This week UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi unveiled a major campus initiative that would increase the number of students and faculty by large numbers in the next five years.
“The goal is to continue creating a university that can sustain its rising trajectory through its own best efforts, leveraging support from the state but rising above the fiscal limitations we now face,” said Katehi, who announced the 2020 Initiative during her annual fall convocation address, which traditionally launches the beginning of the new academic year.
Given the reality of shrinking state support for higher education, Katehi said UC Davis has two choices:
Accept permanent reductions in state support, which will continue to constrain UC Davis’ ability to excel, or, take control of the campus’s own destiny by developing new strategies and budget models that will move the university forward in the coming years.
“Today we find ourselves at a defining moment in our history as a campus. Since you cannot cut your way to greatness, the choice for me is clear,” Katehi said. “If we develop and expand our campus in a thoughtful and deliberative way, and if we increase the population of highly qualified resident and nonresident students and create an ever-growing endowment fund – as we are doing already – we will have a business model that works. Even in tough times like these.”
The Chancellor was joined at a Wednesday press conference by a few community representatives, including: Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor; Solano County Supervisor John Vasquez; Davis Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson; Michael Bisch, co-chair, Davis Downtown Business Association; and Rose Cholewinski, vice chair, Davis Chamber of Commerce.
“The state funding situation is dire and UC Davis must take a more direct role in its future success and sustainability,” Supervisor Saylor said. “Clearly, Chancellor Katehi is acting in a responsible manner, and I applaud her for opening up a dialogue with the surrounding community to help shape UC Davis’ direction.”
According to the news release, “At the same time, UC Davis is unique among the 10 campuses of the University of California, with a physical footprint that is compatible with a larger undergraduate and graduate student population. The university has nearly 6,000 acres and 17 million square feet of maintainable building space.”
“This fortunate circumstance, combined with our investments during the past 10 years in the physical infrastructure of the campus, positions us well to leverage our resources through careful and strategic planning,” Chancellor Katehi said.
UC Davis’ preliminary analyses indicate that by adding a combined 5,000 more instate, out-of-state and international undergraduate students in the next five years, the university can accomplish a number of important goals, including: “Bring the benefits of a UC education to a greater number of deserving students;” “Become financially stable;” “Make our campus more international, to create a more diverse educational climate and to prepare future global leaders;” “Provide sufficient additional revenue by 2020 to support an additional 300 new tenure-track faculty positions, bringing the total to approximately 1,800 FTEs (full-time equivalents);” “Improve our existing infrastructure and make investments needed to sustain and grow excellence across the campus;” and “Boost regional economic opportunity and create new jobs on and off campus.”
Coverage from the Davis Enterprise suggested “Chancellor Linda Katehi’s plan to counteract state budget cuts by adding 5,000 undergraduate students and 300 tenure-track faculty positions – all in the next five years – drew support from several local elected officials and campus leaders on Wednesday.”
The article headline claimed: “Davis leaders support UCD plan for growth.”
In fact, two elected leaders spoke in support of the project. Supervisor Saylor, who is among the most pro-growth figures in Davis politics, was quoted by the Enterprise saying, “I appreciate (Katehi’s) comment ‘Enough is enough,’ and her statement that the university is taking its future in its own hands. I applaud the tone that was set today … and I pledge ongoing support from Yolo County.”
However, his colleagues on the Board of Supervisors indicated that he had not even been provided a copy of the Campus’ plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson was quoted, saying that “she believes the addition of 5,000 new undergraduates and 300 new faculty will have a positive effect.”
“In the last few years, we have seen an increased vacancy rate for housing within the city, it has been a real hit,” Councilmember Swanson said as quoted in the Davis Enterprise. “As the economy has fallen, some people have had to choose to leave school. With diminishing family resources and grant resources, where you used to see two people in a two-bedroom apartment, now you see four people.”
However, Mayor Joe Krovoza, who as Mayor of Davis would be a natural spokesperson in such an event, particularly as an employee of the university, was notably absent from the event.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald was, in fact, critical of the plan, “I read that the Chancellor says that she plans to rely heavily on out of state students for the increase in student enrollment.”
“It is a bit difficult for me to decipher the tuition, but out of state tuition appears to be about $35,000 a year. This also appears to be about the same as tuition at Harvard and Yale (anyone, please tell me if I read this incorrectly),” she wrote.
“A perceptive person recently told me that State Universities across the nation are courting out of state students to try to raise more money,” she continued. “He said that the competition is great for these out of state students, and pointed out that the private universities are also competing for these students who can pay so much.”
She concluded, “It is not clear if there are enough well-qualified, well-heeled out of state students to go around. We’ll just have to see.” Though she later added that it appears the out of state component is more nuanced.
The Sacramento Bee, generally a supporter of all things growth, was circumspect on the plan.
They write, “Katehi sees the 2020 Initiative as a way for UC Davis to control its own destiny and not be at the mercy of state budget cuts. Its reputation (ninth among public research universities in the latest U.S. News & World Report rankings) is on the rise, but the university is at a turning point.”
“Will it balance the books by continuing to slash jobs and programs? Or will it become financially stable by growing instead? The choice is clear to Katehi: ‘You cannot cut your way to greatness.’ “
“Still, this will not be easy, or without controversy,” they write.
Getting back to the issue of out of state students: “UC campuses should put a priority on educating more deserving California students. But for the numbers to work without additional tuition increases, many of the new students – as many as half – would come from other states or other countries. They would pay more than two times what in-state students do, generating more cash.”
Apparently the Chancellor told the Bee editorial board her goal is to increase the number of out of state students from 4 percent to ten percent.
“Even as UC Davis adds students, she wants it to be more selective in admissions (it accepted nearly half of applicants last fall). Recruiting more out-of-state and international students is also part of that equation,” they write.
The Bee naturally sees this as a big opportunity for the City of Davis.
