“A Matter of Will”: Superintendent Matt Best on Declining Enrollment, Housing, and the Future of Davis Schools
On Wednesday morning, Superintendent Matt Best sat down with the Vanguard to talk about a crisis quietly reshaping the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD): declining student enrollment. But to hear Best tell it, this is not merely a problem of shrinking class sizes or shifting demographics—it’s a reflection of a deeper community challenge, one that cuts to the core of Davis’ identity and future: housing.
For the past several weeks, Best and Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton have been making the rounds—meeting with over 90 community groups by the end of this school year—to sound the alarm. Their message is blunt: without new housing in Davis, the city’s schools face painful choices, including school closures, staffing cuts, and reduced programming.
“This is a matter of will,” Best said. “We’re not here to advocate for a particular project or type of housing, but we are here to make the consequences of inaction clear. The connection between housing and schools isn’t just abstract—it’s immediate, it’s financial, and it’s human.”
The enrollment challenge didn’t happen overnight. DJUSD’s student population has hovered around 8,500 for much of the past two decades. But the composition of that enrollment has shifted dramatically. Today, more than 1,200 students—nearly 15%—come from outside the district, the children of UC Davis staff and other local employees who work in Davis but can’t afford to live here.
“This is a matter of will.”
Superintendent Matt Best
In tandem, birth rates in Davis have plunged—from over 600 in 2003 to just 346 in 2023. The district’s kindergarten classes are thinning out, and that decline will echo upward through every grade level for the next decade.
“The pipeline has slowed,” Best explained. “And without new housing to attract young families, we’re heading into a prolonged decline.”
What makes the situation even more urgent is the fiscal model that governs California’s public schools. DJUSD receives funding based on average daily attendance. Every lost student represents roughly $12,000 in annual revenue. Over the past four years, the district has already cut $7.5 million in response to enrollment losses. With an expected annual loss of about 100 students, that number could double in the years ahead.
One common community refrain has been the idea of “right-sizing” the school district—closing schools, consolidating campuses, and trimming staff. But as Best explains, it’s not that simple.
“You don’t save a dollar for every dollar of enrollment loss,” he said. “You might save 60 cents—and only after years of contraction.”
That 40-cent gap, he emphasized, represents fixed costs and delayed structural impacts. And in the meantime, schools remain under-enrolled but still expensive to operate, leading to diminished programs and services.
“Chasing enrollment loss year after year just puts us in a perpetual cutting cycle,” Best said. “You don’t stabilize—you bleed.”
Moreover, closing a school carries its own logistical and emotional toll. In a city like Davis, where neighborhood schools are deeply tied to community identity, shuttering a campus can divide families and leave lasting scars.
“The connection between housing and schools isn’t just abstract—it’s immediate, it’s financial, and it’s human.”
Superintendent Matt Best
“That’s the last thing we want to do,” Best said. “Especially if we close a school and then 18 months later a housing project is approved and we have to reopen it again.”
Best is quick to note that the district isn’t lobbying for any specific development. But the numbers tell a clear story: housing matters. And so does the type of housing.
High-density projects, especially those with smaller unit sizes, tend to yield fewer students per unit. Larger, single-family homes, while often criticized for affordability issues, produce more students per household. The proposed Village Farms and Willowgrove (formerly Shriners) developments could, if approved, stabilize enrollment by 2040—adding up to 1,000 new students between them.
“We’ve seen this play out across Yolo County,” Best said. “Woodland and West Sacramento are growing—and their schools are stable. Davis isn’t, and we’re shrinking.”
But affordability remains the elephant in the room. Most teachers, particularly those early in their careers, can’t afford a $600,000 starter home in Davis. The result is an increasingly transient workforce, with many teachers leaving after just a few years.
“We’re seeing staff turn over faster,” Best said. “If you can’t live in the community where you work, it’s hard to stay long-term.”
To address this, the district is exploring workforce housing options—potentially redeveloping district-owned land to create affordable housing specifically for teachers and staff.
“It’s something we’re looking at seriously,” Best said. “But it’s one piece of a much larger puzzle.”
As enrollment continues to drop, the district will soon have to make tough decisions. Chief among them: boundary changes.
“It’s never an easy conversation,” Best admitted. “Parents understandably don’t want to move their kids out of a school they love. But boundary shifts are far less disruptive than school closures.”
Rebalancing student populations across schools could help delay or avoid closures, especially if new housing brings students into previously under-enrolled zones. But it requires community buy-in—and trust.
“The goal is to be as transparent and deliberate as possible,” he said. “We’re not looking to blindside anyone.”
More than anything, Best hopes these conversations will help shift the community’s mindset. For too long, housing policy and school planning have operated in separate silos. That disconnect, he argues, is no longer sustainable.
“What we hear over and over again is, ‘We didn’t know. No one told us that voting down a housing project would impact schools,’” Best said. “Well, now we’re telling you. Loudly.”
Indeed, Best and Clayton are in the midst of an ambitious civic engagement effort, aiming to speak with 90 different groups before the school year ends. From PTA meetings to service clubs, they’re spreading a consistent message: schools don’t exist in a vacuum. They rise and fall with the communities around them.
“I don’t want people to say five years from now, ‘Why didn’t you say something?’” Best said. “We’re saying it now.”
The district has already begun preparing for a possible restructuring, with the school board set to make final decisions by October 2026. If neither Village Farms nor Willow Grove is approved, at least two schools could close by 2027–2028. If one project moves forward, that number might be reduced to one.
“We’re not here to advocate for a particular project or type of housing, but we are here to make the consequences of inaction clear.”
Superintendent Matt Best
“We’re on a tight timeline,” Best said. “We’ll need to start planning in earnest this fall.”
In the meantime, the district continues to adjust—leaning on programs like transitional kindergarten (TK) and extended learning grants to cushion the impact of declining elementary enrollment. But Best is clear-eyed: these are stopgaps, not solutions.
“You can’t program your way out of a housing shortage,” he said.
For longtime residents and parents, the implications go beyond numbers. A school closure isn’t just about capacity—it’s about connection. Empty parks, fewer Little League teams, dwindling PTA rosters—these are the early warning signs of a changing town.
“We hear it from everyone,” Maria Clayton added. “Realtors tell us that families walk through Davis parks and don’t see kids playing. Youth sports are shrinking. It’s not anecdotal. It’s demographic.”
In that sense, Best sees the conversation about schools as a proxy for a much larger civic question: what kind of community does Davis want to be?
“If we want to keep our schools strong, we have to make room for the next generation,” he said. “That means building—not just homes, but a future that families can see themselves in.”
It’s a message the district will continue to bring to neighborhoods, Zoom rooms, and city hall chambers in the months ahead.
As Best put it, “Change is coming either way. The question is whether we shape it—or let it shape us.”
Didn’t we just see this article yesterday, the day before, and the day before that?
In any case, let’s rehash this type of statement again:
“One common community refrain has been the idea of “right-sizing” the school district—closing schools, consolidating campuses, and trimming staff. But as Best explains, it’s not that simple.”
“You don’t save a dollar for every dollar of enrollment loss,” he said. “You might save 60 cents—and only after years of contraction.”
(Gee – just imagine how big the deficit would be if they shut the ENTIRE SYSTEM down. In that case, you’d have to multiply the difference – 40 cents times each and every dollar of DJUSD’s annual budget to determine the annual loss of a system with no students.)
I sat down and interviewed him yesterday – so how could you have seen this article before?
It’s stating the same thing that you (and the superintendent) have already said.
Didn’t we also clarify that the first rule of auditing is to not automatically accept figures from an organization with a vested interest – and which is engaging in a self-interested political advocacy based upon those figures?)
I would think you be interested in some of the new ground that was covered in the interview and article.
None to be found.
By the way, can you tell us more about these meetings with “90 community groups”? What groups are those, and when/where did these meetings occur?
(I would think that would normally be something the Vanguard would announce in advance.)
I specifically asked him to explain several questions that you had – and they are included in the article.
There’s nothing new here. What questions did I supposedly ask?
Ok
Worth repeating: “High-density projects, especially those with smaller unit sizes, tend to yield fewer students per unit. Larger, single-family homes, while often criticized for affordability issues, produce more students per household.”
Of course (except perhaps in Davis – see The Cannery).
