On Tuesday there were nine people who came to the city council to speak during public comment about so-called “mega-dorms.” I listened carefully to what they had to say, but the reality is that of those nine people, eight of them were homeowners.
Homeowners, like any citizen, certainly have the right to speak out on any issue they want, but the more I listened to them, the more it felt like they were simply living in a different world from the students who are seeking housing or those families in Davis or who can’t come to Davis because they cannot afford the housing here.
A few weeks ago, speaking to a group of students, I asked how many opposed the new apartment proposals due to the fact that they were large, dense, had five rooms, were for the most part rent by bed – none of them raised their hand in objection.
Last spring, during the discussion on Sterling Apartments, many students came with signs and they spoke expressing concern about the unaffordability of housing, the difficulty finding housing, the treatment they received by landlords and how the state of the housing market prevented them from effectively registering complaints. Many talked about being prepared for homelessness and sleeping in cars and on couches. None of them complained about mega-dorms.
In September, the Vanguard held a conclave on student housing in which we featured, among others, Josh Dalavai, the ASUCD president. There weren’t a lot of students there, but the concerns have persisted.
Mr. Dalavai this week has an editorial in the Davis Enterprise in which he argues that “students are desperate for Lincoln40, other housing projects.
“As president of the Associated Students of UC Davis, I have witnessed homelessness and shocking living conditions among my peers. We live in overcrowded arrangements not by choice but by necessity,” he writes and adds, “Often, single-family homes rented by students are in disrepair with landlords who live miles away. The black mold and extremely hot (or freezing) temperatures that we experience every day are someone else’s retirement fund.”
He then goes on to talk about the project and why he likes Lincoln40.
And then he raises another interesting point: “Despite a great need for them, I’ve witnessed a lot of fear over projects like Lincoln40.” This is what we have seen in recent weeks and months.
The attack is on “mega-dorms” and the structure, but underlying that is an argument that UC Davis is not doing its job, that they have been neglectful of building sufficient housing on campus. As Mr. Dalavai puts 
it: “The most widely cited fear is that if the city of Davis builds too much student housing, UCD will not feel any pressure to build housing on campus.”
Mr. Dalavai discounts that fear, believing that in his talks with the campus leadership, “they’ve committed to building enough new beds to house 90 percent of new students who come to UCD and 40 percent of all students on campus (the 40/90 plan).”
He acknowledges that many governing bodies have wanted the university to go further, having “adopted resolutions in support of a 50/100 plan whereby 50 percent of students will be housed on campus and 100 percent of incoming students will be housed on campus.”
Recently I have had some indication that, come January, there might be a UC Davis announcement that expands the amount of housing on campus.
But Josh Dalavai points out, regardless of the final decision by UC Davis, “we still need a minimum of 4,000 beds for students in the city of Davis.
“In fact, we are desperate for them,” he writes. “As I mentioned, we are homeless and suffering and I urge decision-makers to approve any project that will alleviate some of that burden.”
The point has been made that building student-oriented housing is exclusionary. We have a housing crisis in Davis, a shortage of housing for students, but the argument is that we somehow should not build housing that efficiently and effectively caters to that need.
Mr. Dalavai does a good job rebutting that argument.
He counters as we have, “If you look at the 2010 census, more than 11,000 households in Davis are family households and more than 12,000 households are non-family households. If we assume that most non-family households are students, then we are in desperate need of housing built for students.
“Many of us need rooms that we can rent by the bed because we cannot afford the liability that comes with renting an entire unit, especially if we have a parent unable or unwilling to co-sign. To look at more than half of Davis’ population and argue that it is ‘unfair’ to build what they need feels discriminatory, and at the very least, incredibly unfair,” he adds.
Finally he concludes: “I urge anyone who is interested in helping to alleviate the housing crisis to write to your local decision-makers in support of Lincoln40 and other student housing projects.”
Originally, Lincoln40 was scheduled to go to the planning commission on Wednesday. The city informed the Vanguard yesterday afternoon that the planning commission meeting has been canceled. Ash Feeney told me, “The Lincoln40 Development Agreement refinements require further review.”
He will update us as to the new public hearing date. However, what is clear is that the students will show and they will make their case as to why we need Lincoln40 and countless other apartments. And they believe their situation is desperate and that now is not the time for debate over “mega-dorms.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am very sympathetic to the needs of the students and for that reason supported Nishi, was neutral on Sterling as I am to date on Lincoln40. I agree that we should listen to the students with regard their needs with certain caveats:
1. The students are young, inexperienced and tend to see the issue from the perspective of their needs only having had their needs met by their parents prior to their arrival here. Most of the older members of our community have a broader perspective having been students ourselves, sometimes also packed in &/or homeless, having lived in vans, dorms, rentals, in our own homes, and some of us subsequently downsizing. We have experienced a wealth of needs and alternatives the students have not as yet experienced. I rarely hear from the students how they would want the elders of this community to be treated if it were their older sibs starting families, parents or grandparents experiencing the effects of these proposals.
2. Some students have been sold the erroneous idea that any new building benefits them. This brought out a number of carefully coached students to speak on behalf of a luxury apartment building that will benefit precisely no one who needs affordable housing including them.
3. Some of these students may not be aware of the university’s long history of not meeting the agreements that it has made with regard to on campus housing and so have concluded that with the university offering a 40/90 plan, there is no need to continue to push the university with regard to housing. I see this view as both innocent and naive.
None of these points are the fault of the students. When we listen to the students, it is important that we listen both with an open mind and empathy for their situation, but also with critical thinking and an understanding of the limitations of their point of view.
