By Gloria Partida
The current report commissioned by the city to evaluate the feasibility of integrated affordable housing in Davis, concludes that “– under current economic conditions – the Downtown Core Mixed-Use and Large Urban Mixed-Use are unlikely to be feasible, even without inclusion of any affordable housing requirements. Construction of the Large Traditional prototype may have the potential to be feasible, however, may not have sufficient net project value to support land acquisition costs in Davis.”
This report, while alarming, is also a good motivator for us to take a hard look at where we are around housing and where we would like to be.
Our policy of slow growth for many is seen as a shield to preserve a way of life that has been the foundation for investing in this community. The assumption that slow growth would prevent outside problems experienced in larger cities from creeping into Davis and so allow us to nurture the values we cherish, however noble, was false.
The biggest miscalculation in this assumption was the most glaring. The University of California, which is our whole reason for existence and which is in the business of advancing all things associated with progress, must be factored into every aspect of how we plan for quality of life in Davis.
While we have always known that the numbers of students and staff at the University would inevitably grow, we have stubbornly held to the belief that the separation at A street would include the 
ramifications of a University growing past local and national influence. Expecting that the University would be responsible for its growth, which it should, we have failed to acknowledge other truths.
1) Students will always want to move off campus. Regardless if the University provides housing for 100% of students, students will want to move off campus. Those students will live where ever they can. Projects do not have be “megadorms” or marketed to them, students will live where ever space is available. 2) Even if the University provided housing for faculty and staff on campus, this population would also access roads, parks, sewers, business in town. We have not adjusted for these realities.
We have instead meandered in negotiations about road and traffic impacts in the instances when they did propose developments to meet these needs. We have talked about infill, green building, integrated affordable units and walkable communities but have not built much.
In fact, we have built so little and driven our land value up so much that the current reports states that now it is prohibitively expensive to build even without affordable units. We have built so little that the people able to afford housing in our community are not the people that grew this community and defined the character we deemed so important to preserve that we instituted a voter approved land use measure.
In Richard Florida’s Book, “The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities Are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class—and What We Can Do About It”, he points out that land-use restrictions make places more expensive. Affluent residents of these places put pressure on local politicians to limit development, in order to protect the character of their neighborhoods and property values; the most expensive—and the most unequal and segregated—places in America today are also the most liberal and progressive.
Our own land use measure has created this dynamic and not only changed the economic demographics of who is moving into Davis but also the ideological demographics. Not only are we more segregated and affluent, we also have less people averse to voting for development outside of our city boundaries.
As we swiftly move toward the date for renewing Measure R, with the combination of information from this report, changing community demographics and housing shortage, it is time to acknowledge that sustainable systems require dynamic energy. We understand that sprawl is bad and urban boundaries are good. We must now make our values actionable. There will be many discussions around what to do with measure R. Some will point to the two measure R projects that have passed as proof that a voter approved land use policy works. That the projects passed because of their exceptional merit.
I admit that having these projects pass so well has assuaged my concerns around measure R. That perhaps our demographics have changed enough that the staunch no growthers are diluted out.
Recent negotiations with our new chancellor are promising. Perhaps the University will step up and meet their responsibility of housing and city impacts. The problem is that perhaps is not a good contingency plan and measure R has room for improvement. Perhaps these projects passed because of housing desperation. Desperation is certainly not a good contingency plan.
We see now where our limiting of growth has taken us. We have time to hash out ideas and explore what other communities have done. It is time to claim our identity as a community that cares about sustainability and social justice not just by decree but by action.
Not building on our farm land does not stop building on farm land somewhere. Preventing traffic on streets outside our front doors does not stop traffic from going longer distances to live other places but attend schools and jobs in Davis.
Lastly, the only thing worse than our housing crisis is our affordable housing crisis. As I read through the report two things occurred to me; affordable housing is now out of reach for even people 
making the median income in our community and we often lose sight of what the obvious goal for affordable housing is.
