Sac Bee Editorial Calls Cannery a “Worthy” Project

Share:

Cannery-Park-Land-Plan-Feb-2013

Can you imagine an editorial board for a paper the size of the Sacramento Bee writing an editorial urging a relatively small town’s city council to approve a relatively modest housing project?  It is difficult to picture a major newspaper writing about any other community’s housing development, as the Bee writes about Davis’ Cannery project.

And yet here we are in this morning’s paper, with just such an editorial.  We are talking about a 547-unit project with some commercial elements on 7 of the project’s 100 acres.

“The city of Davis should show its support for smart growth by approving an innovative housing, retail and office project on the long-dormant site of an old cannery off the city’s main east-west street,” the editorial board writes.

They add, “The project makes sense for a city and region that is concerned about urban sprawl onto prime farmland. As it is envisioned, the project would be an example of infill within city limits, and provide housing in a university town that needs it.”

After a brief description of the project that “would include small eateries and artisan food vendors, a bike loop and 547 single-family homes and apartments of varied types on roughly 100 acres,” they state that the developers “propose 19 acres of park and open space, including a 7-acre farm, organic, of course.”

“There would be retail and office space so people could work near where they live,” the Bee adds.

The Bee has been pushing for more development in Davis for years – taking turns mocking the community for its slow growth tendencies and prodding the town to think bigger.  But there is no denying the intention conveyed about the importance of Davis to the region, with its top-notch university and its potential as an economic engine.

Despite this, the Bee’s focus has often exclusively been on land use.

Here they argue, “Families with school-age children often look to Davis, knowing the public schools are top-flight. But they quickly realize that they are priced out of the housing market and settle in Woodland or other towns.”

At the same time, they acknowledge some discrepancies between their hopes and the reality of the project.

They note, “Houses would run from $350,000 to almost $800,000. The high-end would hardly be affordable for young families. But the project offers a possibility that some families might find homes.”

The Bee adds, “Developers also plan to pay attention to the needs of a graying population by including some small single-story homes without yards.”

“A concrete slab and steel gate is all that’s left of the tomato processing plant. It’s the last large parcel in Davis not zoned for agriculture or open space. That means it could be developed without a vote of the residents, although project opponents threaten a referendum if the council approves the development,” the Bee writes.

They add, “Some critics say they hope the site could be used for manufacturing. The region could use factory jobs. But while the cannery is close to a rail line, there is no easy way to transport goods to Interstates 5 or 80, or the airport.”

At the same time, access issues continue to be a concern.

The Bee notes, “As it’s configured, the project would include two exits for vehicles, and one undercrossing for bicycles and pedestrians. As many as 9,800 vehicles a day would use the intersections.”

The Bee writes that Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza “has been trying to persuade the developers to construct additional paths under Davis’ main east-west street, Covell Boulevard, for bikes and foot traffic.” They argue, “His ideas are worthy, but not if they make the project financially unviable.”

The Bee fails to argue whether that is the case, and instead continues, “Cannery developers promise to pay special attention to energy efficiency, as the city’s environment-conscious residents should expect. Toward this end, the developers ought to pay special heed to foot and pedal power.”

“Californians have seen too many developers bulldoze local officials, turning prime farmland into shoddy developments that don’t live up to their promises. No one could accuse the developers of ramming through approval of the Cannery project,” the Bee argues.

They continue, giving the Vanguard a plug, “The Davis planning commission will hold another hearing this week. The City Council is expected to take up the development in hearings in October and November. The Davis Enterprise and the online Davis Vanguard have been running lengthy reports detailing all aspects of the project. Democracy is alive and well in Davis.”

The Bee concludes, “The old Hunt-Wesson cannery closed in 1999. Fourteen seasons later, the city is coming close to approving a replacement. Davis leaders and residents should seize the opportunity, and provide a model for developments elsewhere in the region.”

We consider it a bit odd that a paper with the size and scope of the Sacramento Bee would be concerned enough with a 547-unit housing development in a nearby town of 65,000, but we will take it as a compliment to the importance that they see this community to the larger region.