“3. Some of these students may not be aware of the university’s long history of not meeting the agreements that it has made with regard to on campus housing and so have concluded that with the university offering a 40/90 plan, there is no need to continue to push the university with regard to housing. I see this view as both innocent and naive.”
My understanding is that this is not true that the students and others have continued to push and that there may be additional promises coming from the university.
Of all the issues facing students housing should be at the top of their list. Why aren’t they putting more pressure on the UCD administration?
The college activists never seem to have a problem stepping up for social issues, why are they fairly silent on this?
Those two statements (regarding student efforts with UCD) don’t quite align, to put it mildly. Strange, how they can find time to protest picnic day, oil pipelines, Trump, . . .
Even Sacramento State seems more responsive to student needs, in terms of emergency housing, food pantries, setting up arrangements with alumni, etc.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article187885324.html
“Strange, how they can find time to protest picnic day, oil pipelines, Trump, . . .”
I don’t see this as strange at all. Students are not a monolithic groups. Just like all the rest of us, they have differences in priorities, will adopt different causes based on their individual interests. Not hard to understand.
I had a long discussion with the students last spring about why they don’t occupy MRAK for student housing – there are a lot of variables to it including Tia’s point about the lack of monolithic student alignment, part of the problem is, let’s say they occupied MRAK, then what? What would they hope to gain? A promise of more housing in ten years? It’s not like they are going to build the housing immediately. The students I talked to didn’t think it was fruitful. They’ll come to council meetings but occupation is difficult, it took a huge toll on those students last year.
David: See Keith’s suggestion, below. Is there any evidence that students (including the ASUCD) are engaging in “campus marches, signs, letter writing, speaking out, protesting outside of Mrak Hall, etc.?”
Are they doing anything, other than repeating what UCD’s administration tells them, and showing up at council meetings to support megadorms (and even developments that aren’t intended for students, such as Trackside)?
Are you also perhaps complicit in that approach, given the views expressed in your articles almost every day? (I strongly suspect that you’ll turn your attention to other “crises” at some point, some of which will be exasperated by approving megadorms.)
“My understanding is that this is not true that the students and others have continued to push and that there may be additional promises coming from the university.”
Maybe, but that is not the impression that I got at the conclave nor from the students who have chosen to speak recently at CC. I can only address what I have heard and seen for myself. Everything else remains rather ethereal at this point.
After reading Tia’s commentary, Im stunned that somehow, I am the one who has been called an “ageist”.
“Some students have been sold the erroneous idea that any new building benefits them. ”
Tia, in fact building of any kind of housing in Davis will help alleviate the need for housing supply for students. Why is this true? Because housing is largely fungible, i.e., most housing can accommodate a range of household types. As a result, when an older couple moves out of an existing single family house to live in a new condominium unit downtown, that SF housing unit becomes available to a family now renting an apartment, and that apartment becomes available to students. And the reverse also can be true–building student-focused apartments will pull demand from single family housing now used for rentals (think of the “mini dorms”), and families can rent or buy those SF houses. Ignoring that this process exists will lead us down the wrong path on housing policy. Well-educated students can recognize how constraining or overly directing housing impacts their housing opportunities, and they should be given credit for that.
David,
As usual your scapegoats are the selfish NIMBY citizens of Davis supposedly totally indifferent to the housing predicaments of student. I cannot recall the last time, if ever, that you criticized (as opposed to observed) UCD for its housing failures and its massive and totally self-directed expansion plans. UCD had no mandate from the State or the Regents to grow by as much as it intends.
The expansion was a UCD/ Linda Katehi initiative and, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, one that would “accommodate, in all senses of the word, primarily foreign and out of state students so that imperial UCD could milk them for three times the revenue (student fees) that they could in-state students.
To begin with, David, why do you not direct people’s anger at the failure of UCD to live up to its housing commitment as reflected in the MOU going back to 1989? Why do you not urge students by all means possible to protest the failure (of the university they chose to attend) of UCD, for almost three decades and well into the future, to provide sufficient housing for the existing and expanding student population?
This is not to mention the fact that UCD has one of the worst, if not the worst record, of housing students on campus, a fact that you hardly ever mention as you round on NIMBY Davis residents and on behalf of the developer.; and that UCD is the largest campus of all the UCs, and that Davis, with Santa Cruz is by far the smallest host city in the UC system.
Is it really your position, and that of all students for that matter, that it is the responsibility of the City to make up for the huge shortfalls of UCD’s housing plans, and that, by extension, Davis should accommodate whatever student enrollment UCD wants, even if that enrollment will include a substantial majority of foreign and out of state students?
How would many of the students, who are oftentimes enlisted to come to CC meetings to speak of their woes, feel if inadequate housing in their home (parents) communities, their childhood house, was surrounded by either Megadorms or multi-unit apartments in their SFR suburb, or wherever because their host university would do little to address the issue of student housing.
And how happy would their parents, and their community, be to pay for the cumulative infrastructure costs of their city’s expansion to meet this deficiency.
Beset by the same issues the Cal Poly students, at least as reflected in their newspaper, expressed sympathy for the plight that Cal Poly’s expansion plans had put the city of San Luis Obispo in. I cannot believe that at least some UCD students, if given the opportunity, would not do the same. And what of the overwhelming ASUCD majority for 50/100? Was that just an exercise in rhetoric and in public relations? I don’t think so as I credit at least some intelligent Davis students for putting the blame where it really lies, unlike you.