Also, see who is buying existing larger houses (age/demographics, wealth, etc.).
This is why young families primarily purchase in Woodland – it’s cheaper for a larger house. (But even those students are not going to be able to “save” all of DJUSD’s schools – they’ve already acknowledged this.)
Families AGE OUT of school systems, and pretty quickly at that. This is even happening in Woodland, in the older sections of town.
Well, sure—humans only live so long, and kids are only in school for a few years. Maybe we don’t need schools or houses at all, since we’re all going to die eventually. But if we are going to bother having a community, maybe it should be one that actually makes room for families.
Houses provide shelter for ALL age groups – including families with young children.
The “problem” (from an organization like a school district) is that families don’t generally move-out when their kids age-out of the system.
And in a place like Davis, young families moving to the area (without much money) are generally going to pick a place like Woodland, for the reason I already mentioned.
And those who do buy a pre-owned house in Davis tend to be wealthier, probably older, and probably have fewer children. (Which isn’t a “problem” for anyone other than a school district.)
The population of California and the U.S. is also ageing.
All of that might be true, Ron—but ignoring the reality doesn’t make it go away. It just makes the problem worse.
Seems like you missed this part of the comment:
“Which isn’t a “problem” for anyone other than a school district.”
(Hate to break it to you and the relatively small percentage of Davis’ population which is directly-impacted, but DJUSD’s problems are not “everyone’s” problem. And they already know and have complete control over their own solution – to downsize.
Putting forth claims/numbers “proving” that closing down schools doesn’t save money (as enrollment declines) isn’t fooling anyone. Those type of claims damage the school district’s own credibility.
I didn’t miss that part, Ron—I just reject the idea that public schools are only the district’s problem. They’re community infrastructure, and when we push out families, everyone feels the impact. Downsizing may be a technical fix, but it’s not a vision for a thriving city. And as noted by the Superintendent – downsizing only saves 40 cents on the dollar – over time and long and painful cuts and doesn’t stop the bleeding.
David says “I didn’t miss that part, Ron—I just reject the idea that public schools are only the district’s problem.”
That’s where we have a significant disagreement.
David says: “They’re community infrastructure, and when we push out families, everyone feels the impact.”
When there’s less need for a given “community infrastructure”, it can be used for purposes for which there actually is a “community need”.
Also, no families have been “pushed out”. They’ve aged-out. As far as the impact of that is concerned, I can provide a list of benefits (e.g., less need for schools, libraries, families with multiple vehicles – including those lining up to pick up kids at school, drop them off at after-school activities, etc.).
David says: “Downsizing may be a technical fix, but it’s not a vision for a thriving city.”
“Thriving city” has no objective definition. For example, there are communities where everyone is REQUIRED to be a senior citizen, and they would probably take issue with your definition of a “thriving” city.
David says: “And as noted by the Superintendent – downsizing only saves 40 cents on the dollar – over time and long and painful cuts and doesn’t stop the bleeding.”
This is where I get very frustated with you, since we (and not just me) have already noted many, many times that you cannot rely upon a self-interested organization to provide its own “numbers” in regard to an issue that threatens their own interests (e.g., level of employment). There is going to be a massive amount of savings every time a school is actually closed.
As far as the “bleeding” is concerned, that simply means that they might have to close more than one school, over time. Also, that’s not “bleeding” – that’s taking responsibility for an oversized district.
Ron O: Most housing is occupied by aging Davisites. If you don’t want to see Davis develop any more housing, what do you suggest that younger families do who want to live in Davis? Go buy a home in Woodland? Move out of state?
That doesn’t seem like a serious question, Hiram.
Should we see what’s listed on Zillow in Davis? (I haven’t looked, today.)
David: You brought up that “point”, before. And like last time, I’ll note again that if you have sufficient income or payment, you can get a house (any of those listed on Zillow) in Davis quite easily. I don’t believe the bidding wars are much of a factor anywhere these days (and I’ve noticed asking prices significantly dropping in some “desirable” areas in California, as well as an increase in days on the market).
Unlike a job, where you can be well-qualified and still turned down – multiple times.
Alternatively, I suppose that those looking for a “new” house in Davis could ask why the 96-unit Chiles Ranch hasn’t been developed for the past 15 years or more, or the site on Pole Line that used to house a skilled nursing facility.
Or, those looking for a new house in Davis could wait until 2026 to see if the revised Village Farms proposal is approved (and subsequently built), or the Shriner’s site, etc.
But I personally don’t think it’s a very good strategy to wait and see what might be approved and built, if someone is looking for a house. Do you or Hiram think so? If so, I think we see the “problem” here – and it isn’t a lack of available housing.
I might also ask why (if someone has been walking-around Davis looking for “new” housing for the past dozen years or so) didn’t buy one at The Cannery, or Grande, etc. (The latter of which was “ironically” owned by the school district before they sold it.)
(Also, it also has nothing to do with the school district’s self-inflicted problem.)
Of course, there’s also rental housing – Hiram didn’t specify if he was only referring to “for sale” housing.
Any more nonsensical questions for me, or should we stop wasting time at this point?
The problem is you are citing Zillow without the underlying data that is necessary to assess Zillow’s figures just as Reagan cited want ads without the data to assess what they meant.
Hiram asked me what a young family might do if they want to buy a house in Davis.
I’d suggest that they put forth a solid offer on one of the houses that might interest them and see what happens.
Or, they (as you suggest) can “analyze data”, “advocate for sprawl”, and see what happens.
Actually, there’s some similarities in regard to looking for a job. There’s people who work at it (and get them), and then there’s “analyzers” (who don’t).
In both cases, those who are unsuccessful usually end up blaming someone else.
But again, the difference between getting a job (convincing someone else to pay you), vs. getting a house (convincing someone else to accept your money) makes these two scenarios quite different.
And if you, Hiram, and others can’t see that, you’re likely going to be one of the losers in regard to any type of pursuit in life.
“Hiram asked me what a young family might do if they want to buy a house in Davis.”
And your answer is: let them eat cake.
That would fall under the category of “blaming someone else”.
How about asking one of the many people who DO end up buying houses in Davis?
Or, as I said, you can bitch and moan about NIMBYs, regulations, Measure J, developers who sit on a large property in the city for 15 years, . . .
I’m pretty sure I know which is the more-successful path.
Not to worry – 2026 is just around the corner! (And if approved, it would only take a few more years before you get beat-out by some Bay Area transplant at the new development.)
Damn NIMBYs.
Random comment by Ron
Ron O
First, I’ll again point out that you are not a valid stakeholder in this discussion since you live in Woodland and have not identified any discernable link to the Davis community. Your kibitzing only mucks up the discussion among the true stakeholders. You have only thrown in your opinion with no useful or useable evidence supporting that opinion.
Second, more than just the District has pointed out that closing schools or downsizing will not save money 1 to 1. For example the District has more than $80M in bond debt to be repaid by all property owners in Davis (and you’re not among them apparently) regardless of the number of students attending.
Third, as I stated in the last article in response to your comment (with supporting evidence that you can refer to), the 50% price premium that Davis housing has over neighboring communities is largely from the higher educational performance. Even homeowners without children enjoy this value increase when they sell their house. That indicates there is substantial unmet demand for those educational services that are largely accessible only to residents of Davis unless they are employed in Davis (which is defined by its school district, not city, boundaries).
Fourth, the community benefits from educating its students because those students eventually end up in the workforce, paying for Social Security and Medicare at a minimum, and providing returns on investment portfolios, as well as increasing overall well being.
In short, you’re very short sighted in your statements on these issues, and even then, they should be ignored as you have no stake (other than to boost the competing interests of Woodland) in the outcome.
Richard: I hate to break it to you (again), but I’ll likely have a connection to Davis (that I’m not going to discuss on here) for the rest of my life. In fact, I have more than one type of connection.
But having a connection is not a “requirement” of participating (or becoming involved in Davis decisions) in the first place. You’re certainly free to ignore whatever I say, and yet you respond to it by putting forth claims about me, rather than the substance of what I’m noting. That’s what we call “trolling”, rather than engaging in substance.
Regarding any bond debt, how exactly did the district get itself into that predicament, and what is it for? Is it for unneeded schools, for example?
