By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – If the city council thought they had solved the problem of student housing with the approvals of multi-student housing projects over the last several years, those beliefs were dashed by a string of student commenters who told them otherwise.
“Last Tuesday night at my apartment complex, I saw about 30 to 40 students, mostly first year students with blankets, sleeping bags and tents sitting in front of our complex office waiting for the office to open the next morning in order to secure a lease for the next academic year,” a fourth year student told the council.
He continued, “They were sleeping there or some didn’t even sleep since about 6:00 PM the night before.”
He explained, “Some of them I recognized as friends and offered them food, a bathroom, as well as my apartment to sleep in the night, but they chose not to and decided to wait it out the entire night. And so when the office finally opened the 
next morning, many of them sadly could not sign a lease for the next year. Only about half, maybe even less are able to get a unit. So the fact that we have to turn to these sorts of measures and not even succeed in getting housing is appalling.”
This was no isolated account—another student, a first year at UC Davis also shared a personal experience.
“Last week, my friends and I camped out in the cold two times in front of two different apartment complexes only to fail to secure a lease. Even though we came more than 16 hours, and the hours in the cold hopped up on caffeine before the lease office would open, we were beat out by those before us,” he said.
He noted while “[t]his isn’t Berkeley, Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara, it’s Davis; securing second year housing should not be a stressful add-on to the stresses that students already face.
“I’m concerned that this housing element is inadequate to fix the crisis in a timely manner. Students are scared that the projects outlined in the housing element will end up unbuilt like Nishi and University Commons on top of that, the optimistic fund estimates that the element contains based on the more than hopeful ballot propositions which students have no influence on, and the state funds which are drying up soon.”
Another student came forward.
A freshman, he explained “this January my friends and I have spent a lot of our time looking for housing for next year. And over the course of the last few weeks, we’ve discovered all the problems facing the city in regards to housing. Searching for this housing has become extremely competitive to the point where apartments have already begun filling up. And this is before we’re even halfway through our school year. It’s become evident to us that there’s a very limited supply of housing in Davis to the detriment of the city and its residence.”
The Executive Director of the UC Davis College Democrats added, “I believe the currently proposed housing element is frankly inadequate in addressing Davis’s growing affordable housing needs.”
This was the message delivered over and over again by students on this evening.
He explained, “I believe the currently proposed housing element is frankly inadequate in addressing Davis’s growing affordable housing needs. While it’s important for the city council to quickly pass a suitable housing element to meet the state standards, we must recognize when these propositions simply do not go far enough.”
Like the others, he noted, “Not only as a student, but as a member of this community, I’ve experienced and watched as my friends and classmates go through the tedious and frankly ridiculous process of finding housing and landing a lease that is within their price range from students literally camping out in front of the Almond Wood apartments in hopes of getting a lease to many, to many of our housing prospects for the next year, being tied to arbitrary housing lotteries.”
Jackson Mills, a third-year student at UC Davis, expressed his concern arguing, “I believe that this updated document still does not go far enough, to address housing in Davis over the next decade.”
Meanwhile Francis Haydock, President of the College Democrats, added that she did not believe the housing element went “nearly far enough to alleviate the housing crisis that students like me are experiencing.”
Like the others, she noted, “In the four years I’ve been a student at UC Davis, I’ve repeatedly witnessed the mad rush to sign housing contracts in January and February, which is nearly nine months before students are even able to move into these residents.”
She said, “This is absurd and it happens because there is such a lack of housing in Davis that students are forced to sign leases early, compete viciously with each other for the cheapest and most affordable rent, and subsequently stressed about not being able to find affordable housing in their price range.”
She added, “The situation is simply untenable and should not be allowed to continue.”
Councilmember Gloria Partida was surprised by the students’ accounts.
She told the Vanguard, “It’s disappointing to hear that students are still unable to readily find housing. It highlights the depth of issue and how far behind we are. It also means that if students can’t find housing nether can young families with children.”
Davis has concentrated on building substantial numbers of units devoted to student housing in recent years. UCD has built thousands of rooms on campus. Perhaps the UC Davis Housing Office could help these students and keep track of which apartment complexes, both on and off campus, have availability. I am aware that some apartments are not accepting applications for next year until mid-February, so more units should open up soon. Has anyone checked to see if the housing on campus is full already? It is a little early to state that students are forced to camp out overnight in freezing temperatures to get housing.
One of the biggest problems students have told me is that there is not enough on-campus housing for returning students, especially second year. And so what happens is, they arrive at Davis in September, and then in January they have to find housing off-campus for the next year. THere is apparently not enough housing off-campus, Nishi hasn’t been built and that was 2000 or so beds, and there isn’t a better system in place that would avoid the need to camp out. It seems like it caught a lot of people off guard last night.
Seems to be a UCD problem. If I were a student, I’d consider what my housing options were going to be over the course of my enrollment in the school. If housing options suck, go to school somewhere else.
From what I can tell, it’s a problem across the board – UC, CSU, Community College.
Community colleges (in particular) are intended to serve an existing community – those already living there.
Has anyone ever checked into the percentage of students who could complete the first couple of years toward their “UC Degree” at a local community college or CSU? And THEN transfer to a UC?
I doubt that anyone has EVER looked into that.
On a related note, here’s something to consider:
All incoming freshman and transfer students entering UC Davis for fall quarter 2022 are guaranteed on-campus housing.
https://housing.ucdavis.edu/guaranteed-housing/#:~:text=All%20incoming%20freshman%20and%20transfer,guaranteed%20on%2Dcampus%20housing%E2%80%A0.&text=Students%20must%20meet%20eligibility%20requirements%20and%20deadlines%20to%20qualify%20for%20guaranteed%20housing.