David, is there, or should there, be a limit to how far UCD can expand enrollment in Davis? If so what is your or that limit? And evidently the residents of Sana Cruz are all just a bunch of damned (to use a polite word) NIMBY’s. In 2006, in two measures they voted by majorities of 76% and 80% to contain the growth of UCSC.
This led to a 2008 agreement that, among other things, severely pruned back UCSC’s enrollment expansion plans, a fact that Don Schor passes over blithely in his Dec. 6 summary of the agreement. Don states: “Total UCSC enrollment will not exceed 19,500 students, with no more than 17,500 undergraduates, by 2020. The campus now has 15,000 students and originally had planned to grow to 21,000 students.”
THUS, TO SPELL IT OUT, UCSC’S ENROLLMENT WOULD BE 21,000 NOW, BUT BECAUSE OF A LEGAL BINDING AGREEMENT IT NOW HAS 15,000 STUDENTS.
There is absolutely no reason why the City of Davis, as City Commissioner and Council candidate Dan Carson, has argued in the DV and DE (in January 2017) why the city could not and should not pursue a similar legal action.
BTW, if you want to see the full legal agreement between Santa Cruz and UCSC in full, rather than reading Don’s summary, go to: http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-agreement.pdf
Given UCD dereliction of duty with respect to housing over several decades, the City and Board of Supervisors unanimous resolutions in favor of 50/100, this is what the citizens of Davis should be demanding in addition to financial mitigation for past and future neglect of the huge cumulative costs of UCD expansion. Let’s put the blame and accountability where it lies instead of fighting among ourselves!!!
Dan
The University of California has an obligation to provide an education for all eligible students in this state, and even to those coming from out of state. Further, UC is one of the biggest driver of both improved equity in our state (see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html) and economic innovation and growth (see http://www.ucop.edu/innovation-alliances-services/innovation/innovation-impact/economic-impact.html). As citizens of Davis, we all have benefited from the economic and cultural activity that the campus has brought to our community. Most of us are dependent (including anyone who sells services or products to others in our community) on UCD for our livelihood. With those benefits come a responsibility to work with UC on facilitating education in our state, particularly among those who are less well off than those of us who live in Davis. (Remember that the average education level in Davis is a master’s.) Given that California’s population continues to grow, that technological innovation requires a more educated workforce, that more education will be required for young people to realize the economic benefits of that innovation, and that education is the single best way to improve wealth distribution in a way that benefits society, the enrollment at UCD cannot be capped. Perhaps the rate of that growth can be regulated in some fashion, but an absolute cap isn’t an acceptable outcome.
David,
As usual your scapegoats are the selfish NIMBY citizens of Davis supposedly totally indifferent to the housing predicaments of student. I cannot recall the last time, if ever, that you criticized (as opposed to observed) UCD for its housing failures and its massive and totally self-directed expansion plans. UCD had no mandate from the State or the Regents to grow by as much as it intends.
The expansion was a UCD/ Linda Katehi initiative and, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, one that would “accommodate, in all senses of the word, primarily foreign and out of state students so that imperial UCD could milk them for three times the revenue (student fees) that they could in-state students.
To begin with, David, why do you not direct people’s anger at the failure of UCD to live up to its housing commitment as reflected in the MOU going back to 1989? Why do you not urge students by all means possible to protest the failure (of the university they chose to attend) of UCD, for almost three decades and well into the future, to provide sufficient housing for the existing and expanding student population?
This is not to mention the fact that UCD has one of the worst, if not the worst record, of housing students on campus, a fact that you hardly ever mention as you round on NIMBY Davis residents and on behalf of the developer.; and that UCD is the largest campus of all the UCs, and that Davis, with Santa Cruz is by far the smallest host city in the UC system.
Is it really your position, and that of all students for that matter, that it is the responsibility of the City to make up for the huge shortfalls of UCD’s housing plans, and that, by extension, Davis should accommodate whatever student enrollment UCD wants, even if that enrollment will include a substantial majority of foreign and out of state students?
How would many of the students, who are oftentimes enlisted to come to CC meetings to speak of their woes, feel if inadequate housing in their home (parents) communities, their childhood house, was surrounded by either Megadorms or multi-unit apartments in their SFR suburb, or wherever because their host university would do little to address the issue of student housing.
And how happy would their parents, and their community, be to pay for the cumulative infrastructure costs of their city’s expansion to meet this deficiency.
Beset by the same issues the Cal Poly students, at least as reflected in their newspaper, expressed sympathy for the plight that Cal Poly’s expansion plans had put the city of San Luis Obispo in. I cannot believe that at least some UCD students, if given the opportunity, would not do the same. And what of the overwhelming ASUCD majority for 50/100? Was that just an exercise in rhetoric and in public relations? I don’t think so as I credit at least some intelligent Davis students for putting the blame where it really lies, unlike you.
David, is there, or should there, be a limit to how far UCD can expand enrollment in Davis? If so what is your or that limit? And evidently the residents of Sana Cruz are all just a bunch of damned (to use a polite word) NIMBY’s. In 2006, in two measures they voted by majorities of 76% and 80% to contain the growth of UCSC.
This led to a 2008 agreement that, among other things, severely pruned back UCSC’s enrollment expansion plans, a fact that Don Schor passes over blithely in his Dec. 6 summary of the agreement. Don states: “Total UCSC enrollment will not exceed 19,500 students, with no more than 17,500 undergraduates, by 2020. The campus now has 15,000 students and originally had planned to grow to 21,000 students.”