We tend to fixate on who is responsible for making affordable housing happen and what the perfect structure of it should be. Many expect that developers should be held to provide affordable housing. I agree with this, but this is not what they are in the business of doing.
On the other hand, there are many good agencies that are in the business of doing this. Agencies that would do this most effectively and serve the most people when they did it. Providing them a little of our precious boundary would give out community something even more precious.
It would give us people that are invested in our values because they grew up here or fell in love with us as students. It would stop the people who are barely maintaining housing from being the people that are living on our downtown benches.
When we look around at who should provide affordable housing, we should include ourselves. Donations to affordable housing nonprofits should be a part of every ones giving portfolios.
Gloria Partida is the Mayor Pro Tem of Davis
“Donations to affordable housing nonprofits should be a part of every ones giving portfolios.” Good idea. Bridge housing is probably the largest in the region. Cynthia Parker only made $750K in 2016 though I have heard she bumped it up considerably for 2018. Whether she is making Planned Parenthood type money ($1M/year) won’t be known until the 990 comes out.
Feel free to help her in her quest to exceed $1M per year, if she is not already there (she’s modest like that).
https://bridgehousing.com/donate/other-ways-to-give/
We prefer ‘Habitat for Humanity’… regular givers to that…
There are ‘charity watch’ sites… folk ‘must’ (I prefer the term, ‘should consider to’) use the charity/non-profit screening tools… they evaluate program vs. admin, and fund-raising costs, so that what Jim describes is disclosed.
Then, one makes their choices… who to give to, what is being provided, and how effective their contributions are to ‘the bottom line’… the City should use at least the same ‘screens’ for apportioning $… IMHO…
Fact is, there are charlatans out there…
Some may be acting locally…
UCD is not our whole reason for existence. It’s a big part of it but there still would be a Davis/Davisville without UCD.
I suppose you can nitpick to what extent UCD is the sole reason for Davis’ existence, I would argue it’s the sole reason that Davis exists as we know it today. Her broader point is undoubtedly true and has I think gotten lost in the conversations about campus growth and who is responsible for providing how much housing.
“We see now where our limiting of growth has taken us. ” I like where we are. She writes that like there is some unidentified problem.
I like where Davis is now too. Though considering the political track we are now on I feel it won’t be that long before Davis starts resembling Elk Grove.
Elk Grove has 170,000 people, I don’t see that as a natural or probable outcome over the approval of a few apartment complexes and one modest sized peripheral development.
Don’t you realise that Elk Grove was once the size of Davis too?
In two of your comments (below and here) you have focused on the first part of my comment and completely ignored the second part. In both cases, the more important point was in the second part.
Okay, as for your second point:
That is what’s approved for now, don’t you think more is on the way? This article is calling for more and seems to be the current drum roll in town. I’m sure growth in Elk Grove also started with something like “a few apartment complexes and one modest sized peripheral development” before it became massive sprawl for 170,000 residents.
On the contrary, she clearly identified the problem by her choice to include this quotation.
The voting majority in Davis wants to view the town as being liberal and progressive while ignoring the fact that it has become an expensive enclave for those with the greatest means.
When did you arrive in Davis, Jim? Did people in Davis ‘like where they were’ before you came?
You don’t suppose that Southern Pacific and Jerome C. Davis might have something to do with that?
Might want to look at the second half of the sentence you broke up
Probably Southern Pacific and Jerome C. Davis impact on the city of Davisville is about comparable to the impact of Southern Pacific and Thomas Dickson on Dicksonville.
Present population Davisville: 69,000, campus residents not included.
Present population Dicksonville: 20,000.
So the mayor might more accurately state that UCD is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the city’s size and character.
As I stated, UCD has played a big part. But UCD isn’t “our whole reason for existence “.
Yes, Davis would be just like Dixon or Vacaville. Very unlikely that Old North would have developed as it did, which led to the distinctive character of the rest of the city.
Just as enacting drastic climate change policies locally does not stop pollution elsewhere.
