New on-line petition urging more UCD on-campus housing
By Eileen Samitz
In 2013 Chancellor Katehi launched her “UCD 2020 Initiative”, a non-mandated UCD campus plan to add 5,000 more students by 2020, of which 4,500 will be non-residents (out-of-state and international) who pay threefold tuition to increase its revenue. A November 2012 UCD task force report expressed concerns about the initiative’s many challenges including new facilities, 300 faculty, 400-600 more staff, and other services. Little emphasis was placed on the need for more on-campus housing.
State Legislation demands UC “catch-up” on resident admissions
Meanwhile, UCD and other UCs had already been admitting a steady stream of non-resident students for the higher tuition while denying admission to many qualified California students. Complaints to State legislators resulted in a state audit ordered by the legislature revealed that not only were qualified California students being denied, but that lower standards were often being used to admit non-residents. To correct this problem, the governor and the UC president struck a deal whereby UC systemwide would add 10,000 California resident students over 3 years starting in 2016 (UCD gets 1,100 this year), to obtain $25 million in state funding.
UCD’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Update not proposing enough housing
UCD is updating its LRDP for the next 10 years. The latest draft LRDP expects enrollment to surge from 32,000 in 2015 to 39,000 in 2027, an almost 22% increase. UCD is proposing to only provide 40% of total student population and only 90% of new incoming students. Yet UCD, with 5,300 acres, the largest UC in the system, has historically provided the least amount of on-campus housing.
A number of Davis residents responded to UCD’s invitation for public input on the LRDP by asking for much more on-campus student housing. This input included identifying more than 100 acres on or near the core campus land that could be used for the high-density, multi-story student apartments could be located. Also made clear was that Russell Fields greenspace did not need to be used for housing, and should not be developed.
UCD claims to have 29% on-campus housing, however the majority of it is freshman dorms, housing them for only one year. They are then forced off campus to find housing elsewhere, primarily in Davis but increasingly in other surrounding cities like Woodland, Dixon and Winters.
The combination of an over-ambitious “UCD 2020 Initiative” and deficient housing provisions in the LRDP draft will bring long-term impacts on Davis and UCD students if UCD does not revise its LRDP update to plan for the expeditious construction of much more on-campus housing. It also needs to re-evaluate its accelerated student population growth assumptions due to the massive infrastructure required. Overcrowded classrooms and a shortage of course offerings have contributed to a dismal 55% four-year graduation rate, resulting in “super seniors” who incur additional debt paying tuition and rent beyond costs. The students are feeling the strain as, a recent UCD Aggie article pointed out, UCD “…is woefully unequipped to handle this influx of students.”
The impacts of UCD’s inaction
The lack of housing provisions in the “UCD 2020 Initiative” and the LRDP is nothing new. The 1989 Memorandum of Understanding between UCD and the City of Davis expected UCD to provide housing for at least 25% of its students and 35% of new students on campus. This was followed by a 2002 UC Regents report “UC Housing for the 21st Century” that set a housing goal for each UC campus. It stated that UCD was to provide on-campus housing for 38% – 40% of its students on campus by 2012, but UCD failed to meet these targets. Further, the 2008 Davis Housing Element General Plan Update included policies directing UCD to provide significantly more permanent affordable on-campus student housing.
(https://davisvanguard.org/2015/10/guest-commentary-ucd-needs-to-build-more-student-housing-now/)
UCD’s failure to provide this housing commensurate with its growth has caused years of competition between students and workforce families for rental housing in the City, and the emergence of neighborhood “mini-dorms.” Instead of building more on-campus housing rapidly, UCD is now using “master leases” to reserve apartment buildings exclusively for students, thereby lowering the vacancy rate even further. In addition, UCD exacerbated the situation by closing the Orchard Park apartments on-campus over two years ago and West Village student housing remains unfinished.
As a consequence of UCD’s negligence, “mega-dorm” projects which should be located on the campus are being proposed in the City (i.e., Sterling Apartments, Lincoln40). These projects propose enormous 4 and 5 bedroom units, each with its own bathroom. These student-specific designed apartments would be rented by-the-bed and are not marketable to our workforce and families.
In turn, UCD’s failure to provide sufficient on-campus housing for its own growth is creating community division as neighborhoods battle against these enormous out-of-scale projects due to impacts they would bring. Furthermore, UCD’s long-term neglect of its housing responsibilities has led to pitting students and Davis residents against each other. However, even if more housing were built now, it would not be credited toward meeting the City’s SACOG regional fair share beginning in 2021; more housing would be needed then.
Other Universities Are Providing More On-Campus Housing; Why Not UCD?
Meanwhile, other UCs (Irvine, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Diego, Riverside, Merced) are updating their LRDPs to provide on-campus housing for at least 50% of their students, significantly surpassing UCD’s 40% target. Some universities (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, UC Santa Barbara) are planning to provide housing for 100% of their new incoming students while UCD is only offering 90%. UCD has over 5,300 acres (more than any other UC campus), and could therefore easily absorb the number of higher-density apartments needed to match its growth plans.
UCD has historically provided the least amount of on-campus housing, but continues to resist high-rise apartments beyond 4 floors which costs more for steel framing. However, other universities nationwide are providing such housing using land leases (which do not use university funds) and arrangements with companies that specialize in building on-campus housing. American Campus Communities is highly rated and have built over 100 projects nationwide, including recent projects at UC Irvine and is working with other California campuses. Incredibly, UCD has one of the largest endowments in the country ($1 billion), yet chose to build yet another music recital center and an art museum rather than needed student housing.
Action needed, write letters and sign the new on-line petition for more on-campus housing
The LRDP will be finalized in November, followed by an EIR analysis inviting “scoping” comments soon. You can help by signing our on-line petition at citizensplanningdavis.org, which urges UCD greatly accelerate the construction of on-campus housing and build at least as much as other UC campuses.
Please help by joining our citizens group at citizens@dcn.org. For more information call 530-756-5165. Also please submit your concerns to the media and to UCD at campustomorrow@ucdavis.edu, Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter at chancellor@ucdavis.edu, the Regents at regentsoffice@ucop.edu, UC President Janet Napolitano at President@ucop.edu, and our City Council at CityCouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org.
— Eileen Samitz is a Davis resident and former member of the Davis Planning Commission, the 2001 General Plan Update Committee and the 2008 General Plan Update Housing Element Steering Committee, and co-coordinator of Citizens for Responsible Planning.
Totally crazy article. The town of Davis was built to support the university, otherwise we would be just a couple of hotels off the 80. Now the university has a mandate to grow and that means it needs more infrastructure adjacent to it. Certain members of the town believe they can hold the university hostage. I was told before I moved here that Davis was “a nice place run by a bunch of grumpy old hippies”. Looks like there is a lot of truth in that statement.
The council is a bunch of 30 and 40 something’s except for Mayor Davis is hardly a grumpy old hippy. When I moved here 20 years old, it had the hippy reputation, but even then it seemed misplaced.