“This can be a big opportunity for the City of Davis – if it can work with the university. While the city doesn’t have planning jurisdiction over the campus, and Davis officials appear generally supportive so far, Katehi made clear that if they drag their feet too much or the university runs into too much resistance, she’ll take projects to Sacramento, West Sacramento or elsewhere,” they write.
This is the part that becomes concerning to us. First, Davis officials, from the ones I talked to, seem guarded and circumspect on the planning, waiting to see and understand the specifics before jumping in. They do have the support of two of the more pro-growth officials in Davis, but Mr. Saylor has yet to see a project that he does not like.
Second, the university is going to attempt to leverage economic opportunities that the City of Davis wants into growth policies that the university wants. West Village is just the first such step.
The fact that the chancellor would threaten to take projects to elsewhere in the region shows the danger involved in these kinds of projects.
The Bee concludes, “When everyone else around here seems to be retrenching, this daring plan is refreshing. For UC Davis to pull it off, it will need support from the entire region.”
That is perhaps true, but perhaps Ms. Katehi needs to make sure that she is working with the community, rather than against it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]The University of California, Davis, generated [b]$5.5 billion in local economic activity[/b] during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, according to a new report by the university’s Office of the President.[/i]
UCD is a self-contained community with it’s own police, fire, infrastructure, and governance – not to mention a relatively competent planning department. What do you suppose the City of Davis offers that they don’t have now, or have the capability to generate in the future?
So they are the 800 pound gorilla – (where does the 800 pound gorilla sit in the movie theater – anywhere he wants)? And if true why do they Saylor, Swanson and Bisch standing in front with the chancellor?
Unlike the no growth view espoused here they are all thinking globally and are acting locally.
The logical way for UCD to achieve Katehi’s goal without burdening the City of Davis would be to build one (or more) highrise apartment-style dormitories just west of A Street on the south end of Toomey Field. There would be two significant benefits to that approach, 1) the students living in the highrise would have immediate walking access to downtown Davis, adding a major economic shot in the arm for the Downtown, and 2) the students living in the highrise would add to the vitality of the UCD core campus.
The only thing that grows in Davis is its already overinflated opinion of itself.
Neutral
09/23/11 – 06:01 AM…
UCD is a self-contained community with it’s own police, fire, infrastructure, and governance – not to mention a relatively competent planning department. What do you suppose the City of Davis offers that they don’t have now, or have the capability to generate in the future?
WATER, and we will be paying for it dearly!!
Steve, I don’t understand your answer. Can you elaborate?
Adding 5,000 more qualified undergraduate students in the next five years and supporting 300 new tenure-track faculty positions will increase UCD’s projected water needs beyond their current aquifer pumping capacity. We, the utility ratepayers of Davis, will be UCD’s “water supply” safety net during the planning and development stages of UCD’s expansion
@ Steve: as you know, UCD will be selling the City of Davis water for the next ten years.
To Don et al. The volume of water UCD will provide to the City is “parsley on the plate” as far as regional water supply politics is concerned. We all know that the projected Woodland-Davis Project water supply will be the “meat and potatoes” for future regional population growth. UCD’s Project is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak
[i]”Adding 5,000 more qualified undergraduate students in the next five years and supporting 300 new tenure-track faculty positions will increase UCD’s projected water needs beyond their current aquifer pumping capacity. We, the utility ratepayers of Davis, will be UCD’s “water supply” safety net during the planning and development stages of UCD’s expansion”[/i]
The surface water project was sized to handle UCD . . . and still is sized to do so. If UCD wants to join the project they will have to pay their fair share.
Right now the $325 million costs are split $170 million for Woodland and $155 million for Davis. If UCD joined and used the same amount of water as Davis is projected to use, then in round numbers the costs for Davis woulod reduce by $50 million and the costs for Woodland would reduce by $55 million.
[i][quote]”She concluded, ‘It is not clear if there are enough well-qualified, well-heeled out of state students to go around. We’ll just have to see.’ Though she later added that it appears the out of state component is more nuanced.”[/quote][/i]Meaning? Is Sue agreeing with herself? Disagreeing? This is a little too subtle to comprehend.
[i]”To Don et al. The volume of water UCD will provide to the City is “parsley on the plate” as far as regional water supply politics is concerned. We all know that the projected Woodland-Davis Project water supply will be the “meat and potatoes” for future regional population growth. UCD’s Project is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.”[/i]
Steve, the controls on future regional population growth are fully in place via Measure J/R and the 1% Growth Cap. Am I hearing you correctly that you have no faith in those controls?
Davis is a University town and towns with only one industry (education in this case) are sort of obligated to go along with the industry. This “no growth” stance in a university town seems similar to the Tea Party “no new taxes” approach and that is killing us!
Now we will definitely need four firefighters on an engine!!!
Matt:
“Steve, the controls on future regional population growth are fully in place via Measure J/R and the 1% Growth Cap. Am I hearing you correctly that you have no faith in those controls?”
I don’t recall voting on West Village, do you?
No David, but how does West Village tie into Steve’s statement that, [i]”We all know that the projected Woodland-Davis Project water supply will be the “meat and potatoes” for future regional population growth.”?[/i]
The idea that Davis can block UCD’s growth by stopping the Davis/Woodland surface water project is a red herring.
They don’t need us. If we can’t get our act together, they’ll just go their own way. Although I was initially concerned that the rate payers would be subsidizing the optional UCD portion of the project, I was wrong. I’ve read the agreement and can find no evidence that we’re not getting a fair deal.
[i][quote]”Davis officials, from the ones I talked to, seem guarded and circumspect on the planning, waiting to see and understand the specifics before jumping in.”
“That is perhaps true (that UCD ‘will need support from the entire region), but perhaps Ms. Katehi needs to make sure that she is working with the community, rather than against it.”[/quote][/i]Which secret “Davis officials” are told you they aren’t “jumping in” to cooperate with Chancellor Katehi in planning for this initiative?
