By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – A few months ago, members of the city council including now-Mayor Will Arnold and Vice Mayor Josh Chapman suggested the need for the city and school district to look into the issue of declining enrollment and how the city’s housing situation has contributed to it.
Chapman in October asked “how do we get more proactive when it comes to housing in this community? And how do we grow the number of families that are, that are living here who have school-aged children so that they can attend schools here and can be part of this community?”
Since then, other than the city addressing the Housing Element and creating a subcommittee of Bapu Vaitla and Gloria Partida to look into housing issues, particularly affordable housing, there has not been much movement from the city on housing.
One area where the city is looking is a possible modification or expansion of the 
affordable housing exemption for Measure J.
As Bapu Vaitla noted in January, “It’s time to talk about an affordable exemption for Measure J/R/D. It’s time. So let’s open the community conversation. Let’s hear about it.”
That’s what it is going to take—a large conversation about housing to get enough folks to be willing to even consider such a modification.
As we have noted, a large percentage of Davis residents (a couple of polls suggests 70 percent) believe that housing affordability in Davis is a huge problem.
The remedy to that is not clear.
The state has put forward some remedies that don’t appear to be working.
This week, Senator Scott Wiener, for example, introduced legislation to make the “Builder’s Remedy” permanent. Currently SB 35 is set to sunset in 2025, but the new legislation would extend it indefinitely.
Senator Wiener explained that, according to data from UC Berkeley’s Terner Center, they found that in the first four years the bill was in effect, 18,000 units of housing have either been approved or are in the process of being approved under SB 35, and “three-quarters of those units, are below market rate.
“We are desperately in need of new homes in California. We are short millions of homes,” Senator Wiener said. He added, “SB 35 is a good government measure that will allow us to accelerate home construction. It’s very simple. If you meet all the rules, you meet the zoning and setbacks and designs and everything else, you, you get your permit without a hyper-politicized, chaotic, process that can take years, uh, and lead to litigation because anyone who has an attorney can challenge you.”
But while 18,000 units of mostly low income housing is good news, it’s not exactly a gamechanger, especially over a four-year period.
Moreover, as Sustainable Growth Yolo pointed out in a tweet this week, “The Builders Remedy is great but won’t work in lots of places. City of Davis produced a report *last month* showing 20% low-income requirement is very hard to be feasible. Update Builders Remedy to factor in what can be accomplished in places like Davis.”
The other major housing law was SB 9 which was supposed to pave the way for duplexes—but hasn’t.
As Jason Ward, an economist with the Rand Corporation and associate director of the Rand Center on Housing and Homelessness in Los Angeles, wrote in an op-ed in the LA Times last week, “the law that some were convinced would make the sky fall (has instead) barely registered.”
He notes two requirements that “reduce its scope, curbing its ability to boost housing production.”
The first is the requirement that the property be owner-occupied. In short, “the law requires property owners looking to split a lot, the most consequential part of the bill, commit to living on the property for at least three years after approval.”
Second, “one individual cannot invoke SB 9 to split two adjacent lots, even if they own both.”
Ward explains these restrictions were added late in the process in order to assure lawmakers that SB 9 “benefits homeowners NOT institutional investors.”
Ward notes that “such restrictions effectively rule out any professional builder, large or small, from using SB 9 unless they want to purchase one property at a time and live on it while the lot is split and, at most, three new units of housing are created. This is an unlikely approach to making a feasible living in California.”
One of our commenters yesterday noted, “Davis doesn’t need more ‘unaffordable’ $900,000 homes. What it needs is more affordable homes selling for $500,000 or less.”
That’s a big problem.
Ned Resnikoff, Policy Director of California YIMBY, pointed out this week that it’s the middle- and lower-income people that are getting hammered by the housing crisis.
He said “the fact is that California has been losing lower- and middle-income residents to other states for some time while continuing to gain higher-income adults.”
And he added, “The biggest risk is not that California loses its wealthy population but that it continues to hollow out its middle class and plunge deeper into a second Gilded Age.”