You don’t need to be currently serving in office to have influence over decisions and many on the current council have demonstrated that they are beholden to those of an older generation. From my experience, I don’t think the characterization is entirely accurate, but it is also not without reason.
The question is the use of the term “run” and opposed to “influence”
It is not my statement but what I was told. While I have not reached a definitive place I agree it has a core (at least) of truth. BTW I was at the market yesterday and there was a group of seniors tap dancing while playing assorted selections from the Grateful Dead. I thoroughly enjoyed it and made a video which I will send to the person who made the above statement. I am certain he will find it validating.
Step up UCD! Build more high density student housing on your land!
Oh wait, you already proposed that on Russel Fields and Eileen and her NOE cohort opposed that too.
I think the grumpy old hippies that quielo so accurately refers to are big at talking and small at acting.
Hi Frankly, I am not clear on how an article asking for housing to be built could qualify the author as No on Everything as you seem to suggest. I have also seen lists of all of the projects Eileen has supported in the past that would suggest differently.
Just yesterday frankly said:
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/10/what-does-the-zoning-say/#comment-341105
I guess he’s got nothing today.
“Eileen and her NOE cohort”
Eileen has been very vocal against the student housing on Russel Fields.
So why don’t you try and Grok again with something factual… try it you might like it.
NOE = No On Everything. As has been pointed out to you several times, Eileen has not opposed every development proposal in Davis over her many years of activism around growth issues. So she is not NOE.
Don wrote:
> Eileen has not opposed every development proposal in Davis
I do not want to talk about any specific people and agree with Don that we have very few true NOE people since most NO(almost)E people can point to some small a LEED Platinum development in the 90’s on bad ag land that was 100% affordable that had on site recycling, electric car charging stations, bike valets and a developer funded tutoring center for the kids that they supported…
Geesh.
She is aided and abetted by those people for every development she opposes.
I am looking for any recent development that she has supported… and coming up empty… except the Cannery which was safely in the Council’s hands. And she wasn’t on the VG then so I don’t know if she was vocal about it, or silent.
For me at least, you have to support some development before you get to make the claim you are not a No On Everything group member.
Hi quielo
I found your post confusing. First, you make the historic statement that the town of Davis was created to support the university. But many communities develop into much more than their original purpose. Many posters here are clear that they believe that Davis should be actively developing beyond dependence on and implied subservience to the university. Your post seems to imply to me that you believe that the town of Davis should continue in subservience to the needs ( and wants) of the university rather than as an equal partner in what would hopefully be the promotion of regional success. Perhaps I have misread your position. Could you clarify ?
Quielo & Tia… get a freaking clue… ‘Davisville’ existed long before the establishment of the University Farm (1908)… the location of the transcontinental railroad, and what is now Davis, as a logical junction to bring the RR up towards Marysville, put it “on the map”.
Please take the time to actually read and understand history…
It is true that UCD has influenced growth and land use decisions, but it is patently untrue that Davis was created for UC. Please don’t make “factual” statements that truly are not… we already have enough of that in this election cycle. Please stop being “silly”.
Now that I have debunked the premise (that Davis was created to serve UC), the arguments that are based on that false premise, are moot, at best.
Davisville didn’t become Davis due to UC… it was a need for fire, police protection, a water/sewer/drainage infrastructure system (please note, historically, University Farm & then UCD had separate systems). That is why Davis became a city.
There are some good accounts… Davisville 1968, on-line references, and our local students of history, including Loflin (sp?) Rifkin, and public records.
The story I was told when I moved here was that Davis and Dixon competed (how?) to be the site of the university farm, which was what UCD started as. So without UCD, Davis would be Dixon.
I have no way to verify that story.
Exactly.
Hard to document what may be a fallacy.
Davis had the RR junction before the University Farm decision was made. That I could document pretty easily, if I chose take the time to do so.
Connect the dots…
Dixon and Davis might be different today, to be sure, but Davis would not be “we would be just a couple of hotels off the 80.”. We also might not have the traffic, housing, and other problems we have today. Davis might well have been even better than we are today, had dixon been chosen, except that Dixon might be the Capitol Corridor site… they have a Station (new) but no “stop”. A “build it and it will come” concept?
Not clear as to your point.
HP, thank you for the history though I stand by my comment that without UCD “we would be just a couple of hotels off the 80” though I did neglect to mention that we may have a costco or walmart.
Dixon is on the 113 south which is a lot more important than being on the 102. Isleton may be a good model.
I always find this amusing that people assume Davis would resemble Dixon without UCD rather than Woodland or West Sacramento.
“I always find this amusing that people assume Davis would resemble Dixon without UCD rather than Woodland or West Sacramento.”
It’s a difficult projection as all these towns benefit from UCD. Without UCD Woodland would not be Woodland either.
Actually, Woodland has always been the retail and commercial hub for Yolo County’s main industry of agriculture. Woodland had a significant head start in both population and commerce. Davis would not have resembled Woodland chiefly because Woodland already existed. And West Sacramento has a rather different history overall.
I think that similarities of Dixon and Davis are greater than those of Davis and other nearby cities, without UCD.
I think that signing this petition is kind of a no-brainer. Regardless of how one might feel about the need for rental or single-family housing in town, putting unified pressure on UCD to increase their housing stock is a reasonable goal. They’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
change.org petition
If you prefer to write to Bob Segar directly, his email is rbsegar@ucdavis.edu
Realize that there is a 1900 map of the County, mounted @ the entrance to the Co. Supervisors’ venue that clearly shows both an East and West Davisville. UC was still a pipedream, at best. UCD was not a separate campus until after WWII, circa 1959. It pretty much had Ag students… minimal liberal arts, no engineering, minimal physical sciences… look at the footprint of Davis in 1940, and the lists of the businesses etc. existing at the time.
A stand by what I wrote, and question the “metaphors”, “alliterations” etc. that folk call “facts”.
Davis didn’t “explode” until the late ’50’s, but was a sound community.
To supplement hpierce’s comment here are some Davis Census numbers over the years.
Historical population
Census _ Pop _ 10-year Percent change
1880 ____ 441 _ —
1890 ____ 547 _ 24.0%
1920 ____ 939 _ 19.7%
1930 __ 1,243 _ 32.4%
1940 __ 1,672 _ 34.5%
1950 __ 3,554 _ 112.6%
1960 __ 8,910 _ 150.7%
1970 _ 23,488 _ 163.6%
1980 _ 36,640 _ 56.0%
1990 _ 46,209 _ 26.1%
2000 _ 60,308 _ 30.5%
2010 _ 65,622 _ 8.8%
Yes Don, acknowledge that when UCD became a full campus, in the 60’s, things changed… may still be “off my rocker”, Frankly, but it disturbs me when folk state untruths, which they pose we accept as premises… yet other ‘forces’ were actually precedent drivers…
Am tired of presenting facts to this audience… will try to refrain…
“Actually, Woodland has always been the retail and commercial hub for Yolo County’s main industry of agriculture.” Understood but without the people of UCD/Davis there is small likelihood of a COSTCO, BB, Target and the rest. Also I am skeptical whether there would be all those subdivisions without UCD. If you look at ag retail towns Mendota might be a better model of what Woodland, sans UCD, would look like.
quielo… Mendota is not the County Seat of Fresno County… Fresno is.
