When students gathered earlier last week in front of the Memorial Union, then marched to Mrak Hall and then had an extended sit-in in protest of a proposed tuition hike, given the relatively modest scope of that tuition hike and the huge impact of the lack of affordable student housing, it is no surprise that the action rekindled the question as to why students have not protested student housing in the past.
Before I get into that question, it should be noted, first of all, that during the speeches, one of the complaints against the administration was in fact the lack of affordable housing on campus.
In fact, on the leaflets they issued six demands:
The vote to increase tuition will be delayed until the regents’ meeting in March where undergraduates will be present to have their voices heard.
Regents will vote to roll back tuition instead of raising it.
Administrator and executive salaries are to be redistributed to low-payed workers.
A restructuring of the University of California to include direct representatives of both students and workers on the Board of Regents and within office-holding executive positions.
The University of California Davis must commit to make affordable housing available to ease the burden of the housing crisis on low-income students.
Campus police must be disarmed of all lethal weapons.
It is worth noting that the students already succeeded with their first demand. As the LA Times reported on Wednesday following the Board of Regents meeting, “They circulated petitions, shared their stories of hardship and pressed the University of California regents to delay a controversial vote to raise their tuition and fees.
“In the end, UC students pulled off a stunning victory when the regents voted Wednesday to put off a decision until May in order to allow time to step up pressure on the Legislature to increase state funding for the public university system.”
Here’s the thing about those protests: there was a specific vote by the regents to be taking place and the students were able to put pressure at a key time to force action. The problem with protesting housing is that it is far more complex.
When I met with three student leaders back in May of last year, they pointed out that, while it is relatively easy to show up on a Tuesday night to advocate for a housing project, dealing with the university is a longer term process and they lack the labor or time to be able to have sit-ins in Mrak Hall to demand changes to the LRDP (Long Range Development Plan) that they may not impact – and even if they did, it wouldn’t be felt until years down the line.
Sara Williams said, “The process is different for us pressuring the university versus pressuring the city because of the nature of the way that projects come to the city and the nature of the way projects come to our administration.
“We can’t use the same tactics on the administration that we do the city,” Sara Williams continued. “I see a lot of people saying, why don’t they sit-in on Mrak… People seem to forget that we have lives – like we can spend our labor hosting sit-ins every day.” She called the notion “hilarious” and said, “We can’t.”
But the issue of affordability of housing is foremost on the minds of the students, as demonstrated when they included it on their list of six demands. But is that enough to push housing onto the stage by itself?
“I think that should be a direction that we move in,” ASUCD President Josh Dalavai recently told the Vanguard. “I agree some direct action on that front could be fitting.”
However, community members need to recognize that, while some have drawn the line between on-campus versus off-campus housing, the students don’t view it the same way.
“It’s both, it always has been with this issue,” Josh Dalavai said. “The student pressure has to come from both sides with some multi-faceted type of approach.”
The students have lobbied the chancellor for on-campus affordability, he said, but they have lobbied the city as well.
The housing crisis is real. Just last night, I talked to a student living in the dorms in her first year as a student, here we are late January and she’s looking for housing for next year. She is not finding much of anything.
She told me that West Village would be an option, but the cost of housing there is more than $1000 a month. For many students that is not affordable.
Josh Dalavai told the Vanguard that the push is now shifting to not only include a demand for student housing, but to make sure that that housing is affordable.
“We’re trying to hit really hard on affordability now,” he said. “Now more so than ever because it doesn’t do students much good if we just erect like ten West Villages and no one can actually afford to live there.”
He pointed out that anything market rate right now is going to be expensive. He also recognizes that that price could come down as the supply increases and the vacancy rate improves.
My take-aways from these discussions are that students are probably going to become more active in pushing direct action on housing. It is not going to be an exclusive push for on-campus housing, when they have concerns about affordability and they recognize that it is actually easier to go to a council meeting in support of Nishi or Lincoln40. And there is going to be a push to build more housing, but the focus is going to start shifting toward housing with affordability.