Personally, I have no empathy (as in “NONE”) for those who insist-upon attending a UC for all 4 years, if they have other options for the first couple of years (which would enable them to not cry “housing crisis”). I don’t even think UCD itself “owes” anything to this category of students.
Then it’s an issue for those institutions and the municipalities they reside in. Luckily for the city of Davis, it doesn’t have such an institution in it that requires the city to help solve those problems. The two entities chose to be separate….and separate they are.
This is a UC wide problem. Many factors in no particular order of cause
Lack of availability and (small a) affordable units in private markets around UC campuses. Cities tend to more anti development than cities w/o UCs
General statewide shortage
UC costs have risen in last two decades
Not enough housing on campuses and those house intensity more expensive than private market off-campus
The state requesting more UC enrollment without campuses catching up on infrastructure
40% of undergrads are from parents without a college education meaning they are more likely to have less funding from family.
Homelessness rates range between 5% and 10% for UC students (meaning they experienced a situation at least once in the last year
UC Santa Cruz is probably the worst for homelessness for undergrads
Don,
How has the return from virtual learning at the UC (or UCD) gone? Is there any push to continue virtual classrooms? Obviously there are classes that will require attendance…like those that require labs and such. But there are many classes where it would make little difference if the student was physically present. Maybe the answer is that in addition to more on campus housing, more virtual classrooms and more mass transit options provided by the schools (for students that need to meet, go to a lab…etc…).
This is a State of California issue. One way to break the roadblock that the Universities consciously erect for their students is for California HCD to assign each university a RHNA allocation amount consistent with the housing demand they add.
I don’t know the answer to the following question, and perhaps Don Gibson or one of the other students can answer it. Specifically, what percentage of the housing on campus is priced to comply with the HCD Affordability guidelines? The State has the ability to funnel lots and lots of money to its universities for affordable housing. Unfortunately, that isn’t happening. Why?
@Keith
The virtual classroom option is not viable for university-level courses. Students do not learn well in that type of environment and in terms of getting what they paid for- why pay UC rates for what would be essentially what ASU does for a fraction of the price? Students HATED hybrid or online classes (we called it Zoom University). I can’t go into much more detail as a graduate student and TA, but the students hate it and perform much worse than in-person.
“Personally, I have no empathy (as in “NONE”) for those who insist-upon attending a UC for all 4 years, if they have other options for the first couple of years (which would enable them to not cry “housing crisis”).”
Your lack of empathy has been well established but what I don’t know is if you are proud of your lack of empathy?
I think many of you are missing the elephant in the room. Yes, Davis has a finite amount of housing units available for people but the fact of the matter is this shortage has two key origins:
1) The UC system without fail increases admissions numbers every year, but every year they do not build new housing units. The UC is run like a business and enrolling more students = more revenue. The UC should be enrolling a set number of students that is pegged to the number of on/off-campus housing units.
2) The push for housing developments to contain a percentage of low income units is a point of competition for student housing. I do not intend this to disparage those with less fortunate economic opportunities, but this is a simple numbers game. If a housing unit can go to a low income family or to a couple of college students- there is now an additional layer of competition for the students seeking off-campus housing.
What is the solution? I would say expedite the building of students oriented housing. You don’t build a resort without building all the other amenities, otherwise nobody will visit. Same situation here, we just installed a couple new complexes on Covell, but these look to be young professional housing and are probably priced beyond the budget of students (i have not looked at pricing
The edit function doesn’t work well on this site so I’ll just finish my comment here after two failed attempts at saving my edit…
What I was trying to say is that these new developments are not housing UC students from what I can see. The cars, people, and pets around there suggest a different clientele.
The UC needs to tighten its belt, plain and simple. They need to cut enrollment for some time to allow the city’s projects to catch up. Approving more locations will not solve the problem if previously approved sites still have yet to break ground. If Nishi will add 2k units/beds, that’s great, lets get that done and see what things look like then.
Aaron, your comments are insightful and much appreciated. Your final paragraph makes an immense amount of sense. With that said, why is it the city’s projects that need to catch up? Why shouldn’t it be UC’s projects needing to catch up?
“Pride” is not part of that equation, and empathy has to be based upon logic.
It is true that I have no empathy for those who voluntarily choose to attend a UC when they could have stayed home (and attended a community or state college for the first couple of years). And then cry “housing crisis”, expecting the city (or even the university) to fund this choice.
I realize that this is not an option for some. (Those are the people getting “pushed out” by those who don’t have to be there in the first place.)
The difference is that (unlike students) those same “low-income families” are barred from seeking housing on campus. Another difference is that Affordable housing (available to non-students) is a specific requirement that cities must plan for.
Which ones are you referring to? I believe that some students have cars and (to a lesser degree) pets.
The best suggestion on here, and the same one that some have been advocating for awhile. But which has nothing to do with the city itself.
You might recall that there was a lot of controversy regarding the pursuit of non-resident students, as well. (Not just limited to UCD.)
I like Matt’s suggestion that the UC Campuses should all be treated as municipalities and sanctioned if they don’t meet housing targets similar to the cities and counties where they are located. After all, they don’t pay city and county taxes and can insulate themselves from local planning decisions and consequences. Requiring them to play by the same set of rules would certainly interject some rationality into how they operate.