THUS, TO SPELL IT OUT, UCSC’S ENROLLMENT WOULD BE 21,000 NOW, BUT BECAUSE OF A LEGAL BINDING AGREEMENT IT NOW HAS 15,000 STUDENTS.
There is absolutely no reason why the City of Davis, as City Commissioner and Council candidate Dan Carson, has argued in the DV and DE (in January 2017) why the city could not and should not pursue a similar legal action.
BTW, if you want to see the full legal agreement between Santa Cruz and UCSC in full, rather than reading Don’s summary, go to: http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-agreement.pdf
Given UCD dereliction of duty with respect to housing over several decades, the City and Board of Supervisors unanimous resolutions in favor of 50/100, this is what the citizens of Davis should be demanding in addition to financial mitigation for past and future neglect of the huge cumulative costs of UCD expansion. Let’s put the blame and accountability where it lies instead of fighting among ourselves!!!
[moderator] cleared from spam folder, sorry for the delayed post
UCSC total enrollment for fall 2016: 18,783
(16,962 undergraduates: 48.3 percent men, 50.9 percent women, 0.8 percent unknown/other; 1,821 graduate students).
Source: https://admissions.ucsc.edu/apply/parents-and-guardians/prospective-students/facts.html
So lawsuits may be useful, but they are not a panacea.
UCD has already met much of the goal of the 2020 Initiative. Campus population in 2011 was 31,730; by 2016 it was over 37,000. So while a lawsuit may have merits in achieving planning goals going forward, it doesn’t deal with the thousands of new students (and faculty and staff) who are already here because of it. We need housing now for the lack of housing produced over the last decade+, both on campus and in town.
UCD grew by over 8000 students between 2000 – 2015, during which time the apartment vacancy rate remained very low nearly the entire time and very little rental housing was built in town or on campus (there was a lot of construction activity on campus, but with the exception of West Village it was mostly replacement of older housing stock).
In general, you cannot take one example of a lawsuit/agreement, and assume that it can function as an exact “model” for other (even similar) lawsuits/agreements.
Then perhaps you should stop using the examples of UCB and UCSC as something the City of Davis should do against UCD.
In the absence of any consensus between the city and UCD of a planning process going forward, a lawsuit might achieve some concrete goals with respect to future LRDP and housing. I have absolutely no quarrel with that. But I do not see how a lawsuit would deal with our current situation. To keep suggesting lawsuits without any discussion of what the purposes would be seems sort of like a delaying tactic.
Note: even if UCD suddenly goes to 100/50, we still need thousands of beds to make up for past years of slow-growth in rental units and to bend the curve of the apartment vacancy rate.
You’ve already pointed out some positive outcomes from the UCSC lawsuit/settlement. My point was that one shouldn’t view the specifics as the only positive outcomes that could be pursued.
The positive outcomes can benefit students, as well (e.g., by tying enrollment increases to the availability of on-campus housing).
True, just as the head of the “president of the Associated Students of UC Davis” does not represent all students’ views.
My “theory” is that those who seek these types of positions generally work within, and “trust the system”. (In this case, what UCD’s administration tells them.)
My other “theory” is that students believe that the city will be more responsive than UCD, even at the expense of other city goals, costs and needs. (There’s already plenty of evidence that they are correct, regarding the city council.)
As a side note, I’m also concerned about Trump, oil pipelines, etc. However, I’d be more concerned if my school was continuing to add more students (including those who pay triple the tuition costs), while failing to address the impacts of that decision. (Especially if it personally affected me.)
I think for the most part, the students who are part of the ASUCD are not the same students who are going to occupy a building. But beyond that, I’m not sure of your point here.
Yes Ron, if housing insecurity for students is such a huge issue but the students do little in the way of speaking out and putting pressure on UCD Administration then it rings hollow when they complain to the city council.
Isn’t it easier for the students to ask the council to approve housing then occupy MRAK Hall?
Of course! (But, not necessarily better for the city, as a whole.)
Your statement reinforces my point.
Why would they have to occupy Mrak Hall? You’re comparison is way over the top. There’s many ways to put pressure on UCD to do the right thing. Campus marches, signs, letter writing, speaking out, protesting outside of Mrak Hall, etc.
Good point, Keith.
The other thing that the students told me is that on-campus is housing is more expensive for them, so why would they do all of that when they can just go to city hall and give a three minutes comment
David: Just yesterday, you acknowledged that you can’t even find confirm what the rent will be for a shared room at these megadorms.
But, I agree that UCD could do more to ensure that rents on campus are reasonable, and to perhaps allow greater flexibility regarding roommate arrangements, etc.
Ironically, UCD is actually the only entity that can ensure long-term affordability for all students, if it so desires.
“let’s say they occupied MRAK, then what?
“I think for the most part, the students who are part of the ASUCD are not the same students who are going to occupy a building”
And yet, you addressed only the occupiers and why they were not occupying MRAK hall. Since I am ignorant of this university function, can you list, or possibly even consider an article on the available venues for student dissent within the university system. I do not believe that there are not means of stating firm convictions at the university short of building occupation. The students have no difficulty expressing opinions before the city council. Is there no such forum at the university ? Surely this is not binary: silence vs occupation.
Ron: My comment was that in general, rent on campus is higher than off campus. The fact that I don’t know what the rent will be at Lincoln40 or elsewhere doesn’t change that. And I think it plays a role in how the students view this issue.
Tia: The assumption here by Ron and others is that the students want to pressure the university to build more housing, as I’ve pointed out, that may not be what they view as their best option for additional housing. Although I have been told the students have tried to get the university to commit to 100/50.