Clear reference to Spring Lake there where a very sizable percentage of residents are from Davis.
and whose children still attend school here.
At a discount, as they don’t pay DJUSD parcel taxes…
Mark, with Woodland’s completion of the building of the Spring Lake Elementary School, the number of Spring Lake children who are attending school in Davis is taking a drastic nose dive. Under state law interdistrict transfers must be approved by the “sending” district (Woodland in this case), not just accepted by the “receiving” district (DJUSD in this case). During the period when the Spring lake Elementary School was being planned and/or constructed, Woodland was willing to approve interdistrict transfers to Davis, because they had capacity constraints. That is no longer the case.
Matt, maybe it’s time to close down an elementary school in town? Why keep so many schools open if we don’t have the local students? Importing students to maintain the staus quo seems counterproductive.
Mostly the students were imported because their parents work at UC Davis – not to maintain the status quo. However, as I have pointed out numerous times with actual numbers – the district is advantaged by the arrangement.
I am unaware of any district declining to approve an interdistrict transfer request out of a district. I don’t think Woodland has changed policy in this regard. Woodland and Dixon and other school districts have that authority, but it seems unlikely that they would choose to force a student to attend a school district when the parents want the child to do otherwise.
It would truly require some “creative math” to argue that keeping unneeded schools open saves money.
“as I have pointed out numerous times with actual numbers” They were “actual numbers” but were not accurate estimates of the cost/benefit of transfers as the data is hidden by the school district.
Maybe. But you’re analysis is completely flawed because parcel taxes are computed by the parcel, regardless of whether those parcels are occupied by students in the district.
“But you’re analysis is completely flawed because parcel taxes are computed by the parcel, regardless of whether those parcels are occupied by students in the district.”
You realize this statement makes no sense at all? Aside from the number of exemptions which likely fluctuates from year-to-year the revenue from the parcel tax is constant. Eliminating transfers means more revenue per student that is easily calculated. The effect of the parcel tax and transfers on per pupil revenue is the only sure figure. Everything else is an estimate.
“Mostly the students were imported because their parents work at UC Davis” It’s not DJU’s responsibility to provide schools for people who work in the district but live elsewhere.
That being said I believe children of UCD staff are a valuable addition to the district though we need to make it clear to UCD that they need to make us whole. While you cannot charge individual parents for transferring you can charge other institutions.
So let’s look at this Jim:
The parcel tax goes to special programs (not normal classroom instruction) and as you say is a flat rate per parcel.
But there is no money allotted per student in the parcel tax.
That means that the district actually gets ADA for every student regardless of whether whether their parents pay the parcel tax or not.
1. Parents who live in apartments are not paying a parcel tax
2. Parents who are renters are not paying a parcel tax
3. If a family moves into town replacing someone without kids, the district has an increase in students without an increase in the parcel tax
4. If a family already lives in town but has children, they are not paying an increase in the parcel tax
5. Parents who live in houses but have multiple children are not paying more for the parcel tax
6. Intradistrict transfers add ADA without adding to the parcel tax base
So the bottom line is that in a whole host of instances, students are attending and have no impact on the parcel tax.
Bottom line: looking at the parcel tax as attached to a per student calculation is flawed because at no point in time is the parcel tax linked to students – in town or out of town.
Interdistrict
Basic arithmetic time:
1,000 local students and $1,000,000.00 Parcel Tax Revenue = $1,000 per student.
1,000 local students plus 1,000 transfers (2,000 students) and $1,000,000.00 Parcel Tax = $500 per student.
$1,000 per student pays for more programs than $500 per student does.
Any questions?
There is no direct correlation between who pays parcel taxes and how many students are in the district. If you want more revenues from parcel taxes, increase the number of parcels. They don’t have to be residences, nor do they have to be residences owned by parents of school children. Owners of business property also pay the parcel taxes.
I forgot affordable housing is also parcel tax exempt. That would be number seven on the list.
“I am unaware of any district declining to approve an interdistrict transfer request out of a district. I don’t think Woodland has changed policy in this regard. ”
I understand there is a new school opening in North North North Davis. This may influence their decisions going forward.