We saw a lot of that last week at the Planning Commission where the students were supportive of Nishi, they praised the affordability component, but pushed for more of it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Someone should tell the kids that unless they work to get rid of the prevailing wage laws that makes building on campus so expensive they will never get “affordable” housing on campus (with rare exceptions the MOST expensive housing in Davis for the past thirty years “per bed” has been on campus)…
P.S. Did anyone else find it funny that one of the demands was “Campus police must be disarmed of all lethal weapons” not “Campus police must be disarmed of pepper spray”? Maybe the people making the demands are hoping to get ~$30K each by getting pepper sprayed at an upcoming protest and they don’t want the cops to make any mistakes and end up like Oscar Grant…
“Someone should tell the kids to do something really complicated and time consuming rather than deal directly with the problem “
FIFY
David, you need to stop changing commenter posts and then putting quote marks around them. You did this to me the other day too and another commenter took it that I had actually wrote it.
That’s what FIFY means: “fixed it for you”
It’s a common technique in social media circles
Their actual quote is directly above
I repeat since some posts have disappeared here, I don’t feel you should add quotation marks to someone’s comment that you changed.
Gotta agree with Ken A. Whatever happened there, it made no sense to me.
UC Davis charges over $1,000/month to rent half a dorm room (without any meal plan).
http://housing.ucdavis.edu/_pdf/s/2017-sha-fee-schedule.pdf
I’m wondering how David thinks the kids should “deal directly with the problem”?
P.S. I thought “FIFY” was what the kids call rapper “Fifty Cent”…
Push for more housing in town. Push for UC Davis to provide more affordable housing options on campus. When I met with the students last May, they told me a lot of those charges are for services – the students are subsidizing those services – but a lot of them are services that most students don’t access.
Going after prevailing wage is a long fight and not likely to succeed in the near future particularly with a Democratic legislature.
“And there is going to be a push to build more housing, but the focus is going to start shifting toward housing with affordability.”
It is a shame that this has not been a consistent focus for some of the students who were misled to spend some of their time advocating for a project ( Trackside) that will not help them with affordable housing in any way. Perhaps that portion of their time would have been better spent on other pursuits.
I don’t think students are going to live in Trackside
David
I don’t think they are going to either. Which made it especially ironic when a number of them turned up in favor of the project as though it were going to somehow help them, carefully coached to imply in their comments that all building helped.
Coached by whom? Basis (factual) for that assertion?
Just like getting 27 fat kids in Davis to drink less soda will not “solve” the obesity problem in town building 27 more units in Davis will not “solve” the affordable housing problem we have.
Anyone that says that reducing the caloric intake for 27 kids or building 27 more units will not help the problems in “any” way is not making a truthful statement.
Ken
Very big difference. No one ever said that getting 27 fat kids to drink less soda would improve the health of Davis. It was implied again and again that 27 luxury units was a step in helping the student housing crisis. Council member Freirichs even implied as much from the dias in his comments about encountering a homeless student prior to the meeting in explaining his “yes” vote.
I’m wondering if Tia thinks Louis Wolk did not think getting kids to drink less soda “would improve the health of Davis when she said: “offer a real opportunity for the city of Davis – for the children and the public health of Davis”?
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/01/public-health-groups-fight-back-on-soda-tax/
While it is true that most new Trackside residents will probably not be students, but most residents will move from another older home, apartment or condo in town opening the place up for a student.
I completely agree with Tia. The students clearly are being used by the developers of these expensive housing projects even though projects like Trackside do nothing to help student housing.
Also, Lincoln40 will cost the same if not more than on-campus housing. As pointed out in the article students feel that $1,000 for a bed at West Village is too much, but Lincoln40 will be charging $1,000 per bed for their market rate beds. Yet, students found the time to come down to City Council to support Lincoln40 and Trackside. It is clear now that students protesting at Mrak clearly does work given that their protest got the Regents to listen.
So the bottom line is that if the students truly want affordable housing, they do need to demand it from UCD like they did opposing the tuition raises. This starts with them protesting at Mrak to get the Chancellor to take far more action than he has, starting with providing at least 1,600 additional beds needed to implement the 50/100 plan supported by four resolutions including the one by the ASUCD students. This would demonstrate at least some sincerity of the campus administration who claim that UCD wants to be a”good neighbor”. Well, UCD has not been a good neighbor for many years and it has been shamefully irresponsible toward their students needing far more on-campus affordable housing.
UCD needs to step-up now for the sake of their students as well as to improve relations with the City by committing to build at least 10,000 new beds on-campus which will house the students all four years or more, not just more freshman dorms. The student protests need to point out that that UCD is fully capable of providing at least 10,000 more on-campus beds that are affordable to students. UCD is the largest UC with over 5,300 acres and well has over $1 BILLION in endowment funding, and not all of it is ear-tagged.
