An op-ed appeared in the Davis Enterprise this weekend talking about Davis’ “two” vanishing generations.
From what I could find, Doby Fleeman owns Davis Ace Hardware and Clark Dodsworth is some nebulous “entrepreneur.” But Jeanne Jones works for developers, first for Lewis Homes and now on the ConAgra project.
Back in December she told me she had moved to Napa and said she was seldom in Davis. Whether that is still true or not, the fact that she is actively working on the ConAgra project and that this piece, at least indirectly, promotes the project is something that the Davis Enterprise should have disclosed.
In a way, this is the same sob story we have heard from Choices for Healthy Aging, but in reverse. CHA uses this data to promote senior housing. These folks are using it to lament the loss of economic opportunity, apparently.
They write, “A decade ago, Davis had nearly 3,200 more residents in two census age groups – 25- to 34-year-olds and 35- to 44-year-olds. That’s a dramatic shift in just 10 years.
They add, “Regionally, we found these decreases are unique to Davis and not reflected in Yolo or Sacramento counties.”
Naturally, this is their concern: “Can we have a vibrant atmosphere for business and entrepreneurship if we are a town of aging boomers and college students? A recent survey indicates that two-thirds of today’s entrepreneurs are between 26 and 40 years old. At the same time, we recognize this as the very age range that is seriously declining in Davis.”
They add, “The trend toward becoming a town of retirees and college students has long-range implications concerning the community’s own ability to financially sustain itself.”
They go on to lament the loss of families with school-age children and add, “Many families with school-age children have moved to adjacent school districts with lower home prices than Davis. We now have some 452 students living out of the district and commuting in.”
The problem that they see: jobs or the lack thereof.
They write, “For many in this younger demographic group, Davis is not viewed as an energetic community; eclectic and cute, yes, but not exciting. Younger professionals are attracted to midtown Sacramento lifestyle preferences with more social/recreational opportunities. It becomes a troublesome cycle, harder to get tech companies to set up in Davis because the workforce is not here.”
They add, “A smaller population of school-aged kids will have consequences for our schools. Davis owes much of its reputation to the excellent public schools system. As our population shifts, we may find ourselves in a position where young families that can afford to live here make a choice to live elsewhere because they want to interact with families that are at similar life stages as they.”
But here is the kicker, “City policies need to address this need to provide not only an environment attractive to 25- to 44-year-olds, but also provide housing that is financially achievable for young families.”
So, now we have the full circle. It is clever that they would not mention housing until nearly the end of their article, when in fact, this is not an article about jobs but housing.
But ironies are many in this piece. They lament the loss of or lack of jobs, but the Cannery Project that Jeanne Jones is working on, that was never disclosed by the Davis Enterprise to the unsuspecting, would actually take the largest available land for a business park and remove it, under the guise of mixed use which would utilize no more than 20 percent of the land for business.
Moreover, irony further abounds when you look at the mix of housing that is proposed and recognize that very few of these homes would be available for people who are first-time home buyers trying to enter the work force.
If this is really the concern of these individuals, why not promote a housing project that can actually provide first-time home buyers with the housing that they need. Instead, there will be few homes there that are market rate that are under $400,000. That is just not going to attract younger residents.
Moreover, by eliminating the only large parcel still available for business park, we get back to the ConAgra dilemma. The ConAgra dilemma goes like this.
The site is said to be a poor place for a business park due to its lack of proximity to the freeway. So, we build it for housing. Except that it is a poor place for housing because there is only access at one point, with no northern, eastern or western access.
Moreover, where do we then put these businesses that Ms. Jones and others want to create? Measure J/R will make it difficult to get approval for development on either the Northwest Quadrant or East of Mace, and the Nishi property is relatively small and a logistical nightmare.
So, ConAgra actually makes things more difficult. The housing that they propose is not sufficient for the types of people that these authors want to attract and building housing there precludes a business park.
