It has been an interesting week as the Vanguard‘s response to an article in the Enterprise, that laid out the basics in the Cannery plan, has triggered literally hundreds of comments in four articles this week.
There is a message here, but it is a mixed message. There are multiple thoughts about how to proceed. There are some who believe we have all of the housing we need, there are some who believe that we need more housing for families, there are some who believe we need more rental housing, and there are some who are more focused on finding land for economic development.
The Vanguard has not taken a position on any of this. We have attempted to separate some of the facts from claims that have been made, we have attempted to present the possibilities for an election and present the belief that there are now multiple groups or individuals interested in putting the Cannery development on the ballot.
This is an effort to sort some of these things out a bit more, as we are now about ten days away from the first Davis City Council meeting since early July.
First, one of the biggest questions for Cannery is the issue of the business park. Based on the evidence we have so far, there are competing claims about the viability of it. However, ConAgra is not interested in it as a business park. Our article from yesterday indicates that there was at least one legitimate effort to market it as a business park, although there was no price listing, and it is the expressed opinion of the city’s CIO, along with others in the city, that Cannery is not the proper location for a business park.
That leaves the question of where is a proper location. What the Vanguard sees right now are a few possibilities. One is Nishi, and the current proposal is for some business and high tech on that site, along with some housing. The problem there is not only one of infrastructure and access, but it is not a huge parcel of land and would probably not be the future home of some of the major expanding businesses.
A second area would be the area west of the Sutter-Davis hospital. Politically, at least in the short term, this is not viable; however, the fact that the soils are relatively poor at least puts it in the conversation.
Third would be to revisit Mace Ranch 391. It was a fiasco the first time the proposal was made, but many believe that, with the appropriate swap for the Shriner’s property, this might make sense.
Finally, it has not been discussed much, but Interland is an intriguing possibility were there to become access to some sort of new RDA money. It is right by the highway. There are some vacancies. But a number of people we have spoken to, including Chamber Executive Director Kemble Pope, lament the fact that the business park is a single story. Given its location, why does that have to be the case? It would require money and innovation, but that might be a place to recast.
Next is the issue of rental housing. Clearly, UC Davis bears some responsibility here, as we clearly remain in a deficit for new housing. Even with the continued build out of West Village and the increased density in other student housing, as Don Shor rightly points out, there is a current deficit and it will only be exacerbated by the additional 5000 students UC Davis is looking to bring in.
UC Davis clearly believes they can accommodate those 5000 students with current plans – Don Shor’s research and analysis suggests otherwise.
It seems that it is Don Shor’s position that all new development needs to address these points. Others have suggested that these are issues of past land use policies, the current restrictions of Measure R, and therefore not the fault of ConAgra.
However, it makes no sense to simply add housing if it does not address our critical needs. The Vanguard has been looking at other on-campus models for housing and believes that perhaps UC Davis needs to look to areas like Nishi and Solano Park to house a growing number of students.
Others have suggested there are downfalls to this approach. Removing students from the city proper reduces not only city benefits but also disenfranchises the students from our community. The fact that West Village has been difficult to attempt to annex only amplifies this concern.
Our general belief is that putting more students closer to campus is good for the environment, enhances business opportunities in the core, and opens up existing housing in town for families and UC employees.
Finally there is the housing map, overall. It is clear that the citizens will be reluctant, if not outright opposed, to additional peripheral housing. We have seen perhaps an effort to identify where future growth could occur.
In addition to Cannery and Nishi that already are under proposal, we have seen the re-opened possibility of both the PG&E property as well as the city’s properties on Fifth Street as possible locations for high-density housing. There are some advantages to those spots in terms of location that would put them near the core of downtown and revitalize one of the few spots in town that might legitimately be seen as blighted.
Do we go beyond these infill areas for now? How much housing does Davis need? Where can we accommodate student housing needs best? And how can we best find and utilize land for economic development?
These are once again emerging as the critical issues facing this community, and the amount of passion and interest here in the middle of August certainly bears that out.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good summary except for this one conclusion “However, it makes no sense to simply add housing if it does not address our critical needs.” How did you determine this is the case in relation to Cannery?
[quote]However, it makes no sense to simply add housing if it does not address our critical needs.[/quote]
I would expand this comment to… and if it imposes undue hazards and burdens ( both economic and environmental ) on the pre existing community without representing true innovation.
“How did you determine this is the case in relation to Cannery? “
I don’t, you’re taking that statement further than I meant it – which was as a general statement. I don’t think we have an agreement however on what our most critical needs are.
Our critical need is to bring in business and right now and the biggest parcel of land that is already dedicated to light industrial use is the Cannery. I don’t buy it that nobody wants to put a business there, to me it’s more of those that want housing there reaching deep down to create reasons why business wouldn’t be viable there.
Medwoman what is your fixation with innovation and how do you define innovation? As for hazards what are you talking about? As for economics do you have any information that building Cannery is enough housing to substantially depress prices and why do you think that offering economic protection to home owners and speculators (those who own more than one home in Davis) is so important?
“I don’t buy it that nobody wants to put a business there,”
Do you know anyone interested?
GI: Enough different people have told me it that I’m not going to immediately discount it.
But to address Mr. Toad, I have heard from some who may be interested.
Mr. Toad
Like David, I was not speaking specifically of the Cannery in my comments. I was speaking more broadly of
the direction in which I would like to see the community move.
My “fixation with innovation” is based on my idea that it is counter productive to continue to build in the same way that we have chosen to do essentially since the at least the 1950’s with our decision making based around the use of the private automobile. I feel that this has had huge deleterious effects on our environment
( freeways, parking lots, multistory parking structures) on our economy ( huge waste of natural resources) and our individual and societal health ( smog and asthma, sedentary lifestyle and cardiovascular disease) as examples. Changes in how people shop ( Amazon as pointed out by Frankly) and possibly how people are educated, and how we now teleconference as opposed to holding large meetings are going to change fundamentally how we structure our lives. Developments that take these factors into account I would consider innovative. Those that do not, and rely on our one family, two car model, not so much.
In a recent post, someone named the urban farm, some solar, and greenbelts as examples of “innovation” with regard to the Cannery. Since these have all been present in Davis for many, many years, I do not view them as “innovative”. Desirable, maybe, but innovative, definitely not.
As for hazards, I will be specific about the Cannery. I am most concerned about the distances involved within the Cannery which do not promote walking or bicycling and with its accessibility to the remainder of the town.