That’s why Davis is in such trouble here, because it is losing its middle income base that formed the backbone of school-aged families that have been slowly and incrementally forced out of the community.
Declining enrollment is a huge threat to the character of this community because it threatens to erode the vitality of our schools, which has been one of the great assets of Davis.
So what is the answer?
I have put forward a variety of ideas including pre-approvals of a limited amount of peripheral land, exemptions for affordable housing, and city investment in vacant and underutilized properties, but at the end of the day, the community has to decide what it wants to be and what it wants to do.
So the first step is to have a sustained community dialogue on housing and schools—it needs to allow all voices to be heard but also educate the community on the dangers and risks of the current trajectory.
And it has to do this relatively quickly. 2024 is just around the corner. The council has a lot of work to do if it wants to put something on the ballot for 2024—it has to lay the groundwork otherwise the forces of the status quo will simply shout down another round of proposals.
The implications of these statements (which consist of the first five paragraphs of this article) are downright unethical.
It seems to be stating that Affordable housing should be pursued (and poor students “recruited”) simply to avoid right-sizing the school system.
And that the council also plans to use this argument to undermine Measure J (which already has an exemption for Affordable housing).
Is this actually what those on the council are pushing for – or is it just due to David’s “connecting of the dots” in this article? (Hard to tell, but Chapman’s comments above are particularly-concerning.)
Measure J end it don’t amend it! Housing shortage is screwing up everything.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/the-housing-shortage-affects-everything/ar-AA17DJ9U
That is an interesting article Ron. It does have a very urban focus, which is somewhat tangential to our bedroom community reality here in Davis, but it is thought provoking. So I have made an effort to apply it to our current situation in Davis.
One of the points that the article makes is that Davis does NOT need more “unaffordable” $900,000 homes. Unfortunately $900,000 homes are what developers in Davis want to build. And as Jim Frame points out in his 8:16 comment the affordable housing funding model being used here in Davis makes those “market rate” homes even more expensive.
What Davis needs to achieve the outcome described in your article is more homes selling for $500,000 or less … homes that are affordable for young families. To anccomplish that, our community and our elected leaders should pursue a different approach to achieving both those goals … pursuing Federal andState grants to produce 100% affordable housing. And as Jim Frame also points out, housing like that is given the green light by Measure J.
Further, the fastest way to increase the availability of affordable housing in Davis would be for the State of California to assign a RHNA allocation to UCD, and then enforce the achievement of that metric.
UCD adds more housing demand to the Davis community, and probably to all of Yolo County than any other entity or jurisdiction. Yet they are NOT held accountable for that burden they impose on the community.
If UCD were to comply with RHNA the number of housing units built in their jurisdiction would increase substantially … and they would be forced to consider changes in enrollment policy that would ensure those built units were occupied. Imagine the increase in affordable housing availability in Davis if UCD students were required to live on campus for two years rather than one.
In closing this reply to you, as a Davis resident who has paid a lot of attention to UCD housing, how many Affordable units has UCD built over the recent years? Are 15% of their units Affordable?
In regard to the price of housing, aren’t there actually quite a few “families” who can easily-afford a $900K house? (Which wouldn’t even be an entry-level house – in much of the Bay Area.)
Is the word “family” (whatever that means) synonymous with being “poor”? And what exactly is the point of building more housing for families in particular, given that the vast majority of the current housing stock is ALREADY well-suited for families?
Who (other than those associated with an oversized school district) is clamoring for more “families”? And why?
Who (exactly) is the $900K house (or the $500K house) “for”? Is there some kind of waiting list for either one? Folks camped-out underneath local overpasses, waiting for such an opportunity?
Also, do they already have access to the Internet? Because even now (during this tight inventory period, with declining housing prices) there’s houses listed for sale which are quite suitable for “families”.