In the end, the Enterprise failed to clearly identify the writers and their economic interests, and that is highly problematic. And while everyone recognizes the dilemma faced, with the lack of people my age who want to live in Davis, few offer real solutions to that problem.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]But Jeanne Jones works for developers, first for Lewis Homes and now on the ConAgra project.[/quote]David… you are such “newbie”… Jeanne Jones goes back MUCH farther than the Lewis Homes proposal… I suggest some research, as difficult a concept as that may be…
I think there is a flaw in lumping together the desires and goals of the 25-34 year olds and the 35-44 year olds. While I agree that many of the younger group may want to leave Davis for a more exciting lifestyle elsewhere, it is exactly that same “eclectic,cute” and I would add safe and community oriented nature as well as the good schools that bring many back as they get a little older and wNt not only the good schools but the community that fosters them. There are a few points not being addressed by the authors:
1) the quality of the schools here in Davis has not been dependent in their size alone. We chose to buy in Davis in part because of the school quality but also because the the ambience of the community in 1991. We had done what many other UCD students do. Move out temporarily for a larger city experience and then return to raise our family.
2)As Davd already addressed, the proposed ConAgra site is not about providing affordable housing for this demographic. It is about another suburban development which will be profitable for the developers but not enhance the city’s stated goals of affordable housing, less car use safety, public transportation use, etc.
3) The fact that families are choosing to send their children to Davis schools despite living in other communities undermines the argument about choosing to live elsewhere in order to interact with families like themselves. I think this is confusing two separate motivators. People will choose to live where they can afford and ( not or) will send their children to the best schools possible. If we as a city truly want to encourage young families to settle here, we will get serious about building affordable housing options.
4) the last part that is not being addressed here is the role of the downturn in the economy om the shifting demographic. Building yet more expensive homes in the hopes of driving down prices assumes that there will be sufficient buyers able to afford the down payments and loans for these homes. I don’t think the “build it and they will come” mentality is supported by the current economy.
[quote]Instead, there will be few homes there that are market rate that are under $400,000. That is just not going to attract younger residents.
Moreover, by eliminating the only large parcel still available for business park, we get back to the ConAgra dilemma. [/quote]
Bingo! Excellent analysis.
To medwoman: You make excellent points.
I thought the Davis PD did a sweep a year ago and chased all the prostitutes out of town…
Jeannie Jones had been working for developers well before the turn of the century. Ironically, Jeannie Jones was lobbying for a massive high-tech park, many times the size of Hunt’s Cannery, down by the causeway on the south side of I-80 when it was owned by PG&E Properties, so of course Jeannie was then arguing how much we needed a huge high-tech business park, how fast the build-out would be, what an inexhaustible market there was for high-tech businesses, the incredible benefits for the city of a high-tech business park, etc.
“David… you are such “newbie”… Jeanne Jones goes back MUCH farther than the Lewis Homes proposal… I suggest some research, as difficult a concept as that may be… “
In your desire to take a swipe at me, you missed the point which is that she had a fundamental conflict of interest that was not disclosed by the Enterprise, hence the reason for the reference.
Hey, I’ve known Jeanne since she worked at CalGene. Since then she’s worked in public relations for various development projects, including her years working for PG&E properties. Doby is married to Jennifer Anderson, the owner of Davis Ace and various commercial properties. In spite of reading his profiles on LinkedIn and other sites, I can’t tell you what Clark Dodsworth does or what connection he has to Davis. [url]http://dodsworth.com/[/url]
What a cynical piece of blog tripe. Assuming the editorials facts are correct, that there are fewer 25-44 year olds living in Davis now than a decade ago, should we actually care? No. It’s actually all about the personalities that wrote the editorial with a dollop of conspiracy thrown in to titillate.
You’re wearing me out, David. When you sent out that glossy self aggrandizing advertisement several years ago promoting this blog, I started reading. But I’m really growing tired.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could consider the merits of a piece and the data being offered without spending so much time and effort discrediting the writers and their alleged hidden motives? Of course, that just gets us going on the same circular arguments we have every time someone mentions development in Davis. And, how do we decide whether someone’s writings should be valued because they have a background with lots of experience or should be disregarded because that background somehow means a conflict of interests?