Sounds like a perfect recipe for the city to end up left behind here. Why aren’t our officials working on our behalf on something that will have such a big impact on our city? So, it’s just fine for our representatives to ignore her appeals for our active participation, to sit off to the side taking potshots, then to whine when things turn out differently that we claim we had wanted them to?
Is our mayor, “notably absent from the event,” one of the reluctant officials who confessed to you? You imply Krovoza boycotted the news conference–what’s the reason?
[quote]No David, but how does West Village tie into Steve’s statement that, “We all know that the projected Woodland-Davis Project water supply will be the “meat and potatoes” for future regional population growth.”?[/quote]
Matt: it means that the University does not adhere to 1% or Measure J or R, and therefore the idea that Davis is somehow protected from growth on its borders is false.
Just Saying: You imply things that I never said. All I said was Mr. Krovoza was notably absent. If he was supporting the growth, he would either been there or had a statement. Therefore he is notable for his absence. I did not say he was boycotting the news conference.
I cited two other officials in the story.
And although I agree water is a major issue, so is housing. But as soon as they add some they demolish as well. They must be just “so $$ broke” if they can demolish buildings as fast as they can build them, not to mention the waste stream they are creating.
[i]”it means that the University does not adhere to 1% or Measure J or R, and therefore the idea that Davis is somehow protected from growth on its borders is false.”[/i]
not “false”
Just “has its limits . . . and always has had its limits.”
The south border of Davis is Solano County, and it has never been realistic to think that a Measure J/R vote applies to Solano County land.
In addition, do you see a 5,000 student increase at UCD as part of the the [i]”meat and potatoes” of future regional population growth[/i]? I certainly don’t. Further the increase in students is wholely independent of any Woodland-Davis water decision. UCD has determined it needs to increase enrollment simply to survive the State’s draconian budget cuts.
Further, many of us have been yelling long and loud for UCD to do its part to gert to the UC target of housing 40% of its students on campus. Raising enrollment numbers by 5,000 will only work if UCD steps up and provides on-campus housing for the the added enrollment.
[i][quote]”The south border of Davis is Solano County, and it has never been realistic to think that a Measure J/R vote applies to Solano County land.”[/quote][/i]Come to think of it, is there [u]any[/u] Davis-UCD border area that’s located where it would give people the “idea that Davis is somehow protected from growth on its borders” with the university by Measure J/R?
In any case, do we an unspoken expectation that the university will stop growth/development on its land because we want the city to maintain our no growth/low growth status?
I don’t have that expectation.
However, I would strongly prefer that they add their additional residential space as close to the core campus and the City of Davis downtown as possible. We want to encourage a vibrant central UCD campus and lots of walking traffic to downtown Davis businesses.
If UCD did put up one or more highrise apartment-style dorms on the south end of Toomey Field, I would hope that they would make living there include a “no car” requirement.
This area has a long history of not annexing UC Davis so why should UC be concerned about measure R or the cities no growth attitude. As the Chancellor noted if Davis doesn’t get on board the University will grow regionally. Sadly, this means Davis opposition will lead to more leap frog development. So much for no growth being environmentally sustainable.
What is the problem with UCD expanding into Solano County? We would get the lion’s share of the business activity, assuming that the students/professors have reasonable access to our downtown. UCD would be legally obligated, as Bay area court decisions on this issue have ruled, to pay for the “impacts” that its expansion would inflict on the city’s infrastructure and service(police and fire) requirements.
“This area has a long history of not annexing UC Davis so why should UC be concerned about measure R or the cities no growth attitude. As the Chancellor noted if Davis doesn’t get on board the University will grow regionally. Sadly, this means Davis opposition will lead to more leap frog development. So much for no growth being environmentally sustainable.”
Interesting thought. If the University were to leap frog, where would you expect them to land?
[b]David Greenwald:[/b] I didn’t “criticize” the chancellor’s plan at all. I just said I didn’t know if it would work, in that the number of California high school graduates are falling and projected to fall further and there is a lot of competition from both private and public universities for those students who can afford the very high fees that out of state students are charged.
If the enrollment increase relies heavily on foreign students, I wonder if it could further lessen political support for the university, in that could be a negative political action from the legislature if people perceive that UC is serving out-of-state and foreign students.
I didn’t say it was a bad idea, and in fact I don’t have strong opinions about it. I hope that if the University does succeed in increasing student enrollment, that do their own planning in such a way that encourages University-serving retail and hotels to be located within the city borders, since otherwise all the sales tax and property tax goes to the county, and it is the city, not the county, that provides the municipal services that keep the city attractive to faculty, students and staff.
Our country has relied on those born abroad for much of our scientific and business achievements. I just don’t know how it will play out, and I take a wait and see attitude.
“So much for no growth being environmentally sustainable.”
First of all, it’s not no-growth but sustainable slow growth.Secondly, UCD will act as it wishes;-)avis has no ability to control UCD policies but we can make every attempt to shape our own destiny.
The exchange here misses the point almost entirely. UCD is confronted with enourmous fiscal challenges due to, among other things, State funding cuts. The Chancellor has examined her options and determined that thrashing around in fiscal misery and gnashing her teeth is not a viable option. Instead, she has has made a bold decision to grow UCD out of its problem by increasing the student body, primarily through out of state enrollment, and to do a much better job of generating a private sector return on their public research. It has gone entirely without notice in this exchange that the 2 guest speakers were two entrepeneurs with strong UCD connections!
If only the Council had the same courage. Why are we not pooling our finanical resources and taking advantage of our opportunities? Why is the Council not implementing policies and building projects that generate jobs and tax revenue? Why are we not embracing campus, an economic engine second to none? Instead we keep cutting services, not repairing roads, etc., hoping that state funding will kick in again before we collapse. Where is the collective leadership?