Matt
As with other proposals for Davis that look for outside saviors, UC as a constitutional entity will never accept coming under HCD jurisdiction. This is a complete non starter, like fantasizing about acquiring and developing the PG&E yard. We need to be realistic about our available solutions within the context of state politics.
As I’ve pointed out before, UCD provides tremendous benefits to Davis at the expense of state and federal taxpayers. In addition, UCD is in the business of providing education services, not housing. (UC has never been a very good landlord.) Davis should carry its obligations of being a good host in return.
It that was true, no one would rent any housing on campus (except for any required to do so). Nor would any developer invest in it.
Which of course, is not the case.
Modify it to say what? The existing exception already accommodates rezoning peripheral land for affordable housing.
The problem isn’t Measure J, it’s the affordable housing funding model. Under existing law (J/R/D) the city has the ability to rezone peripheral land for affordable housing, but it has no source of money to build the housing. And private developers don’t want to build affordable because there’s little or no profit in it.
The model the city has been using is telling market-rate developers, “We’ll let you build your market rate project as long as you subsidize and build a certain percentage of affordable housing.” That subsidy is reflected in the cost of the market rate components of the project, which further drives up the cost of resale housing all over the city. And the new market-rate units add population that increases the need for service workers, thus increasing the need for affordable housing to accommodate the additional low-income workers. It’s a crappy model.
The lack of affordable housing in Davis isn’t driven by local or regional factors alone. It’s a statewide problem, and needs a statewide solution.
Chapman in October asked “how do we get more proactive when it comes to housing in this community? And how do we grow the number of families that are, that are living here who have school-aged children so that they can attend schools here and can be part of this community?”
I completely agree the Council needs to get more proactive and provide leadership and a Vision. As Jim Frame points out in his 8:16 comment the affordable housing funding model being used here in Davis makes the “market rate” homes even more expensive. They are already $900,000 on average and that average is rising.
If the Council really wants to provide proactive leadership to address housing affordability, the fastest way to increase the availability of affordable housing in Davis would be for the State of California to assign a RHNA allocation to UCD, and then enforce the achievement of that metric.
UCD adds more housing demand to the Davis community, and probably to all of Yolo County than any other entity or jurisdiction. Yet they are NOT held accountable for that burden they impose on the community.
If UCD were to comply with RHNA the number of housing units built in their jurisdiction would increase substantially … and they would be forced to consider changes in enrollment policy that would ensure those built units were occupied. Imagine the increase in affordable housing availability in Davis if UCD students were required to live on campus for two years rather than one.
Given the repeatedly expressed desire of Davis citizens to grow slowly and onto as little adjacent ag land as is practical, consider this: the entire Davis RHNA assignment (current cycle) could be built on about 100 acres of land using typical densities. That’s a parcel about the same size as the DISC2 project. But if it were to be done under the developer-subsidized model, below are the approximate parcel sizes it would take to get the RHNA assignment built at various levels of affordable percentages:
50% 325 acres (a bit smaller than the Covell Village parcel, which is 383 acres)
40% 440 acres
30% 630 acres
20% 1010 acres
15% 1390 acres
(If anyone would like to review the spreadsheet I used to calculate these, let me know and I’ll pass it along.)
Excellent analysis, though I would note one thing:
Other than providing small plots of land within larger, market-rate developments, I don’t believe that peripheral developers “subsidize” anything.
The funds to actually build those Affordable components apparently come from the government, not developers. That’s why Creekside (for example) took some 25 years or so after the completion of Mace Ranch to complete.
(Which at that point, appeared to have no “nexus” in regard to the Mace Ranch approval at all.)
Developers only provide small plots of land, within the larger development. Essentially costing them next to “nothing”.
And each time that the government funds an Affordable component, it results in fewer funds available elsewhere in the state.
The part that’s really disturbing about all of this is that Affordable developers have “latched onto” sprawling proposals (in conjunction with landowners and market-rate developers). As such, Affordable developers have sold their souls.
Davis is aging. The demographic mix is spreading to the extremes with college students and retirees making up increasing percentages. The middle is disappearing.