I didn’t say that the students “want” to pressure UCD for more housing. Instead, I (and others) have pointed out that students are pursuing the path of least resistance (regardless of the best overall location for student housing, or the city’s other needs, costs, and goals).
Wow…
The concept that protest marches, and “occupations” make real progress… well, I’ve generally seen that those actions tend to galvanize the target to “just say no”… or dissemble/distract…
Constant pressure, using cogent, rational arguments [in writings or meetings], using the agency’s system, and copying electeds who fund them… THAT’s what get lasting results.
Rarely works that “getting in the face” is effective for change or commitments. Human nature…
Howard: Perhaps you should ask Katehi about the effectiveness of protest-related actions. (Or, perhaps the officer involved in the pepper-spray incident, if he’s still around.)
Protests tend to get the attention of the “higher-ups” (e.g., those who can affect change that is resisted at a lower level), at some point.
Ron… apples and oranges… like the difference between the ACA debate, and the recent resignations of members of Congress.
Apples and oranges… Kaheti (behavior related) and UCD’s position/action on housing (policy related).
Can you not see the difference? apparently not… so I disengage on this point.
Again, is there any evidence that students are doing anything (including what you suggest), other than repeating what UCD’s administration tells them? (That, and showing up at council meetings – even for developments that aren’t intended for student housing.)
If you don’t believe that letters and protests can be effective (and ultimately influential), you’re naïve at best.
Ok… will briefly break my disengagement… you have no proof otherwise. Which would be expected, if students are using the channels I suggested…
[Moderator: comment edited; no personal attacks, please]
Your “theories” are just that, and not substantiated by evidence. Feel free to hold on tight to them, but hope you understand many of us believe your theories are flat out wrong.
Suggest you read my posting, again.
What “evidence” is there that students (e.g., the “president of the Associated Students”) is doing anything other than repeating what UCD’s administration tells them?
Sounds like the president is quite satisfied with that plan. (And, even if satisfied, assumes that UCD will follow-through.)
Strange that there was no mention of the position of president’s organization in the article, above. (Only a reference to “many governing bodies”.)
Strange. I can see that Don posted a comment (in the “recent comments” tab), but I cannot actually see the comment (even when logged out).
Oh, well. I’ll just assume it was a valuable nugget of information. 🙂
I’ve asked David to reset my ID when he has a chance, so maybe that will clear up the problem.
Maybe Don moderated himself? 🙂
Keith:
If only. (Hope that’s viewed as a light-hearted joke.)
Hey – just noticed that even my earlier responses to Don’s comments have disappeared. (Pretty sure they weren’t moderated.)
Don,
So what you are saying is that we are faced with a fait accompli by UCD. To a small extent this is true and, to the extent that it is, is that the fault of Davis NIMBY’s. I do not have the time to do extensive research on UCD’s projected enrollments, but what David wrote on Sept. 29, 2017 would seem to contradict your assertion: “ Recent data published by the UC Office of the President shows it is up to 27.2% in 2015-16 with UC Davis committing to go up to 40 percent by 2027.”
But let us assume, for purposes of argument, that Don’s numbers are correct and that the “UCD 2020 Initiative” has almost completed its mission ahead of time. DOESN’T THAT PUT EVEN MORE ONUS MORALLY, AND IN EVERY WAY, ON THE UNIVERSITY, AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY, TO ACCOMMODATE ITS STUDENTS and, in particular its massive short term enrollment growth ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF IT LAUNCHING A NEW LRDP? A yes or no answer would be welcome Don.
On the basis of this it would seem that with a lawsuit UCD’s enrollment could be substantially curtailed or even frozen at existing levels to alleviate the burden of housing on the community. I note also Don that you appear to refuse, here at least, to blame the university in any way for past failings, or to urge the university to address those failings in its LRDP. Why are you so lenient on the university to the point where you read like their press officer PR person. UCD press officer?
Finally Don, you try to minimize the efficacy of legal action (despite many examples of successful actions by UC campuses and CSU’s) to either limit enrollment or secure mitigation. You and most people seem unaware of a very important California Supreme Court ruling: City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University . (2015).
Here is a summary story of this agreement (Sorry for the length, but even on a blog people seriously interested in the issue need to be prepared to read):
RICHARD FRANK August 12, 2015
CA Supreme Court Rejects California State University’s CEQA Dodge–Again
San Diego State University (California State University, San Diego campus)
In an important decision issued last week, the California Supreme Court forcefully rejected the California State University’s efforts to avoid paying for mitigation measures needed to offset the adverse environmental impacts associated with CSU’s ambitious expansion plans. That’s welcome if predictable news from a court that has in recent years been protective of the state’s bedrock environmental protection law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
California State University (CSU) is the nation’s largest four-year public university, with a current student enrollment of 460,000 students on 23 campuses across the state. Recently, the CSU Board of Trustees announced plans to increase statewide student enrollment by 107,000, and budgeted $9.9 billion for the necessary expansion.
The specific focus of City of San Diego v. Board of Trustees of the California State University was CSU’s plans to expand its San Diego State campus by some 11,400 additional students over the next seven years. (CSU San Diego, a.k.a. “San Diego State,” is one of the system’s largest campuses, with a current enrollment of 33,000 students on its 280-acre campus.) That expansion contemplates a number of new buildings and related on-campus improvements at San Diego State to accommodate the projected growth.
CSU prepared an environmental impact report (EIR) for the San Diego State campus expansion, as is required under CEQA for all such major state and local government projects. Its EIR concluded that the proposed campus expansion project would unavoidably generate significant new traffic congestion in the surrounding community, and quantified the projected costs of mitigating those off-site impacts at $15 million.
