In a comment yesterday, someone asked a great question—identify the three most important topics for future planning needs and priorities facing the Davis Community. It is really hard to get to only three but I will discuss my top three and then add a fourth for the purpose of discussion.
My top three planning issues are: Affordable and affordable housing, economic development, and the Davis Downtown. The need for a General Plan update probably underlies all three, so I will leave it out of my top three and then I will discuss the Measure J renewal.
Affordable Housing
You could really interchange the priority of #1 and 2 on this list—it is probably more like 1a and 1b. But I will lead with affordable housing, both subsidized and “small a,” because I do not believe this community can sustain itself with current housing policies.
Basically, people like me—in their 40s, with kids, and making a reasonable combined household income—cannot afford to live in Davis. If I cared at all about material things like owning a home, I would not live here. However, I value the education of my children and living in an engaged and progressive community above material gain.
But we have priced the families largely out of Davis. We have shrunk the middle. We have students. We have people who have lived in this community for a long and are retired or retiring. We talk about wanting to preserve the character of our community—but we are doing the opposite. We are changing that character slowly over time and in 10 years or perhaps 20 years, we might 
preserve the agricultural lands on the outskirts of town but the internal dynamics of this community will look very different than it did in the mid-90s when I moved here.
If you want to give families a chance to live in Davis, you need to look toward subsidized housing and affordability by design. Otherwise, most families are going to move to communities where they can buy a house rather than rent an apartment or a house.
As I will explain at the end, this is not a YIMBY argument. We should look at things like infill first, we should limit growth on the periphery, we should not build large single-family homes on agricultural land. But we can’t continue the housing policies of the last two decades and preserve Davis.
Economic Development
This is not about DISC. The Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus is a means to an end, it is not the end. The other part of sustaining Davis is that it needs to be fiscally sustainable. Even before the pandemic hit, this community was in trouble. We didn’t have a mechanism to maintain our infrastructure, maintain our quality of life—roads, sidewalks, greenbelts, parks and city infrastructure.
There are those who want to continue to cut city services—I support robust cost containment but I am not at this point willing to consider deeper cuts. We continue to cut, we lose city services, and the quality of life becomes diminished.
I have and will continue to support a parcel tax for roads as a short-term solution to that problem. The last measure in 2018 fell short with just 57 percent of the vote. As I noted when it went down to defeat, it would be at least four years before it comes back—now I fear longer.
I agree with our more conservative poster that we can’t continue to increase taxes in Davis and keep it viable and affordable.
That has left me with seeking to maintain our city taxes, contain increased city costs and pursue economic development as a means to increase revenue.
I don’t know where we are going to go with COVID. If anything it is going to make it more challenging in the future. But we have waited 10 years since DSIDE (Designing a Sustainable and Innovative Davis Economy) to even get a peripheral park on the ballot. At this point I don’t see an alternative location in the city.
And pushing economic development to Woodland or West Sacramento is probably fine from a regional standpoint and helps to create jobs for college students graduating from UC Davis—but it does nothing to help us with our true needs.
So I support the dispersed economic model that came out of Studio 30 a decade ago. Continue to utilize existing space, develop near-term sites—Nishi is gone, but University Research Park is still around—and then convince the voters to support a peripheral site.
Davis Downtown
The way Davis is structured, the downtown/core area is the most important part of town and, for a long time, I believed it was in trouble. The last decade-plus has seen a slow shift away from retail and toward entertainment in the core.
Was that long-term viable? Hard to know.
COVID is likely going to finish off what macro-economic shifts started. I don’t think we will really get a sense for how bad it is until COVID is over and we see how many places are gone and not coming back.
The Core Area Specific Plan was important in 2019—the future of this community may now rest on it. I have been a vocal advocate for some time of the idea of bringing mixed-use redevelopment to Davis. In fact, I feel strongly enough about to it want to see the state reinstate redevelopment in order to finance some of it.
We have a need for workforce housing—housing that young professionals entering the work place can move into and can help revitalize the downtown core. Now more than ever.
Finally, Measure J Renewal
One of the people responding to the initial question had as a top priority to Preserve Measure J. The reality is that Measure J is going to get renewed for another 10 years by at least 70 percent of the vote.
There just isn’t much in the way of opposition. There was no formal ballot statement submitted and few people opposed it during the public hearings last spring. This is really a non-issue in terms of renewal.
So why do I bring this up? Because we need to create a way to have Measure J and remain a vital and vibrant community—and that is far bigger challenge than people who support Measure J want to acknowledge.
I support Measure J—I want to have discussion about it for the reasons I will get into soon, but I support it and I will explain why in a moment.
The bottom line is: I am not a YIMBY. I am not a NIMBY. I am part of that middle population that believes housing is a problem but I don’t want to go back to the 1980s and 1990s.