Agree or disagree with their take, one thing rings true – “Democracy is alive and well in Davis.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

94 thoughts on “Sac Bee Editorial Calls Cannery a “Worthy” Project”

  1. medwoman

    [quote]But the project offers a possibility that some families might find homes.”
    [/quote]

    Damning with faint praise ? “A [u]possibiliity[/u] that [u]some[/u] families [u]might[/u] find homes” ?
    I couldn’t have expressed one of my concerns better.

  2. Growth Izzue

    [quote]“Democracy is alive and well in Davis.”[/quote]

    Yes indeed, especially when the likely Cannery passage by the council causes the people to go to a referendum and a vote.

  3. JustSaying

    “Can you imagine an editorial board for a paper the size of the Sacramento Bee writing an editorial urging a relatively small town’s city council to approve a relatively modest housing project?”

    Yes, of course. Davis is not a gnat. We are a affluent, major suburb, and well within the Bee’s circulation area. Can you imagine a newspaper ignoring a nearby suburb of 60,000?

    This proposed subdivision already has been covered by the Bee because it has generated such controversy in a quirky town with significant subscribers. The Bee looks for stories to cover to help increase circulation and justify its role as an advertiser. And, as you point out, the Bee has a history of covering land use issues here.

    No, not surprising at all.

    A bigger question is how the Bee did with its editorial. I haven’t read it yet, but everything you report here suggests that it’s totally accurate and right on.

  4. Matt Williams

    David Greenwald said . . .

    “Can you imagine an editorial board for a paper the size of the Sacramento Bee writing an editorial urging a relatively small town’s city council to approve a relatively modest housing project?”

    I have no problem imagining that at all. I suspect the Bee’s circulation in Davis significantly exceeds the circulation of the Enterprise, perhaps more than doubles it. Add in all the Davis residents who read the Bee at their place of work or at their favorite coffee house but don’t subscribe. Can you imagine that the combination of all those factors makes the target audience of this editorial pretty significant in numbers?

    With that said, it is an opinion piece and only represents their opinion. We all have opinions about this project. Some want Council to call for a vote on it. Others want to see any vote be qualified by a signature gathering campaign for a referendum . Others have an opinion, but aren’t really engaged enough to share that opinion.

    Democracy is indeed alive and well in Davis.

  5. David M. Greenwald

    It seems like a lot of people caught the first part of my point, but not the second – “But there is no denying the intention conveyed about the importance of Davis to the region, with its top-notch university and its potential as an economic engine.”

    And, “We consider it a bit odd that a paper with the size and scope of the Sacramento Bee would be concerned enough with a 547-unit housing development in a nearby town of 65,000, but we will take it as a compliment to the importance that they see this community to the larger region.”

  6. Frankly

    Davis wants to soar in self-congradulatory relevancy for the region, the state, the nation and the world… yet it still believes it has the right to fly below the radar of everyone except those lucky enough to have already located here.

  7. biddlin

    2cowherd-agree on arena. I was ready to help the team pack.
    My dream Sacramento metropolitan area is much larger in scale, consisting of a an entertainment, sports and shopping complex spanning the river from West Sacramento to Downtown Sacramento, offering real “World Class” amenities instead of just the Gold Rush kitsch. Too big for Sacramento’s brains, I guess. Sorry to derail your thread, David. I’m sure the “progressives” will hold out until Davis is “Heaven’s waiting room”,to acknowledge the value in new homes and new blood. Glad you managed to slip in under the “no growth” wire.
    Biddlin ;>)/

  8. Don Shor

    [url]http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/23/5759277/bay-area-investors-commuters-driving.html[/url]
    I’m sure this trend will continue north, as Davis becomes even more fertile ground for Bay Area folks to commute from.