To head off what is likely to be a predictable response, I’m not talking about going on a subdivision building rampage. I’m talking about creating an environment that is conducive to entrepeneurial activity. Instead, we’ve created an environment that is, perhaps not hostile to entrepeneurial activity, but certainly insensitive to it. And I’m not singling out any Council member in particular; rather, it’s a collective failure of this and previous Councils. We shoot ourselves a constant stream of own goals with our incessant planning, talking, worrying, hand-wringing, and goofy comments from the dais.
Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman, Co-President of the DDBA and owner of Davis Commercial Properties
I pulled a punch moments ago. The Council has fostered an environment that’s fairly hostile to business. Mori Seiki is the exception that proves the rule.
Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman, Co-President of the DDBA and owner of Davis Commercial Properties
It’s always difficult to tell from these sorts of statements by the Chancellor exactly what she is expecting the community to do. West Village took something like ten years from proposal to opening. There are no campus facilities projects underway or planned or proposed that I am aware of that would house 5000 students within five years. There are no housing projects in the planning stage that would address the needs of this demographic. The ConAgra site does nothing for this market.
As I’ve said before, West Village only covers some of the enrollment growth of the last decade, and doesn’t cover this. So is Chancellor Katehi saying, in effect, the local communities are going to need to produce 1500 – 2000 more housing units, since UCD isn’t going to?
This growth proposal will worsen the existing vacancy rate (from the renters’ standpoint). reduce the availability of affordable housing for the non-student population of Davis (you know, the people who work at your local businesses and on the UCD staff).
It is odd to read people blaming Davis officials for these conundrums, when enrollment growth decisions are made by the Chancellor without any concomitant effort at creating local housing solutions. If UCD will guarantee to house the 20% or so of that 5000 increase in new on-campus housing, perhaps the city council could agree to develop a new affordable-housing policy that could spur construction of lower-cost housing within the existing city limits. Aggressive rezoning, fast-tracking of apartment proposals, even revisiting the 50-50 split for the ConAgra site if the housing percentage is [i]entirely[/i] highest-density.
I challenge the Chancellor to identify how 5000 beds can be created in five years. In the absence of that cooperation, her proposal simply exacerbates the existing housing problems.
IF UCD joined and used the same amount of water as Davis is projected to use, then in round numbers the costs for Davis would reduce by $50 million and the costs for Woodland would reduce by $55 million
Far too many if’s,speculation and outright unknowns while Davis voters are being asked to commit to paying for the bond issue.
[quote]Just Saying: You imply things that I never said. All I said was Mr. Krovoza was notably absent. If he was supporting the growth, he would either been there or had a statement. Therefore he is notable for his absence. I did not say he was boycotting the news conference. [/quote]
Mayor Krovoza may have been absent because he had a previous commitment. Or perhaps he felt the CC was ably represented by Rochelle Swanson. If you want to know how Mayor Krovoza feels on this issue, why don’t you ask him? Or did you already? If so, would you care to share?
” Katehi made clear that if they drag their feet too much or the university runs into too much resistance, she’ll take projects to Sacramento, West Sacramento or elsewhere,” they write.”
UC Davis Medical Center, one of the best hospitals in the country, is not in Davis. Too bad for Davis. Will we continue to farm out our resources through obstinate foolishness?
[i][quote]”You imply things that I never said. All I said was Mr. Krovoza was notably absent. [b]If he was supporting the growth, he would either been there[/b] or had a statement. Therefore he is notable for his absence. I did not say he was boycotting the news conference.
I cited two other officials in the story.”[/quote][/i]When “the natural spokesman” who “would have been there or had a statement…if he was supporting the growth” is described as “notably absent,” I’d say it’s fair to assume you intended to imply the mayor abstained from participating in order to express his displeasure (or, “boycotted”). What are you suggesting if not that?
With respect to the other two (or three?) elected officials you quote, I’m wondering why Sue’s “criticism” (along with her mysterious “perceptive person’) warranted such play? Her 176 words of coverage outnumbered Don’s and Rochelle’s (52 and 94) [u]combined[/u], but it’s not clear whether she even attended. (Then, again, one has to wonder whether the reporter was at the event either!)
It looks like this isn’t really news coverage, but a no-growth preemptive strike against UCD’s options.
Otherwise, why minimize and/or discredit those you perceive as supporters (“a [u]few[/u] community representatives, only “two elected leaders spoke in support,” the [u]Enterprise[/u] coverage is wrong, “most pro-growth” Don with no copy “likes every project,” the [u]Bee[/u] “naturally”)? Hence, you give not a single “supporter” credit for making honest evaluations on the merits.
Then “the other side” gets covered by gossiping that Don’s unnamed colleagues on the Board of Supervisors claim “he had not even been provided a copy of the Campus’ plan,” by extensive reporting of Sue’s criticisms (apparently she–and her perceptive pal–[u]did[/u] get a copy upon which to base her critique?) and by implying that unnamed “Davis officials” (except for two pro-growth types) have reservations they’ve confided in you.
[quote][i]”Mayor Krovoza may have been absent because he had a previous commitment. Or perhaps he felt the CC was ably represented by Rochelle Swanson. If you want to know how Mayor Krovoza feels on this issue, why don’t you ask him? Or did you already? If so, would you care to share?”[/i][/quote]Excellent observations and questions, Elaine.
In my opinion, the tone makes it appear the news conference is just being used as a peg to discredit a point of view with which David disagrees.
One problem with this approach is that the issues get lost. It would be helpful if characterizations of the people, their motives, etc., were left out of these reports–regardless of how each of us feels about UCD, city growth or any of the “real issues” involved.
I can’t fathom that the mayor meant something adverse by having Rochelle represent the city at the news conference. It doesn’t make sense without some evidence, and it doesn’t sound like the way Joe would operate.
Given the number of events that must compete for their time, I’d guess they’re covering for each other quite a bit.