The location of this site makes the relative lack of connectivity of much of the development to the rest of the community basically mean that we are creating another Olive Drive situation with its limited accessibility.
Even if you do not consider this unsafe, it is certainly clear that this will promote the use of private cars rather than healthier means of transportation.
Unlike how you have chosen to characterize people’s objections to the Cannery, it is not all about money.
I have no financial interest one way or the other in this project. I just do not see it as necessary, innovative, or good planning as proposed.
There are many undesirable aspects to this project beyond just the “pennies”.
“I have heard from some who may be interested.”
That doesn’t seem like much hope to hang your hat on. Anybody know anybody willing to say they would engage in serious negotiations to build a factory or other large enough business development at Cannery? I think its clear that there are people willing to spend the money to develop the property because it is happening with the blessing of the City Council. To change course now you need a pretty compelling argument. “May be interested”
is much too speculative for real business people to do more than yawn.
“That doesn’t seem like much hope to hang your hat on.”
Tend to agree on that point.
I do agree with Medwoman, that you draw too narrow a net on the fiscal interests of opposition to development – I think people have a range of interests some of which are simply philosophical in nature.
Certainly its within bicycling distance of most of Davis. There is access to regional and local bus routes on Covell.
As for not being concerned about the economic impacts why then do you keep bringing it up?
Telecommuting and internet shopping exist already reducing the need for commuting. I’m sure Cannery will have state of the art telecommunications. The development will be walking distance to neighborhood retail. There will be parks and paths for exercise. There will be community gardens for raising healthy food.
The reality is that the planning has already taken into account many of your concerns.
” There is access to regional and local bus routes on Covell.”
But you have to get down to Covell which could be as far as a half mile walk.
I keep trying to get at those philosophical values so i can debunk them but its difficult to draw them out.
‘As far as a half mile walk.”
See Medwoman, half a mile each way. Cannery is good for the heart.
[quote]Certainly its within bicycling distance of most of Davis. There is access to regional and local bus routes on Covell.
[/quote]
Having previously lived in North Star, I know that this is technically true. I also know what my own pattern of behavior and that of most of my neighbors was when I was living there. Much easier to hop into the car and drive than to walk or bike. I was guilty of this on many occasions, so I know from experience. Because I personally did it does not make it good behavior and does not mean that I would continue to promote more development of the same type of community.
[quote]There is access to regional and local bus routes on Covell. [/quote]
As David pointed out, a considerable walk from the northern part of the community. So, if I am a senior, or a harried mother of several children, or a student late to school, or a professional wanting to enjoy my limited time on the weekend, am I really going to walk to the only close public transportation ? Really, when it is so much more convenient to use my car ?
[quote]I keep trying to get at those philosophical values so i can debunk them but its difficult to draw them out.[/quote]
I found this comment very interesting on two points. First, you have stated ” so I can debunk them” not so I consider whether or not I feel they have any merit. That is pretty telling right there about inflexibility not being solely on the side of the opponents of the Cannery. Second, I have put my “philosophic” objections out there many times, in many posts over the past several years. If you doubt this, just look up past threads on the Cannery.
So I find it more than a little curious that you seem to find it “difficult to draw them out”.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”Certainly its within bicycling distance of most of Davis. There is access to regional and local bus routes on Covell.
The reality is that the planning has already taken into account many of your concerns.”[/i]
Toad, one of the unresolved concerns regarding bicycle connectivity for the Cannery is the fact that the owners of Cranbrook Apartments have told members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee that they will not allow grant a bicycle path easement along the western edge of their property (where it abuts the railroad right of way) to the current bicycle path at the H Street Bicycle Tunnel. That means that anyone wishing to bicycle to a destination outside The Cannery will have to ride on Covell.
I hold out hope that that impasse will get resolved in time, but currently it appears that Cranbrook’s owners are either holding the City and the cannery hostage, or outright opposing the Cannery behind the scenes.
If your a senior you probably would have aged there in place for many years to come. You would probably choose another facility like the new development for seniors on Fifth St. I don’t know if there is a plan to extend bus routes into Cannery. It would be nice. Still a half mile is not too far for ambulatory adults. In a hurry its seconds on a bike.
i think i have effectively refuted your philosophical objections over many years.
Should read: If your a senior you probably would [u]not[/u] have aged there in place for many years to come.
As I am sure you are aware i have said I think there is a race and class aspect to what passes for philosophical opposition. The exchange I had about housing being insidious is an example. It is this type of argument that I believe is prevalent yet hard to draw out. Another is the silly supply and demand arguments when supply is tight people say we can’t build enough. When demand is slack we need to protect property values for existing home owners. I believe that these inconsistencies mask deeper psychological phobias that lie at the heart of opposition to housing. It is those deeper fears that I would like to expose and refute. Although I’m sure fear mongering about property values is effective at stirring up opposition to adding supply.
[quote]But to address Mr. Toad, I have heard from some who may be interested. [/quote]
If I remember right Mike Hart has also stated that he knos several businesses that would like to locate at the Cannery.
With some people, I agree there is. With others there is not. Again, I think an error is believing that there is a monolithic underpinning for public opinion, when there isn’t.
Yes Matt, I believe that these are the same owners of Covell Village. This of course, is another consequence of measure R. Since Cannery is in the city but Covell is outside planning for the two properties together became problematic and Cannery didn’t want to pay for a master plan that would need to face a measure R vote when Emlen did the right thing by asking to plan both together. The response of their neighbor to the west and south has been screw you its everyone for themselves. The simple solution is to put in a bike stoplight like at Sycamore and Russell.
Here are the data and comments from my posts yesterday, not particularly sorted: [url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDhousingandapartmentshortage.pdf[/url]
When the Chancellor tells you that the campus is going to add 5,000 students to a town of 65,000 (7.5% increase) over a decade, you probably should plan for a .75% growth rate, in the right type of housing. When that is on top of a fifteen-year deficit in both on- and off-campus rental housing, that planning becomes rather urgent.
[i]I do agree with Medwoman, that you draw too narrow a net on the fiscal interests of opposition to development – I think people have a range of interests some of which are simply philosophical in nature.[/I]
I would like to see a clear list of those philosophical interests from those that are in opposition to development.
