In a lot of ways UC Davis seems to understand the political landscape in Davis, with regard to housing, fairly well. But the current LRDP (Long Range Development Plan) still has not removed the potential for housing on Russell Field, even though it reduces the proposed number of students living there from 1000 down to 400.
On their webpage, the university notes, “The plan retains the full east to west dimension of Russell Field between California Avenue and Howard Way as a large open space for campus recreation and intercollegiate athletic programs, as well as other campus functions. The Plan also retains Howard Field in its entirety.”
The page continues, “Altogether the revised plan retains 7 acres of field for on-going recreation when compared to the previously contemplated student housing proposal. The Plan would reduce the loss of recreational fields by proposing to redevelop an existing surface parking lot and a low density, one story office building.”
The plan right now is to increase the percentage of students living on campus from 35 percent of the undergraduate population up to 40 percent by 2027, when UC Davis will have about 40,000 students.
The sticking point seems to be the Russell fields. Acting Chancellor Ralph Hexter told the regents this week that residents pushed back at the development of housing on the athletic fields along Russell Boulevard. When they did so, the plan was revised, reducing the housing.
He told the regents that, through the give and take of the LRDP project, “we try to make sure that the residents are as happy with us being their largest employer and largest supplier of renters as they possibly can be. And we continually work with them.”
He said, “Over time, they’re going to have to recognize, ‘Well if you don’t want that (housing on Russell Field), you need to help us find more places for students to live in the city.’ So again, it’s dialogue.”
While in some ways, it seems that UC Davis’ leadership gets it, in other ways they seem to be a bit tone-deaf. Right now the Russell fields plan is projected to take on just 400 of the 6200 additional students – is it really a deal breaker to eliminate the remaining 400 units and put them elsewhere on campus?
The residence halls would accommodate a portion of that increase. Tercero is projected by 2017 to accommodate an additional 500 students. The campus is expected to provide “capacity for an additional 750 students in the Segundo neighborhood, with the redevelopment of the Regan Hall complex and an additional dining facility.” Cuarto would house another 300 students. That adds up to about 1550, or nearly one-quarter of the new student population.
A big portion of the new capacity will come at West Village. Immediately, they will start doubling up students to increase capacity by 624, with another 1626 students to be added through additional development.
Then you have the redevelopment of Orchard Park, which would accommodate an additional 900 students, while Solano Gateway would increase the net number of students from 500 to 1100.
The Campus Tomorrow site notes that the “revised plan does not include a roadway connection from campus into the Nishi property. This revision reflects the recent decision by the City of Davis to not approve the Nishi development proposal.”
The Vanguard reported back in September that there were proposals from the land developers to try to flip the Nishi site to the university. Although at this point, we do not know specifically what the university’s response was, we also see no alteration in their plan.
Ralph Hexter this week told the regents that, while the Nishi property was “very, very attractive” for development – it was narrowly defeated in election by the voters, which in his view illustrated the community’s reluctance for growth.
From our perspective, the university is being a bit silly on maintaining the need for Russell Field to be developed in light of the very strong opposition to the development – not only by people living adjacent to the site, but by the community as a whole.
Acting Chancellor Ralph Hexter suggested the need for the community to agree to alternative locations for the housing, but at 400 units there seem to be several good alternatives. One would simply be to expand plans for housing additions at West Village – the site and surrounding area would seem to easily be able to accommodate the 400 units proposed at Russell Field.
There is another possibility – given the planned expansion at other sites like Orchard and Solano Parks, the university could add some units to each site
Of course, for some, what UC Davis is proposing is not enough. At the council meeting on Tuesday, Eileen Samitz pushed for “UC Davis provide at least as much housing on the campus as other UCs are. Which is instead of providing only 40 percent of the student population – all the other UCs are providing 50 percent.”
She noted that UC Davis is planning to provide only 90 percent of incoming students with on-campus housing, where other UC schools are providing 100 percent of additional students with on-campus housing.
Ms. Samitz said, “Since UC Davis is going to be bringing in 5000 students within a few years – this is significant.”
“UCD has over 5300 acres, yet historically has provided the least amount of on-campus housing, and that has to change,” she said.
Almost everyone we have spoken with believes that UC Davis has not done enough on student housing on campus and needs to do more. Where consensus breaks down is at what point has UC Davis done enough and the city not done its share.
The dividing line is remarkably narrow – but it is there with the community.
The council is planning to have an update on the progress and process at its December 6 meeting.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Does the city council even know that the University is attempting to move forward with an inadequate on-campus housing plan? Isn’t there a council sub-committee that’s advocating for more on-campus housing?
