By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – On Tuesday, in my commentary, I noted the evolution of my thinking on Davis in the column, “The Small Town Character of Davis.”
In my closing thoughts of the article, I noted that “the small town character of Davis has been eviscerated by runaway home prices that have forced out the middle class and families. This community is not the vibrant place it was when I moved here.”
The last line was honestly a bit of a last-minute addition to the article and, honestly, I didn’t even remember I had included it a day later.
But evidently it left an impression on some readers.
Matt Williams in a comment wrote, “David bemoaned the loss of vibrancy that has taken place in Davis since he first arrived here as a UCDF [sic] student. In wrestling with David’s lament I found myself asking multiple versions of the same question in the many discussions I had with people on that topic during the day yesterday, specifically, “What was David able to do in his day-to-day activities when he was a UCD student that today’s UCD students can not do?” The consistent answer I got was that life for UCD students today is every bit as vibrant as it was for UCD students when David was a student.”
He added in a later comment, “In my opinion the vibrancy of Davis hasn’t changed. David has changed, and what was once vibrant for him, no longer is vibrant. For the demographic that David now inhabits, I would argue that Davis never was a vibrant place.”
Williams has a good point that I never really defined “vibrancy” and, as I noted above, the term was really an afterthought rather than the main point.
But the more I think about Matt Williams’ broader point, the more I realize that I don’t completely disagree with him.
In fact, one of the reasons I had initially moved out of Davis to places like Sacramento is that Davis lacked the kind of engagement I liked even as a 25-year-old. I moved back because there was a trade off, and I preferred the small town and convenience of Davis over the excitement of larger communities.
So I don’t disagree with Matt that Davis was never a vibrant place.
BUT…
I was thinking something a lot more specific than that.
Matt Williams said that “Davis hasn’t changed… David has changed…” I’m not sure I’ve changed all that much in this respect. But Davis certainly has. The places I spent hours at when I was a graduate student are gone. Places like the Cantina del Cabo. Places like the Graduate. Places like Ket Mo and Village are gone as well.
When the Vanguard moved to its current location in the Downtown, I used to exit late in the evening some nights and the streets were jam-packed with students. Don’t see that as much as I used to.
Walk around the downtown, and a lot of places are still closed. The downtown was frankly starting to go downhill even before the pandemic, and now it seems to me a shell of its former self.
Unfortunately it is hard to quantify. According to the city, they don’t track commercial vacancy rates. They frequently change and it’s hard to measure because in many cases there is still an active lease even when the space is vacant.
Then again, to Matt Williams’ point, I remember when I first moved here, everyone made a big deal out of things like the Downtown and Farmer’s Market, and I remember thinking this place paled in comparison with San Luis Obispo where I grew up and went to college.
But the big point I was making was with respect to the broader community and the schools as well. We are seeing the impact of our growth policies since 2000. We are seeing the impact of declining enrollment. The fact that more and more students do not live in Davis. The teachers don’t live in Davis. They are not in and of this community and that is leaving a mark.
Young people with promising careers are moving out of this community to places like Woodland, Elk Grove and Natomas and they are taking with them exciting professional careers and their kids who would be going to our schools.
Are you telling me that that hasn’t shifted over the last 25 years? I have definitely noticed it in the time I have been here.
It has been sad watching wave after wave of talented and bright and energetic young teachers leaving the community, and some cases even the profession.
I remember as a graduate student going to my professors’ homes in Davis for a potluck or BBQ, and now, most young professors that I know don’t even live in Davis anymore because they can’t afford to buy homes here.
So yeah, in part I agree, Davis was never vibrant but, in another way, I feel like we have lost a lot in the last 25 years.
What “promising careers” are there in Woodland, Elk Grove, and Natomas?
Leaving aside, for the moment – the fact that some in Woodland send their kids to Davis schools – which DJUSD encourages. One thing I’ve learned from the Vanguard is the degree of damage that can be caused by school districts that refuse to right-size, and seek sprawl as a “solution”, instead. Unfortunately, it a town like Davis, it seems that few question or understand this impact. (Of course, most of the commenters on the Vanguard seek sprawl in the first place, so the declining-enrollment school system is used as fodder by those folks.)
The school system needs to right size to the actual demographics of the city’s population, not the other way around where the city needs to grow in order to fill the schools.
You guys have convinced yourself that there is a such thing as “right sizing” the district which is actually that state law prohibits. So it might be better to focus on another solution.
