by Ferguson Mitchell, local parent
Having had a few weeks to process and gather my thoughts about the DJUSD School Closure And/Or District-Wide Redesign Plan (hereafter referred to as “The Plan”), I sit down now to write about how it came to this, and where we go from here. Like other parents I’ve talked to, I still have many unanswered questions. Whether the district can answer (or will answer), there’s merit in at least documenting publicly these questions and the areas in which The Plan is lacking.
Two Concepts, One Plan?
Presented by the district, Concept A of The Plan (titled “School Closure”) is defined as a localized plan that addresses “immediate declining enrollment.” Concept B (“District-Wide Redesign”) contrasts this by considering “longer term declining enrollment.” Before we even get into the details of the concepts, I want to pause there and contemplate the nature of these concepts.
While they are being presented as opposing (i.e. A/B testing), one is “immediate” and the other is “longer term.” Concept A even openly discusses a potentially-longer term elementary school closure. When asked how that school would be chosen, district employees shrugged. Associate Superintendent Troy Allen provided me the longest answer, roundaboutly explaining they would have to return to the core assumptions behind The Plan, and review any new data. Left unsaid (and I’ll get more into this later) was that the current data is fully in the hands of the district. Furthermore, absent a new housing development, it has little room to change.
To be clear on my point here, I view both Concepts A and B of The Plan to be largely similar. The only thing differentiating the two is the timeline. For comparison:
Concept A
– Patwin closes in 2028
– Elementary 2 closes in 2030
– Junior high closes in 2034
Concept B
– Patwin closes in 2028
– Birch closes in 2028
– Junior high expansion (6-7-8-9) & Da Vinci merger in 2028
Both involve closing two elementary schools and changes to junior highs and Da Vinci. What changes is when the decisions get made. Again:
Concept A
– Patwin decision in 2027
– Elementary 2 decision in 2029
– Junior high decision in 2033
Concept B
– All decisions in 2027
A baseline analysis reveals three key points. The first: fewer decision points means less work. Under Concept A, they have the currently ongoing year-long feedback phase, but would also require a second and third lengthy feedback and discussion phases around the second and third decisions. Under Concept B, there is only one feedback phase, the current one. Concept A would triplicate this long, arduous process. Hard not to imagine which one the school board (and honestly, entire community) would favor.
The second takeaway is that there’s no guarantee that the second and third phases of Concept A wouldn’t end up resembling Concept B. Without a change in the data, wouldn’t the assumption be that “Elementary 2” is just Birch Lane? And, when faced with closing a junior high in the 2030s, wouldn’t it naturally follow that the district may also then want to explore the Concept B model of expanding the junior highs and merging Da Vinci? This would presumably be favorable to simply closing a junior high. As a parent with their child’s school in the crosshairs, it’s hard not to see these two concepts as the same.
My final takeaway is more to the very structure of the two concepts. Concept A is presented as an immediate response to the outlined problem. Concept B as a longer-term plan to address more systemic issues. Is there a reason we are only making one plan for each time period? Shouldn’t we be considering multiple options for each? If there were multiple options in the short-term, shouldn’t we be presented with them so we can compare and contrast? If there are alternatives in the long-term, why haven’t they been identified to the community so we can debate them?
Any well-run organization as large as DJUSD should have both long-term plans and short-term contingencies to pick from—in fact, that’s kind of the definition of being well run. You make multiple plans, pick the best option, and adjust as needed as you enact the plan. Honestly, it feels worrying that the District is only presenting one option under each timeline, and then even more worrying that the plans have so much overlap. Is there actually anything to compare?
Frankly, I blame the school board. I asked district staff directly why only two plans were created, and why they operate on different timelines—and they made clear that it’s because that’s all they were asked to provide. They explained that the school board asked for one short-term plan, and one long-term plan. They allowed the district to basically present a singular plan that explores no alternatives. Thus, The Plan was born.
The Big Hole in The Plan
Moving onward, I also find The Plan itself to be lacking in a number of ways. The Plan exists in two forms—one is a presentation that the district has presented to the school board and at each workshop, and the other is two short reports (Concept A, Concept B) alongside a large amount of demographic data. And while The Plan itself does contain a significant amount of data and logic, there is a crucial section that is missing.
To explain, I’ll have to go into the details. The presentation lays out a significant challenge (“The Challenge”) for the district, summarized on Slide 17: a decline of 1100 students across all grade levels between 2019-2034. To be clear, I don’t doubt this data or analysis—student declines are happening across the country, birth rates are down, etc. I also don’t doubt that Davis is affected by these trends more than other cities in our county, for much the same reasons that the district lays out.
My problem is that after establishing this analysis, the district then immediately pivots to describing the methodology to the creation of The Plan, and dives straight into the concepts of closing schools.