So far, so good.
But CEQA requires not only that unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with a proposed project be identified in an EIR, but that they be mitigated by the project sponsor to the maximum extent feasible. (It’s this latter feature of CEQA that distinguishes it from the federal law on which it was roughly patterned–the National Environmental Policy Act–and that makes CEQA the most powerful environmental assessment law in the country.)
And that’s where CSU’s ambitious plans to expand its San Diego State campus foundered. Even though the CSU had budgeted the necessary funding for the campus expansion from a combination of taxpayer dollars, student fees and other sources, it refused to commit the $15 million required to mitigate the documented off-site traffic impacts of that expansion. CSU claimed it was legally unauthorized to pay for the necessary mitigation unless and until the California Legislature appropriated the necessary funding for that explicit purpose. Since the Legislature had made no such specific appropriation, CSU declared that the otherwise required, off-campus mitigation was infeasible, and approved the project without funding the off-site mitigation.
That decision understandably drew the ire of the City of San Diego, the San Diego Association of Governments and local transportation officials. They recognized that the effect of CSU’s CEQA decision would be to pass off to them the costs of dealing with off-site impacts from the San Diego State campus expansion. They sued CSU, claiming the Board of Trustees’ refusal to pay for the costs of mitigating those off-site impacts violated CEQA.
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court agreed with the local governments, ruling that CSU’s efforts to evade paying for the mitigation measures its own EIR had found necessary violated CEQA. Writing for the Court, Justice Kathryn Werdegar rejected CSU’s argument that an earmarked appropriation from the Legislature is a condition precedent to the University’s obligation to mitigate the identified, adverse environmental impacts of its project.
To a very large extent it is true, though I don’t necessarily blame Davis residents for it. I would apportion the majority of the blame to UCD, and then to tolerance by long-past city councils and residents as to the provision of rental housing in town.
I’ve been discussing the increasingly dire state of rental housing in Davis for over a decade on the Vanguard now. The problem isn’t new, but it’s gotten a LOT worse.
I’m sorry, which assertion of mine does this contradict?
You don’t really need to use all-caps. I agree that the university should provide more housing. They’ve told us how much they’ll build. I see no likelihood that they will provide for 100% of the shortfall from the past decade+ as well as 100% of the new enrollment when they haven’t even committed to providing for 90% of the increased enrollment.
Morally? Sure. But fulminating about their morality or immorality doesn’t get housing built.
doubtful
also doubtful.
I expect UCD would fight that tooth and nail, because of the impact on their budget. And it still doesn’t solve our current problem.
Because I don’t feel like adding that preamble to every discussion of housing in town. It’s a side issue. I don’t think that UCD is 100% responsible for the problem or 100% responsible for the solution. I prefer to focus on what we can do now to solve the problem we have in front of us.
That is correct. I minimize it because I see very few parallels in the situation we have here with what they have in those other places, or because I see their outcomes as being of little consequence by comparison.
I am very familiar with San Diego State. It was almost entirely a commuter campus through most of the early history. The expansion is in a very populated area. But please note that the purpose of the lawsuit there was to get funds for mitigation. Money. Is that the goal of a lawsuit against UCD?
If a lawsuit would in any way delay the provision of housing on campus by UCD, then I would strongly oppose it. If it would create a structure for future planning and cooperation, fine. I see it as a very likely gambit by housing opponents in town to seek to delay any further private rental housing pending the outcome of such a lawsuit, in which case it would exacerbate a very bad situation.
I agree word-for-word with Don’s post.
David
“The other thing that the students told me is that on-campus is housing is more expensive for them, so why would they do all of that when they can just go to city hall and give a three minutes comment”
Why indeed. Especially if they feel no need to consider the needs of any other community members and are focused entirely on their own needs, a comment that is frequently directed at the “NIMBY”s, whoever those are perceived to be, but rarely directed at the students.
Even if campus housing is more expensive haven’t we been told repeatedly that any new housing is good because it frees up other housing? Trackside anyone?
The question is not whether they want more on-campus housing it’s whether they’re going to protest in order to get it
If on campus housing is too expensive, and it is only available to students, then it doesn’t solve the housing problem because it doesn’t effectively open up more housing in Davis. This differs from “luxury” apartments, which as I point out above, does open up other housing slots in Davis because those apartments don’t have restrictions on availability. This is a very important distinction.
If we have students living in newly constructed on campus housing it certainly does help the housing situation in Davis. Every student that lives on campus is one less student looking for housing in Davis plus some students already living in Davis might decide to live on campus.
The issue is not about not listening. It’s about not caring. There are a number of community members, number unknown, who make it quite clear that the housing needs of the 40,000 or so men, women and children, experiencing housing insecurity, non-students and students alike, are a lower priority than other considerations.
Shelter, like air, water and food, is a basic human need. Yet, over half of the Davis community are either homeless, forced to live in woefully inadequate or unsafe conditions, facing forced relocation, or are otherwise rent impacted. This is unacceptable on many, many levels.
It is past time for the city council to treat the housing crises for what it is…a crises. This is not the time to dither with strategic planning (general plan updates and the like). The time to do so has been squandered. This is the time for crises management. It is imperative that the city act with urgency to remove the barriers to development of multi-family rental units. The city must take immediate action to encourage for-profit, non-profit and governmental developers (is there such a thing?) to deliver thousands of rental units as quickly as they can. An all-hands-on-deck approach is called for.