I supported Measure J and opposed Covell Village for one simple reason—we need balance and in 2000 and even 2005, we were out of balance.
But we are out of balance now, as well, in the other direction.
Earlier this week I argued that you cannot reasonably oppose Measure J and then vote against a housing project, because you are essentially saying that the public should not be the final arbiter of housing developments and then vote to be the final arbiter of a specific housing project.
On the other hand, I would argue you cannot be a supporter of Measure J and then come out and oppose all housing—either because you don’t want any more housing, or the housing that is being proposed does not meet your unrealistically high demands.
That is because one thing is clear—if you dam up housing for too long, that dam will burst. There was one chance to defeat Measure J this year—if Nishi and West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC) had failed, Measure J would be under fire like you couldn’t believe.
This is all about balance—in the 1970s, the balance on taxes got thrown off and the dam burst with Prop. 13. We’re still paying for that now, but that was largely a failure of the legislature to deal with the fact that people were getting taxed out of their homes.
Right now the pendulum has swung too far the other way on housing. As I started this housing discussion, we are losing the middle of our community and that will make this community much harder to sustain.
You want Measure J long term? We need to figure out a way to maintain our balance within that framework.
Final note: I propose we resolve to either call this Measure J or rename it in colloquial terms as the Right to Vote on Land Use issues or something to that effect, since the letter designation keeps changing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You forgot to mention that you get a lot of revenue from Measure J elections.
“…but I don’t want to go back to the 1980s and 1990s.”
Were you even here? Don’t worry, going back in time is not possible at this time.
“On the other hand, I would argue, you cannot be a supporter of Measure J and then come out and oppose all housing – either because you don’t want anymore housing or the housing that is being proposed does not meet you’re unrealistically high demands.”
You are in denial. These two seemingly conflicting positions are the exact issues Colin is running on. Opposition to new housing, using all the tools available, is actually a consistent position of people who want to return maintain the Davis of the 70’s and 80’s.
Yep… ‘funny’ part is many of those who hold both views, weren’t even in Davis in the 70’s or 80’s…
Colin was here growing up in the 70’s and 80’s. When David got here I do not know.
Said ‘many’… was not trying to cast aspersions on Colin… my sincere apologies if it was taken that way… fact is, many folk came in 90’s, early 00’s, and wanted/want to build the moat and pull up the drawbridges, once they were inside… I/we came to Davis in the ’70’s… have seen no reason for a moat, much less pulling up the drawbridge.
Good clarification, Ron G…
I think you misunderstood my point
I don’t think I misunderstood anything. Please disabuse me of my understanding.
I wasn’t trying to say that literally no one would take that position. I was saying that there is a problem with doing so.
Only if you believe that the ends don’t justify the means.
The horse has already left the barn.
And since they have plenty of nearby “barns”, it’s unclear what “problem” you’re trying to solve.
Have you seen how large Spring Lake is, for example? And, how much more they’re planning to build beyond that? (Including a “technology park” with 1,600 more homes?) And, they still won’t be “done” after that.
And that’s just one nearby community.
And regardless of what Davis approves, the price difference alone will ensure that most will choose nearby communities, instead. Where they get the type of (more-spacious) housing they (families in particular) want. Even more so, since many will now be expected to work at home due to a permanent shift in telecommuting.
“The horse has already left the barn.”
There are other horses that can come back to the barn.
Well, there’s lots more barns to come (as noted), as well.
The existing and new barns in Davis (such as those at The Cannery) appeal to horses with money (e.g., Bay Area transplants, or reasonably well-off locals). Same thing regarding El Dorado Hills, Folsom, Roseville, Lincoln, etc. Those with a little less money end up in Natomas, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Woodland, West Sacramento, Dixon, etc.
Still haven’t identified the “problem” you’re trying to solve.
I question the feasibility of making meaningful inroads in affordability under the present circumstances. Subsidies can nibble around the edges of affordability, but the only way to finance subsidies is to effectively tax (though it’s never called a tax) large numbers of the higher-end houses that well-heeled families are interested in buying.
The heyday of affordability in Davis occurred in the ’50s, ’60s and even ’70s when Davis was a small quiet town to which most people moved only because they got a job on campus or in Sacramento. No one moved here because of the cultural amenities (because there weren’t any), and the school system, while good, wasn’t a big draw. UCD and state government were in growth mode, land was cheap and development restrictions were few, so Bill Streng and others built thousands of small, modestly-appointed and inexpensive homes that 1-income white-collar families — and even many blue-collar families — could afford to buy. Those families were the market at the time, so supply met demand. Most houses didn’t have air conditioning and you had to leave town to buy liquor, but it was okay. There were no highly-paid Bay Area execs or top-echelon state government people clamoring for expensive homes in the best public school district around. No Mondavi Center to put Davis on the cultural map. No cadre of Asian students paying big bucks for tuition at a top research university.