[I]As for hazards, I will be specific about the Cannery. I am most concerned about the distances involved within the Cannery which do not promote walking or bicycling and with its accessibility to the remainder of the town.[/I]
Ridiculous twaddle. A fake argument. I live in West Davis. The Cannery property is much closer to downtown. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the location of this site relative to its biking and walking distance.
Which get’s me back to my first point. It would be good to get a clear list of reasons why people are opposed to housing and/or business development (except for their hiding behind some very narrow scope of acceptance that effectively means they are no-growthers).
[i]When the Chancellor tells you that the campus is going to add 5,000 students to a town of 65,000 (7.5% increase) over a decade, you probably should plan for a .75% growth rate. When that is on top of a fifteen-year deficit in both on- and off-campus rental housing, that planning becomes rather urgent. [/I]
This is the same Chancellor that makes how much? The same that gave the nod to pepper-spray the students in her care?
Parents seeing the opportunity to spend half or less of what they would otherwise have to spend for Johnny to get his degree, while also having more assurance that they would not be funding a 5-year drinking, sex and pot party, will jump at the chance.
Higher learning has a big problem in how it markets… it relies on prestige, ego shrines and student “good times”. However, in terms of the actual quality of education service… you know that service where the actual professor never shows up to teach his class instead of sending teaching assistants as he desperately to be published more times than his peers… there is not much going on to make it better.
We might have a shortage of beds right now, but we will have a surplus going forward.
You can stick your head in the sand believing that UCD’s sacred model of $150,000 – $200,000 undergraduate degrees is safe, but then you will require a big branded “L” on your forehead when the next Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates of education unleashes their products and services on the industry of education.
We would be idiots to base our city housing development plans on what the chancellor tells us.
[quote]We would be idiots to base our city housing development plans on what the chancellor tells us.[/quote]
Enrollment is up over 600 for 2013. The chancellor is on track. We would be [u]incredibly irresponsible[/u] not to take her at her word, since UCD is already fulfilling her goal.
I have shown you with actual numbers the ratio between applicants and admissions at the UC system. It will be no problem at all for the 2020 plan to be accomplished.
Your facile analysis is pointless with respect to UC Davis. Do you really think we [i]shouldn’t[/i] plan for the current, existing, and ongoing enrollment increase?
I’m talking 5 – 10 years from now. You seem to be unable or unwilling to look out any farther that what the chancellor tells you today. You remind me a bit of a realtor in 2005 telling clients how home prices would continue to escalate.
It’s 2013. 2020 is “five to ten years from now.” And the problem is [i]now,[/i] it is not going away, and will, in fact, just get worse.
12,500 beds, Frankly.
Well we will just have to agree to disagree.
I think I will be Peter Schiff and you will be Ben Stein…
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPVyieptwA[/url]
Oops… wrong URL
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz_yw0kq3MM[/url]
Forwarded to me, server problems….
GI, Hart’s statement is a complete red herring, which is why I have been spending considerable time debunking it. All it does is present an option for the community to consider that doesn’t exist. He stated that he knows several businesses that would like to locate at The Cannery at Dixon prices. I have MANY clients who would like to locate at The Cannery at Dixon prices. I have many friends who would like to purchase Davis homes at Dixon prices. How is this line of reasoning productive? It’s not, it’s distracting, diverting, time wasting, and obstructionist.
There may be some legitimate reasons for opposing The Cannery project, but Hart’s reason isn’t one of them.
-Michael Bisch
“…someone named the urban farm, some solar, and greenbelts as examples of “innovation” with regard to the Cannery. Since these have all been present in Davis for many, many years, I do not view them as “innovative”. Desirable, maybe, but innovative, definitely not.”
You establish the requirement (“innovative”) and discount positive things that have been done before as maybe desirable but definitely not qualifying.
So please list the innovations you insist be incorporated in the next housing development before it’ll meet your approval. Maybe others will agree with your list, include them in their developments or pay money to buy where such amenities exist.
From the plan for the development for Cannery. Reading it makes me wonder if the opponents have even bothered to look at what they are opposing. Additionally, looking at the map most of the housing will be within 1/4 of a mile from public transportation much closer than the maligned lifestyle found in Northstar with its almost million dollar homes.
4.0 Project Objectives
The City of Davis and the Applicant have identified the following goals and objectives for the Project:
Provide for a mix of land uses that integrate housing, business park, and neighborhood serving retail
on a single site with public open space, an urban farm, naturalized environments and park land, in
an overall design that advances “smart growth” principles.
Provide a development plan that is focused on connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and the City
core through improvements and enhancements to the City’s bike and pedestrian network of trails
and dedicated bike routes.
Provide opportunities for physical improvement to public infrastructure such as public roadways,
sidewalks, intersections, public transportation stops, and bike and pedestrian trails.
Provide for diverse housing types in support of the City’s goal for providing an inclusive
multigenerational approach to residential development.
Provide a sufficient number of new housing units to assist the City in satisfying its Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation.
Provide for increased residential densities on a site within the City presently planned for urban growth
with accessible infrastructure, in furtherance of growth policies identified in the Blueprint for Regional
Growth prepared and adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
Provide for a mix of housing densities and product types integrated into other land uses in a
compact but logical manner.
Use park land and naturalized environments as the organizing element of the overall neighborhood
development plan.
Develop a unique and creative approach to sustainable neighborhood design by integrating
environmental engineering and landscape architecture elements into a comprehensive
neighborhood plan.
Provide an urban farm as a community asset and as a transition between urban uses and adjacent
agricultural land.
Provide for the adaptive reuse and redevelopment of a former industrial site located within the city
limits.
Provide a sufficient number of residential units within the Project area to support necessary
improvements to public facilities.
Include a mix of land uses and facilities, which are fiscally feasible and implement funding
mechanisms to maintain a neutral/positive fiscal impact to the City’s general fund.
medwoman said . . .
[[b]i]”…someone named the urban farm, some solar, and greenbelts as examples of “innovation” with regard to the Cannery. Since these have all been present in Davis for many, many years, I do not view them as “innovative”. Desirable, maybe, but innovative, definitely not.” [/i][/b]
JustSaying replied . . .
[i]”You establish the requirement (“innovative”) and discount positive things that have been done before as maybe desirable but definitely not qualifying.