Did I miss something? At what point did lower enrollment mean that schools need to close? These decision to close a school is massively consequential and deserves to be spelled fully out.
To highlight this, consider the counter-argument. Fewer students means less money from the state… but also doesn’t that also mean fewer teachers and less support staff? Doesn’t it also mean less resources, less equipment, less furniture, less utility usage, and less food to provide? In fact, that’s how the entire school funding program on the state level is designed—if your students drop, you will need less money, so you get less money.
To back up its decision, the district implies that each individual school location requires a certain amount of required staffing to operate. Now, I’m sure there are some larger districts where there is a large enough student enrollment drop, where these required staffing levels do make a large enough impact that a school must close. However, at no point does the district attempt to make that argument. There is no section in either the presentation or the concept descriptions where the district lays out in dollars and cents how the drop in enrollment impacts the district in such a way that means a school must close, much less two or three.
Most damningly, the district itself identifies a “break-even” point of 350 students as being “not pedagogically or financially viable,” then turns around and names two schools that are currently above that enrollment level. Under both Concepts, the only school currently under the financially nonviable enrollment number, Fairfield with just 47 students, would remain operational, and furthermore would receive a dedicated principal instead of sharing one with Patwin.
As a community, there should be an outcry about the lack of reasoning and data. At the very least, we should be presented with actual numbers of how much money it takes to operate each campus, the actual amount of money the district thinks it will lose as enrollment drops, and what other expenses the district has that could be used as alternatives to make up that shortfall. Ideally, we would be able to see for the next decade:
– How much income the district foresees losing per year
– How much expenses each program costs per year and per student
– How much facility and “required personnel” expenses each campus costs per year and per student
– How much expenses will be lessened by closing the campuses under Concepts A and B
That also extends into how much it will cost to enact The Plan. Both concepts outline new expenses to the district, new staff and even new buildings (up to 12 portables under Concept B). Will those costs be made up by the decreased expenses from no longer operating certain campuses? Is there a chance that The Plan could end up costing even more? I have no idea! The district has completely omitted any of this kind of information from its communication around The Plan.
Furthermore, lacking that kind of information, how can we as the community be asked to then analyze and provide feedback? What kind of comments do they expect when we are lacking this kind of crucial information? It really was astounding to me, when asking questions of this nature at the workshop, how little I actually knew of the actual costs behind both The Challenge and The Plan. Indeed, it’s hard to come to any conclusions without knowing both.
Other Unmentioned Elements
While financial information is the largest missing piece, it’s not the only one. Here are some smaller issues that I have raised and hope to bring attention to.
The Unclear Objective and Assumptions
Part of The Plan details its methodology, laying out strategic objectives and assumptions. Of the former, two of the three are clear and easily agreeable: maintaining and/or strengthening student outcomes and fiscal solvency. The third, however, is a bit cryptic: “Considers Impact on Students Furthest from Opportunity.” What does that mean? I quote Matt Best: “We will avoid decisions that disproportionately negatively impact our most vulnerable students.” It’s left unclear how these students were determined. Is it furthest in terms of socioeconomic need? Is it in relation to disabilities? Physical distance? A composite of the three? Are there any other factors?
This language reappears in the following Assumptions section of The Plan as well—“We will not close the campus with the greatest proportion of students furthest from opportunity.” Again, how was that determined? If it was using disabilities, wouldn’t you not want to affect Birch Lane, the only elementary school in DJUSD with a Special Day program? Or is it another school—maybe name it in this section, so we know what is off limits?
Other assumptions are also vexing. “We will strive to maintain existing choice programming”—while visionary, it’s unclear what this has to do with the strategic objectives. It also seems unrelated to actual campus closures, as Birch Lane, which is home to the Montessori program, is named for closure. If Montessori can move, were other choice program moves considered?
The worst of all is this assumption: “We will apply [the] same school model across Davis, despite areas of town experiencing differing levels of decline in enrollment.” How then is the localized Concept A even a consideration under this assumption? Closing Patwin explicitly only affects the area of town west of 113. Concept A punishes people for having chosen to live in this neighborhood. Having one of the two plans at direct odds with a core assumption is frankly ridiculous.
The Student-less Campus—District HQ
Now, this next bit, I have been hearing a lot of rumors about. To be clear, I was informed at the workshop that the current district offices are slated to be sold. This is incredibly prime property in a location that I think everybody agrees would be better suited to housing than office space. Unfortunately, nobody seemed to know what the next step was for district administrators.
Nothing in The Plan serves as an indication to the direction the district will go from selling the current district offices. Certainly, it makes logical sense that if a campus were to close, district staff could move into that space. But I have also heard rumors that the district is planning to rent a new space (on Research Park Drive). Or, maybe even build some new offices somewhere else. Again, nobody I asked, not even district staff, could answer that question.
