DAVIS, Calif. — A new report on the Davis Joint Unified School District’s future enrollment offers a warning the community cannot afford to ignore: absent meaningful changes, student numbers are projected to decline steadily over the next decade, while housing development could be one of the most significant local factors capable of slowing, stabilizing or even reversing those trends.
But if Davis is going to address enrollment decline honestly, we need to confront the problem at its root: the city’s failure to build enough housing over the last 25 years, driven in significant part by Measure J and the repeated rejection of projects that could have created the homes needed to attract and retain families.
That is the real issue.
The district’s demographic projections, as discussed in the earlier article, forecast continued declines in resident enrollment under current conditions.
Some have argued that housing policy should not be driven by enrollment concerns, and it is true that the need for housing extends well beyond the schools, but public education is a core part of Davis’ identity and cannot be separated from the city’s long-term planning decisions.
School districts forecast enrollment because they have no alternative, and in California that planning is part of mandatory responsibilities such as evaluating attendance boundaries, allocating facilities and preparing for long-term fiscal impacts.
They must decide how many teachers to hire, whether facilities can be maintained, where attendance boundaries should be drawn and how to prepare financially for the years ahead.
The better question is whether the assumptions used are reasonable and whether the city has the ability to influence any of the variables involved.
On that point, housing matters.
No one seriously disputes that Davis has built housing slowly over the past two decades relative to demand.
During that same period, home prices and rents climbed sharply. Families seeking more space or ownership opportunities often found themselves looking elsewhere—to Woodland, West Sacramento, Dixon, Sacramento or beyond.
That has consequences for schools.
Young families are the lifeblood of any public school district. If fewer families with children can move into a community, and existing families struggle to remain there, enrollment pressure moves downward. That is especially true when birth rates are already softening statewide and nationally.
Some have argued that new housing does not necessarily mean more students because some homes are occupied by retirees, childless couples or single adults. That observation is correct as far as it goes. Not every unit generates the same number of students, which is precisely why planners use modeled averages and student yield factors across housing types rather than assuming every household looks the same.
Public planning does not depend on whether every home produces children, but on aggregate patterns that emerge across an entire community over time.
Over time, communities know that certain housing types generate higher student yields than others. Detached homes, townhomes and ownership-oriented family housing typically generate more students than age-restricted housing or student apartments.
Affordable family housing can generate even higher yields.
That is why the details of proposed projects are needed.
And that brings us to Village Farms and Willowgrove.
These two proposals are not simply additional housing units on a spreadsheet, but central pieces of the city’s future growth strategy, potentially critical to the long-term stability of DJUSD, and—at a time when Davis may struggle to meet its RHNA obligations, especially for affordable housing—a lifeline that offers a path forward while helping preserve local autonomy.
Village Farms, the large proposal on the city’s northeast edge, has been framed primarily through the lens of affordability, sustainability and RHNA compliance.
But another part of the conversation is demographic renewal.
Prior analyses using district yield assumptions estimated that Village Farms could generate roughly 700 students when fully built out. Whether the final number is somewhat lower or higher is less important than the scale: it is large enough to materially affect district trends.
That does not mean 700 students arrive overnight.
Because projects build in phases, families move in gradually and demographic impacts unfold over years, the immediate effect may be incremental, but the broader direction matters: if Davis adds substantial family-oriented housing, enrollment losses can be slowed, stabilized or partially reversed.
Willowgrove also figures to provide critical housing for families through both market-rate and affordable units, making it a significant part of the city’s broader response to housing and enrollment challenges.
Previous discussions have noted that Willowgrove includes hundreds of affordable units and a mix of housing types that could bring several hundred additional students over time.
Again, exact figures depend on final unit mix, pricing, occupancy and phasing.
But the underlying logic remains the same: when a city creates places where families can live, schools benefit.
Many critics ask whether Village Farms or Willowgrove alone can “solve” enrollment decline.
That sets up the wrong test, because no single project can solve a structural issue shaped by births, economics, migration and generational turnover; the real question is whether these projects help meaningfully, and the answer is yes.
We do not need to solve every problem in perpetuity; policymakers need to think in practical time horizons of the next year, the next 10 years and the next 20 years—not the next 100.
There are no magic bullets.
Projects such as these are practical policy tools. Without them, Davis faces a harder path, with greater reliance on shrinking student cohorts, inter-district transfers and budget cuts, while pressure for consolidations, closures and program reductions would continue to grow.
