In a communication that is perhaps a week old, Chancellor Linda Katehi calls it, “Defining the future of UC Davis.” And with talks of “a path to academic excellence” and “a drive for economic growth,” reading between the lines it sounds a lot like a recipe for population growth in Davis.
What becomes clear is that the decline of state revenues is pushing UC Davis toward a different path that will invariably rely more on private growth and less on public assistance.
She writes, “Today we find ourselves at a defining moment in our history as a campus. The state, faced with increasing needs and dwindling revenue, is no longer able to provide sufficient support to sustain the excellence of its public universities. Reduced state funding is a chronic challenge and not a temporary condition. Private philanthropic support, although very important and growing, cannot balance out the state budget reductions and has forced the University of California to substantially increase tuition.”
She acknowledges the need for efficiency and cost-cutting efforts: “As you are all aware, since the fall of 2009 we have made and continue to make every possible effort to become more efficient and to reduce costs. Our Organizational Excellence Initiative and other cost-cutting efforts are visibly reducing expenses and improving efficiency.”
But clearly that is not enough.
The Chancellor writes, “Nonetheless, we have now reached the point where there is a clear choice. We can either accept that permanent reductions in state support will define a new status quo for UC Davis in which our ability to sustain excellence is constrained by limited resources, or we can take control of our destiny by developing new strategies and adopting new budget models that will move the campus forward in the coming years.”
“I am committed to the latter course of action, and propose a strategy below to accomplish that goal,” she writes.
Few would argue with her goal to make UC Davis into a world-class university and find ways around current state budget constraints, but the devil is always in the details.
The Chancellor writes, “Almost unique among the 10 campuses of the University of California, UC Davis has a physical footprint that is compatible with larger undergraduate and graduate cohorts; more than 6,000 acres and 17 million square feet of maintainable space.”
Moreover, these circumstances combined with the kinds of infrastructure investments in the past ten years, has according to the Chancellor, positioned the campus “well to leverage our resources through careful and strategic planning.”
At first, the plan seems fairly mundane. She talks about increasing the enrollment of the campus and pursuing an increasing blend of out-of-state students that would augment the university’s coffers.
The specific proposals need to be unpacked, however. She talks about bringing “the benefits of a UC education to a greater number of deserving students” and becoming financially stable.
She talks about internationalizing the campus, “to create a more diverse educational climate and to prepare future global leaders.”
But the big part of this is talking about adding 300 new tenure-track faculty positions, which would bring the total to about 1800. That would represent about a 20% increase in faculty, and obviously a corresponding increase in students.
Current enrollment is about 33,000 – a 20 percent increase would explode the campus to nearly 40,000 students. It also means corresponding growth for infrastructure and support staff.
That will require “Improve our existing infrastructure and make investments needed to sustain and grow excellence across the campus” and “Boost regional economic development and create new jobs on and off campus.”
As one person put this, it is a radical plan that if she were able to pull it off, would change Davis just as much as the giant growth of the 1960s and 1970s that turned Davis from a tiny town to the modest city of 65,000 that we are today.
Of course, she reminds us, “Throughout the process, we must always remember that our focus is on innovation and excellence; not growth simply for growth’s sake, but rather creating a university that can sustain its rising trajectory through its own efforts, leveraging the state’s support and rising above the fiscal limitations we now face.”
That is fine. The city, of course, has its own interest for attempting to leverage the growth at the university and turn it into the kinds of high tech spinoffs that can benefit Davis’ economy.
At the same time, we need to be very wary of what these kinds of massive and radical changes can do to our community.
As the Chancellor writes, “We also look forward to strong partnerships with our Davis and Sacramento communities and the surrounding region, with a shared goal of creating positive outcomes for our campus and its neighbors.”
But the university does not always work well with its neighbors. Recently Sue Greenwald was troubled by the expansion plans for the conference center at the Hyatt. In this case, there is the potential for fiscal impact, “Expansion of the Hyatt Place hotel on the UC Davis campus has the potential of affecting the Transient Occupancy Tax collected by Davis hotels, as well as the sales taxes generated by travellers staying at Hyatt Place and other hotels.”
This was of course done without the consultation of the city of Davis.
So, the city did not want to antagonize the university by opposing this, particularly when the city is planning its own Hotel Conference Center that figures to have similar impacts on the university. The city also has to be mindful that the university operates on its own and has a history of failure to consult with the city prior to huge changes that occur.
