Earlier last week on the Vanguard we had a prolonged discussion of the racial and ethnic breakdown of Davis. Once we were able to see the proper Davis, it was clear that Davis is not just whiter than the rest of California, it is a good deal whiter.
We will note that the trend is that Davis, too, is getting more diverse. We only have 2010 census data right now, but Davis from 2000 to 2010 went from 70 percent white to around 65 percent. By 2020, just over a year away, it could drop to 60 percent or so. But that still leaves it a good deal whiter than the rest of California.
To simplify the data, here is a look at race and ethnicity of Davis compared to California, UC Davis, and the K-12 demographics in California.
Clearly you can see that Davis is far whiter than the rest of California. What I found interesting is that UC Davis is far more ethnically diverse than the city of Davis. The undergraduate student population is only 25 percent white and this chart doesn’t show it, but there is another 14 percent of the student population that are international students, and a good percent of those students are Asian as well.
So, as of 2017-18, the Asian population at UC Davis might be nearly half.
Some were “alarmed” to see that the white population at UC Davis was as low as 25 percent. In fact, when you calculate that nearly 60 percent of the undergraduate population are female, you could have as few as 10 percent of the undergraduate population as white male.
What is interesting, however, is if you look at the K-12 student enrollment data also from 2017-18, you see that whites are becoming a smaller and smaller minority in California. Only 23 percent of 
all K-12 students are white.
Finding the proper baseline, it is interesting to note that white students are actually slightly overrepresented in the student body, Asian students are heavily overrepresented with one-third of the student population compared to nine percent enrolled in K-12. Again, that underestimates their actual numbers.
African Americans remain disadvantaged with only four percent of UC Davis students compared to 5.5 percent of the K-12 students. The most disadvantaged group in terms of sheer numbers are Latinos, who are over half the population of the K-12 but less than one-quarter of the UC Davis student body.
The data here are interesting and we could probably publish a number of different pieces just on the implications here.
For our purposes, they demonstrate that the city of Davis is far less diverse than either the state of California or UC Davis. And that has implications not only for people of color who reside in the city, but also for students who enroll at UC Davis.
Why that is the case is an important question. I think Rik Keller’s piece from earlier this week was pretty illuminating. We are waiting on the next part of his series, but the article provided a view of mortgage loan redlining and restrictive covenants, among other discriminatory housing practices.
The question, I think, is why Davis has remained so white when most of these practices ended or were abolished by 1968. Mr. Keller maintains that the key point here is that discrimination did not end in 1968, and the patterns of discrimination were not undone and they persist to this day.
The original residential patterns probably explain why Davis remains more heavily white than Bay Area communities which have a far higher cost of housing than Davis.
But the other factor that we must consider is that Davis’ growth control policies also led to the continued racial and ethnic breakdown. Limiting growth has created a high demand for housing, which on the one hand keeps prices up, and on the other hand keeps supply low.
Restricting supply thus prevents a rapid turnover in population, while high housing costs, at least as compared to other surrounding communities, acts as another barrier to entry.
People have wanted me to cut to the chase and ask what the solution is. While they are doing so before all the data and information is in, the “solution” seems fairly straightforward.
First, the city needs to figure out ways to build more housing. For much of the last few years, we have focused on student housing. That is certainly a very high demand and, while it adds a non-permanent population, as you can see with the data, it adds a population to the city that is far more ethnically diverse than the current community.
Second, some in the community have lamented about the diminishing school age population – a lot of that is due to housing that is out of the range for families and the general lack of overall supply. Adding housing that families of K-12 students can afford would not only add to the school age population, but as we see with the breakdown of students, add to Davis’ ethnic and racial diversity.
Third, we need to find ways to add workforce housing, and affordable housing – both affordable by design as well as big “A” subsidized affordable housing. Adding housing of this sort will again pull from a more diverse pool.
At the same time, I think we have to look at this as a small and incremental change that occurs over time. Most in this community are not in favor of rapid population growth. Many would oppose much additional peripheral housing.
In the interim, I think we need to better understand the effects of our current racial and ethnic breakdown. That means we need to examine the impact of community practices and views on populations of color, we need to better address our achievement gap, and we need to be more cognizant of the social isolation that some people of color feel and of the impact on students of color attending our schools or even UC Davis.
Bottom line is that the ethnic and racial breakdown in Davis is not going to dramatically shift in the near future, and instead we need to look at ways to better serve the increasingly diverse community that we have now.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
I don’t understand why Davis has to mirror California’s overall demographics? Is using race and racism the new way to push housing in the city? To build on our periphery farmland?
Los Angeles is almost 50% Latino and overall Southern California is much more Latino than the north. That skews the numbers in the state so why does Davis have to conform with the rest of CA?
It doesn’t have to mirror it. I never said it should mirror it. I only suggested we might look at ways for incremental change which impact more than just a need for diversity. I specifically noted that most would not want rapid growth or a lot of peripheral development. I think I covered the bases here to be honest.
The reason you’re pushing for more diversity is because you think Davis is too white and you’re using California’s demographics as the barometer. I don’t think California’s overall demographics is a good gauge to be using when one part of the state heavily skews the numbers Latino.
“I don’t think California’s overall demographics is a good gauge to be using when one part of the state heavily skews the numbers Latino.”
That’s kind of a silly comment. One only needs to look at Davis compared to Dixon, Woodland, and West Sacramento to see that California’s overall demographics are actually fairly closely in line with neighboring communities.
In fact, according to the US census 60.7% of the U.S. population is white alone. So Davis falls in line with our national demographics. Why not use that figure?
Perhaps to reduce the number of “inherently racist” folk? [see another of today’s threads, where it is “clear” (or at least emphasized) that white folk (and, implied, only white folk), are racist…]
Ok…
Or why not the entire planet, if you’re going to go with such a macro-analysis. California seemed more relevant? If I had the data, I would have probably used the region, but California as a benchmark seemed a good place to start in understanding or breakdown. Unless you think comparing Davis to Nebraska is useful?
No, there’s many forms of data and you chose (cherrypicked?) to use data that works to bolster your point.
Probably worth pointing out that the reason I started using California as a baseline was that you – originally and admittedly erroneously – argued that Davis had a similar white population percentage as the state of California.
Ha ha, but comparing Davis to Los Angeles is useful?
I don’t think “alarmed” is how people reacted to that stat, “surprised” who be more correct.
I put it in quotes – surprised might be a better word.
Anyone either alarmed or surprised hasn’t been on campus in the last few years.
I commented on here that a friend of my sister’s, a black man who came to UC Davis in 1967 when he was one of seven black people on campus, joked to me that from his walk around campus the progress since then has led to a racial dominance at UC Davis of predominantly asian girls.
I am reposting his comment because the last time I posted that DS pulled it, and I cannot think of a single Vanguard policy that would cause that comment to be pulled.
The quote “Clearly you can see that Davis is far whiter than the rest of California” would only be correct if “everywhere” aka “the rest” of California was not as white as Davis. It is true that “some” (but not all) cities are not as white as Davis but “the rest” of California is not “far whiter” than Davis.
David also needs to make a note that his numbers for K-12 are for “public” schools that like “public” housing have a lot less whites and a lot more people of color (a good example is the private “Menlo High School” and the nearby public “Menlo-Atherton High School”.
As Keith points out “one part of the state heavily skews the numbers Latino”. I don’t know if anyone is surprised but the part of the state next to a country with an overwhelming number of Latinos has a lot of Latinos and the part of the state closest to a country with an overwhelming number of whites has a lot of whites.
I don’t get the David’s point of David’s number crunching. Like the “achievement gap” there is not a single person or single school that gets the “exact” same result on every test. In California there is not a single city that has the “exact” same ethnic mix. If David is not happy with the ethnic mix in Davis I’m wondering if he can tell us the mix he is hoping for and if he has any plans to work to get Davis to the ethnic mix that will make him happy.
“The quote “Clearly you can see that Davis is far whiter than the rest of California” would only be correct if “everywhere” aka “the rest” of California was not as white as Davis. ”
That’s a very narrow interpretation of what I wrote. That’s only true if you construe the meaning of “the rest of California” to mean every location other than Davis rather than the average of the rest of the state as I intended.
“I don’t get the David’s point of David’s number crunching. Like the “achievement gap” there is not a single person or single school that gets the “exact” same result on every test. ”
Just as your reading above is extremely narrow, so too is your reading of this. The point of the number crunching is to understand the ethnic breakdown of Davis compared to that of the rest of California. The point is not to use California as a goal, but rather as a benchmark by which to compare. The paragraph that Cindy quotes is probably where I am going with this.
” If David is not happy with the ethnic mix in Davis I’m wondering if he can tell us the mix he is hoping for and if he has any plans to work to get Davis to the ethnic mix that will make him happy.”
Ironically I did exactly that in this piece – and I did explicitly. It’s almost like you only read the first few paragraphs of the commentary and jumped to the comments.
