“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?
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.