The district needs to clearly answer this question, especially alongside the discussion of closing schools. This is a major financial decision and as such should be included in The Plan. Indeed, incorporating the district office location could help clarify and perhaps improve The Plan. Of course, numbers need to be provided: How much income will the sale of the current district offices provide? What do the new district office plan options cost? Most important, will any funds saved by closing schools be used to fund a new or rented district office?
A Question of Precedence
Also lacking in The Plan is a simple question that seems to have been overlooked. What other school districts have done something like this? What were the outcomes? Did they actually save money? Would they have done something else given the chance? It would be good to know this kind of conversation has happened at the District level. It would be frankly a lot more convincing to hear of some examples where this kind of plan was successful.
Lacking Alternatives
I described in my first section how The Plan is quite limited in scope and provides little opportunity for comparison due to the lack of concrete difference between the Concepts. In regular discussion with other parents, both at the workshop and outside of it, I have heard a number of potential alternatives. Lacking a clear understanding of the strategic objectives and assumptions made, it’s hard to say whether any of these plans are viable. Lacking data about the schools, it is certainly impossible to say the same. However, it’s worth at least publicly asking whether any of these have been considered. In no particular order…
Redraw Elementary School Boundaries and Scale Down Enrollment Equally
It strikes me that the easiest and most logical thing for the district to do, once you accept the 350 student feasibility line, is move students from schools with more than 350 students to schools with fewer than 350. The district is fully in charge of boundaries determining where students are assigned, and if Patwin is lagging behind, they could just be assigned more of the West Davis area. And so on if other schools see enrollment drops? Currently, most elementary schools are over 500, so there should be plenty of wiggle room. Again, it’s not clear why closing a school or two is immediately in the cards.
Also of note—every elementary school in DJUSD currently has portables. They were all designed initially for fewer students.
Close Fairfield
It has the least amount of students, well under the 350 feasibility line. Move them to Patwin, which is also conveniently the school in the most need of students. Fairfield also seems to have the least amount of “students furthest from opportunity.” The handout provided by the district explicitly lacks demographic data for groups less than 11 students (in my guess for student confidentiality reasons). But it does state 73% of students have parents with grad/post-grad level training. I don’t doubt that it is a quality location but I feel it is an obvious place to cut before other schools with many more students and those with higher needs.
Move Spanish Full Immersion to Montgomery
The logic here would be to group the Spanish language choice programs. I have heard many concerns about grouping Montessori and Spanish dual immersion, it would add many complications. Montgomery’s campus would be chosen over Chavez’s due to the new library.
*As a note here, any moving of choice programs should come with a heavy asterisk in terms of numbers of students moving. At least at Birch, I can vouch for a number of parents who have said that their students are only in the Montessori choice program due to proximity at Birch. Put simply, if Montessori were to move away from Birch, their kids would stay at Birch. Similar logic states that if Montessori or another choice program were to change campuses, students close to that new campus may choose to enroll in the newly proximal choice program.
North Davis Becomes 9th Grade
Finally, I saw this plan recently on a Facebook comment, and it has been making waves. Perhaps as an alternative to the district’s Concept B “6-7-8-9 Junior High” plan, but perhaps worth consideration even without it, this plan would close North as an elementary school, and reopen it as a 9th grade only campus to help students transition from junior high to the massive DSHS.
Indeed, I have heard a lot of concerns about 6th graders sharing a campus with 9th graders. Somebody at the workshop mentioned “teen pregnancy.” I would frankly just be curious as to how this plan would work out by the numbers, as it would take a load off the junior highs to absorb 6th grade (6-7-8 being a very common grouping), and then perhaps it makes sense to close a campus… which the plan just did.
Again, I don’t know how these alternatives would fit into the core objectives and assumptions of The Plan. It would at least be nice to know why they haven’t been raised for discussion on a district level.
It’s Not a Conversation
Ultimately, what The Plan is lacking is what the district has outlined what the next year or so should be focused on: having a conversation. I of course will be submitting this feedback directly to the district, but also implore you all to ask the district questions as well. It’s hard to come away from the ongoing efforts of the district and feel like we’re in conversation.
I accept that this is a hard discussion and there are certainly a lot of emotions being had by all. The district may feel a need to control the conversation to keep things orderly. Unfortunately, where things stand (being the bags of post-it notes left over from workshops, and online forms), it feels more like sending messages to the District in a bottle.
Let’s make this a conversation. Let’s make The Plan better.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
This reminds me of when Dick Cheney said we don’t know if the salmon in the Klamath River were dying because of a lack of water.
Declining enrollment means fewer students (less water). Fewer students means fewer schools (salmon).
You can do all the analysis you want and debate what decisions should be made but the facts remain the district needs to plan for declining enrollment.
After thinking about this more I want to encourage the author, Ferguson Mitchell, to consider running for school board. His depth of analysis and his obvious dedication to the community demonstrate that we would benefit from his skill set.
