By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – A few years ago I urged our leaders to think of this community not in a schools-city silo, but rather to step back and look at this community holistically. At the time, we saw our schools struggling to adequately compensate its teachers, an ongoing shortcoming of revenue, the city struggling to provide housing for those teachers—not to mention families with kids, the city struggling also to provide employment for residents who don’t work at the university or to provide housing for many people who do work at the university but have to commute to town.
The school district’s answer was a band-aid. Measure G. But it was only that—a band-aid. It was not going to fix the problems of the school district, much of which got worse during the pandemic—with the district losing a large number of good young talented teachers.
Some of this came boiling to a head this week at the school board meeting with teachers complaining that they are undervalued by the district.
“This year we should be enjoying what is, indisputably, the best education budget that 
California has ever seen,” David Plaut, a math teacher at Holmes Junior High School, said during the meeting.
However, teachers complained that the district is seeing an 18 percent increase in revenue over the next two years, but only passing through about eight percent in teacher compensation increases—this is on top of the district still lagging behind other districts despite Measure G.
“Teachers are frustrated and angry. Just two years ago, DTA partnered with the board to pass Measure G,” Plaut added. “The Davis community voted to tax itself in order to bring teachers’ salaries in line with surrounding districts. The DJUSD proposal moves us backwards.
“This situation is bound to anger Davis parents, taxpayers and voters. DTA believes that Davis students deserve the best, if you believe that too, then show us by investing in Davis teachers,” Plaut continued. “I conclude with this question for the board: If you won’t raise teachers’ salaries when the budget is bad, and you won’t raise teachers’ salaries when the budget is good, then when will you raise teachers’ salaries?”
He was not alone.
“Happier teachers mean happier and more successful students. When teachers are appreciated, we’re so much more willing to go the extra mile and help our community become a better place,” Davis High School teacher Sydney Lundy said. “But when the district doesn’t want to prioritize teaching and learning, then it’s hard not to want to ask for a letter of recommendation. I could go somewhere next year and make $25,000 more. It’s unfortunate because our students deserve excellent instruction and an actual, credentialed teacher every single day.”
The problem of course is that Davis teachers are getting paid less—especially on the low end where your young, talented and energetic teachers are breaking into the profession—to live in a community where housing costs more.
This is of course one piece of a much larger and very troubling puzzle.
I have been worried about the long-term health of our schools which have been a vital part of our community since long before I moved here. I watched in horror last summer as several of the best young teachers announced at the end of last school year they were leaving this district.
I have long been worried about the effect of housing shortfalls and rising costs on the ability of people who work in this community to live here, the ability for young families with school age children to move here, the lack of job opportunities outside of the university and the push by the university to continue to expand—but with much of that vital investment going off the main campus and toward places like Sacramento where they don’t have to deal with gridlock from divisive and bitter land use politics and lawsuits.
I think people paying attention to these issues understand the difficulty and complexity solving them. But I don’t see the problem getting any better any time. In fact, it probably gets a lot worse.
Voters have cut off the ability of the city to build a research park that had the potential to add thousands of good, well-paying tech jobs to our community—bolstering revenue for our schools while at the same time providing workforce level housing.
People worried about traffic impacts from the project have lost sight that people are getting into their cars now to work outside of the community—and also getting in their cars now to work in the community, whether it be at the city proper or the university.
How are we going to build the housing we need to supply homes for teachers, but also people who work at the university and commute?
There is no great answer.
At a recent forum, Gloria Partida noted, “I always advocate for the missing middle because that is an area where we don’t have enough housing. I think that for a long time we built, you know, lots of McMansions and housing was really big and unaffordable. It became unaffordable. And so I think the move back to building smaller units, to building stack flats and condominiums and denser housing is the way to go for us because we have our downtown plan that advocates for that type of housing.”
Dan Carson added: “I think we need to move forward on both market rate and affordable housing because, from an economic perspective, adding units, adding supply makes a huge difference. I’ve fought the good fight, won some, lost some for housing projects at the ballot at the council.”
Bapu Vaitla opined: “I think the focus initially should be infill housing, downtown dense, affordable climate friendly, transit linked infill. And we have some policy levers to make that happen, including increasing density bonuses, reducing, eliminating parking minimums, fast tracking permitting for developments with a high affordable percentage up zoning to allow these kind of modest increases in density and height.”
Or, as Bapu Vaitla put in another forum, “we need to focus on dense, climate friendly, affordable transit linked infill in our downtown.”
Dan Carson also pushed in the downtown, “We are nearing completion of a new plan for our downtown that will add 1000 market rate and other types of units for about 2200 people over time.”