So, you’re including non-students in that number, including men, women, and children. And, as has been pointed out, those people get left out when pursuing exclusionary student housing within the limited spaces available, in the city.
And if I’m not mistaken, you’ve also encouraged a reduction in fees, which might impact the amount of Affordable housing for those in need. (Also, we know that the megadorm design accomplishes this automatically, since the program is based upon number of units, rather than size of the units. Also impacting the amount of impact fees, to help offset the city’s costs.)
Ron, see my comment above. Your premise is incorrect–affordable student oriented rental housing does relieve price pressures elsewhere in the housing economy. It’s all linked together.
Oh please, you are way over-hyping that number.
Here we go again with another round of a Vanguard article again advocating for mega-dorms which are exclusionary housing which do nothing to help with the housing needs of local workers and families. Also, how interesting it is that David’s “view” always coincides with the best interests of the mega-dorm developers and not the Davis community at large.
Also, interesting how David’s repeatedly tried to diminish and invalidate public comment by specifying that there were nine community speakers. How come the number of students who testified at Council on this issue have never been enumerated? I have been at those meetings and it seems like it has been the same number, or less student speakers. To make things even more obvious regarding the Vanguard trying to pit students against non-students in the Davis community, David now points out how many of the speakers were home owners. Seriously?
Plus, now David explains that he has been “meeting with the students to ask them how many have a problem with mega-dorms”? Or maybe it is it to rally the students against non-students in the community? I can guarantee you this, if David asked a roomful of community non-students of if they had a problem with mega-dorms you would get plenty of hands being raised.
So, rather than continuing to divide the community it would be more productive if the Vanguard would try for once being objective on this issue of the need of more rental housing for all including workers, families and students rather than pitting students against non-students and “carrying the water” for the mega-dorm developers.
This type of article is exactly why fewer and fewer people are reading the Vanguard and complain about how it has lost its way on what its original intention was. The “Davis Vanguard” was supposed to be a blog to discuss the issues fairly and openly. Not to become the “Developers Vanguard” by constantly advocating for the developers particularly on projects which are counter-productive. There is a total lack of objectivity in the Vanguard now and it has become more and more pro-developer driven where the money is at, and has abandoned balanced discussion regarding good City planning which is in the best interests of Davis as a whole including workers, families, and students.
“I can guarantee you this, if David asked a roomful of community non-students of if they had a problem with mega-dorms you would get plenty of hands being raised”
Obviously you haven’t
David,
Not quite sure what you mean because I have gotten plenty of positive feedback on my Op-ed from community members who agree that mega-dorms are counter-productive, particularly in the magnitude of what they are being proposed. They also agree that instead of mega-dorms that more traditional 1-,2- and 3-bedroom apartments are the solution since they serve all including workers, families and students.
The point in question was student attitudes not the broader community.
David,
This demonstrates the problem with the Vanguard on this issue.
Your comment makes it clear that you really don’t care what the concerns or “attitude” of the broader community is on the mega-dorm issue.
This was specifically an article/ column on the views of the ASUCD President. Earlier this week I presented in a fair and accurate view of nine people from the community who spoke at public comment. I don’t believe you’re being completely fair here
David: Your article today (and almost every other day) consists of advocacy for megadorms.
If so, so what? “My view” is my weekly Saturday column – an opinion piece.
It was actually a “blending” of your views with those of the ASUCD president (which seem similar to your views). (In other words, not strictly “reporting” as implied by your description, quoted above.)
This is labeled “my view“ – Is it not?
O.K. – just reacting to the quoted sentence above, regarding your description of today’s article.
You should always look at the first few words in the title of an article. If it says something like: my view, commentary, Sunday commentary, Monday morning thoughts or analysis – it is an opinion piece. If it doesn’t have anything at the beginning, then it should be a straight news piece. That is the clue as to what the intention is.
Sounds like “confirmation bias” to me, Eileen… of course you get positive feedback… who would contact you if they either disagreed or didn’t care?
Not indicative of the ‘broader community’ one way or the other…
Suspect there is not 1 in 100 that support/advocate for what you call “mega-dorms” (a mis-nomer), and maybe 2 in 100 who oppose the concept… that leaves ~97 in 100 who are not aware of the concept, or who really don’t care. I and my household are in the latter category…
i
Yes, it’s starting to look like a pattern on the Vanguard. Downplay all opposition efforts while lauding all actions taken in support of causes the Vanguard supports.
Did I not publish an article this week based on public comment?
Don, there is much to respond to in your response to my post, and I will not take the time to do it fully as it is late DV time. But briefly: You (unlike me) have all the enrollment stats at your fingertips so what then what then is the targeted enrollment for UCD in say 2025 or even 2020. Please give us one of your links, and why didn’t you as you fire them off at will most times? And, is there any guarantee that UCD will not exceed this target or projection especially given state mandates to accept more in-state students and in view of UCD significantly exceeding its target enrollments in the past.
Yes, agreed there is no “likelihood” that UCD will improve much on its 40/100 offer. And, in part I’d argue it is because you and others, and the CC is hardy exempt from blame, have not been putting any public pressure on UCD to do so! Indeed, as I say in my posts you David, and the majority of DV contributors have put almost all of your pressure on the City, or rather Davis residents, and virtually none on the university and one can go back six months or ten years, if you like.
Passing a resolution it one thing, acting upon it is another. You either like the university’s decision or accept it, or so it would appear despite your faint details. To simply say that there is no point in “fulminating” (to use your word) against the university is extraordinary.
