Since the start of the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) discussion in the fall of 2015, the focus of many in the community, including the Davis City Council, has been more housing on the UC Davis campus. It is a solution that makes some sense – after all, the city of Davis has limited infill space and even more limitations on the ability to build on the periphery.
The city of Davis has consistently called on the university to build to 50 percent capacity in accommodating on-campus housing. That joined calls from community members and the Vanguard.
To their credit, the city has also approved around 3600 beds in the city so far, and that number could go to between 4500 and 5000 if Davis Live, Plaza 2555 and U-Mall are all approved with their currently proposed levels of housing.
But still the university is adding about 9050 beds over the next 10 years.
The loudest community voice on housing on campus has and continues to be Eileen Samitz. It was her op-ed in the fall of 2015 that really set the tone for this discussion. It was her push that got many in the community on board with the notion of a student housing crisis. And, while the city hasn’t gone completely in the direction she had hoped for, she continues to push for more housing on campus.
The logic from the start has focused on two key measurements – first, the available land on campus which, while not the 5200 acres some have suggested, is still sizable, and second, the relatively low on-campus housing share that UC Davis has on campus.
Even this past week, as Eileen Samitz was supportive of student housing at the Davis Live site, she pushed for more housing on campus.
“The student housing problem is clearly because of UCD’s negligence for over three decades,” she pushed back. “It is inexcusable that they only have 29 percent on-campus housing. That is the way to keep housing most affordable long-term.”
She pushed the students “to do equal advocating to their chancellor and their administration – because I haven’t heard any of that going on.”
But here’s the problem – this notion is misplaced. The way to keep housing most affordable long-term is not adding housing on campus. We began to unpack that data this spring by demonstrating just how much more expensive on-campus housing is from off-campus housing.
The truth is that while UC Davis is one of the worst in this regard, it’s almost universally true. But in particular it is true in the Davis market where housing – ironically – is less expensive off campus than any host community other than Merced.
The data from the speaker’s office’s report bears this out quite clearly.
The average cost of on-campus housing at the nine regular campuses is $1620. That puts UC Davis right on the average. But Davis is the second cheapest community to live in, so the difference of $722 per month is the third largest behind UC Merced and UC Riverside. The average differential is $559 a month and even at UC San Diego, which appears to be an anomaly, it is still cheaper (slightly) to live off campus than on campus.
For all the talk that we have heard that on-campus housing is the solution to the housing crisis, the data across the UC System suggests otherwise.
Why is that the case?
What is especially surprising is that off-campus housing remained a much more affordable option for students, despite very low vacancy rates in the host communities.
Despite the low vacancy rates and the huge cost of housing increases, rent costs remained mostly flat across the UCs for the last decade?
The reason for that as reported in the Speaker’s report for the state Assembly: “Students appear to be sharing housing at higher rates and with more housemates and/or roommates than in previous years in order to defray the cost of rent, particularly in expensive areas of the state.
“Systemwide, the percentage of students living in off-campus housing with four or more housemates increased from 31% in 2012-13 to 37% in 2016. Every campus except UC Riverside reported an increase in the percentage of students in this living situation, with the largest 3-year increases (11.5% each) at UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. Students tripling or quadrupling up in one room still paid an average of $681 in monthly rent at UCLA, $672 at UCSB, and $563 at UC Irvine.”
While UC Davis is increasing its housing capacity through doubling and tripling up rooms, they are doing so at only about a 20 percent cost-savings to students, rather than the full savings the students might get off campus.
The bottom line here is that our community’s preferred solution – build more housing capacity on campus – makes sense from a number of perspectives, like land use and capacity for sure. However, it is the least advantageous to students concerned with the rising costs of housing.
Back in 2017, the Vanguard argued that the city should undertake a study to find out how much more housing we needed. The city declined to undertake such a study.
The university, when the Vanguard requested data on student homelessness and housing insecurity, only had a few-years-old survey that was inadequate (it listed homelessness at three percent which is what the Speaker’s report shows for UC Davis).
The city could not tell us how much more housing we needed. The university couldn’t tell us how many students were suffering from housing insecurity.
That lack of data in the midst of planning for the next decade strikes me as unfathomable.
But it points to another problem – had we run these data back in 2015, had we known that on-campus housing at UC Davis was 60 percent or $700-plus a month more expensive than off campus, would our solution still have been to put 9050 new beds on campus with no guarantees whatsoever about affordability?
Given those numbers, it might have made far more sense to have the city annex land adjacent to campus and let private developers build more student housing apartments, along the lines of Nishi.