Despite that big growth spurt, Davis remained a relatively small city. It was compact and surrounded by farmland, so it still had a small-town feel. The downtown was still the cultural — such as it was — and business center, with banks, hardware stores, lumber yards (both of them!), grocery stores, general retail, and a few restaurants. No one drove to Woodland to shop at Home Depot, and Amazon wasn’t even a dream yet. City government was small, utility services were basic, and the cost of keeping up the newly-built parks hadn’t yet made itself fully known, so tax revenues mostly covered city expenses. The funding sea-change to be wrought by Prop 13 wasn’t yet visible on the horizon.
All that has changed. If Bill Streng were building houses today he’d be aiming them at the Bay Area refugee market, people with deep pockets who want a big house with high-end trimmings, the kind of house that generates big profits. He would agree to build a handful of small, less-well-appointed and thus less expensive houses, but they would comprise only a small percentage of the total. In order to get a few affordable houses you have to entitle a boatload of expensive ones; that’s the way subsidies work. And Davis voters don’t want to revive the massive building spree that happened in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, because Davis doesn’t want to become like West Sac or Vacaville.
I’d like to paint a rosy future for affordable housing in Davis, but I’m having trouble finding a way to get there. If the state split-roll proposal becomes reality, *maybe* there’ll be an opening for some kind of publicly-financed affordable housing initiative, but the idea is fraught with pitfalls. I think a more realistic scenario is the one decried by many here: continued gentrification of the existing housing stock, with a bit of not-very-affordable infill here and there, and the occasional Measure J approval of a new development that throws a bone or two at the affordable stock while mostly expanding the higher-end component. But if I’m forced to choose between massive growth and declining affordability, I’ll choose the latter.
Unfortunately we need to face the fact that stating this choice means that we will perpetuate segregationist housing policies. There is no other possible conclusion. What is more important to us, our personal privileges or making society better overall? That is the choice that we face and why continuing to allow Measure J/R/D to keep those with less financial means is a racist policy. There’s no way around this.
So, I know that this comment was not directed at me, but it seems to me that those seeking racial justice via uniform housing prices in every city, county, state and region throughout the country are going to have a tough road, ahead.
Probably easier to just advocate for the elimination of capitalism (or at least, rent and price controls).
And by that measure, I’m guessing that some places in the southern states, for example, are the “least racist” of all. Who knew? (Though truth be told, they’ve made some great strides. Atlanta may be one example.)
Places like Phoenix, as well. (Although that would be considered the southwest.) Maybe tell the former sheriff In that area, about that distinction.
And will somebody, please, tell us (definitively) if Asians are “people of color”. Because the answer seems to depend upon political arguments, and perhaps which group of Asians we’re referring to.
By the way, I saw a recent news report regarding affirmative action controversy, involving (I think) Yale and Harvard (in regard to discrimination against Asian student enrollments).
Game over, when it doesn’t exclusively involve white people anymore.
Asians are people of color. For the most part, however, Asians are not disadvantaged in modern America.
It was sort of a rhetorical question, but thanks.
It would be interesting to (objectively) explore the reasons that they are no longer disadvantaged. In any case, I’m glad that they’re not.
Of course, it would not be accurate to put all Asians into one category, either.
But it seems to me that the affirmative action controversy has “shifted” to Asians.
Last time you asked this question, I posted two very good and thorough articles. I don’t suppose you read them.
Maybe not, as I don’t recall them.
It’s not normally an issue that I have an enormous amount of interest in, until someone tries to use it as an excuse for development proposals, for example. Or, for some other nonsense.
I don’t support legalized discrimination against any skin color – including Asian enrollments. I think it’s a big mistake to attempt this, and ends up creating resentment and division.
Follow up question (for David)… in Asia, are caucasians people of ‘no color’? Africa?
At times, seems like “POC” is a euro-centric term…
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
I see affordable housing as not as an economic issue ethical issue, where the guiding principle is that “a community should help those who work in the community live in the community.”
Echoing the situation Jim mentioned, in order for Davis to be ethical about its housing situation, the community cannot let “the market” decide who has priority to live in the community.
As far as I can consider, the ethical priority list that market economic incentives fail to result:
1. People who work in essential sector in Davis
2. People who work for Davis
3. People who had worked for Davis
4. Dependents (those who cannot work) with ties in Davis
5. People who can work for Davis (but not yet working for Davis)
6. People who have work
7. People who can work
8. People with no criminal background
9. Others
A grocery worker with work in Davis belongs to Priority 1. A journalist reporting for Davis belongs to Priority 2 (this is only because journalism can also be done remotely).