So please list the innovations you insist be incorporated in the next housing development before it’ll meet your approval. Maybe others will agree with your list, include them in their developments or pay money to buy where such amenities exist.”[/i]
medwoman, I think JS asks a very good question and am looking forward to hearing your response. FWIW my own thinking re: the Cannery has evolved in the last 12 months as I have seen how certain of its features/components benefit the community. Some of those benefits/features/components might be classified as innovations by some people, but I don’t see them as such. However, that doesn’t reduce in any way their value to the community at large.
Mr. Toad. I was just reviewing the plan and asking myself the same question.
[url]http://thecannerydavis.com/project-details/#top[/url]
In general I am in support of it and have been in support of it. If I have only one complaint, it is that I would like to see a larger percentage of the development dedicated to commercial.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/conagrabiz.jpg[/img]
However, I think it does provide the innovative and balanced “Smart” and “New Urbanism” type of design we should all be applauding.
We don’t need new sprawl development.
Put the Cannery Project on the ballot.
Mike, i think you should go down to public comment and share that with the council.
What makes it sprawl Mike?
While there are continued calls for innovation without defining what that means a better description would be state of the art.
“The Vanguard has not taken a position on any of this.”
In spite of all these stories over the years about why we should be building a business park at the location, in spite of yesterday’s characterization of housing developers as people who seek to convince just three citizens by incrementally adding just one more goody until their votes get bought, please…pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Toad: look at their proposed Map. Looks like unnecessary, jammed up housing on the border of town with bad access. Am I missing something?
JUST SAYING- the man behind the curtain seems to have you fascinated
Jammed up sprawl is an oxymoron.
RE: “Sprawl”
Where do YOU want to live?
Here?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/sprawla.jpg[/img]
Or here?
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/sprawlb.jpg[/img]
Where did you find the shot of this obviously “bad” housing development? Is it walking distance from parks, small neighborhood shopping/dining centers, frequent buses to the rest of town, Mondavi Center and Red Barn Nursery–like the “bad” housing developments in Davis are?
I don’t know, but apparently in Frankly’s world cities are black-and-white, and suburbs are in Living Technicolor — kind of like in Wizard of Oz when Dorothy’s house lands in Oz.
It isn’t my style, but it’s pretty amazing what people in those black-and-white cities are doing on their rooftops…
[img]http://www.eco-generation.org/file/120405103643-beirut-roof-garden-city-horizontal-gallery.jpg[/img]
“…the man behind the curtain seems to have you fascinated….”
You are correct, yeahmyam. I read almost every day. As the Enterprise gets reduced to an occasional, flimsy scrapheap of news release reprints, advertiser tie-in promotion stories and expensive classifieds and obituaries, where can we find coverage about our courts and other government functions?
The Enterprise is down to three quality reporters, one of whom actually sleeps with the editor and limits himself to excellence in local sports reporting. Intentionally or not, David’s reports sometimes even are somewhat funnier than Dunning’s increasingly sour offerings.
I’ve tried Sacramento television, the Daily Democrat and the Bee to fill my longing for rapidly disappearing coverage and commentary about important Davis matters. Maybe our paper will get sold to some local folks who care about Davis. Until that day, I have to keep coming back to my fascinating Vanguard.
Do, of course you do know that with vertical sprawl, only the expensive top-floor property gets the rooftop garden, right?
And then there is the terrible problem of pots and cats falling from the sky and maiming pedestrians.
How dense do you want it. According to the 2010 Census Davis was ranked sixth most dense urban area in the country. Much has been made about the price of housing and the declining birth rate in Davis but it seems nobody has yet to consider the effect of densification on birth rate. Once again I encourage everyone to read joel Kotkins recent article on this topic in New Geography. Davis had a spike in births after Mace ranch and Wildhorse were added but now we have a declining birth rate. My guess is if you build out you get more families, more kids, and healthier schools.
Several of you have asked me what I would be consider “innovative ideas” and I consider that a fair question.
Of course, you will need to cut me some slack on details since I am about as far removed from an urban planner as you can imagine, so my ideas are conceptual, but I have drawn from places where these principles have actually been put in to place and are successful. Also, my ideas of “innovation” involve a number of different
aspects of the development, so I hope to put forward some of my ideas in mini installments.
Since my biggest concern is with safety, environment and public health I will start with transportation.
I would favor a Transit Oriented Development. We don’t have to look as far as Copenhagen, or even to the Bay area, we already have one such development associated with the Davis train station. We call it downtown.
What I would recommend is that the Cannery site be developed as a mixed use, transport oriented development centered around a Covelle hub of multimodal public transportation linking the Cannery not only to the Nugget shopping center but also to the local schools, the bike paths, the University, Woodland, Sacramento, downtown and thus the train station making travel to the Bay area easier. Difficult as I find it to admit, I would even support it linking to Target. That might even induce me to breakdown and shop there ; ). If we, as a city were to invest in a truly innovative public transportation system, I believe that we could do away with a great deal of the automobile congestion that leads people to clamor for another parking structure or bemoan the lack of ability to park to pick up coffee or pizza downtown. Less individual car trips would pay off for individuals in terms of lowering their H + T ( housing plus transit ) affordability index which is upwards of 45% for much of Davis with less than 45 % considered affordable, for all of us in terms of decreased C02 emissions, in terms of less automobile accidents, less wear and tear on our roads, and ultimately, better health for individuals, and ultimately less health care costs overall.
So some are going to say we don’t have funding for such a project and what does that have to do with the Cannery ? My response would be, why not link re zoning to having ConAgra support the city with funding for a transportation oriented development that would start with a second transit oriented development at the Cannery site linked to downtown, the university and Woodland for starters.
Before I leave the topic of transportation and safety, I would like to talk about transportation within the development and connections to the remainder of the city. To me, the drawings of the Cannery as proposed look very much like an upscale Olive Drive with very limited connection to the outside community.
To my admittedly untrained eyes, it would seem to me that a community of this size should have entrance/exits
on at least three sides should an evacuation be necessary. I am very open minded on this point since I do not know how efficiently an evacuation could be implemented if there were for instance a major mishap with a gas main, or a major train derailment event. But I suspect that this plan is suboptimal for getting people out quickly.
If someone has addressed this thoroughly and I am wrong about the danger, I would love to be informed that I am wrong.
Maybe we could get Elon Musk to make Cannery a model for his hyperloop. Why not everyone is demanding everything that pops in their heads but lets get really innovative. Kidding aside Cannery already has access to public transport with over half of the homes being less than 1/4 mile from a bus stop and the rest less than 1/2 mile.