Tough decisions are going to be made and its clear that the community is going to provide lots of input into those decisions I would encourage Mr. Mitchell to be in the room where it happens.
This article warrants reading through a couple of times (which I will do). But already, I can see some pertinent questions being posed.
In general, the idea to “even-out” the decline in enrollment across all schools seems like something to consider.
The thought has occurred to me that the district (as part of its “sprawl for schools” campaign) might be engaging in premature scare tactics out of self-interest.
“The thought has occurred to me that the district (as part of its “sprawl for schools” campaign) might be engaging in premature scare tactics out of self-interest.”
You have no basis for that thought. I can tell you first hand at my kid’s elementary school that there are half the number of Kindergarten classes offered than when my oldest kid went there. First, Second…etc…have been reducing the number of classes as well. My younger kid is still in elementary and they have less classes offered and even a combined grade class that most parents dreaded having their kid put into…(luckily my kid avoided it).
And yet, you noticed elsewhere on this page that they “switched” from claiming that closing a school won’t save money, to claiming that it will.
Probably just a coincidence that they’re doing this in conjunction with two massive, sprawling housing proposals under consideration?
Yes, they did switch. But they likely didn’t switch just to get a housing project approved. No project approved in the next year is going to effect fiscal plans over the next 3-5 years. Sure the school district supports more housing for so they can get more students. But Village Homes and such won’t be of any consequence to the district for at least 5 or more years. So, no it’s far more likely that the district’s about face on the subject of closing schools was going from a plan to save jobs and programs to saving what they could because things got worse.
“Declining enrollment means fewer students (less water). Fewer students means fewer schools (salmon).”
Actually, the number of salmon (students) remain the same, unless housing itself is creating more students. But unlike actual salmon habitat, there’s no shortage of habitat for students.
In fact, there’s a glut of habitat (schools) statewide, in light of declining birthrates, etc.
(I feel like making some kind of comment regarding “a school of fish” vs. “schools for students”, but it’s eluding me at the moment.)
In regard to transparency, another question I’d ask the district is whether or not they’re accounting for the (additional) planned and under construction housing in Davis and Woodland (given that DJUSD is essentially the alternative school district for Woodland).
1,600 more housing units planned at the Woodland technology park adjacent to Spring Lake and Highway 113, for example.
The district should already know the number of Spring Lake students attending DJUSD, and Spring Lake itself still isn’t totally completed. (By the way, Ruby Cottages currently under construction are going for the mid-500K range – on pretty small lots.)
I wonder how much Harvest Glen houses will sell for (adjacent to the Davis cemetery.)
Did you read the Davis Demographics report?
Didn’t even know there was one. Does it include students from Woodland (and the corresponding planned developments)? Those aren’t “Davis demographics” per se, but they are DJUSD’s demographics.
At this point, DJUSD is the “region’s” alternative school district. (The only difference is that those outside of Davis don’t pay DJUSD parcel taxes – they get a “freebie” courtesy of Davis patsies, so to speak. (Not sure how to spell the plural of “patsy”, so I probably didn’t attend DJUSD.)
And does it include projections for the already-approved developments in Davis?
You might have addressed that in your response.
I covered this a few weeks ago – they have a methodology for how they project enrollment.
Here is the link: https://www.djusd.net/departments/business_services/other_reports
“Did I miss something? At what point did lower enrollment mean that schools need to close? These decision to close a school is massively consequential and deserves to be spelled fully out.”
Yes you did. It’s obviously about reducing overhead cost. Now I’ll grant you that for years the district has claimed there wouldn’t be much savings by closing schools. But we all knew that was a B.S. effort to save district jobs. So the district did a 180 and proposed closing a school. I guess I can understand the surprise if you believed their initial claims but it never made any sense if you were paying attention.
“Did I miss something? At what point did lower enrollment mean that schools need to close? These decision to close a school is massively consequential and deserves to be spelled fully out.”
To highlight this, consider the counter-argument. Fewer students means less money from the state… but also doesn’t that also mean fewer teachers and less support staff? Doesn’t it also mean less resources, less equipment, less furniture, less utility usage, and less food to provide?”
Yes, you just made the argument for closing a school. Less students = less teachers = less classrooms = less schools. Somewhere in the school district info over the years was the base cost for maintaining a school….I don’t have the number….but it ain’t cheap.
“We will not close the campus with the greatest proportion of students furthest from opportunity.” Again, how was that determined? If it was using disabilities, wouldn’t you not want to affect Birch Lane, the only elementary school in DJUSD with a Special Day program? Or is it another school—maybe name it in this section, so we know what is off limits?”
I think you answered your Fairfield question. Because yes logically from a geo-logistics and financial standpoint, keeping it open doesn’t make sense.