The Hyatt Center is a good example of this. As the city staff report noted, “Hotel occupancy has dropped in Davis over the past decade. Causes include the national recession and increased competition from hotels outside Davis, including the Hyatt Place hotel.”
Moreover, as the city staff report noted, “The UC Davis Conference Center has not provided the benefit to the economy that was originally anticipated.”
They continue, “In April, the City Council approved comments on the Initial Study for the Hyatt Place expansion. The comments included a need for a full economic study for an adequate baseline for the analysis of the fiscal impacts of the project, and the potential for urban decay.”
According to their EIR: “The Hyatt Place Draft Environmental Impact Report concludes that the project will not result in hotel closures that would lead to physical blight. This conclusion is based on a market analysis and impact study prepared by the HVS consulting firm. HVS concluded that the Davis hotel market appears poised to benefit from a new supply of hotel rooms that could help fill the accommodated demand and create induced demand.”
This is a good example of a university initiative that may have hurt the city and has not helped the region.
So, when Chancellor Katehi talks about an Innovation Hub, she wants to work with the regional partners. However, is she going to be responsive to the inevitable concerns of long-time Davis residents to massive growth at the university and the pressures it will put on the city to grow?
The Mayor has put a premium on the notion of establishing partnerships with the university, but a partnership has to work both ways.
As the Chancellor writes, “As we examine this idea and the opportunities it may bring to UC Davis and the region, we need to remember that success will require openness to new approaches and the development of a new activity-based budget model that provides incentives for success. Further, it will require a culture of creativity, team work, regular assessment, continuous improvement and discipline.”
One can interpret that to mean a number of different things, including the willingness for the city of Davis to expand and change its views on growth
This is certainly something to watch. To date, few have taken notice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The UC system has expanded the size/population of campuses in other cities w impunity, and caused problems for the surrounding cities, bc it would not take responsibility for the problems it caused to the surrounding area. I believe there was a subsequent lawsuit, and I thought the case stood for the new proposition that universities that expand have to be more mindful of the repercussions of their own growth on the surrounding neighborhood/cities. I don’t have time to research it this morning, so I could be wrong about this. If someone else knows something, please feel free to “fill in the blanks”.
Secondly, this privatization of public universities has a real downside, in that we are so busy inviting out-of-state/out-of-country students to beef up revenues from the greater tuition that garners, we are failing to educate our own in-state students. This is criminal, IMHO, and is going to have serious repercussions for the future. Microsoft and other business leaders are currently arguing, as we speak, to be permitted to bring in employees from foreign countries – bc there are not enough qualified people inside this country to fill the necessary slots. The business leaders are threatening to establish businesses overseas if they don’t get what they want. And what Katehi is proposing feeds right into this problem…
[quote]So, the city did not want to antagonize the university by opposing this, particularly when the city is planning its own Hotel Conference Center that figures to have similar impacts on the university.–David Greenwald[/quote]First off, the council did vote to oppose this — just in a manner that points out the mutual benefits of helping each other.
There is a common misperception that there is the Hiatt is a
“University Hotel”. No, the Hiatt is a private hotel located on University land, with all of the taxes revenue going to the county. The University does not benefit from the hotel, except in that it want to have modern, high-quality hotel near the University.
If the city could provide such facilities, the University would be happy. What we have essentially asked them to do is to give us a little time to show that we can do the job as well or, we believe, much better at a location that is better for both us and for them.
[quote]The University does not benefit from the hotel, except in that it want to have modern, high-quality hotel near the University. [/quote]
I think you answered your own question – the hotel would be on campus, very high end… and I have one question – which was planned for first? The university’s hotel or the city’s? Because it seemed as if the University got tired of waiting for the city to build a hotel/conference center, and decided to just go ahead and build its own. But I have not followed this issue at all, so my sense of things is only perception, but may not be accurate in reality…
UC Davis’ claim all along has been that the conference center would actually help downtown Davis (including the hotels!) by bringing in more visitors. However they have not provided any real evidence for this claim and economic theory and common sense would indicate that the opposite would be true.
The EIR’s data indicates that occupancy rates are actually very low in Davis and have declined over time (albeit with a small uptick last year as the economy recovered)–we have a few peak times and the rest of the time hotels suffer.
As Sue mentions above, the UC hotel essentially competes with downtown hotels. It also potentially draws visitors away from downtown restaurants and shopping. Given that transient occupancy taxes are a vey lucrative source of revenues, it’s hard to see how this is for good Davis and the University should reconsider expanding the Hyatt. This is a big deal for all those folks out there who continually talk about our downtown.