Just wanted to point out that it is not uncommon to find that diversity is lower in the older cohorts of a population. I focus on faculty diversity at the University and the full professors are less diverse than the associate professors who are less diverse than the assistant professors. Given their age, one would expect UC Davis students to be more diverse than the overall Davis population.
The more relevant comparison in my opinion is the diversity of Davis compared to other comparable cities in California. Is Davis less diverse than other cities with the same median home prices?
But regardless, the section below really resonated with me, and I’d love to have more community discussion about this:
I want to thank Cindy for her posts with lots of great data (including the info on UCD professors today). There is a long list of reasons why 50 years ago the majority of PhDs were awarded to white males and today the number is much smaller.
Many white guys with PhDs got jobs teaching and even 50 years ago the areas around Cal, Stanford, UCD and USF where even “whiter” than the (pretty darn white at the time) state overall.
Davis has a lot of different “social” groups and the only group I ever see that is not “diverse” are the groups of first generation Asian students that hang out together and speak their native language.
As Cindy has mentioned before it is difficult for someone without a college (or High School) degree to be accepted in to most “social circles” in town where a higher than average number of people have not only degrees but advanced degrees.
Last weekend we rode to the Dollar Store on East 8th and when I was locking up the bikes to a water pipe by the entrance I noticed that just like at parties with richer than average people in town will have a mix of many races the (what looked to me like) poorer than average people in town (that were sitting and talking while waiting for laundry in Love laundry) were a mix of white brown and black (I didn’t see any Asians since poor Asians tend to wash and dry their laundry at home).
P.S. After reading many of David’s posts it “seems” like hs is not happy with the ethnic mix of Davis, but for some reason he won’t come out and tell us (Yes I am happy with the mix or No I am not happy with the mix)…
Is that a fact . . .
No. No, it’s not.
I’ve frequented Laundry Lounge a couple of times in the past few weeks (and BTW, I’m not “poor”. The socio-economic stereotypes expressed by some people on this blog seem to be almost as egregious as the ethnic stereotypes I’ve seen expressed here).
I saw a good mix of ethnicities on the times I’ve gone there, as well as social class. There were students as well as those who probably weren’t students, but not necessarily poors.
There were, indeed, Asians on the 3 occasions I’ve been there.
The place has good reviews, and some people on Yelp indicate they come all the way from Sacramento because it is a clean, nice place to do laundry.
I agree with Kendra and Alan 100%. My recent trip to the laundromat in the Anderson Shopping Center the first week in August was a classic melting pot experience. A very diverse group of people there both as employees and patrons.
Kendra appears to be expressing something similar to my (massive) frustration with David’s article. Our Davis issues are overwhelmingly socio-economic rather than racial. The community characteristics that historically and currently have attracted people (of all races) to Davis are socio-economic. Davis started as a college town, and (much to John D’s frustration) has done virtually nothing to change that.
I’m wondering if Alan knows of a poor predominantly Asian neighborhood in CA (or Asia) where you “don’t” see laundry drying
I was not talking about the “Laundry Lounge” (in the center off Anderson) I was talking about “Love Laundry” (on East 8th) both are nice laundry places but the center with the Dollar Store has a lot less students (and more poor people of all races) and had had a tougher time keeping tenants than Save Mart center.
Sorry for the confusion. I *did* mean Love Laundry (in the 8th street center), not Laundry Lounge.
So my previous comments hold for Love Laundry (I have never been to Laundry Lounge, so am not sure who their primary clientele might be).
Also worth pointing out that the shopping center Ken A was visiting is in the one part of Davis that has market-based (i.e. older) affordable housing. Oeste Manor is probably the most ethnically diverse part of Davis.
David Greenwald said . . . “And that has implications not only for people of color who reside in the city, but also for students who enroll at UC Davis.”
The above, very loaded statement, is stated and then never explained or drilled-down into. What are those implications for the current members of the Davis population who are people of color?
David also said … “high housing costs, at least as compared to other surrounding communities, acts as another barrier to entry.”
Why is the comparison only to “other surrounding communities”? Shouldn’t the comparison also include comparisons to communities that are the most prevalent hometowns of the students in the UCD enrollment? If those “feeder” communities are included in the comparison, is the cost of Davis housing actually a barrier to entry?
David went on to say . . . “the diminishing school age population – a lot of that is due to housing that is out of the range for families and the general lack of overall supply.”
That is also due in very large part to two factors that David is silent on. First, family sizes throughout California and the US are markedly smaller than they have been historically, and the trend for further family size reduction is expected to continue. Second, there is a higher than average proportion of seniors who live in Davis who have chosen to age in place rather than move to another community for their retirement.
“What are those implications for the current members of the Davis population who are people of color?”
That’s not the question I would ask. The implication is that both UC Davis students and students at DJUSD are impacted in a variety of ways by their minority status in the community. We can look at the achievement gap but also the data we collected out of the 2012 Breaking the Silence event where students of color feel socially isolated, underachieve, bullied, etc. With regards to students at UC Davis, many feel uncomfortable in the community, some are subjected to police stops, some feel they are singled out, etc.
David said . . . “With regards to students at UC Davis, many feel uncomfortable in the community, some are subjected to police stops, some feel they are singled out, etc.”
As we have seen from the national dialogue, the level of uncomfortableness does not decline when a community has a higher percentage of people of color.
“Why is the comparison only to “other surrounding communities”? Shouldn’t the comparison also include comparisons to communities that are the most prevalent hometowns of the students in the UCD enrollment? If those “feeder” communities are included in the comparison, is the cost of Davis housing actually a barrier to entry?”
I’m agnostic on this point – personally I don’t think it’s going to change a lot of analysis.
It massively changes the analysis. Davis housing takes on a very different affordability profile if it is compared to housing costs in UCD’s most frequent feeder cities rather than compared to Dixon and Woodland.
Most (but not all) UCD students of color come from parts of the state that are MORE expensive than Davis “and” MORE diverse on average San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties are all MORE diverse and MORE expensive so the main reason we don’t have as many “people of color” in Davis is not the price of homes and apartments….
“That is also due in very large part to two factors that David is silent on. ”
But the point is not the why, the point is understanding the demographic trends that generate the type of breakdown we have at UC Davis. There are a relatively low number of white students at UC Davis largely because there are a relatively low number of white students in the K-12 system. I think we can bracket the cause for the purpose of this discussion. Not that it’s not interesting, but I wasn’t intending to write a 4000 essay on it.
Your point is not about the why, but that is reflective of your agenda.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Racial-Ethnic-Davis.png
Look again at the table. The percentages of Whites in K-12 and UCD are virtually identical.
As I mentioned before the number in the chart is “public” K-12 that is different from “all “K-12 that includes private schools with a much higher percentage of white kids and home schoolers that are almost all white (and Christian right wingers)…
I’m guessing that the UCD percentage of white kids is super close to the percentage of CA white kids 18-22 (a lot closer than the ~12% white kids at UC Riverside and UC Merced).
I have to wonder whether David’s choice of race is a good one. Would it not be much more illuminating to group Non-Latino Whites and Asians into a single category?
The table David provides looks very different if that combination is used.
No Matt. There are important reasons not to do that groups. Reason one is that Asians face racial issues that whites do not. Reason two is that Asians view immigration issues differently from white. Reason three is that while Asians are more moderate than blacks and Latinos, they do tend to vote more similarly to them than they do to whites.
Again you have thrown out very loaded stereotyping statements without any explanation. I’m looking forward to hearing your explanation of those stereotypes.
You’ll have to wait for another time… I have other matters to attend to.
So your answer is “crickets” . . . again a convenient tool for the advancement of your agenda. Perhaps you should have delayed publishing this article until a time when you could ensure it is more balanced.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say Matt, what loaded stereotype am I throwing out?
Perhaps you are referring to this: “With regards to students at UC Davis, many feel uncomfortable in the community, some are subjected to police stops, some feel they are singled out, etc.”“
I have over the years reported extensively on these, you may not be aware of that since you frequently do not participate in such discussions.
I would also like to hear the specific “racial issues” that David thinks “Asians face” “that whites do not” (maybe having people assume that they take their shoes off before entering their home?)…
P.S. It would be great if David would also answer some of the other questions…
“Poll finds that at least one quarter of Asian Americans report being personally discriminated against in the workplace and housing”
Not sure why you’re questioning this stuff, but there is one example.
David, let me give you a paint by numbers picture. Your Reason One is a double-down stereotype. Your Reason Two is a double-down stereotype. Your Reason Two is a double-down stereotype. Your Reason Three stereotypes Asians, stereotypes Blacks and Latinos, and strangely consciously-or-unconsciously omits Whites.
With that said, here are four questions for you
(1) Are the Latinos who attend UCD a good representative sample of Latinos statewide in California?
(2) Are Asians who attend UCD a good representative sample of Asians statewide in California?
(3) Are the non-UCD student Latinos who live in Davis a good representative sample of Latinos statewide in California?
(2) Are the non-UCD student Asians who live in Davis a good representative sample of Asians statewide in California?