On one of the related issues, has anyone looked into the impacts of having so many (452) students who don’t live here but whom we seek out to commute in from wherever? What’s so different now than the time when my office colleague sold his Woodland home and bought in Davis only because the school district was ready to withdraw the exception that allowed his kids to attend school in the district where the parents worked?
What financial incentives do we have to keep increasing these numbers? Just to collect state student payments? Are they charged some fee in lieu of parcel taxes? Do we require a net neutral standard on a case-by-case basis?
Do we have any recruiting standards? Does the practice increase our diversity? Encourage large donations? Improve average test scores? Help build winning football teams?
Have there been any adverse impacts, anticipated or unforeseen? Have class loads increased? Are we overlooking the impacts, and just being thankful that we haven’t had to close down any more schools or programs than we already have had to?
Interdistrict transfer students bring in the daily ADA fee to the district. There is no fee in lieu of the parcel tax. What is different now is that the district is under capacity. When your colleague moved to Davis, it was because the district was over capacity. That is when they tried to throw my kids out, but we won on appeal. Then the district over-built as enrollment leveled off and began a slow, slight decline.
[i]City policies need to address this need to provide not only an environment attractive to 25- to 44-year-olds, but also provide housing that is financially achievable for young families.[/i]
City policies have little to do with it. Local developers don’t propose or build housing for that end of the market.
David, my point was that anyone who has been in town long knows that Jeanne is a very articulate spokesperson who is often professionally engaged to lend her talents… no disclosure is necessary… its obvious.
I apologize for the ‘gratuitous’ parts of what I wrote earlier.
“What a cynical piece of blog tripe. Assuming the editorials facts are correct, that there are fewer 25-44 year olds living in Davis now than a decade ago, should we actually care? No. It’s actually all about the personalities that wrote the editorial with a dollop of conspiracy thrown in to titillate.”
Actually it wasn’t all about the personalities. Isn’t it important to know that this piece was promoting at least potentially a development for which one of the authors is a paid consultant on? You call it tripe, but isn’t that important.
The other problem is as I mentioned in the second half of the article, we all agree that we need to develop economically and some think we need more housing to support that development, but that’s where the ConAgra Dilemma comes into play. So instead of attacking the piece, why not address the ConAgra Dilemma and how to solve it.
hpierce: But Jeanne Jones is a paid consultant for a development that the piece at least implicitly pushes for, I think it should have been more out in the open. The average person reading it probably has no idea that she is on ConAgra’s payroll.
As an “aging boomer.” what caught my attention about the piece in the paper is that we “mature” residents will soon start dropping dead, and then our homes will probably be filled by younger people. It is an argument against additional residential growth, not for it.
When are the nimby’s going to take a serious look at the unintended consequences of their policies. While I thought the article was understating the housing issue I don’t blame them. If anyone says anything pro-development they get pounded so the authors tried to be subtle. Still I would like to see some reflection from the anti-growth people about these unintended consequences; leapfrog development, graying populace, declining enrollment and now overtaxation of existing homeowners.
By the way, I recently had the occasion to hang out with Doby and his family at a charity event. Lovely people, really enjoyed the evening.
I don’t have the full editorial in front of me, but I gather that nowhere in it ConAgra was mentioned. That seems to be your beef, ConAgra, and most importantly, the possible relationship the editorialists have with it. I refer to your piece as tripe because you introduced ConAgra when the authors did not. I don’t grow tired because of your pointing out their possible affiliation, rather it’s your complete silence on the facts the authors present in their editorial. Have they spun the facts? You’re silent. Instead its their personalities, the possible ironies that you focus on. You use their possible affiliations, the possibility of hidden motive to titillate and distract from the meat of their editorial, at least the meat implied from its title, “Davis’ Two Vanishing Generations”.