  9. JimmysDaughter

    This project does little to solve the housing problems in Davis: absentee landlords, slum landlords, and over-priced rentals. A normal middle class person has a very difficult time finding a clean, well maintained home in Davis. I rented four homes in Davis, form 1994 through 2012. Only one of them was well maintained. I rented a 3 bedroom home on Cowell. The owner refused to fix the air conditioner the entire month of July. He also removed a huge, beautiful old tree without going through the proper paperwork. My landlord in North Davis, a doctor, and his wife, told me they were glad to rent to me, because another applicant was a homosexual couple. When my husband and I separated, the same doctor refused to renew my lease. He said “now that your husband doesn’t live here, you probably won’t be able to maintain the house and the yard.” Of course, he also tried to keep my cleaning deposit even though the entire house was cleaned. Another landlord refused to fix my oven for 6 weeks. She brought me an old microwave with a $15 sticker on it. She bought it at a thrift store. That home was on Oak Avenue.It had black mold in the bathroom;she had illegally added on a bedroom in the back of the house. She rented the house to me before a building inspector approved the bedroom. I had no idea. She also wanted to charge me extra for her garage, as if we lived in San Francisco! My neighbors informed me she came into my home with her spare key when I was at work, without my permission. Davis is not a good place to rent a home. Landlords take advantage of students, and they overcharge. I moved from Davis over a year ago and I am so much happier, owning a new home, in a college town, with a great climate, and friendly people.I could never have afforded anything like my current home in Davis, for twice the price. I would like to hear from other people who have rented homes from unscrupulous landlords in Davis. In my opinion, this one project will not solve the terrible housing problems in Davis.

  10. Ryan Kelly

    I am actually warming up to this project. Joe Krovosa’s encouragement to build additional bike access is spot on and I seriously doubt that doing this will make the project “unviable.”

    I also support having the arena move to the downtown area. Just look at AT&T park to see how this could revitalize that area and provide a reason to expand public transportation in the region.

    Face it, we are a bedroom community for Sacramento and the Bay Area. That’s where the jobs are.

  11. SouthofDavis

    JimmysDaughter wrote:

    > I am so much happier, owning a new home,
    > in a college town, with a great climate,
    > and friendly people.I could never have
    > afforded anything like my current home in
    > Davis, for twice the price.

    Glad to hear you are happy now, It sounds like things almost never went well for you in Davis.

    Mind if I ask the name of the college town with the great climate, friendly people and homes 1/2 the price of Davis?

  12. Frankly

    Ah yes, apartments. You have been reasonably consistent with your opinion that all new housing development in Davis needs to be apartments. I think that you, and I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong, base your acceptance of new housing as being what is required for the UCD student population. Your thinking is that new apartments would cause a drop in house rentals as students would prefer apartments. And then, because of the drop in demand for student housing rentals, we would see these be converted into single-family homes for sale. And this, in-turn, would satisfy your minimalist acceptance of any increase in single-family homes.

    I have a few questions.

    1. To what do you base your assumption that the demand for student house rentals would decrease with added supply of apartments? Unless you can point to some real data, your opinion on this is really a wild guess. It is just as likely that there is some inelastic demand for a certain percentage of the student population to desire a multi-student single-family home rental rather than apartment rental. For example, some students have pets and want a yard.

    2. How would you prevent those wealthy bay area commuters from snatching up those few rentals that come up for sale after your hypothetical drop in demand from the new apartments being built?

    3. What is the downside to having a percentage of Sacramento and Bay Area commuters living in Davis? And since you don’t support significant business growth, how do you suggest we influence or control these undesirable people from buying up our small supply of available single-family homes?

    4. What is to prevent these undesirable outsiders from renting those new apartments?

  13. SouthofDavis

    Davis asks:

    > Can you imagine an editorial board for a paper the
    > size of the Sacramento Bee writing an editorial urging
    > a relatively small town’s city council to approve a
    > relatively modest housing project?

    I read something a while back that said that new home ads (and inserts) are one of the major (remaining) sources of revenue for most newspapers. As the amount of newspaper ads continue to shrink we are going to see more and more newspapers saying just about anything to help out their remaining advertisers to try and avoid more layoffs (and forced early retirements that have impacted some of my relatives who were sent out in to the job market after 30+ years in the newspaper business).

  14. Don Shor

    [quote]Ah yes, apartments. You have been reasonably consistent with your opinion that all new housing development in Davis needs to be apartments. [/quote]
    I have not said that. I have said that rental housing for young adults is clearly our greatest housing deficiency.

    [quote]I think that you, and I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong, base your acceptance of new housing as being what is required for the UCD student population. [/quote]
    Of course. And for the non-student renters who work here.

    [quote]Your thinking is that new apartments would cause a drop in house rentals as students would prefer apartments. [/quote]
    Possibly. We aren’t really there yet. We are so far behind in the number of beds we need, that we just need to catch up first. We are thousands of beds behind.

    [quote]And then, because of the drop in demand for student housing rentals, we would see these be converted into single-family homes for sale. [/quote]

    See above.