I think this is the root cause of the ethical size of the housing issue. This issue happens when a community prioritize “housing market” instead of taking care of people who work in the community.
I think I understand your point, and it makes sense to me………………..but I don’t believe that “Affordable Housing” units can be reserved or otherwise restricted for those who work in the community.
I could certainly be wrong about this but my understanding is that “Affordable Housing” is a regional obligation, such that if you work in Sacramento, West Sacramento, Woodland, Elk Grove, etc. you would still be eligible to apply for affordable housing in the City of Davis if that is your choice.
Still looking for the policy allowing or forbidding local priority for Davis.
Apparently such priority is allowed elsewhere.
https://affordablehousingonline.com/housing-help/Is-there-any-way-I-can-receive-priority-placement-on-a-waiting-list?
§982.207 Waiting list: Local preferences in admission to program.
(b) Particular local preferences—(1) Residency requirements or preferences. (i) Residency requirements are prohibited. Although a PHA is not prohibited from adopting a residency preference, the PHA may only adopt or implement residency preferences in accordance with non-discrimination and equal opportunity requirements listed at §5.105(a) of this title.
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=c9ff9f894079da8363ba01f6b6ba9d10&node=pt24.4.982&rgn=div5#se24.4.982_13
Edgar,
Great work. Keep up the research. I’m pretty confident that a preference program favoring locally employed residents would make a big difference to many local voters, but sadly, I don’t believe that is the case.
Either way, it would be great to get an official word from the City of Davis on this point.
Using the same logic, DG won’t be calling the police when his car is stolen, his office is broken into, or a member of his family is missing, because:
I think policing needs some major reforms, and I will be calling the police when I need their services. And I think Measure J/R/D is rotten to the core, but I will be voting on DISC come November.
I propose: “The Right to Preserve My Inflated Property Value and Distant Hill Vistas” measure or TRTPMIPVADHV or something to that effect.
Slogan song: “It can only be JaReD!!!!!”
Ahhh… the name (phonetically) of “The Pretender”… love the allegory… much better than JeRkeD!
Perfect because folk like to pretend that they are preserving: prime ag land, burrowing owl habitat (inconsistent with cultivation of prime ag land), the environment, “vistas” (for those on the edge of recently developed property), local control (no need for CC), when all the time their deepest convictions lie elsewhere…
So, JaReD it is!
Thanks, Alan!
“But if I’m forced to choose between massive growth and declining affordability, I’ll choose the latter.”
Sort of a “Let them eat cake” argument. Still you raise an interesting point about the failure of Measure J to provide Affordable housing. In Measure J there is an exemption for Affordable housing yet no Affordable project has come forward in 20 years. Obviously that is something worthy of discussion but the CC didn’t want to do the hard work of actually evaluating if J needed improvement. Only by voting No on D can the community have an honest discussion about housing policy.
Oh well,
There is a large middle ground between massive growth and declining affordability. In fact, I am laying out a distinct middle group – slow to moderate growth.
You are laying out a fiction. Not one unit of housing has been built under Measure J in 20 years.
How am I laying out a fiction – I argued that we needed to do more?
You are laying out the fiction that we can have both Measure J and an Affordable or affordable market.
Your arguments are silly at best and down right naive in some cases. The facts remain that the Davis housing market is broken with students living under terrible conditions and families leaving for greener pastures. Only the rich can afford to buy here. The consequences of restrictive housing policies should be obvious to everyone yet somehow you perpetuate the fiction that the benefits of Measure J outweigh the costs.
Ron G… not quite true, but true in the main… limited… can think of many… including some affordable units, including some SF ones… all since 2000… none were subject to a JaReD vote, though… as a %-age, you are basically correct… but Measure J was in place…
If you meant units, affordable, or otherwise, subject to a Measure J/R vote, I believe you are absolutely correct (95% confidence level) at least as to units actually built, not just ‘approved’…
I’ll leave to David to cite his facts for his response…
Seems to me that Davis is on track to be a town without students, for the foreseeable future. It’s like a ghost town, right now. An “extended summer break”, if you will.
Tech workers are leaving the Bay Area (for places like Tahoe), now that they can work remotely. This trend has been extensively reported-upon, in the Bay Area. Rents are apparently dropping, there. Condos aren’t selling well, either.
Perhaps a day of reckoning, to some degree.
Meanwhile, it’s hard to find a place in Tahoe.
By the way, what is the status regarding the massive numbers of students attempting to cancel their leases? And, are apartment owners just going to “eat” the cost of those cancellations?
I can’t imagine that apartment owners are going to “win”, in this situation.
It will be interesting to see what the vacancy rate is, come fall. And what the overall impact on the town will be.
Another day of reckoning, if you will.