Two VERY strange questions. Will leave it to others to elaborate…
Those questions should be asked, but about the City’s inadequate housing plan. Plenty of problems going on in the City for the Council to focus on.
ryankelly: The city doesn’t have 5,300 acres (with at least 100 acres on or near the core campus area which have been identified for additional student housing).
Yes, it does. The City can build as much housing as it needs and has plenty of space to do it. Lack of will is all that is missing.
Ron: The university doesn’t have 5300 acres of developable land either
Chamber Fan:
The University has a lot more available land than the city to build student housing.
Yes it does. The City has many, many acres of land on its periphery with willing property owners. Just because UC owns ag land, doesn’t mean it is different and developable.
ryankelly,
So apparently you are advocating for the City to annex land in to accommodate the housing needs for UCD, while UCD owns 5,300 acres, of which at least 100 acres or more are on or near the core campus can accommodate more student housing for UCD’s own growth.
I cannot say that I agree with you and Mark on this. Not only is there far more land available on the UCD campus but it would be more sustainable planning to reduce the need of thousands of students needing to get to and from the campus daily, plus on-campus the housing would be dedicated to the students making it permanently available, unlike in the City.
The subcommittee has to notice its meetings under Brown Act
i hear they have not been open to the public ?
That’s not true – that’s why it’s a subcommittee.
What has the subcommittee done? I couldn’t find any information about it.
The University clearly could avoid building on Russell Fields, by why should it? What benefits will the University gain by completely acceding to the demands of the neighbors? I expect that the administration believes that the fields will eventually be developed. If that is the case, then it makes sense to start the process now. They have engaged with the community, adjusted their plans accordingly, and really gain nothing by stopping now.
Mark:
I know that you’d like to believe this, but it’s simply not true.
This is about the University not taking responsibility to build enough on-campus student housing for its own needs.
Mark: Ron is incapable of thinking outside his own box
Chamber Fan: There’s nothing productive about your comment.
Pretty much like all of yours on this topic…
Mark and Ron
I believe that you are both making accurate statements from your own point of view. Either of you please feel free to correct me if I am misrepresenting your position.
Mark seems to believe that the university should have no concern for how its actions affect the city.
Ron seems to feel that the university and city should be respectful of each others interests.
For me, this is the classic disparity between individual “rights” based on ownership, versus respectful use of one’s own property so as to minimize potential downsides for others. I happen to fall closer to Ron’s position than to Mark’s since I believe that early and frequent collaboration will produce better results for all concerned. I fully recognize that my belief is the minority opinion in our society, especially at this particular time.
As I said above:
and from that comment you have concluded that I believe that:
The University has listened to the concerns of the City and has adjusted its plans accordingly. That is exactly what they should have done, engaged and responded. Now it is time for them to make a decision and move on to the next issue.
I agree that a property owner should engage with their neighbors over their plans. Where we differ, Tia, is you apparently believe that neighbor’s concerns should have greater priority than that of the property owner’s. In effect, you are arguing that the neighbor should have veto power over what the owner does. Sorry, that is nothing more than stealing someone else’s property rights. I’m not surprised you think appropriating someone else’s rights for your own benefit is appropriate as it is completely consistent with your self-centered posts here over the years. Whatever is best for Tia is best for all, right?
The University has listened to the community’s concerns, and now it is time to implement the resulting plan. There is nothing to be gained from allowing the City (or worse, the noisy neighbors) to dictate what happens on University property.
Tia advocates for neighbors’ concerns to be taken into consideration whether she is one of those neighbors or not. How can you characterize that as “self-centered”? And somehow the property owners looking to make a profit are not?
Mark
“Where we differ, Tia, is you apparently believe that neighbor’s concerns should have greater priority than that of the property owner’s. In effect, you are arguing that the neighbor should have veto power over what the owner does. “
I appreciate your taking the time to clarify. It would appear that there is something that I need to clarify as well. I have never argued that the neighbor should have veto power. As a matter of fact, I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I believe that the owner had the right to do what ever they like within zoning and design guidelines. Where we actually differ is what we believe should happen if the owner/developer does planning which requires a change in the existing planning. You appear to believe that the decision should always be made in favor of the developer whereas I do not believe in development by exception. This would appear to me to be our real difference of opinion.
Tia: “You appear to believe that the decision should always be made in favor of the developer…”
That may be your belief, but it is nothing that I have ever said (or implied).
Zoning variances are part of the process as spelled out by State law, but it is the local jurisdiction that always has the final say on what decision is best for the community. That is the whole point of having zoning variances decided by the City Council majority following a public hearing, and not just decided by the noisy neighbors during public comment. You are the one who has argued against having the City Council majority make those decisions, not me.