” “We will apply [the] same school model across Davis, despite areas of town experiencing differing levels of decline in enrollment.” How then is the localized Concept A even a consideration under this assumption? Closing Patwin explicitly only affects the area of town west of 113. Concept A punishes people for having chosen to live in this neighborhood.”
I think the model is “what is cost effective”. I originally thought Willet would be the target because it geographically overlaps (or is very close) to Chavez. Chavez has a special program and is more centrally located….so I thought Willet might be on the chopping block. I thought Patwin would be safe because of it’s location that serves West Davis. But Patwin is small. So it’s overhead is probably greater per student than the other schools. So I guess that means West Davis kids will have to trek over to Willet. It’s a crappy solution for sure.
“Also lacking in The Plan is a simple question that seems to have been overlooked. What other school districts have done something like this?”
Yes, this is happening across California. I’m not sure if long term data is available for you. But it happens all the time in business; when a store or location is underperforming, they close it to save money (the cost of overhead). I mean, I guess you could look at the numbers for verification. But the concept is pretty basic.
Redraw Elementary School Boundaries and Scale Down Enrollment Equally
“It strikes me that the easiest and most logical thing for the district to do, once you accept the 350 student feasibility line, is move students from schools with more than 350 students to schools with fewer than 350.”
I mean they’re kind of doing that with the school closure plan. But without the school closure; how do you save money by simply reshuffling students at existing schools?
“Move Spanish Full Immersion to Montgomery. The logic here would be to group the Spanish language choice programs.”
There’s enough interest in Spanish Immersion for two schools. How do you combine them into one school? (I know Chavez has shrunken but not that much). Secondly, they’re not the same type of immersion program. One is immersion and the other is dual immersion. Also, why would you move all the students at a centrally located school like Chavez to a peripherally located school like Montgomery?
“close North as an elementary school, and reopen it as a 9th grade only campus to help students transition from junior high to the massive DSHS.”
I’m not even sure how that would work. You’d close the largest and most centrally located elementary school and dedicate it for 9th grade???? And how does that save money???? Back in the day Willet was WD Intermediate School…for 5th and 6th (and maybe 4th…I can’t remember).
“Let’s make this a conversation. Let’s make The Plan better.”
I dunno…as usual Davis has too many Chiefs. I mean sure the school district could make their financial projections available? But Jon Q. Public will more than likely mess things up and stall things out until it bogs down makes things worse. On the other hand I encourage Mr. Mitchell….who seems to deeply care and wants to be active….to run for the school board as a representative for all the concerns he has about the school board decision making process and transparency.
Other things being left out of this discussion:
1. There is no discussion of what cuts would come from the district office staffing. We got through the Great Recession budget cuts with 1 director of curriculum and instruction that covered all schools when we had a lot more students, thus staff. I have not noticed any changes by having an additional director. I am sure there are other departments that could be cut and should be cut if we are talking about declining enrollment. Less students should mean less administration especially at the district office. The district has hired so many people at the district office level there isn’t room at the district office, they have to have some admin at Harper. If we had less admin 15 years ago with a smaller budget and more students, surely there must be some cuts available there, yet there is not articulation as to what those cuts might be. The district has made some cuts to admin, such as the Adult Ed principal a couple of years ago as they were cutting positions generally, but that is not at the district office and I know talking about cutting people’s jobs is no fun, but so is closing schools. I appreciate that in the past the district has articulated that when budget cuts happen, they will be done in a way that everyone takes a hit, sites, staff pay and administration.
2. Closing schools is incredibly complex and often the school closures do not save as much money as projected. Taking Patwin as an example, how many of the students there are inter-district transfers? How many of them would transfer into Davis if Patwin was not an option? Additionally, closing schools often sends a message to the broader community that the district is in decline, which leads to people leaving the district or maybe in our case not pursuing interdistrict transfers. Now instead of just talking about closing 1 or 2 schools we are now dealing with many more. We are talking about closing elementary schools, which are feeders into the secondary grades. If families do not like the experience at elementary, because maybe their uncrowded site now suddenly becomes more crowded, maybe class sizes rise, then they decide to leave or pursue another option.
3. I just have to say that generally the way that these school closures are being considered in light of the potential votes on peripheral development, feels very manipulative to me. That may not be the intention but that is how it feels. Maybe it is just the tough reality of the situation, and Davis needs to be building housing for a myriad of other reasons, but while building some developments may help, it may also not solve the issue of declining enrollment and the need to close the schools. I remember talking with teachers at Birch and North Davis who were really worried about the Cannery overcrowding their schools. That does not seem to have come to pass.
Overall the district does need to be more creative and/or articulate about the other cuts that are options so that the pain of school closures are felt evenly.