The EIR also claims that currently many UC Davis conference people are staying in Sacramento at fancier hotels–and that these folks will now be staying nearby–a net plus for Davis. I don’t know anyone who does this. Does anyone else ? I think this is just smoke and mirrors.
In short, it is the University’s position that adding hotel space on campus will HELP Davis hotels. Simple supply and demand would indicate otherwise.
If the UC wants to work with us they need to provide an honest evaluation of the true impact of their project. The EIR the University has provided reads like an EIR for a Wal-Mart–everything is rosy so don’t worry your pretty little heads Davisites.
I see no inherent problem with expanding UC Davis, but the City needs to make sure we do not lose out. The conference center is really a somewhat different issue but it certainly points to a need for more town-gown dialogue.
[i]”The EIR also claims that currently many UC Davis conference people are staying in Sacramento at fancier hotels–and that these folks will now be staying nearby–a net plus for Davis. I don’t know anyone who does this. Does anyone else ? I think this is just smoke and mirrors”[/i]
Dr. Wu, I think there is a point here. My company certainly does this. In Davis, all the hotels are two-star locations and all are next to railroad tracks. We would keep more business in town we had a nicer hotel with nicer conference facilities. However, like you, I cannot understand how having the facility on UC campus will help the city.
The Chancellor’s vision can be boiled down to the following:
Increase the full-paying Asian student population at the school to fund building more ego shrines.
[quote]I think you answered your own question – the hotel would be on campus, very high end…E. Roberts Musser[/quote]I’m puzzled Elaine, I didn’t have a question. I do agree that the University wants to see a high-end new facility.
I agree with Jeff Boone and with the University that many people now stay in Sacramento because our existing hotels don’t conform to what they want, right or wrong. I have seen this myself. The hotel that we are planning at Richards will more than fulfill these University needs and expectations, plus it will be nicely located to take advantage of both the School of Management facilities and Freeborn and other campus facilities, as well as have larger conference facilities. It will also be convenient to all the hotels in town, including the Hiatt. It will be located adjacent to downtown, and will have easy access and far better freeway visibility.
It is in the University’s best interest to give us a year to get this off the ground. I think it will more than fulfill their needs and expectations.
A a few resources related to my point above:
[url]http://chronicle.com/article/Number-of-Foreign-Students-/49142/[/url]
[url]http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/International-Students/Leading-Places-of-Origin/2008-10[/url]
[url]http://www.iie.org/Research-and-Publications/Open-Doors/Data/Fact-Sheets-by-Country[/url]
[i][quote] “As we examine this idea and the opportunities it may bring to UC Davis and the region, we need to remember that success will require openness to new approaches and the development of a new activity-based budget model that provides incentives for success. Further, it will require a culture of creativity, team work, regular assessment, continuous improvement and discipline.”
“One can interpret that to mean a number of different things, including the willingness for the city of Davis to expand and change its views on growth.”[/quote][/i]What David suggests here might already be clear. Is the City of Davis open to new approaches and interested in working on world-class initiatives with UCD? What resources do we have to contribute?
Asked and answered. We loudly announce that we want to stay the way we have been and the way we are. We love ourselves just the way we are. Our concept of an environmental initiative is to compete with UCD in the Zipcar business. Our idea of being a partner in a national initiative is to move the bicycle museum into our kids’ teen center.
UCD leaders want to undertake a major business tie-in on property next to the university. The city is locked into an old unworkable, business park concept (on the opposite side of town!) that never gets off the ground because businesses, developers and anyone else with the where-with-all to act has no interest.
UCD moves out on their development plans. Davis leadership whines, claims the university gets no benefits from doing what they’re planning, dismisses the draw the university has inherently and is expanding, brags about our exciting downtown while unable to move more than six vehicles into town at a time, and on and on.
We can’t understand why a neighbor university would want us to appreciate what growing the university by 10,000 students and faculty would require of us. If we don’t want development in Davis or on adjacent land that would enlarge the city whatsoever.
Given our announced vision for the city, how can we even think of criticizing them for moving out on their building needs on their own property. What possible sense or difference could it make to them that the county gets the tax benefits instead of the city.
As long as our biggest visions as a municipality revolve around recurring panics to chase down sales taxes revenues (using RCA money) so we don’t have to eliminate a few dozen city jobs, we will be unable to even pretend to be a minor player in UCD’s grand plans.