Woodland is the County seat of Yolo County.
http://ci.mendota.ca.us/about-mendota/
Comparing Woodland, or Davis to Mendota? Really?
At least they admit they exist due to railroad development…BTW there is a CSU in fresno…
There is a difference between why Davis became a City initially, and why Davis is the City it is today. hpierce is focused on the former, while Quielo and Tia are discussing the latter. If we are going to have a constructive conversation about the issues, we need to agree on which century or sequence of decades we are discussing. Based on the topic of the article, the current century , or perhaps the most recent three or four decades, seems the most appropriate.
They made untruthful statements, as premise on which they based their comments of opinion… I have fully acknowledged that things might have been different… if you reject exposing untruthful premises, to justify arguments based on those untruth premises, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Today, we must deal with “what is”, but untruths should not be a part of the discussion. Sorry, I’m just wired that way.
Don also posited a “rumor”, which he acknowledged he cannot verify. The davis/Dixon thing should be considered a “legend” or a myth.
John Lofland, Davis — Radical Changes, Deep Constants, cited by Bob Dunning.
Dixon was among the other locations that competed for it.
http://www.ci.dixon.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=123
Ok?
“They made untruthful statements”
Yes, and while I share you desire for a discussion centered around facts, I am able to accept the difference between a statement that was intended to be taken literally, and one that is acting as a figurative short cut in order to set up the conversation. Writing here will become rather dull if we are limited to using fact statements to satisfy those unable to understand simile, allusion or metaphor.
hp what specific “untruthful statements” are you referring to?
HP, thank you for the history though I stand by my comment that without UCD “we would be just a couple of hotels off the 80” though I did neglect to mention that we may have a costco or walmart.
And, Davis Lumber & Hardware, Hibberts, our boutique shops (those that don’t cater to students), restaurants/bars with less rowdiness, government (state, County, local, employees [and UC employees that couldn’t afford Dixon in that alternate universe]), parks, greenbelts, we would have had Hunt Wesson, etc.
Think we would be a lot like Woodland, not Dixon. And perhaps the citizenry would be less sanctimonious…
Do you think Davis is really better off having the Mondavi center here, rather than a 15 minute drive to Dixon? Picnic Day?
hpierce
Please take the time to read and understand the posts before painting with a broad brush. My post was in response to quielo’s post and I was requesting clarification of the point being made, not expressing agreement with the assertions.
As so should you…
Mirror time…
Davis used to be land locked in the winter; water covered the roads to Woodland, Sacramento, and the bay area. The Lincoln Highway fixed that problem.
That, and the RR… about the same time, within a decade… on old topo maps, there was a great wetlands/marsh between Swingle (CR 105) and the Sacramento River… levee building, Lincoln Hwy, RR, all made the difference… the Yolo Bypass is a vestige of that historical reality… a constraint on that natural feature, as it were…
Hi Tia,
My position is that UCD and Davis are married and must find a modus vivendi. From UCD’s point of view it must be quite difficult as many different constituencies will claim to speak for Davis. In your view who speaks for the City? Eileen? MH? the CC?
Addressing the narrow scope of the question “Who speaks for Davis ?” the CC has the ultimate “say”. However, one would hope that this would always be with the advise of all concerned citizens providing their input.
So Tia,
“with the advise of all concerned citizens providing their input.” How does that work? Right now we have various “community groups” who may represent, at most, a handful of people. Do they represent “the people of Davis” just because they are louder or more litigious?
Excellent summary, Eileen. Here’s a direct link to the petition:
https://www.change.org/p/rbsegar-ucdavis-edu-ucd-needs-to-provide-significantly-more-on-campus-housing-now-b2e9e2a8-79c9-46cf-888b-65730ea94366
Don,
Thank you. This issue is complex and I realized that many folks were not understanding how UCD is not even trying to provide as much as almost all the other UC’s were. It’s astonishing that UCD, the largest UC in the system with 5,300 acres is not even wanting to plan for 50% of their student population like the other UC’s.
Eileen,
It’s not surprising at all. Urban campuses like UCLA have a more expensive environment for commercial rentals. If you think Davis is expensive try Westwood sometime. Compared to UCLA/UCSF/UCSD UCD has no problem with housing and therefore does not have to build on campus residences for students.
Davis is the smallest city to host a UC. While housing may be more expensive in some of the other locations, there is much more of it both on and off campus. UCLA students for example do not just live in Westwood. They live all over the Westside of LA and still UCLA provides significantly more student housing the UCD does.
Yup. And Davis is the city with the most small-minded residents to host a UC.
Just yesterday frankly said:
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/10/what-does-the-zoning-say/#comment-341105
Attacking the people of Davis is about the same.
Grok said . . . “Davis is the smallest city to host a UC.”
Last time I checked the host city of UCSB is Isla Vista (population 23,096), although some people would argue that the host city of UCSB is Goleta (population 29,888). Even taken together those two have a population less than Davis.
The westernmost edge of the City Limits of the City of Santa Barbara (population 88,410) begin 5.2 miles to the east of UCSB. By way of comparison the first I-80 exit in West Sacramento is 5.3 miles to the east of the Davis City Limits. Also by way of comparison Pedrick Produce in Dixon is 5.0 miles to the west of the Davis City Limits.
Most people I talk to agree that UCD needs to do more. …edit
I don’t see the need for more on-campus housing as being all or nothing with the city’s need for housing.
[moderator] edited, inappropriate personal reference.
Jeez, Eileen ole pal, UCD did way more and way earlier than most any other UC campus….and had become a model for the other campuses.
However, UCD has also been quite smart in not building an Isla Vista……unlike UCSB
The only campus that may have come faster out of the gate was UCSC, which was created and designed in a manner like no other.
I have shared this info, and a link to a presentation, by the UCSC Campus Architect emeritus some weeks/months ago…..
Then what DG shared about Cal Poly was also modeled after UCD innovations… many thought that was interesting, and it was and still is.
If only there was a decent “search” function on this DV site, one could easily pull up such things….rather than me having to waste my time looking and reposting….I mean if anyone is interested….they can look it up….
MK – your post is factually challenged. UCD has historically provided much less housing than the other campuses.
do you have some statistics to back up your opinion stated as fact, Mr. G?