“Zoning by exception” is really a nonsense statement. All zoning is open to variances by State law. Without it, there would be no Davis Diamonds facility, for instance, and many other projects in town that you and your anti-development friends likely appreciate (after the fact). That is the way the process works. Your attempts at preventing variances is an example of trying to muck up the process for everyone in order to mandate your position. Not exactly an approach I would consider ‘collaborative.’
Ron:
I’m not concerned about the University’s housing issues as I realize that I have little if any control over that matter. I am concerned about Davis’ housing issues, where I have a direct say through my local elected representatives. The City has copious amounts of land available to build more housing if it so desired. Where that housing is built, what types we need, and how soon we will get it accomplished are the important questions we should be discussing, not this repetitive and entirely meaningless recitation of the University’s land use choices.
The housing shortage in Davis is a Davis problem and requires a Davis-based solution. The discussion about the University is just a meaningless sideshow intended to distract the City from addressing its own critical issues.
Mark,
Where are these copious amounts of land in the City that you are talking about for housing?
Do you really need to ask, Eileen?
You apparently pride your own ability to identifying buildable sites on University-owned farmland, I would think you could apply that same skill set towards the lands around the City. My mistake.
As ryankelly states above:
Mark,
You made the statement:
Since you made this statement you should explain where all this land is in the City that can be developed for housing, unless of course your statement is not correct.
Eileen:
There is nothing preventing the development of the land surrounding the City if there was the will to do so. Thousands of acres are available with willing landowners. No sense in my specifying where for the simple reason that the land does not belong to me, and unlike you and Tia, I don’t believe I have the right to tell someone else what to do with their own property.
If we wanted to solve the housing shortage in Davis we could. The fact that we have not has been an active choice by you, Ron, Tia, and many others to discriminate against those who do not have access to appropriate housing in town.
Mark,
Using your own argument, then how is it that UCD has the right to expect that the City build the significant amount of student housing for UCD’s self-directed accelerated growth?
Furthermore, any housing shortage in the City is clearly being driven by UCD’s negligence in providing the on-campus housing for its own needs. This is unfair to the students and unfair to Davis and surrounding communities, all being impacted UCD’s inaction and being so irresponsible.
I always “enjoy” seeing this type of argument from some (pro-development “noisy neighbors”), who apparently don’t believe in zoning.
Good to know that your “housing plan” is apparently based on fighting Measure R, and then getting a “friendly council” to overturn existing zoning. (Many other cities in the valley already use that plan.)
Oh – and don’t forget the “other” part of your plan, to downplay efforts to house more students on campus, as other universities are “somehow” more able to do.
The University isn’t telling Davis to build more housing. That is your interpretation of the situation, worded in a fashion to have what you hope is the greatest impact on the uninformed. In other words, that is nothing but your own propaganda.
Davis’ housing shortage is due to Davis refusing to build sufficient housing to meet the demand. The University is one of the demand drivers, but not the only one. Simply put, you are oversimplifying the problem, apparently because you want to push the problem on to someone else.
Davis needs to grow, at least as fast as the County population is growing, a responsibility that we have not kept up with. Your advocacy has been nothing more than an act of obstruction intended to prevent the City from acting on that responsibility.
For the University to build on farmland, it has to ‘overturn existing zoning’ as well. I guess it doesn’t count if the University does it, right?
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Mark, yes, the university is in fact telling the City to build more housing. See my comment below a 2:02 PM and Friday’s article in the Enterprise.
No, Roberta. The Chancellor is making the obvious statement that the City has failed to do its part to house residents.
Meanwhile, we are enjoying the benefit of having students available to fill all of the available rental units in town thereby maximizing revenues for the landlords. It should come as no surprise to learn that some of the staunchest ‘no growth’ advocates in town are landlords.
Mark, this comment is astonishing. Where UCD has made it blatantly apparent (in yesterday’s Enterprise and as the Vanguard article today indictes) that it is UCD trying to push their housing problem onto Davis (and neighboring communities). I mean, come on. Roberta Millstein has done an excellent job of spelling it out for you earlier at 2:02 pm.
However, you can chose to create your own reality, but UCD is clearly trying to continue to be an opportunist. UCD is ignoring their responsibilities to their students as well as to Davis and other neighboring communities, all being impacted by UCD’s negligence to provide enough on-campus housing which other UC’s are providing.
UCD has no excuse why they are not providing at least 50% on campus housing for their total student population like the other UC’s are providing and 100% of new incoming students. UCD has the land and they have the financial resources, plus they can do land leases if they prefer like the other universities are doing.
The campus unilaterally decides to considerably increase enrollment and somehow it just becomes the city’s “part” to increase housing? What many of us are saying is that we don’t see this as a “benefit” and the University doesn’t have the right to ask this of us. The campus doesn’t get to dictate to the city. And yes, those quotes I posted earlier explicitly show the campus asking the city to build on its behalf.