UCD needs to start prioritizing the housing needs of their student rather than giving the enormous raises to their plethora of six-figure salaried administrators. How many Vice Chancellor’s can UCD campus possibly need for heavens sake? It is ridiculous how top-heavy UCD is in administrators.
What I don’t really understand is why you believe that students should limit their efforts to UC Davis when they have opportunities to create affordable housing in the city. And of course the biggest road to affordability is lowering the vacancy rate to 5% which will deal with the market rate apartment costs.
Going beyond that, isn’t one of the purposes of a college education, particularly in the social sciences, to encourage folk to be active, and contribute, in any community they are associated with?
So, in a sense, UCD is an “incubator”, and both UCD and Davis are (or should be) a forum to develop those skills?
Just saying…
Eileen you are assuming that 30,000 students cant find the time to do both. It was student actions by ASUCD-GSA Joint Housing Task Force that persuaded the administration to increase the LRDP. And of course there is the delay on the tuition hike. As UCD is the economic engine for the region and Davis as we know it wouldnt exist without the University, we believe it is BOTH the University and the City that is responsible for this housing crisis. Un-mitigated enrollment growth and a 15-year lack of proper housing supply growth is evidence of the failure of both groups of leadership. Stop assuming we are puppets just because we disagree with you…
Eileen: “we believe it is BOTH the University and the City that is responsible for this housing crisis” – I think that’s your answer from the students as to how they see it and what they are likely to do.
Aaron: Hope that you’re also willing to help pay for the impacts that new housing developments (especially megadorms) will create for the city. Unfortunately, they’re money-losers, for the city. They are by no means an “economic engine”.
I’d caution you about assuming that the ASUCD was the primary reason for the change to the LRDP, as well as using the word “we”, regarding speaking for others. (Including other students.)
Ron: Normally I would agree with you. Residential projects normally are not revenue earning actions and I am very willing to pay what ever tax is necessary to solve the housing crisis. But the nature of the housing crisis is that the additional units we build now wont actually increase costs because the residents they are meant for are either already here or are guarantied to come here very soon. This is proven by the net-positive effects of Nishi. Also UCD is the economic engine for the region…. it employs a huge portion of our residents as well as other cities around the region.
As to ASUCD and me using “we”…. the ASUCD-GSA task for has been working on this issue for the past several years and hosted that very town-hall that put a personal face on the crisis for Chancellor May. There may have been some City Council assistance but I will remain giving full credit for the LRDP expansion at Don Gibson and the Task Force’s feet. Also until more students start being active in vanguard discussions on this topic, I am stuck representing 30,000 people. Hence why I have to use “we”. If you believe I am wrong say so but I don’t need your caution.
Let’s see… developers and subsequent owners pay the impact fees and property taxes, which, particularly @ 0.2% vacancy are priced into the rents charged. Student/non-student renters are both affected.
Don’t understand this “point”, unless you believe a student renter should pay more than a non-student renter. Perhaps you could elaborate…
Aaron: Regarding the change to the LRDP, let’s just say that all input probably helped. There’s no point in arguing about who should take credit for it.
Regarding representing 30,000 students, all I can say is “wow”! That’s quite a responsibility! 🙂
Regarding cost, you’re flat-out wrong. The only model that’s been presented regarding megadorms is for Sterling, and shows an ever-increasing loss to the city starting in year 15. Unfortunately, that model (presented by the Vanguard) has never been adequately explained, regarding exactly what the costs and revenues consist of.
Then, there’s one-time costs, which are supposed to be covered by impact fees. Unfortunately, the multi-bedroom units in megadorms (some of which will be double-occupied) are charged the same amount as units with fewer bedrooms (e.g., as found in traditional apartment complexes).
Regarding Lincoln40, the bicycle/pedestrian overpasses that are needed to serve the development are not being fully funded by the developer. Even if the city receives grants to cover a portion of the costs, the city itself will apparently still have to make a substantial contribution. (Not sure if this also applies to the improvements needed for the intersection, at Richards/Olive.)
Regarding Nishi, this is by no means settled. An earlier analysis (for Nishi 1.0) showed a possibility of it being a money-loser for the city, even with an innovation center component. A more recent analysis showed an ever-increasing loss, totaling approximately $13 million dollars by year 15. (It is likely that these analyses will be adjusted, further.)