It does seem as though the Vanguard alternates between referring to Asians as “people of color” and “people of no color”, depending upon what it’s “argument of the day”, is.
(But regardless of the perceived problem, the Vanguard’s proposed “solution” usually consists of “more development”.)
Come on Matt, you know why. Those numbers are inconvenient for the agenda.
The answer is “yes”, according to the Vanguard. Never mind that the WDAAC proposal (which David seems to support) will likely make the city even “whiter” (and “legally older”). Where’s his criticism of that?
So, the Bay Area is racist? And, the only way we can address racism is to “build our way out of it”? (In reference to the title of the article, that’s David’s “solution”, regarding racism?) Seems like that’s the solution to every problem, for development activists.
And, at the same time, David seems to support weakening of Affordable housing requirements.
Yes, I agree, how does WDAAC contribute to this recent new push for racially diverse housing?
Some of our local liberals are finding themselves between a rock and a hard place.
WDAAC probably doesn’t contribute to more diverse housing. I’ve never said I’m supporting WDAAC.
Keith: I wouldn’t necessarily characterize one’s position (among the “liberal/conservative” spectrum) in regard to WDAAC. I believe that there are a significant number of liberal folks who are opposed to it.
Traditionally, conservatives have been supporters of the “build everything” approach. However, a few very liberal folks seem to have adopted that position, as well. Seems like they push communities to adopt to their personal goals/interests, and are less-concerned with the overall impacts on communities (not to mention environmental concerns). They play right into the hands of the traditional/conservative developers, and have formed an “unholy alliance” with them. Some are even willing to exploit social concerns, in regard to their support of development.
I don’t agree much with your ‘build nothing’ views, R, but your statement above is 100% true. I take each project on face value, and am against J/R and a proponent of some growth in Davis, including peripheral. However, the above statement you make, politically speaking, is quite true. The alliance is quite unholy. This is not limited to Davis, it is national in urban settings.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Racial-Ethnic-Davis.png
The table David has provided poses some interesting questions.
(1) The Asian population percentage for California is 13%, but the Asian K-12 percentage is only 9.2%. Why is that?
(2) The Asian K-12 population percentage for California is 9.2%, but the Asian UCD percentage is 33%. Why is that?
(3) The table omits the DJUSD K-12 population percentages? Why is that?
Pursuit of non-resident students (who pay UCD in excess of $43,000 in tuition and fees) by UCD?
Actually the non-student resident population is in a separate 14 percent category (as referenced in the article).
Ron, see David’s answer above. The UCD numbers in the table add up to 86. The remaining 14 covers the group you are referring to.
There is no money for Affordable housing. The best we can do in the short term is get rid of the long term residents of our current Affordable units and re-allocate those.
That’s not exactly true if you talk to people who actually build it. The other point that people should realize, an affordable housing only project on the periphery would be exempt from Measure R.
I know of at least one large parcel within the city (near 5th and Pena) that was rezoned for more dense Affordable housing years ago. I wonder why that hasn’t been “funded”.
The other question I would have is what is the impact of approving developments that don’t pay property taxes?
Since the need for Affordable housing is essentially bottomless, what is a good overall mix/percentage of Affordable housing (from the perspective of the entire city)? And, what percentage does the city currently have, in relation to total rental units?
Wow, R, what up? I keep agreeing with you today.
“The other point that people should realize, an affordable housing only project on the periphery would be exempt from Measure R”.
So is this the crux of what might be the agenda here with this new push for housing based on race?
Have you been talking to them about it?
You think building new housing with money we don’t have is a faster solution than rebalancing the population of our current housing?
Yes. Because any rebalancing is going to change it at the margins not to be mention pull from the same population base.
Given the seriousness of the problem we should do what we can as soon as we can. There is no excuse for delaying by claiming, without evidence, that it will not do any good.
I’d have to go back to the source eligibility criteria but removing acculturated residents and instead making space available for recent refugees would allow us to fulfill your principles.
“Because any rebalancing is going to change it at the margins not to be mention pull from the same population base.”
Then give me evidence that it will do good.
Are you denying that there are numerous refugees in need? Almost 0% of these are of Northern European ancestry.
“Then give me evidence that it will do good.”
Three brief points as I have an upcoming extensive demographic analysis article that will examine this issue in great detail:
1) My first article had a purposely truncated summary of post-Fair Housing Act (1968) ongoing discrimination patterns. Part of the reason was because I have a more detailed upcoming article, and part of it was to test the sorts of responses that the article would elicit. I found it amazing that no one (especially those commenters of the ‘housing discrimination ended 50 years ago!’ persuasion) has commented on the failures of the Fair Housing Act itself, not to mention ongoing discriminatory practices such as housing loan discrimination (and sub-prime lending), exclusionary low-density zoning patterns, real estate agent steering, etc.
See the following for failures of the Fair Housing Act itself: https://www.propublica.org/article/living-apart-how-the-government-betrayed-a-landmark-civil-rights-law
And here is a detailed article that talks about not only the income gap, but the wealth gap that has persisted in part because of ongoing discriminatory housing practices: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/systematic-inequality/
If anyone wishes to argue against these conclusions, they need to bring equally well-sourced information and research to the table; I have seen very little of that so far among the loudest voices in this forum who are most adamantly opposed to the conclusions of mountains of research and data.
2) If only there was a comparatively-sized city just down (or up) the road from Davis that could serve as a baseline comparison to the Davis and California figures both for current and historic demographics… 😉
3) When looking at a comparison of Davis to California as a whole and other areas in terms of diversity, it is important to take into the account the off-campus UC Davis student population. Looking at population cross-tabulated by race/ethnicity and age, about 50% of the Asian population in Davis is college-aged compared to only about 10% in California as a whole.
Rik: In regard to your well-researched article a few days ago, I’m wondering how common the racial restrictions in regard to housing were in other cities throughout the state and country. And, whether or not those communities are now more diverse, for perhaps a variety of reasons (e.g., the lack of a primary employer in the form of a UC, which primarily hired a non-diverse population in prior years).
Ron,
No time to answer directly right now, but I did provide a number of links and footnotes in the article to sources that discuss in detail the topic of how extensive this discrimination was and how the effects are still present. There are more link in some of my posts in the discussion section of that article and some other Vanguard articles (see especially Richard Rothstein, “The Color of Law”; and this Atlantic article that also links to Ta-Nehisi’s Coates’ article: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/)
One key concept: while everybody knows the old realty saw “Location. Location. Location,” people tend to not see the larger picture about location. When buying or renting housing in a particular location, you are getting not only a place to live, but access to schools, access to employment opportunities, access to recreational opportunities, access to food and nutrition (see the literature on “food deserts” in low-income ares), access to cultural opportunities. etc. So, to the extent that certain classes of people are excluded from housing, they are also excluded from those other opportunities; and the patterns established by that systemic and ongoing discrimination have long-lasting effects that continue to exclude them from those opportunities.
I took a look at Rik’s article and I agree with the article that the fact that people of color have less ‘tax-advantaged” IRA accounts and are less likely to be homeowners due to racist lenders and realtors has “some” part in the long long list of reasons to why there is a “wealth gap”.
I’m wondering if Rik is aware that ANYONE (of any race) can open an IRA and the only reason that people of color have less access to the accounts is do to the fact that there is (unfortunately) still “slightly” higher unemployment for people of color.
I’m also wondering if Rik is aware that while there are (sadly) still some racist realtors and lenders almost all of them work on commission and get paid if they sell a home to someone of any race.
For the past 50 years if someone really wanted to buy a home in CA it would be possible to work exclusively with people of their own race to find the home, finance the home and do the escrow and title.
P.S. I’m looking forward to Rik’s “upcoming extensive demographic analysis article”…
Ken A.
I have provided dozens of links that document my claims. If you actually wanted to educate yourself on the topic, you would read them, rather than continue to ask me naive and uninformed questions.
Ken: if you think everyone has equal access to credit, read this. If you have hard data and research that contradicts these findings, go ahead and post it.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2018/02/21/447051/systematic-inequality/
There are many problems with this line from David.
The first is that Davis is a college town and there are a bunch of old retired UCD employees that live here and skew the data as the floods of Hispanic immigrants that have invaded California over the last 30 years have been largely poor and uneducated and their children, although the trend is up, tended to be significantly under-represented in higher learning… both as students and certainly as UCD employees. And small farming communities like Davis are also notorious for having a low population of black residents. Black farmers, although there is an upward trend, only represent 2% of all farmers.
A more appropriate comparison would be another UC town about the same size as Davis.
Santa Cruz for example has a slightly higher percentage of white residents.
Davis also has about double the percentage of black residents as does Santa Cruz… although those numbers are exceedingly low.
Santa Cruz does have a significant higher percentage of Hispanic residents and a lower percentage of Asian residents. That seems data worth discussing. Why does UCD attract so many more Asian students than does UCSC?
However, the biggest glaring lack of diversity in Davis is that of the different age groups, and conservatives vs liberals. In terms of the declining health of the City and community, these things play a much bigger hand than does counting the numbers of people of certain races.