Mark,
What you refuse to acknowledge, which is also astonishing, is that UCD’s inadequate amount of on-campus housing is impacting Davis and other neighboring communities. So again, you can live in denial on this as well or instead, address the real solution which is UCD building far more, higher density on-campus student housing to reduce the students commuting needs, and to provide permanent availability.
But for a moment, let’s take a closer look at your scenario. What happens if the City were to build all of this housing to accommodate UCD’s student housing? What is to stop UCD from master leasing all of these properties as they are doing in some of the City apartments? The results are:
#1) there is no more net increase in housing created for non-students (which is one of you main complaints), #2) it pushes our workforce out of the City now forcing them to commute from outside the City expanding our carbon footprint, and #3) the City loses all of the property tax from those properties as it is currently losing on all the “master leasing” being done now in the City by UCD with Tandem and other apartment complex owners in town.
The City loses all property taxes and loses the revenue from municipal service fees when UCD leases or owns any property in Davis (or anywhere off the UCD campus). So UCD is directly causing the loss of property tax and municipal fees that the City would otherwise get from all of the commercial and residential properties that UCD is currently renting or owns in the City.
UCD can and needs to invest in the on-campus housing needs of their students. They can clearly afford it since UCD rcently made a bid of somewhere between $60 – $70 million for the Interland business park in south Davis that would have cheated the City out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in property tax and economic development. Thank heavens that UCD lost the bid to a private developer or the City would have lost enormous revenue due to UCD’s attempt for this “backdoor deal”. I’ll bet UCD did not give the City a clue that they were trying this stunt. This is not the way UCD to establish a “good town and gown” relationship, which they claim they want to achieve.
The City and the City Council need to recognize now that UCD is not dealing honestly with the City, and that the first responsibility of the Council and our City Staff is to protect the best interests of the City and its residents.
Actually the city is housing far more students than the University. I think the students are great and I love having living in a neighborhood that has plenty of students, but I hear about the cost of housing from them, and I see Orchard Park closed without a real replacement, and I hear thousands of more students are coming.
Mark, Eileen make a very good point about a very critical issue about UCD’s use of Master leases and the removal of property tax revenue. This is something that deserves attention by our state legislators, so any efforts by the City to provide more housing is not immediately turned into revenue loss for the City.
The University purchasing or leasing commercial property in town probably has a much greater negative impact on the City’s fiscal situation, but I agree that the master lease issue needs to be addressed. There would be little need for master leases however if there was sufficient housing in town to allow students a reasonable chance of finding an appropriate place to live. UCD has gone that route because they need some level of certainty for their students.
I do not disagree with the need for the campus to supply more housing, it just isn’t the main problem. The housing shortage, particularly the apartment shortage, is a decades-long problem, not something that just arose recently with the increase in enrollment. This is a problem that Davis needs to address, but we won’t do so as long as the echo chamber in town continues to blame the campus. This is a problem that we created with our no-growth mindset over the past couple of decades. We need a City-based solution for this City-based problem.
Mark,
It is actually the other way around, UCD is using master leases because UCD is not providing sufficient on-campus housing for its own needs. And UCD dragging it heels on providing the promised on-campus housing is the main problem, and decades long.
Davis has always provided its regional fair share of growth, so your no-growth accusations are simply not true.
You like your script Eileen, and I hold no expectation that you will ever deviate from it. I do hope, however, that other readers can see past your repetitions and start to understand the real problem and the need for real solutions.
Davis has had an artificially low apartment vacancy rate since at least the late ’70’s due primarily to our ongoing failure to supply sufficient apartments for the needs of the City’s residents. We continue to pay the price with the increasing number of mini-dorms in our neighborhoods (and the concomitant loss of single-family homes), and the severe decrease in the 20-30 something generation, who are unable to find appropriate places to live in town and move away. The result is that every day we look more and more like a retirement community built on the backs of young people and the ruinous rents that no-growth favoring landlords are able to extract from the desperate.
In the end, Eileen, no matter how successful you are at convincing the University to build more housing on campus, it will be insufficient to solve the housing problem in Davis. That is the reality that you refuse to accept. Your solution isn’t a solution at all, just an effort to deflect and obstruct.
Mark,
You constantly bring up the same complaints and I constantly have to explain where you have it backwards. So if anyone has a “script” that would be you. Let’s just say that in your world, you wish to believe that Davis needs to build endlessly far beyond its capacity, including the enormous amount of housing that UCD will continue to create the needs to, but will continue to resist providing for their own growth. Apparently you are not concerned about traffic, circulation problems, inadequate City services and quality of life here in Davis, but the vast number of other Davis residents do. Davis has always provided its region fair share of growth and right now there is plenty of new construction going on. So please stop trying to say Davis is no-growth because that is just not true.