If the authors didn’t advocate for building homes at Cannery Park, then you’ve fabricated a controversy. Your focus is a distortion of the editorial.
That’s why it’s cynical piece of blog tripe.
[b]Don:[/b] I remember your successful appeal story from an earlier discussion. We’ve always counted blessings to have been here for each of our children’s educations. But, what is it that makes an appeal fight or single-purpose home move worth it for parents who aren’t fortunate enough to have Davis schools served up will little effort. (Or, worth the less honorable practice of using a friend’s address or grandma’s on the registration form?)
I think I’ve got a good idea of what the benefits have been. But, what happens to the value when the non-resident school population goes from a few kids to a couple dozen to a hundred to 500 while the resident students’ numbers are dropping? Is there a ratio that adds to the educational experience? Do these 452 interlopers affect class sizes or not? Does DJUSD even have such issues on their radar?
Is there a tipping point where the ratio dilutes the education to something that no longer is exceptional or otherwise differs from the schools in the towns from which the foreign students commute? Which is where, by the way? And, what do the losing schools think about “their” ADA money and smartest/most privileged students bailing from their communities?
Do Woodland Realtors promote the Davis education a buyer can have while living only a mile from Costco? But, I’ve digressed a little off topic….
PS–I think city policies [u]can[/u] help make Davis a more attractive environment to 25- to 44-year-olds and help make more housing financially achievable for young families. We do all kinds of other social engineering through city policy, leadership and emphasis. Just because we’ve been so unsuccessful at “affordable” housing for the poor, it doesn’t mean we can’t redirect our efforts to the more-well-off 25-44 demographic.
“I refer to your piece as tripe because you introduced ConAgra when the authors did not.”
While it is true that they never once mentioned ConAgra, to me that makes it worse off when there was a clear housing component to their prescriptive solution. You want to call it cynical, that’s fine, I am cynical. I like to see stuff transparently laid out on the table so people can decide if the policy pushed is the one that makes sense or if the author has ulterior motives.
” I like to see stuff transparently laid out on the table so people can decide if the policy pushed is the one that makes sense or if the author has ulterior motives.”
ulterior motives such as when you pushed wild horse ranch behind the scenes for your friends who owned it and were advertising on your blog? those kind of ulterior motives or some other kind?
[quote]“But Jeanne Jones works for developers, first for Lewis Homes and now on the ConAgra project….But Jeanne Jones is a paid consultant for a development that the piece at least implicitly pushes for, I think it should have been more out in the open. The average person reading it probably has no idea that she is on ConAgra’s payroll….Isn’t it important to know that this piece was promoting at least potentially a development for which one of the authors is a paid consultant on? You call it tripe, but isn’t that important….”[/quote] I’m with you in support of transparency and full disclosure, David. Not only in matters of government, but also in public media. Whenever somebody’s promoting some project or trying to influence some government action, we should know if they show up with an interest conflict or a bias or disguised as something they aren’t.
I just got around to reading the op-ed on line this evening. Now, I’m wondering what got you so worked up since the three writers were identified with their pro-business connection/government relations roles and both the CofC selfish mission (advance their membership’s interests) and its broader “community quality of life” mission.
Now that the [u]Enterprise[/u] has clearly put us on notice of their pro-business leanings, I figure you must really have been offended by they way they were able to blatantly promote ConAgra’s cause which (full disclosure) you have vehemently opposed. You write that the op-ed is “pushing for” the ConAgra development proposal. And that the piece “promoting” the development. Now, I’m perplexed, since the trio did not mention the project at all.
Back to what the article [u]is[/u] about. An invitation to the public to “join the discussion” about an apparently unique, dramatic shift in the city’s demographics in the last decade. Unusual reductions in the 25-34 and 35-44 populations, losses in our employment base, fewer people in the entrepreneur age bracket, young families moving from Davis yet keeping their children in our schools(!), a shortage of peppy lifestyle opportunities, aging neighborhoods without kids to attract families with kids, and the need for housing that young families can afford.
