Today is the end of 2017 and, in many ways, 2017 was not a good year on the climate change front – with the worst fire season in American history, a bad Atlantic hurricane season, and disease spreading in a good many parts of the world.
“Disaster, Pestilence, War, and Famine are riding as horsemen of a particular apocalypse. In 2016, the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere reached 403 parts per million, higher than it has been since at least the last ice age. By the end of 2017, the United States was on track to have the most billion-dollar weather- and climate-related disasters since the government started counting in 1980. We did that,” said an article in Wired this week: “Fighting Climate Change, and Building a World to Withstand It.”
Here’s the kicker: “[T]he radical alteration of Earth’s climate isn’t just something that’s going to happen in 100 years if we’re not careful, or in 50 years if we don’t change our economy and moonshot the crap out of science and technology. It’s here. Now. It happened. Look behind you.
“Absent any changes, by 2050 Earth will be a couple degrees hotter overall. Sea levels will be a foot higher.”
While 2050 still seems a long way away, especially for those of you over the age of 60 who would be in your 90s at least by 2050, my daughter will be just 40 that year. We owe it to her and 
her generation to get this right.
As the article points out: “2017 taught a lesson, at last, that scientists and futurists have been screaming about. Humanity has to reduce the amount of carbon it’s pumping into the air. Radically. Or every year will be worse from here on out.”
But there is also a lesson for our local ecosystem here in Davis. And this is the point that we need to drive home.
The article notes: “And the next time someone in a city planning meeting says that new housing shouldn’t get built in a residential area because it’s not in keeping with the sense of the community and might disrupt parking, tell them what that means: that they want young people to have lesser lives, that they don’t want poor people and people of color to have the same opportunities they did, and that they’d rather the planet’s environment get crushed by letting bad buildings spread to inhospitable places than increasing density in cities.”
That is the real kicker. Davis purports to be an environmentally conscious city. Heck, at times we have been on the forefront of environmental sustainability. But right now we are badly lagging. Oh sure, we push for LEED-Gold and occasionally LEED-Platinum buildings.
But while we like to hide behind green policies, we are actually quite bad in terms of linking land use to green policies.
Analysis: Statistics on Commutes Show a Massive and Growing Jobs-Housing Imbalance
In September, the Vanguard reported that 73.8 percent of Davis area workers live outside the area while 69 percent of residents commute to other areas in order to work.
Using the most recent data from the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, published by the U.S. Census Bureau, “there were approximately 28,465 persons employed within the City of Davis and on the UC Davis main campus in 2014, which represents a 12.2 percent decrease from 2004.”
Of those 28,465, around 73.8 percent (nearly three-quarters) were “in-commuters” who “lived outside of the Davis area.” Not only is that a huge number, but it “represents an increase in the in-commuter rate from 66.5 percent in 2004.”
On the other hand and just as concerning, nearly 70 percent of those residents who are employees somewhere (69.1 percent) were “out-commuters” working “outside of the Davis area.” That also represents a significant increase, as the out-commuter rate was 54.8 percent in 2004.
In other words, the trends were bad and got worse in both respects.
To put numbers on this, about 21,000 of the over 28,000 people employed in Davis and at UC Davis live outside of the area and have to commute into town each morning. And on the other hand, 16,655 of the 24,000 people who live in Davis and are employed work outside of town.
This reflects actually two problems. The first problem is the lack of housing for people who work in Davis and commute to Davis, who either cannot find housing or cannot afford housing to live in Davis. We obviously do not know what percentage of those 21,000 who work in Davis but live outside of the Davis area actually wish to reside here, but the overall number of in-commuters is rather astronomical.
The second problem is one we have discussed over the years – it is the jobs-housing imbalance. One of the problems is that if someone doesn’t work at the university, the chance of their finding a high enough paying job to live in Davis is reduced and they go to Sacramento or even the Bay Area to get those kinds of jobs.
Sunday Commentary: Building More Student Housing Will Reduce Traffic Impacts in Davis
The reality is that this has consequences for climate change. As the UC Davis travel survey demonstrates, where you live determines more than anything else your mode of transportation.
The closer you live to the university, the more likely you are to take transportation that is not a single-occupancy vehicle. And the further you live from your destination, the more likely you are to drive alone to campus.
The study found that of those who live within a mile of campus, about 93 percent either walk or bike and only one percent drive. By the time you get to three to five miles away, it’s still fairly good with 37 percent biking, 20 percent using the bus, and still only 37 percent driving alone. And then, go beyond five miles and 75 to 80 percent drive alone, about 12-14 percent carpool, and another five to 10 percent bike or use the train.