You have convinced yourself that the school’s shortfall of students needs to be taken care of by building sprawl and hopefully drawing in more school aged children.
Keith O
You’re being shortsighted. The most important single factor that maintains your house value is the perceived quality of the schools. Families buying houses most often set the market clearing housing prices in a community and that’s still the case in Davis. That quality is dependent on the education and affluence of the parents with children at the school–I’ve seen several studies putting that influence at about 75%. So if you want to protect your house value, you should be most interested in what policies maintain the quality of Davis schools, rather than trying to come up with ways cut the district’s budget.
Also, as has been discussed here many times. the district’s budget is largely driven by these factors – operating revenues are dependent on the number of students in attendance, but those revenues also pay off in part fixed indebtedness costs that still need to be repaid no matter what the size of the district is. So shrinking significantly below the currently designed size can trigger a death spiral that progressively worsens the district’s finances. Ask the Richmond and Oakland districts about the squeeze of declining enrollment on their finances.
Isn’t this the exact opposite of your usual claimed concerns Richard?
But even if you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth (and not the first time, at that), “quality” is different than “quantity”.
Indeed – ask them.
Ask them if they’ve closed a school or two.
But relying on claims from a school district faced with declining enrollment is guaranteed to bring you inaccurate analysis/conclusions in the first place. These people are in a desperate fight to save their own jobs, and the ‘handful” of parents impacted by a closure have exceedingly-loud (but disproportionate) voices.
It’s like asking a community dependent upon a prison or military base, if it’s a “good idea” to close “their” facility.
And as I and others have said many times before the question of quality and downsizing can’t be separated for several reasons, not only fiscal, but also in scope of course offerings and teacher retention. Ron, you haven’t offered any pathway to maintaining quality while downsizing given the fiscal constraints, and you can’t demand a study out of DJUSD because you aren’t a resident of Davis.
And state law requires acceptance of interdistrict transfers when a parent employed in a district requests it.
A smaller school district needs FEWER teachers. The OPPOSITE of “teacher retention”.
The parcel tax which supports “extra course offerings would go farther, with fewer students and teachers. Funding is unaffected by that. Don’t you claim to be a “professional economist”, and yet you overlook this GLARING fact?
I wouldn’t “demand a study” from DJUSD in the first place – resident or not. Again, this is like asking a community impacted by a prison or military base closure to “analyze” the result.
Again, the district needs FEWER parents employed at the district. That’s a core part of the problem in the first place.
Also wanted to clarify something else. It’s not just “residents” who are required to financially support DJUSD. All property owners are required to do so.
But for that matter, I’ve never discussed where I live – it’s irrelevant (despite your repeated, politically-motivated attempts to make it an issue, apparently based upon some newspaper articles that the Vanguard allowed you to post). Nor will I discuss anything else that I consider personal that I don’t feel the need to share.
If you were actually concerned about this, you’d be piping up regarding Don Shor, Don Gibson, and Matt Williams (among others). And yet, you don’t do so, do you.
The fact that the Vanguard supports you in this shows anyone all they need to know about the Vanguard, as well.
Nor can anyone “demand a study” from a school district – resident or not. (They can certainly “try”, but the result wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s printed on, regardless.)
And in fact, some residents don’t support it at all, to my knowledge (e.g., those living in Affordable housing).
Woodland is a hub for agricultural science businesses, many of which would likely be happy to locate in Davis if there were a place for them.
Elk Grove and Natomas residents would likely work in state government or in one of the hundreds of other businesses in the Sacramento region.
To be clear:
1) You (and those like you) are the ones who are concerned about declining enrollment, in relation to the size of the school district.
2) There is nothing in state law which “prohibits” a school district from “right-sizing” (e.g., closing down unneeded schools).
You might be more familiar with this than I am. How about if you name some, their size, careers offered, etc.?
But more importantly, why would they (or their employees) “want” to move to Davis? You’re claiming that they’d want to pay more, for less? (Both the businesses, and workers?)
Since when did something like that make sense?
Those jobs aren’t located in Elk Grove or Natomas. In fact, those jobs are just as easily-accessed from Davis.
Davis is well-served by Yolobus – there’s commuter lines which deliver workers to/from downtown Sacramento. (And employers usually subsidize that cost, to boot.)
I don’t know if the ability to telecommute has reduced the need to commute (to those type of government jobs) in the first place. (This would depend upon employer policy. Do state employers generally encourage/allow that?)