I found the Fleeman-Dodsworth-Jones article kind of intriguing–Davis on its way to becoming a gowns and geezers community, slowly losing the youthful vitality that we appreciated when we arrived? Maybe, maybe not–I’d like to see more data. But, it’s an op-ed, not a city-contracted study.[quote]“[i]It is clever that they would not mention housing until nearly the end of their article, when in fact, this is not an article about jobs but housing.”[/i][/quote]Maybe, but I almost lost that single reference buried at the bottom of the other 653 words, including a dozen that referred to jobs. It would have been even more clever to spell it “gnisuoh” and print it on the sports page.
David: There is no ConAgra Dilemma. UCD is in the process of vacating large amounts of space that they occupy off-campus and that, in turn, is opening up plenty of inventory to support our tepid rate of economic development. There are also smaller parcels all over the city that still need to be adsorbed. As a consequence, there’s no need to annex land for a business park. The argument that ConAgra needs to be preserved for future economic development is bogus.
“ulterior motives such as when you pushed wild horse ranch behind the scenes for your friends who owned it and were advertising on your blog?”
I never pushed anything behind the scenes.
“Maybe, but I almost lost that single reference buried at the bottom of the other 653 words, including a dozen that referred to jobs.”
It was a single reference but at the same time where the entire piece was going.
“There is no ConAgra Dilemma. UCD is in the process of vacating large amounts of space that they occupy off-campus and that, in turn, is opening up plenty of inventory to support our tepid rate of economic development.”
That’s not going to free up the type of land needed to draw in the bigger high tech spinoffs. If you read the business park report that the city is pushing, you will see what I mean.
Mr. Toad
A note on unintended consequences.
You seem to feel that those of us who are very selective in the type og growth that we would like to see have not considered the adverse effects of our position. What you do not seem to acknowledge is that we may have weighed the pros and cons of less vs more growth and favor the set that accompanies slow growth. All choices have unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of rapid growth are crowding, pollution, increased crime, greater infrastructure costs, loss of small town community ambience….
There are many choices of places to live in California that share these traits. I have lived in many of them over the years. There are relatively few places that have the unique combination of a first rate university immediately adjacent to a small, warm, welcoming community. I think that the relatively unique atmosphere that this engenders is worth preserving, and yes, paying for.
Another aspect of the growth issue that you fail to touch upon is it’s irreversibility. While we retain space to grow, that remains an option for us for future consideration as the economic and demographic patterns change. Once the development has occurred, we are locked into it with both it’s positive and negative implications. I would not belabor this seemingly obvious point were it not so pertinent in the case of ConAgra.
Here we are being asked to accept a development which is essentially the same high end residential suburban, car dependent, model that characteriiizes much of Davis with a little ( 20 %) window dressing built in. We are being asked to accept it at a time of prolonged economic downturn when there is no demonstrated need for yet another development of this type. And, we are being asked to accept it in a suboptimal location with admittedly poor access. I happen to feel that the cons out weigh the pros for this, and any more of the high end projects that are likely to be submitted by our developers. Now, if someone were to come up with a creative proposal for an affordable and innovative project,
And yes, it can be done (think Village Homes) I would be very receptive to consider the individual pros and cons. Just as I hope we all do for each proposal.
David: I have read the staff’s business park report. It’s an embarrassingly incompetent work product that goes a long way towards explaining our terrible economic development track record.
Regarding your point about high tech spinoffs, they start small and a small minority are successful and grow. The existing space in town is more than adequate to serve these users. If Katehi can reorganize UCD so that it is more effective at spinning out high tech companies (and I remain skeptical that she will succeed where all her predecessors have failed), then we will have several years of lead time before space becomes a significant issue. We should be so lucky as to have this problem.
If you meant to make a point about recruiting established companies, then the ConAgra site is still not the answer – too many disqualifiers. Poor freeway proximity. Residential on two (and ultimately three) sides. Zoning issues. No land owner buy-in. Infrastructure issues. Adsorption issues. Economic feasibility. The list goes on.