There’s going to be some permanent changes, overall.
I was kind of curious as to the amount of rent for the new Sterling apartments, so I found the link below. Looks like it ranges from $1,219 – $2,229 per “person” (bed? bedroom? unit?). Not sure if they charge separately, for parking in the multi-story garage.
And the part that I find most interesting is that you can have a cat that weighs up to 30 lbs.! (A 30-lb. cat might need his own bed.) Hell, you can even have a couple of them, apparently.
https://www.apartments.com/sterling-5th-street-davis-ca/fj1x9st/
Woops – up to $2,299 (per person or unit, or something). Maybe the cat knows.
The status is that – based on any available announcements – the City Council has done nothing. No hearing, zilch. It’s not clear how much leverage they have, legally or not (which doesn’t mean illegally.). They could at least have some kind of public meeting and invite state representatives, perhaps Garamendi would make sense, too. Also students, ASUCD, large and small landlords.
On Facebook I asked – and tagged most of the Council Candidates for ideas and whatnot and only three responded.
The petition has approximately four thousand supporters.
Anecdotally, a few landlords are lowering rent a bit.
Much more so, many students are offering discounts, like paying deposits, even subsidizing rent for the whole year at 50 or 100 bucks a month. Keep in mind that many of these folks have not even been in Davis since March, paying rent on 2019-2020 leases and then still obligated to pay for 2020-2021 leases they signed before the pandemic was more fully understood and UCD went remote.
Students post “room wanted” ads on Facebook and get dozens of replies in many cases.
There is a temporary distribution problem (which I originally called an oversupply problem). There are simply not enough tenants for available rooms. I suggested to the County (on August 5th) and a former neighbor in the UCD Dean’s Office (on August 10th) to figure out a way to rent many of these rooms that students would not have to double-up in rooms both on- and off-campus, as way to both reduce virus transmission and help out both students and landlords: No response. (Even if the doubled-up are split-up it still seems that there will be not enough bodies…)
A month ago people were looking for full lease takeovers, but there’s been a trend towards fall quarter only subleases, as apparently some think that pandemic will slow in a few months and school will be back more or less normally. I am not sure that that is the case, and I don’t know who is going to take a short sublet knowing that they have to move when there apparently could be another reversal and a scarcity situation later in the year.
But no one has real statistics about this, no one seems to be looking.
I am in what is supposed to be a summer sublet, in a 3-bedroom lease by room house. The landlord offered me a year-lease, but I have to either find two new housemates or take over the whole lease. I can’t do the latter. I like it here and would prefer to stay, so the curious bit is there’s not enough people looking, so it seems like it is not going to work out. In other words: There’s so much housing available that I have to move!
There are a lot of rooms open everywhere (of varying quality, as always), and clearly some landlords are feeling the pressure.
The salvation I suppose is Federal money funneled through the state. But I don’t see any politicians doing a thing. One thing that is clear is that anyone who leaves town will probably not be voting in Davis in November… though perhaps people coming back in the winter quarter might remember who supported their interests?
Colin called me pointed out he supported WDAAC.
“How am I laying out a fiction – I argued that we needed to do more?”
Yet you continue to support Measure J renewal.
What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome? It was the definition of insanity.
UC Davis and the City of Davis seem to be on divergent paths.
UC Davis in recent years has increased the percentage of first-gen students (currently at 40+%). Although I think the student life and culture of the city roughly accommodates such students, structurally I think they’re discouraged from settling in Davis, post-graduation. Housing & cost of living are too much for young adults who are starting off with a wealth disadvantage and who might be looking to settle down.
The City of Davis has been following a no-growth/slow-growth policy that tends to keep housing more inflated and out of reach for younger adults & families. It means that although the largest employer in town (UC Davis) has an attitude of economic accommodation and social mobility in college education for their students (a majority of whom are non-white), the city of Davis, home to many of UCD employees, is less accommodating to those same students after graduation.
First-generation students are not necessarily the same as students of color. Also not sure if Asians are included in the “people of color” category, in this example.
But one of the complaints regarding on-campus housing is that it is supposedly more expensive, than housing in the city. Perhaps because (unlike the city), UCD expects the housing to cover its own costs.
So, perhaps it’s UCD that engages in discrimination, using that logic.
Then again, if you have $45,000 /year to spend in non-resident tuition (for example), I’m pretty sure that you’ll find a way. And, I’m pretty sure that UCD welcomes the color of green.
“First-generation students are not necessarily the same as students of color. Also not sure if Asians are included in the “people of color” category, in this example.”
Asians (of all origins) are usually identified as people of color for purposes of student demographics.
The statistic for first gen students at UCD comes from here; they report 42% first-gen students among admitted students. Elsewhere they also indicate 42% first-gen among enrolled students, in case that distinction matters to you.