No, I won’t name the businesses. They’re easy enough to find. Indeed.com always has job listings in these fields in the Woodland area.
The general fields of employment include:
There is a very wide range of salaries for these positions. Some require considerable expertise (master’s degree, specialized training or certification, etc.) and those companies prefer to locate near UCD. There is, of course, a lot of grunt work involved as well with lower pay schedules. But people have a tendency to underestimate the importance of the ag sciences. Right now some of the hot fields are soil microbiology, crop biochemistry, crop breeding and improvement (conventional breeding and genetic modification).
The price differential between Davis and Woodland is largely a function of people believing that Davis is a more desirable place to live and being willing to pay more to live here.
The quality of the schools is a major factor in that perception, obviously primarily for people who have or plan to have kids.
Thanks.
I would think that some of these businesses aren’t even located within Woodland’s urban footprint, as they might need more “room” than what’s provided by that footprint. (Though that footprint is exceedingly large – lots of empty space – e.g., especially in the north/industrial part of town, it seems.)
Pretty sure I’ve seen at least some of these businesses outside of even that large footprint.
It seems unlikely that they, or their employees are going to “move” to Davis (or to land just outside of Davis).
For that matter, there apparently isn’t enough demand (so far) in Woodland to build the “agricultural-focused” technology center, even after it included 1,600 housing units (following its failed attempt in Davis). And yet, that locale is in a very convenient spot in which to travel to/from UCD.
And yet, we were just noting that Davis residency isn’t necessarily required to attend DJUSD.
What exactly is the “objection” to that on here?
One can say “the market has spoken.” Higher housing prices reflects higher desire (along with scarcity created by a constrained supply). There is no better metric for the premium demand for Davis housing than the market price.
Ron O
You clearly haven’t ridden YoloBus as a commuter. My wife did for several years to a job next to Golden One, and it was extremely constraining and took almost an hour each way in alternative to the typical 20 minutes by car.
But you’re right that a substantial plurality of state employees now telecommute. (Several agencies are at 95% despite having new office buildings.)
You have no idea if I did or not. Again, this isn’t about “me” – despite your repeated attempts to make it as such, while also making false guesses (and presenting them as “fact”). Who taught you to put forth lies? And whose credibility do you think this damages? Do you have any capability for self-reflection whatsoever?
In any case, let’s stick with actual facts, and try to leave the personal attacks out of this. Do you think you can do so, for a change?
I don’t dispute the timing of this for some commuters (e.g., walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus – which was sometimes standing-room only). But again, lots of people do (or did) so. (And in fact, this isn’t limited to Davis commuters to Sacramento.)
It’s more like 30 minutes to drive a car from Davis, park it some distance away from where one works.
So yes, it’s almost double the time for some to take the bus from Davis.
The fact that employers subsidize this, as well as the cost of parking is an enormous incentive – sufficient for many to choose public transit.
That’s good news, I guess.
Perhaps they’ll end up using those sites for public housing – though once they’re destroyed – they’re not coming back.
It’s a declining-need profession – throughout the state. What’s “sad” is when folks choose the wrong career in the first place. And that’s not just limited to teachers.
Why is it that I doubt this claim? A professor cannot afford to purchase a $750K Stanley Davis home? (That’s the approximate price for one in fine condition, as well.)
How much do professors get paid?
How much did they end-up spending in a surrounding community?
I agree that Davis has lost much of its vibrancy around campus over the quarter century since we moved here as early middle aged adults. Downtown had some funky and good restaurants and we could buy more goods in town. (Remember the Blue Mango.) Earlier this year I counted 7 large restaurant spaces that were now empty, and had started emptying before the pandemic. University Mall has turned into a shell of itself, losing both Gottshalks and the long time State Market. And now the Grad which was an important social hub for adults, not just students, is gone. We used to go to 3rd St next to campus to eat, but that’s been replaced by boba tea shops (and now the City needs to figure out how to exploit the attractive environment it has created there.) There were several better and/or innovative restaurants, particularly Downtown, but those are gone too.
The saving grace has been the rise of the brew pubs that bring community together but they can’t be the sole force carrying the load. There are more students in the first two blocks of E St, but they don’t seem to fan out much further.
I don’t see this loss as a change in perspective because I can perceive it even while I’ve only been here since my late 30s. I don’t have “college” life nostalgia (like I do with Berkeley.)