    [quote]And this, in-turn, would satisfy your minimalist acceptance of any increase in single-family homes. 

[/quote]

    With limited space available for development, I would prioritize the greatest need. Single-family homes are not our community’s greatest need.

    [quote]I have a few questions. 

1. To what do you base your assumption that the demand for student house rentals would decrease with added supply of apartments? Unless you can point to some real data, your opinion on this is really a wild guess. It is just as likely that there is some inelastic demand for a certain percentage of the student population to desire a multi-student single-family home rental rather than apartment rental. For example, some students have pets and want a yard. 

[/quote]
    Absolutely. Also, see above.

    [quote]2. How would you prevent those wealthy bay area commuters from snatching up those few rentals that come up for sale after your hypothetical drop in demand from the new apartments being built? [/quote]
    You wouldn’t. Can’t be done.

    

[quote]3. What is the downside to having a percentage of Sacramento and Bay Area commuters living in Davis? [/quote]
    None, but there is little point in rezoning and developing our limited acreage for that purpose.

    [quote]And since you don’t support significant business growth, [/quote]
    I do support significant business growth.

    [quote]how do you suggest we influence or control these undesirable people from buying up our small supply of available single-family homes? 

[/quote]
    I didn’t call them undesirable. And we can’t.

    [quote]4. What is to prevent these undesirable outsiders from renting those new apartments? [/quote]
    I didn’t call them undesirable. And the answer is that they would have almost zero reason to move to Davis to rent an apartment, and then commute to the Bay Area or Sacramento.

  15. JustSaying

    Don Shor says:

    “Apartments.”

    The last time we discussed this topic, you favorably compared mobile home park development and apartment house development for Davis. When I did not support the first one (NIMBY), you played the “prejudice card” on me, asking why apartments are fine but mobile homes are not.

    After I provided legitimate reasons that I don’t think more mobile home parks would be good for Davis, I asked:

    “I’m curious where you think would be a good place to construct a trailer park in Davis and why it would be better than putting an apartment on the same spot.”

    Since you may have missed my question at the tail end of the conversation, I’m trying again. I’m still curious.

  16. Don Shor

    I think that if any of the existing mobile home parks wish to expand, I would hope there would be no obstacles to them doing so. Mobile home parks, duplexes, quadriplexes, and apartments are all good types of housing for those at lower incomes. The least effective way to provide affordable housing and reduce the rental housing crunch is construction of single-family homes.

  17. Davis Progressive

    ryan: that’s not really true in terms of the jobs. the biggest employer is uc davis. if the folks trying to produce spinoffs and start ups are successful, davis will be a town with a number of vital industries that can keep talent inside the city. so the idea that davis is a bedroom community is not that accurate. there are a number of people who work in sac and commute, like myself, but many of us live here because we have a spouse working at ucd.

  18. EastCoastTransplant

    Cities always want to hold out for the best deal: kickbacks and huge tax revenue potential, with no additional impact on city infrastructure. Such a project doesn’t exist. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    What annoys me are the people who are willing to try to abuse our democratic processes solely to derail a project on ridiculous grounds – there will never be successful manufacturing there again, because there’s no access (as stated in the article).

    Our real options are a mall (will fail with no access), an office park (would be great if you had any tenants in hand), infrastructure/education (redundant and a tax-loser), or this sort of mixed-use residential (probably the best we can do).

  19. EastCoastTransplant

    Sorry about the double, just saw Don Shor’s post. Of course we need more beds. Apartments would be most beneficial close to campus. If residential density is increased near campus, then there can be room for decreased density farther from campus. Increasing density miles away, on the wrong side of downtown, is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The students will have a place to sleep, but no way to get to school except directly through downtown. The increased retail sales would likely be offset by the inefficiency from increased congestion and the additional infrastructure burden.

  20. Don Shor

    There are apartments right next to the Cannery site, and further up Sycamore, and all over South Davis, and far off in West Davis. Assuming reliable transportation, the distance from the Cannery site would not be an issue. It would be great if there were higher-density housing closer in; even better would be on campus. But it’s going to take all of that. We have a deficit of thousands of beds.

  21. SouthofDavis

    Don wrote:

    > We are so far behind in the number of beds we need,
    > that we just need to catch up first. We are thousands
    > of beds behind.