How about San Luis Obispo, which David often times uses for comparisons to Davis.
72.9% white only.
SLO is even more white than Davis. That’s for sure.
This can be our new town motto: “Davis, We’re Not as White as SLO.”
How about this motto?
“Davis, all inclusive, where’ it’s okay to be Latino, black, Asian and even white.”
Cindy, glad you have joined the discussion. As a woman of color, do you think David’s comment that, “With regards to students at UC Davis, many feel uncomfortable in the community, some are subjected to police stops, some feel they are singled out, etc.”?
Do persons of color have of a bigger problem in Davis than:
— In other cites throughout California,
— In other cites outside California,
— In California as a whole, or
— In the Nation as a whole?
Matt – It is true that many African-American UCD students feel uncomfortable in Davis. I participated in an event last spring for African-American students who were admitted to UC Davis. The audience (admitted students and their parents) asked current students about their experience as African-Americans and the general consensus was that one can feel isolated in Davis and that incidents happen. The students then went on to talk about the campus resources that exist to support them.
I do not know how this compares to other cities. I do know though that we lose a lot of our admitted African-American students to UCLA and Berkeley. They tend to prefer more urban environments.
Cindy Pickett:
Do you think this was across the board for African-American students at UCD? Do second-gen+ students have an easier time of it than first-gens?
If we look past the inflammatory rhetoric from Jeff in the first paragraph, he asks some more interesting questions…
An interesting comparison to Davis is indeed Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz is actually slightly less white than Davis but it’s close (58 versus 60 percent). But how they get there is very different.
So I looked at UC Santa Cruz and found that their demographics are vastly different. White is 31.4 percent (higher than UC Davis), Asian is 27.7 (lower than UC Davis), Latino is 27.6 percent (higher than UC Davis).
What’s interesting is Rik’s point that most of the Asian residents in Davis are college age. Which means that part of the diversity in Davis is simply a function of the large Asian population of UC Davis. Whereas, UC Santa Cruz keeping more people on campus, might be limiting the Asian population in the city.
Sometime inflammation is a treatable health malady.
I don’t know where you are getting your data. I am looking at the US Census figures. July 1, 2017 Census data shows the following:
Santa Cruz
– White alone, non-Hispanic = 64.8%
– Hispanic = 20.4%
– Asian = 9.2%
– Black = 1.3%
Davis
– White alone, non-Hispanic = 55.6%
– Hispanic = 14.3%
– Asian = 22.2%
– Black = 2.8%
So, Davis is less white, less Hispanic, more black and more Asian than Santa Cruz.
Both are over-represented in white liberals though.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/santacruzcitycalifornia,daviscitycalifornia,ca/PST045217
I pulled the numbers from the 2010 census data. The updates are not official – I have no doubt that the trend in Davis for example is moving the white population down and as I stated in this piece, expect it to be about 60% by 2020, it was 65% in 2010. I don’t think it’s 55%, but hard to know for sure. I don’t know how the census does updates midyears, it’s probably some sort of estimate.
Looks like my data is mislabeled. The “white alone” includes white Hispanics. That detail is stupid in my opinion, and indicative why race counting is a waste of time. 50 years from now we will have a lot of people in this country that look black-white-Hispanic-Asian from a=another 2-3 generations of mixed-race procreation.
However, even with the mislabeling, the point is the same. Santa Cruz and many other small cities owning a large university are generally more white.
Here is an interesting question… what is the racial make-up of Vanguard participants?
“flood of Hispanic immigrants over the last 30 years”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiPq7C06zjQ
Jeff… how about the “flood of non-hispanic whites” coming to CA 1840-1870? Before that, CA was mainly Hispanic/Latino and Native American… big time…
Jeez!
Let’s talk about that Howard. Why were those earlier immigrants coming to the US, and what did they have a big social safety net when they arrived. Did they just cross a fence, or have to cross an ocean? Did they arrive legally or illegally.
And what are the real numbers here with respect to diversity?
I get your point but it is void of all the typical deep thinking nuance you are known for on the VG.
From the above quotes, is the implication thus “the less white, the better”? Are we suggesting “ethnic cleansing” here? Sort of the other end of the Nazi ideals stick, that rather than wiping out Jews and homosexuals and Poles to achieve a more pure and better human race, in Davis we instead institute policies to wipe out or drive out the ‘whites’ to achieve a better overall human race here?
I mean, being a Jew, I’m not worried for myself. But I sure would miss some of my white friends.
You should hang your head in shame for having the misfortune being born white. Or, to make up for it you must rev up the virtue signalling engine to routinely prove your love and advocacy for those people born with darker skin-tones.
How dare you call me ‘white’ 😉
I was at my 39th year reunion for my freshman dorm at Tercero last night. There was exactly one black person in our dorm (three the year before). She was from Chicago, and had moved back to Chicago, and flew back to Davis for the reunion.
I asked her how people treated her at our dorm and at Davis. She said she was always treated well, and UC Davis gave her the opportunity to do the things that she has achieved in her life. And, she added, “If I wasn’t treated well, I wouldn’t have come back to be here tonight!”
And that’s the point folks. It’s all about respect, it’s all about human hearts, and it’s all about decency and about individuals. It’s about us against them. The decent vs. the racists and the race-baters and the arseholes. Not about race versus race against race vs. the half-race.
All of you with your accusations of whiteness and your boring numbers and your infantile ‘my numbers are better than your numbers’ and ‘no! we need to combine Eskimo’s with the Finnish to get the proper racial comparison in Davis’ — well, you are all making my arse tired.
Of course there is still racism. Less and less over time, slowly, thankfully. And the opportunities one is given in life translate into a tougher time getting ahead, and that carries over from the past. The government does have the responsibility to erase itself of policies and laws that outright discriminate. Unfortunately, the government on any level trying to then socially engineer towards racial perfection will never work. Government sucks at that.
So it’s up to us folks. To be decent to each other as individuals and as human beings. And for the decent us to fight against the real ‘them‘.
So you can take your numbers, and your putting down of Davis, and your goals of a perfect level of ‘whiteness’ — and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine.
Another great post from Alan, but unless David tells us how will we know the “perfect level of ‘whiteness’” we should be working for…
Well said.
I think we are delaying Civil Rights 2.0 which is to finally focus on the individual and the content of his/her character only because a bunch of white liberals get their identity from keeping the 1.0 rage going.
Thanks Alan: I filled out a bunch of bingo squares in my card from just that one post alone!:
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/the-reverse-racism-is-a-real-thing-bingo-card
Congratulations!
Good post Alan, dead on.
Why is Alan M trying to change the definition of the term “race-baiting” from “the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group” to the bringing up examples of ongoing discrimination and racism?
Answer: Just part of a history of the right trying to co-opt the term. See: https://splinternews.com/if-youre-confused-about-what-race-baiting-is-heres-a-b-1793848630
I see Rik knows how to Google left wing websites.
Keith O.: Do you you know how to Google dictionary websites? Where do you think I got the actual definition of race-baiting? A left-wing dictionary?
You think the right hasn’t tried to co-opt the term “race-baiting”? Provide your documentation and citations for this.
Splinter News is formerly known as Fusion, which a is multi-platform endeavor owned by Univision Communications Inc. that includes Fusion TV, The Onion, The AV Club, The Root, Clickhole, Starwipe, The Flama and El Rey Network, now rebranded as of July 2017 as Splinter News. Dodai Stewart is the Editor in Chief and according to Variety.com, she says “The site will focus on news and political commentary for a justice-minded, inclusive, and incisive audience,” Splinter News curates stories from mostly left leaning sources that include: Jezebel, The Root, Gizmodo, Deadspin, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Lifehacker.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/splinter/
Keith: That definition doesn’t says what you think it says. Take that definition of “race-baiting” you grabbed from the Merriam-Webster on-line “Learner’s Dictionary” for English-language learners along with the standard Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definition…
“the unfair use of statements about race to try to influence the actions or attitudes of a particular group of people”
“the making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group”
…and contrast with the way that you are trying to co-opt the term, which is also a part of the documented history of the right-wing trying to co-opt the term. Hmmm. let’s see what that left-wing publication, Dictionary.com says: https://www.dictionary.com/e/politics/race-baiting/
“In the 2010s, conservative politicians and political commentators began appropriating the term race-baiting…”
How do you know what they or I think?
Because he told us what he thinks. It’s very funny that he pulled the old “OMG! that information is from a left-wing site!!!” gambit right before I showed him the dictionary.com entry that said the same exact thing about the history of the co-opting of the term. Facts are pesky.
Where, exactly, did I define the term at all?
I do believe that’s the first time in history that anyone has implied that I was involved in a right-wing group action.
Alan: looks like your original post was deleted by the moderator. But the following from dictionary.com describes pretty accurately how you were trying to use the term…
“In the 2010s, conservative politicians and political commentators began appropriating the term race-baiting to refer to minority activists who they believed were provoking racial hatred against white people, a shift from the historical tendency of race-baiting for the incitement of racism against marginalized groups. For example, Ian Tuttle on conservative news site National Review labeled #BlackLivesMatter leader DeRay McKesson a “next-generation race-baiter” in 2015 for social media-focused activism that, as Tuttle argues, paints white people as evil and black people as good. This use of the term, as expected, is controversial.