In my mind, the only “ConAgra Dilemma” is how such a dumb economic development idea has persisted for so long in such an educated community.
You may want to add that Jeanne Jones was president of the chamber of commerce and has been a part of the chamber for 23 years, much longer than she has been a part of the cannery park project. To give people the impression that she is a just developer and that’s why she helped with this piece is incorrect. Is it true that in the last ten years the only two age groups that have seen any increase in population are college students and those over 55 ??? Is it true that people 25-34 in davis lost 25% of that group in the last 10 years? This is the same rate of population change seen in Ireland during the great potato famine and close to the same numbers seen in Europe during many of the great plauge out breaks. What future does davis have if we can’t even get our kids or UCD students to stay around? In the last ten years more than 70,000 students and young people who lived or went to school in davis decided not to stay in davis. I Should point out that I am one of those people who left davis and that I’m the son of Jeanne Jones, you will also notice I’m not hiding behind a screen name. I am one of the countless people who have been saying for years that our age group can’t wait to leave town for many reasons. Only now with the new census data has she seen and others that it wasn’t their kids complaining like all kids about the place they live but that something very dramatic was going on with the make up of the population. It doesn’t take a college grad to realize what this means for the economy, local business and the community as a whole but it does say something that the college grads are fleeing town and not staying to work or have families or create jobs by starting a business. Do you see the two age groups that increased having a lot in common or interacting with each other? For the record my mother Jeanne Jones and I do not and have not agreed on much in the last 35 years but this census data is very important to the community and should be talked about and not spun as a tool for cannery park. I agree with you that as designed now Cannery Park will not reverse this trend and create the large number of jobs and affordable housing that davis needs but it shouldn’t be the responsibility of a private land owner to fix the probloms that the whole community created. It’s more than just jobs and housing cost even though those are two very important (maybe the two most important factors) on why young people and families are leaving or choosing not to move to Davis, it’s also that Davis kind of sucks! I’m sorry to say it and I know this will upset some people but it’s true. The town is focused on the college kids and how to get money out of them and on endless self promotion about how wonderful Davis is and how great of a place it is to raise a family and how important our children are. Well what happenend to the teen center? So a bike museum that everyone said from the begining needed to be in a larger building was more important than your kids teen center, and you wonder why they can’t wait to get out of town. I challenge your readers to use their names and not hide behind some screen name. These are very important matters that should be talked about openly. Having a free and open society means we will have very diffirent opinions from each other but we can’t pretend that something isn’t very wrong with Davis and the census data proves it. Davis is the only town in the area that lost population in the groups of 0-18, 25-34, 35-44 and 45-54. This is a fact that we need to talk about and why is this going on in Davis if we have so much to offer and do we really have that much to offer.
Thanks, Bryce, I love your post (and I also happen to really like your mom).
My 23 y/o son, and nearly every employee I’ve ever had, have been in or close to this age demographic. With only a couple of exceptions they have rented in Davis, and paid that Davis surcharge that results from the lack of rental housing. Occasionally one will move to a nearby community to save money, but the transit options are very limited.
Very, very few people in that age group can buy houses right now. No developer is building, nor has any proposed, a project that would build houses for their age group. Instead, we get proposals for half-million-dollar condominiums, or housing projects that would require $100K+ to qualify for a mortgage. No builder has proposed any project that addresses the lack of affordable rental housing. So the voters keep getting the option of a straight yes or no vote on another fancy subdivision, and then get blamed as being ‘no-growth’ when they reject it.
As I’ve said before: [i]Davis needs rental housing, several hundred units at least. [/i] That is the only thing that will reverse the demographic trend, if anything will.
The least-represented group in this town (other than teenagers) is young adults 18 – 30 who aren’t UCD students. They work in your retail shops, as UCD staffers, and in support positions all over town. But they have to pay more to live here. Yet only the university is building housing for them, and it is not only restricted but being priced above the market average.