The data are specific to campus, but they can be extrapolated to other work venues as well. The bottom line is clear, by failing to put housing near jobs, we have increased our GHG emissions.
So how is Davis a green city if its land use forces people to get in their cars and drive from Natomas or Elk Grove in order to come to work?
In the last year, we have seen debates in Davis over infill projects and the issue of density comes up. Our future discussions need to take into account the number of people who are both in-commuting and out-commuting in order to get from where they live to where they work, and the impact which that collectively has on climate change.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Given that climate change is upon us now, I think we need to think seriously about whether this is a region of the country that should be expanding to any large extent, given the projections for warmer climates, shorter cold periods, and many drier winters. The Sierra region will no longer be serving us as a reservoir to the extent that it has in the past. Water from the Sacramento River and from groundwater are not in an unlimited supply. Farmland is also limited and needs to be preserved for all.
On a different note, I can’t help but point out the flaw in your logic. There’s not enough housing for the people who work here and there is not enough work for the people who live here. Looks just like a plain old argument for growth to me, with a bunch of unsupported assumptions about where people really want to live and really want to work.
There isn’t a huge flaw here in the logic. A lot of the people coming in to work can’t afford to live here whereas a lot of the people who commute elsewhere can’t find a job here to support them. If you don’t work at the university, what do you do for a living and live here in town? Give you an example, my wife and I have lived here together for about 18 years, in all that time, she has never had a job in town. She has always had to commute at least to Sacramento to work.
Well, that would be an argument to move to Sacramento, then.
Personally, I commuted from Davis to Sacramento for years, using public transportation (which was subsidized by my employer). Never even considered working in Davis, once I decided to pursue that career path. No one I worked with lived near their workplace, located in downtown Sacramento. They all commuted from surrounding areas, most using public transportation, I believe. (One person enjoyed the exercise resulting from a significant bicycle commute, but that person was an exception.)
“Well, that would be an argument to move to Sacramento, then”
Not really. There always been overriding considerations for staying in Davis, but the lack of available jobs in Davis both adds to the cost of commuting and the impact on the environment.
The fact that “no one (you) worked with lived near their workplace” – illustrates a huge contributing factor to GHG emissions.
It’s an argument that one should move to where the jobs are located. (Especially if they choose not to use public transportation.)
If folks are already having problems finding affordable housing in Davis, adding more jobs will cause more workers to commute to Davis, from more-affordable areas. (Which, you’ve already identified as yet another “imbalance/problem”, contributing to GHG emissions.)
Ironically, you’ve provided an example of someone doing the opposite. “Choosing” to live in Davis, and commuting elsewhere.
You’re only accounting for one of us is the problem. And you’re not factoring in children into the equation.
Well, if the two of you work in different locations, you have to make a choice (as you did).
Arguing that jobs should be “created”, exactly where you want them to be (while simultaneously assuming that it would match career goals, and that you’d actually be hired) is fanciful thinking, to say the least. All while ignoring the GHG impacts resulting from commuters that would drive into town from elsewhere, which you claim as an argument (and which already reflects an “imbalance”, due to employment at UCD).
Regarding children, that might be an argument to try to improve schools everywhere, not just in Davis. (Not sure of your point, actually.)
You’re looking at the wrong side of the equation here. If there were jobs available that matched the housing in Davis, then we wouldn’t have to make a choice and the environment would be better. That’s the point. Land use decisions that allow us to mitigate impact on the environment. But you want to argue against every single possible solution because it throws your apple cart into disarray for whatever reason.
. . . there’d be even more commuters coming into Davis to fill those jobs.
On a more basic level, there’s no logic in your assertion that the “jobs available” don’t match the “housing available”. If anything, there’s an “excess” of jobs compared to housing (per your argument – resulting in a net inflow of commuters, primarily due to UCD).
I know a variety of people who live in Davis and who are employed in Davis not at UCD, either independently or otherwise. I’d also add that university jobs come with good benefits and have a wide range of salaries and job descriptions.
I didn’t mean it literally. Obviously there are people who live in Davis, who don’t work at the university, including me.
If you didn’t mean it literally, then I (literally) don’t know what you meant.
David,
I think one the central points your readers are missing is the reslity that folks who work at UCD – don’t work in Davis. They work in Yolo County, or many – like Ron did – in Sacramento. Accordingly, every dime they spend on campus goes to Yolo County. Every lunch Ron purchased, the tax went to City of Sacramento. That’s typically five days a week. Same for those 30,000 students.