The hypocrisy of UCD is pretty apparent since they have plenty of land land and they have the funds to provide the needed on-campus student housing. However, UCD wants to see if they can continue getting away with not taking care of the housing needs of the avalanche of students that they wish to add for the primary reason of increasing UCD’s revenue.
So while UCD continues to not take responsibility of it’s massive, self-directed and accelerated growth, to an already over-crowded campus which does not have the infrastructure in place to handle all of this growth, UCD then try’s desperately to blame these problems that they have created, on the City. It’s entirely absurd.
I’ve stated the solution numerous times Mark, and that is that UCD simply needs to build much more on-campus housing. You can chose to not agree, but let’s leave it at that instead of you manufacturing false motives.
Not sure if you and ryankelly are referring to the same “copious” amounts of land. If so, I’d suggest that it’s a non-starter, for most Davis residents.
If you’re referring to overly-massive infill proposals, we have already witnessed (some) of the resistance it will face.
Those of us who are advocating for more on-campus housing understand that it will have the fewest impacts on the city, and will provide a safer, easier “commute” for students. We’ve already had an impact on the University’s plans (e.g., a drastic increase in the percentage of students that will be housed on campus, and partial success regarding Russell Fields). However, there’s definitely “room for improvement”, on campus.
It’s bad enough that (some) who are “so concerned” about student housing are often the same ones who fail to participate in efforts to encourage the University to assume greater responsibility for its students (as other universities are doing – even though they have less land available to do so). Even worse, some seem “determined” to downplay the success we’ve witnessed so far, for some unknown reason(s).
hpierce: What?
Ron… let’s see… at 8:45, you asked two questions…
Question 1 answer: define “inadequate”… is the CC aware of the UCD housing plan proposals? Duh, yes!
Question 2 answer: no…
Your 9:47, 10:o2, 10:14, and 10:16 posts didn’t move ANY ball forward (i.e., not ‘productive’)… all those comments (at best, opinions that have no weight with anyone with authority @ UCD) have been made by many, many times… your posts here since 9 A, are somewhat insipid, if you will… might be cathartic to you, but certainly not ‘productive’…
Apparently was wrong on answer to question 2, according to David… my bad… saw no evidence of it on City website…
Remember two councilmembers can “Brown Act” together and collaborate outside of a noticed meeting, three cannot.
hpierce: In reference to your initial comment, I guess no one took you up on your offer to “elaborate” on your behalf.
As you (no doubt) know, the “inadequate” on-campus housing plan has been defined many times on the Vanguard (e.g., in relation to the physical size of the campus, enrollment plans, and in comparison to on-campus housing plans by other universities).
Not sure if you’ve read the article in its entirety, but UCD is now communicating with the regents, regarding their (inadequate) housing plan. Meanwhile, the council has not provided any feedback to the community, regarding discussions with UCD related to providing more on-campus housing.
The purpose of the council sub-committee was to discuss the LRDP update with the University, especially plans for more on-campus housing.
I don’t believe developing Russell fields is ideal the way it is designed. Maybe the tennis courts could be relocated and a classroom building or mixed use (housing and academic) could be built on that site, which would retain the field. The neighbors would benefit from not having the glare of the tennis court lights at night. The neighbors would have essentially a similar view.
Now, that’s a potentially productive comment!
There are some antiquated buildings in the vicinity… they could be razed (or the old “hall” buildings could be relocated, again)… and re-developed, and even nearer to the Core Campus…
Mark,
Using your own argument, then how is it that UCD has the right to expect that the City build the significant amount of student housing for UCD’s self-directed accelerated growth?
Furthermore, any housing shortage in the City is clearly being driven by UCD’s negligence in providing the on-campus housing for its own needs. This is unfair to the students and unfair to Davis and surrounding communities, all being impacted UCD’s inaction and being so irresponsible.
Eileen, just a suggestion – you would do better to just offer a creative suggestion, but not end it with a question asking why UCD wasn’t doing it. I think more dialogue and less challenge question/defensive answer might be more constructive. What do you think about my suggestion about relocating the tennis courts?
ryankelly,
I have been offering solutions and creative suggestions for more than a year on this issue, as other Davis citizens have. But I’ll take your suggestion and here you go:
UCD needs to interview companies including American Campus Communities to negotiate building far more high density student housing on-campus. Since UCD with 5,300 acres, has plenty of site options on-campus to accommodate their housing needs particularly since UCD is accelerating the growth of its student population for revenue.
I think UCD bids out all projects on campus. It’s difficult to say which comes first – a not to exceed budget and then design/build, keeping to that budget or design/build then a budget request. If the company is willing to design something and then offer it for the budget step, it may be interesting to see what it might look like.