The impacts will include
— continuing decline in retail options, especially downtown.
— The tax base to support the many amenities that Davisites take for granted – parks, greenbelts, bike paths, sport fields and other recreation facilities – will decline. It will be necessary to reduce amenities or continue to increase taxes.
— decline in school district enrollment leading to fewer course offerings.
While I certainly think that the city can pursue funding options for stand-alone affordable housing, I don’t see where there are parcels likely to be available for those projects unless they’re donated as part of a regular subdivision development. Jim’s spreadsheet is a very useful guide as to what is needed.
With this tool you can look around and see where there might be 100 acres available:
https://www.mapdevelopers.com/area_finder.php
Not many sites. For example, there’s about 88 acres north of town near the Mace Curve, but I doubt that the owners would sell or donate it unless they were also developing an adjacent parcel.
If Davis is to
— get a more stable demographic mix,
— sustain the current level and quality of the school district,
— provide housing that is affordable at various levels,
— and meet the RHNA requirements now and going forward
… it is going to be necessary to approve and provide the infrastructure for at least one new subdivision. The only place for that, realistically, is a peripheral development.
The “conversation” Davis probably needs to have isn’t whether to develop peripherally, it’s when, where, and how fast to build it out, and how the basic amenities people expect near their neighborhoods will be provided.
Good post Don. Through no fault of yours it is 25 to 30 years too late, but we can’t change history. With that said, here are some thoughts that your comment prompts:
— Retail downtown is already dead. In thinking through what still exists, you can count the Downtown retail businesses on three or four hands … Davis Ace, the skateboard shop, and The Artery on G Street. The shoe store, the eyeglasses shop, Matthews Mattress, Fleet Feet, Avid Reader, and Logos Book Store on Second. The jewelers and Armadillo Music, and the Paint Chip and the UCD Store on F Street. Nothing on Fourth. Nothing on B Street. Nothing on C Street. Newsbeat and the SPCA Thrift Store on Third. Natsoulos Gallery, Davis Creamery, and Pinkadot on E Street. Downtown is a food and beverage court. There simply isn’t enough money being spent by Davis residents on retail to cover the costs of doing business. 25 years ago Davis decided it did not want to attract “other people’s money” and the death of retail is the result of that decision.
— There is a simple solution to the declining tax revenue (both for the City and DJUSD) … raise taxes. Between $1,000 and $2,000 per person per year would cover the shortfall. Ideally that per person tax would cover the DJUSD cachement area because the unincorporated County residents just outside the City Limits (like myself) benefit from a Davis that is not crumbling around our ears. I would also suggest a business tax that applies to all rental residences. I suggest that business tax be assessed at a predetermined rate per nuclear family that is in residence. That would mean young families would generate a tax for one nuclear family, while a mini-dorm that has seven students living there woul generate a tax for seven nuclear families. That would help young families compete with students for leases. The tax would be paid by the landlord.
— Decline in enrollment would only mean fewer course offerings if the community doesn’t step up with the supplemental tax revenues to keep up the quality of the schools. School quality is one of the most powerful factors that keep housing values up. Paying more in taxes is a wise investment for a homeowner
With those thoughts shared, why is a more stable demographic mix preferable? Further, if it truly is preferable why wasn’t that included as the Vision in the 2000 General Plan? Even more importantly, given UCD’s huge enrollment growth, is a more stable demographic mix even possible … since UCD student groups can outbid young families for Davis rental housing?
Regarding affordable housing, both Jim Frame and I and Don Gibson have pointed out earlier why the City’s approach to building affordable housing is financially infeasible and unsustainable.
So long as you have at least 20 fingers on each hand.
A few of those 90 retail stores have closed and I agree that the inexorable trend is toward more student-oriented eateries. There are lots of specialty shops downtown. What would sustain that is a broader demographic range and actually addressing the parking issues.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that classes require a minimum number of students to remain in the course offerings. It isn’t just a financing issue. The taxes provide critical support, and also help keep teacher pay closer to being competitive with other districts. Lack of housing inventory for two-income households on teachers’ salaries is a problem.