With them, the city creates at least the possibility of replenishing the family base that public schools depend on.
For years, Davis has benefited from being a desirable university-adjacent community with strong schools, parks, bike infrastructure and a high quality of life.
But when that desirability is not matched by enough housing, it becomes exclusion—favoring those who bought long ago while raising barriers for teachers, public employees, young professionals, working families and adult children who grew up here and hope to return.
That exclusion has a demographic cost, narrowing who can live in the city and gradually reshaping the population toward older and wealthier households.
Our schools are the canary in the coal mine, signaling that our policies are not producing enough housing for families with children.
None of this means every housing proposal should be approved uncritically. Traffic, farmland preservation, environmental impacts, infrastructure financing and design quality all matter, and voters are right to weigh those issues carefully.
But scrutiny should be grounded in tradeoffs.
If the community says no to major family-oriented housing, it should do so honestly—recognizing that the likely consequence is continued pressure on school enrollment and district finances.
If the community wants thriving schools and generational continuity, it must also consider where future families are supposed to live.
That is why the conversation about Village Farms and Willowgrove is bigger than land use.
It is about whether Davis sees itself as a living, renewing community or a place frozen in time.
The district should continue improving its projections, the city should evaluate projects rigorously, and residents should debate the merits openly—but we should not pretend enrollment decline exists in a vacuum, because housing supply, affordability and demographic renewal are deeply connected.
Village Farms and Willowgrove may not eliminate every challenge facing DJUSD, restore enrollment to past peaks or override broader statewide trends, but they could alleviate the problem in meaningful ways.
In the end, this may be one of the most important choices Davis faces.
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.
“But if Davis is going to address enrollment decline honestly, we need to confront the problem at its root: the city’s failure to build enough housing over the last 25 years, driven in significant part by Measure J and the repeated rejection of projects that could have created the homes needed to attract and retain families.”
This is the exact opposite of “honestly”. Honesty would dictate an acknowledgement that:
1) It’s not a problem in the first place.
2) Birthrates and enrollment are declining throughout the state.
3) Any “purposeful” pursuit of additional students at DJUSD means that they’re being “poached” from some other districts (which is also experiencing declining enrollment.
4) Housing itself doesn’t create “new” people.
5) All housing eventually turns over. Some of it (a decreasing percentage) will be occupied by those with kids – well into the future.
6) Students generally age out of school systems BEFORE their families move out or die, and this fact isn’t limited to Davis. (It’s also happening in older parts of “cheap Woodland”, for example.)
7) School districts (and some parents) will always resist downsizing out of self-interest, but will try to claim it’s for other reasons. (In other words, they will lie regarding their motivation.)
” It’s not a problem in the first place.”
That’s an opinion. Your opinion to be precise.
It’s more than just “my” opinion, and you’ve seen that from other commenters on here as well.
As for those who think it’s an actual problem, they’ve never actually stated any valid reason for their opinion, nor have they acknowledged that their advocacy (if successful) creates “other” problems (e.g., continuing sprawl, poaching from other districts, etc.).
The one FACT that everyone agrees on is that the school district is too large for the decreasing size of the city’s student population. (But you and a few others twist that around, by stating that the size of the city is too small in comparison to the size of the school district. And amazingly, you state this as if it’s a legitimate argument.)
Other people agree with you, I do not believe they represent the majority in the community and frankly I disagree that everyone agrees that the school district is too large. In fact, I believe that is a minority view in the community as well.
Regardless of opinion, what part of what I said is not true?
The school district is oversized compared to the needs of the existing city. That’s a fact; not an opinion. And it’s actually the basis for YOUR opinion.
And the other fact is that people like you want to increase the size of the city, rather than decrease the size of the school district.
An additional fact is that those families would then come from another school district (which is likely experiencing declining enrollment as well). Unless you believe that families come to Davis for the sole purpose of having kids that they otherwise wouldn’t have.
What part of any of this is an “opinion”, rather than a fact?
“The school district is oversized compared to the needs of the existing city. That’s a fact; not an opinion.”
No, it’s still an opinion. (By definition a fact is NOT merely a strongly held opinion). And I don’t agree. In my view the the existing city is undersized compared to the needs of the city. The city is using surrounding communities for overflow capacity and the school district is simply taking on the students whose parents work at UC Davis and cannot either due to cost or capacity reside in the city. The rest is fleshed out in the text of the column today.