For Nishi 1.0, the city’s finance and budget commission did not even agree with a professional, external analyst regarding the fiscal impact on the city. This was never resolved.
Yes it is, by a 5 – 2 vote in January.
That analysis was not accepted by the F&B Commission. A 5 – 2 vote in January found otherwise.
Any fiscal analysis of the first Nishi proposal is irrelevant.’
I suggest you stop repeating the “13 million” deficit number, since the appropriate commission as analyzed the project and does not agree with that.
I suggest you view the comments before the Planning Commission by Chair Dan Carson on behalf of the Finance and Budget Commission.http://davis.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=798
His public comment on the Nishi project begins at 3:25:00 and ends at 3:27:20
“I’d caution you about assuming that the ASUCD was the primary reason for the change to the LRDP…”
“Let’s just say all input probably helped”
Were you in the room? Seriously Ron, you arrogantly caution Aaron on something that he probably has a LOT more first hand knowledge of than you.
”There’s no point in arguing about who should take credit for it…”
And yet you did… twice.
David: It’s arrogant to assume that any particular individual or group is responsible for the change. And yes, I provided input directly to UCD, the city, and others as well.
Plus, you might want to remember the person who probably put the most effort into this, of all. (Not me, but someone we all know and should appreciate.) And, who is still working on the issue, as well. (An effort that you seem to consistently overlook.)
So, there! 🙂
It’s not Ron, especially when a group of people were meeting privately with the university on this issue over a period of time. Remember, I told you a change was coming about a month or two before it was announced precisely because there were people working behind the scenes with the university.
David: That is not evidence, regarding how things occurred or who was involved. In fact, it’s not even evidence of “who knew what, when”.
Since you’re claiming that there were “behind-the-scene” meetings, perhaps you could tell us what was discussed, who was involved, and when these meetings occurred.
I’ll look at your response, later. (Have other stuff to do, for now.)
For a guy who sees no point to arguing – you sure seem to want to argue. My knowledge is of the meetings, not their content.
Didn’t answer my question.
You’re the one who is disregarding the efforts which resulted in city and county resolutions, and efforts with the regents.
I’m not interested in arguing, but if you (or anyone) wants to “take all the credit” for the change (for some reason), then perhaps you should tell us exactly what you think occurred. Who, when, and what was discussed.
Ron: This has gone in a direction I did not anticipate. I should not have excluded the efforts of other unseen stakeholders in getting the LRDP expansion and I am very thankful that those individuals did step in and pressure the Chancellor. My original point was that students are active on campus as well as in the city. Please accept my apology Ron and if you would forward my thanks up to the individuals in question.
As to the fiscal side if its positive thats wonderful for the city. If its not I am very willing to do my part to foot the bill and will be very willing to support the economic developments needed to balance the city’s budget.
Thanks, Aaron. And, best wishes regarding your continued efforts on campus. (The person I’m referring to will probably be right there, with you.) My point in initially “challenging” you was to point out the reasons that some are concerned about the costs and impacts that UCD is unilaterally forcing upon the city. (It’s actually not about the students, themselves.)
Most of us were college students. (In my case, for an extended period while working full-time and pursuing two master degrees, not that long ago.)
Don: We’ve been through this (regarding the costs of Nishi), already. Your comments do not provide a complete or accurate picture, but let’s just leave it at that for now.
Let’s wait and see how things progress, as the finance and budget commission is still considering the costs. (You already know that this is true.)
No, let’s not “leave it at that for now.”
You are contradicted on this by the Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission.
The commission voted 5 – 2 in support of the staff report.
The video that I linked shows the Chair of the commission, Dan Carson, directly refuting your assertion.
You are wrong on this.
Your assertion of any ongoing deficit, much less the specific figure you cite over and over again, is not supported by the commission that reviewed the issue.
I see that you can’t just let this go, as I suggested. Why does that not surprise me?
The motion that you’re referring to included a statement that the commission is still considering the costs. Matt pointed this out to you, specifically. (And, he didn’t even attend the meeting.) And yet, you gloss over this fact, repeatedly.
As a side note, Dan Carson has not always agreed with the rest of the commission, and has provided a “rosier” projection than the commission as a whole (regarding Nishi 1.0, I believe). In fact, I think he submitted a letter to the council and to the Vanguard, regarding that.