What we have done is convenient for community residents who somehow believe that putting housing on campus is the way to go – but it is far more costly to students, both in terms of financial obligations and also in terms of separation from the community itself.
It is too late now, of course, to reverse this trend. UC Davis, if it follows through on its plans as it says it will, will have nearly half of its students living on campus by the time we undergo this discussion again. But next time, hopefully we’ll be armed with better data from the start to find a better solution than the one we have chosen for ourselves this time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Actually, if true, the article didn’t answer that.
UCD might not even build the housing, if they can’t price it competitively. (They wouldn’t be able to fully rent it out, if that’s the case. But so far, I understand that this hasn’t been a problem, with existing units on campus.)
I recall that there was recently a high vacancy rate (at West Village?), but this may have been due to the conversion to double-occupied rooms. And, even then, there was sufficient demand, but for some reason UCD allowed some of these beds to remain unoccupied. (Perhaps the Vanguard could clarify this, as I’m depending upon my memory, here.)
I recall another commenter pointing out that “fair wage” laws (for construction workers) may not apply on campus, depending upon the source of funds.
Perhaps it’s time to pursue a binding agreement (which might have the effect of delaying student housing on campus, AS WELL AS the planned increase in enrollment). Again, the UC Santa Cruz agreement also limits enrollment.
As a side note, the UC Santa Cruz agreement deals with more than student housing, and includes reimbursements to the city (and other mitigations) for its impacts. (See link, below.)
Potential reimbursements and other steps taken to mitigate impacts are important to the city of Davis as a whole, vs. a single-minded focus on student housing alone.
Seems like it’s time to take a step back and pursue an agreement to settle all of these issues, instead of just continuing to “react” to the detriment of the city, regarding UCD’s plans.
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
By all means… let us stop doing anything, since it (UCD’s ‘commitments’, which we all know are false) might not happen anyway, keeping everything in abeyance until a “binding agreement” (with however many lawsuits and/or referenda over a period of 2-5 years it takes to do so) is drafted, approved, signed, ratified, and adjudicated… we should encourage UCD to do likewise, taking no action whatsoever, until we get that golden “binding agreement”…
Makes sense Ron… in the meantime, enrollment @ UCD will be increasing… damn good plan for success!
You acknowledged the other day that you don’t even know whether or not pursuit of an agreement would also force a delay in enrollment increases. I’ll assume that you still don’t know, despite your comment here.
In any case, what would you prefer – an agreement that doesn’t work, or one that does? Which do you think works better for both the city and students, in the long run?
Regardless, as David has pointed out, the city and UCD (under its existing LRDP) are ALREADY planning to accommodate the planned 5,000-student increase. That plan includes Sterling, Nishi, Lincoln 40, as well as Plaza 2555 and University Mall (in some configuration – which will hopefully accommodate non-students, as well).
Yes the city accommodating the planned increase leaves us with the status quo.
“I recall that there was recently a high vacancy rate (at West Village?), but this may have been due to the conversion to double-occupied rooms. ”
Matt Dulcich said at our event in April that West Village was full this year.
Building housing on campus will obviously help with the supply issue. Getting affordable housing on campus would require a system-wide change to UC’s housing policy. It won’t be implemented on any single campus. Housing has to pay for itself within the UC system. There is no particular incentive for UC to reduce the cost of housing as they have sufficient demand at their current price structure.
Don: You’re exactly correct. But UC Davis would be more than happy to have the city build the housing instead of them, and that means had we identified this problem earlier, we might have found a win-win scenario.
All true, or very likely true, statements. Thx.
The hell it’s true.
Here’s what David is advocating, from the article above. All I can say is “try it”, and let’s see what happens:
It seems that David is purposefully trying to antagonize people, on a daily basis.
And, he still hasn’t answered “why” student housing is more expensive to rent, on campus. (As a side note, I recall that this assumption was challenged to some degree, earlier.) But, even if true, what is the reason? (As noted in my first comment above, it is not necessarily due to “fair wage” laws, regarding construction workers. That might not even apply, depending upon the source of funding.)
And, are they having trouble renting their units on campus, due to over-pricing of their units? (Doesn’t seem likely.)
It is UC policy that housing must cover all of its costs, including pro-rated costs of services provided to housing by other divisions of campus. This is in a UCOP memorandum that I posted a while ago. I could probably find it, but that is the gist of it.
I don’t think we have sufficient data about that. They made a policy change allowing doubling up in rooms, and showed an apparent high vacancy rate for West Village. I suspect that we need more data over time to see if their pricing is affecting their vacancy rate overall.