“In my view the the existing city is undersized compared to the needs of the city.”
Again, this is literally another way of stating that the school district is too large compared to the needs of the city.
But the manner in which you’re noting this shows that you want to increase the size of the city, rather than decrease the size of the school district.
I believe that your advocacy regarding the same underlying facts are actually a minority opinion (mostly because of how absurd it is on its face), but I guess we’ll see.
It is ultimately quite similar to keeping an unneeded prison or military base open, because locals rely upon them for jobs. Or perhaps advocating for more crime and wars in order to justify keeping them open.
In my view the city is too small for the needs of the community
You literally keep ignoring the fact that the school district only takes in students of people who work in the geographic confines of DJUSD (which includes UC Davis)
David, those students are already attending DJUSD if their families so choose. And they do so without paying DJUSD parcel taxes.
The fact that DJUSD is ALREADY poaching those students (and it still isn’t “enough”) is further evidence that the district is too large.
As such, even if all of Spring Lake, for example, was abandoned for some new development in Davis and the existing housing was then occupied by those who have no connection to Davis, enrollment would not substantially increase. But Davis would certainly then have more “outbound” commuters in that case, since there’s often two or more workers in a household who don’t work in the same locale.
Note how absurd this assumption is – that families (who don’t already attend DJUSD) are going to abandon Spring Lake in mass (and that new housing in Davis would primarily be occupied by that population). There is ZERO evidence that any of that would occur, and logic itself (and a basic understanding of human behavior) shows that it’s not going to occur to any significant degree.
My fifth and final comment for now.
I’m not assuming people who live in Spring Lake are going to move to Davis (some might). I’m assuming that the next generation of faculty and staff at UC Davis will be more likely to live in Davis if we have sufficient housing.
You also never address exactly why someone who lives in Woodland or elsewhere would want to send their kids to schools in Davis rather than where they reside.
“You also never address exactly why someone who lives in Woodland or elsewhere would want to send their kids to schools in Davis rather than where they reside.”
Since you brought this up, I’ll go ahead and submit another comment.
My guess is that it’s primarily because DJUSD is viewed as a “better” district by those parents. Not all parents do so. But this type of poaching (and abandonment of their own district) “hurts” that existing school system in more than one way. It’s likely the most-motivated parents who make that choice, meaning that the “best and brightest” (and probably the “whitest”, since they’re the most “privileged”) are removed from their own district, resulting in a decline in their own system.
I can tell you that this is also a primary reason that Spring Lake has only one of its planned schools, as a result. And that the technology park (with its 1,600 housing units) is probably not going to get another school, either.
Perhaps we’re in agreement that parents and teachers should attend schools in their OWN districts.
DJUSD is not forced to “accept” out of district students, and WJUSD is not forced to “release” them.
But as long as there’s a significant price differential between Davis and Woodland, young families in particular are going to choose Woodland/Spring Lake. (It’s also a very easy/straight commute to UCD, without even going through Davis itself. Davis, the city itself – is an “afterthought” for those people – other than taking advantage of its school district without paying DJUSD parcel taxes.)
They are not clamoring to move to an expensive shoebox in Davis.
Viewed as a better district?
We have some data fortutely to help us. A recent rest for example – CAASPP & ELPAC
Districtwide met or exceeded standard
for ELA – DJUSD had 72 percent of students meeting or exceeding while only 39 percent of WJUSD
for Math – it was 62 percent DJUSD to 25 percent of WJUSD
That is a huge gap.
You think that people who work at the university and who have the option of sending their kids to DJUSD are going to take it up?
Davis also prioritizing education. Since 2007, Davis voters have supported the parcel tax every single time with more than 67 percent support. Woodland most recently voted down their parcel tax and their facility bond. If Woodland wants to be able to compete for students, it has to step up its commitment to its schools.
“You think that people who work at the university and who have the option of sending their kids to DJUSD are going to take it up?”
Yes, I do. I’d consider it myself, if I was in that position – regardless of the negative impact on my “own” district. The reason being that parents care more about their own kids, more than anything else. (But look at the result that you just mentioned.)
My primary concern isn’t the “poaching” – it’s that the poaching isn’t “enough” to keep DJUSD happy. I have no doubt that they’re watching the developments in Woodland, and are realizing that there’s less to come in the future (and that THOSE parents are going to be ageing out, as well).