In contrast, we’ve visited San Luis Obispo, clearly a college town, twice over the last year and half, most recently over Memorial Day weekend. Despite being smaller, the entire community feels more vibrant. The downtown is busy most nights of the week. (Admittedly it has a nearby tourist industry that draws that clientele.) But most people there seemed to be locals. And the neighborhoods have a number to restaurants and shops throughout, many with lines out the door at certain times. I don’t remember friends from Cal Poly SLO talking about how much better SLO was than Davis 30 years ago–this is a fairly recent turn. What’s their magic?
Are you kidding, regarding using University Mall as an example given all that’s occurred? Really?
Do you even think about your own arguments?
I’m not sure what your point is Ron? “Given all that’s occurred”?
Really? I have to explain this?
O.K.
When the destruction of a mall is announced, businesses tend to leave.
That also occurred to some degree regarding Trackside.
Fortunately, it’s not necessarily “permanent” (e.g., see “Nordstrom Rack coming to University Mall”, now that the city has stopped trying to destroy the mall).
Now that I think about it, this also may be a factor downtown (e.g., ACE and Hibberts realized that they could make more money by selling off their property for student housing, since it’s now “open season” regarding that.)
So far, only the housewares building for ACE. Perhaps the rest of it, later.
But I’ve sort of given up presenting arguments regarding downtown. Go ahead and destroy it, as far as I’m concerned. Make it a a giant student housing complex, as it’s currently on track to be. (There will still be restaurants, at least – perhaps even more of those.)
“When the destruction of a mall is announced, businesses tend to leave.”
Those businesses left for the most part WELL BEFORE the “destruction” of the mall was announced.
I don’t even recall “State Market”. Didn’t something replace that?
Gottschalk totally-declared bankruptcy – don’t recall if something replaced that. Did it?
For that matter, I never even heard of Gottschalk, before becoming familiar with Davis.
I do recall The Graduate.
I also recall World Market – which hasn’t gone out of business (elsewhere).
Bottom line is that very few businesses are willing to move into a mall that’s scheduled to be torn down, and it’s (almost always) an incentive to “leave” before the wrecking ball shows up. You’re seeing that with Trackside on a smaller scale, as well.
But apparently, the University Mall owner (Brixmor) believes enough in the Davis market to refurbish the mall. Davis is EXTREMELY FORTUNATE regarding that, in comparison to other locales – including San Francisco (see Westfield).
So despite the fact that Davis leaders did their best to derail that refurbishment, the city itself got lucky. Or more accurately, there’s still enough demand to OVERCOME the city’s failed efforts to derail that plan. (Again, see “lucky”.) (Left “uncalculated” is the amount of fiscal loss that the city has ALREADY EXPERIENCED regarding their “efforts”.)
Wow. I’m not even going to try to correct things here.
Ron O
The demolition and rebuild of University Mall is BECAUSE of those businesses leaving! You don’t even know the history of Davis.
He likes to argue about all sorts of things without knowing the history. It’s just not worth sitting here correcting things when he’s constantly arguing.
Sure – try to deflect your shortcomings back on to me. I’m just pointing out facts/observations. I’m sorry (not really) if you don’t know how to respond to them.
How’s your campaign against Measure J going?
Is that right? Gottschalk closed down (entirely – not just in Davis) during the great recession. Was that replaced?
The Graduate (YOUR EXAMPLE) closed down after the destruction of the mall was announced, as did World Market. Probably others in there as well.
Just to be clear, you’re stating that businesses “don’t leave” when the destruction of their home is announced?
Regardless, doesn’t the fact that they’re refurbishing the mall (AFTER the city attempted to destroy it) tell you something about how they perceive demand?
Again, don’t you claim to be a “professional economist”?
So yeah, if the city (or state) wasn’t “pushing housing” (in this case – what will no doubt be primarily student housing downtown, Davis might still have a lumberyard or housewares store.
And that, my friends, is what some apparently call “progress”, while also pointing to the entirely-predictable result as a lack of “vibrancy”.
It could be better. The downtown sidewalks could be cleaner and not littered with the remnants of spilled drinks and food, trash and leaves. We could do more to get rid of weeds that seem to be everywhere. Sidewalks, bike paths and streets could feel safer for regular bikes and walkers, allowing children and others to walk and ride their bikes to schools, jobs and activities. Real solutions could be found for unhoused people who appear to reject available services and are troublesome. Politics could be more collaborative, than divisive and hateful.