You can go to this page and then click on the link for ‘Student Ethnic Diversity’ and come up with the 2018-19 percentages: 22% white, 25% Hispanic/Latino, 27% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% African-American, 1% Native American, 2% Unknown/other, and 18% International students.
Odds are pretty high that 42% first-gen students are a majority students of color.
I’m not actually seeing that in the link you provided, but was referring to first-generation students in general.
Thought I’d do a quick search, and found this (from about 3 years ago):
https://www.jbhe.com/2017/10/education-department-releases-racial-data-on-first-generation-college-students/
In any case, perhaps UCD needs to lower their housing prices, to ensure that they’re not discriminating against people of color (e.g., compared to the city).
On a broader level, housing costs were previously analyzed on the Vanguard (by a guest commenter), who found that Davis housing prices increase more slowly than other communities (during periods of regional housing price increases), but decrease more slowly (when prices fall).
(Actually, that’s the same thing a real estate professional said to me about 20 years ago.)
That same commenter did not find any evidence (at all) that Measure J/R was contributing to higher housing prices. (And his article explored this in depth.)
But again, there are solutions (nearby), for those who don’t want to pay a premium for Davis housing. Which existed prior to Measure J/R, as well.
“…first-generation students come from families where their biological parents did not complete a four-year college degree.”
Source
Just noticed this, in the information Hiram provided:
These folks have “no color”?
Gee, you’d think that some of them might be added to at least one of the color categories already listed. (Which would therefore “reduce” the percentages of the other color categories within the total.)
No – I guess it wouldn’t, since the percentages of the other color categories don’t add up to 100%.
It would just be added to one or more of the existing categories (I suspect one in particular), while reducing the “International” category.
That’s how they report it.
But international students would likelier return to their home country after their time at UC Davis and a little less likely to be part of the domestic young adult population looking for homes, jobs, and places to settle down.
I interpret the remainder of the demographic groups to represent a California/U.S. domestic segment, and would be a better check on whether UC Davis and the UC system in general is truly serving a population that reflects the overall demographic makeup of California.
Seems like you have a different agenda?
Given the preponderance of International students (which would primarily be added to one of those non-white, but also non “brown” or “black” skin color categories), it seems that you are not as concerned as it first seemed, regarding skin color on campus vs. the city.
From your subsequent comment, it seems that you are are more interested in advocating for Californians, I guess.
In addition to higher rent for campus housing (vs. rentals in the city), there are audits which claim that the UC system as a whole “discriminates” against Californians, due to an entirely different type of color (already discussed). So, I would think you might be quite concerned about both of those issues, given your implied concerns.
The bottom line is that I’m not sure that you should be holding up UC as any kind of model (regarding “economic discrimination”), compared to the city.
“From your subsequent comment, it seems that you are are more interested in advocating for Californians, I guess.”
I like to see state tax dollars help California public institutions of higher education to be able to promote social mobility by providing opportunities for qualified first generation students. If that is really happening, then there will inevitably be higher percentages of students of color.
As I understand it, international students usually come to UC Davis paying full price. The more international students who come in paying full price, then that helps subsidize more California UCD students who cannot pay full price.
That’s apparently not what occurred, according to state audits. Or to put it another way, the UC system was apparently favoring non-resident students, over resident students (for a limited number of enrollments). I can find links to those articles, if you’d like. I’ve posted them before, on here.
Regardless, if UCD’s students are living in the city, then (by definition) the city is not discriminating against them.
Since UCD’s housing is apparently more expensive than that in the city, that would indicate that the city is more “welcoming” of students with lower-levels of income than UCD is.
I don’t think your initial argument is holding up very well.
Looks like these kinds of claims are still occurring, in that California residents are being referred to a school other than their preferred choice. (Presumably, with non-resident students able to attend their first choice.)
I find the following quote rather amusing, regarding turning down an offer to attend UC Merced:
https://www.newsmax.com/us/UC-system-california-universities-international-students/2020/07/20/id/978054/
This is somewhat different than what was described in the earlier audit report, which is also touched-upon in the article. As I recall, that had more to do with favoring non-resident enrollments, outright. (I can probably find that for you, if you’d like.)
Regardless, none of this has to do with the claim (reported on here, many times) that UC housing is more expensive than that in the city. And, the impact that would have on lower-income students. (Which is pretty much the opposite of what you first claimed, above.)
A couple more, for your reading pleasure. (I haven’t looked at these, in detail.) Of course, most of this stuff is outright illegal:
https://dailybruin.com/2020/02/22/ucla-parent-pleads-guilty-to-charges-in-college-admissions-scandal
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/06/20/college-admissions-scandal-university-california-ucla-uc-berkeley-rick-singer/1514356001/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/Audit-finds-troubling-errors-in-UC-admissions-in-15141448.php
What I don’t understand is those Hollywood stars (whose kids will be wealthy even WITHOUT going to college at all) taking the chances that they did. I’ve forgotten which schools that involved.