After a while, you’re talking real money.
When it comes to taxes, and municipal revenues, location makes all the difference.
John: I was kind of a cheapskate, as were my coworkers. Brought lunches quite often, ate at really inexpensive places the rest of the time. (Actually, I probably left the office for lunch more often than most of my coworkers.) The city of Sacramento received very little money from the likes of me and my coworkers.
Spent other money in Davis, and still do.
Regarding students, a peripheral development isn’t likely to make much difference, regarding how/where they purchase lunches.
I will say again, though – I appreciate your overall politeness on this blog.
Depends on where it is and where they live. You are correct that if all student housing is built on campus, the city would get less revenue from them than if some of their housing is near shopping options. But every restaurant purchase is taxable. I think students are the main reason we now have 10 coffee places and something like 18 Asian-style eateries downtown, not to mention the number of them in our neighborhood shopping centers.
Don: Interestingly enough, I recall that one of the finance and budget commissioners pointed out that if the Nishi developers arranged something with UCD (which didn’t involve the city), then the city would have very little/no cost, while still receiving significant sales tax. (Something to that effect.)
The point being that even students who live on campus spend money in town. (I suspect that more money is spent on dinners, bars, and other after-hour activities in town, compared to lunch or even coffee sales.)
In any case, I recall a pretty good/inexpensive food facility on campus, which is tough to beat (for lunch). (Haven’t checked it out in awhile, though.)
If one is serious about having UCD offset its costs and impacts, you’re already aware of the answer that UC Santa Cruz has found, at least.
Correction: Not “UC” Santa Cruz. (I was referring to the city of Santa Cruz, and its “relationship” with their adjacent UC.)
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
Ron,
Thanks, I’m just trying to have a conversation.
You’re still missing my point about why location matters. You were in Sacto every workday, those a UCD are in Yolo or Sacto every workday. Whatever you spent, during those hours, was not spent in Davis.
Adding new commercial space in or around Davis, would serve to change that ratio. Even university classrooms in Davis would help with the equation – from the viewpoint of where they bought that next latte, or next sandwich, or even that pair of shoes – the ones they can now pick up at Amazon’s on-campus lockbox.
But those new commercial locations all require space – generally new space, well design space, optimally organized space. It all requires affordable property and new investment to begin to change the calculus of where one spends their productive work hours.
Today, the “occupational distribution” is way out of balance – with far more hours being consumed “outside of Davis” than inside, particularly by those with greater discretionary spending power.
You can choose to analyse this from the standpoint of GHG production, or daily personal hours spent commuting, or from the standpoint of where those occupant’s discretionary spending is occurring each day. In the end, it is all part of the same discussion – however with respect to fiscal sustainability of the municipal enterprise revenue model – there is more to be discussed.
Thanks, John.
Still not convinced that there was much money to be had, from the likes of me while at work.
I used to think that commercial development would be a desirable goal, to help balance out all of the housing developments that have been approved. However, I’m much more skeptical than I used to be, for a number of reasons:
Any proposal seems likely to include housing, thereby doing nothing to address the supposed “imbalance” between housing and commercial development.
Including housing means that new occupants would supposedly fill those new jobs, thereby defeating the purpose of adding new jobs for existing residents. On the other hand, there’s also nothing to prevent new occupants (or their families) from working elsewhere, thereby contributing to GHG. In addition, there’s nothing to prevent workers from commuting in from other areas to fill those jobs, thereby contributing to GHG.
Including housing changes the mix (and need) of services, increasing costs to the city. Increasing costs to the city defeats the “revenue-generating” purpose of having commercial development.
If there was truly a “demand” for commercial space, it seems likely that the relatively large, existing industrial/commercial spaces in the city would not be under the process of conversion to residential development. In addition, the commercial space planned for Nishi might not have been eliminated, if there was sufficient demand.
There’s another “innovation center” planned for Woodland (which also includes housing). This also causes me to question how many “innovation centers” are actually needed/demanded by market forces.
There’s also an effort by UCD and the city of Sacramento to expand UCD’s operations, there. Supposedly, generating commercial development (which unlike UCD, actually pays taxes). Again, causing me to question how much “demand” the region can actually support.
Then, there’s the limited amount of property taxes that the city actually receives, from any development. (Seems to be around 20%, according to a recent Vanguard article.)
I also see that development of a large-scale employment center would worsen an already-challenged housing market.
I strongly suspect that there is no actual demand for stand-alone, large-scale commercial development in Davis at this time. The proposals strike me as a way to build housing developments, with commercial development as an afterthought. (And in fact, Nishi has totally eliminated the “bothersome” commercial component.)