I’m surprised you’re asking that question.
Why would you be surprised? Davis has never had a stable demographic mix, and more than likely it never will.
It is constantly evolving, in large part due to factors that are out of our control.
I’m surprised you’re asking that question.
—————————————————————————————————–
What Don is trying to say is that Davis needs to become less dependent on the student population for retail commerce. It’s why we have almost exclusively burger, burrito and pizza places to eat in town. But in order to attract a more “diverse” socio-economic market; the town needs to be a center for jobs as well as homes for these people. Those jobs in the form of commercial and industrial economic growth will fund the infrastructure required to house this new market of people/residents that can then buy things and food other than burgers, burritos and pizza.
In a “South Park” episode the town has to contend with a hippie invasion.
On a side note, from the same episode of “South Park”, I’ve had similar discussions with some more uhh…radical students in the community.
.
As it turns out my number of close to 20 retail establishments and Don’s number of 90 retail establishments were both wrong. The Downtown Davis website, where Don got the graphic, lists 53 retail businesses and 10 of the 53 are closed (2) or food/beverages (4) or phone companies (2).
Davis Downtown needs to update its graphic, but regardless 43 retail options for retail shoppers in “32 Blocks of Shopping” is anemic at best … on average 1 retail store per block … 4 retail stores for every 3 blocks.
There is no sustenance there. The old lady in the Wendy’s commercial would say “Where’s the Beef?”
– The decline of retail goods has been accelerated by the pandemic. But instead services and tourism retail can be on the rise. Attendance at the Farmers Market is rising and reportedly 85% are from outside Davis. It will not take a big lift to accentuate that option in cooperation with UCD.
– The decline in course offerings due to the decline in enrollment can’t be solved by money–these courses need students. That decline in course offerings will lead to a decline is house prices, which will erode the wealth of seniors living in Davis. Thus maintaining a healthy housing market for families is in the financial interest of older people living here.
– Raising taxes of that amount are not available to a general law city like Davis. And we already have a significant parcel tax burden. We have limited revenue raising mechanisms and moving to a charter city is a big political lift. So directly raising taxes or tax rates really off the table.
The ratio of UCD students to city population has been remarkably stable since 1960, varying between 45% and 55%. It’s the composition of the non-student population that has aged as younger families have been priced out of the market. I don’t think anyone in 2000 when they worked on the General Plan had any thought about how the population mix might change–that’s why it’s not there. And now we should talk more specifically about what a healthy mix should be.
Not sure what “decline in enrollment” you’re referring to here, but you’re putting forth an argument that’s the exact opposite of what you (and other housing advocates) normally put forth.
Would you care to “pick a lane”, regarding your advocacy?
Assuming that you’re referring to the public school system, are you also claiming that a smaller system can’t provide as high-quality of an education as a larger system? I’m pretty sure that the evidence shows the exact opposite. Quality of education is probably much more dependent upon the demographics (e.g., wealth) of a given community, rather than size. There’s some glaring examples of that – including one on the other side of the causeway (which is much larger than Davis’ school district).
And if you “don’t like” that example, I’d suggest examining/comparing Los Angeles’ school district vs, Davis’ school district. Possibly San Francisco’s as well.
And by the way, don’t houses generally cost more in both Los Angeles and San Francisco, despite having school systems which are “questionable”?
What exactly is your point, and which “system” are you referring to in the first place?
Richard,
— “But instead services and tourism retail can be on the rise. Attendance at the Farmers Market is rising and reportedly 85% are from outside Davis. It will not take a big lift to accentuate that option in cooperation with UCD.” Other than Healthy Davis Together, which after an excellent period of mutual cooperation, came to a sudden and ignominious end when UCD abruptly terminated the program even though funding was available to continue it, when have UCD and the City demonstrated the kind of cooperation you describe (hope/pray for)?