But yeah, I don’t look to admissions processes (or housing costs on campuses) as models of “equity”.
Living as a student in Davis is different from living as a family. As a student, it can be reasonable to rent a room in a house or an apartment. I did it.
Living as part of a family in Davis, then you generally want to occupy (rent, buy) the whole residence. That’s more expensive. I’ve done that, too.
But if I had to start right now and purchase my home at market value on the equivalent salary that I had at the time, I probably couldn’t do it.
Also the amount of student debt that students take on has grown over the years.
Have you had a different experience in Davis?
Hiram: You started off with this comment:
The point was that the city of Davis is actually accommodating those same UCD students, generally at a lower cost than housing on campus. So, I don’t accept the argument that UCD is doing a “better job” than the city even while they’re students.
Earlier, some were claiming that the megadorms would be suitable for young professionals, after graduation. I don’t hear them claiming that now.
Regarding rising housing prices (in general), I’d refer you back to Jim Frame’s observations. I thought his comment was pretty carefully written.
Regarding getting “priced out” of some markets, I suspect that a lot of Davisites came from the Bay Area, and would never be able to return to their home towns (due to an astronomical rise in housing prices in the Bay Area). And that this is a primary reason that they ended up in Davis (or in the region). That trend is continuing, as I’m sure you know. I also suspect that (as you noted), a lot of people would not be able to purchase their same house, today – especially those in the Bay Area.
This is actually one reason I’m concerned about DISC, due to its exacerbation of a housing “shortage”. DISC is expected to create a demand for 1,200 housing units in Davis alone (in addition to the 850 units onsite), and another 1,700 units outside of Davis.
Parts of the Bay Area housing market are apparently taking a hit somewhat (due to Covid/telecommuting) – see article, below. I often like to read the comment section of these type of articles (below), as the complaints sound quite familiar (e.g., “they wrecked the city long ago, etc., etc.”)
Ultimately, people move to where it makes the most sense for them, given their circumstances. And regardless of what one thinks of it, there are places very close to Davis which might make more sense for some – especially young families starting out. (Apparently, it does – given what’s occurring at Spring Lake and elsewhere.)
https://www.sfgate.com/living-in-sf/article/2020-San-Francisco-exodus-is-real-and-historic-15484785.php
Ron O.: “The point was that the city of Davis is actually accommodating those same UCD students, generally at a lower cost than housing on campus. So, I don’t accept the argument that UCD is doing a “better job” than the city even while they’re students.”
We seem to be talking about two different things. I was referring to UCD, as a highly regarded university (though maybe you disagree), attracting many first generation students to enroll. UCD shows up on a number of lists as being one of the top universities at doing this. Here’s one.
But once these students graduate, they are less likely to live in Davis because of reasons I already mentioned.
You seemed to think it was only about housing for students, while they’re students.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
> not sure if Asians are included in the “people of color” category, in this example.
> I’m pretty sure that UCD welcomes the color of green.
Green Asians are clearly a key ingredient in UCD’s business model.
Green Asian… did its name end in “…zilla”?
Identify the three most important topics for future planning needs and priorities facing the Davis Community.
Lack of traditional single-family homes below median cost.
Budget stability/economic development.
UC/city planning issues.
This list would have been different a couple of years ago.
#1 would have been rental housing for young adults. That problem is largely solved, thanks to the strong actions of four successive councils and the decisive vote on Nishi.
Downtown Davis: given the pushback and lack of progress on the parking issue, I think this process is becoming less than productive. I suggest that consultant-driven planning processes aren’t all that helpful. The next council needs to rethink this approach.
Measure J: foregone conclusion. It’s just an added problem in getting things done. I’m less concerned now that two Measure J projects have actually passed, but I think it’s an impediment to the needed development of single-family homes with yards. Which is what we need.
I am delivering garden and landscape supplies to Spring Lake 2 – 3 times a week. I’m also meeting some very nice folks, new to the Davis area, from The Cannery. I am reminded of these comments from a real estate broker I saved in 2019:
Springlake “currently consists of about 1,500 single-family homes, 70% of which are occupied by Davis/UC Davis based individuals. Indigenous Woodlanders occupy around 15%, a small minority and Bay Area settlers the remaining 15%.”
“About 80% of the homes, etc. in the … nearly built-out Cannery project were purchased by Bay Area and out-of-state transplants.”
Woodland is building the houses we need in Davis. Davis is building houses for the Bay Area. Our demands for density and other requirements are affecting the demographics of who purchases them.