I assume this is strictly hypothetical musing on David’s part, since there is no land available for that purpose that could be annexed readily, and it would obviously be a huge and long political and legal battle even if there was.
If your goal is more affordable housing, UC is not the agency to create it.
“If your goal is more affordable housing, UC is not the agency to create it.“
Which is the bigger point here.
I recall you posting something about this, previously.
In any case, isn’t that also the “policy” of developers off-campus? (Full coverage of costs – including services provided, plus a profit?)
Are there service costs being “tacked onto” student rent (on-campus) which actually have nothing to do with housing? (Including costs which those living off-campus are not forced to pay?)
One likely reason that on-campus housing is expensive, and often more expensive than housing off campus, has to do with UC policies regarding how it is budgeted.
Housing is provided as an auxiliary enterprise.
“Auxiliary enterprises are essentially self-supporting activities which provide noninstructional support in the form of goods and services to students, faculty, and staff upon payment of a specific user charge or fee. ….Examples of auxiliary enterprises are housing operations, non-housing food service operations, parking operations, bookstores, student centers/unions, and child-care centers.”
They must pay their own way as well as their share of other costs.
“Auxiliary enterprises bear all direct costs and, to the extent required under the University’s direct costing policies, a share of their own indirect costs, such as utilities, custodial services, and other maintenance and business services.”
Source: http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/3420341/BFB-BUS-72
“Also, all auxiliary enterprises shall be charged for all indirect costs that are judged to benefit the activities. These costs include those for OMP services such as janitorial, utility, and building maintenance; and for central campus administrative services such as materiel management, personnel, accounting, and environmental health and safety.”
The pricing of those services may be set higher than actual costs as part of planning for capital expansion.
“Prices are to be established at a level that will provide revenue to cover all direct costs and, for auxiliary enterprises, all indirect costs, after consideration of prior year losses or excess income. Also, prices may be set at a level sufficient to accumulate funds (net worth) required to meet working capital and capital expansion needs. In establishing the pricing structure, the enterprises should take into account any non-operating revenues (subsidy appropriations) which may be available to cover costs. For indentured auxiliary enterprises, prices must also cover debt service and other bond indenture requirements…..
Funds for capital needs (above the amount made available by depreciation) may be accumulated by setting prices above costs in order to build reserves….”
Source: http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/3420330/BFB-A-59
We are not privy to the contract between UCD and the private firm that manages the on-campus rental housing. But these guiding policies illustrate some of the factors likely involved in the pricing.
So, in my opinion, in order for UC to provide affordable housing for their students, they will probably have to be directed to do so by the legislature. It will require a change in their current formal policy (policy.ucop.edu) and they have little incentive to do so. The legislature will probably have to either set aside some funds specially for that, or attach a condition to existing funds. It means that this is an issue for our assembly member and our state senator to address.
I do think that the political dynamics are changing a bit now such that urban liberal Democratic party leaders consider housing to be a social justice issue. Whether they consider that a condition that extends to UC students, and whether they consider it worthy of their time, is another question. But direct pressure on the UCOP and working through the legislature are going to be the way to achieve greater affordability for student renters on campus.
In case any of our civic leaders wish to make their views known to legislators who represent UC in their districts:
Berkeley
Assembly Tony Thurmond https://a15.asmdc.org/
Senator Nancy Skinner http://sd09.senate.ca.gov/
Davis
Assembly Cecilia Aguilar-Curry https://a04.asmdc.org/
Senator Bill Dodd http://sd03.senate.ca.gov/
Irvine
Assembly Stephen Choi https://ad68.asmrc.org/
Senator John Moorlach https://moorlach.cssrc.us/content/37th-senate-district
Los Angeles
Assembly Richard Bloom https://ad68.asmrc.org/
Senator Ben Allen http://sd26.senate.ca.gov/
Merced
Assembly Adam Gray. http://sd03.senate.ca.gov/
Senator Anthony Cannella. https://cannella.cssrc.us/
Riverside
Assembly Jose Medina https://a61.asmdc.org/biography
Senator Richard Roth. http://sd31.senate.ca.gov/district
San Diego
Assembly Todd Gloria https://a78.asmdc.org/
Senator Toni Atkins http://sd39.senate.ca.gov/
Santa Barbara
Assembly Monique Limon. https://a37.asmdc.org/
Senator Hannah Beth-Jackson. http://sd19.senate.ca.gov/biography
Santa Cruz
Assembly Mark Stone https://a29.asmdc.org/
Assembly Anna M. Caballero. https://a30.asmdc.org/
Senator Bill Monning* http://sd17.senate.ca.gov/
*Senate Majority Leader
bookmarked here — http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UC%20district%20political%20representatives.pdf
as of 2018
Thanks, Don. Although this is written in a rather arcane manner, I’m not seeing any costs which aren’t related to housing (even the “indirect” costs). I do wonder about the costs applied for capital expansion (presumably beyond any given development).