…while touring some of the UCs with sons prior to applying and then after admittance, we saw old, smelly dorms at UCB, compared to the new bright dorms at UCD…
And similar inadequate “accommodations” at the others also. Granted that was a few years ago now, but since then UCD built all the Tercero towers as well as tore down other smaller units and replaced with the higher rises…Castilian was refurbished from top to bottom and West Village apartments were built ….lots of them…with most of this push and building happening under LK’s tenure.
But, heck I coulda missed a building boom at the other UCs also…
PS> Married is a good analogy….old town/gown values have also gone to pot……..the good thing about West Village, unlike Isla Vista, is that it has a really strong balance – integrated services- areas for all ages….and that is a great model.
For those, who want to live close to the campus core, it is a lovely spot.
For those who want the trees, light and whatnot they purchased to remain, then those options should not be stolen from the residents who did their due diligence, or believed the city, developers, realtors etc…
Some chose to live in no back yard places like the Verona…and are happy also at the Cannery etc…some choose a tiny cottage within walking distance to their fave places downtown.
The solutions are to enjoy it all and allow newcomers to have the same choices we had…
There’s been some interesting dialogue and disagreement this morning about the origins of the City of Davis and factors responsible for its growth over time. I don’t know how relevant that discussion is, however, to the excellent points made in the article by Ms. Samitz. To me the crux of the issues she raises is not just the past growth of UCD and the way enrollment increased without a commensurate expansion of on-campus housing to accommodate students throughout the 4 – 5 years devoted to their studies.
The larger concern going forward is the tremendous enrollment growth UCOP and UCD are planning for the future and the strain that growth will place on both Davis and nearby towns. According to the UCD “Campus Tomorrow” website and recent public presentations by UCD staff on the draft Long Range Development Plan for 2017-2027, UCD enrollment during the 2014-15 academic year was 32,120. The LRDP expects enrollment to be 39,000 in 2017-28. That’s a massive jump of almost 7,000 students in just 13 years, more than 21 percent. And although UCD proudly proclaims it will house 40% of the 2027 enrollment on campus, the addition of almost 7,000 students by then means the 60% living off campus in 2017 will exceed those now living off campus in Davis and surrounding communities.
So, while 40% living on campus appears impressive, it doesn’t really relieve the impacts on Davis or its infrastructure. (Just do the math: UCD says 29% of the 32,120 students enrolled during 2014-15 lived on campus, so 71% or 22,805 lived off campus. The 60% of 39,000 who’ll reside off campus in 2027 is almost 600 more than was the case in 2015.)
On top of that, the LRDP says nothing about exactly when UCD expects the sparse housing it hopes for will actually get constructed. If the university continues dragging its feet in the same manner it has over the past several decades, the goal of 40% of enrollment living on campus could be elusive, resulting in more neighborhood “mini-dorms” and increasingly longer student commutes to campus. We’ve had enough experience already in our neighborhood with loud late night mini-dorm parties, discarded “adult beverage” containers littering front yards, and haphazardly parked vehicles. Further indiscriminate growth by UCD will no doubt worsen such neighborhood impacts.
In addition, the LRDP expects UCD employment to increase from 12,095 in 2015 to 14,500 in 2017, an increase of more than 2,400 or almost 20%. Where does UCD expect those employees and their families to live if they must compete with students for scarce housing? If UCD were to provide on-campus housing for a much higher percentage of its expected 2027-28 enrollment, a correspondingly greater number of apartments in Davis would be available for both UCD employees and other families. In looking at the exhibit provided with Eileen’s article, it is abundantly clear that potential campus housing sites are readily available, yet UCD has thus ignored those possibilities.
Regardless of the factors that impelled the past development of Davis, the city and UCD are now at a critical juncture, one that demands that UCD finally start showing that it truly cares about its students by providing an environment where students can devote more of their time and energy to studying and interacting with each other rather than commuting.
Edison, why not replace the first quote with the second?
“one that demands that UCD finally start showing that it truly cares about its students by providing an environment where students can devote more of their time and energy to studying and interacting with each other rather than commuting.”
“one that demands that the City of Davis finally start showing that it truly cares about its students by providing an environment where students can devote more of their time and energy to studying and interacting with each other rather than commuting.
Quielo: The statement is appropriate and relevant as it stands. First, UCD continually proclaims throughout its websites and proclamations that it cares first and foremost about tis students. Second, UCD attracts the students, not the city of Davis. The students are its responsibility, not the residents of our community.
Students are residents of our community and as such are our responsibility, regardless of what attracted them to town in the first place. Davis has a severe housing shortage and we should be focusing on fixing that problem, not pointing fingers at someone or something else.
quello your suggestion that Davis doesn’t care about students is not based in reality. Davis hosts more UC students than any other city.
Edison said . . . “According to the UCD “Campus Tomorrow” website and recent public presentations by UCD staff on the draft Long Range Development Plan for 2017-2027, UCD enrollment during the 2014-15 academic year was 32,120.”
One of the things about UCD that I find frustrating is how contradictory some of their own information is. Enrollment is a good example. The official UCD numbers reported HERE say the 2014-15 enrollment was 35,415. That represents the Fall Semester enrollment. The official UCD three quarter average enrollment (excluding the Summer semester) reported HERE is 34,001. Both those numbers significantly exceed 32,120. It would really help if UCD would establish official numbers and use them consistently.
For the record, UCD’s Fall 2015 enrollment reported HERE was 36,104. UCD’s current Fall 2016 enrollment reported HERE is 37,535.
Jeez Matt, politics….even the UCD and even the City of Davis has their spin on e/g…but heck, as a real newcomer, you are learning quickly….
as the Chancellor Emerita found out, one cannot even trust one’s own staff to get things correct…and certainly, the closer one is to all the s@@@@@ then they can also smell a little peucky….(sp?)….and finally, want to know the real dirt on someone, ask their closest family members and friends….most all will sell out for a dime.. especially if they are union members and not sharp enough to figure out the truth on their own….right?
follow the money and learn the truth.
Both of the “unfortunate” hassles blamed on the Chancellor were around the time that many union contracts were expiring… the first pepper spray just over 5 years ago…and the union organizers setting up shop in her office area now 5 years later.
Many were PAID union organizers…or elderly grad students from the humanities who were not sharp enough to get funding in these difficult funding times.
Look at the first enterprise article circa April 27 or so….look at the balding backs of the heads of the “UCD students”…..
And, if you follow some of those strings, you may learn the truth…the coverups at UCD< the role of Spicuzza, Mr. Pike’s head put on a pike etc.
Matt Carmichael played a role and when I called him out on a few things, he let quickly for his new job.
I had his personal and private cell number….I knew that when the SHTF on the Chancellor LK, that when he didn’t respond, he was in on it with the Napo…
oh well, these are only a few of the perhaps offtopic but not really …as all things are connected as are all people….some may learn along the way….
Excellent, concise article by Eileen! It’s obvious that she’s committed to encouraging more student housing on campus, where it’s best suited and needed as a direct result of the University’s enrollment plans. Eileen is also right regarding the need for the University to fully step-up (as other Universities are doing), and build high-rise housing on campus.