We’ve already been over the premium for Davis housing, which apparently has nothing to do with the school district. In fact, it provides a premium for housing in surrounding communities, since those residents can attend DJUSD schools without even paying parcel taxes. And again, your figure is not correct in the first place. You cannot “lump together” the value in all surrounding communities in the manner in which you’re doing. (Don’t you claim to be an “economist”?)
Yes – students eventually enter the workforce, regardless of where the lived and attended schools. What exactly is your point, assuming there is one?
I have no interest in boosting Woodland. What’s your interest in promoting sprawl in Davis?
Don, that might be true in parts of the country where single family homes are affordable and cost less than half that of similar sized homes in Davis. But that’s not necessarily true here because those homes are largely affordable only to households with adults in their 50s, well past having elementary aged school students. We’re working on dissecting the demographics of likely buyers of houses priced at the Davis median price which is what Village Farms is currently targeting.
Here’s one study that gives a very different nuanced view about children per household by housing type. For any study to be useful it must include income by demographic strata with children per household and housing affordability. This is typically outside the expertise of most demographers.
https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/property-management/demographics/the-community-types-with-the-most-school-age-children_o
From the study, I don’t see clear evidence supporting high-density high-rise developments.
—
The Community Types With the Most School-Age Children
Product type, income, affordability, and bedroom numbers all influence the number of children in a community.
By Mary Salmonsen
….
In the “School-Age Children in Rental Units in New Jersey” white paper, a team of academics and industry professionals examined demographic data from over 44,000 market-rate and affordable rental units in New Jersey to determine how community features affect the number of school-age children in a given community.
…
Across all income levels and building product types, the study shows that apartment units with more bedrooms will lead to a greater number of school-age children. Provided that income and bedroom numbers are fixed, lower-density developments, such as garden-style apartments, have a greater number of school-age children than higher-density mid- and high-rise developments. For any given number of bedrooms and product types, the number of school-age children decreases as household incomes rise.
Across all income types, the number of children per 100 affordable units (62.9) is far higher than the number of school-age children per 100 market-rate units (20.4). Market-rate buildings constructed before 2000 have a far higher number of children (25.9 per 100 units) than buildings built after 2000 (9.8 per 100 units). Affordable buildings built before and after 2000 have a similar number of children per 100 units.
For example, in market-rate communities where the average household income is below $50,000, there are 126.4 children per 100 two-bedroom units in low-rise buildings but only 43.6 children per 100 two-bedroom units in mid- or high-rise communities. In market-rate communities where the average household income is between $50,000 and $100,000, there are 56.7 children per 100 two-bedroom units in low-rise communities but 13.4 children per 100 two-bedroom units in high- or mid-rise communities. At average household incomes above $100,000, there are no more than five children per 100 high-rise units at any number of bedrooms.
One of the points that Matt Best made to me was that they have seen from studies that high density housing has far less in the way of children than single-family housing. From there, I asked him if they were going to push for specific housing, but he said no.
Did you actually need a superintendent to tell you that families don’t want to move to an expensive shoebox, when they have other options?
Also worth noting that families with young children generally do not prefer high-density, high-rise living, and studies have shown it is not optimal for children.
E.g.: “Children in High Rises
Numerous studies suggest that children have problems in high- rises; none suggest benefits for them. Early reviews are clear. One states flatly that “for…families with small children, the evidence demonstrates that high-rise living is an unsuitable form of accom- modation” (Conway & Adams, 1977, p. 595.)”
[Cited here: The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings
Article in Architectural Science Review · March 2007
Robert Gifford , University of Victoria , 219 PUBLICATIONS 23,570 CITATIONS]
The review continues:
“No evidence we could find shows that high rises are good for children. The literature includes several studies that suggest high percentages of dissatisfaction among parents about the suitability of high rises for their children. Every study of behavioral problems finds more among children in high rises.”
Seems to me that if Davis wants to attract more young families without much money, they need to find a way to make large houses with yards, multiple parking spaces, etc. – and they need to be cheaply-priced.
With a big red bow on top.
Anyone who wants to know whether Ron is serious just look at his comment
I agree with Don, which is why I believe affordability in for sale housing is best accomplished by reducing the square footage of detached single family homes to the size that returning World War II veterans and their wives bought and raised their children in. Each house in Levittown (for example) had its own modest yard … easy to maintain. Even at a purchase price of $500,000 ($500 per square foot times 1,000 square feet) the gross household income (30% of which would go for housing will need to exceed $150,000, so almost universally both parents will be working full time. Having a small yard to maintain, but enough for their child (statistically these days there will only be one child) to be able to go out and play. That puts them on the right side of the studies Don cites.
“You don’t save a dollar for every dollar of enrollment loss,” he said. “You might save 60 cents—and only after years of contraction.”
The decision to close a school does not produce enrollment loss. When a school closes the students don’t evaporate, they move to a different facility. So when you close a school, you save 100 cents not 60 cents.
Further, the enrollment loss and the ADA revenue loss that accompanies it has already happened. The lost revenue associated with 343 births instead of 600 births is already a current budgetary reality, as is the cost to operate the existing DJUSD facilities. But those two budget realities are independent of one another. The amount of ADA revenue does not impact the number of facilities, and the number of facilities does not impact the ADA revenue.
Further, nothing that DJUSD does in raising or lowering its costs will change its ADA revenue by even a penny. DJUSD is at the mercy of factors beyond its control.
On the other hand DJUSD is in complete control of the ability to raise or lower its costs.
Your first statement is untrue as it fails to account for fixed costs
Second statement is false, the enrollment loss is projected to the next ten years, it hasn’t already happened.
Third statement is also false, they are making cuts as we speak.
David says: “Your first statement is untrue as it fails to account for fixed costs.”
There are very few costs which are actually/completely “fixed”.
The underlying lack of logic in your comment is that the school district is “perfectly-sized”. And yet, there are both larger and smaller districts throughout the state.
David says: “Second statement is false, the enrollment loss is projected to the next ten years, it hasn’t already happened.”
Sounds like they’d better get ready to take some steps (e.g., a planned closure). It’s better to do so in advance. (For example, by not continuing to enroll students at a school slated for closure.)
If it “helps” the district, I’d be willing to show up to support a closure plan. (Of course, they don’t actually “want” that type of help.)
Fixed costs are indeed fixed, but very few Fixed Costs are directly attributable to an individual facility. They mostly are at the District Administration level. Give me some examples of facility-specific fixed costs.
The decision whether or not to close a facility is in the present. If acted upon in the present it will produce an immediate and real impact on DJUSD’s financial statements. ADA revenue can only be impacted by real enrollment changes.
The projections of future enrollment loss are just that projections. But even if those revenue loss/gain projections come to pass, they do not create equivalent loss/gain of operating costs for DJUSD. Further, DJUSD’s own numbers clearly are evidence that enrollment loss has already happened … and as a result revenue loss has already happened.
Read my third statement again, “nothing that DJUSD does in raising or lowering its costs will change its ADA revenue by even a penny. DJUSD is at the mercy of factors beyond its control.” And you said that statement “is also false, they are making cuts as we speak.” Regarding those cuts they are making as we speak, how are those cuts affecting ADA revenue.
Bottom-line, you are attempting to count changes in revenue twice, but changes in costs only once.
“The decision to close a school does not produce enrollment loss. When a school closes the students don’t evaporate, they move to a different facility. So when you close a school, you save 100 cents not 60 cents.”
I see Matt isn’t falling for the math being put forward. I’m with Matt and Ron regarding this, every time I hear that $1 only equals 60 cents my mind goes fuzzy.
Matt says: “So when you close a school, you save 100 cents not 60 cents.”
In a sense, they save “more than” 100 cents, since the existing parcel tax is then allocated among fewer schools.
“High-density projects, especially those with smaller unit sizes, tend to yield fewer students per unit. Larger, single-family homes, while often criticized for affordability issues, produce more students per household.”
So, to heck with density, we need rich families. But doesn’t density also yield more units per acre. That part of the equation is missing, leading me to think purposefully. What is the balance expected to be between fewer kids per unit and more units per acre?
“The proposed Village Farms and Willowgrove (formerly Shriners) developments could, if approved, stabilize enrollment by 2040—adding up to 1,000 new students between them.”
So we need to close schools now, but Vote Yes on The Measure J votes for these two developments, and we’ll have the problem stabilized in 15 years. Theoretically.