— “The decline in course offerings due to the decline in enrollment can’t be solved by money–these courses need students.” Fair enough.
— “The ratio of UCD students to city population has been remarkably stable since 1960, varying between 45% and 55%.” You need to recheck your numbers. The 2020 ratio is now up to over 58%
Census
Population
Enrollment
% of Population
1970
23,488
12,941
55.1%
1980
36,640
18,370
50.1%
1990
46,209
23,318
50.5%
2000
60,308
25,075
41.6%
2010
65,622
30,449
46.4%
2015
67,666
34,535
51.0%
2020
68,640
40,031
58.3%
—
First, does that total UCD enrollment include or exclude the medical school? If so, that should be subtracted beginning about 2000 when it moved to Sacramento.
Interestingly, the 2020 ratio is driven entirely by the lack of new housing in Davis for the population. If Davis had added housing to meet its obligation to state taxpayers for the benefits conferred to the community through UCD, the ratio would have remained the same. And the higher ratio illustrates both the housing crisis and the source of rapidly rising housing prices–it’s not demand, its supply causing the problem.
UCD should not and MUST not control its enrollment to satiate the desires of a privileged wealthy community to remain exclusive and segregated. If someone doesn’t want to bear the burden of the benefits conferred by UCD, they can move elsewhere. The state built this town and it has the right to ask the town to provide the support required.
Ron O
Your understanding of how school systems work is simplistic. I’ve already posted several times studies showing that higher quality education systems add a housing value premium. A good illustration is Piedmont compared to the immediately surrounding Oakland neighborhood. I’m not reposting those studies yet again. You should have read them when I posted them the first time.
The amount of course offerings is dependent on the size of the student body. Davis High School is the highest rated in the Sacramento Valley; it also is the largest by enrollment. That Davis is able to offer almost two dozen AP classes is because of that enrollment size; fewer students, few such classes and programs. This is in part because fewer students means fewer teachers to staff those classes and programs. Yes, the wealth of the community matters a lot for educational quality, which reinforces my point that we need to open more housing in Davis so that more families can take advantage of our resources. But the story is much more complex than how you have portrayed it. (And obviously housing prices are dependent on other amenities–the studies I’ve cited previously control for those differences.)
BTW, your discussion about where Affordable housing funds come from is incorrect. There are in-lieu fees collected from developers for this purpose.
This type of thinking is the same reason that “ordinary” folks were priced-out of the Bay Area.
“Elites” making decisions which benefit themselves, while harming host communities.
The only difference is that those impacted by such decisions generally have some influence, if the entities causing growth are “private” (e.g., Silicon Valley businesses, located within city limits).
On a related note, the cost of housing (while not working for 4+ years) should be included in any cost-benefit analysis regarding the value of a college degree.
Assuming that students even needed to attend a university located away from “home”, for their first couple of years.
Perhaps you can also tell us the reason that UCD is (apparently?) continuing to grow, while California simultaneously loses population. (500,000 fewer people, at last count.)
Millennials aren’t even having children at a level anywhere near what’s needed to “replace” themselves. (Sounds like “my type of” generation. I used to be envious of “earlier” boomers, who experienced the “hippie” movement – which seemed like “ancient history” to me when I was younger.) But now, I think I was born at least 20 years too soon.
I should have been a millennial, after all. God made some kind of mistake, apparently.
.
I agree that that is a challenge, but what does that have to do with decline in enrollment?
.
I agree that is probably what Don may have been trying to say, but he didn’t actually come out and actually make a positive contribution to the dialogue and say it. Maybe next time he will. Don is very knowledgeable and having him share that knowledge is a good thing. BTW open-ended questions like my question were a common occurrence in Socratic dialogue … designed to spur forward the velocity and amplitude of the conversation.
.