Regarding previous delays of construction on campus in general, this may (ultimately) work out to an advantage. For example, as noted in the article below (which I’ve previously posted, regarding West Village):
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-build-first-50-new-homes-faculty-and-staff-west-village-2018
You could replace the first quote with the second with an increase in accuracy:
“she’s committed to encouraging more student housing on campus,”
“she’s committed to demanding everyone in the state of California do what she says”
you could, but then it would be untrue.
For those folks who live in this town and make their money on the existence of the UCD….it is fascinating to me just how clueless some are.
Eileen always makes excellent points…and as a dear friend from the 70s/80s she and I have been on the same side of many an issue over these years…. though not all….most and certainly most of the most important ones.
This is not directed to Eileen, but I find that many of the others who hang around here most of the time, are soooo so clueless on many a topic…
Even I am sometimes, especially when something has changed for the worse, like the declassification of GATE from special Ed, but heck who can keep up with the nonsense going at us from ALL ends these days…
Nice factual article
Eileen wrote:
> UCD Needs to “Step-Up” Like Other UCs to
> Build Far More On-Campus Housing
I have not met (or even heard of) anyone in town that is publicly opposed to UCD “stepping up” and building more housing on campus, but since it has been years with half the West Village site sitting empty and Orchard Park sitting empty it does not look like UCD is in any rush to build any more housing.
As a city we can either “do something” or complain that others are not “stepping up”. Complaining about UCD is like the parents that complain about the schools helping kids that are behind since the parents should “step up” and pay for tutoring or the people that complain about the cost of the police in town since the parents of kids that beat up gay guys and stab people should be the ones who “step up” and keep an eye on their kids. I “hope” UCD builds new housing (in addition to finishing the West Village and rebuilding Orchard Park) just like “hope” parents make kids do their homework (and play less video games) and I “hope” that the parents of of kids that talk about beating gay neighbors or stabbing people in Davis bars get them anger management help (and keep them out of gangs) but I am not going to spend my life just “hoping” others will “step up”…
P.S. When I read the first post where quielo calls the people running Davis “a bunch of grumpy old hippies” I was thinking that if he changed it to “a bunch of grumpy old liberal NIMBY hippies” I would read like a typical Frankly post…
P.P.S. It seems like it has been close to a year since Robb said the city was giving the city owned 112 unit Symphony/Pacifico apartment ~3/4 of a million to fix the place up and move people in. It does not look like any work has started and it is amazing that the city has a well located apartment that has been OVER 50% vacant (in a sub 1% vacant city) for a decade. As people complain about UCD not building and people in town building maybe someone should ask why city owned apartment has been 50% + vacant for ten years before we give UCD a hard time about having a an on campus apartment sitting vacant for just a couple years…
“I have not met (or even heard of) anyone in town that is publicly opposed to UCD “stepping up” and building more housing on campus” Apparently you missed the Russell proposal…
quilio wrote:
> Apparently you missed the Russell proposal…
Just because some people want to tell UCD what and were to build (and how many transgender bathrooms to have) does not mean that they are “opposed to UCD “stepping up” and building more housing on campus” …
There are some so blind, they will not see…
The point that UCD should be providing more for housing of students/faculty/staff, particularly students, I believe is VERY valid.
The concept that Davis was created to serve those needs is BS. Yet, many seem to need to cling to the false premise, then turn around, and say the University needs to do more. Counter-intuitive…
I think you are off your rocker a bit here hpierce. I think Don is absolutely right that Davis would just be Dixon without the university. It would be a bedroom community for Sacramento and primarily an ag town. And both Dixon and Woodland would have a smaller population if not for UCD. And there would be less traffic over and around the causeway if not for UCD. And I am guessing that neither you nor I would be blogging about this because the VG would not likely exist without UCD, because David would not be living here. I might also not live here because I generally do because I like arguing with liberals and without the university Davis would be as conservative as most rural small towns in CA.
I don’t think you are connecting the dots very well here.
Davis is Davis primarily because of the University. It provides the human capital amenities that enhance the lives of many Davis residents and it is the primary reason they like living here and not Dixon. And then they complain that UCD is some bad neighbor.
(not referring to you here) but I see this type of thing all the time with children. Lacking perspective for what they have and complaining to their parents that things are so difficult. Their perspective should be simply that Davis would be Dixon without the university. So they should offer some gratitude for the great lifestyle they live in their privileged Davis location and support the needs of the residents that work at and go to school at the university.
Frankly (because I am) I think this attacking the university is a deflective PR move by the enemies of change to blame someone for their inability to cope with what are the normal and standard acceptances for being good citizens and good neighbors.
What difference does it make if the new housing is on campus or off? If the community needs new housing both the city and the university should share the burden. Of course Measure R complicates the city being able to plan appropriately. On the other hand on campus living reduces democracy in the community since those living there don’t get to vote in city elections, something many locals fear for one reason or another.
Misanthrop:
Eileen’s article addressed some of the impacts of what you’re suggesting:
In addition to financial and non-financial impacts to the city and its existing residents, this would create a situation in which larger numbers of students would have a daily “commute” through the city, to reach campus.
It seems that these points have been argued repeatedly (and predictably), among the same group of commenters. I doubt that there’s much new information to be added.
Misanthrop wrote:
> What difference does it make if the new housing is on campus or off?
If you bought a little home home in Central Davis in the 70’s for ~$30K or the 80’s for ~$60k it is probably worth well over $500K and will probably rent for over $25K/year. Since all housing “on campus” is restricted to people affiliated with the University it will have less of an impact on the value and rents of existing Davis homes than new construction “off campus”. New housing “on campus” is exempt from all property taxes and school parcel taxes, while new housing “off campus” will pay millions in taxes (so current owners gain and the state loses when they build “on campus”)…
I personally don’t care if they build more hosing (and don’t care if they build it on campus or off) but if I was an aging boomer getting ready to cash out and take the $500K (TAX FREE) gain from the sale of my Davis home (or supplement my UC pension with $25K a year in rent) after moving somewhere else like SF or Carmel I would have been out on the medians waving “No on A” signs (and telling people I was “just trying to protect kids from the “toxic soup””)…
He he Don, aka Mr. Mod, is that the best you could do?
If you would only add the statistics for the LAST FIVE YEARS….jeez….
I am sure many of your pals and cronies on the Chamber would be able to cough up those statistics..
FIVE years…heck that is when the first pepper spray incident was…and the last union negotiated contracts were also hashed out…both figuratively and literally…
If you’re referring to the population tables that I posted, you will see that 2015 populations of Woodland and Davis are projected at the bottom of each.
I am not a member of the Chamber and have disagreed with some of the political positions the Chamber’s political action committee has taken. Also, they don’t provide statistical data, as far as I know.
Don wrote:
> the population tables that I posted, you will see that 2015 populations
> of Woodland and Davis are projected at the bottom of each.