Other prominent conservative voices like Bill O’Reilly and conservative Twitter have also employed race-baiting in this way. Conservapedia, a right-leaning, crowd-sourced online encyclopedia, enters race baiting as “a term for groundless accusations of racism made by liberals.”
WHY? I have been deemed the Wise Sage of Davis. My posts cannot be deleted, by proclamation of God! A mere mortal cannot delete my posts, because they are BRILLIANT!
How do you know how I was ‘trying’ to use the term . . . and if I was ‘trying’, I must have succeeded or you wouldn’t be commenting on it.
Note it says ‘controversial’, not ‘wrong’.
WHY WAS MY POST REMOVED. Honestly, I don’t even remember it. Which is my point. How the h**l am I suppose to know what not to write by the standards of the Vanguard if it is removed without comment. I’ve read the standards again, and it isn’t at all clear to me what changed to instigate the new totalitarian editorial sterilization that is taking place in Vanguardtopia. Really p*sses me off.
AND HOW IN H**L do you keep S— in that comments on removed comments? What the h**l am I supposed to say about a comment I made on the fly that I only vaguely remember? That’s like covering a guys’ head and leaving his genitals exposed to be flogged by the masses. WHAT THE H**L!!!
Reading through these posts and the ones on the earlier articles, commentators unhappy over pointing out that Davis has erected barriers to non-European Americans being able to own a house appear to be pressuring the other side into putting forward racial quotas so that they can then turn around and attack those quotas as they did with affirmative action.
The real points of these analyses by Rik Keller and David Greenwald are to show 1) explicit policies through the 1960s closed these groups out of housing in Davis initially, and through the inertia of property ownership, those neighborhoods have been slow to transform from their initial make up and 2) the no growth policy that started by 2000 has prevented the addition of meaningful amounts to new housing that could be open to these underrepresented groups that would increase the socioeconomic diversity of the town. This is not about trying to achieve some nirvana of racial make up–it’s about identifying and correcting the institutional barriers that have put a ring fence around our community.
There is not a “no growth policy” in place, in Davis.
As a side note, a work team that I traveled with a few years ago stayed in a small town in Oregon (which certainly had no barriers regarding housing prices or pursuit of development). I had never thought of (anywhere in) Oregon as an inherently racist place (even though it is overwhelmingly “white” – especially in the smaller towns). But, an African-American woman on our team expressed real fear about going there. From my perspective, her fear seemed unfounded. But, this was one of the times that I realized that folks have different perspectives, fears, and experiences regarding this issue. (Which usually has nothing to do with pursuing more development.)
Ron: for some historical perspective, the entire state of Oregon was founded as an “inherently racist place”: “When Oregon entered the Union in 1859 — it did so as a “whites-only” state. The original state constitution banned slavery, but also excluded nonwhites from living there. “Oregon is the only state in the United States that actually began as literally whites-only,” said Winston Grady-Willis, director of Portland State University’s School of Gender, Race and Nations. “Even though there was subsequent legislation that challenged those statutes, the statutes were not removed from the books until 1922.”
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/06/07/when-portland-banned-blacks-oregons-shameful-history-as-an-all-white-state/?utm_term=.64c7649f5a9f
Cripes! (Well, that helps explain that, it seems.) But, it certainly has nothing to do with housing prices or prevention of development.
It is strange that folks think we’ve somehow “evolved” in the past few decades, to the point where this is no longer an issue. (Actually, it seems most people agree it’s still an issue – to some degree at least.)
Ron you wrote: “There is not a “no growth policy” in place, in Davis.” Wrong, the passage of Measure J was implicitly a no-growth policy by adding a very large hurdle to new development. That idea was explicit in the election campaign. That’s why the passage of Nishii 2.0 was such a big deal–that policy may finally have a chink in it.
Richard: The “chink” was built into Measure R. (Hope no one misunderstand your use of that word.) Measure R was not designed to prevent all peripheral development, and Nishi is proof of that.
The city has also approved developments within city limits, and is exceeding its SACOG fair share growth requirements.
Ron… not sure you were in town when Measure J was drafted, or passed… a bit presumptuous to say you know what its intent was… Measure R was a renewal of J…
I was here for both and knew the drafters pretty well… Richard is closer to the truth.
Howard: I’m quite familiar with its background.
And again, what Richard describes as a “chink” resulted in approval of a peripheral development. The “chink” was built into Measure R.
If voters wanted to stop all peripheral development, they could just establish an urban limit line (around the city’s boundaries) and require voter approval to expand it. (Of course, that wouldn’t stop fools from alleging racism, ageism, sexism, or whatever other “ism” is in their minds, in their quest for never-ending expansion. Even if some of those same folks don’t actually care one bit about those “isms”.)
“If voters wanted to stop all peripheral development, they could just establish an urban limit line (around the city’s boundaries) and require voter approval to expand it.”
You’re describing what we have now. The urban limit line is the current boundaries. In order to expand it, requires a vote.
I love Measure R. It stops rich developers and pro-development councils from ruining the city. Measure R is the best thing this city has going for it. It’s democratic, the people get to make the choice. How can anyone not like that?
David: You have a point. However, Measure R requires actual proposals to come forth, so that voters can (hopefully) see what they’re approving.
Nishi is proof that the process works – even when faced with organized opposition (and concerns from experts in their field). (We can thank the Vanguard for “downplaying” those concerns.)
Ron: WHile true, it is also true, as I have pointed out, that there is nothing stopping the voters from approving a movement of the line by way of exempting property of further Measure R requirements, by way of a vote.
David: I realize that’s what you’re pushing for, as you’ve mentioned it previously. I understand that you’re trying to “save the developers” some money (and make it easier to get developments subsequently approved – after a vote), via this effort.
However, this would prevent voters from “knowing what they’re approving”, and without any study or analyses of impacts available to voters, regarding the proposals that would subsequently arise. (This is already an issue now, even with development proposals that are supposedly bound by development agreements.)
It would depend on the measure language. And at the end of the day, it would be their choice. I wouldn’t recommend it for a housing development, but it could work pretty well with an innovation center, which would have a long build out anyway.
It’s not necessarily going to be “their” choice, regarding what appears on the ballot in 2020 (in reference to Measure R renewal). Hopefully, the council won’t “tinker” with it, despite efforts from you and others.
In the meantime, you can rest assured that some of us will continuously point out that Measure R is working exactly as intended. (In that sense, I’m glad that Nishi passed.)
Overall, maybe the voters in this city have more sense than they’re sometimes given credit for.
It seems very unlikely that we’d get a proposal for a commercial-only innovation center, even if Measure R is tinkered with.
Ditto. I think, as some found out in the last election, anyone running on removing or drastically chaging Measure J/R has no chance at a council seat. That’s my anonymous opinion, and I’m sticking by it at the risk of public scorn if my anonymitity was ever compromised. 🙂
The two candidates who vocally treated Measure R as sacrosanct and untouchable both lost.
Ron: I’m not referring to a change in Measure R itself.
Keith: I’m not sure that’s really been tested. Gloria finished first and made some comments that were pretty strongly in favor of changes and impact of Measure R. The only candidate that came out against it though was Mark West, who did not run much of a campaign.
Gloria bears watching. Hopefully, the other council members won’t cave. But again, there’s no reason for them to do so, since Measure R is working as intended.
Of course, that won’t stop some from trying, for the next couple of years. Using every phony argument they can think of. (Have to admire their creativity, at times. But, when big money is involved, people get “creative”.)
I guess if WDAAC fails, the next phony allegation will be one of “ageism”.
I pulled this quote of Gloria Partida from a Vanguard article:
So this sounds like Measure R. What am I missing?
It’s not a direct approval of projects. It’s closer to what I’m suggesting for innovation centers.
David: At the risk of encouraging you, what are you talking about (in regard to not changing Measure R, but still approving a commercial-only, peripheral innovation center)?
And, since you brought it up earlier, aren’t you concerned about increasing the “imbalance” between inward and outward commuters? Or, perhaps one of the “isms” that I brought up earlier – resulting from an increase in economic activity/jobs (in a city that already has a surplus of it – as demonstrated by the net inflow of commuters)?
Or, are you actually pushing for a straight-out expansion of the city (an innovation center with housing, especially since that’s the only thing that’s ever proposed anywhere, these days)?
Let’s face it, this ain’t a happenin’ thing. (All the more reason that Davis should proceed very carefully, regarding what it approves.)
At the risk of encouraging me? I don’t need any encouragement!
First, the way it would work is you put a measure on the ballot that asks the voters to exempt a given property (or properties) from further Measure R vote. You could have stipulations – akin to baseline features – that would constrain future projects and require a further vote to change. It can be done within the confines of the current Measure R process, so needs no changes to Measure R.