To Bryce Jones: Thanks for your insightful comments. Some I agree w, some I do not. Firstly, I don’t think a lot of people remain in the towns they went to college in. Often they come from somewhere else to attend college, then return to their own hometowns or move to where they are able to obtain employment. So the fact that many students who graduate from UCD do not remain is not that surprising and may or may not have anything to do with the town itself.
It is not clear that young families with children are decreasing in significant numbers in Davis. We heard this from the school administration, claiming decreasing enrollment was going to cause problems for the schools. But the decrease never really materialized. This may be because of the perceived excellence of the schools in Davis as compared to the surrounding areas and the inter-transfer students from outside the area. Also, people may be coming/leaving CA in general for many reasons. Who knows. Populations fluctuate, and it is very difficult to put a reason to any of it.
But some things are certain. I agree w your assessment of the move to kick the teens out of what used to be the Teen Center to make way for the bicycle museum. That was NOT one of Davis’ finer moments. Supposedly the excuse given was the Teen Center was “underutilized”. Yet the Bicycle Museum certainly doesn’t seem very busy. I go by it often, and not a soul is there. It is my understanding it is only open 2 days a week. The entire episode was shameful in the extreme.
And as Don Shor has noted, there is not enough rental housing. Nor is there enough housing for young families that they can afford. And it does not seem like the Cannery is going to fit either bill…
“All choices have unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of rapid growth are crowding, pollution, increased crime, greater infrastructure costs, loss of small town community ambience…. “
The fact that there are always unintended consequences does not get you off the hook for evaluating the ones you are responsible for creating. As for the usual nimby list of fears of development; Davis is not crowded, much of the crime is from people from other communities coming here by freeway, infrastructure costs can actually be reduced by growth as I suggested with charging for hookups for water, pollution will be reduced if people who live in the leap frog developments of Woodland, West Sac or Dixon could move closer in and have shorter commutes and Davis could easily triple in size without much change in ambiance or crowding. The problem is that the economics that has made Davis livable for you are changing and the exclusionary policies of the recent past are no longer sustainable and to that I say thank god!
Mr. Toad
And the factual basis for your assertion that Davis could triple in size without much change in ambience or crowding would be ?
You and I simply see this issue very differently. Davis has tripled in size since I first came here for medical school in 1979. It is my observation that there has been a tremendous change in the ambience since I first got here, and I do not believe that tripling in size would not again change the character of the town. One of the reasons that I chose to live and raise my children in Davis was precisely the small town ambience that some feel makes Davis “suck”. I think it is completely understandable that different people will have different values and preferences. In our cultural, it is considered acceptable to promote your own point of view. What I do not understand is the seeming need to make derogatory and stereotypical comments such as “nimby” and other labels that are frequently used to characterize others with whom one disagrees.
So you came here in 1979 for med school. Now I know its impolite to ask a woman her age, but, this is about demographics. So lets assume that in 1979 you were 22 plus 32 that makes you at least 54 not the demographic that the census shows is declining. You paid how much for a home in the 80 or 90’s? You paid $50/square foot? You make what $100,000 or $200,000/year as a doctor, maybe more? So the problem is not your situation it is the situation for those who are paying $250-300 a square foot and can’t afford all these extra costs now adding thousands a year to tax bills that are already likely to be substantially higher than what you pay in taxes unless you have moved to a more expensive home in the last decade. It is those higher prices for those who came after you that are no longer sustainable that are changing the dynamics of the situation.
So for you to claim its worth it misses the point of the article completely which is that the unintended consequences of policies held in place over the last decade or two have made Davis a hollowed out community of aging boomers and seniors masked only by the presence of a college age population of students, who, by the way, are forced to live in high density conditions, not because of lack of space, but rather because of some romantic notion that soil is more important than the living conditions of humans. It is a living condition that seeks to deny access out of some irrational fear sparked by what you learned as an undergraduate in the 70’s from Paul Ehrlich.