“Maybe it is just the tough reality of the situation, and Davis needs to be building housing for a myriad of other reasons, but while building some developments may help, it may also not solve the issue of declining enrollment and the need to close the schools. ”
The state is requiring about the same amount of housing over the next few years as the district believes it needs to stabilize enrollment. The state has been very aggressively enforcing state housing law through litigation and penalties.
“The state has been very aggressively enforcing state housing law through litigation and penalties.”
The state has been totally ineffective at ensuring that ANY of the housing elements are implemented in reality. And that’s only for the current fake “requirements” let alone the next round of fake “requirements”.
By the way, ALL of the fake requirements for cities are WITHIN city limits. The reason for that is because the state does not force communities to sprawl beyond its limits – and that was never the intention of the fake “requirements” in the first place.
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
In the meantime, go ahead and provide (again) how many developments the size of the Cannery that you think the state will “require” on farmland outside of Davis’ city limits in the future. (Your answer to that is further evidence that it will never happen.)
It was fascinating driving to and from the Central Coast this weekend and seeing all of the new housing sprouting up.
Do you know that the new housing you saw was due to state housing element initiatives and enforcement?
I know my former boss was working on housing projects in the Monterey area and south of there 25+ years ago. I think a former partner of mine was (and may still be) actively developing land for housing over there. He actually had homes built and sold in that area (part of a master planned community). And I know they weren’t the only ones. It ain’t easy working over there; that’s for sure….it’s a long game.
Anyway, I’m wondering if what you saw was because of state enforcement of their housing element mandates or the result of looooong term real estate development efforts. I wonder if the rate of housing project approvals has increased significantly?
How much new housing did you see right around San Luis Obispo? SLO is traditionally one of the most anti-housing no growth places in the state.
David comes from a no growth community and lives in another no growth community. He supports the local control that has made both these communities less affordable.
SLO has built a lot of housing in the last few years and is now considered a pro-growth city (for what that’s worth).
“It was fascinating driving to and from the Central Coast this weekend and seeing all of the new housing sprouting up.”
Did you get a tingle up your leg?
“It was fascinating driving to and from the Central Coast this weekend and seeing all of the new housing sprouting up.”
Sick . . . I remember when liberals fought housing and valued the environment
And I remember when middle income families could afford housing in California
“It was fascinating driving to and from the Central Coast this weekend and seeing all of the new housing sprouting up.”
The City of San Luis Obispo has a 0.95% annual growth rate over the last ten years.
Took a quick look at the link David provided above (and pasted below), and not seeing any discussion whatsoever regarding the developments planned for Woodland and the impact on DJUSD (including the 1,600 housing units planned at the technology park).
https://www.djusd.net/departments/business_services/other_reports
There is (or more accurately “was”) a group of parents in Spring Lake pushing WJUSD to build a school at the planned technology park, partly because WJUSD did not follow through on its initial plan for multiple schools in the massive Spring Lake development). I believe those parents have largely given up, partly because BOTH school districts are supportive of Woodland students attending Davis schools.
But shouldn’t this (the ongoing developments in Woodland) then be part of the “Sprawl for Schools” analysis that DJUSD is engaging in? Especially since there’s already something like 1,300-1,600 “out of district” kids ALREADY attending DJUSD?
Woodland only matters for this if the resident works in DJUSD (Davis + UC Davis)
Don’t know exactly where those “requirements” are listed (for one of the two parents, at least) – but some of these people WORK FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ITSELF. And wouldn’t be needed, if the district right-sizes itself.
Then there’s those who move from Davis to Woodland (and don’t need any other connection to attend DJUSD).
I can pretty much guarantee that any parent who wants to send their kid to DJUSD can easily find a way to do so. Again, BOTH of these districts have an incentive to do so, at this point.
It costs something like $50 million (probably a lot more now) to build a new school, so WJUSD is incentivized to avoid that cost, as well (even if the state provides some funding). But it’s not just the cost of construction – the cost is a PERMANENT/ONGOING LIABILITY for school districts.
Truth be told, I never found the local Spring Lake parents to be realistic (though they also avoided talking about the siphoning-off of students to DJUSD, and to a lesser extent – the fact that WJUSD also does not want to close down any schools where enrollment is declining).
WJUSD ALSO uses that same “equity” argument that DJUSD is engaging in to justify that. I heard about that from the same parents who normally support “equity”.
There’s a page on inter district transfers
Seems to be drifting pretty far from the fact that DJUSD is not providing any analysis regarding the impact of planned Woodland housing developments. Though I do see a graph in your initial link above, which shows that out-of-district enrollments are expected to slowly increase. Would have to look at it again, but I recall it said something like 1,300 current out-of-district students, increasing to 1,600 over time. So maybe they are accounting for the planned developments in Woodland without showing how they arrived at their numbers.