Second, am I concern with imbalance? Yes. It’s an issue we are going to have to deal with. It doesn’t have to be dealt with at the same time as the approval of commercial properties.
Third, am I pushing for a straight-out expansion of the city. No. Not at all. In fact, I would oppose a straight out expansion of the city.
Fourth, could it be approved by the voters? Maybe. Depends on how well it’s crafted.
Where would you propose “dealing” with it? From the perspective of someone like you who is acutely concerned about it, it seems irresponsible to increase the imbalance without having an answer to that, in advance. (Especially since the “solution” might also require voters approval.) Which all/ultimately leads right back to a straight-out expansion of the city.
I think you have your work cut-out for you, on this one. (Also, there’s competing proposals nearby, and predictions of a looming/cyclical recession.)
I don’t have my work cut out for me – I’m just a commentator.
Part of it would depend on where the innovation park goes. Also, the live-work imbalance is much bigger than an innovation park could address, but creating more jobs that are high quality is a way to start bringing the mix back into alignment.
David: In reference to your 1:19 p.m., post, you’re a political activist with a blog. Some may/may not attach importance to the blog.
Regarding your 1:20 p.m., post, creating more “high-quality” jobs will ensure further misalignment, and may even increase some of the “isms” that you’re (also) concerned about.
In general, I find that your activism lacks a holistic approach, to the challenges that you perceive.
I would suggest you follow me around for a day and then decide what I do for a living. I think you’d be stunned.
In terms of the second point, I couldn’t disagree more. One of the biggest problems in this community is that if you don’t work for the university or own your own businesss, you are commuting out of town for your job.
It was never a “problem” for me. I took public transportation to/from Sacramento via a Yolobus line dedicated for commuters, as did many of my neighbors. (My employer fully subsidized the cost, making it essentially a “no brainer” to do so.)
Ironically, the only time that I routinely used a car to commute in Davis is when I (also) worked in Davis. (If I’m not mistaken, I believe you mentioned that you do this now, as well.)
Again, you can’t logically argue for increasing inbound commuters, while simultaneously decrying it. (Or – maybe you somehow “can” do so anyway, in the upside-down world of the Vanguard.) But, at some point, it’s got to be quite a challenge to do so, even for you.
Richard McCann said “The real points of these analyses by Rik Keller and David Greenwald are to show 1) explicit policies through the 1960s closed these groups out of housing in Davis initially, and through the inertia of property ownership, those neighborhoods have been slow to transform from their initial make up and 2) the no growth policy that started by 2000 has prevented the addition of meaningful amounts to new housing that could be open to these underrepresented groups that would increase the socioeconomic diversity of the town. This is not about trying to achieve some nirvana of racial make up–it’s about identifying and correcting the institutional barriers that have put a ring fence around our community.”
I agree with point #1. I would expand that to add that explicit discriminatory policies continued far beyond the 1960s with such things as housing loan discrimination (e.g., sub-prime lending), exclusionary low-density zoning patterns, real estate agent and loan agency steering, etc.
I disagree with point #2. I produced a detailed analysis a couple months ago in the DV comments section showing that both population and housing growth rates in city of Davis from 2000-2017 have closely mirrored that of California as a whole (at the same time that UC Davis growth skyrocketed).
I agree with the conclusion that it is about identifying and correcting the barriers that have excluded groups of people from our community.
Rik, when you say “explicit discriminatory policies continued far beyond the 1960s with such things as housing loan discrimination (e.g., sub-prime lending), exclusionary low-density zoning patterns, real estate agent and loan agency steering, etc.” which of those do you see as local manifestations?
Housing loan discrimination seems to be a national and/or state issue rather than a specific local issue. What level of loan discrimination in Davis has your research uncovered? My guess is that there was very little sub-prime lending happening in Davis. Am I off in that guess.
With the disclaimer that when I moved to Davis in 1998, the home we purchased was classic low-density SFR zoning, I very quickly identified the low-density development pattern you describe. The City paid lip service to greater density in the 2007-2008 Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) process, prioritizing growing up on the existing City footprint rather than growing out by expanding the City Limits through the conversion of peripheral Agriculturally-zoned land. The recent “pretty pictures” “aspirational plan” “that will not actually happen” comments about the current DPAC process can clearly be applied to the HESC-led commitment to growing up. With that said, is Davis’ history of low-density development patterns different from similar California cities?
Finally, do you believe real estate agent and loan agency steering has been a driver in Davis, or has it been more a logical outcomne of the rather homogeneous socio-economic appeal of being both “a company town” and a “university” town. Said another way, do you think non-White University Faculty/Staff families were steered to different parts of Davis than White fmilies?
Matt Williams: you identify a lot of systemic issues that have worked to exclude minorities from a lot of specific places. Is your question whether Davis is worse or better than other places in this regard? To look at that issue in detail would would be the subject of a massive research project. If you find a funding source, sign me up! 🙂
Actually Rik, you are the one who identified those systemic issues. Credit where credit is due.
As I have read the various comments in this thread I have felt several times that the table you shared with me when we met at Peets on rental/ownership costs over time would be a good addition into the discussion. If it is easy to post that table in a future comment that would be great. If you need help in posting the image, feel free to give me a call (I believe you have my phone number) or send me a Facebook message.
Ok, you identified that I identified other sources that identify the systemic issues. Happy? 😉
I didn’t discover any of this: merely compiling and reporting research done by others and putting in into local context. I did spend substantial time in the Yolo County archives to dig up some specific examples that others had pointed me toward.
I will be posting another article in this series (including and expanded version of the table I think you are talking about) soon!
No … not happy. My happiness is irrelevant. The provenance of how/where the issues your comment listed is (for me at least) a digression. In asking the questions I masked about your list (regardless of its source), I was trying to prompt us all to drill down into a next-level discussion of those issues.
Jeff M engaged part of the drill-down I was looking for in his 3:14pm comment that begins “Let’s be clear here. Davis is not inherently nor overtly racist. It does not purposely put up barriers, either from a policy perspective nor from local resident behavior, for people of any group to reside here. The racial bias that exists in Davis is simply that Davis has a local culture that is not attractive to everyone.”
Jeff’s comment is the flip-side of the points you illuminated that Davis has a history of “explicit discriminatory policies continued far beyond the 1960s with such things as housing loan discrimination (e.g., sub-prime lending), exclusionary low-density zoning patterns, real estate agent and loan agency steering, etc.”
I don’t know what Rik and Matt are thinking about when they use the term “sub-prime lending” but for most people the term is used to describe loans given to people (of all races) that have “sub-prime” aka “bad” credit and/or don’t have documented income (I have never heard anyone connect it to “loan discrimination” since it is the exact opposite). Because a higher percentage or people of color have bad credit and/or work in a cash economy sub-prime loans actually helped “increase” the number of people of color owning homes. Sadly since the “sub-prime” loans included some bad terms like negative amortization and a number of “stated income” aka “liar” loans where given to people (of all races) “lied” about their income so the sub-prime lending boom resulted in a LOT of foreclosures.
I’ll let Rik answer Matt’s question but I would like to ask Matt where does he think a Davis real estate agent would “steer” a “professor of color” to since I can’t think of 1. Any “ethnic” neighborhoods in Davis or 2. I can’t think of any neighborhoods in Davis (or even just South of Davis or where Matt used to live South East of Davis) that does not already have homeowners of just about every race and religion already).
Ken, your second paragraph is thought provoking. I’m going to let others jump in and share their thoughts on that subject. I suspect that if you and I had a cup of coffee together we would have a lively conversation about that particular topic.
Your first paragraph mirrors my thoughts on that subject, and as a result I’m going to have to defer to Rik to address the questions you have raised.
Matt: my comment about provenance was a light-hearted joke.
If you are interested in digging in-depth into the sub-prime question and how that played out in the region, you can read one analysis in the following study. For people like Ken who have stated on the forum that they don’t like reading, here is the summary:
Redlining Revisited: Mortgage Lending Patterns in Sacramento 1930–2004 by Dr. Jesus Hernandez (Professor in the Sociology Department at UC Davis); https://www.linesbetweenus.org/sites/linesbetweenus.org/files/u5/redlining_revisited.pdf
“Subprime lending, a seemingly placeless and colorblind market phenomenon, plays an important but potentially divisive role in reorganizing space initially shaped by race based housing policies. We now can see that the combination of historical and
contemporary housing policies created a set of structural conditions in neighborhoods that made them vulnerable to capital extraction and the resulting economic catastrophes brought on by the meltdown of the globally leveraged deregulated subprime loan industry in 2007. As the patterns of foreclosures in Sacramento begin to mirror subprime activity, these vulnerabilities clearly produce racially disparate social and economic outcomes for residents of cities experiencing stress and change.