Frog, if one didn’t know better with the way you advocate for the Cannery one might think you were on the payroll.
Not yet but I’m available.
Mr. Toad
[quote]Why not everyone is demanding everything that pops in their heads but lets get really innovative. Kidding aside Cannery already has access to public transport with over half of the homes being less than 1/4 mile from a bus stop and the rest less than 1/2 mile.[/quote]
Since you are following this issue so closely, I am quite sure that you are aware that my last post was not a demand for “everything that pops” into my head, but rather a limited response to a specific question from JS
and Matt.
Since you have stated that your sole purpose is to debunk anything said by those who oppose the project, I feel there is no longer any purpose other than this behind your posts and will weight them accordingly.
Fine with me since you been writing some pretty wacky nonsense and have already made up your mind before actually studying the proposal but just do me one last favor since your a doctor can you please read the joel Kotkin piece on how density impacts child bearing it might make you rethink things.
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003873-how-can-we-be-so-dense-anti-sprawl-policies-threaten-americas-future
By the way GI I’m too gruff to be a professional mouthpiece. Still I’m available as long as I get to say what i believe.
Okay excuse my sarcasm but I’m dismissive because if you would even think about it for one minute you would realize that six different bus routes already run there Unitrans routes P,Q, E,F and Yolo Bus routes 42A and 42b. You can take a single bus from there to downtown and Amtrak, the university transportation hub, anywhere in Davis the busses run, Woodland if you have County business, Sac International Airport, Downtown sacramento and the State Capitol. Building Cannery will strengthen already existing mass transit systems by providing commuters easy access to mass transit. What is amazing is that, even though you admit not to know about planning, if you were to think about Cannery even in the most layman’s terms you would see your concerns have already been addressed. Sadly because you have already made up your mind and haven’t seriously looked at the proposal when asked to offer ideas you actually call for re-inventing the wheel, or, at least in this case, the bus stop.
Joel Kotkin is an urban development professor based in Orange, who believes the 1960’s traditional suburb is the ultimate in urban planning, and essentially dismisses urbanism. As such, he is popular with the Cato Institute. His theory as espoused in the essay that you’ve linked several times now is almost completely irrelevant to Davis.
Nobody is proposing that Davis achieve urban densities.
Nobody’s even talking about buildings taller than 3 – 4 stories.
Nobody is advocating for a New York skyline in Davis.
Nobody is suggesting that long-term Davis residents should live “cheek to jowl” as he says in his essay. But it is clear that high-density apartments and dormitories are the most efficient and effective way to provide housing for short-term residents of a small college town; i.e., students.
Nobody would rationally argue that adding greater density in Davis will lead to his more out-there conclusion that it might come “…to be regarded as poor places for raising families. In simple terms, a dense future is likely to be a largely childless one.”
What will make Davis a “childless” city is if we continue to ignore the impact thousands of student renters have on the housing market in the lower cost range, driving lower-income families to Dixon and Woodland.
Davis is the 6th densest city in america and has a declining birth rate yet people keep advocating for higher and higher densities. i kept thinking wow sounds like davis sounds like davis as i read it. i think everyone should read it for themselves instead of listening to someone who is dismissive of anything that doesn’t align with his own weird Walmartization model where everyone lives in super dense apartments except a few who get to live on large multi-acre parcels.
[quote]”So some are going to say we don’t have funding for such a project and what does that have to do with the Cannery ? My response would be, why not link re zoning to having ConAgra support the city with funding for a transportation oriented development that would start with a second transit oriented development at the Cannery site linked to downtown, the university and Woodland for starters.”[/quote]I’m not sure if this meets your own standard of innovation, things that haven’t been done before.
In any case, too bad we didn’t bring up your “a mixed use, transport oriented development centered around a Covelle hub of multimodal public transportation” 30-50 years ago as the city planned for its growth. I don’t see how insisting that the cannery developers
You’re probably right that people will say there’s no money for some big new city/regional transportation system at this point since it’s true.
You’re probably right that people will suggest that this overarching concept has little connection with the cannery development.
I’d wonder what it would add to the existing proposals. For example, what’s the “multimodal” aspect you see? I’d hope it would be something enough better than tying into our current public transit setup to justify whatever additional costs you foresee.
What would you add to (or replace in) our mix of Unitrans/Yolobus/Davis Community Transit to make up an innovative system. What else would you add to the cannery project that would its approach truly innovative?
Perhaps the idea of demanding “innovation” as a condition for approving a housing development isn’t a good one because the term obviously is so subjective. I like the concept of looking to developers for “state of the art” approaches for transportation, environmental and other factors.
In addition, the demands we make on developers need to make sense when their project is dropped into our existing city environment.
Finally, the idea of demanding cash from new developments to finance other pet projects around town isn’t really innovative itself–I’ve been paying Mello-Roos fees ever since we moved back (being spent on unknown projects that someone thinks make sense).
[quote]Davis is the 6th densest city in america[/quote]
Population density of Davis: 6,615.8 people per square mile.
Here’s a list of 125 cities that have population densities greater than 10,000 people per square mile. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density[/url]
Seriously, dude, you can just look stuff like this up.
[quote]where everyone lives in super dense apartments except a few who get to live on large multi-acre parcels.[/quote]
That isn’t even close to what I advocate. I urge that we provide reasonably-priced high-density housing for the thousands of students who live in our town for a few years, so that they stop crowding out families from the larger housing units.
I don’t actually know what the birth rate of Davis is, and given how fast and loose you are with statistics, I won’t consider you reliable. But if, in fact, our birth rate is declining, it would be because of the demographic split in Davis: lots of older residents aging in place, lots of young adults (students!) crowding out young families. And until we provide housing for those young adults, you will see fewer families with children.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Before I leave the topic of transportation and safety, I would like to talk about transportation within the development and connections to the remainder of the city. To me, the drawings of the Cannery as proposed look very much like an upscale Olive Drive with very limited connection to the outside community.
To my admittedly untrained eyes, [b]it would seem to me that a community of this size should have entrance/exits on at least three sides[/b] should an evacuation be necessary. I am very open minded on this point since I do not know how efficiently an evacuation could be implemented if there were for instance a major mishap with a gas main, or a major train derailment event. But I suspect that this plan is suboptimal for getting people out quickly.