I want to emphasize what Eileen is saying here. The university is, in fact, making demands on the City. This is clear from some quotes that were printed in the Enterprise article from Friday:
The university made the decision to increase enrollment, and is now simply expecting the city to pony up. Well, the city has a right to push back on that and to say, no, but we’ll help you find more places for students to live on campus.
As for creative suggestions, Eileen has offered many of these, including identifying particular areas on campus for new housing or more dense housing. Having said that, yes, the idea of relocating the tennis courts is interesting and worth considering. But it is completely unfair to accuse Eileen of not making positive and creative suggestions.
Roberta, I just suggested that she not end her suggestions with a question or statement asking or demanding an explanation why they weren’t doing it already. I suggested that she leave that part off, so rather than getting a defensive answer, there would be more dialogue about the actual creative suggestion.
See Eileen’s response. I think it’s better and clearly gives others something to discuss.
To address your other point – Davis is a college town and has built apartments as enrollment increase over decades, so the opposition to any help with absolutely any housing in the City is new.
And – is a product of your imagination. Look around, if you doubt that development is occurring.
What’s “new” is the massive, rent-by-the-room proposals (aimed primarily at well-heeled students) that we’ve been seeing recently. One of these (Lincoln 40) would displace existing affordable housing, is adjacent to (and with access dependent upon) the “worst intersection in town”, and (I believe) would require some type of subsidy from the city to mitigate additional traffic through that intersection. The other proposal (Sterling) would require the destruction of a multi-building, relatively new and attractive facility that served existing community needs, created for an organization that depended on taxpayer funding. Apparently priced in a speculative manner (that might block organizations which might have otherwise been able to obtain it), in anticipation of a zoning change (from industrial, to high-density housing). (And, is opposed by a significant number of neighbors.)
Also – a Trackside proposal that would overwhelm the adjacent neighborhood, and does not adhere to neighborhood guidelines. (Even on the “second try”.)
I understand that all of these proposals would require a zoning change. And, it’s likely “just the beginning” of upcoming battles, if the University fails to address the problem it is creating.
Ron, The 3 proposals you mention are experiencing strong opposition and likely will be delayed even further by litigation. The University meanwhile is expanding. It has plans to build many housing units, but not enough to house every student, staff member and faculty member that would like to live in Davis. We don’t have to house every single person, but could house some more than we are doing now.
But she has made these positive suggestions many times before, as you well know. Must she repeat them in every comment? Surely there is room for us to express our frustrations with the university as well.
I haven’t seen anyone state that there should be no new housing in the City. What people have been saying is that the University should house 50% of its students – just not on Russell Field (but rather, to consider the areas that Eileen and others have already identified).
Eileen:
You thought your words were so profound that you posted them twice?
I answered you above.
I think we have to acknowledge that Davis is a college town and the City has grown as the university has grown. This is a key part of our identity.
Davis is already meeting its “fair share” growth requirements, as administered by SACOG.
Your “advocacy” (and those like you) for endless development is the primary reason that the “slow-growth” movement arose in the first place. As I suspected, it will be an endless battle, as long as there is a financial incentive to continue development, endlessly. (The battle will become even more acrimonious, as the financial incentives continue to grow higher.)
Regarding the University and its plans, the only ones who aren’t supporting more housing on campus seem to be the same ones who want to blow up the city’s borders, and/or encourage massive infill projects.
“Endless”? Guess we should stop all procreation… and, all immigration… got it, Ron… we should not “grow”…
hpierce: All of your comments to me today would be classified as “trolling”. I will try to refrain from a response regarding where you might “file” those types of comments.
Don’t let it bother you Ron. Even though I don’t often agree with you on some of the growth issues I’ve always found you to be decent and repectful in regards to your comments.
Thanks, B.P. Much appreciated.
Same thoughts toward you (and hpierce, most of the time).
You have defined me as a “troll”, a label I don’t think I deserve, particularly given multitudinous posts by many others, who you have not so labelled… OK… your right to do so…
hpierce: Just your comments to me, today. Note that I had already clarified this.
I normally find the majority of your comments to be knowledgeable, with an emphasis on facts – along with a swift acknowledgement if in error.
David’s “My View” commentary quotes the Interim Chancellor as saying, in effect, that if a number of Davis residents don’t support student housing on certain areas of campus, then “…you need to help us find more places to live in the city. So, again, it’s dialogue.” I don’t understand the logic of that statement. Mr. Hexter, they’re UCD’s students, and therefore your responsibility. UCD enticed those young people to attend college at your campus, your administrative staff accepted their applications, and yet UCD evicted them from dormitories after freshman year to fend for themselves. (By “enticement,” I’m referring to the 2020 Initiative announced by former Chancellor Katehi in September 2011, the goal of which was to dramatically increase undergraduate enrollment by 5,000 students by 2020, but with no corresponding plans for where this huge upsurge in students would live. The 2020 Initiative was not mandated by the UC Office of the President; it was solely an effort by UCD.)