You and I agree 100% in the Vision you have described above. Articulating that Vision now, when “the horse is already out of the barn, as well as out of the corral that surrounds the barn,” is about 25 to 30 years too late. The only way Davis is (or was) going to be a center for jobs was if the City and UCD worked together collaboratively on a mutually beneficial economic development plan that leverages (leveraged) the stream of intellectual capital being generated at UCD. Unfortunately, instead of building mutual collaboration, the City and UCD have built mutual distrust. Unfortunately, that is the foundation we now have to build on.
Matt
I disagree with your pessimism. We still have that opportunity if we have positive community and Council leadership. But we need to remove the obvious roadblocks such as the current configuration of Measure J. Neither UCD nor any developers can land an identified project or business with the uncertainty of Measure J.
As it should be, outside of the city limits of ANY city.
The lack of ability to “convince” residents is not a “problem” in most cities. But it is a problem for the environment as a whole. (Otherwise known as “business as usual”.)
I’m also sick of people who pursue economic development, while simultaneously (temporarily) “pretending” that this has no impact on demand for housing.
By the way, did you know that Atherton (apparently) has NO commercial space at all? (At least, according to the video below, as I recall from watching it once.) And does just fine, thank you very much. Perhaps due to the massive property tax revenues it collects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwrH7lrM-Jk&t=2s
Perhaps Davis is making a (fiscal) mistake by primarily pursuing “poor people”? (By “Davis”, I’m referring to the social justice types.)
Again, you argue that housing prices are “too high”, and simultaneously argue that high housing prices resulting from a “good” school system is “desirable”.
Which is it?
And how does your self-contradictory view having anything to do with my understanding of school systems?
No idea what studies you’re referring to which explains you putting forth two conflicting arguments.
I’ve posted articles showing that Piedmont (like Davis) is poaching students from surrounding communities, to avoid “right-sizing”.
First off, I’ve seen no evidence of either of those claims.
Secondly, you’re referring to ONE school, which is different than referring to an entire school system.
What exactly is your point?
Again, you’re referring to a single campus, whereas I’m referring to an oversized system.
I have no objections to “consolidating” enrollment into fewer schools – thereby accomplishing what you claim to be true. In fact, that’s exactly what should occur in a declining-enrollment environment.
Fewer teachers, staff and students do not result in fewer programs, or an inferior education. If anything, the opposite is true (as noted in the examples I provided).
Put forth some evidence if you disagree.
This is an argument to improve schools where families already live; not the other way-around. Unless you support abandoning entire communities, and cramming everyone into an “oh-so-special” place like Davis.
No idea what you’re talking about, regarding how I’ve “portrayed” it.
I will continue fighting those who advocate for more sprawl, simply to support an oversized school system. Including those with vested interests in maintaining that system, some of whom are exceedingly selfish and hypocritical.
It’s exceedingly clear that some of these folks are driven entirely by self-interest.
It’s unfortunate that they have the ear of so many elected officials in the first place.
When you first questioned the assertion about course offerings a couple of years ago, I put the course catalogues of Dixon High School vs Davis High School in front of you. I know the difference because, as a parent who was making school placement decisions about our children, I did the research. You have never done that research. You have no connection to the Davis schools. You have never done the research. I have. Your assertion that you’ve “seen no evidence” of it is false. You ignored the evidence.
As to the ratings, anybody with a computer can see how schools are ranked. So the fact that you’ve “seen no evidence” of that is simply because you haven’t looked. If you had any connection to the Davis schools, any concern about how they might stack up due to having a child in them, you might have done that simple research.
Your answer here has nothing to do with Richard’s point. Reducing enrollment will reduce the number of AP classes DJUSD can offer. Staffing is tied to enrollment. Classes need minimum numbers of students.
Yes they do. Look at the course catalogues of different schools. They’re available online. As I showed you before, but you chose to ignore.
Why? It doesn’t affect you. It would adversely affect many others. Why do you seek to tear down the schools in Davis? What does it matter to you?
Those of us who have made education decisions for our children can tell you that having schools with more course offerings, more school choices, and options for different learning modalities, are likely to lead to better placements for our students.