If someone has addressed this thoroughly and I am wrong about the danger, I would love to be informed that I am wrong.”[/i]
Thank you for your detailed responses medwoman. In an ideal world I would agree with your bolded comment above. I suspect that ConAgra and The New Home Company agree with you as well. The problem is that for this site (regardless of whether it is used for housing or a 100% business park, access is going to be restricted to the southern border of the property. The borders to the North and to the East are both controlled by the Covell Village partnership, and unless they get the opportunity to move their own project forward, it is my understanding that they are unwilling to provide entrance/exit options in either of those directions. Similarly the land along the border to the West is owned by UNion Pacific, they are unwilling to allow entrance/exit across their lands because that will establish a precedent that other communities throughout the United States will cite when asking Union Pacific for similar access.
Those factors are similar to a peninsula that sticks out into a body of water. It would be nice to have motor vehicle access on three sides, but the reality is that any motor vehicle that drives far enough in any of three directions will end up submerged in water. The “peninsular access issue” that you raise really means that bottom-line, any vehicular urbanized use of the property will fail your standards, and will therefore be opposed by you. Do you see any way that that bottom-line is not the case?
[quote]”But it is clear that high-density apartments and dormitories are the most efficient and effective way to provide housing for short-term residents of a small college town; i.e., students.”[/quote] I so agree. These kids are transients whose quality of life hardly depends the square footage of their domiciles, the Zen level of their backyards, etc.
I’m just struggling with why you insist that the city has any reason to select the opposite side of town as the site for constructing this kind of living arrangement.
The university has a 7,000-acre-plus campus, with plenty of land suitable for meeting the entire housing need for the projected student increase. One would think that UCD leadership isn’t ignorant of the needs their new plans generate or that they expect the city to assume 75% of the additional housing requirements.
It isn’t reasonable that UCD would assume that city government would stop meeting other housing and business development throughout the partner community just because the university president announced some dramatic student increase. Why do you assume this?
Again, I ask you why the Nishi property isn’t better suited for student dorms and apartments the cannery property?
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Several of you have asked me what I would be consider “innovative ideas” and I consider that a fair question.
What I would recommend is that the Cannery site be developed as a mixed use, transport oriented development centered around a Covell hub of multimodal public transportation linking the Cannery not only to the Nugget shopping center but also to the local schools, the bike paths, the University, Woodland, Sacramento, downtown and thus the train station making travel to the Bay area easier. Difficult as I find it to admit, I would even support it linking to Target.
I believe that we could do away with a great deal of the automobile congestion that leads people to clamor for another parking structure or bemoan the lack of ability to park to pick up coffee or pizza downtown. Less individual car trips would pay off for individuals in terms of lowering their H + T (housing plus transit) affordability index which is upwards of 45% for much of Davis with less than 45 % considered affordable, for all of us in terms of decreased C02 emissions, in terms of less automobile accidents, less wear and tear on our roads, and ultimately, better health for individuals, and ultimately less health care costs overall.
Why not link re zoning to having ConAgra support the city with funding for a transportation oriented development that would start with a second transit [center] at the Cannery site linked to downtown, the university and Woodland for starters.”[/i]
Mr.Toad replied . . .
[i]”six different bus routes already run [to the Cannery site] — Unitrans routes P, Q, E, F and Yolo Bus routes 42A and 42b.
You can take a single bus from there to
— downtown and Amtrak,
— the university transportation hub,
— anywhere in Davis the buses run,
— Woodland if you have County business,
— Sac International Airport,
— Downtown Sacramento and the State Capitol.
Building Cannery will strengthen already existing mass transit systems by providing commuters easy access to mass transit.”[/i]
medwoman, thsanks again for your detailed response to JustSying’s and my earlier question about innovation. What are your thoughts vis-a-vis the observations in Toad’s response to you?
[quote]I so agree. These kids are transients whose quality of life hardly depends the square footage of their domiciles, the Zen level of their backyards, etc. [/quote]
There is a pattern to the residency of students who come to UC Davis. The university guarantees housing for the whole freshman class. They provide options for returning students. They can’t currently provide housing for a very high percentage of the transfer students due to a shortage of beds. That is all addressed in their housing strategy documents. So it is expected that usually in the second year, and always in the third and final years, students will live off campus. I don’t know if you were being sarcastic, but their options are somewhat limited when there is a 1.7% apartment vacancy rate.
[quote]I’m just struggling with why you insist that the city has any reason to select the opposite side of town as the site for constructing this kind of living arrangement. [/quote]
I’m struggling with why you consider the cannery site any more “opposite” than the hundreds of apartments in South Davis, or north along Sycamore.
[quote]The university has a 7,000-acre-plus campus, with plenty of land suitable for meeting the entire housing need for the projected student increase. [/quote]
They’ve never done that before. No UC campus has ever done that. And as you’ll see if you review my statistics, even if they met the “entire housing need for the projected student increase” there is still a backlog of thousands of missing beds.
[quote]One would think that UCD leadership isn’t ignorant of the needs their new plans generate or that they expect the city to assume 75% of the additional housing requirements. [/quote]
One would think that, wouldn’t one? Yet one labors to find even a hint of the administration of our political leadership addressing that issue. Not when the chancellor announced the initiative. Not in any of their planning documents available online. Not in the apparent utterances of a high UC official to David Greenwald. Not in any subsequent planning statements by our council members. But yes: one would think that. Which is why I am saying this stuff over and over and over.
[quote]It isn’t reasonable that UCD would assume that city government would stop meeting other housing and business development throughout the partner community just because the university president announced some dramatic student increase. Why do you assume this? [/quote]
Cities that host universities often grumble about poor coordination regarding these issues. “Stop meeting” other needs? No. Plan them together, prioritize them, address the most pressing needs first? Yes. But if you don’t even know or acknowledge the need, then it’s hard to get traction on it, eh?
[quote]Again, I ask you why the Nishi property isn’t better suited for student dorms and apartments the cannery property?[/quote]
Asked and answered, your honor. We need both.
[quote]”The problem is that for this site (regardless of whether it is used for housing or a 100% business park, access is going to be restricted to the southern border of the property. The borders to the North and to the East are both controlled by the Covell Village partnership, and unless they get the opportunity to move their own project forward, it is my understanding that they are unwilling to provide entrance/exit options in either of those directions”[/quote]I don’t support Don’s scheme for the city to designate the site as “blighted” and buy it for a business park. But, I do think that a strip of the Covell Village property could legitimately be taken for streets via eminent domain.