It sounds good, but Davis has largely relied on infill for the last two decades to meet our housing needs. I am skeptical that we can fill them over the next decade through infill alone. Even city manager Mike Webb told me in June that he did not think we could infill our way out of our affordable housing needs in the next RHNA cycle.
We have not seen the latest analysis, but back in 2018, we knew that housing for which some seem to be counting on in the downtown is marginally feasible. The market has only gotten worse and the only housing that might pan out could be owner-occupied, dense, but larger units. And affordable housing could be enough to push the projects into the red.
We got a glimpse of this problem with University Commons. A company was willing and able to finance a large redevelopment project, but the community battle pushed the project into the infeasible realm, which means we are losing out on a large number of rental units across the street from the university.
Infill, density, transit linked projects are all the rage and for good reason—but without community resources, a lot of these projects, especially in places where there is not much vacant land, may well not pan out. And then what?
Everyone wants to preserve this community—but too few people understand that in trying to preserve the character of our town, they are inalterably changing it.
“This year we should be enjoying what is, indisputably, the best education budget that California has ever seen,” David Plaut, a math teacher at Holmes Junior High School said during the meeting.
Plaut continued. “I conclude with this question for the board: If you won’t raise teachers’ salaries when the budget is bad, and you won’t raise teachers’ salaries when the budget is good, then when will you raise teachers’ salaries?”
David Plaut is likely the most knowledgeable person in the district about education budgets. When he speaks people should pay attention.
“It sounds good, but Davis has largely relied on infill for the last two decades to meet our housing needs. I am skeptical that we can fill them over the next decade through infill alone.”
David Greenwald is skeptical of the policy he has long supported. Too bad he continues to support policies he knows are failing.
Had DISC been approved by the voters, tech companies would have just not waltzed in to Davis. Companies are pulling back expansion plans because of economic uncertainty and high interest rates. The City has done virtually nothing to alleviate the current traffic congestion in that part of the City. The longer that vehicles take to get from points A to B, the more pollution they spew into the atmosphere.
“Had DISC been approved by the voters, tech companies would have just not waltzed in to Davis. ”
That’s not exactly true. First of all, had it been approved in the spring, the soonest it would be available for move in would have been probably 4 to 5 years. You don’t plan a project based on current economic conditions. Buzz Oates is currently in the process of constructing a 100K sf biotech development on Faraday. I’ve talked to so many people in the last years that want to move to Davis because of the proximity of UCD and students and researchers but don’t have a place to move into.
Tell them to check Zillow, or talk to the local real estate people. I’m thinking that your friends aren’t actually looking.
Here’s a listing of places for sale, even in this housing downturn. (There’s also rental listings on Zillow and elsewhere.)
https://www.zillow.com/homes/Davis,-CA_rb/
And that’s without even getting into what’s available in Spring Lake, etc. Which also has “proximity” to UCD – comparable to a site like the DISC site (which is some 5 miles from campus, through town). For that matter, their kids can also attend DJUSD – due to the district’s unwillingness to “right-size”.
Not talking about buying homes. Talking about moving into commerce space for a growing company.
You said “people”, not companies.
But do you actually want to start discussing the amount of vacant commercial space in Davis (or the region)?
Or, the fact that Woodland is planning a brand-new technology center some 7 miles north of UCD? (Which “added” 1,600 homes during its “move” from Davis?)
Are you trying to resurrect DISC (for a third time)? Are others trying to do so, and using you as a conduit?
Actually, it’s more than three times, when you consider all of the iterations that it went through before even reaching voters.
What will it take for this thing to die?
My bad. Should be clearer about that – although the context was tech parks, so I’m not sure why that was so confusing.
The companies were not interested in Woodland. Their preference was Davis, in most cases they ended up going to Sac or Vacaville.
Uh, huh. Sacramento and Vacaville are a lot farther from UCD than Woodland is.
Sounds like they didn’t desire or need “proximity to UCD” after all. What do you call it when a herring is red?
So, I’m guessing you are speaking with developers in an attempt to resurrect DISC again. (In addition to the “100% Housing DISC” proposal, which is already in process.)
Ask them what it will take for them to go away permanently. Maybe agricultural mitigation funds, and/or a sale of the land to someone who actually wants to farm it?
“So, I’m guessing you are speaking with developers in an attempt to resurrect DISC again.”
You make a lot of assumptions based on very little information.
.
The words above are a slogan … a sound bite. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want the people of Davis to truly engage with a reality behind this doom and gloom rhetoric, you need to describe how is the character of the town is being inalterably changed.
I ran into Helen Thomson at Peets yesterday and we caught up a bit. One of the changes that she described was “closing a school.” If a school were to be closed, how would that change our community? There would be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but once the changes such a closing would result in were in place, would the character of the community be changed?