Davis has “enough” housing to support a school district – it’s just going to have to be smaller. Again, this is also something that Woodland is experiencing in the older parts of town.
I do agree that Woodland voters are deadbeats, for the most part. But the fact that DJUSD (and WJUSD) parcel taxes are tied to housing makes HOUSING more-expensive – the very thing that you claim to be concerned about (in Davis, but not in Woodland – since they’re deadbeats). You’re in a “Catch 22” regarding that.
This situation also encourages young families to choose Woodland, but send their kids to Davis schools. (Well, that plus it’s about $250K less or so, for the same house in a location that’s probably more convenient in just about every way that families seek.)
7 miles, straight shot to UCD down Highway 113. Avoiding the “right and relevant” city of Davis altogether (other than dropping Johnny off at school somewhere).
Here’s the real gist, when you say, “But this type of poaching (and abandonment of their own district) “hurts” that existing school system in more than one way.” You are tacitly acknowledging the inverse, that district transfers help DJUSD.
So if that’s the case, why would Davis voters and school officials follow a policy course that you admit would harm the school district?
“If Woodland wants to be able to compete for students, it has to step up its commitment to its schools.”
Seriously, poaching students is now a competition?
If you work at UC Davis, you live in Woodland, you have the choice to send your kids to better or worse schools, which do you take?
It’s not helping DJUSD. Although the Woodland students are probably the “best of that bunch”, they’re not necessarily as “good” as Davis students.
Then there’s the parcel taxes, being paid to support out-of-district students.
As the city of Davis gets older, they’re not direct beneficiaries of a school system in the first place.
Also, larger does not equate with “better” (and there’s actually an inverse relationship regarding that). Parcel taxes, for example, actually go farther per student when there’s fewer students.
If Davis had only “one” student for example, he/she would be the sole “beneficiary” of ALL of the DJUSD parcel taxes. You could probably take the dumbest student on earth and turn him/her into the next Einstein with that type of money/focus. Or just give him/her the money directly, and he/she wouldn’t even need to attend school.
And perhaps if Woodland residents didn’t have the “option” of sending their kids to DJUSD, they’d stop being deadbeats. (Though again, that would also increase the cost of housing there, via parcel taxes.)
I can’t follow this line of thinking and frankly I’ve made my point.
“If you work at UC Davis, you live in Woodland, you have the choice to send your kids to better or worse schools, which do you take?”
THAT really is the problem. And its the problem our housing proposals are not going to fix.
We need to provide housing for those people who work here but are economically displaced and let THEIR kids fill our schools. Thats 17,000 inbound workers every day.
We know what happens when you build expensive single family homes in this town: We get more affluent families who commute OUT of town to work. That the established fact, its not going to change.
its irresponsible to have our housing debate be dominated with this idea that maybe we can build expensive housing to attract more richer families (likely with older kids and outward commuting parents) as a “solution” to declining enrollment whilst we totally ignore the real problem which is that we have priced the younger generation out entirely and the younger families that DO work here cant afford to live here.
That makes zero sense as an actual solution. Its like putting a bandaid on cancer…. maybe worse because the “solution” here actually has negative impacts that we cant un-do.
We need market-rate affordable housing and LOTS of it. Its NOT going to be single family homes and the fact that we are wasting time debating the passage of a housing proposal (that is poorly planned and very likely to fail anyway) while ignoring the real problems is insane.
How about the schools stabilize themselves by downsizing to the actual student population of Davis?
Which is these lines more approximately resembles stability?
Reduced enrollment = reduced course offerings = poorer educational outcomes.
Examples of curriculum differences between school districts.
Davis High School, enrollment 1789
21 foreign language classes: French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese
Woodland High School, enrollment 1171
12 foreign language classes: French, Spanish
Dixon High School, enrollment 1012
9 foreign language classes: Spanish only
“Reduced enrollment = reduced course offerings.”
Demonstrably false claim, since parcel taxes go farther per student when there’s fewer of them (as already noted). If there’s only “one” student, he/she would basically have a private tutor paid for via parcel taxes.
Parcel taxes are the funding source for those classes – not the number of students.
I’m reasonably certain that there’s districts that are smaller than Davis which score as well as, or better than Davis.
Ron is focusing on a partial truth: arguing that if enrollment falls, the same parcel tax base is spread across fewer students, so parcel tax dollars per remaining student may rise. We’ll call this parcel tax efficiency for the sake of simplicity.
This argument falls apart because that doesn’t mean the district is financially better off.