And, the commission as a whole “disagreed” with a professional analyst, regarding the fiscal impact Nishi 1.0. Again, this was never resolved. (And this time, it appears that the city won’t be using an external analyst. Instead, they’re simply using the staff report, so far.)
Nishi 1.0 is relevant because it is very similar to Nishi 2.0, but without a revenue-generating commercial component. Even so, the external analyst showed that Nishi 1.0 could create a deficit for the city, from the start.
Again, I’d suggest we avoid getting off-topic any further, for now. There’s plenty of time to argue, ahead.
Any assertion that there will be any deficit to the city caused by the Nishi project is not supported by the commission. The Chair has affirmed this. You are wrong on your repeated assertion that there is or might be such a deficit.
The commission supported the view expressed by Dan Carson by a 5 – 2 vote. Your comment here is a pointless deflection.
Stop repeating falsehoods, I’ll stop having to correct them. Simple as that.
Don: The commission is still considering the analyses. That is a fact, not an opinion. Don’t know how many times this needs repeating, for you to accept it. (I would guess that the answer for you is “never”.)
Not sure how the vote would have gone, if Matt was there as well. But, he has also expressed significant concerns, and stated that the proposal is not ready to be placed on the ballot (or words to that effect). Again, a fact.
Again, one of the commissioners roughly calculated an ever-increasing deficit of approximately $13 million, by year 15. At least one other commissioner was also not comfortable accepting the staff’s analysis (which showed a very modest surplus). Those are facts, not my opinion.
If Matt was there, perhaps there would have been a third vote, given his statements regarding the issue.
As it is, the commission as a whole has agreed to consider further analyses, as part of the motion that you’re referring to. That’s also a fact, as was pointed out to you by Matt (who actually appears to support more housing on the site).
Hopefully, the city won’t somehow also become burdened with one-time costs associated with the proposed development.
I realize that you’re trying your best to downplay any actual concerns, whether it’s fiscal analyses or air quality. But, your statements are transparently biased, and are not going to work. Deny it all you want.
It’s a long way until June (if the council chooses to put this on the ballot), so again I’d suggest that we pace ourselves. If you want to argue more tonight, I’m not sure that I will participate (unless I have something to add, which hasn’t already been noted).
Verbatim:
“Good evening commissioners.
For the record my name is Dan Carson. I’m Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission. Our commission reviewed this project and it’s not in our jurisdiction to recommend approval or not, but we did review the fiscal impacts as regards to the city.
Some of the public comments I’ve seen online, there is a lot of confusion about what we’ve said. I just wanted to put it clearly on the record that by a 5 to 2 vote, after extensive discussion and public testimony, we did conclude that the city staff’s model which showed $13 million dollars in one time fiscal benefits from this project, a modest net fiscal benefit on an ongoing basis each year, we considered those conclusions to be reasonable.
We point out in our analysis that there’s different scenarios that would make the project look better on an ongoing basis. For example, if the parcel tax package approved by the council last night were to be approved it would significantly change the numbers in the positive direction. But of course if that parcel tax were rejected it would move it a little bit the other direction as well.
There are important changes in the development agreement, it’s not a final document, we get back the $350,000 dollars that the city front-ended for pre-development costs a few years back. There’s some additional monies. There’s also credits that are provided for some of the transportation improvements.
Our general recommendation to the council has been: get a residual land value analysis so that we know what you should be bargaining for with all these amenities, but also assuming the increase in the value of the land to the applicant the city should get the maximum that it can while still retaining, of course, a viable return on investments so that they can finance this project. Try to strike that balance, is what we’re urging the council to do.”
Quoting a portion of Matt’s comment to Don:
Then, Matt added the following statement, addressed to Don:
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/01/monday-morning-thoughts-council-move-forward-nishi-stands/#comment-376331
As a side note, Salomon’s analysis (showing an ever-increasing, $13 million deficit by year 15) is still available via the FBC’s webpage, under the agenda for January 8th. However, I understand that this analysis may be undergoing further revision.
Matt is incorrect. You are incorrect.
As Dan Carson says:
The FBC did support the staff finding.
I suggest you stop repeating any false assertions about Nishi causing a deficit.
Dan Carson may be the one who is “incorrect”. I recall that he has disagreed with the entire commission, as well as the external analysis from EPS regarding Nishi 1.0.