” “We’ve seen this play out across Yolo County,” Best said. “Woodland and West Sacramento are growing—and their schools are stable. Davis isn’t, and we’re shrinking.” ”
Well clearly the model is that you can only be stable if you are growing. So the model is unsustainable in the long wrong, or this means we’ll eventually eat our farmland to ‘save’ the schools. How about cutting administrators?
I am actually appalled by this approach. Seems we’re also lectured by the Vanguard about ‘fear of change’ when they want to shame us. So how about ‘fear of change’ regarding the school district’s inability to deal with future demographics.
But thanks to good old Measure J, our school district leaders are now political shills for the developers.
Davis is doomed.
The one idea I liked was workforce housing. Close a school and build discount houses for the teachers on the land. And only let teachers with young kids live there :-|
“Seems we’re also lectured by the Vanguard about ‘fear of change’ when they want to shame us. So how about ‘fear of change’ regarding the school district’s inability to deal with future demographics.”
Excellent point.
It’s really pretty simple. First of all, the school district’s self-inflicted “problems” are not the entire city’s problem. That’s the first obvious thing to note.
Second, the type of housing that families seek (assuming that’s even a goal, for some reason) has multiple bedrooms, yards, multiple spaces for cars, etc. (This is where Don Shor is actually correct.) Does anyone actually think that families with 2 or more children would move to an expensive shoebox in Davis, when they can get so much more for their money elsewhere?
The demographic that the “sprawl people” on here are pursuing (young families without much money) will find what they’re looking for in surrounding communities, instead. (Assuming that they’re even moving to the immediate area in mass, since I’m not aware of any increase in the number of jobs at UCD, for example.) In any case, the reason that they would move to surrounding communities, of course, is that they’ll get more for their money that way. (But this is actually a shrinking demographic – statewide and nationwide.)
The other option that families (or anyone else) have, of course, is to buy or rent a “pre-owned” house. I’ve pointed out many times on here that you can get a decent house, in a good location, large lots, and better-quality materials at a much better price than a comparable new house. In fact, I’d argue that anyone (not just families) is better-off by pursuing a “used” house in Davis, than a “new” house in a surrounding community (or in Davis).
In any case, I don’t understand the apparent “goal” of pursuing families without much money, since they’re probably the “least-desirable” demographic to pursue, from a fiscal/impact perspective (e.g., the needs for schools, libraries, expensive recreational facilities, impact from multiple cars per household, etc.)
It most be frustrating to constantly be dissatisfied with the city the way it is (while viewing everything that they’re dissatisfied with as a “crisis”). One wonders why the sprawl people don’t just find another community that more-actively pursues sprawl, since there’s plenty of them in the region.
‘It most be frustrating to constantly be dissatisfied with the city the way it is (while viewing everything that they’re dissatisfied with as a “crisis”). One wonders why the sprawl people don’t just find another community that more-actively pursues sprawl, since there’s plenty of them in the region“
This comment betrays your lack of understanding of the fundamental issues raised by people who disagree with you.
I would likely view “fundamental issues” quite differently than those who are pursuing sprawl as a solution to an oversized school district, for example.
The point was your lack of understanding, not your lack of agreement.
I do understand that the self-interested school district doesn’t want to downsize, and is actively pushing sprawl (and doesn’t care about poaching students from other communities). (Not exactly the best example for students, to demonstrate naked self-interest.)
Again, unless families move to Davis for the purpose of having kids (that they otherwise wouldn’t have), those students have to come from “somewhere else” – which would then also experience more decline in the number of their own students.
What we have here is a district that is pursuing sprawl, and is simultaneously cannibalizing a shrinking (overall) demographic. Fighting over a “shrinking demographic pie”, and willing to throw other communities “under the bus”.
What’s not to understand?
This also reminds me of the issue of Affordable (subsidized) housing, since every external government dollar that a given community receives for Affordable housing results in a different community NOT receiving those funds.
Again, fighting over a limited/shrinking “pie”.
Ron, achieving affordability isn’t going to happen with subsidized “Capital A” affordable housing for the very reason you describe.
Affordability can be achieved by building smaller housing units at the market price per square foot (currently about $500 per square foot in Davis) so the developers/builders make the margin per square foot they desire. Smaller units will require less land per unit and thereby achieve the densification that Tim Keller has advocated for.
Further, building “Small A” affordable units will happen organically as the project unfolds rather than waiting many years (sometimes several decades) for the subsidization dollars to be identified and received.
I don’t know what “problem” is trying to be solved, other than a school district that doesn’t want to respond to the changing needs of the community. I’m also not so sure that what you’re suggesting is what Don or Tim are suggesting (they’re pretty much pushing in opposite directions, themselves).
In any case, I decided to look up some information regarding Levittown, since you mentioned it above – and was surprised to see this:
“Levittown, despite its small houses, accommodated only about fifteen people on an acre. As houses and plots increased in size during the postwar period, densities dropped lower and lower. A typical suburban density today is never higher than ten people an acre, and often even lower.”
I also found these paragraphs interesting:
“Houses became bigger in the sixties and seventies both because rooms were larger and because there were more of them. Kitchen appliances such as dishwashers, food processors, and microwave ovens required larger, more elaborate kitchens with more counter space. Bathrooms proliferated throughout the house: powder rooms, guest bathrooms, private bathrooms attached to bedrooms and equipped with whirlpool baths and separate shower stalls. By 1972 half of all new houses contained two or more bathrooms. Ten years later nearly three quarters did. It became customary for each child to have his or her own bedroom, and for the parents’ room to be larger than the others (in Stevenson’s plans there were no “master” bedrooms — all bedrooms were roughly the same size). During the sixties most houses augmented the traditional living room with a family room, or rec room. This allowed greater informality in living arrangements — a place for children to play, and a place to put the television. The rec room was also a sign of the growing privatization of family life, which was a reaction to the disintegration of the public realm. The home was becoming the chief locale for family leisure, as it had been in Victorian times.”
“In a consumer society, houses not only shelter people but also are warehouses full of furniture, clothes, toys, sports equipment, and gadgets. It is a measure of the growth of consumerism that one of the things that immediately dates a house of the 1920s is how little storage space it has. In the 1920s a bedroom cupboard three feet wide was considered suffcient; today most bedrooms have a wall-to-wall closet, and master bedrooms are incomplete if they do not have an extended walk-in closet, often grandiloquently called a dressing room. There may be fewer people in the American house of the nineties, but there are a lot more things.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/91feb/9102house2.htm#:~:text=A%20short%20history%20of%20the,an%20unfinished%20attic%20was%20often
Also, below is a photo of Levittown. Sure looks like sprawl to me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown#/media/File:LevittownPA.jpg
Ron, the “problem” is simple, and it is a problem with layers.
The first layer is the history of housing in Davis, which is exclusionary, and the people being excluded are the people who come to Davis to work every day providing the services that Davis residents want/need. In addition there are several thousands of UCD employees who are excluded. The people being excluded fall into a demographic cohort with the defining characteristic is that their household income is $150,000 or less, which isn’t enough to purchase an average priced home in Davis.
The second layer of the problem is the State of California imposed unfunded mandate for adding affordable housing.
The third layer of the problem is that the tens of thousands of people who make up the above-described demographic cohort are not a monolithic group. A substantial portion of them, probably considerably more than half of them, prefer (for a myriad of personal reasons) not to live in Davis. That is also true of the demographic cohort whose annual household income is over $150,000 and are able to afford an average priced (or greater) home in Davis.
The fourth layer to the problem is the thinking about how to fund the unfunded State mandate for adding affordable housing has been myopic at best. Achieving non-myopic thinking on that subject is a problem in its own right.
Here’s a big flag: “A substantial portion of them, probably considerably more than half of them, prefer (for a myriad of personal reasons) not to live in Davis.”
How do you know what that number is – and in the end, does it actually matter? Or do we just need to figure out a way to create a more health housing market, and not try to micro-manage who will end up living here?
I don’t want to micromanage them. They will micromanage themselves. The key is that if/when we actually add some affordable housing, the conceptual demand from that demographic cohort will parse itself into actual actionable demand and persistent conceptual demand.
A more healthy housing market will be when the distribution of sales in Davis across the price ranges mirrors the distribution across price ranges of Woodland.