Of course densification is great for those who impose it upon others without living in it themselves. But I can tell you from experience it really sucks when a bunch of smokers move into the apartment next door and do so while drinking beer on the lawn outside of where you are trying to raise children because you have been saving forever to buy a home in Davis where the schools are good but the prices are sky high because people like yourself have so successfully constricted supply. Of course the high rents make those smokers and drinkers double or triple up compounding their impact upon others around them.
So when I talk about Davis doubling or tripling I’m thinking of the people who could move onto the periphery and spread out and I’m thinking of the people who are already here but live on leapfrog developments in Woodland but work here and might also bring their kids here for school. The people are already here they just sleep in Woodland, Dixon, Dunnigan, West Sac, Natomas or Winters. Additionally of those who live here 1/3 are doctors of one sort or another MD, JD, EdD, PhD etc. As one woman told my wife at soccer what kind of place do you need to be a doctor in order to afford a home? A place where the cops, teachers and fire fighters that serve their community can’t afford to live. A place where educational diversity is so exclusive of others. All of this not because of any geographic constraints like you would find in San Francisco. No the limits to growth are self imposed by a collective territoriality that demands that once you have established territory you don’t allow anyone else in. A behavior that, by the way, can be observed in the famous rat city experiment.
So if you are insulted by being labeled a nimby let me assure you that it is actually worse than that because nimfy (Not in my front yard) would be a better description because here in Davis the people have demanded, and won, property rights that extend into the street prohibiting non-residents from even parking in front of their homes. Of course hurpies (hip upwardly mobile rural professionals) need only apply if they are doctors of one sort or another. Otherwise the economics of housing in Davis don’t allow you in.
To Mr. Toad: I agree w some of what you say, but no entirely. Densification is happening all over – which is unfortunate. Long gone are the days when everyone owned their own little patch of yard and had some space between their neighbors and a fairly spacious home to call their own. Also, it has always been the case that there are wealthier communities to which everyone aspires but few can afford. Thus often people who work in the wealthy communities have to live where they can afford and commute to work. This is not unique to Davis, and has been going on all over the nation from time immemorial…
“Thus often people who work in the wealthy communities have to live where they can afford and commute to work. This is not unique to Davis, and has been going on all over the nation from time immemorial…”
Yes but here it is self imposed as an unintended consequence of a model that is no longer viable. Its now to the point where this community excludes their own children. Its so sad.
Mr Toad
First I would like to point out that your first paragraph assumptions about me are fairly accurate. From there on, you demonstrate exactly the stereotypical thinking that goes along with name calling and branding of those with whom you disagree. My background is rural poor.
I lived in the kind of housing you describe, and worse for many years. So please do not attempt to play the “more blue collar than you card.” By the time I got to Davis, I had saved enough while working full time and taking a full premed course load to allow me to share student housing type apartments with one to two others through medical school. I knew I could not afford Davis immediately but when it was time to buy our first house, we bought in a much less expensive community and saved, and saved, and saved. Yes, there were no trips to Europe,
or ski trips on the weekends or fancy electronics, but we made the decision to look at the long run and where we ultimately wanted to live.
What you do not understand, or perhaps choose to ignore about my position is that I would love to see affordable housing. I would love for the city to make that a major priority. I would love to see plans put forward for communities that had offerings for low and mid income groups.
I would love to see this community decide to put major funding into prioritizing housing our homeless rather than building unnecessary parking garages. unfortunately what I see being proposed over and over again are the same, suburban developments with their $400,000 and up predominant houses, which would not have helped me when I first arrived, and will not help that demographic now. So, you are right, while I welcome low income housing in my neighborhood (old east Davis) I do not welcome yet another sterile, car dependent, bedroom community that only the wealthy will be able to afford even if it is dressed up with a few innovative ideas to make it more palatable such as the current
ConAgra proposal. Ok as Elaine would say, now I will get off my soapbox.