In his comments the other day, Matt noted that the Salomon analysis is closer to the methods used by Nishi 1.0, compared to what the staff has calculated for Nishi 2.0 (and which Dan is relying upon). (However, there was a discrepancy, which wasn’t fully explained at that time.) Again, note that the current analysis was actually created by staff, not the commission. The only commissioner who took the time to actually create an analysis was Ray Salomon.
The analyses will continue . . . Perhaps you’d care to actually learn more about it, with me? It’s actually kind of interesting, regarding how costs are (or should be) allocated. I suspect that’s where the largest discrepancies between the analyses originate from.
That is, if you’re actually trying to determine accuracy. 🙂
In his comments before the Planning Commission which I cited verbatim, he was speaking as Chair of the commission and was accurately reflecting their position. This statement of yours is a deflection.
You are incorrect on this topic, and I suggest you stop asserting that any analysis has suggested in any way that Nishi will cause a deficit to the city. Such an assertion is directly contradicted by the Finance and Budget Commission.
“Dan Carson may be the one who is “incorrect”.”
Then show us where he is incorrect. He walked me through his calculation and Raymond’s and I agree with Dan.
In reference to my comment above, I recall Matt stating that the Salomon analysis was an attempt to calculate costs based upon the methods used by the external analyst (EPS), for Nishi 1.0. (I hadn’t clarified that in my comment, above.)
I also recall that Matt stated that staff would be creating an analysis based upon cost accounting, rather than the “cash” accounting method that they used. (However, I am not aware of any other communications regarding that.)
Don: I’m not making anything up, here. It’s all in the records, as well as the communications between you and Matt.
And in fact, you could go through the two analyses yourself, to determine where the differences are. (One difference that I recall is related to the allocation of police and fire costs. I also recall that this was a large part of the reason for the discrepancy between the commission and the external analyst, as well.)
You’ll probably recall that David has argued that there “are no costs” to allocate, if additional personnel are not needed for a particular proposal. (I’m literally laughing a little, as I write this.) I suspect this is at the heart of the issue, between the two analyses, as well.
But really, it comes down to this (for now):
Sorry, but I probably won’t allow you (or anyone) to purposefully sweep actual concerns under the rug. I’m not sure if I’ll argue all-night, every night for the next 6 months, but I’m sure that we’ll get into this again.
Ron:
We have a commission process to evaluate these projects. The commission did evaluate the project. You don’t like the answer they came up with, so you keep repeating a false statement, and you keep posting snippets that show ambiguity as if they suggest that your false assertion that the project might cause a deficit is somehow supported by that ambiguity.
But in the words of the commission:
Don: There’s also a reason that an external analyst was hired, for Nishi 1.0. And, because the commission (as a whole) apparently “didn’t like” the answer that the external analyst provided, they went their own way, on that.
This time, there is no external analyst. So, it would probably behoove everyone to (directly) pay attention to the analyses.
And I recall that Dan Carson went further than that, and disagreed with the commission AND the external analyst.
This time, we have at least 2-3 commissioners questioning the staff analysis, with more debate to come.
But, you are correct (regarding your final bolded quote), that the additional analyses can go in either direction. Ray Salomon pointed that out, as well. (However, I suspect that there may still be significant disagreements within the commission, regarding how to properly allocate costs.)
“There’s also a reason that an external analyst was hired, for Nishi 1.0.”
Actually they weren’t hired for Nishi 1.0. They were hired to estimate the fiscal impact of the Innovation Centers. They evaluated both Nishi and MRIC. They made a host of assumptions, many of which the commission decided were overly cautious. The commission then re-evaluated the project with revised assumptions. This is the problem that we keep having in our discussions – we have the ability to look at the model that was used, to evaluate whether it was reasonable and the re-work the model with new assumptions. We don’t need to talk to the person who created the model to do that if we understand the strengths and weaknesses of the model. The problem I have with model that shows such a big deficit for Nishi is that in effect, if that were accurate, the whole city would be in trouble. The Leland model doesn’t show that however, so I tend to discount Salomon’s model as being hyper-pessimistic.
It might be a smart idea to actually ask the students who came out in support of Trackside rather than just assume we were misled. No one coerced me to gather students to show up. I saw a Vanguard article about trackside and gathered a few friends to speak in support. We knew it wasn’t meant to serve our population and that was precisely why we decided to show up. Trackside provided a good venue to test the city council’s appetite for hearing students’ opinions. I realize that 27 units wont solve the housing crisis but there are over 100 other opportunity sites like trackside in the downtown area. I still believe trackside was a good project and would support another one like it in a heart beat.