That’s good in that it gives us something concrete to evaluate, but let’s ask a couple of questions:
If that is your goal, how do you plan to achieve that through a managed process when Woodland achieved theirs through the free market?
Also, do you see your present actions making such an achievement more or less likely?
David: Davis “also” has free-market price ranges within its housing market, depending upon size, location, condition, etc.
It’s just that some people “don’t like” those prices. That’s why they choose Woodland, for example.
And Woodland isn’t exactly the “Wild West” (regarding regulations), either. If you want that, there’s a city in Texas which comes to mind.
“There’s something for everyone”, as they say. And every pot has its lid (something like that).
Matt says: “The first layer is the history of housing in Davis, which is exclusionary, and the people being excluded are the people who come to Davis to work every day providing the services that Davis residents want/need.”
I don’t know who those people are or what they do, other than students who work and blue-collar types who are already settled elsewhere.
If you’re referring to “baristas” instead, rent control is about the only thing that would help them. (That’s how I know that Davis isn’t actually serious about helping lower-income residents – no attempt whatsoever regarding rent control.)
Also, what’s to prevent any “cheap” housing in Davis from appealing to those who work in Sacramento? Especially any housing on the east side of town?
Or UCD students, whose parents buy them a cheap house?
Also, whatever happened to the UCD workforce housing that they were planning to build on campus?
As far as the state’s so-called “mandates”, the state is going to have its hands full trying to enforce those statewide. Especially since they’re already failing miserably. I’d suggest that the YIMBY types stop pursuing law degrees, and start pursuing carpentry apprenticeships.
And if Measure J is actually as vulnerable as some hope it is, it’s going to be doomed regardless. At which point, there’d be a do-over (after a lot of legal delays).
Ron, all you have to do is walk into almost any Downtown business to meet one or more of the people who work providing the services that Davis residents want/need.” Each year the US Census provides breakouts of the numbers of people with jobs in Davis. Since I can’t post graphical images here any more, I will forward you a personal email with the Census data.
Regarding rent control, Davis is a market where there are significant factors that work against the efficacy of rent control. The first of those factors is the predominance of students living in rentals. Their tenancy is overwhelmingly short lived and rent control resets each time a rental unit turns over to new tenants. Thus the typical period of control would be very short lived … frequently no more than a year.
Matt: Truth be told, I suspect that most of the Downtown businesses aren’t “needed” (or even used very often) by most full-time residents – other than perhaps Davis ACE. As the population ages (and downtown increasingly has a reputation as a homeless encampment), it’s probably even less-appealing than it once was. (Not to mention online shopping, etc.) Also, as one becomes older, hanging out with students in a restaurant is not that appealing – nor are the restaurants which cater to that population.
I know of two restaurants that closed during the pandemic, and didn’t come back. (One of those locations is now occupied by a different restaurant.)
A lot of the type of businesses you’re apparently referring to are staffed by students or others who aren’t fully-dependent upon that income. Very few people from other communities are going to commute to Davis to work at a low-paying job (since they can get those same kind of jobs in their own communities). And those that do probably aren’t entirely dependent on that income, either.
As far as rent control is concerned, I’m familiar with how it works. But aren’t we referring to permanent residents (not students), regarding the benefits of that?
Regarding your “tiny house” idea, it’s apparently not the most-efficient use of land (see Levittown example, above). Although the Levittown lots are probably a little bigger than what you have in mind.
Bottom line: Low-income people (anywhere, really) are not going to be able to afford to buy a market-rate dwelling. And Affordable (subsidized) housing has the other problems that you acknowledged earlier. (For example, every external government dollar provided to a given community results in some other community not receiving that dollar.)
I do think I have a “solution” for low-income earners, though: Find some way to make more money – it ain’t that hard. And stop trying to make a community conform to “your own idea” as to what it SHOULD cost. (That comment is obviously not directed at you.)
For that matter, the only people I see commenting on here (including the housing advocates themselves) seem to be adequately-housed.
“every external government dollar provided to a given community results in some other community not receiving that dollar”
It’s worse than that. DG is so concerned about the school district not saving 100% on each student dollars, so maybe you only save 60¢. But when it comes to housing subsidies being pushed through a bureaucracy, similar loss
“the only people I see commenting on here (including the housing advocates themselves) seem to be adequately-housed.”
Yes, but now they are adequately housed, and have also shown the community that they “care”.
Ron, that is an incredibly parochial and elitist response. You blithely dismiss all the people who work in the city’s hotels preparing and delivering the rooms. And all the people who work in the City’s grocery stores. And all the Kaiser Permanente and Sutter Medical and Dignity Health and UC Medical employees. And the folks at Redwood Barn Nursery. And all the real estate agents. And the jewelry shop and gift shop and art gallery employees. And the Fed Ex Office and UPS Store employees. And the auto repair and auto parts store employees. Most of those workers and so many others not listed drive to Davis to work. They are the missing middle that are part of the heart and soul of this community
Then you double down when you blithely dismiss students.
You really need to take your blinders off.
Matt: I just saw your comment. There’s nothing “parochial or elitist” about questioning what a given community needs, especially since a lot of the businesses I described are declining for reasons outside of Davis’ control.
I don’t “dismiss” UCD students, either. I simply noted that a lot of them are occupying the type of low-end jobs that almost any working student occupies, before starting their “real” careers. (And again, noted that the city and campus has already provided housing specifically for that group. For that matter, only students or those connected to the university can live on campus.)
Regarding the other folks you mention, maybe you should examine their salaries before concluding anything. For example, those working at the medical facilities you mentioned tend to have good salaries.
As far as the other folks you mentioned, they’re all already living somewhere, and there’s zero (as in “NO” evidence) that they’d move (in mass) from wherever they’re living to an expensive shoebox in Davis.
No doubt, a substantial portion of “local workers” ALREADY LIVE IN DAVIS.
For that matter, the vast majority of commuters “to” Davis are actually traveling to campus. Whatever happened with UCD’s plan to house some of its workers?
There’s also outbound commuters to places like Sacramento, but I don’t hear folks in Sacramento stating that they need to provide more housing for the vast number of commuters coming into downtown Sacramento. (They already have bus lines to downtown Sacramento from throughout the region, including but not limited to Davis. I should know – I was one of them.)
Also, it seems to me that Woodland businesses provide quite a lot of Davis’ “blue-collar” needs.
Recently, another commenter noted that the type of workers that Davis “should” strive to house can only afford between $875 – $2,000 per month in TOTAL housing costs. You recently posted a breakdown of housing costs, which shows that just about anything that developers would build would exceed that cost.
Hi Everyone. I appreciate Mr. Best’s candor and for the story posted. While it ought to spur more conversation, I fear it will encourage more speculation and fewer solutions. Leadership and stakeholders need to present the populace with viable options that select various combinations of policies that will effectuate the change sought. I would make several suggestions
1) We have an advantage of tons of college graduates, who are the prime candidates to become younger families as they start their career. It would benefit us greatly to work closely with the school to transition their population who are inevitably getting married, starting families, and trying to transition from say a post graduate placement into industry but may be dissuaded from choosing Davis because there isn’t a viable option from moving from student housing into a starter independent housing. Perhaps we could rezone areas adjacent to the school to provide this kind of housing if the school were to pitch in for its transformation.
2) It was already mentioned that many people come to our school district from neighboring towns. Some may find it unseemly but we may wish to look into whether our strong academic capabilities provides this demand, and we look to leverage that to our advantage. Unitrans already runs specific buses to ensure kids can get around town to their schools. Perhaps we should run one from Dixon/Woodland to include a larger population from elsewhere (to the extent we can benefit from it and not have it be a net drain on our resources).
3) I’m only superficially aware of the Cannery project but, it does seem very well balanced among housing types and integrates other relevant housing services. It seems quite expensive but perhaps similar integrated projects could be similarly utilized.
4) We might consider adding a parcel tax to each home within the walking catchment area of schools that have smaller populations unless they have a student enrolled. It may be that there are a ton of rich people in that area who merely balk at participation in their local school. Or it may be that there are groups that remain in housing designed to facilitate access for younger students once they no longer need that proximity but don’t have viable alternatives since they naturally don’t want to leave their home. We need to offer more viable alternatives. Much has been said about unlocking ADU potential and it may be useful here. So for instance, if you raised a family in this area, had students that went to these schools, and now they’ve aged out but you remain a couple in a 3-5 bedroom house, we could encourage those individuals to build such a structure, thereby allowing them to remain in the community on the parcel they’ve always thought of as home, while also allowing the rental of the primary to a younger family to avail themselves of local schools and provide intergenerational community interdependence.