Asked and answered. Too bad.
More unintended consequences. The university will grow on its own land in the county because the city will not accommodate the universities needs. I fully expect the nimby’s to go down fighting for every inch but in the end growth in Davis and its surroundings is inevitable. It would be better to plan for it and do it wisely but the reflexive anti-growth positions cemented by J and R are going to result in ever worse planning decisions over time.
Oh and one other thing. Isn’t calling a UC Chancellor radical an oxymoron? Or could it be that you are so far removed from reality that to you her clarion call to make UC Davis prosper and grow for the benefit of the state, nation and world seems radical.
Ever since we arrived in Davis 24 years ago, the University has said that it is expanding to accommodate 40,000 students. If it hasn’t happened during the boom years, I doubt it will happen now. The University already has a business park but it never got off the ground.
Anything could happen, but history and the current economy suggest slow change to me.
I don’t think “The business leaders are threatening to establish businesses overseas if they don’t get what they want. And what Katehi is proposing feeds right into this problem…”
Elaine, I think you misunderstand the chancellor’s proposal.
Katehi is planning to increase both domestic and international student attendance at Davis through growth. But a large share of the additional students, who pay high fees, will be from out of state or international.
I fail so see how this limits opportunities for domestic or California students. In fact it protects the excellence that makes UC Davis so much more attractive to students then non-research universities such as Sac State or Chico State. While there are fine teaching institutions, why are students so much more eager to attend a UC?
Chancellor Katehi is doing a great job of moving forward in the face of vastly decreased support from the state budget. Good for her!
I’m sorry to see Katehi seems to be another water-carrier for the internationalists. I suspect that the era of internationalism will be drawing to a close in the not-distant future, as citizens of various countries come to understand that their elected and nominated representatives are not acting on behalf of the best interests of its citizens, but in the interests of international big business under the direction of big finance. The two interest sets are not coincident.
[quote]I fail so see how this limits opportunities for domestic or California students. In fact it protects the excellence that makes UC Davis so much more attractive to students then non-research universities such as Sac State or Chico State. While there are fine teaching institutions, why are students so much more eager to attend a UC? [/quote]
There are only so many student slots. If they are filled by those students who pay out-of-state tuition, such as foreign students or those who do not live in CA, then the students in CA cannot get in. This is already happening as we speak. It is getting tougher and tougher for in-state students to be admitted into the UC system. I urge you to read the Tom Elias column that was in the July 12 Davis Enterprise about this very issue…
From Wikipedia:
[quote]Expansion plans
Main article: Long Range Development Plan (UCSC)
Plans for increasing enrollment over the next 14 years to 19,500 students, adding 1,500 faculty and staff, and, secondarily the anticipated environmental impacts of such action encountered opposition from the city, the local community, and the student body.[19][20] City voters in 2006 passed two measures calling on UCSC to pay for the impacts of campus growth. A Santa Cruz Superior Court judge invalidated the measures, ruling they were improperly put on the ballot. In 2008, the university, city, county and neighborhood organizations reached an agreement to set aside numerous lawsuits and allow the expansion to occur. UCSC agreed to local government scrutiny of its north campus expansion plans, to provide housing for 67 percent of the additional students on campus, and to pay municipal development and water fees.[21]
George Blumenthal, UCSC’s 10th Chancellor, intends to mitigate growth constraints in Santa Cruz by developing off-campus sites in Silicon Valley. The NASA Ames Research Center campus is planned to ultimately hold 2,000 UCSC students – about 10% of the entire university’s future student body as envisioned for 2020.[22][23][/quote]
Sorry, I was in such a hurry to get out the door the morning that my comment was rife with errors. Here it is cleaned up:
First off, the council did vote to oppose the hotel expansion — we voted to oppose the expansion in a manner that points out the mutual benefits of University-City cooperation. Since most faculty and staff live in Davis, it is to the University’s benefit to assure that we have enough revenue to provide quality services for their employees.
There is a common misperception that the Hyatt is a
“University” Hotel. No, the Hyatt is a private hotel located on University land, with all of the tax revenue going to the county. The University does not benefit from the hotel, except in that it wants to have a modern, high-quality hotel near the University.
If the city could provide such facilities, the University would be happy. What we have essentially asked them to do is to give us a little time to show that we can do the job as well or, we believe, much better, at a location that is better for both the city and the University.