said about you” was my response.
I disagree with Keith about housing for students in the City but I value his insights into other aspects of the housing market.
But he has specifically expressed the desire that he doesn’t want to live near students. He has been very upfront about it. I am not trying to be rude to him or anyone, but I do think people need to understand where it is they are moving. It would be like me moving to Alabama and complaining that everyone was a Trump supporter. What do you expect?
David, I think you are missing Ron’s point … there is a big difference between thinking what you thought, and saying what you thought … and saying it in the pejorative tone you used.
You’re conflating my personal feelings about living near students with what I believe city policy should be.
Personally: I expect city noise ordinances to be upheld and enforced. I don’t want UCD student drivers (that normally ride their bikes to school) backing their vehicle into my parked truck.
Policy: I believe the the city should act in a matter that best benefits the city (which does not include a mystical obligation to UCD). I believe the city should be actively working with UCD and anyone else that will benefit the city (commercial development, residential builders that provide something for the city; a park, swimming pool, funding for mass transit, funding for social services….etc..).
I said before to you that I would be conflicted if a student housing project went up next to me that had a tangible benefit for the city. But my personal feelings are irrelevant to the discussion.