[i]”UC Davis Medical Center, one of the best hospitals in the country, is not in Davis. Too bad for Davis. Will we continue to farm out our resources through obstinate foolishness?”[/i]
Bad example. UC never farmed out its resources with respect to the Med Center. For fiscal reasons the Sacramento County Hospital needed a buyer and the Medical School needed a sufficient patient throughput to accomplish its teaching goals. Davis’ population simply doesn’t have enough sick people to provide the necessary cases. UC purchasing the County Hospital solved two birds with a single stone.
[quote]With respect to the other two (or three?) elected officials you quote, I’m wondering why Sue’s “criticism” (along with her mysterious “perceptive person’) warranted such play? Her 176 words of coverage outnumbered Don’s and Rochelle’s (52 and 94) combined, but it’s not clear whether she even attended. (Then, again, one has to wonder whether the reporter was at the event either!)
— [b]JustSaying[/b][/quote][b]Again, I was NOT criticizing the chancellor’s position[/b]. I wrote a couple of off-topic posts the other day in response to Don Shor’s off-topic comments about the Chancellor’s speech. (I would link to it but I don’t remember what article it was posted under).
I offered some observations about the challenges: Declining number of California high school students graduating, stiff competition from public and private universities throughout the country for students who can pay the high out of state tuition and fees, and potential political resistance if a large fraction these students come from other countries.
It was just some brief, neutral observations. I because of the challenges listed above, I said we would just have to wait and see what happens.
I don’t know why David called it a criticism.
P.S.– David took his material from my posts. I made it clear that I was at a Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority meeting Wednesday morning, so I couldn’t go to the convocation.
Hardly neutral Sue. Gee, when you wonder if there are enough students to go around at prices competitive with Harvard or Yale or if she can pull it off. Raising the specter of failure coupled with your history of opposition to growth leaves one wondering how this will effect your view that we are over carrying capacity. When the consequences of being over carrying capacity of a species in an ecosystem is a population crash aren’t you worried about what this means for the inevitable demise of Davis’ population?
D2:”First of all, it’s not no-growth but sustainable slow growth.”
Call it whatever euphemistic term you like it still has costly consequences that you overlook.
[b]Toad:[/b]I was trained as a sociologist and I analyze things. I am a passionate supporter of public education, and I really don’t know what the best direction for the University is given the political priorities of our legislature.
Mr Toad
“When the consequences of being over carrying capacity of a species in an ecosystem is a population crash aren’t you worried about what this means for the inevitable demise of Davis’ population?”
I would be if that were what I saw as “inevitable”. Fortunately I do not see that as the only possible outcome. I think that use of terms such as ” crash” and “inevitable demise” is overly dramatic and geared to generate undue concern about something that is unlikely to happen.
In past posts on this site, most notably with regard to ConAgra, you and I had appeared to be in agreement that from around 1980 to 2000,
There had been substantial growth in Davis.
Census Year Davis Population
1920 – 939
1930 – 1,243
1940 – 1,672
1950 – 3,554
1960 – 8,910
1970 – 23,469
1980 – 36,640
1990 – 47,090
2000 – 60,380
2010 – 65,622
So, from the numbers it would seem that it has only been within the past ten years that growth has significantly declined. Given that the number of 65,000 is very close to the target number of the General Plan adopted in 1987 and intended to cover until 2000. If you are in disagreement with that number, I would be interested in hearing what you think the appropriate amount of growth should have been, and more importantly, what you think the population increase should be over this decade with support for your numbers.
The past five years have been marked by the local, state, national and international economic downturn. These cyclic events are something we cannot predict, let alone control. Given the current state of the economy, it seems to me wise to not be pushing for development that is not affordable for the majority of the younger population that you have seemed to favor attracting in previous posts.
While I am very much in favor of UCD attempting to retain and expand upon it’s current reputation for excellence by creative financing ideas, and expansion of academics rather than hoping for increased state support, I do not believe that this means that the city should rush into building more relatively unaffordable housing hoping to drive down prices with excess.
I do not see this as a case of only two alternatives, stagnation and demise vs a return to rapid growth of largely unaffordable projects. Surely there is some room for flexibility in terms of slowing or cessation of growth during periods of economic downturn with the anticipation of resumption of growth as warranted when people can actually get loans and afford to buy.
[quote][i]”Given that the number of 65,000 is very close to the target number of the General Plan adopted in 1987 and intended to cover until 2000.”[/i][/quote][b]medwoman[/b], what are the other numbers? The 2000 “target” and subsequent “targets” (2010, 2020) if there are such things.
JustSaying
I was posing this as a question to Mr. Toad who frequently posts in favor of increased growth. In order to take a strong stand in favor of growth, it seems to me it would be reasonable to have formulated some idea of what amount of growth one would find desirable. My enquiry was about his opinion about what the optimal population of Davis should be and what he is basing it on.
Reading this a day later, it seems David wanted to [i]believe[/i] Ms. Greenwald was critical of the Chancellor’s plan. Parochial self-interest rarely is.
It would be interesting to contact the property owners who might be considering development proposals in or adjacent to Davis and ask if any of them are considering, or could be incentivized to consider, building apartments or other high-density housing anytime in the next five years.
If not, there is nothing that Davis can do that will help provide for the non-freshman percentage of this enrollment increase.
The university generally provides housing for its freshman class. It would also be interesting to ask the university housing officials if they have plans underway to house the percentage of that increased enrollment that would be freshmen, of if they are expecting the community to provide that housing as well. All of that would have to be above what is provided by West Village.
As a taxpayer and resident of Davis not working for the university, I don’t see much upside to the UC grow plan. The downsides appear numerous:
-More people
-More traffic
-More strain on city services
-Educating more wealthy foreign Asian students to help their country take over more American industries and jobs
The sad reality here is that the California state colleges, with cost inflation factors many times more than average inflation, have priced themselves out of the market for education services. The UC system is bloated and inefficient. Even after several years of tuition increase, only recently was a plan unveiled to combine UCD admin services to reduce administrative expense. The lack of urgency making this change is telling. It should have happened years ago, but apparently the empire-inflating mindset is a hard one to break.