In other parts of the state districts deny exit transfer requests routinely.
The rumor within DJUSD is that transfers are mcuh more likely to be expensive students with IEPs or other needs. I do not have any evidence other than comments from teachers and school staff. Other districts look at many of the exits and cost shifting to DJU and therefore approve transfers. Whether or not other districts are whispering to parents “Davis is a great place for kids like yours as they are rich and have better programs”. I have heard this multiple times though without access to the data it’s hard to say whether it’s true.
Where?
Thanks Don. Always have trouble with that for some reason.
I’ve always suspected that some are willing to “sell out” Davis’ slow-growth policies, solely for the benefit of their own children. (Which, unlike permanent developments, only covers the short period of time that their children attend school.)
And, if the housing in those new developments isn’t subsequently, repeatedly, and indefinitely turned over to new families, it only delays the inevitable day of reckoning, regarding schools.
Districts with shrinking enrollment deny permits. Here is a facebook group of parents strategizing on how to get an exit permit from LAUSD.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/413285633272/
There are a lot of constraints on the districts’ abilities to deny existing ID agreements. Rejected applications can be appealed to the county board of education. I am unaware of any policy change by Woodland school district that suggests they are going to stop permitting them, but even if they do it won’t affect the majority of students who already have them due to parental employment or child care being provided in DJUSD. State law protects those students from having their education disrupted in that manner. So if either district decides to end them, it will be a gradual process of reducing the numbers of those students that are presently here.
I am aware the districts sometimes try to do things that don’t comply with state ed code. But informed parents can exert their rights.
By the way, my guess is that it’s only a matter of time before someone cites the Open Enrollment Act and looks at the School Dashboard Report for their child’s school in district of residence, and cites that as justification for in interdistrict request. If my ID request were denied, that would be the first item on my appeal to the county board.
Yes Ron, one can always spin things to suit their bias.
What’s the philosophical or strategic basis for allowing children of people who work inside a district to go to school there? Is it about a financial connection — how could it be if they are UCD employees, as UCD is not physically in the district? Is it about the children of colleagues going to school together?
Don, students to not have a “right” to attend a neighboring district. Here is an interesting article from 2010 when LAUSD instittuted their “no more permits” policy. Given your interest in the subject you may find it illuminating
http://www.thefrontpageonline.com/news/culver-city-to-worried-parents-we-will-fight-for-you
From the legal POV you may want to read this
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/lausd-denied-inter-district-transfer–we-want-to-r-2201476.html
They do have some right to continue under circumstances identified in the ed code: parental employment or child care in the district (Allen Act). The district has to plead that there is an emergency of some sort, as identified by the superintendent. My impression had been that the pushback on LA’s action was sufficient to reverse policy, but I see from your links that they instead chose to try to wear people down by officious bureaucracy (a time-tested technique). Reject almost everyone, but on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, parents do have rights and grounds for appeal, and it depends on the nature of the county board of education as to how likely that is to prevail.
The main point is that any decision to just summarily cancel ID requests would be a gradual implementation at best, with a number of parents likely asserting the rights they do have and many of them prevailing. More to the point, those rights exist because it would be highly disruptive and harmful to the students. There is, unfortunately, no way to deal with the parcel tax issue that ID students are not bringing with them. But it is also true that not every student in the district brings that benefit, nor that everyone paying it receives the benefit. The ADA is clear. The parcel tax benefits are not directly linked to enrollment. The benefits of cancelling the ID transfers are arguable. Closing schools is a very, very controversial proposal. Just redrawing the boundaries is difficult, much less removing a school that serves a neighborhood already.
The controversy involved in renaming a school is nothing compared to what you’re proposing. We went through this with Valley Oak and with redrawing of the school boundaries several years ago.
Todd: UCD is in fact physically in DJUSD
If citing the “School Dashboard Report” were sufficient there would be no need for the Facebook group or the hiring of attorneys.