Now if you are looking for “inalterably changed” you need go no further than the following piece of data provided by David Taormino.
.
The question at the end of Taormino’s comment is very real, but it isn’t a question for which Davis can provide an antidote. People are having fewer and fewer children. That is a societal reality across the whole United States. So I repeat, if you want the people of Davis to truly engage with a reality behind this doom and gloom rhetoric, you need to describe how is the character of the town is being inalterably changed.
Drive along Russell west of Sycamore through what I am calling Densification Valley and tell me that the transition from a suburban community of single family homes and low rise apartments to one of multi-story dense infill is an improvement in the quality of life. Davis’ drive to resist annexation, in the face of ever expanding demand for a UC education, is indeed changing the character of the community, and, in my opinion, not for the better.
The sad reality of the Davis Vanguard, where I have been making the case for over a decade that refusing to annex land into the city to preserve Davis actually changes Davis, is that David has been and continues to be a steadfast opponent of peripheral development through his support of annexation elections and preservation of commodity producing farmland.
To this observer David can’t seem to break away from the privilege of his youth despite coming around to positions I have held for the last 15 years. His halfway position of understanding the consequences of the positions he supports yet clinging to the folly of his past positions challenges his credibility to speak on these issues.
Do it.
Davis needs fewer teachers (and schools), not more.
Just don’t go to the many other communities which are also losing students. That’s true for the state as a whole, for that matter.
Also, don’t go to one of the communities where the state almost took over operations, due to mismanagement. Or, where the teachers were on strike. (Sacramento comes to mind.)
Schools exist to serve the community, not the other-way around. It shouldn’t even be necessary to remind folks of that.
No don’t do it. Davis loses lots of teachers to other districts. It has become a training district where it used to be a destination district.
I don’t know where Ron O. lives even though much has been written about Ron O. not living in Davis. I have always resisted calling him out for voicing his opinion about things in Davis no matter where he lives. But in this instance if he doesn’t have skin in the game because he doesn’t live in Davis, doesn’t vote in Davis and doesn’t have kids in Davis schools, his taunting of a teacher to leave for better pay is an unhelpful interjection of his opinion into the lives of the people who live and work in this community.
You don’t know if I have “skin in the game” (pay taxes for Davis schools), or not. Don Shor has “skin in the game”, even though he doesn’t live in Davis. (Though I believe he has previously stated that his kids were enrolled in the district.)
Those without kids have “skin in the game”, as well. In fact, they’re subsidizing those who do.
For that matter, Woodland residents have no “skin in the game” (as defined here), but reap the benefits. Which doesn’t bother me, but it’s another sign of an oversized school district. If Davis wants to continue subsidizing Woodland residents (in particular), so be it.
What does bother me is when those associated with a school district start advocating for sprawl to “serve” a school district’s desire to avoid right-sizing. “Bothers” me is actually too weak of a word, regarding that.
I’m not “taunting” the teacher. The teacher is taunting the community with that comment. And I’m serious in my response – leave (if you want to) – for your own benefit (and for the benefit of a community with an oversized school district).
This is your 5th comment on this thread. Any further comments you make will be held and posted tomorrow.
Ron G…
Ron O is just trolling… suggest you not bite… [although I will be]
Ron O’s antipathy towards local schools, its employees; higher education, its employees; public employees; immigrants; population growth of any kind; etc., has been well documented by Ron O himself…
Am thinking a RCI, as Ron is part of the population growth, likely the descendent of immigrants, and a beneficiary of public education… and suspect, from his earlier writings, worked as an employee who benefitted from public entities…
I know Ron O. likes to troll but the person he suggested should quit might not know that. They might also not know that Ron O. refuses to demonstrate having any real interest in Davis schools.
Of course Ron O doesn’t have any real interests in Davis schools other than to tear them down. As a resident of Woodland, he’s interested in promoting his own property value by diminishing the attractiveness of Davis over Woodland in any way that he sees fit. His motive is a plain as day. If he had a different motive, such as reducing environmental impacts, he wouldn’t suggest that businesses and households should be in Woodland instead of Davis.
The responses on here demonstrate the very reason that I don’t share personal information about myself.
I wasn’t trolling; the comments were intended in a serious manner. I would encourage any employee (anywhere) to pursue whatever opportunities best meet their needs.
Nor do I have any antipathy toward any group.
In any other work environment, telling your employer that you can earn $25,000 more by working somewhere else would likely encourage your employer to suggest that you take that opportunity.
And if a system has too many employees who are “underpaid” in the first place, having “fewer” of them would mean that less money is required to pay the remaining ones adequately.