As a side note, the agreement between Santa Cruz and its adjacent UC also addresses the impacts of the “commute” to UC Santa Cruz, through town:
“UCSC agrees that under the 2005 LRDP new “average daily trips” (ADTs) to the main campus will be limited to 3,900 and to pay the City approximately $1.5 million (based on a fee of $366/new trip, equal to fee paid by private developers). UCSC will also pay city approximately $420,000 in ADT fees related to Delaware Avenue offices.”
“The settlement commits UCSC to pay for new ADT at the Marine Sciences campus as ADT generating development is approved at the rate then in effect.”
“UCSC will limit ADT to the main campus to 28,700 ADTs if it is not prohibited from constucting housing in the North Campus. (Baseline ADTs to the campus total 24,800).”
UCSC and city each commit to pay up to $500,000 over a three-year period to implement “transportation improvements that are not included in the City’s current TIF [Traffic Impact Fee] Program.” In addition, each entity will pay $50,000 to plan and implement a public transportation system to reduce auto congestion. UCSC also agrees to discharge the campus’ prior LRDP mitigation obligations by paying its proportional share toward the Mission Street widening project, Empire/Heller signal project, and Bay Street overlay project.”
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
We will not be extorting hundreds of thousands of dollars from UC Davis, Ron. You might as well stop posting this notion over and over.
I would think that the city of Santa Cruz might object to your use of the word “extortion”. Instead, they might view it as an agreement to help offset impacts from an entity which pays no taxes. (Not sure if other public universities are engaging in practices that might be viewed as straying from its original purpose, such as pursuing full-tuition, non-resident students, private grants/funds, etc.)
Sorry that you apparently don’t like the agreement, and the benefits it has brought to the city of Santa Cruz.
Ron,
Sorry, I don’t get your analogy with Santa Cruz.
Unlike Davis, Santa Cruz enjoys (fiscally speaking) an incredible year round trade in tourism and summer vacationers from Silicon Valley – traversing their way back and forth from Carmel.
Sure seems like overkill to be suing the university.
All I am asking for is a conversation about and some recognition that the municipal enterprise of Davis could benefit from a significant dose of economic diversification.
Without resorting to litigation, are you willing to acknowledge there there might exist a problem worthy of an informed, adult conversation?
John:
I wasn’t necessarily attempting to make a direct “tie” between commercial development and pursuing an agreement between the city and UCD. However, UCD does fulfill a role that’s somewhat similar to private sector commercial development, regarding the creation of jobs. (Something that UCD does quite well, actually.) Unfortunately, unlike private commercial activities, UCD does not pay taxes to help offset its impacts. In addition, universities have a great deal of “autonomy” to make decisions which negatively impact surrounding communities. (I’m aware of three lawsuits from cities against their adjacent public universities in California, alone.) I can also repost articles regarding state audits that address various aspects of UC’s pursuit of non-resident students, for example, coupled with a failure to control costs. I can also repost an article regarding UC’s interference with a state audit.
In other words, it seems that lawsuits (and resulting settlements) are sometimes a necessary tool to address impacts that have no other redress options.
Regarding having a conversation related to commercial development, of course. Your comments are generally non-inflammatory, which is something that’s in short supply on the Vanguard. I hope that you’ve noticed that I’ve attempted to craft my responses to you in-kind.
Ron,
So, am I to understand that you simply don’t see any way that the City of Davis could become any “better” version of itself through a concerted focus on the introduction of a new cluster of commercial development targeted to aggregating and a significant presence of technology, engineering and bio-technology employers within the local community? In a related thread, how do you think such an initiative would be received by newly minted graduates of UCD – something we rarely address?
Happy New Year!
John: I think it’s possible, and that the Nishi site might accommodate it in a manner which creates the least amount of “sprawl”, while creating a synergistic effect with UCD due to its proximity.
Happy new year to you, as well.
To clarify, there may be “demand” for the existing commercial sites within the city, but developers have apparently figured out that there’s much more money in it for them (but not the city itself), if the sites are converted to housing. (And, there’s apparently lots of people “rooting them on” to do so, regardless of the impact on the city as a whole.)
All while UCD stays quiet.
To clarify, I’m only directly aware of two. I’ve heard of a third one, but haven’t found information regarding it. (Just trying to keep my posts accurate.)
Interesting “clarification”…
Thanks, Howard. I actually thought that was one of my more boring clarifications, but good to know that you got something out of it. Have a good evening.
You as well, and best to you and yours for the coming year…