Interesting that the person who estimated the population of Davis left it at 67,666 (not 665 or 667)…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx5KnFr9xSk
Sorry, I couldn’t see those on the bottom of my small screen macbook
as a small businessman, Don, I would have assumed you would be a member….though unlike those who make their money manipulating Davis policies to suit there own needs, and thus have the time to show up and participate to a greater level, I would bet you were working too hard trying to survive many of the city policies to attend the meetings.
Sorry, I know a lot of the players in town, but have gotten kinda behind on a lot of the drama and who thinks or does what since my children graduated HS and I got inundated at work…
Then the city may have the numbers. Someone besides me can have the real numbers…
And it is not really what the “projected” is…one can just look at the numbers of bodies inhabiting the new developments to see that the projections are woefully inaccurate..
Most local retailers are not members of the Chamber.
Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying. You think there are a lot more people in Davis than the projection, or a lot fewer?
PS> when I first visited UCD with my dad in the 60s, who was the managing structural engineer on the old married student housing, the one that is being torn down as the laws and codes have changed so much, that the cost to tear and rebuild is so much cheaper..
I fell in love with this small rural town.
I also fell in love with UCSB…my dad was the managing structural engineer on the union and tower at UCSB also circa 60s.
It would be interesting to see the pop in Woodland, the county seat, and home of everything Davis could afford to keep out.
Also, bring that to the present as that only serves to point a false picture…
Look at the housing stuffed onto Davis…even at the Cannery……
Woodland learned some hard lessons, and their downtown is thriving….
Davis folks haven’t learned some lessons yet….I mean the ones who RUN this town, and have most of the money, and support some good and yet some other truly naive folks for the council and the DJUSD…
When the faculty got sooooo busy with administrative nonsense, they could no longer run for city council or the DJUSD, and instead we get housewives who are really nice but clueless of the real issues.
No offense to any housewives…I was a “housewife” for a while, managing my own business, and working on finishing up ECE credits on gifted education, while raising gifted children and also working on my MBA after taking a leave from UCD just to name a few things ..an that doesn’t include the causes I always came out for…
As a single mom I didn’t have anything else in my life but the kids, and work, and their activities, trying to keep them challenged while working fulltime 24/7 also…right?
Most are not willing to put in the hours needed in such circumstances…right?
And, the attorneys in town are kept very busy with tons of local homegrown law suits…as the UCD grew in numbers and so did this town and area… they were also no longer running…unless they were of the Wolf family, where the apple fell sooooo far from those trees….
We need people back with the intelligence and experience, like Black, Joan Poulos, Debbie Nichols-Poulos, Dave Rosenberg, Julie omg Julie Partansky who died for her causes way too young…who is likely still in this town as an angel causing good things for those who care about others and not just themselves…
Matt Williams pointed out one of the problems in interpreting UCD enrollment data; that is, multiple data sources that don’t easily align. But, for sake of discussion, let’s refer to some numbers he cited: Fall 2015 enrollment of 36,104 and Fall 2016 of 37,535. Comparing that to the 2010 Davis population of 65,622, it’s easy to see that UCD enrollment is somewhere between 55 and 57% of the entire population of Davis.
Some have asserted in the Vanguard that Davis has a responsibility to provide housing for UCD students, but that argument does not take into consideration that Davis is a very small town relative to the university’s student population. With the exception of Santa Cruz, Davis is the smallest “host city” in the entire UC system. (Merced is slightly bigger than Davis.) The campuses in Berkeley, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Francisco, and San Diego are all located in large, populous urban areas that can much more easily absorb large student populations and the growth projected by the UC system. Davis is not in that situation, and would be hard pressed to do so even if Measures J and R did not exist.
Some time ago the Vanguard published an article that posed the question of whether Davis could end up being an example of a town that gets literally swallowed by the nearby university. Given the assumptions in the draft LRDP, that outcome could eventually happen. It truly is time for UCD to step up to its responsibilities or vastly slow down its growth. UC Santa Cruz was forced through litigation to better match its growth with stepped up on-campus housing construction, and now must abide by a Comprehensive Settlement Agreement that sets the conditions upon which it can further grow. Maybe such a mechanism is needed in order for the City of Davis to gain more control of its own destiny.
If you want to make a closer estimate, we can use the 2015 transportation study:
— about 10% of students live outside of Davis
— about 24% live on campus (including West Village)
thus
— about 66% live in town. Those 66% would count as part of the population of the City of Davis.
I am wondering here about modern progressivism and if it might be more a health malady related to an inability to visualize a future state and thus also reject any historical trends analysis that supports a projection of a future state. Might a progressive just be a person made nervous by dynamism and then adopts an identity label as a “progressive” to counter this lack of change-coping ability? I think so. I see progressives these days supporting change only by central control. So not really change and progress, but control. And if that central control is responsible for denying change, then the progressive just repackages it as “progress”. For example “our activism prevented the standard developer raping of community value for profit!” See how that works?
And historical trending data is anathema to their feeling healthy and safe in their cocoon of central control. For example, when we look at regional population trending data and note the UCD trends for increased enrollment… both of which tend to support the argument that there is a need for growth (change) there isn’t much they can do beside aiming to shoot the messenger.
Understanding the true meaning of progressive, I don’t see many of them in Davis.
Most modern American progressives have no problem visualizing a future that is very changed from the status quo. Your analysis simply serves to reinforce your own world view, and has little evidence to support it.
Most progressives that I know envision a world:
— where education is free and readily available from preschool through college;
— where income inequality is reduced by steeper progressive taxation;
— where government has a stronger role in the economy;
— where environmental issues are given greater weight than economic gain in assessing development and growth proposals;
— where climate change is considered a top priority;
— where policing and the judicial system are reformed to alleviate systemic racism;
— where the United States spends less on defense, intervenes rarely in foreign countries, and reduces support to countries with bad human rights records.
Most of them are social libertarians as well.
I don’t know many progressives who have any trouble accepting the policies and changes that would lead to the furtherance of those goals, as well as some others I’ve probably forgotten. It’s not that they can’t imagine a world better to their liking. It’s that you really wouldn’t like it.
So when they look at housing and development issues, they want everything as energy-efficient as possible. They want a bunch of the houses mandated to be ‘affordable’. They see government as the agent for enforcing those things, and they tend to be very unconcerned about whether or not the developer makes a profit.
Most progressives that I know envision a world:
— where education is free and readily available from preschool through college; (central control)
— where income inequality is reduced by steeper progressive taxation; (central control)
— where government has a stronger role in the economy; (central control)
— where environmental issues are given greater weight than economic gain in assessing development and growth proposals; (central control)
— where climate change is considered a top priority; (central control, and one the most idiotic policy statements ever made by anyone let alone a president)
— where policing and the judicial system are reformed to alleviate systemic racism; (central control from people that can never recognize the end to systemic racism if it bit them in the arse)
— where the United States spends less on defense, intervenes rarely in foreign countries (central control and idiocy like we have seen from Chamberlain), and reduces support to countries with bad human rights records. (you must be voting for Trump then)
Most of them are social libertarians as well… not really because they want central control to trample all over Christian beliefs)
I rest my case. You failed completely making yours… in fact you made my case for me. Thank you.