The student body has and will continue to grow louder on campus. Just because one group is loud at city meetings doesn’t mean other groups aren’t working the problem at the other end with the University. The one thing I would ask community members to see is that this crisis has gotten so bad that the student body is seeing no choice but to act. As the LRDP process is about to reach a head I would ask community members to take a moment to reach out to students. Talk to us, get to know us. We aren’t going anywhere as a population and we definitely are not the puppets some accuse us of being.
Good challenge to those that make statements, like,
Thank you, Aaron, your account seems credible.
Thanks Aaron for providing important context.
Aaron
“No one coerced me to gather students to show up”
No one made any accusation of coercion, but nice straw man argument. I would have had no problem with the assertion that students felt this was a good project for legitimate reasons. But I was at the council meeting in question and heard student after student reiterate that it was a start towards improving the situation for students. The Trackside project did nothing for students. As a matter of fact, it used a spot that could have been an affordable housing site for students. Your opinion, or mine, is not the point. For me, objectivity about the pros and cons of projects in assessing their relative merits is critical and this did not happen at the meeting in question.
“It is a shame that this has not been a consistent focus for some of the students who were misled to spend some of their time advocating for a project ( Trackside) that will not help them with affordable housing in any way.” -Tia
“Which made it especially ironic when a number of them turned up in favor of the project as though it were going to somehow help them, carefully coached to imply in their comments that all building helped.” -Tia
“I completely agree with Tia. The students clearly are being used by the developers of these expensive housing projects even though projects like Trackside do nothing to help student housing.” -Eileen
Tia these are all examples within the past few hours of you and Eileen describing students as “misled”, “coached”, “used” they all are delegitimizing the student voice when we were there for legitimate reasons.
This leads to the idea that somehow you have a monopoly on “legitimate” reasons to support a project. Trackside was tiny, the only reason it came before the City Council was community concerns. But with that said it is my belief that any increase in supply is beneficial to this town right now market rate or not. And the greatest reason why we came out in support of Trackside is that we wanted to turn the Trackside city council meeting into a symbol of the greater housing crisis. Since then no meeting regarding a housing crisis has had to happen without mentioning students or affordable housing. Those ARE legitimate reasons, you may disagree with them but don’t try to muzzle us by saying our words werent our own.
And finally you seem to believe that this site could have been used for affordable student housing. This is entirely false and very misleading of how the entire affordable housing industry works. No current government subsidized programs allow students to apply for Affordable housing. This means any affordable housing for students must be subsidized internally, requiring massive unit sizes. This is not feasible at trackside and we new this from the onset. We did our homework on this Tia.
Its confusing to me why so many in this town seem so threatened by students having a greater say in policy decisions. Davis was built on student activism. We have no interest in replacing only have a seat at the table beside you. Take us seriously, its in your best interest.
Aaron… to be clear, I believe students should have a voice… hopefully listened to, even if not acted on…
Spouse and I were UCD students for 5 years, left upon graduation for 2.5 years, then returned, raised children here, and both have (in my opinion) greatly added value both as students and non-students to the community.
During my tenure @ UCD, did not vote here during college… felt I had no right to determine the City’s course… 4-5 and out… wrong (voted in my “home” precinct)… as non students, we’re “newbies”… only 38 years as non-student residents…
Sidebar… if UCD students want to engage with the community, there are many opportunities for students to serve the larger community (ironically, that’s how I met my spouse)… for us it was about 5 hours a month, but it was something… it goes to “paying for your impact” cheap/free [does involve time/effort], but more importantly (big time) your education as to how you should act/behave either if you choose to remain, or wherever you ‘land’ in the future… many ‘adults’ (and others) believe that if they pay taxes, they are contributing all they should to the community…
Spouse and I have ‘given’ many years of service to the community… some paid, much unpaid, since we retired…
Averages about 20 hours/week. [combined]… Beyond service to family…
Aaron, my ‘spidey-sense’ tells me you might identify with that… I may be incorrect… but…
Housing, for students and others, should be ‘affordable’ to those who who serve the community at whatever level… as we need affordability, as some had/have lucrative jobs (no special consideration needed), others with their main ‘task’ being getting their education, and helping UCD/City Davis in other ways (needing the affordability if Mom/Dad can’t/won’t cover… needs, not subsidies).