There is no bold vision here. You cannot cut yourself to greatness, but you also cannot just become greater by expansion unless expansion is your only goal.
The mission of any college should be to deliver the highest value education services to its customers. After graduating with their $125k four year degree that took them five years to complete, many local resident students still cannot find work except making pizza and flipping burgers. So, why should I support any expansion of the same…especially with all the other downsides?
[b]medwoman[/b], I’m interested in the figures if you have them. I’m assuming you know the “target number” for 2000 since you noted it’s very close to the 65,000 actual population in 2010. I’d also like to know if 2000 wrapped up the effort, or if we’ve got targets into the future.
JustSaying
I do not have current or future target numbers. I don’t even know if they currently exist.The target number of around 65,000 for 2000 was based on an article on population growth in Davis written by former Mayor Rosenburg whose numbers I trusted sine he was the mayor at the time. I am sorry, I am completely unsophisticated at posting links ( and my computer consultants, aka children, are both away at school) so I can’t give it to you directly, but I got there by Googling Davis population growth to read up on the background of what was happening in my absence from 1983 to 1991.
Again this was just an enquiry on my part. I have no special population planning information, but I bet David, or Rich, or Don might have some knowledge. What say you guys ?
Jeff Boone, you seem to forget that UCD is also a research university, not just a teaching college. It is exceedingly strange that the community CHOOSES to not profit from the research conducted on campus. The community also seems to be confused about the term “growth”. For whatever reason, we seem to think the term equates to housing or population growth. The term can also mean job or economic growth. Our economic output per square foot of real estate is far too low, especially given the massive economic engine next door. We could solve a lot of self-baked problems were we to make a concerted effort to increase our economic productivity instead of relying on state and federal funding. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little interest in this notion on the Vanguard or elsewhere in the community. How does one account for the lack of interest?
MD” Given that the number of 65,000 is very close to the target number of the General Plan adopted in 1987 and intended to cover until 2000.”
Well by your own figures we are at least ten years behind.
JB”As a taxpayer and resident of Davis not working for the university, I don’t see much upside to the UC grow plan. The downsides appear numerous:
-More people
-More traffic
-More strain on city services
-Educating more wealthy foreign Asian students to help their country take over more American industries and jobs As a taxpayer and resident of Davis not working for the university, I don’t see much upside to the UC grow plan. The downsides appear numerous:
-More people
-More traffic
-More strain on city services
-Educating more wealthy foreign Asian students to help their country take over more American industries and jobs “
Of course if Davis didn’t have the university it would be more like Dixon or Winters or Vacaville or Esparto. The point being whether you realize it or not living here provides you with the benefits provided by being in the community that hosts one of the world’s great research universities. So i would suggest that rather than trying to shape the $5.5 billion/year economic engine to your liking you should support the vision laid out by its leadership for its continued greatness. Finally what is up with your racist remark about Asian students? Who said anything about Asian students?
[i]”We could solve a lot of self-baked problems were we to make a concerted effort to increase our economic productivity instead of relying on state and federal funding.”[/i]
DT Businessman: Good points. The city does not exploit the economic benefits of having a top-level research college. However, I think this is somewhat exclusive of my problem with the chancelor’s vision of mega growth.
Mr. Toad: As pointed out by a number of people, there are not enough out of state students to satisfy the increase. The university would have to rely on a large increase in foreign students. The majority of these students would be from Asian countries. The same countries that we compete with for industry and jobs.
Mr Toad
I don’t understand your assertion that “by my numbers we are at least 10 years behind”. As far as I know, the General Plan did not put forth a target beyond 2000. As I stated to JustSaying, I have no knowledge of any stated goals beyond tbat point so oi would be impossible to say if we are ahead, behind, or right on target, since I know of nothing that states that continued population growth is essential to well being.
Once again, I am asking you if you know of any set goals for this decade or if you have any personal idea of specifically how much population growth you would favor, and on what you are basing thar preference?
I appreciate the comments of DT Bussinessman making the distinction between economic and population growth. DTB, what specific steps would you like to see the city take that you feel would be favorable, besides the parking garage and associated shops? And how would you see your suggestions complimenting the plans of the university?
I would be willing to bet that Chancellor Katehi is planning on a significant % of those 5,000 new students to be some kind of online learning program, that does not require the university to provide classroom or dorm space. The UC regents have been talking this sort of thing up for some time.
@ medwoman; not speaking for DT Businessman, but the simplest would be to move forward with development of the Nishi farm site as a business development with some residential.
I don’t think there is a specific target population; rather there are guiding principles. My recollection is that the population size of Davis is guided by the General Plan, plus the voter-approved advisory that growth shall be as slow as legally possible, with a cap (not goal) of 1% annually (I think) to keep Davis in line with SACOG requirements. West Village counts toward the SACOG formula.
As to commercial and affordable housing issues, I personally believe property currently zoned for office/industrial should be rezoned to allow highest-density housing as an optional use. That would free up property between 2nd and 5th, as well as in South Davis, for apartments, and they could still have non-retail commercial development. As for the ConAgra site, if I were emperor of Davis it would be 50% apartments, and 50% reserved for business.
Don: Nishi looks like a good fit on paper, but how do you deal with access? A below grade crossing would be very expensive and Richards could not deal with the outflow on the other side.
David, access to Nishi is really pretty straightforward. Extend the existing westbound Richards I-80 onramp until just west of the bicycle underpass and then provide entrance and exit access there. You would also want to bifurcate the existing westbound Richards offramp so that an added access lane parallels the existing right lane of I-80 and merges with the existing onramp. You see this configuration currently at the I-80 / I-5 interchange when going from Davis to the Airport.
Don Shor
Thanks. I believe you are correct about the 1% “cap”. I had forgotten.
And emperor, how would you go about mitigating the transportation needs of all those apartment dwellers? Bus? Shuttle? Let them ride bikes?