Given that 1,600 housing units are planned adjacent to Highway 113 (and DJUSD can “control” exactly which school they can attend), it seems to me that Patwin could survive if DJUSD wasn’t trying to use that as a pawn in support of their sprawl campaign. Don’t know exactly where Patwin is, but I understand it’s west of Highway 113.
And if WJUSD ever shuts down Plainfield (out in the middle of nowhere, southwest of town) – there’s another batch of “customers” for DJUSD.
They have had several school board meetings about this in the past six months. The main problem is, you don’t pay attention to this stuff until it becomes a housing issue.
It’s not a “housing issue”. It’s a self-protection issue, on the part of those associated with DJUSD.
DJUSD, some on the council, and you are desperately trying to make it a “housing issue”.
You and others aren’t happy with the Davis community, and are trying to manipulate and destroy it to suit your whims.
But again, I’d say – “don’t be afraid of change”. And one of those changes is a stabilization of population. (The “Malthusians” have already won that battle.) You and the YIMBYs are looking in the rear-view mirror, to the “good old growth days”.
The baby boom is over, and has been for a long time. It’s just a slow and steady march to “the beyond” for that group. At which point, the millenials and beyond inherit EVERYTHING.
Ron,
I don’t think it makes much sense for DJUSD to make plans based on projected transfer students. They’re a growing fiscal band aid at best. No DJUSD would probably make plans based on their student obligations….students that reside in Davis proper. DJUSD can always trim or deny transfer students if obligations to Davis students increase.
It should never be a housing issue.
Keith E. says: “I don’t think it makes much sense for DJUSD to make plans based on projected transfer students. They’re a growing fiscal band aid at best.”
Appreciate the response, Keith. But DJUSD is already DEPENDENT UPON non-resident students (approximately 1,300 of them) which has enabled DJUSD avoid a school closure so far. In looking at the link David provided, it looks like they are projecting an additional 300 or so non-residents students in the future.
If WJUSD doesn’t build a school at the technology park (with its 1,600 housing units), it seems likely that at least some of them will make the trip down to DJUSD (maybe Patwin in particular, since I assume it’s one of the closer schools to Highway 113).
Perhaps it’s not really that bad of an arrangement in some ways, since this also enables WJUSD to avoid building a new ($50 million or more) school that will ALSO experience declining enrollment in the future, as new residents age-out of the school system.
Seems like it’s a lot less objectionable (overall) to “not” build a school, than it is to close down an existing one. Or at least, a lot more efficient. (Though as I mentioned, there is/was a group of parents who have been very disappointed that WJUSD does not seem to be pursuing a school at the technology park.)
I understand that Woodland’s overall enrollment is remaining relatively stable (despite the sprawl that Woodland continues to pursue), probably largely because so many Woodland students are attending DJUSD.
Welcome to the DJUSD/WJUSD joint unified school district. (Actually, maybe it could be completely joined together, with one superintendent, etc. I’m sure that would be a “popular” idea among management – some of whom would lose their jobs.)
Two key points that a lot of people in the community are missing.
First, California needs to change its funding model so districts don’t get repeatedly hammered by declining enrollment.
Second, what the district has determined it needs aligns with the state’s RHNA for Davis. So even if you don’t believe that we shouldn’t build housing for schools, we have to build the same amount of housing anyway. Ron O’s argument is that Davis should just ignore state law which would be an irresponsible position for the city to take.
David: As already pointed out, the state’s “requirements” are failing – statewide. And that’s just referencing the current rounds; not future rounds.
The state does not require (or even consider) land outside of city limits, in regard to their “requirements”. As such, they expect housing elements to address zoning within city limits.
This is also the primary reason that none of the housing elements are realistic – statewide.
The state does not care about oversized school districts. The declining birthrate will ensure that schools will close (not just in Davis).
The district itself claims that a school will need to close unless both current, massive housing proposals on farmland are approved – which doesn’t seem likely.
Go ahead and tell us the number of “Cannery”-sized proposals that you think the state and school district will “require” in future years. And then speculate as to the realistic outcome of that.
Don’t be afraid of change. In this case, the change is an overall declining need for the service that schools provide (AND a declining need for new housing – despite what the state is attempting to force).
What we actually have here is a situation that the “Malthusians” (younger generations) have already decided – in regard to birthrates, exodus to other areas, etc. The state and the YIMBYs obviously don’t like that reality, so they’re also apparently afraid of change.
You don’t be afraid of change.
I’m the one “liking” the change that younger generations have implemented.
It’s the old fogeys like you who want to return to the status quo.
I’m just a hip, young forward-thinking dude, apparently. Sort of like that uncle (or is it a grandpa?) who’s way cooler than your parents.
Though truth be told, it’s the boomer parents who will be increasingly passing on their assets to their kids – and that includes housing.
It does seem likely that “generational wealth” will continue to be a factor. We should all be more “careful” about the parents we select, in future lifetimes. Don’t necessarily accept the first offer. :-)
LOL = You’re literally attempting to block every change that is being suggested in Davis and California.