The School Dashboard Report is designed to be ambiguous and provide as little useful information as possible. LAUSD will retort that allowing parents with decent students to leave the district will disadvantage the remaining students and as a matter of equity they need to hold your children hostage.
“The controversy involved in renaming a school is nothing compared to what you’re proposing. ”
My proposal is quite modest and except for a few individuals will be unnoticed. DJUSD has an interest in additional revenue. UCD has an interest in good schools for staff and in particular for star researchers that they are recruiting.
Rather than the current practice of admitting transfers on a case-by-case basis we just negotiate a deal with UCD where they supplement the transfers with cash or in-kind contributions. Bob has a deal now for vet school opportunities for students.
Either a check for the parcel tax amount or enrichment for students would be more than we are getting now.
I am somewhat concerned that the two trustees on the UCD liaison committee are both UCD employees. That seems sub-optimal.
Wow – this council person is even more dangerous than I thought. (And, I will likely share that conclusion with her personally, when the time comes.)
Some might mistakenly assume that council members don’t (already) know who we are, as individuals. (One of the incorrect assumptions, regarding the change in ID policy on the Vanguard.)
Still wondering where the concern was, regarding the peripheral development which is outright discriminatory.
Anyone who wants to understand why we are making the change we are read this comment: “this council person is even more dangerous than I thought.” This is precisely why Robb Davis stopped posting here. Why would someone want to share their thoughts and be subjected to this from a person hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
Amen…
I heartily oppose/reject a number of the contributor’s views, but would have never said what was posted…
Robb Davis knows who I am.
I have no qualms about letting Gloria know who I am, as well. But, it isn’t about me, since I’m not in a position to make decisions for the city.
Yes – she is dangerous (in regard to Measure R and development in general), and is a very good fit for the Vanguard.
Calling that conclusion a personal attack is a cowardly, despicable thing to do. So is claiming that anyone “drove” a public official off this site.
I have to agree with Ron’s explanation of his comment here. David, I think you’re making mountains out of molehills to try and reinforce your decision to stop anonymous posting.
Thanks, Keith.
As a side note, I’m sure that Gloria is a fine person, as is Robb (on personal levels).
But, their goals are dangerous for anyone who values slow growth, preservation of farmland, etc. And, they were/are in positions of power, with some ability to destroy the efforts of those who came before them. (With the Vanguard providing an “assist”.)
Perhaps I should have clarified this with my first post. (But, I assumed that it would be understood.)
Keith: It was my board’s decision, I’m simply illustrating why they made that decision. Robb doesn’t buy into Ron’s explaination.
What?
As a side note, there is an “imbalance of power”, between a council person and anyone else. (As you essentially noted in your other article, today.)
Your bigger problem was related to “doxing”, as you noted in the other article. And, which won’t necessarily be prevented by the change in IDs.
Exactly, and I would venture to say that real named commenters did more doxxing than anonymous ones.
“Doxing” can actually be facilitated by using full IDs. But, I think that the incident which (finally) caused concern on the Vanguard was initiated by a semi-anonymous commenter, against one of the Vanguard’s board members / commenters.
Otherwise, I’m not sure that the Vanguard would care. (I’m basing that conclusion on a prior incident, as well.)
Keith: Read point three in the other article.
I don’t agree with R about much, but amen on this. There are so many passive-agressive acidic phrases thrown in by authors, V, commenters on here that are never addressed because they are on the V side, but give me any day someone who calls it like they sees it, like a New Yorker. The most vile is what is implied with strategic pebble words.
I guess they talked.
Ron,
In my experience, one can seriously affect City policy if one is willing to dive into the process. Rather than just letting her know who you are, you might consider joining a City Commission or Committee and providing input. It will have an effect.
Mayor Pro Tem Partida states “We Must Address Inequality with Our Housing Policies” and then, without providing any evidence to support her claims, proceeds to blame Davis’ growth management policies for making housing unaffordable, and then provides no actual policy suggestions to address housing inequality other than to allow more development and for people to personally donate to housing non-profits.