The core fiscal issue is that parcel tax revenue is largely fixed, while ADA revenue declines with each lost student. Costs do not fall one-for-one with enrollment as I have argued previously the district cannot instantly reduce staffing, utilities, transportation, administration, or facility costs every time a few students leave. It’s more like 60 cents on the dollar.
Therefore, any incremental marginal gain in parcel tax efficiency is more than substantially offset by the loss of ADA money.
To put this into numbers – ADA represents 80 percent of the district’s general fund, parcel taxes represents 10 to 15 percent. To argue that you can balance the loss of ADA through parcel tax efficiency is ludicrous.
Costs are not “fixed”. As soon as the district closes a school or two, costs will decline more than revenue decreases. This is what you are purposefully ignoring, and it’s a dishonest argument. We are referring here to closing down a school or two – not maintaining the district in its current size (as you’re suggesting).
Your argument is akin to stating that the district would “somehow” owe money if it closed down entirely (while still collecting parcel taxes).
Nowhere in my explanation did I say that costs were fixed, I said in contrast: “Costs do not fall one-for-one with enrollment…”
Right – and I noted that costs fall faster than revenue decreases, when they close down a school or two – which you continue to ignore.
It might also be noted that the money you’re referring to is not “free” – it comes from state taxpayers. And it’s not intended to maintain oversized school districts.
Every dollar from the state that goes to Davis schools is a dollar that doesn’t potentially go to some other district. (And for that matter, other districts get “more per student” from the state than Davis does. Which means that you’re advocating to shortchange other school districts in more than one way. You’re also advocating for an inequitable outcome in those other districts – which is something you normally claim to be concerned about.)
You aren’t following the argument chain… Don argued that the program offerings would go down, you countered that that was “demonstrably false” and cited parcel tax efficiency increasing. I countered that, and you argue that costs fall faster when you close down a school, but that undercuts your argument against Don because obviously closing schools will result in fewer program offerings, by definition.
From my perspective, obviously there are two ways to address this problem – one is by stabilizing enrollment, other is through cuts. I would argue cuts are suboptimal and moreover, they are not final, because the year after you close a school, you still have to deal with more cuts through declining enrollment. You are always chasing the cuts and you can only close schools so much to address them.
The parcel taxes are generally what pay for the “extra” programs that DJUSD offers – not the money from the state.
But if you or Don are arguing that larger school districts are “better”, all evidence points in the opposite direction. (Just look at the school district on the other side of the causeway, if you doubt that.)
Now, if size does provide more offerings (even if their overall educational outcome is far worse), maybe those who want their kids to learn every language on the face of the earth should send their kids to Los Angeles’ school district. (But I wouldn’t recommend it.)
What you and Don are arguing is that “bigger is always better”. If that’s the case, then maybe DJUSD should consolidate with WJUSD (and possibly West Sacramento and Winters). Then, students would have a choice of a thousand different language course offerings, right?
As for me, I’d rather send my theoretical kid to a district where they’re not going to get assaulted, and where the overall outcome is better (even if its size means that they don’t have a course in Tagalog because not enough mass of students are interested in it).
I’m arguing that declining enrollment not absolute size is the problem.
It will reach an “absolute size” eventually, regardless of whether or not more sprawl is pursued. Unless they continue to pursue more sprawl indefinitely.
Existing housing will support a school district, and all housing eventually turns over.
What you’re apparently concerned about is the opposite of “growing pains”. In other words “contracting pains”. Either way, it’s temporary over time – if you allow it to be.
There will always be families moving to Davis, but the days of having lots of kids and lots of sprawl is over.
I’m one of six kids, from San Francisco (when “normal” families could afford to live there, and when having larger families wasn’t that unusual). How many families are that large these days (outside of Utah or from Elon Musk)? (Just looked it up – he has 14 kids!)
A district can be relatively small and healthy if enrollment remains stable or growing. A district can be much larger and still face problems if enrollment is falling sharply.
The key point here is not whether DJUSD is “big enough” in the abstract sense but whether continued decline creates structural stress. What’s happening right now is projected decline over a prolonged period of time. Even school closures will not stop this problem, they will only temporarily slow the fiscal decline.
Like I said, it will eventually stabilize regardless of whether or not the city pursues sprawl right now.
Yes, there will be temporary “contraction pains” for awhile – so what? (And what percentage of the total population of Davis does that actually impact? I realize that they’re always the “loudest voices in the room” in any given city – even though they’re a decided minority of the overall population.)