Yeah, I was ~6 but never forgot the words. “it is not what the country [pick your entity] can do for you, but what you can do for the country [same]”. Suggest you and other students, and the ‘regular’ members of the community, remember those words, and take them to heart. Spouse and I did.
Thank you Howard for your support of the student voice and for your many years of community service. Sorry for the delayed reply, I had a class. Davis is my adopted home. The only way I can repay that welcome Davis has given me is to find a way to make sure others in this town can find just as much opportunity and security as I have. Affordable housing is a community issue not just a student issue. However, in tackling the student side (students are 85% of Davis renters) we will have a far easier time providing for other populations of need in our community.
As to what constitutes a reasonable civic contribution: Taxes are what I pay to live in a civil society. Community service is what we do to ensure society remains civil.
Not sure that 85% of renters are students, but I’m sure it’s a significant percentage.
Housing is expensive in Davis by choice. We made the active decision to increase the cost of development through all the exactions we require from developers (in order to appease those who do not want more housing).
If we want more affordable market-rate housing all we need do is reduce the total cost of those exactions and increase the allowable density on the available parcels.
There’s a new smartphone app which lets non-UC Davis students control the lives of students who attend this university. It was created in a local innovation lab by a student working in an internship — a student who lives in their self-driving electric car.
Somewhere about 50 years ago there was a virus that swept the country and causes a genetic mutation in people that has resulted in about 40% of the population believing that protesting is the best way to get things done politically.
I just ask… how is that working for ya’ll today?
I think the students would say that given that they got the Rengents to delay their tuition hike vote, pretty well.
Well, there’s the alternatives of:
1) Letting the University run over their asses.
2) Sitting on their asses.
3) Writing a letter.
How have those worked for ya’ll today?
Putting together a compelling political platform and candidates that that are not an old hippy socialist fool, nor a career crooked political player.
I asked someone what the latest women’s march was about.
Basically it was that they don’t like Trump.
But apparently we still have Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as the alternative.
That is so unattractive of an alternative, I think I might get some like minded friends together, put on some blue hats and carry some pithy signs with provocative and nasty words on them… and then march somewhere where the media will film me. There, that will fix it.
BLM, Occupy Wall Street and other protests have been very successful at bringing their issues to the attention of the general public, the point of such actions. Political change is a longer and more collaborative educational process.
Seems to me that most of the political change at the national level has gone the way of the people that tend to not protest as a primary reaction to everything they disagree with politically. From my perspective, the nation has develop protest fatigue.
Thus: Behold, Donald Trump.
“Seems to me that most of the political change at the national level has gone the way of the people that tend to not protest as a primary reaction”
Trump’s fine people, you mean? ROFLMAO
John, maybe you prefer the fine people of Antifa?
And I have to disagree with you that Occupy and BLM have had much of an impact unless your interest was to put Republicans and Trump in control of the entire national government.
The good news is that the GOP and Trump in control of the national government are addressing the roots of the problems that led to Occupy and BLM protests.
I think today protesting works against those protesting. It just looks like a big emotional tantrum for not getting your way.
If the reply is about national politics, and the topic isn’t, the answer is ….
you’re off topic!
Mea culpa, moderator. I will no longer respond the the thinly veiled racist comments and will try to be more forgiving.
I will also refrain from responding to the thinly-minded posters that resort to calling anyone that disagrees with their political views a racist.
Maybe I will go protest that.
Good point…
Applies to “pro-development”, NIMBY’s, YIMBY’s, conservatives, liberals, etc., etc., etc., as well.
Think, people! Are we such simpletons than we have to define folk as being in a “box”?
Grow up!
Point taken.
But “racist” seems a few miles further down the road than does “liberal” or “NIMBY”… especially since the former has been weaponized as a persecute-able hate crime. Or, are all labels equal? For example, BO says Libya is a “Sh_t show” and DT says Haiti is a “Sh_t house”. Does not seem that the reactions by the media have been equal.
I also have not until now heard any smack-down for anyone in Davis calling someone “pro-developer”… or the most ugly and vile of all labels today a “Trump voter” (queue the sound of the shower scene in Psycho).
Maybe some animals are more equal than others?
My comment was generic, not aimed at you Jeff…
I’m tired of ALL the BS labelling by many here, “right” or “left”…
Can’t we all just get a long, stick.