Matt, was that possibility considered as a backup if the partnership is unwilling to work with the city to develop access if and when the cannery ever is developed?
I have never heard anything along that line JS. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t been contemplated, but to the best of my knowledge there have been no public discussions.
[quote]”So it is expected that usually in the second year, and always in the third and final years, students will live off campus. I don’t know if you were being sarcastic, but their options are somewhat limited when there is a 1.7% apartment vacancy rate.”[/quote]Just because “it is expected…,” doesn’t mean that the City of Davis is obligated to make the impossible possible for the university.
I can’t help you about the sarcasm matter ’cause I don’t know to what you refer, but I didn’t intent any on any point.
I’m comparing the cannery property location with the Nishi piece and the university property, not claiming that it’s much farther away than some existing student apartments miles from campus.
Sorry, I missed your support for using the Nishi parcel for student housing. How many acres is available there? How many acres of UCD property do you think could be used for additional housing?
If these two areas were seen as the primary solutions for the current and projected student bed deficit (as I’m trying to do), how many acres do you think we’d still need to use at the cannery (which, now that I’ve clarified things, I’m sure you’ll agree that is the other side of town from UCD)?
Is it possible that a properly motivated UCD and an understanding, appreciative citizenry could cooperate in a way that would would meet the student housing deficit using university and Nishi acreage? That’s all I’m asking. Do we really, really need all three?
“but I didn’t[s] intent[/s] intend it any on any point”
[quote]Sorry, I missed your support for using the Nishi parcel for student housing. How many acres is available there? How many acres of UCD property do you think could be used for additional housing? [/quote]
I’ll see if I can get an answer about how much housing could go on the Nishi site in the current plans. I don’t know if they’re that far along yet. It isn’t a very big parcel, though.
It would be great if UC would double West Village. I don’t know if that fits in their current capital improvements budget. They have been spending a lot of money replacing old housing.
[quote]Is it possible that a properly motivated UCD and an understanding, appreciative citizenry could cooperate in a way that would would meet the student housing deficit using university and Nishi acreage? That’s all I’m asking. Do we really, really need all three?[/quote]
I believe we need all three as well as some other sites. 12,500 beds, minus 3,000 provided by West Village, minus some provided by the higher densities on some of these replacement units…let’s say we need 7 – 8,000 beds. The entire of Cannery doesn’t have to be apartments. But a lot more of it should be if that site is going to be used to address this shortfall. If it isn’t, and it’s the last remaining site in the city limits, then where will the students go? Remember, we’re already short on beds, enrollment is up 600+ students this year. 5,000 more students by 2020 means 600+ more each year.
If the owners of the Cannery site aren’t willing to provide the housing that the community needs, then the zoning shouldn’t be changed. As a ranking of community priorities, business uses IMO are just behind rental housing. Or equally important, if you prefer; split the property between rental housing and business uses. If they’re unwilling to do anything with the property other than what they are currently proposing, then what do you suggest we do?
Having said all that, regardless of the outcome on the Cannery site, the city and the university have to sit down and address the housing problems that UCD has created by increasing enrollment without increasing housing stock sufficiently. It’s a partnership. In the absence of the last remaining large parcel in city limits, resolving that becomes more difficult. Even if it involves annexation, it will take a lot longer to achieve a better housing market for lower-income Davis residents.
“If the owners of the Cannery site aren’t willing to provide the housing that the community needs, then the zoning shouldn’t be changed.”
But aren’t you conflating what the community needs with what the university needs. Its such a weird statement because first and foremost it is based on some obscure notion that your priorities are the ones that the community should embrace. i certainly am under no such illusion about my priorities that differ from yours. There are not 12,000 people living in the streets so what shortage are you talking about. Building that many new beds for students isn’t going to lower existing rents, because of the economics of apartment building that I already laid out, so doing so isn’t magically going to empty out the rental market in town. Cannery can only offer a fraction of the 12000 beds anyway people are already worried about the transportation ingress and egress issues. When you take out the land that is going for business that you say you want and add in the other development that makes building some rentals pencil out Cannery already does have what rental property is economically sustainable. Not doing anything at Cannery or building the field of dreams business park is not going to stop those 12000 kids from camping out on the lawns of Davis.
Don you are also confused about the most densely populated urban and areas central city densities, not the density of the entire metro area. Because we haven’t allowed growth outside of our urban area, we are actually more dense overall than all the cities you are claiming are more dense.
http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/california-cenus-population-density-urbanized-areas-cities.html
Location population population/sq. mile
Los Angeles, Calif.12,150,9966,999
San Francisco, Calif.3,281,2126,266
San Jose, Calif. 1,664,4965,820
Delano, Calif. 54,372 5,483
New York, N.Y. 18,351,2955,319
Davis, Calif. 72,794 5,157
Lompoc, Calif. 51,509 4816
Honolulu, Hawaii 802,459 4,716
Woodland, Calif. 55,513 4,551
Las Vegas, Nev. 1,886,0114,525
Why so many rural areas in CA.? Probably the Willamson Act and other land use policies you favor. So again i ask how dense do you want it?
Should read: densely populated urban areas and central city densities,
Sorry the chart printed weird let me try again
Los Angeles, Calif.12,150,996===6,999
San Francisco, Calif.3,281,212—-6,266
San Jose, Calif.1,664,496—-5,820
Delano, Calif.54,372—-5,483
New York, N.Y.18,351,295—-5,319
Davis, Calif. 72,794=====5,157
Lompoc, Calif.51,509—-4,816
Honolulu, Hawaii802,459—-4,716
Woodland, Calif.55,513—-4,551
Las Vegas, Nev.1,886,011—-4,525
Like you say “Seriously, dude, you can just look stuff like this up.”
Toad, what is yourr source for the chart?
[quote]Don you are also confused about the most densely populated urban and areas central city densities, not the density of the entire metro area. Because we haven’t allowed growth outside of our urban area, we are actually more dense overall than all the cities you are claiming are more dense. [/quote]
So the next question for your students, as you try to teach them critical thinking and a greater understanding of how people can deliberately use distorted statistics, would be:
Based on the fact that there are literally hundreds of [u]cities[/u] that are much denser than the City of Davis, and yet the “urban area” of Davis is nearly as dense as the “urban area” of New York, what is the difference between the City of Davis the the “urban area” called Davis?