I’m not a progressive. I agree that most probably are fine with what you call “central control” in that they look to government as the agent of change. You completely missed my point, actually: that they are not at all averse to change, nor do most progressives have any problem whatsoever envisioning a different future. You love to disparage people, and you made the assertion — as you often do — that someone who has a different political philosophy than yours must be mentally ill. That’s bunk and you know it. People come to their political views from the things that they value. People value different things. It doesn’t mean they’re less or more informed; that’s entirely a different issue. And it doesn’t mean they’re mentally deficient or suffer from some psychological malady. You should stop practicing psychology without a license.
Well you just skipped or ignored my point. I have a high sensitivity to change aversion given my career directing organizational change. Change-aversion manifests in gyrations that attempt to excuse and re-frame itself.
I reject the term progressive for the behavior I see here in Davis. The activists stimulated to block growth might claim they are progressive, but they are anything but.
Of course you know that the very first progressive was Theodore Roosevelt. He actually broke up the Republican party and got what we can call our first real liberal President elected.
My problem is that “progressive” is way too complementary a label for the Davis NIMBY and NOE people. They are in fact anti-progressive. Liberal maybe, but not progressive.
The term “progressive” denoted supportive of progress. That is the opposite if what we are seeing in Davis. We are seeing a severe lack of progress. My point was that railroading people through tyranny of their majority to gain control to block change while they push a few symbolic policy acts is not worthy of the label.
For a long time in Davis we went back and forth between what you might call ‘pro-growth’ and ‘slow-growth’ majorities on the city council. I once heard someone from one side deride the others as ‘developer Democrats’.
To me, the slow-growth crowd is basically small-c conservative, at least with respect to growth issues. But I bet you wouldn’t have found significant differences between those factions with respect to issues of state and national politics. So the terms we usually use just don’t really apply.
Now, and for the last three election cycles, we have a majority of the city council that is not registered Democrats. We have council members who are politically very liberal (‘progressive’) who are working to promote economic development. There hasn’t been a slow-growth candidate for multiple election cycles. Evidently the slow-growth folks feel they can achieve their objectives by other means, especially thanks to Measure R.
I just don’t think you can really apply the usual political labels when it comes to local politics and development issues, and I think that’s been true for awhile. So I think you’ve concocted a pretty elaborate straw man.
I like elaborate strawmen.
You make good points.
It was your post that caused my elaborate strawman since UCD is progressing and many that claim they are “progressives” are pretty hostile against it. They also just seem to ignore the trends of UCD growth… because it is not THEIR type of progress.
Which then led me to question can someone truly call themselves a progressive when they selectively chose which progress they will accept or block?
I think not. I think they are regressives.
That’s interesting information, Don. Thanks for pointing that out. If I am interpreting this information correctly, it means that if there were 32,120 total UCD students during the 2014-15 academic year (as reported in the draft LRDP), it would mean that 21,199 UCD students would be counted as part of the population of the City of Davis. That in turn would mean that over 32% of the town is comprised of UCD students–a transitory population that for the most part is here for just 4-5 undergraduate years, and perhaps a few more years if attending grad school. Please let me know if I’m not interpreting this information correctly.
If I’m doing the math correctly, that means one-third of the Davis population is comprised of short-term residents who probably intend to move elsewhere after graduation, and likewise probably don’t have much interest or economic “stake” in the future livability of our town or its financial viability. To me, that’s all the more reason for a much greater percentage of UCD students to be housed on campus, thereby freeing up rental properties for occupancy by families that are probably more likely to have a long-term interest in the quality of life in our town. Many of those families might in fact be UCD employees who currently have trouble competing with students for rental housing.
I think your interpretation is correct. And I’d guess it’s the highest proportion of students of any town that hosts a UC campus.
Somewhat a separate issue: I do agree with those who are concerned about the disenfranchisement of those on-campus students from voting locally. I have kind of mixed feelings about that. If UCD is encouraged to house students beyond just the freshman year, they would be young adults who are beginning to have some stake in the direction of the community. Just because someone is ‘transitory’ doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to vote locally. There’s no easy answer to this, since I doubt UC would willingly annex land into the city limits.
Don wrote:
> I’d guess it’s the highest proportion of students
> of any town that hosts a UC campus.
I’m pretty sure that Goleta, CA has a higher percentage of UC students than Davis. I didn’t find an exact percentage with a quick Google search, bur Something came up that said it was mostly (aka over half) students…
You are correct. I think of UCSB as part of Santa Barbara, but as has been pointed out it’s actually part of two nearby communities. Goleta wasn’t even incorporated for a long time, and Isla Vista still isn’t.
Don wrote:
> You are correct. I think of UCSB as part
> of Santa Barbara
Don’t feel bad for years I thought that La Jolla and UCSD were north of the San Diego city limit (since most people address mail with “La Jolla” rather than “San Diego” and the La Jolla and UCSD zip codes start with a 920 unlike all the other San Diego city zip codes that start with a 921)…
Companies in the 92121 and 92130 often use “La Jolla”
“So when they look at housing and development issues, they want everything as energy-efficient as possible. They want a bunch of the houses mandated to be ‘affordable’.”
These things are in opposition to one another unless you build so many that you get economies of scales and drive down the price by over supplying the market.
Exactly
That’s why I put ‘affordable’ in quotes. I personally believe that our Affordable Housing program is a failure and should be abandoned. The way to build affordable housing is to build apartments. And, of course, it would help if UC Davis would build more housing for their students and employees to put a dent in the demand side of the equation.
But I think it would be very difficult to scrap the Affordable Housing policies in Davis. They are strongly supported by progressives.
Don
“The way to build affordable housing is to build apartments.”
While I agree that big “A “affordable housing has not had great success in Davis, your assertion is correct only if the little “a” affordable apartments are themselves affordable. This does not apply to projects such as Trackside which were designed to be “luxury” apartments. This is the deliberate antithesis of “affordable” regardless of the case of the “a”.
Having returned from a weekend out of town, I would like to add to Don’s list of changes that I would like to see. I would like to see health care treated as a right, not a commodity, just as we believe in military protection for all, I believe that we should provide health care for all. Now that would be quite a radical change, wouldn’t you say Frankly ?
Tia – your idea for healthcare would be regressive, not progressive.