This analysis of subprime loan activity demonstrates how socially and politically
produced market interventions shape the life chances of residents and their communities. The evidence shows that race and geography influenced capital flows in a way that cannot be explained by traditional neoclassical market forces. The relationship between capital flows and geography in Sacramento leads to three hypotheses on how space was allocated in the city: (1) the use of racial categories in market interventions created structural conditions that dictated a specific course for market operations, laying the foundation for markets to operate as a form of exclusion as well as a form of extraction; (2) housing markets are embedded in adverse social relationships—therefore, economic activity today is somewhat shaped by social influences rather than simply the result of consumer market adaptation; and (3) although restrictive covenants, redevelopment, redlining and subprime lending appear to be distinct and separate processes, local geography links them as one intergenerational practice that racializes market outcomes. Hence, race plays a historical as well as a contemporary role in the way housing markets shape cities. We can see, as M.P. Smith (1988) reminds us, that economic forces work through historically, geographically and racially specific social and political processes. Markets, contends Smith, do not operate in isolation from government policy. Although theoretical ‘supply and demand’ markets are colorblind, real markets remain race-minded.”
I appreciate history and read a lot of it, but I don’t see the point of going back to what racists did in 1950 in Davis or as in Rik’s most recent post going back to 1930 in Sacramento to blame them on the problems of people today. We all know that the actions of racist white people in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s were bad and hurt entire families just like the actions of the Japanese and Germans in the 40’s were bad and hurt a lot of families (I don’t think many people will argue that not letting a family of color buy a home on in Miller in Davis is worse than killing all the males in a family at Pearl Harbor or D Day).
I get mad at my kids when they try to play the “blame game” since while everything is still not equal the people (of all races) that work hard and figure out how the game works almost all do OK (in school and in life). It is just “almost” since bad luck hits all races (A friend just found out his wife has MS)…
Last year the Washington Post reported that 1 in 7 white families and 1 in 50 black families in America are millionaires. If we look at what the rich people of all races are doing most are doingsome of the same things (going to college, working hard, not spending more than they make, not taking drugs) just like when we look at the poor of all races most are doing a some of the same things like not getting college degrees, not working, borrowing money at high interest rates and using drugs. Helping the poor to change what they are doing today will result in more finding a way to buy a home than telling them that they are doomed since their grandparents (or great grandparents) couldn’t buy a home on Miller in 1950…
Rik, sorry I missed the intended humor. My bad.
The Mortgage Lending Patterns information you provided in your 4:47pm comment is very interesting reading in its own right, but I’m having a hard time understanding how it applies to realities here in Davis. Did we have enough subprime loan activity to demonstrate socially- and politically-produced market interventions that shaped the life chances of Davis residents?
Matt: no problem!
Part of this is the big picture of the issue: Davis is not in a vacuum (as much as people joke about the “bubble”) but part of regional housing markets and forces. To understand how those forces interact and provide us with the development patterns and inequities we see, we need to understand that big picture.
Rik
You wrote: “I disagree with point #2. I produced a detailed analysis a couple months ago in the DV comments section showing that both population and housing growth rates in city of Davis from 2000-2017 have closely mirrored that of California as a whole (at the same time that UC Davis growth skyrocketed).” That does not match with the population growth stats that David has posted in Vanguard artcles that show population has largely stagnated since 2000, and housing unit growth is even slower. Meanwhile state population has continued to grow apace.
As I previously posted… there were no explicit or implicit “policies” of the City in place… to say otherwise is a lie… not even in the 40’s , or 50’s.
As I previously posted, those “restrictions” were in CC&R’s [drafted by SOME subdividers, not all, and definitely not the City] that weren’t even reviewed by, nor approved by, the City in those days… another false assumption/”rewrite of history”…
But, as they say, if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes ‘truth’…
RMcC made his point without once using a form of the word ‘white’.
I’d give him 4.6 stars… out of 5…
Let’s be clear here. Davis is not inherently nor overtly racist. It does not purposely put up barriers, either from a policy perspective nor from local resident behavior, for people of any group to reside here. The racial bias that exists in Davis is simply that Davis has a local culture that is not attractive to everyone.
In fact people of all races are welcome and can decide on their own if they want to live here. The reason that Davis is under or over-represented in residents of certain minority groups is almost entirely economic and tribal.
Why, if you are a Hispanic or black person, would you decide to live in Davis? Davis housing prices are at least 40% higher than they are in say West Sacramento, Woodland and Dixon. You can get much more house for the money in these other places. There are few compatible jobs within Davis. So you would be working elsewhere and commuting. The Davis school system, although highly rated by Davisites, is lacking a student body and curriculum that would be a good fit for your children given your lack of college. The residents are generally a bit stuck-up and elitist. They are mostly liberal so if you have a conservative bent it won’t feel too much like home (liberals have a really hard time accepting conservative blacks and Hispanics). There are not a lot of people of your race around. Although there are a lot of nice and caring people, but they tend to see you as a disadvantaged social justice project. You would prefer to just blend in and simply be a person with greater than the Davis-average average quantity of melanin. If you lived in Woodland, West Sac or Dixon that would be more the case. You might be more likely to run into a lowbrow racist type every now and then in these places, but that is real life… and easier to handle than the soft bigotry of low expectations baked into the local culture of a liberal activist community like Davis.
I think some Davisites don’t get this… that others think Davis is not an attractive place to live. It isn’t that we are racist, it is that we have our own local community culture and it isn’t what many minorities find appealing.
Probably for the same reasons that any other person might want to.
Compatible with being a person of color?
Hmmm. There’s something “wrong” with this statement, but not quite sure how to word it.
Uuhm, no.
Once again, I’m not sure what to say. 🙂
Ron, as is often the case with his comments, Jeff does fall into the twin traps of hyperbole and over generalization in what he has said, but the core of what he has said has significant merit. Davis suffers from the natural homogeneous consequences (challenges if you will) that come from being at the same time a single industry “company town” and a “university town.”
Matt: I pretty much agree, and was sort of poking fun at Jeff’s “generalization” statements.
But the underlying (more serious) point also relates to your point – why haven’t “people of color” been able to take advantage of opportunities (e.g., by the primary employer in Davis)? (At least at the faculty level, I understand.)
If people of color aren’t attending college at (approximately) the same level as others in the first place, then perhaps that’s part of the root of the problem. In other words, why aren’t they earning the same income as other groups?
And, if particular groups aren’t earning the same level of income as other groups, isn’t that the primary problem (throughout the region, state, and country)?
(In this particular thread, I guess we’re leaving out Asians as “people of color”.)
The link below says that UC Davis has 11,692 “Employees of Color” and 11,825 “White Employees”
https://academicaffairs.ucdavis.edu/tools/demographic_data/demographics.html
P.S. UC Davis counts people of Asian descent as “Persons of Color”…
There is something very wrong with this statement. And I know exactly how to word it.
Bingo. Now you are connecting the dots.
I am a recovering IT manager and educated many on the best practices for problem solving. Early in my career I thought it was a natural inclination for people to seek real root causes to help them solve a problem. Conversely what I discovered is that people generally lack this tendency or discipline and thus focus on symptoms. Focusing on symptoms means that the problems never really get solved. But you can ignore them… until they manifest in different ways. I found that you could teach the discipline in many, but not all. Some people, frankly, just suck at effective problem solving.
David wrings his hands about minority groups being under-represented and over-represented and then focuses on trying to solve symptoms of problems… I think because the root cause of the problems often means accepting ideologically inconvenient truths. One of those truths is that all trillions spent on government providing affordable housing and welfare lift people out of poverty… has not worked. Even if it has remedied some percentage of symptoms, the problems still exist and manifest in other ways… that conveniently give David another symptom to work on.
Why don’t more Davis social justice liberals live in places like Oak Park in Sacramento? There are lots of trees and lots more diversity. And more importantly there are a lot more minorities that can use help raising up their economic and social sophistication to a level that might make them see Davis as a more attractive place to call home. We know the answer to these questions if we can be intellectually honest.
Jeff asks: “Why don’t more Davis social justice liberals live in places like Oak Park in Sacramento?”
I don;t know if anyone has moved from Davis (or if they are what Jeff would call “social justice liberals” but an increasing number of people (without) color have started moving back in to Oak Park and many are upset about it (I have read a few articles about it in the past few years and this was the first to come up on Google):
“It was not difficult to miss. A new Starbucks located on the corner of Broadway and 35th Street, just a few blocks from the former headquarters of the Black Panther Party. For some, the business signaled caffeine for coffee lovers, but for others, it was a sign of what was to come.”
“As the city continued to put money into changing the neighborhood from poverty-stricken to a trendy place to live, residents who’ve lived in the community for decades got the short end of the stick.”
https://www.kcet.org/shows/city-rising/the-gentrification-of-sacramentos-oak-park
Do tell . . .
When Jeff writes “our own local community culture and it isn’t what many minorities find appealing” I hope he is not forgetting that “most” white people (that can afford to live here) don’t find Davis “appealing” and don’t want to live here from far right wingers who like a lot of land and what to shoot skeet off their back deck to far left wingers who would never dream of living outside Berkeley or San Francisco…
Yes, I think there is truth to that. Many people of all races and skin-tones living in Yolo County but outside of Davis don’t really like Davis. Davis elites think they have a fabulous community that everyone in the nation wants to flock to so they have to prevent development or else it will end up like Orange County. They are really a bit full of themselves.