The dorms.
Yep, they’re pretty dense.
I’m pretty sure the birth rate there is pretty low, too.
Nobody who has been to both places would rationally consider Davis and New York City to be even remotely similar with respect to density.
http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/california-cenus-population-density-urbanized-areas-cities.html
[quote]But aren’t you conflating what the community needs with what the university needs.[/quote]
There is a great deal of overlap, obviously, between what the community needs and what the university needs.
[quote] There are not 12,000 people living in the streets so what shortage are you talking about.[/quote]
Why is the Davis apartment vacancy rate so low? Why are Davis rents so much higher than the rents in surrounding communities? Do you know any young adults who are trying to find housing in the Davis market?
“The dorms.
Yep, they’re pretty dense.
I’m pretty sure the birth rate there is pretty low, too.”
Don your anecdotal experience in the dorms when you were there may not be reflective of other peoples experiences.
So are you saying we should strive to be more like New York City? Are you suggesting you agree with me that there is room for many more people here? Again i ask, how dense do you want Davis to get?
By the way Don i didn’t distort any statistics. Its not my fault if you confuse the metrics i cited.
“Why is the Davis apartment vacancy rate so low? Why are Davis rents so much higher than the rents in surrounding communities? Do you know any young adults who are trying to find housing in the Davis market?”
The same can be said about all housing in Davis. The answer is obviously lack of supply. Still why you fixate on only one solution is a mystery. There are many solutions and Cannery, as is being developed, with the blessing of the popularly elected City Council, is part of the solution. Another part would be additional building in areas beyond the city limits.
[edited]
Sorry i never like to suggest what others should do with their own property. Of course i also don’t like to tell people what they shouldn’t do either.
There’s something clearly distorting the statistic about Davis being one of the densist (correct spelling?) communities in the US. There’s a disconnect between the statistic and with what our eyeballs are telling us. I’ve been wondering about the disconnect ever since the Enterprise reported the statistic earlier in the year. Speculation only, but perhaps the disconnect has to do with many otherwise dense communities containing mountain ranges, rivers, lakes, harbors, forests, etc. withing their city limits which would dramatically skew the statistic. Whereas Davis has very little of those natural features. What would the statistic look like if the the population was divided by habitable (or developed) area instead of total area within city limits?
-Michael Bisch
Small city with lots of dorms just outside the city limits in what demographers are calling the Davis “urban area.” The City of Davis is not anywhere near one of the densest cities in the U.S. Mr. Toad is citing a meaningless statistic.
Unfortunately, Toad is not the only one citing this meaningless statistic. I’m pretty sure this meaningless statistic is influencing policy making in the sense that there’s no need to densify since we’re already the 6th densiest community in the US.
Densist, densiest, something like that, shoot, brain fart.
-Michael Bisch
JustSaying: According to the Housing Element Steering Committee report, Nishi is 44 acres, with about 15 for residential. Number of housing units, depending on density, could be 462 – 1000. If they did 40 units per acre, figure about 600 housing units.
[quote]”(if the cannery isn’t used to address the student housing shortfall) , and it’s the last remaining site in the city limits, then where will the students go?”[/quote]So, what if student housing is proposed for some site just outside the city limits? Do you, like David, expect that any proposal would be voted down? Is that why you note that this is the the “last remaining site in the city limits”?
Why would a student housing project for the cannery (or medwoman’s low-income development) not go down to the same referendum fate as any other housing development supposedly would.
Maybe a “party island” or a “poor people’s part of town” would generate even more negativity in an election than a “rich person’s paradise.”
The problem with this discussion, I think, is that we’re barely getting around to discussing the proposal because we’re so hung up on UCD’s student increase announcement.
If there’s no housing available the numbers of additional UCD students proposed, I see two options that you haven’t considered.
First, don’t accept more students until housing is available. (Would the university schedule classes if no classrooms were available?) Second, provide campus parking for commuter students who find housing outside of our city limits.
The City of Davis has no responsibility to jump into crisis mode just because UCD announces a giant enrollment leap that cannot be sustained in our quaint little community.
If the university has spent too much of its capital improvement money to allow more dorms and other on-campus housing, it has no business dumping thousands of additional, homeless students on our town. Just why is it assumed that it’s any city’s obligation to subsidize a school’s efforts to increase increase its income?[quote]”regardless of the outcome on the Cannery site, the city and the university have to sit down and address the housing problems that UCD has created by increasing enrollment without increasing housing stock sufficiently. It’s a partnership.”[/quote]I cannot agree more with you. Better late than never.[quote]”If (the cannery owners are) unwilling to do anything with the property other than what they are currently proposing, then what do you suggest we do?” [/quote] I suggest we keep holding out for improvements and full infrastructure funding until we’ve pretty much bled them dry (realizing that this standard practice assures higher costs).
We’ll end up with another subdivision made up with well-to-do families who’ll contribute in many ways to our community, allow us to keep our neighborhood schools and bring amenities that we’ll all use. Yep, I’m fine with that.
P.S.–How about a Mello-Roos-like fee that requires universities to pay “impact fees” to cover costs incurred by other entities due to the schools’ decisions and developments?
[quote]”JustSaying: According to the Housing Element Steering Committee report, Nishi is 44 acres, with about 15 for residential. Number of housing units, depending on density, could be 462 – 1000. If they did 40 units per acre, figure about 600 housing units.”[/quote]Thanks for the info. It seems like using only one-third for housing is short-sighted, considering the property’s easy access only to the university and the dramatic need you’ve described as the student housing need. I picture row upon row of barracks, as far as the eye can see for 40 acres.
Use the other four acres for construction of branches of Starbucks, The Graduate and Subway, plus a city park with one softball diamond, a soccer field and a pool. Done and done.
Just replying to these two comments on the fly; I’m sure we’ll get a chance to deal with the other topics soon…
[quote]First, don’t accept more students until housing is available. [/quote]
Not our choice. We can’t force UCD to do anything.
[quote]Second, provide campus parking for commuter students who find housing outside of our city limits. [/quote]
Great idea, and for all I know there may be sufficient parking right now. One thing I don’t really have any numbers on is how many UCD students live in nearby cities.
Now there is another jaded and deranged solution. Instead of building housing we should build heat island parking lots consuming our precious farmland so that we can accommodate the heavy carbon footprint the failure of our housing policy creates.