Seems like a state audit is needed, to see exactly what costs (and the amounts) that are being applied to student housing on campus.
It should also be noted that the differences in costs between campus and off-campus housing has not been compared for student apartments, which don’t supply meals. Such a comparison would provide a more straightforward “apples to apples” comparison. (And, I suspect that many would prefer living in an apartment on campus, vs. a dorm.)
I’m also wondering what the source of data is, for the chart (in the article above) that’s comparing dormitories (which provide furniture and meals), vs. apartments (which don’t provide meals, and usually don’t provide furniture). Along with the breakdown of these costs.
Is there a link to the source?
Also, might the amount of rent charged on campus be addressed in an agreement between UCD and the city? (For example, rents shall not exceed 90% of comparable units off-campus, within a certain radius?) I recall something like this at another university, which didn’t even require litigation. I think Don posted it.)
The chart was in the speaker’s report. Not aware of a link to it.
I believe those numbers do not include meals. But meals on campus are more expensive than students eat off campus. I’d have to look up the calculations from the fall.
What speaker? Please elaborate. To whom was it presented, by whom, and when/where?
Where/how did you get the data?
Your chart includes “room and board”.
Ron: Did you actually read yesterday’s article or today’s? The data comes from the report from the speaker’s office.
It looks like both sides are room and board, so what’s the issue?
This comparison does not seem logical in other ways, as well. For example, on-campus housing generally includes utilities cost within the rent, while off-campus apartments do not.
Again, how did you obtain a report which has no link?
More and more the apartments are including utility costs in their rent.
Source of the data: “Findings from the Undergraduate Cost of Attendance Survey 2015-16” (Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, University of California, February 2017).
Wow, Don! Thanks for all of this.
Two key takeaways:
Just for fun, let’s say that it was proposed by the Legislature that – as a pilot program – UC Davis was forced to cede all the land under its current and planned/future housing to the City of Davis, with conditions that would allow it e.g. to help determine the shape, structure, purpose of housing managed and built in these spaces.
On a scale of 1-to-10 – with 1 being “whatever” and 10 some sort of psycho-spiritual pepper spraying of California lawmakers by hired mercenaries, how opposed would UC governance be to this scheme?
David: Thanks for providing the name of the source. So far, I haven’t had time to search for and analyze it.
In the meantime (regarding “apples-to-apples” comparisons), I also understand that leases in the city generally run for a full year/12 months, while leases on campus are only 9 months (thereby providing an opportunity for students to save on 3 months’ rent, if they so choose).
I remember when I first moved to Davis (and was a renter, myself), some students seemed quite desperate to unload their off-campus apartments, during summer (but before their lease ended). I recall considering one such apartment, for myself.
For Student Housing Apartments:
2018-2019: Contracts are from September 22, 2018 through August 5, 2019
It’s paid quarterly.
In the report, they prorated the figures to nine months
I have heard of a lot of Midtown Sacramento apartments in the past five years adding the cost of utilities with RUBS (Ratio Utility Billing System) bills but other than the buy the bed places in town (that almost all just include utilities with the rent) I have not heard anyone in Davis doing this. Does anyone know what Davis landlords are charging for utilities/city services? Any idea if Tandem (the biggest apartment owner in town) is passing through any costs on top of rent?
O.K., but is the data that David referenced in his article comparing rent for on campus apartments with off-campus apartments, or does it compare dormitories with off-campus apartments?
Big differences (including length of leases, meals provided, whether or not utilities are included in rent, etc.), which hasn’t been clarified, regarding the rental cost comparisons.
Ken, your 10:24 post…
PG&E, CATV, etc., are, (regardless of # of beds), billed to the unit (occupants), more often than not.
City utilities are billed to the gross parcel owner, any sub-metering is up to to owner, if any. Rare.
So, fairly safe to conclude that City charges are spread into the rental rates… and that non-City utilities are either billed to units (not beds), or included in the rental rate structure.
I’ve owned a SF rental, but never an apartment. You’ll have to engage an apartment owner(s) to figure out how the owners pass on utility costs… for our SF, tenant paid for all non-city utilities (their account), and we built City utilities into the rent, with a nuance… if actual city utilities were less than estimated, we gave credits (once a year)… if more, we either billed, or rolled it over into the following lease period.
Hope that helps as to your question(s)…