This entire paragraph is indefensible.
Have you actually talked to any minorities outside of Davis in surround areas about what they think about living in Davis?
Until and unless you have, I think you lack the credibility to say my comment is indefensible. Because I have and these are common themes.
My sister’s best friend from college grew up in Woodland (like her parents) and her family has nothing nice to say about the people of Davis (If Woodland, Winters and Dixon closed every school her parents would have driven their kids to Vacaville to avoid going to school in Davis). Not everyone likes to live around people that make jokes about not just the “lesser ivies” but snicker when laughing about the “stupid” people didn’t go to college (even if they are contractors making $250K+ every year doing a job they love)…
Jeff: I have
Jeff: Sounds like you have spoken to some people of color who don’t have much desire to live in Davis.
If that’s actually the case, then I’m not fully understanding what problem we’re trying to solve, here (in regard to “building/developing our way out of the problem” in Davis – as advocated by the Vanguard). Despite the 129 comments so far.
I’m guessing that we need a few more articles to get to the bottom of this. Pretty sure it will be “resolved”, as a result. 🙂
Do tell. I have not really… except for people I would consider educated and socially sophisticated that are, for example, musicians, that cannot afford to live in Davis. But they would only be a racial statistic in numbers not one of the disadvantaged minorities below the socioeconomic line not by choice… those that your interest and article are really talking about.
My experience and observations are more like Ken A above (7:35 PM). Working in Sacramento for 20+ years commuting in the 80s and 90s, my coworkers and staff, including many people belonging to minority groups… those with money and those without… they would ask me how I could live in the People’s Republic. They thought I was a bit weird for commuting to and from THAT place. I did it mostly for the public schools which ended up being a mistake in that my two intelligent boys who’s primary lesson learned was to dislike education… they are recovered now but with delayed academic development. They were part of the population of Davis’s non-gifted, non-template learners but without the behavior problems that get attention. Maybe DaVinci might have helped, although their friend/neighbor their age that did the Spanish Emerson and DaVinci track came out with worse circumstances. I would chalk this up to just some kids being late bloomers but for all the past Davis K-12 students I know relaying the same… that Davis public schools are great for the gifted and/or that have academic parents that can supplement their education, or for those that are designated with learning disabilities.
Now my business is here. I almost moved it to Napa several years ago, but I have too many employee commuting from Sacramento, and I did not want to move it to Sacramento. And after all, I am used to Davis now and my kids are adults… so there is that.
I do I think that there are some disadvantaged minorities outside Davis that think the Davis K-12 system is better and they want their kids to attend. But they also noted Davis was a place where you needed a greater income to afford a nice house, or else were the type of person that liked a place like Village Homes. Think about it, in what other community in the surrounding area would the people pay a premium for a place to live like the Village Homes neighborhood? I not disparaging this type of lifestyle choice, I am just pointing out that it isn’t in the ballpark for what most other people would consider a good choice. It is one of many things about Davis that others don’t find attractive.
Build more housing to reduce the cost of housing and add some more business that provides good jobs for those lacking a college degree and there will be more minorities that would want to live here… and with more minorities living here, it would attract even more minorities from the tribal connections.
Perhaps its better to understand/address the underlying reason that minorities (with the exception of Asians) apparently don’t attend college at the same rate as other populations. (Assuming that college is still worth the investment, despite rising costs and proliferation of those with degrees.)
Regarding economic development, perhaps it’s better to generate it where it’s actually needed, without displacing populations that could actually benefit from it.
Where did you have in mind?
Don: As an example, David lamented the location of Aggie Square, on UCD’s medical center campus. However, it’s entirely possible that locating it there (vs. in Davis) will provide a greater benefit for those actually needing jobs, assuming that some effort is made to encourage employment of those living in the area.
However, if no such effort is made, it could very well end up as another development that results in gentrification/displacement of existing populations, as noted by articles that I posted, earlier. (I believe Ken might have also posted a related article regarding that, elsewhere on this thread.)
To some who are concerned, Davis is perceived as safer from crime, gangs, drugs than other surrounding areas. I’ve conversed with whites and non-whites and heard that as a common positive thing for Davis.
“Davis is perceived as safer from crime, gangs, drugs than other surrounding areas”
Primarily due to the demographics outlined above.
Jim Hoch, oh no you didn’t say that.
The truth hurts.
More to the point Keith I’m not sure why anyone thinks there will be electoral support to tax ourselves to build our own version of East Palo Alto.
Far better to get rid of the freeloaders in existing Affordable Housing and offer those to refugees.
Is this a real thing? In my nearly 40 years here I’ve never once heard someone snicker about the working class. (There was this Imam that called for the death of all Jews — can you believe it? Oh, still around). But then again, maybe they exist and I hang around a much better quality of human in this town. Such snobbery (classism) is pretty close to racism, and shouldn’t be tolerated by any decent human.
I think you might need to get out more.
The working class that voted for Trump is very large numbers (Yuge numbers!) is despised and denigrated even more today than when his Presidential opponent called them “irredeemable deplorables”. The good news for the Democrats is that, unlike hard left that controls the party today, working class people tend to believe in forgiveness and will vote for the other party again if that party gets back to the traditional support of the working class.
And Democrats have a chance with the McCain, Flake and Corker types in the Republican party that don’t really line up well with anything other than rich old white conservative types.
In Davis, the average resident would accept any working class person into the community as long as he:
1. Preferably is a minority or a member of some other victim group protected class.
2. Votes Democrat.
3. Does not demand any blue collar job opportunities in and around town other than being a fix-it man that can install tile and plumbing.
Don: agreed.
I meant to say “Why, if you are Frankly” (because you are), and it came out “Why, if you are a Hispanic or black person”.
You seem to have confused the values of your perception of minorities with your own values. I have wondered why you want to live in Davis given how you feel about it’s people — haven’t you wondered the same thing?
Not at all. Read what I wrote again and get back to me. However, I do have something in common with many minorities in that Davis is not really my tribe. However, there are quite a few Davis closet conservatives that I connect with.
I have explained it already. Circumstances and too lazy to move. Also, I have lived here for over 40 years, and my wife has lived here since she was 3 years old. Davis has changed for the worst in many ways over that time, but is like a family member that I may not like, but I love.
Fair enough!
Jeff M
You wrote “Let’s be clear here. Davis is not inherently nor overtly racist. It does not purposely put up barriers, either from a policy perspective nor from local resident behavior, for people of any group to reside here.” As with Ken A, you make the same mistake that most “free market” advocates make–that past is NOT prelude and that we can just start off with a clean slate today with free market solutions. Of course, that is ridiculous, and you hide behind anonymity to continue to make such ridiculous proposals. The facts are that what Davis did in the past with explicit racist policies (and I think everyone here agrees that was the case) are perpetuated through the inertia of real estate ownership and wealth formation. Yes, housing prices are a barrier (and I’ve also posted on this issue), but you are ignoring the fact that those currently benefiting from high housing prices are European Americans who often acquired that property (including through inheritance) because they were not explicitly excluded. You’ve made up a mythological world in your mind where everyone has equal opportunity today.
Given that Robb Davis did not think that a $500K parcel tax was feasible what happens now?
Thread cleanup: 4 comments removed
Jeff… your 6:22 post…
Weird, false, and if there is no room in the “Republican tent” for the likes of McCain, Flakes, the Republican Party, and fake “conservatives” (the “it’s all about me” folk) are possibly in a “death spiral”… ‘uber leftie’ Democrats, same… neither “have a clue”…
The first Republican president is likely ‘spinning in his grave’… Ryan, and many other Republicans are either stepping down, or distancing from “the Donald”… or both… Cruz will not likely “cruise” to victory, but he will likely win/prevail…
Howard, most historical presidents that we consider as having been effective were themselves despised by the establishment. I don’t see any problem with the establishment Republicans stepping down or distancing themselves. They have been ineffective… and worse.
They haven’t been traitors, though, Jeff.
True that there are not many Republicans that can be called traitorous. Not true for the other side though… especially once we see the FISA warrants.
You dissemble, as usual, Jeff.
Nihilists, anarchists, and narcissistic opportunists are also usually not held in esteem by “the establishment”. For good reason.
Most national politicians are all those things Howard. They just do a good act to give people what they want, and not what they need.
Jeff M, you wrote:
” I don’t see any problem with the establishment Republicans stepping down or distancing themselves. They have been ineffective… and worse.”
The Establishment GOP has been HIGHLY effective at gaining their narrow interests. They did so by manipulating their voter base, until their voters THOUGHT that they had caught on. However, again a new GOP player was able to deflect voters to fulfill his own personal agenda, which again really isn’t aligned with that of his voters.
Here’s an article in the SF Chronicle about how high Bay Area housing prices are leading to resegregation: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Housing-prices-are-re-segregating-the-Bay-Area-13239870.php