5) Finally we really should look at a consolidation “No action” type option. It may be we can and should close one of the schools and sell that land off for other uses. It may end up being the best option and we should be honest and forthright about that potential option.
“Perhaps we should run one from Dixon/Woodland to include a larger population from elsewhere (to the extent we can benefit from it and not have it be a net drain on our resources).”
I’m sure those cities will love that.
“We might consider adding a parcel tax to each home within the walking catchment area of schools that have smaller populations unless they have a student enrolled.”
That would be a big hit too.
“It may be we can and should close one of the schools and sell that land off for other uses. It may end up being the best option and we should be honest and forthright about that potential option.”
BINGO!
Hi Keith. Sarcasm is difficult to detect over text so I don’t want to presume. But, in response to your highlights.
Re: bus running from elsewhere. Its entirely possible those cities will love it. Its not like the $12k per student is a net benefit to a community. There are a lot of places that structure themselves in relation to an adjacent town. So Olivehurst might recognize it’s competitive advantage is to provide lower cost housing with fewer local (costly) services because people choose them to commute into an expensive job center like Sacramento or Roseville. Its already the case that people live in Woodland or Dixon but want to engage with Davis. This isn’t a secret and its not something Woodland/Dixon is inclined to fight either. There is a mutually beneficial structure here that may be PART of a viable solution.
Re: Parcel taxes. It may in fact be a big hit. A place housing a single retiree into a 5bedroom home across the street from a school where that individual remains merely through inertia yet distorts all the other services the city designed around the usefulness of that community may not be a good fit. Merely recognizing the fact that a lot of these places were designed to provide services to families and not a frat house for 8 students or single retirees may be a good way to encourage housing/neighborhood fit.
Re; Shutting down a school: Its imperative we be open and honest about potential options. But lets not pretend its ideal to build a whole bunch of infrastructure designed around providing quality education to young families and then merely toss it out the window. That’s by far the most expensive option. Providing a good mix of housing to a diverse group of life stages is critical to a strong town. Some may like to pretend providing these services are all just dead weight and it’d be better off to just close them. But, becoming a husk of a town where no new young residents set roots, start new businesses, or build lasting vitality are a sure recipe for destruction of property values and with that comes ever higher taxes to maintain infrastructure with no viable future hope of support. If we cannot ensure these newer families come and stay and build value in our town, then our town will be subjected to having to fund itself off ever aging people living off fixed or dwindling social security income (all while suffering under increasing cost of living) or transitory college kids who bolt for better opportunities. We don’t want a town where people hang around to die nor people who have such a short time horizon they trash the place and bolt. We need committed citizens with long term commitment to the excellence of our town. That’s what will cause the greatest vitality, most productivity, and thus the lowest tax burden per individual since each member is a dedicated, productive member of that society.
The bottom line is that school districts have to adjust to changing demographics, and this isn’t limited to Davis.
Housing turns over. I just learned that a former neighbor is on hospice care (as one might expect when you’re about 90 years old). When his wife (of about the same age) passes away as well, that house will be occupied by someone else.
As far as Woodland is concerned, it seems like the “damage” has already been done. That is, it appears that there will be no new school at the technology park (which “somehow” added 1,600 housing units during its move from Davis). No doubt, that school (and/or the other planned school in Spring Lake – which is now covered with housing) might have been built, were it not for DJUSD’s poaching activities. (The lone school in Spring Lake is not designed to accommodate the entirety of Spring Lake.)
Regarding the “$12K” per student, I’d agree with you that it’s not a net benefit to a community. However, DJUSD “somehow” claims that they’re making a “profit” off of that, despite also charging a parcel tax to Davis properties.
If you actually wanted to create a “fair” situation, the parcel tax would be paid by parents who have students ENROLLED in the district – regardless of where they live. (Not the other-way around, as you suggest.) But I’m not holding my breath for that to occur, since it’s “obviously” everyone else who should pay for someone’s decision to have kids.
But there’s one other thing I’m going to say, and I’ll stand by it: If you can’t afford a $700K “pre-owned” Stanley Davis house (in east Davis), maybe Davis isn’t for you. (At least, not yet.)
And I would say the same thing regarding Tiburon, or Atherton (though it’s probably more like $2 million for a “starter” home.)
Sorry to break the news to everyone, but no community is obligated to provide housing at a price that “you” think is reasonable.
Hi Ron.
Davis does have to make informed choices about how to meet the future. But “adjusting to changing demographics” suggests the demographic change is not impacted by our choices and that’s just not true. As aptly stated here already, much of the changing demographics (fewer children in our town ) is partly a function of the fact that younger families can’t afford to be here. We aren’t doomed to a future solely of aging long term residents and short term students. We can be a town that benefits from the experience of our elderly and the vitality of our youth; the stability of our well established and the vigor our of entrepreneurs; the philanthropy of our wealthy and the industry of our working class. But we have to make choices that work for all citizens regardless of their station and make investments that will pay long term dividends and not merely short term windfalls. Perhaps more importantly, it would be critically stupid to not leverage the investments we’ve already made in schools that already exist merely because we were too foolish to encourage the young families that will keep our town strong of accessing them and driving the future of our town elsewhere to the benefit of those that embrace them.
I don’t believe DJUSD considers additional students from our periphery a profit center but they do help spread fixed costs. Like anything that is fixed resource intensive, whether its building school infrastructure, writing software, or researching medicine; there is a lot of upfront costs but those investments pay off more as you spread them out over marginal increases in your participation base.
I would agree with you that reviewing what our neighbors contribute to the high quality education our town provides would be beneficial. Though naturally our locality wouldn’t have jurisdictional power to levy a parcel tax upon land not under our control.
I will point out that no one believes “everyone else” should pay for someone else’s kids but rather we all should pay for the education of our next generation in the same fashion we all pay for police, the fire department, or the military. Our system is specifically designed to harness the power of resource pooling both in the present interpersonally, to obtain universally available services like the police, fire, etc and intergenerationally into the future like investments in dams, roads, education, and funding transfer payments like Medicare and Social Security. It’s certainly your right as an individual to oppose one of more of those but it is the decided and overwhelming position of our populace that we make these outlays and require of those citizens we deem necessary to contribute. Surely if we can ask a young man to go die in a foreign land to achieve some objective for our common defense, another man calmly sitting within the safety that soldier provides can pay for his maintenance and the education of his children.
A $700k house, in Davis or anywhere, is the way it is because of supply and demand. Those exist in the state they do because of the decisions we make as a polity. Its value doesn’t exist in a vacuum or an island separated from the people who govern its existence. If young families, eager students, growing businesses, and elderly citizens can’t all find a place to thrive and participate in our town, it will be to our collective detriment and not a function of mere accident of economic circumstance but rather of negligent mismanagement or deliberate expulsion.
Steven:
Demographics are changing throughout the state and country. DJUSD is already poaching students from other (more “kid-friendly”) districts, but they’ve acknowledged that even that won’t be enough.
Ultimately, kids are only in school for a few years, and their parents generally don’t immediately sell their house and move out when their kids graduate. (It’s happening in Woodland as well, in the older parts of town). School districts are going to have to adjust to that reality, rather than advocate for sprawl so that they don’t have to “right-size” themselves. (It’s almost unbelievable to me that anyone would suggest that a community has to “adjust” to meet the desires of a school district – and yet, some on here, possibly including you – actually seem to suggest that!) I almost want to repeat it myself, solely to refocus the selfishness and absurdity of such a position.
Regarding subsidizing those who have children (e.g., so that they can later pay into the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security), I’m not sure I’d agree with that.
But more importantly, demographics change all the time. It is literally impossible for a society to continue if it consists solely of old people. So that “fear” is unfounded.
But ultimately, there’s only ONE sustainable path – and that’s a stable population – not an ever-growing one. So any other “noise” regarding oversized school systems, Ponzi schemes to pay for social security, or expectations that young people should “immediately” be able to purchase a house wherever they want, at a price they want, fall on deaf ears to me at least. Especially if they then ALSO decide to have kids when they’re not financially-able to do so.