[moderator] due to complaints I have pulled, and wish to stop, any further discussion of health care on this thread
Dear Frankly et al: The fact that I believe UCD has an obligation to provide on-campus housing for the students it aggressively recruits does not–and should not–warrant assigning me to any particular political “camp.” I simply believe that UCD–an entity created by and supported by the State of California–has an affirmative obligation to house those that it brings to campus. (From a personal perspective, I also don’t like beer bottles thrown by the mini-dorm residents residing next door bouncing off my house at 2:00 AM, nor the drunken vomit they leave on neighborhood lawns, nor the half-empty marijuana baggies their party attendees leave strewn on the same streets upon which neighborhood children play.)
The fact that I want the students housed on campus does not mean I am what some would call a “progressive,” or a liberal or a conservative, or that I want high taxes. On the contrary, I simply believe that taxpayer supported government entities such as UCD and UCOP should take full responsibility for the full spectrum of impacts created by their actions. For the record, I’m both a social and economic libertarian, fully believe that developers who risk their hard won capital deserve to make a generous profit, and fervently hope the companies in which my IRA is invested continue paying the dividends upon which my retirement income depends. I also tentatively supported MRIC precisely because it would have boosted the City’s tax revenue and would have included housing for its workers instead of UCD students.
So does Intel in Folsom have a responsibility to provide housing for its employees?
Does Sacramento State have a responsibility to provide housing for its employees and Students?
Davis isn’t dealing with a lack of develop-able land like other cities that end up building more housing. Davis is surrounded by land.
You see Edison, I think the people that are against new housing messed up. I think they messed up deciding Davis was something that it was not, and not instead of accepting their mistake, like others, they are blocking reality and creating a major mess of things.
I’ve seen this show thousands of times. People clutching their ideas and unwilling to let go when alternate reality is staring them in the face and sitting in their lap. They resist accepting what is organically happening or has already happened and then really bad stuff starts to happen to them and others around them.
UCD builds or Davis builds. It will be on farmland. The same traffic will exist. The same congestion will exist. The only difference is that Davis will deal with these things without a stitch of any tax revenue. Davis will lack control of the design of the development. And Davis will STILL have inadequate rental property, too high rents, mini dorms, etc., etc,. etc.
UCD needs to build more housing AND Davis needs to build more housing. And Davis needs to build more commercial and more retail.
And if these people don’t like it then let me ask them why not live in Dixon where there is no 65th largest collage campus in the nation that is growing by about 1000 people per year?
And I’m sorry I indicated that all those against developing housing in Davis are progressives. Seems you are more level headed.
What Davis Progressives are for, high home prices.
Misanthrop:
If you believe that those who are organizing/participating in an effort to encourage the University to build MORE housing are “progressives”, then your statement doesn’t hold up.
In fact, the pro-development types who often make these types of statements are (often) the same ones who discourage the effort to build more housing on campus. (Ever wonder why?)
Building more dorms on campus will do little to lower home prices or rents in town, while building thousands of new apartments and homes in town will drive down both Davis home prices and rents…
SouthofDavis:
And, your statement is based on ?
SouthofDavis:
Again, the effort includes a goal of more student apartments (in particular), on campus.
The massive projects proposed within the city have been described as functionally similar to “student dorms”.
Ron wrote:
> And, your statement is based on ?
The “Laws of Supply and Demand”. When the supply of anything expands faster than the demand the price drops while when the demand for something increases faster than the supply the price increases. If Davis bans (or limits) the sale of new homes and apartments in town the price of existing homes and apartments will increase. If Davis let the developers go crazy (like Elk Grove did) the price of existing homes and apartments will drop like a rock (like they did in Elk Grove).
SouthofDavis:
I understand supply and demand. However, this doesn’t explain the comment I was responding to:
Your comments differentiate between on-campus housing vs. off-campus housing in the manner you described, without justification. And again, the effort is primarily focused on building more apartments on campus.
Misanthrop wrote:
> What Davis Progressives are for, high home prices.
It is not just “Progressives” that want high home prices it is almost everyone that owns a home (including “Conservatives”, and “Libertarians”) in town wants higher home prices. Most people “say” what they think you want to hear but “vote” their pocketbook…
A legend… unless one is planning to move/sell, or planning to die (estate) the value of the home they live in is irrelevant… the cost of the mortgage/taxes are… it is not a liquid asset… I check my retirement fund balances quarterly… the value of my house, maybe once every 2 years…
hpierce wrote:
> A legend… unless one is planning to move/sell,
> or planning to die (estate) the value of the home
> they live in is irrelevant…
Since most people move about ten times in their life and less and less (non union) people have a job where they are pretty sure they can stay at until they retire “most” people are at least thinking about what would happen if they were to move/sell. Unlike people in my parents generation (that really would have mortgage burning parties to celebrate the payoff of a home) most people today keep refinancing and pulling out cash as the value of their home goes up in value. As many learned in 2009 (lots in Elk Grove and some in Davis) even if you don’t plan to move you are in big trouble if you need to refinance and the value of your home is worth less than you owe…
This petition is good and generally well researched, although I think the implication that out of staters are bad/exploited is a tad off… Many people brought to this town who stayed here were out of staters at first. The group’s proposal to build more housing by the stadium/vet school should be given a second look by the planners. Those locations are close to facilities and resources.
What I want to know is: when tangible proposals role out at Orchard Park, will the people on this petition back them up or at least not complain? Or will they complain about traffic impacts and demand the housing go elsewhere? And will people even remember this petition and consider what it means? I’m hopeful but also quite doubtful.
When it comes to student housing generally, this town is like a gold fish… constantly swimming up to something it sees, being frightened by it and turning around… only to forget and then look again three seconds later, over and over again. The outcome may very well be an “Isla Vista” type community west of West Village–out of site, out of mind, and with very limited access to the rest of the community so as to assuage quixotic angst about ‘traffic.’ But I suppose that’s better than nothing.
There needs to be a hard rule about this housing. Only allowing ‘sustainability’ additions that can pay for themselves… These students will be saddled with sufficient debt just from their tuition bills. The campus needs to ensure robust connectivity via transit–because it is going to be ‘out there’ and away from things.
There will be major cost savings for working with private firms to manage apartments–will the grad student groups drop their own quixotic angst about ‘privatization’ to enable Student Housing to realize these cost savings? I’m highly doubtful. Detached-from-reality demands by grad students killed the last attempt at redevelopment at either or Orchard or Solano, I cannot remember which.
Hi Matthew, I too hope no one looks at nonresident students as an inherently bad thing. I would only have issue if there is a drive for increased out of state enrollment, as part of the increase in enrollment that pushes the University beyond its academic and housing capacities to the detriment of all students.
As to Orchard Park, I live within just a few blocks of Orchard Park and assuming it is in line with the low or no car ideology campus planners have expressed, I think it would be appropriate to build taller buildings there than the University currently proposes. With its easy access to University Mall, the Experimental College Gardens and the core campus I think it is a very appropriate place for denser student housing than the University is currently recommending. I could easily imagine up to 8 or 9 story buildings included in the project but set back from Russell.
“Or will they complain about traffic impacts and demand the housing go elsewhere? ” Matthew do you really need to ask?