I believe that Spring Lake (alone) will have around 4,000 residential units. There will be another 1,600 residential units at the “technology” park (that moved from Davis).
And then, the city of Woodland will entertain development proposals on other large parcels.
Given that places like Woodland are going to do this anyway (and at a lower price point), I don’t see what the “problem” actually is (as far as Davis is concerned).
As a side note, I believe the “indigenous” Woodlanders (or Davisites) were displaced about 150 years ago.
And frankly, I’d estimate that at least 1/2 of “current” Davisites came from the Bay Area (or elsewhere) in the first place.
Along with about 1/2 of the population of the entire region.
And, many were “displaced” from the Bay Area.
Yards. That need trees. And plants.
Alan M and Ron O: if either of you have anything useful and intelligent to add to this conversation, by all means do so.
I thought I was, at least. Just adding onto what you noted.
I think Alan was just making a joke, not to be taken seriously. (But adding onto that – they have YARDS, at The Cannery? A one-tomato-plant plot? And with the cost of water – $10 in water, per tomato?) 😉
you speak truth . . . I volunteered up a plot for some students to use who didn’t have a yard, and I pay for the water . . . certainly many tens of dollars per month since end of winter. . . and not one da*n mature tomato, much of the other crops eaten by ground squirrels, and little harvest overall. When we had unlimited water, it made economic sense to have a garden, nowadays, garden tomatoes can be worth their water costs in gold.
I’ve seen one of those SOBs carrying about 3 tomato cherries in his mouth, back to his hole. Repeatedly.
It’s like watching a dog stuff 3 tennis balls in his mouth.
Warning – “embellishment ahead”:
And then, he kicked-out a burrowing owl that was trying to move in to his hole, when the owl’s home at Mace 25 became purposefully uninhabitable. Chucked a tomato at him.
Seems a bit of a misuse of the word “indigenous” as we commonly use it today. I don’t think we’re talking 15% Patwin.
Woah, DS, certainly you’re aware of the condition of existing rental stock? Everything from conditions requiring residents to use the cooling center (no AC, no shade, no insulation, original windows and related: no solar panels, limited control of overall energy use) to questionable carpet, one bathroom for 3 to 4 people (no half bath), old appliances and lighting fixtures and a lot of overall bad original design that forces tenants up against each other with small rooms and thin walls and isolates them from the street or doesn’t encourage useful interaction with neighbors.
There are a lot of homes – mainly houses – which are quite a bit nicer, and I’ve lived in a couple. And reasonable landlords. But consider also those that are refusing to communicate with tenants trying to get out of leases, refusing to meet them half -way on expenses.
Further, there are a lot of people who rent who are not “young adults”.
This problem is not anywhere near to be solved. The Council does little, there’s only small movement in NRC and perhaps Social Services. We need a Rental Housing Commission that can focus on this, ideally populated by a majority of renters…. if that’s legal. There’s also a possibility that next Council will have two renters; while other expertise and perspective is crucial, that could make a big difference.
Sure. I was focused on the numbers: the supply. Projects have finally come forward and been approved by the council and the voters, and UCD is finally building a lot of units. The apartment vacancy rate should improve from a tenant’s standpoint, finally. The condition of current rental stock reflects the complete lack of incentive many landlords have had to improve things because they can rent no matter what. That should change. I keep seeing people who assert that we can slow down on approvals because of COVID-19, and my reply would be that I would love to see the day when we have a stable minimum of 5% apartment vacancy in Davis. Until then it is pretty absurd to talk about slowing down on rental housing supply.
What would be your top three priorities?
Clearly the “market” affects this, but I’ve seen places at the same price point, over and over, in extreme variety of repair and updating. The landlords who update without charging high rents are simply more compassionate, less interested in short term profits. Stronger regulation would force them to change, would level the playing field. The perfect analogy for many apartments is the condition of many roads: People with good suspension are isolated from it.
There is a “market” factor, that is not rental price… I say this as a landlord of a SF residence for 20 years (no more, ain’t going to do it again)… TURNOVER… a landlord/apt rental person/company, makes the best ‘profit’ when there is little/no ‘turnover’… so, we priced our rental @ what it took to cover mortgage, property tax, etc. But also looked at “market”… our ‘profit margin’ given the above, maintenance/repair, etc. was around 4%… not a great ROI… but, it was positive… barely, given Fed/State income taxes… the worst 3 years we had were when tenants changed… slight negative cash flow.
Corporate MF landlord folk know this… at a substantially higher level… they have to weigh ‘market’ pricing against not just vacancies, but also turnover… it is not real simple economics, altho’ some would like to simplify, to make their ‘points’…
1) Planning
Meant as friendly amendment, Alan:
Fact is, Davis has done more “reaction” or “processing”, than “planning”…