    If we are “THOUSANDS” of beds behind why has Davis (the city and UC) averaged around a “THOUSAND” beds sitting empty (in town and on campus) over the last few years?

  22. SouthofDavis

    EastCoastTransplant wrote:

    > Increasing density miles away, on the wrong side
    > of downtown, is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The
    > students will have a place to sleep, but no way
    > to get to school except directly through downtown.

    Great point and makes the fact that the city does not want students to live in the new complex across from the Farmers Market even more silly…

  23. SouthofDavis

    Don writes:

    > Our apartment vacancy rate is 1.7%.

    The city of Davis (not counting any vacant units on the UC Campus or the county) had a 1.7% vacancy rate at the last UCD survey (Don does not mention that the number of units sitting vacant in the survey is half as low as it has been over the last few years).

    A vacancy rate of 1.7% means that 137 units were sitting vacant (that the landlords were trying to rent) at the time of the survey. I’m not arguing that Davis can use some more apartments (and I’m in favor of the Cannery project that includes more apartments), but we are not “thousands” of units (as Don says) short of our needs if year after year we have “hundreds” of units that landlords can’t rent.

  24. Don Shor

    Sigh. Ok, I’ll post all the data again.

    Based on data from UCD housing and their own surveys:
    Enrollment 1997: 24,299
    Enrollment 2012: 32,354
    Increase in enrollment: 8,055

    Total Apartments 1997: 7,591 Vacancy rate: 1.4%
    Total Apartments 2012: 8,032 Vacancy rate: 1.7%
    Increase number of apartments: 441

    So with all the new buildings added, and all the units torn down, UCD and the city of Davis have added less than 500 units in 15 years. The vacancy rate has varied, but only once has it exceeded 4%. During 11 of the 15 years it has been less than 2%.

    Please put these numbers in front of John Meyer. 8,000 new students, 441 net increase in apartments. Do you see why I say West Village barely covers the past insufficiency in housing for previous enrollment increases? In fact, it doesn’t even do that. And it certainly won’t cover the need for 5,000 more beds.

    What does West Village provide?
    “A home for 3,000 students, faculty and staff. At build-out, the project will include 662 apartments, 343 single-family homes, 42,500 square feet of commercial space, a recreation center and study facilities. The development also includes a site for a preschool/day care center.”

    So UCD is adding 5000 students by 2020, 300+ faculty, probably at least 300+ staff, large numbers of graduate students.
    We have a deficit of 7500 beds already.
    They are adding a need for 5000 beds just for the student enrollment increase.
    Total need: 12,500 beds.
    They’re adding 3000 beds.

  25. Don Shor

    In the absence of apartments, where do the students go when they leave the on-campus housing in their second year and up? Out into the lower-cost housing in town, where the homes that young families would purchase are occupied by groups of students. Building high-end housing to allow affordability to trickle down to young families has not worked in the past, because UC Davis has not provided their share of housing.

    West Village won’t cover the deficit from the past fifteen years. It won’t even begin to cover the increased enrollment by 2020. So all the housing proposed for the cannery site will barely put a dent in the demand created by the absence of housing needed for young adults. 
Squeezed in all of this are the young adults who live here and work for our businesses and on campus. They pay a premium due to the low vacancy rate. Or they move out of Davis and commute in. With the very poor transit options coming into Davis from surrounding communities, they almost invariably drive.

    From the current vacancy rate survey:
    “Changes in housing stock
    In fall 2012, UC Davis made available about 500 beds for incoming freshman in Primero Grove (third party owned and operated apartments on campus). This was done to compensate for lost beds at Pierce and Thille halls, which closed in June 2011 (800 beds). Castilian Hall was also closed with a loss of 495 beds. Construction began in 2012 for a 1,200-bed housing project to open in the fall of 2014. The Castilian buildings have been demolished and Real Estate Services is negotiating a ground lease to repurpose the location for single graduate student housing.”

    UCD has barely added to its housing stock. To repeat: West Village doesn’t even cover the deficit from 15 years of minimal net increase. The city has barely added apartments in that same time period, but fortunately quite a few were added in the previous decade. If they build out West Village, and no new apartments are added citywide, the vacancy rate will likely be below 2% for a decade or more. The only remaining large site that could house a large number of students and young adults is the cannery site. Or it could have a business park. Both of those uses would fulfill provable needs. The current plan does not.