Is there any point in us “fulminating” against anything like racism, sexism, Trump, war or anything then? Or do we just accept these things as a fait accompli? Can you suggest other means by which the CC, Davis residents, and students can put pressure on the university that isn’t what you call fulminating, and what word (or tactic) you would you use—if indeed you think this pressure should be brought, or have been brought, on UCD at all?
You abdicate present and past responsibility (for not putting pressure on UCD) in your post for putting any pressure on the university with the extraordinary statement that “I don’t like adding this preamble to every discussion of housing in town.” And you then go on to say “It’s a side issue.” So the DEIR LRDP is a side issue?
And since when has putting pressure on UCD re housing been a side issue, and what point in time did you ever attempt in any way to pressure the university to share the burden that almost all UC’s have with respect to their building their fair share of housing?
For many of us it is not a side issue now or in the past (hence in part the defeat of Nishi 1.0). Indeed this is the very time, as the university completing its DEIR, to be applying pressure, and not throwing up ones hands in despair—though I question whether you are doing that as you never really seem to share the 50/100 sentiment expressed by many people and resolutions of the CC and the B of S as well as the ASUCD.
Finally, why should a lawsuit in any way delay the building of housing by UCD? Can you give us examples of where such lawsuits did this??? Yes, the San Diego lawsuit that I mentioned did go after mitigation costs and not, as with UCSC, enrollments. But: 1) The language of the ruling was surely strong enough to suggest that the California Sp. Ct. might approve a lawsuit that did restrict enrollments; 2) Yes, if worse came to worse, and enrollment could not be pruned back or frozen, it would not be unhelpful to the City to obtain substantial mitigation costs mandated by a court order for the cumulative infrastructure costs of their expansion both on and off campus.
But then again you, and your allies, seem simply to deny that there will be any such thing as cumulative impacts, or if you do acknowledged some you think this should be the sole burden of our financially strapped city.
I strongly question and strongly doubt that this is the opinion of most Davis residents.
“Yes, agreed there is no “likelihood” that UCD will improve much on its 40/100 offer”
My understanding from a good source is that this is not true.
David,
Well than why aren’t you advocating for far more on- campus student housing instead of rallying for the mega-dorm developers? Your advocacy for the mega-dorms does nothing to help workers and families. I find very disappointing that you have no care or concern about the need for rental housing for our community’s local workers and families. There was even a single-mother who explained this problem at the last Council meeting who spoke explaining that she could not find a two bedroom apartment for herself and her son in Davis. It is really sad to see how your “listening” is so selective, since you clearly are not hearing the voices of non-students in the community.
Because I believe we need both
David,
And this can be accomplished without exclusively designed luxury student mega-dorms, and instead build more 1-,2, and 3- bedroom apartments in the City which are inclusive by design for workers, families and students.
That’s a difference of opinion
Eileen, you are inconsistent in how you view the outcomes of different housing solutions. On one hand, you argue the student-focused ” mega-dorms does nothing to help workers and families.” Yet, you advocate that building student-only (even beyond “focused”) housing on campus will solve our housing crisis (and I take it implicitly, will help workers and families.) There is NO effective difference of impact on the Davis housing market between the off campus mega dorms and on campus mega dorms. So which is it?
Actually, I just googled them. But I have saved them sometimes from previous conversations. UCD enrollment history is available here: http://budget.ucdavis.edu/data-reports/enrollment-reports.html
The 2020 Initiative was to increase enrollment from 2010 – 2020 by 6000 students, with an expected increase in staff and faculty of about 3000.
No, there is no such guarantee. That would be something for the council to pursue with UC, and for a lawsuit if necessary.
There has been plenty of public pressure. It has yielded letters from our elected officials. Many of us commented on the EIR during the public comment period. I posted the links to those options on several occasions on the Vanguard. The net result has been….”we’ll try.” I will be willing to bet here and now that they may increase the total number of beds by a few hundred in the final iteration. So I am realistic about the likely outcome of public pressure. I understand the UC budget process and where housing fits on it (it’s an auxiliary expense and largely needs to pay its own way).
I don’t like it, I think they should build more. I don’t see the city having reasonable leverage over UC.
…
More effective council/UC communication. A more robust system needs to be in place for mutual planning.
I don’t abdicate anything. I was responding to your question about whether it is a moral issue, or to whom we should affix blame. I have replied, but I’ll do so again. The university bears most responsibility for the lack of housing, and the past councils bear some. The current council is being responsive to the situation.
The time for planning and action to avoid all of this was 2011. When I saw the announcement of the 2020 Initiative, my very first question was “where are they all going to live?” IMO Chancellor Katehi brought a metropolitan outlook to this issue and probably saw Davis as a very parochial town that simply refused to grow. And she probably thought UC was doing its part by building West Village, unaware or unconcerned about the previous shortfalls accrued over several years. But the council members present at that time should have immediately begun the process of finding sites and reviewing the zoning for the 10% or so of housing that would be needed in town for student renters. None of that happened.
…
Because they’ve said that adjusting the EIR would/could result in delay. And simply the logic that significant changes to the LRDP could require a revised EIR, which is a lengthy process.
Typo on my part. I meant, of course to say, 40/90. We eagerly await substantive concessions or “accommodations” from UCD that are in line with 50/100 and not just some token bone thrown to its critics.
That should shut everyone up. Pesky homeowners and their darned homes.
Bring on the Mega-dorms as they are defined by the projects that are on the table to help provide needed housing to the city. They contrast very nicely with the Davis Mega-NIMBYs that start flapping their arms and gums for every single significant new development proposal.
It is the same flappers each and every time.