So, UCD independently and arbitrarily decided to add 5,000 more students over a short period of time, and then expects Davis to absorb them. What kind of “dialogue” did UCD have with City of Davis officials before the 2020 Initiative was launched? I’d venture to guess that the answer was none. Did Hexter inform anyone in the City in advance about the comments he intended to make to the Regents earlier this week? Again, I highly doubt it.
On top of everything else, anyone who has followed the evolution of UCD’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) knows that the plan actually reduces the amount of acreage slated for new student housing construction at West Village. For UCD to do that and then turn around and suggest it is the city’s responsibility to find places for future students to live is disingenuous at best. Perhaps if Mr. Hexter had to awaken to student-thrown beer bottles bouncing off his house at 2:00 AM, or witness empty “adult beverage” containers littering the student mini-dorms in his neighborhood, he might feel a little bit differently about asserting that it is our responsibility to care for his flock.
Some pointed out that UCD has plenty of land available for student housing. That’s entirely true, yet for some reason university administrators continue focusing on building as little student housing as possible, while at the same time spending public funds on facilities like the Mondavi and the Shrem art museum. More recently, the Enterprise reported that UCD was one of 10 bids submitted to buy the University Research Park that was ultimately purchased by Sacramento developer Mark Friedman for $70 million. That UCD has plenty of money to throw into such a bidding process is proven by the fact that UCD announced in September 2015 that its endowment had reached $1 billion, followed by another announcement in July 2016 that it has raised a record-breaking $226 million from donors during the 2015-16 fiscal year. So, UCD not only has the land to support vastly more on-campus housing, it also has the money. (In fact, UCD has far money than the City of Davis, by a long shot.) UCD has now shown again that it simply lacks the will to meet its obligations. Maybe it’s time for the City of Davis to consider litigation, with the goal of forging a consent agreement such as UC Santa Cruz was ultimately forced to sign, obligating it to match student enrollment growth with on-campus housing construction.
You’re just repeating Eileen’s arguments, even using her words.
Davis is a college town. The University is our largest employer, by far. This is an huge part of our identity. Many of the people opposing growth and demonizing UCD work at UCD or came here initially as students and stayed. Previous generations provided housing for these people.
Ryan, Maybe in the past the University made the town great, but UCD’s current activities are beginning to erode the quality of life in Davis. The University is increasingly buying and renting properties in town and removing them from the tax roles. The campus is expanding more rapidly and to a scale that is beyond the capacity of what the city can handle. It is time for the University to build more housing and catch up.
No, it has not. I don’t believe you experienced the change that Davis has gone through as UCD expanded since the late 1950’s. Davis is still small and can absorb more growth without losing its identity as a college town.
ryankelly,
Are you saying that you have experienced the expansion of UCD since the 1950’s?
Regardless, the City is physically a small city, and its streets and roads have a capacity and UCD is trying to deflect its accelerated growth housing needs (which incidentally is primarily for UCD revenue purposes) onto the City. So while UCD has plenty of capacity since it has plenty of land on campus, it continues to try to bail on the housing needs that it is imposing. UCD housing needs being handled by UCD was the main purpose of the 1989 Memorandum of Understanding between UCD and the City. So UCD has acknowledged in the past as UC systemwide via the 2002 document “UC Housing for the 21st Century” that all of the UC campuses need to accommodate far more of the student housing needs.
And on your other point, Davis cannot afford to continue absorbing UCD’s growth, nor should it have to when UCD has plenty of land and the financial means to build a lot more on-campus housing. On-campus housing reduces the student commuting needs which in turn reduces the energy consumption and traffic. On-campus housing also implements sustainable planning which UCD claims to embrace, but is not practicing.
Edison,
You need to remember a $1 billion endowment doesn’t mean they get to spend $1 billion on things. They have to take some of the dividends and put it back into the endowment to keep growing it. Suppose its 5% they can spend annually. That’s $50 million. Some of that could go to dedicated tenure lines–but then in future years that same amount or more will have to be dedicated every year. If it goes towards buildings, that $50 million will go to research and instruction spaces first. Then housing, if ever… Remember that UC was instructed by the state to have housing be a self-sustaining enterprise. This is why they are reluctant to spend donor dollars on dorms. The exception might be themed housing for specific communities, with on site retention resources. Beyond that, it is hard to see faculty supporting money that could fund their work instead fund dorms.