Regarding a $700K house, I’m pretty sure that’s not much above the starting price in kid-friendly districts (like Roseville), either.
But again, I literally do not care if some young couple has expectations that “aren’t being met” by Davis. Literally no one is preventing them from trying to find a community that “does” meet unrealistic expectations.
From my perspective, the complete and total lack of concern on the part of those associated with DJUSD (in regard to the impact of their “poaching” activities on other districts couldn’t be a more BLATANT EXAMPLE of their inherent self-interest and lack of concern regarding their advocacy.
By the way, I understood that school districts aren’t supposed to be engaging in political advocacy in the first place.
Hi Ron,
I’m aware demographics are changing in places other than Davis. But, highlighting that we excel in our education system and are simultaneously hostile to the population who could avail themselves of that service, thereby becoming the next generation of our town has never even been considered an “attempt” much less “enough” to solve this problem.
Regular school is at least 13 years. We just so happen to have one of the best colleges and post graduate systems in the country here in town. So there isn’t any reason not to think families may be here 20-30 years as they go through DJUSD, then UC Davis, then industry and start their own families with strong intergenerational ties to our community. These are the strongest forms of community and we would benefit from encouraging them.
A community doesn’t need to adjust to meet the desires of a school district. The school district is only a servant and tool of our community will. What I’m arguing is that we should have the ambitious and optimistic societal will to boldly invest in an abundant and progressive future. It would be selfish to do anything else.
Social security isn’t a Ponzi scheme but it is generational. You paid for the two generations above you with the expectation the two below you will do likewise. It was done specifically to bind our society intergenerationally. We specifically determined to not leave people to suffer the vicissitudes of fate or poor judgment. You didn’t have the choice to not contribute and neither will the two generations below you. A Ponzi scheme requires an ever growing group under you. Social security doesn’t require the two generations below you to be larger in number, but it does require they be there. And the healthier, smarter, and more productive they are, the better off you will be. And so on down the generations for as long as our American project can sustain itself. To be able to sustain itself, it must have members committed to its continuation and not focused on selfish individualism or recriminations of its neighbors.
I am very aware it’s “impossible for society to continue if it solely consists of old people”. What you seem to fail to realize is that “society continuing” isn’t guaranteed. It is earned and developed by the decisions of the present and those decisions are constrained by the investments of the generations before it. For us to live safely in old age we must secure the prosperity of our posterity now by our investments and sacrifice.
No one has suggested that young people should be able to purchase a home wherever they want at a price they want. The argument is that we must actually take action to have the next generation of our town be viable and its to our benefit to ensure they are as successful as possible. It is not possible if no one can even begin to take root here.
I’m well aware you don’t care if that doesn’t happen. What this conversation is about is how caustic and retrograde that view is to the flourishing of our community and I submit my arguments here so that everyone knows policies based upon that view will be opposed with vigor.
Steven: We could explore the reasons that Social Security is already in trouble, but that might extend beyond the scope of this article.
You state that Davis must take steps to ensure that the town is viable and to ensure that the next generation can take root in Davis.
Since no one lives forever, future generations absolutely will be living in the current stock of housing. This isn’t an “opinion” – it’s essentially guaranteed. And it’s already occurring every day, for that matter.
If anything, building even more housing would create more of a challenge to fill it with occupants, in the future.
The entire town primarily consists of modest, single-family housing.
If you’re stating that Davis (or ANY town) must continuously expand to survive, you do realize that’s literally an unsustainable path, don’t you? Pretty much the starting point of ANY conversation regarding this.
Again, the state and country itself are essentially no longer growing. Young people aren’t having kids at anywhere near replacement levels.
It’s predicted that as baby boomers die off, there will be an excess supply of housing (more than there already is, across the country).
Demographics change. Although the population is currently becoming older (on average), that will “re-balance” itself as cohorts such as the boomers die off in mass.
The same thing will occur regarding the millennials (the largest generation). Every generation beyond that is smaller.
But again, as these large cohorts die off, it will change the demographics of the remaining population (they’ll be younger, on average).
I’m not too worried about Davis’ survivability, if voters decline to continue sprawling outward. Citing “survivability” as a concern to support sprawl sounds like a red herring.
Also, housing is a fiscal liability (not a “benefit”) for cities. That’s why cities across California are facing deficits. I’m not sure why you seem to think that building more of a fiscal loser “helps” cities.
Forgot to add:
Leaving aside (for the moment) the mass die-off of baby boomers, perhaps you (or someone) can explain how “senior-only” communities (and/or communities largely occupied by seniors) are able to survive. (There’s lots of examples of them.)
I suspect that part of the reason they’re able to survive is because they have low costs regarding schools, libraries, recreational facilities for youth, etc.
In fact, I suspect that some of the senior communities are thriving – especially when compared to “regular” deficit-ridden cities.
Davis itself recently approved a senior-only facility (Bretton Woods) – although it also includes a planned Affordable component that isn’t age-restricted, as I recall.
From what I’ve seen, young families are some of the most-costly, most-impactful cohort to “purposefully” house. Just about every one of them (also) has at least two cars per household.
In contrast, seniors tend to drive less than ANY other cohort.
Maybe it’s time to examine our “societal disdain” for seniors. (Other cultures don’t usually have that prejudice toward seniors.)
And you know what they say – if you live long enough, you become one yourself.
We needn’t explore Social Security’s funding though it is clear it can continue as long as we choose it by merely adjusting the contributions required of those currently of productive age. Another reason to make every effort to support them being as productive as possible. It was merely one of the many societal investments I highlighted. It seems you decided to focus on that one rather than the other similar examples like police or fire departments in the present, or infrastructure that are intergenerational investments. I believe you’re the one who called it a Ponzi scheme (which is merely an Elon Musk delusion).
You’ve suggested people will live in Davis homes regardless of us taking intelligent action. Stepping back a second, who lives in the ruins in Bodie CA? Who lives in the ruins at Ephesus? Who lives in the abandoned housing tracts of Appalachia or Detroit. And if people do live, who thrives in the meth addled poverty stricken communities in the Gulf Coast or Appalachia or in purposefully underdeveloped ghettos across America? It is clearly intelligent and useful for people to utilize infrastructure that has been assiduously built by prior generations. (In fact that’s my whole argument about choosing housing policies that best align with making the highest use of the investments we’ve already made). However, the examples above prove it is entirely possible, through circumstance or through poor government to find those same investments entirely wasted or underutilized.
I have NOT said Davis must continually expand. I said it should implement intelligent policies that encourage a thriving and sustainable population of citizens. While people may argue that some housing growth may be a good idea and it would be possible I would agree or merely acquiesce, the majority of my suggestions were how to encourage highest and best use of the stock we already have.
This last point about senior only communities is actually really important. Those communities only thrive because they unquestionably receive their social security checks paid for by the salaries of young people. They are also are watched over by the police, fire, and medical departments staffed by young, intelligent, and committed citizens. All of which are either paid for by the aforementioned Social Security payments, or the accumulated wealth of their retirement accounts, which is a function of a vibrant, innovative, and productive economy, which is likewise entirely dependent upon the younger generation of people.
You’re correct that aspects of young families are investment centers. Both young and old people are cohorts that use more than they produce. But old people can only successfully rest on their laurels from wealth they accumulated as a result of the sacrifices of their prior generations and protected by their subsequent ones. I don’t know who you suggest has a disdain for seniors. I certainly don’t.
Regarding Social Security, I personally don’t think it’s fair to younger generations to expect them to shoulder the costs of a larger population which preceded them.
One alternative would be to increase the retirement age, as they’ve been doing. (Since people are living longer than they used to, this seems like the most reasonable solution.) Also, perhaps this actually “helps” older people in a way, since they themselves will remain “productive” (as you put it) longer.
Regarding Bodie, it sounds like they don’t need a school system. (Yes, that’s a joke.) But if you’re suggesting that Davis is on that path (while everything else around it is expanding), that claim doesn’t make much sense.
But perhaps more-importantly, if there actually IS a reduction in demand going forward (as you imply in regard to a place like Bodie), that means that housing prices would first drastically fall, thereby increasing affordability for everyone – including young people.