That’s simply not correct.
The change I’m referring to directly impacts what you’d prefer.
But clearly, you’re the one advocating a return to the status quo.
The change I’m referring to is already starting to impact the underlying concerns you have. In other words, the “demand” side of the model. We’re seeing that now, in regard to declining enrollment (which will then filter through the entire system – including demand for housing).
The “system” itself doesn’t like this, however. That’s why declining birthrates and exodus are framed in a negative manner – by both parties. But it’s actually a positive trend (and the only sustainable one) in the long run.
It’s an enormous “change”, and it’s nationwide.
No I want change, Davis hasn’t built housing, I want more housing. California hasn’t built sufficient housing, I want more housing. That simple. You’re attempting to block change.
You (and the state) have no basis whatsoever to determine what “sufficient” means. The reason for that is because demand itself is flexible and is influenced by multiple factors.
Truth be told, decisions could have been made to ensure that there was “sufficient” housing for 10 million people, instead of 40 million people in California.
Demand in a given area is primarily driven by pursuit of economic development.
There’s apparently no overall plan regarding economic development, housing, or anything else – other than “more”. And when “more” doesn’t organically arise, the political and economic systems start belly-aching and turn on their own constituents.
Some of this harkens back to the counter-culture movement, in regard to questioning the underlying mentality and assumptions.
You’re changing your argument. You were arguing that I was supporting the status quo and now you’re arguing that you disagree with my position.
No – the status quo is clearly what you advocate for (endless growth). That’s the system I grew up with (and is still in place today).
Have you looked around the region, to see what’s still occurring? Even within the city of Davis itself, AND the two proposals approved by voters (one of which is under construction, etc.).
The questioning of the endless growth model is still relatively new, and has been under attack ever since it arose. (The attacks on it are more fierce now, despite – or perhaps because of issues like declining birthrate and exodus.) In fact, there’s never been a time when there’s been “no growth” – even in slow-growth communities.
You make it sound like the younger generation is voluntarily opting out of kids and houses, like we all woke up one day and said, You know what would be fun? Demographic collapse.
What’s actually happening is way less romantic and more structural: people who bought into the system decades ago have spent 40+ years weaponizing zoning, CEQA, design review, parking minimums, and every other obscure acronym in the toolkit to turn their homes into lottery tickets. Then they look at the downstream results — lower birthrates, “exodus to other areas,” shrinking school enrollment — and treat it as some kind of generational mood, instead of the predictable outcome of policy choices they fought for at every meeting.
If you want an empirical check on whether young people actually like having fewer kids in smaller, more precarious housing: go look at Austin, San Antonio, or pretty much any metro that lets supply even try to chase demand. Same basic cohort of 20s/30s/40s, different land-use regime, noticeably more kids and comparatively less panic about whether a two-bedroom condo requires a GoFundMe. The preferences aren’t different; the opportunity structure is.
The “state requirements are failing statewide” line kind of skips over why they’re “failing”: cities drag their feet, over-zone fantasy parcels nobody will ever build on, and then point to the resulting mess as proof that planning for more homes is inherently unrealistic. And then, when schools say “if we don’t add families, we close a campus,” the same people who helped engineer the shortage of families turn around and say, “Ah yes, clearly the answer is to keep housing out of town, because birthrates are down.” It’s a neat little self-licking ice cream cone of blame-shifting.
You’re telling YIMBYs and the state not to be “afraid of change,” but the core “change” here is that younger people have already absorbed the lesson that in California, if you want a family, you probably can’t afford to start it in the high-opportunity places your parents locked down. That’s not liberation; it’s exclusion. Supply-side progressivism is just the boring, technocratic name for undoing that exclusion so that family size and life path are real choices again, not the byproduct of other people’s zoning victories.
“First, California needs to change its funding model so districts don’t get repeatedly hammered by declining enrollment.”
I’m not sure how you do that. The whole point is to educate students. The state pays schools to educate students. Less students = less payment by the state for education. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
What do you suggest?
I’m aware DJUSD is dependent on transfer students. That doesn’t mean they should PLAN on being dependent on them.
Transfer students are not as cost effective to teach as Davis students….no parcel school tax.
So Davis can either keep planning on taking on transfer students and try to sustain things as they are; or plan to educate their own students….and fill in the cost difference with transfers as needed. Again, financing things with transfer students shouldn’t be the plan….again it’s less cost effective. The plan should be to optimize educating Davis students and fill in difference (fiscally speaking) with transfer students.
You’re right that Woodland not building a Spring Lake school works out in Davis’ and Woodland’s favors. But Davis is under no obligation to educate the kids at Spring Lake. They can choose not to….or PLAN to choose not….because it makes fiscal sense.