Shriner’s property, 234 acres, “would include a range of 1,100 to 1,200 residential units geared toward families in varying lot sizes and densities on
approximately 145 acres. Also included in this proposal is a Community Park of 45+ acres
comprised of 15+ acres of active park space, 30+ acres of passive park space, an additional 10+
acres of greenways, and 15+ acres of agricultural buffer.”
Palomino Place, “encompasses approximately 26 acres, of which approximately 16.6 acres are proposed for housing with a density of approximately 6.6 units per acre (without ADUs) and 9.0 units per acre (accounting for a minimum of 40 ADUs). These density calculations are based on the gross acreage (16.6 acres) of the residential area of the proposed development. The remaining acreage will be developed with community serving uses, stormwater features, and open space.” Roughly 110 units without ADU’s.
On the Curve, 85 acres, “proposes an array of housing types and would include approximately 551 to 788 units.”
Figure 2 – 3 people per unit.
I have advocated for the past few years here on this blog that school districts need to consider actually providing housing for their teachers. I have said that cities, counties and school districts who generally have some land need to actually develop and build workforce housing to provide homes for their employees.
Recently Milpitas Unified School District had ask community members to rent rooms.
But other school districts are taking even more direct action to provide teachers with affordable housing.
Well, California has recently tried to pave the way for an easier process for school districts to get affordable housing approved on their property.
Basically the state takes over jurisdiction for approvals if specific requirements of the project are met. Some of those requirements are:
Projects would need to be 10 or more units.
55 years the homes need to be for for lower to moderate incomes (workforce housing, often calculated at 120% of the local median income). At least 30% of the homes need to be for lower income households (often calculated as 30% of the local median income).
100% of the units to be rented to local education employees.
If not all units rented to local education employees then they need to be offered to education employees in adjacent school districts.
If not all units can be rented to local and adjacent education employees, then units can be offered to local public employees.
Height limit must be greater than 35 feet.
Must be infill
School districts and local government building homes have an expensive upfront cost; even with financing. But I believe the long term benefits at providing public housing is the best use of resources by school districts and local government for their employees.
I wonder…
If Mr Pryor had done the same sort of detailed analyses of DJUSD, UCD, salaries and compensation, what would those show?
I wonder…
Ron O
First, people are at companies–no one ever actually “talks” with a company–it’s inanimate. David’s context was fairly obvious to anyone reading without a preconceived mindset.
Second, it is never about companies “needing” to be close to UCD–it’s about preferring to be in a location to gain the benefits of proximity, and there is a scale of affordability and availability that determines whether that preference can be met. And Davis (vs. your Woodland) will want to attract companies that meld well with UCD. As I described in an earlier reply to you, having these companies within Davis creates a number of environmental benefits not available if the companies are in Woodland instead (where they increase your property value.) It also enhances the economic agglomeration impact that leverages firms in close proximity to each other–a factor lost if they firms are spread across Sacramento, West Sacramento, Vacaville, Dixon, Fairfield and Woodland. That agglomeration aspect is why San Francisco and Silicon Valley have become tech hubs. So Davis should be addressing how to make the community attractive to these types of firms.
Seems like you, David and the (conservative) Supreme Court have “trouble” differentiating between “companies” vs. “people”. Though David acknowledged the lack of clarity in his comment.
For that matter, the claim alternates between teachers not getting paid enough, AND not having a cheap-enough place to live. Keith E’s comment (above) also discusses that. (I’m not sure why the school district’s Grande site wasn’t used for that purpose. Nor do I know the reason that conversion of that site for housing wasn’t subjected to a Measure J vote, as someone told me it should have been.)
Also, DISC itself has been described as a housing project, at times. The latest iteration of it is 100% housing, so that should clear-up any lack of “clarity” at least. Of course, this is totally at odds with the reason that a peripheral business park was considered by some in the first place.
The claim that David put forth regarding the “people he spoke with” is that they wanted to be within the proximity of UCD. And yet, he said that they chose Vacaville and Sacramento (over Woodland). Since Woodland is a LOT closer than those other cities, this demonstrates that they didn’t really value proximity to UCD after all (as already noted). Of course, the technology park in Woodland (and its 1,600 housing units) still hasn’t broken ground yet, either.
On a personal level, it is not “my” Woodland (as you state). If anything, connections I may have to Davis could be more permanent. But again, this isn’t about “me”, despite your repeated attempts to make it such.
I don’t support development of the DISC site, as it is outside of a logical boundary for the city. Nor do I support the Shriner’s proposal. I plan to work against both as they arise.
I am not a fan of most peripheral development.