A school with more choices is likelier to lead to better outcomes, especially for kids who have different learning styles. Strong support by parents, property owners, businesses, and the community to provide extracurricular and enrichment programs is another factor in the high quality of Davis schools.
Given those criteria, our conclusion as parents was, and is, that the Davis school system is the best in the region and was clearly the best choice for our kids.
All of those characteristics are adversely impacted by the shrinking ‘missing middle’ demographic as the population of Davis skews to the younger and older ends.
We did our homework in choosing school options for our kids. Parents and teachers who work hard to improve the quality of the local schools are quite irritated by outsiders who have no skin in the game repeatedly calling to shrink the schools.
According to the link below, both of your claims are false. A “two-fer”, as it were.
And the highest-rated one has less than half of the enrollment that Davis High has.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california/rankings/sacramento-ca-40900
Per your argument, Davis High should be shut-down entirely and ship the students off to West Campus High, in Sacramento. At which point, you’d simultaneously claim that housing prices are rising because of it (viewing it in a positive manner), but would simultaneously complain about rising housing prices.
Reminds me of DISC, in which the usual housing and “fair-weather” climate change activists (somehow) had no problem with adding some 2,500 claimed jobs, but without adequate housing to account for the increased demand. To the point where they were denying what was in the EIR, itself. Not to mention basic logic.
I just put forth evidence, above (before I even saw your comment).
Again, put forth some numbers regarding the total number of students that DJUSD needs to avoid reducing the breadth of course offerings.
As a side note, some people teach their kids at home, using one “teacher” for all subjects. You’re telling me that DJUSD cannot adjust to a smaller student body (and overall size), without sacrificing quality? Really?
Davis property owners pay additional parcel taxes to support additional offerings.
The amount of parcel taxes are not dependent upon the size of the school system, nor is it dependent upon the number of schools, administrators, teachers, staff, or students.
If Davis had “one” student, ALL of the parcel tax would be spent on that one student. Probably resulting in the most-educated kid in all of history.
Yes, it does. Sprawl affects me (and everyone).
And for that matter, it impacts surrounding communities when students are “poached”.
Define “many”, if DJUSD was right-sized to match the community’s actual need. And define “many” in regard to those “left behind” in their own school districts, as motivated parents remove their own kids from those systems.
Again, because I don’t like seeing this used to support sprawl, nor do I like the impact on surrounding communities. (Though it likely increases the value of housing in surrounding communities, to be able to attend Davis schools.)
Terrific. Make that happen in communities where students actually live.
Again, make that happen where students actually live.
What about those in Dixon, for example – who can’t make that happen? What do you suppose the impact is when motivated, privileged parents “seek out” the best for their own children, thereby leaving others behind?
It’s not Davis’ responsibility to provide education for those who don’t live there.
You’re calling me an outsider? Look in the mirror.
Those with “skin in the game” aren’t limited to parents of school-aged children. In fact, many others are just dragged-along (forced to pay costs), without even receiving any direct benefit.
And with millennials having fewer children, they’re increasingly not going to be on “your side”, either.
My children were residents of DJUSD throughout some/all of their secondary education. So I did work to make that happen where those students actually lived. I pay taxes in two school districts.
How about you?
For all you know, I might be paying taxes in two school districts as well – without actually benefiting from either one. (This has nothing to do with the point, regardless.)
I don’t know why some try to make this about “me”, rather than the issues.
The issue is twofold:
1) Pursuit of sprawl to avoid right-sizing the district.
2) The probable negative impact on school districts (and students) in communities that are “poached” for students. (An issue that I don’t care as much about.)
Actually, there’s a “third” issue, as well: Davis property owners are paying the cost of educating students who don’t live there, AND (unlike you) don’t pay Davis parcel taxes, either. Probably the majority of the more than 1,000 out-of-district students, getting a “free ride” from Davis property owners.
And yet, even this isn’t enough for a self-interested school district. They want “more”.