Regarding senior communities, I think a more-detailed analysis would be needed regarding “how” they’re able to survive, since it doesn’t seem likely that Social Security payments to its residents would be sufficient. (Also, Social Security is not taxed by the state of California, so it’s therefore not getting redistributed from the state back to local communities.) In any case, “someone” is paying for shuffleboard and bingo activities, not to mention maintenance of the communities themselves. (And most of them seem pretty nice.)
Re: believing its unfair to expect younger generations to should costs of a larger one preceding them; duly noted. Though the vast majority of your countrymen support the program. It wasn’t fair the WWI or WWII generation had to sacrifice to destroy empire and then fascism. But they did it. It was another reason that group got Social Security payouts without having paid in during their productive lives. No one would prefer hardships on their generation or any other. But the strength of our society has been to do what is needed to secure a prosperous future for our progeny.
I’m aware of the various policy alternatives for the social security platform. In addition to increasing the retirement age, others include means testing the payouts, reducing the payouts, and lifting the social security tax cap.
I disagree with your notion that increasing the retirement age “helps” older people since they will remain productive. There is nothing at all preventing people from continuing to work once they being receiving their payments. Withholding their payments to induce them to work out of necessity doesn’t sound like help, it sounds more like a hostage situation or reneging on promises we’ve made to them.
However I do think that some combination of those options may be beneficial to the functioning of our society but that would require some intense analysis and compromise.
Personally I’d rather focus on investments that keep older people as healthy and well trained as possible so that those inclined to productive work could choose to share their experience and perspective with our workforce. It seems to me many enjoy their well earned retirement. But, others would be eager to continue in the work they love but are waylaid by poor nutrition/health/and lack of accomodating support both in the medical system and the workplace.
I’m not saying Davis is on a path to Bodie. I’m saying you prior comments suggested both the demographic change of of city was inevitable and the productive usage of our housing stock was also. I used these examples to show that the success or failure of towns is widely variable; sometimes as a result of circumstance and sometimes of poor decision making. Because we can only impact the latter, it is absolutely critical we not leave it to inertia or see outcomes as inevitable but to make informed, intelligent, and vigorous policy decisions to build the town we want and not merely accept the fruits that apathy produces.
If there IS a reduction in demand in Davis, it will be a direct result of our policies.
What other detailed analysis of senior communities would you like? I specifically said that Social Security payments weren’t the sole means of that community’s support (though those are entirely dependent upon the payments from ably employed generations below them). I said they were supplemented by any other wealth these members retain; the entirety of which were also built on the backs of investments made by their prior generations and supported by the value of the current American economy which is likewise a product of present ably employed younger generations. I don’t know what Social security not being taxed by CA has to do with anything. I didn’t mention it. It is very clear that “someone” is paying for shuffleboard. Those people are the elderly able to pay for it. They are able to pay for it because young people keep paying into Social Security, and young people provide all their services, and young people protect and prop up their real estate, bank account, and equity resources. That’s not automatic, and the success of their ability to do so is dependent on the continued success of our society.
I” don’t know what Social security not being taxed by CA has to do with anything.”
It has to do with tax dollars, which are the only way that government is supported. As such, I don’t know where “retirement communities” (or those with predominantly-senior citizens) are getting (most of their) money to support their local governments. My understanding is that state income tax is “redistributed” to local communities in various forms (with schools being one of the largest expenses). Perhaps since retirement communities don’t need schools, that’s one way that they’re able to continue.
Again, I’m referring to the local government(s), not the HOA fees, etc.
Regarding “productivity”, you mentioned it as a positive thing in regard to younger people (working), but seem to be opposed to that same concept for older people. (Though you did mention that they’re able to keep their social security AND work, upon reaching full retirement age.)
I always figured that I should be able to retire when I was younger, and then go back to work when I’m about 90 (when I no longer even know “where” I am). Should make work a lot more fun – at least for me.
:-)
Hi Ron,
I’m not really sure where the prior points fit within the discussion at hand. I’m sure they relate but it just wasn’t clear to me so I’m not trying to be argumentative about them:
According to the link below, most Americans who receive Social Security pay income tax on 50-85% of that income as other sources push them above the threshold. So not all Social Security income is exempt. As you mentioned, they likely have other sources of income (like progressively selling their IRA value or pensions etc) and they’d pay normal income tax on that as well as standard property or income tax like anyone else.
Just to reiterate, the wealth that these people maintain are secured, sustained, and kept safe at the prosperity of the younger generation. At least in CA their home is so valuable because they got so many benefits no longer as generous to the present generation. They pay far fewer property taxes because they were grandfathered in leaving the bulk of taxation to newer purchasers. Further, most new infrastructure development is saddled with taxes on newer purchasers. New development like hospitals and infrastructure around retirement communities are developed for their benefit with debt that the elderly will never have to pay off because they’ll be dead. Social Security is paid for by the younger generation. Their pensions are also paid for by the value of their stock, which is a reflection of the productivity of the younger generations. It is specifically in the narrow selfish interest of the elderly to ensure the prosperity of the younger. It is also in the wider societal interest.
Retirement communities are able to continue simply because elderly people tend to hold a whole lot of wealth. Not only is there nothing wrong with retirement communities but its really great that they have dedicated housing designed for that period of their lives.
Along those same lines, it is very useful that all housing be well designed for the intended audience. For instance, for elderly people, being single level, wheelchair accessible, near to hospitals, and ambulance accessible. Likewise it would make sense for student related housing to be sufficient and well designed for that purpose; adjacent to campus, accessible by bike or school bus systems and likely more communal/collaborative in nature.
Finally, we look to a lot of the housing stock adjacent to these schools that have lower attendance rates, that reduction being the entire subject of this article. It would only make sense that we choose policies that encourage those homes, directly adjacent and walking distance to that school, protected by bike paths, sufficient sized for the rooms needed for children with parks, and yards, and playgrounds for child development to actually be populated by young families rather than empty shells of homes with one person in them or stuffed with a half dozen college students. So we shouldn’t be apathetic about whether young families can afford to come to our town. Specifically because we have a great supply of them, specifically designed for that purpose, and they are essential for the long term health of our community.
To bring this back to Davis. It is the narrow self interest of the long time residents of Davis to ensure a healthy vibrant and prosperous influx of the smartest most productive people possible to share in the common burden of the maintenance of our infrastructure and to patronize the businesses in our community. There are many useful proposals that can help better utilize the current housing stock, transform or update the same, and/or build newer forms of housing stock, either in newer areas or by increasing density. Citizens should not be neutral or apathetic to the progress or stagnation of this process but rather committed to the long term prosperity and vitality and ensure commensurate policies are implemented accordingly.
Put plainly, you should care about young families being priced out Davis because if we don’t ensure the presence and prosperity of the next generation of people with long term ties to this town, you will have fewer businesses to serve you, the ones that remain will be less competitive and more expensive, you will be saddled with a larger share of aging infrastructure expenses and the degeneracy of the town will cause your home values to drop precipitously.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/013015/how-can-i-avoid-paying-taxes-my-social-security-income.asp
Steven:
You obviously put a lot of time/energy into your responses, and write them in a rather non-confrontational manner. In other words, a “non-Vanguardian” type of comment (yes, that’s a joke).
So far, no one has caught what I now believe to be an error in my comment, regarding how cities are funded. But maybe not that important.
However, I don’t actually believe that families are priced-out of Davis. (Depends upon their level of income/assets.) But even if younger, less-well-off parents are (or find a locale where it’s more conducive to move to, instead of moving to Davis), I’m not willing to support changes that I don’t think will make any difference anyway. Davis is not all that different from most locales throughout the region and state, regarding prices. (Last time I checked, housing prices in Davis were right around the state median/average.)
There’s another factor at work here, which may (or may not) be “desirable” from one’s point of view. As expenses rise “everywhere”, it does seem like that’s a factor regarding the choice to delay (and/or have “fewer” children) compared to previous generations. (And again, the only sustainable path forward is a relatively-stable population.)
Regarding the younger generations, they’re the ones who are going to be inheriting their parents’ wealth. (Assuming that their parents don’t spend it all on services related to their ageing.) But even in THAT case, someone other than the boomers is going to receive their wealth.
Personally, I’m planning to have a pyramid constructed in my honor (thereby using up any money I might have remaining), when I die. (Yes, that’s another joke.)