Matthew,
But UCD made a $60-$70 million dollar bid on Interland, plus they are spending $80 million on faculty and staff housing at West Village. So UCD clearly has plenty of financial resources when they want to.
Furthermore, UCD can do land leases like so many other universities are doing, and as UCD has itself done before which does not require using university funds. It is a win-win for all.
Eileen,
Yes but aren’t those resources not the endowment? I believe the faculty/staff housing comes from the core funds… but could be wrong, I’m not sure. Regardless, my point was really about the endowment. Beyond the endowment yes I agree with your point, the university has core funds and can always issue bonds. But even then, I can see faculty making the argument that faculty housing is part of retention of top notch faculty whereas building dorms as fast as possible is not as high a priority (not that I agree with this…). There appears to be an assumption that students should and probably want to pay for over-top expensive housing if its on campus.
As for land leasing. Yes, you are right. But so far they cant seem to get below 80% of market if they leverage land leasing for small a-affordable. But there is certainly real room for innovation in leveraging this tool. My hope is the university will take advantage of it and throw a few acres at trying something new.
Perhaps the city should do the same…
Great hpierce! I have a petition to overturn Prop 13 you can sign onto.
I believe very strongly UC Davis must build as much housing on campus as possible and as quickly as possible. At this point, I care less about where it is built and rather that it is built at all and is at least within a reasonable distance of the core.
But being mad at Hexter for not making housing his number 1 priority is naive given the real purpose of the UC. The constitution of the State of California tasks the UC with doing three things:
-Teaching
-Research
-Public Service
The Master Plan for Higher Education in California, the document progressives hold up as a gold standard for higher ed policy in the state, only mentions housing in its policy recommendations with respect to how it is funded: namely, that it be self supporting (pages 14, 173 and 174). They also suggest superior housing and parking facilities are what draw people to smaller liberal arts schools (page 81). But I am not entirely sure that is true.
Any successful case for housing on campus must be tied in with the primary mission of the UC. That means linking housing issues with retention and academic performance.
Surely students cannot perform at their best, and will have trouble completely their degrees in a timely fashion, if:
• they have to commute to campus, or
• they pay high rent, or
• they have to pile in a dwelling with many other students, or
• they have to spend copious amounts of time tracking down a place to live, or
• they have to deal with an unscrupulous landlord who benefits from being in a “landlord’s market.
The university helped to create these problems by adding students without adding housing. Now it should help to fix them by adding well-priced, well-maintained, and well-run campus housing.
Well said. That’s it, exactly.
Thanks. Except change “completely” to “completing” and put a second quotation mark after “market.” 🙂
And in case the “high rent” reference seems irrelevant to student success, “high rent” often means students working more hours or more jobs.
Matthew
Of the three tasks of the UC, the meaning of research and teaching are self evident. Less clear to me is the meaning of “public service”. It would seem to me that perhaps collaborating with the community in which the particular university is housed just might fall within the realm of “public service”. I am wondering how you define it ( or if you want, a link with the UC definition would be fine).
Hello Everyone, Have I mentioned that I have the ability to channel The Almighty? In fact, he’s “coming through” right now.
“Attention citizens of Davis. I sent Eileen Samitz to Earth to make the University build one housing unit for each new student. She has failed in her Earthly mission to convince the Regents. I sent Mark West to Earth to convince the People of Davis to overturn Measure R or welcome massive infill housing into their neighborhoods with open arms. He has failed in his mission. I sent David Greenwald to Earth to convince Davisites that it is their mission to build, build, build to open up so many rental units that immigrants can afford to live in Davis. He has failed in his mission. Therefore, I am smiting the people of Davis with a dread sepsis infection that will kill 70% of the population, thus increasing vacant housing stock, and therefore lowering demand and therefore lowering rents. So sayeth the Lord.”
I am not conscious when I channel the Lord. What did he say?
Don’t know, but have been feverish all day, and it is all I can do to ty
I think he said that you have the most clever overall comments on the Vanguard.
Alan,
He also said not to worry, Eileen is not done yet and he directed her to continue her work.
Reading Eileen and Ron’s posts is like reading modern day Don Quixote.
and the Lord sent Alan Miller to Davis to convince the people to outlaw powered subwoofers and thumpa-thumpa-thumpa music. He too has failed…but he looks to be having greater success convincing the denizens of old east Davis that a four-story building will block out the sun and keep them from getting a tan. Perhaps there is hope for the town after all.
We did win this. The downtown scene is MUCH quieter since the murder. We no longer hear the overamplified subwoofers from downtown from 11pm to 2am on Thursday – Saturday.
See above. Winning!
That’s just a weird comment. Why would I have to ‘convince’ the “denizens” of Old East of anything when there is mass agreement in the neighborhood?