    Bottom line: student renters are a significant factor in the shortage of affordable single family homes. And duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are often the housing of choice for young families.

    I really believe the housing shortage caused by UCD’s failure to provide in the past, coupled with the enrollment increases of the Chancellor’s 2020 initiative, create the most pressing planning problem facing the city of Davis.

    We need to be realistic about the impact of UCD’s growth. We need thousands of beds. Divide # of beds by 2.5 – 3 to get # of housing units needed.
    We have tradeoffs between land for businesses and land for housing, with Measure R hanging over all decisions.

    I’ve given the numbers; you can see the housing shortfall. The city needs to partner with UCD in providing this housing, and both entities need to get going on it soon. 


    So as I look at a development proposal, my question is whether it meets the community’s needs in anything like the priority of urgency. First: lower-cost housing that will be effective in bringing down the rental vacancy rate. Second: economic development. Last on my list would be more homes at the high end of the price range. I fully understand those are most profitable. But that isn’t the community’s issue.

  26. medwoman

    [quote]no way to get to school except directly through downtown[/quote]

    This is incorrect if you are discussing the Cannery site or nearby apartments. The most direct routine would not be through downtown but rather to follow Covell to Anderson. A left on Anderson drops you directly onto the west side of the central campus. I know because I made the ride for several years when the medical school was still in Davis.

  27. Don Shor

    [quote](Don does not mention that the number of units sitting vacant in the survey is half as low as it has been over the last few years). [/quote]
    That’s not true.
    [img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDvacancyrate.jpg[/img]
    And taking it back further:
    [img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDvacancyrateolder.jpg[/img]

  28. SouthofDavis

    I wrote:

    > Don does not mention that the number of units
    > sitting vacant in the survey is half as low as
    > it has been over the last few years).

    Then Don wrote:

    > That’s not true.

    Using Don’s numbers posted above:

    Most recent vacancy report of 1.7% = 136.5 apartment units
    Total average vacent units/year over “last few years” = 298.0
    Half of 268.0 = 134.0 units, pretty close to double the current vacant unit number of 136.5.

    I’m trying to lie to anyone and I’m wondering if Don thinks my math is wrong or is just making a big deal that the average vacancy from the last few years was 2.5/units/year away from being EXACTLY half of the most recent vacancy survey.

  29. Don Shor

    A healthy vacancy rate is 5%. When have we had a 5% vacancy rate? Ever? Never.
    If you’re trying to minimize the need for rental housing in Davis, you’re not doing a very persuasive job.

  30. SouthofDavis

    EastCoastTransplant wrote:

    > no way to get to school except directly through downtown

    Then medwoman wrote:

    > This is incorrect if you are discussing the Cannery
    > site or nearby apartments. The most direct routine
    > would not be through downtown but rather to follow
    > Covell to Anderson. A left on Anderson drops you
    > directly onto the west side of the central campus.
    > I know because I made the ride for several years when
    > the medical school was still in Davis.

    I think that EastCoastTransplant meant to write: “most students living at the Cannery will get to school through downtown” (or the roads on the border of “downtown”).

    Most of the students that live in the apartments across from the Cannery get to school going toward Downtown since it is ~2 miles to the center of campus vs. ~3 miles taking Covell to Anderson.

    I bet close to 90% of the UCD classes are East of Anderson/La Rue so we are not going to see many people taking Covell ~1/2 mile west of their classes so they can ride down Anderson and La Rue and backtrack ~1/2 mile to class.

  31. SouthofDavis

    Don wrote:

    > So as I look at a development proposal, my question
    > is whether it meets the community’s needs in anything
    > like the priority of urgency. First: lower-cost housing
    > that will be effective in bringing down the rental
    > vacancy rate. Last on my list would be more homes at
    > the high end of the price range

    Lower cost apartments will result in more students and lower income people (often looking to move for the better Davis schools where they don’t have to worry about their kids getting stabbed) and homes in the high end price range will result in more well educated couples with kids moving to town (who will mostly send their kids to public schools and get involved in the community).

    As a business owner I’m sure that Don wants more affordable housing for his employees in Davis, but I’m not sure what he wants is what the “community needs” since I bet that most in the “community” would rather more homes than more apartments.