But if the city does continue to pursue sprawl forever more, enrollment will never stabilize. (Pretty much the opposite of what you claim to be the problem.)
These projections take us out to 2035 – nine years from now, it would be foolhardy to attempt to project further.
Nine years from now, during which time a school or two will probably close. Pretty sure that Davis will continue to exist well-beyond that time (as well as the lifetimes of everyone reading this).
Doesn’t sound like a very big deal (or that much time) to me, in the bigger scheme of things.
And as soon as the city stops growing/pursuing sprawl, it will be much easier for the district (and every other supportive city service) to “stabilize” their plans. You’ll actually be doing them (and future parents and school district employees) a favor, when that occurs.
Ron O
Where do you have the calculations that show that costs fall faster than revenue decreases? Your ignorance about the state dispersals being 80% of revenues undermines whatever unsubstantiated assertion you’ve made.
You have no stake in maintaining community quality, nor in the question of whether to close schools since you don’t live here. If anything, Woodland, and your house value, gains from closing Davis schools. Your financial interest in this question is obvious.
What makes you think that a house in Woodland would lose value by closing a Davis school? Woodland’s values (and in particular – Spring Lake’s) are propped up by the ability to send Woodland’s kids to Davis schools (and without paying parcel taxes).
How is it that you claim to be a “professional economist” when you put forth illogical comments regarding how markets work? And then put forth assumptions about ME that are in direct opposition to common sense?
There’s a reason that the developers of Spring Lake informally named it “North, North Davis”.
Perhaps it’s never occurred to you that I’m not putting forth comments out of self-interest. What a sad way to look at other people whom you don’t even know.
The figures that David and the district are putting forth don’t account for school closures.
I think this comment thread is a good argument for a return to the 5-post limit.
From me, or David – or both?
I noted when my 5 comments was “used up”, but David seemed to want to engage further. It’s ultimately up to him.
I see no harm in flushing out his logic (or lack thereof). I actually think it was a pretty good exchange. And I also learned something new about his position – he actually does seem concerned about the temporary disruption during the “contraction” period – more than the overall size of the district.
Perhaps there should be a 5 “article” limit regarding the oversized school system, instead. These repetitive articles are providing me with a lot of “practice”, though.
My fault. Ron helped me make several points I wanted to put out there.
**No one is forcing you to read any comments.**
“Perhaps there should be a 5 “article” limit regarding the oversized school system, instead.”
I agree.
Yep. Seems like once per week or at least each fortnight David G. hauls out the same tired argument that any development, even if it’s bad, must be built to save our schools. Or at least to placate the members of the DJUSD School Board.
Oh, God, not the schools argument again. This is the dumbest argument ever. In fact, the school board endorsing this project should be illegal. How do people not see through this and see what is so so very wrong here?
Quick , join School Board Members for Developers (SBMD) today!
Or just downsize the schools. This is just a way for school board members to deflect the hate away from them when they close the schools. Blame and guilt the voters instead.
But why is ANYONE buying this???
It appears the School Board may endorse Measure V this Thursday. I feel they have no business in engaging in what amounts to demographic engineering by promoting housing to grow student numbers, while ignoring the many negative effects the Village Farms development will create. And of course, conflicts of interest abound.
It is legally permissible for them to do that – so why do they have “no business” supporting a measure if they deem it to be in the interest of the district and their community?
“Their” community?
It’s illegal for school districts to be engaging in political campaigns.
The $500,000 they’ve received from Whitcombe over the years, combined with poaching students from other districts (certainly not “their” community, by the way) isn’t enough for them?
It’s not illegal to pass a resolution
But is it ethical? You are in a position here of a conflict of interest. You should be forthright about revealing your interest in this part of the discussion.
“The better question is whether the assumptions used are reasonable and whether the city has the ability to influence any of the variables involved.”
I highlighted the flaws in the district’s study in the comments in the previous article: https://davisvanguard.org/2026/04/davis-joint-unified-enrollment-decline/ The most important is including apartments built in the last decade as though those units might serve the same market at Village Farms & Willowgrove. The fact is that almost all of those were built for the student market and cannot accommodate families. Any market rate multifamily built for the new developments, instead, could target the “missing middle” market, and those units would yield many more students than detached single family housing as I’ve pointed out before. This is malpractice on the part of MGT to produce a study using this data.