On a less flip note, I agree with an all affordable housing model if we put housing on that site, but am having problems with the lack of adequate entrance and exit from the site for a large population as well as the increased traffic burden on Covell. Also, there is that issue of the east border railroad. Do we really want to be creating an “Olive Drive North ” in terms of railroad crossing ?
65000 in 2000 should be about 73,000 in 2011 even at the absurdly myopic growth rate of 1%.
The world has gone from 6 to 7 billion in that time.
As for out of state students I’m sure they will come from all over the country and the world just as they do today. Most of the asian looking students on campus were born here, just try talking to them and you would see their english is often quite good. After all some of their families have been here since the gold rush, before Kearneyism, the Chinese exclusion act, Japanese internment, props 187 and 209, my family and perhaps yours.
Part of running an empire is educating the elite from all over in your philosophy so that they can return home and influence their countries in our system. Of those from China would you prefer they learned Maoism. Of those from the Middle East what phiosophy of education would you prefer, or of those from Russia?
Of course, once again, I must point out the arbitrary nature of censorship on this blog where the most obviously racist remarks are allowed to persist while others are taken down for no understandable reason.
Mr Toad: [i]”Of course, once again, I must point out the arbitrary nature of censorship on this blog where the most obviously racist remarks are allowed to persist while others are taken down for no understandable reason.”[/i]
In the 2009 school year, 62% of foreign college students were from Asia. The trend line is up.
Race colored glasses generally make it impossible for a person to consider simple facts and statistics.
Mr Toad: [i]”Of course, once again, I must point out the arbitrary nature of censorship on this blog where the most obviously racist remarks are allowed to persist while others are taken down for no understandable reason.”[/i]
In the 2009 school year, 62% of foreign college students were from Asia. The trend line is up.
Race colored glasses generally make it impossible for a person to consider simple facts and statistics.
“DTB, what specific steps would you like to see the city take that you feel would be favorable, besides the parking garage and associated shops? And how would you see your suggestions complimenting the plans of the university?”
We need to create an environment conducive to entrepreneurial activity. Much of it is intangible, some of it is tangible. To start with, I’d like to see the Council stop shooting own goals (from my pro-jobs perspective). Counterproductive comments and decisions are made weekly from the dais with entrepreneurs watching or reading about it. This would not be happening if the Council were more attuned to the mindset and needs of entrepeneurs. The Council needs to stop telling business owners what’s good for business and start listening to the business sector instead.
Second, the City needs to make it an absolute priority to transform the Core from low density to a much greater output of economic activity. The Core has incredible potential as a dynamic, mixed-use, urban center, just the type of environment conducive to entrepreneurial activity, the arts, retail, entertainment, etc. I’m quite certain campus would embrace this transformation, but I’m equally certain they’re not holding their breath. The City needs to implement policies and pursue certain key projects that will then incentivize the private sector to realize this transformation. The transformation will be exceedingly difficult so long as the Council makes kowtowing to neighborhood associations, save the bungalow types, the anti-change crowd, and other narrow interest groups a higher priority than generating jobs and economic activity.
Simultaneously, I’d like the City to continue to pursue a Nishi/Gateway project. Do what you have to do to solve the access issues, but get on with it. Likewise with ConAgra. I have my concerns with the commercial component potentially undermining the effort to transform the Downtown, but we need to get on with the high-density housing to address our housing and jobs imbalance.
All the while the community leadership needs to embrace entrepreneurial activity and celebrate it, not try and control it, ignore it, and at times actively work against it.
“DTB, what specific steps would you like to see the city take that you feel would be favorable, besides the parking garage and associated shops? And how would you see your suggestions complimenting the plans of the university?”
We need to create an environment conducive to entrepreneurial activity. Much of it is intangible, some of it is tangible. To start with, I’d like to see the Council stop shooting own goals (from my pro-jobs perspective). Counterproductive comments and decisions are made weekly from the dais with entrepreneurs watching or reading about it. This would not be happening if the Council were more attuned to the mindset and needs of entrepeneurs. The Council needs to stop telling business owners what’s good for business and start listening to the business sector instead.
Second, the City needs to make it an absolute priority to transform the Core from low density to a much greater output of economic activity. The Core has incredible potential as a dynamic, mixed-use, urban center, just the type of environment conducive to entrepreneurial activity, the arts, retail, entertainment, etc. I’m quite certain campus would embrace this transformation, but I’m equally certain they’re not holding their breath. The City needs to implement policies and pursue certain key projects that will then incentivize the private sector to realize this transformation. The transformation will be exceedingly difficult so long as the Council makes kowtowing to neighborhood associations, save the bungalow types, the anti-change crowd, and other narrow interest groups a higher priority than generating jobs and economic activity.
Simultaneously, I’d like the City to continue to pursue a Nishi/Gateway project. Do what you have to do to solve the access issues, but get on with it. Likewise with ConAgra. I have my concerns with the commercial component potentially undermining the effort to transform the Downtown, but we need to get on with the high-density housing to address our housing and jobs imbalance.
All the while the community leadership needs to embrace entrepreneurial activity and celebrate it, not try and control it, ignore it, and at times actively work against it.
[quote]All the while the community leadership needs to embrace entrepreneurial activity and celebrate it, not try and control it, ignore it, and at times actively work against it.[/quote]
Can you give more specific examples of the current CC, or are you referring to past CCs? And what specifically IYO are you referring to when you say the CC has tried to “control”, “ignore”, “work against” business? These are broad brush statements, that really need to be clarified, so we can better understand where you are coming from…
Also, I think you have to understand that the city has COMPETING INTERESTS it must address constantly, and there may be a natural tension between those competing interests. You make it sound, and correct me if I am not interpreting your words correctly, like the CC doesn’t take much into account the downtown and its businesses if ever… but perhaps that is not what you meant?