I look forward to Rik’s suggestions.
Hi Rik,
Perhaps you could address how to make housing more affordable since you have some expertise in this area.
As for evidence of Davis policies making housing unaffordable look to the differential between land values inside the limit line and land outside the line. I’m no expert but ag reserve land is going for around $15,000 (see the 391 parcel) an acre and the Families First site went for around $1.5 million an acre. A difference of 100x. Perhaps without Measure R this differential would not be as great. It probably isn’t the best comparison but it does demonstrate a startling differential.
Rik, several points/questions
(1) Is there a particular reason you are demonizing Gloria for illuminating the challenges our community faces?
(2) Gloria’s article appeared to me to be a call for community dialogue. Do you oppose the kind of community dialogue she is calling for?
(3) Nowhere in her article dos she argue that Davis’ growth management policies were/are the ONLY reason Davis housing is unaffordable. Nor does she indicate it is even the biggest reason.
(4) You are right she did not prescribe any specific solutions. I suspect she felt that the kind of community dialogue about the challenges she was calling for would not be as open and free-wheeling if the call to discussion included answers to mthe challenges before the participants in the dialogue got to share their thoughts about the actual challenges.
Matt,
Is there any reason you choose to use the word “demonizing” to describe my mild critique of the Mayor Pro Tem’s supposed policy analysis and suggestions?
That is easy Rik. Your comment was a rebuke/scold not a mild critique. There was no invitation by you to conduct a back and forth dialogue. It focused on the messenger rather than the message.
Gloria did not fall into that trap. She focused on the message, not the messengers, suggesting dialogue, not specific solutions. Her comments were inclusive and participatory. Yours were polarizing.
Your response to me is cut from the same mold. Instead of embracing the substance of all four of the points I made, you have responded to only one of the four … the one that is the least important of the four. It seems like you are pursuing an agenda (waging a political battle?) rather than participating in a balanced two-way discussion.
Matt: your “demonizing” phrase was ridiculous. You’re better than that.
Clearly this is the opening salvo in some larger plan. It reminds me of the first article in the “Davis needs rent control” as it seems to be not well thought out though we will see.
The key sentence is this “The assumption that slow growth would prevent outside problems experienced in larger cities from creeping into Davis and so allow us to nurture the values we cherish, however noble, was false.”
Building affordable housing or Affordable Housing exacerbates “outside problems experienced in larger cities” so I find this dangling sentence to be most curious.
The other point I don’t see anyway around is why people who spent $330-$400 per square foot for an old house would like to see new houses built at a lower price point. New houses in Woodland can be bought for less than $200 per square foot. Making new houses available in Davis for $250 will seriously devalue existing houses.
Ultimately the question is likely to be”Would you vote to give away a big part of your largest asset, your home equity, in order to decrease QOL and and make the schools worse?”. Seems like a tough sell to me.
“Building affordable housing or Affordable Housing exacerbates “outside problems experienced in larger cities” so I find this dangling sentence to be most curious.”
Except that her reference to outside problems is the problem of inequality and unaffordable housing. Your comment assumes that Affordable Housing exacerbates outside problems. But that reflects your view of affordable housing not hers.
David, you explication and her sentence do not match.
“The assumption that slow growth would prevent outside problems experienced in larger cities from creeping into Davis and so allow us to nurture the values we cherish, however noble, was false.”
“Your comment assumes that Affordable Housing exacerbates outside problems” This is so well proven it does not require discussion.
How is it so well proven? People who make as much as $70,000 qualify for affordable housing in Davis. Affordable housing in Davis includes, students, seniors, and people making professional level salaries. So yes, I think it does require discussion.
Only nice local seniors. None of those creepy seniors from outside.
Jim, your claim is being disputed, so you can just dismiss it. Please provide your overwhelming evidence.
Wow, this was a courageous article. I have never seen a City Council member write so directly about an issue that a large portion of the electorate may disagree with. Thank you, Gloria.