[quote]All the while the community leadership needs to embrace entrepreneurial activity and celebrate it, not try and control it, ignore it, and at times actively work against it.[/quote]
Can you give more specific examples of the current CC, or are you referring to past CCs? And what specifically IYO are you referring to when you say the CC has tried to “control”, “ignore”, “work against” business? These are broad brush statements, that really need to be clarified, so we can better understand where you are coming from…
Also, I think you have to understand that the city has COMPETING INTERESTS it must address constantly, and there may be a natural tension between those competing interests. You make it sound, and correct me if I am not interpreting your words correctly, like the CC doesn’t take much into account the downtown and its businesses if ever… but perhaps that is not what you meant?
DTB
Like Elaine, I am hoping you can provide more specifics. When speaking in such generalities, it sounds to me, as a person not involved in business as though you are portraying all business as good, and all opposition as bad. I am sure that as Elaine states, you are probably well aware that the situation is much more nuanced than that.
1) First the Council moves the 3/4/E/F project forward on a 5-0 vote and then when they go to hire an architectural firm 2 Council members reverse themselves without any substantive change having occurred. That sends a horrible message that the Council is not a reliable partner.
2) S. Greenwald announces from the dais that if 3/4/E/F does move forward, she is all for the City retaining control of the retail component so that the City can control who the tenants are. Again, that sends a horrible message that the Council desires a command/control economy.
3) S. Greenwald announces from the dais that she’d rather see the Council use the 3/4/E/F funds to purchase the 4th/G parking structure. Such a purchase ties-up $12 million or so, yet does nothing to stimulate economic activity and sends a message to the businss community that the Council doesn’t understand economic basics.
4) The Council adopts the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy in June 5-0 and then 2 Council members flip flop on the first CEDS project that come before them (3/4/E/F). Again, this goes to whether the Council is a reliable/ predictable partner which is a highly valued commodity in business.
5) The Council sends a hostile letter to UCD regarding the Hyatt expansion at the same time that the City and business community is attempting to engage with campus on a number of economic development opportunities. Way to go, let’s see if I can really piss-off an extremely valuable business partner while gaining nothing.
6) The Council pursues water rate increases without notifying or engaging with the business community at all and without assessing the impact on economic activity. Are you not at all curious how many business might go under, how many jobs may be lost, how much disposable income might be sucked out of the local economy?
7) The Council is considering implementing Downtown on-street paid parking. The merchants are telling the Council this is a very bad idea based on customer feedback. The Council seems to be giving more weight to contrary advice they are receiving from academic scholars and bicycle advocates with no retail experience and no financial stake in the matter.
I could go on and on. Don’t get me wrong, the Council has also made some pro-economic development decisions, but this Council’s actions and public comments have been decidely mixed. And when you factor in Council comments made in private discussions, it is very disconcerting, especially when they start arguing with business owners about what is good for business. It’s one thing to say hey, there are competing community interests at play here. It’s quite another for a Council member with no business experience to start lecturing business on what’s good for business or to take business advice from individuals with no business expertise. Pretty strange, that.
[b]DTB[/b], please provide the council’s “hostile letter to UCD.”
What is the venue for the city/business engagement with UCD for such opportunities. Is there a permanent structure, committees, etc. with representatives of at least these three interests?
Where have you been. You were quiet so long, some of us thought you’d moved to some other DT.
The hostile letter can be found in a Council packet on or about April 19th. Venues for city and business engagement with UCD occur between individual business owners, individual landlords, Chamber GRC meetings, DDBA board meetings, individual Council members, and City staff.
Where have I been? I was drafting a letter to the City Council this morning and then I spent the rest of the day playing with my kids. 🙂
Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman, Co-President of the DDBA, owner of Davis Commercial Properties, all-around good guy
8) I have another item to add to my anti-business gripe list. Council cut $16,000 from the DDBA’s Downtown marketing budget back in May. Not only was the DDBA not offerred the opportunity to defend the marketing budget, the DDBA wasn’t even informed of the cut until about 2 weeks ago. The cut is particularly ironic given the Council has repeatedly stated that marketing the Downtown and increasing the number of Downtown visitors is a top priority of this Council. Do they think marketing occurs through osmosis? Geez!
[quote]6) The Council pursues water rate increases without notifying or engaging with the business community at all and without assessing the impact on economic activity. Are you not at all curious how many business might go under, how many jobs may be lost, how much disposable income might be sucked out of the local economy? [/quote]
Actually the business community was eventually engaged, and is the reason the rate increases were lowered to a more manageable level. I commend the business community for being determined to first work with the city, before going forward with their opposition to the surface water project. The results were far better for the entire city. All citizens of Davis should be thanking the business community for its tenacity on this particular issue. As a result, our water rate increases will double over current rates, as opposed to 3.3 times the current rate as specified in the Prop 218 proposal.
To DTB, thanks for giving specifics, bc it gives me a much better idea of where you are coming from. Much of your complaint seems to center on the parking garage, which I am very much trying to keep an open mind on. That said, I think it has to be pointed out that there are 5 CC members who may not agree on every issue. There may be citizens who contact them and change their mind, or further information may come to light that causes them to take a different position. I don’t necessarily think a change in position is worse than sticking to a position come h_ll or high water and d_mn the facts.
Secondly, there are competing interests that have to be considered. However, I do think it is in the city’s best interest to promote business in Davis – we need the tax revenue and jobs. I am a strong proponent of the business community – but not at ALL costs (which I am sure is NOT what you are advocating). Measured support taking into consideration competing interests is probably how I’d put my position.
[i][quote]”Do they think marketing occurs through osmosis? Geez!”[/quote][/i]Well, at least, subliminally. You may remember all the CC discussion about kind of water tank art would be most effective at drawing people to our downtown.
Given the importance of the city-UCD relationship, it seems as though there would be some kind of private-City-university standing group dedicated to planning and cooperating for the future (in addition to the various committees, project leads, individual relationships, etc. you mention).