  32. Don Shor

    [quote]As a business owner I’m sure that Don wants more affordable housing for his employees in Davis,[/quote]
    Oh, for god’s sake. Quit this nonsense. Seriously.

    [quote]Lower cost apartments will result in more students[/quote]
    In case you completely missed the point of all my previous posts: the students are already here, the housing for them is not. And there are going to be 5,000 more students by 2020.

  33. SouthofDavis

    Davis Progressive wrote:

    > this goes to the point that david made this weekend,
    > of tying self-interest and greed to everyone’s ideology.

    I know it happens (e.g. Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) but most (close to all) people act in their own self-interest (when was the last time you saw a poor person at a city council meeting trying to get more million dollar homes built in a town?)…

  34. DT Businessman

    We most certainly do need more housing for those in the early phases of their careers (i.e. younger adults and young families). What, you can’t move to Davis until you are in your 40s? And the housing that this population segment is likely to be able to afford are apartments, duplexes, etc. just as Don states. I cannot believe this is even a point of dispute. Use your eyeballs.

    -Michael Bisch

  35. Don Shor

    [quote] but most (close to all) people act in their own self-interest[/quote]
    My “self-interest” would be for housing on that site. Apartment dwellers don’t exactly buy a lot of plants. So your statement is incorrect in my case.

  36. Michael Harrington

    I think the Sac Bee is a very fine newspaper. They do marvelous investigative series (ie, the engineering nightmare at the new Bay Bridge span).

    However, due to the political or planning bent of the owners/editorial board, they generally come down on the side of new sprawl, with a few exceptions. It’s ok; I just disagree with them.

    But mostly I agree on their choice of stories and social and political issues.

    We should all subscribe to the Bee, the Davis Enterprise, the Davis Vanguard, the San Fran Chronicle, and other news outlets. ALl of need these institutions to help us protect democracy and local rights.

    The Bee Board voted against endorsing me, and that’s OK. But in the end, most of my and progressive political positions turned out to be the right ones, and Davis is still a nice place to live. If the Bee’s opinions had prevailed, the town would be a small Elk Grove right now, with sprawl half way to Woodland and Dixon, all in the name of “afrfordable housing.”

    I understand the need for housing, growth, commercial development, and all of the other issues that come up on this Blog. I just disagree with some of them, and when I am not certain of the path to take, I vote and work for status quo, and follow the Nancy Reagan program, Just Say NO.

    I dont see the need for 100 acres of new sprawl housing, and I dont think it should skate by while the CC reams other local developers, so I am against changing the zoning at Con Agra. And if the CC still wants to proceed while harming local, long-time business owners (including the ones who supported them for office), then at least the CC can do is put it on the ballot.

  37. Michael Harrington

    Dear All: Trust Don Shor on this: his financial interest is obviously to generate lots more demand for low-water plantings for more yards. He is screwing his business by not supporting Con Agra as currently configured. If you are not sure on this project, go with the recommendations of people like Don.

  38. Mr.Toad

    Don has never come to grips with the reality that new apartments will not be cost competitive with old houses and so his entire hypothesis fails.

    Don is correct however that we are 15 years behind in building new housing. Its his solution that fails but I’m glad to see his recognition of the deficit.

    The Sac Bee often weighs in on all sorts of development projects. Not long ago they slammed one in eastern Sac pretty hard.

    Although people in Davis forget that UCD is a major state resource the Sac Bee understands this and as a major state newspaper recognizes its responsibility to cover Davis. Their editorial gets it right. Its too bad the usual suspects are so blindly self righteous about their provincial self interests.

  39. Jim Frame

    [quote]I bet close to 90% of the UCD classes are East of Anderson/La Rue so we are not going to see many people taking Covell ~1/2 mile west of their classes so they can ride down Anderson and La Rue and backtrack ~1/2 mile to class.
    [/quote]

    I think it depends on the mode of transportation. Bikes will go south on J and/or F to 8th, west on 8th to A or Oak, and south on A or Oak to campus. (I live on A, and see the parade of bikes back and forth daily.)

    The driving route might be different, and will likely be dictated by the availability of parking. If parking on campus, Anderson/La Rue makes sense for access to the lots. If parking in the ‘hoods, then J/F to 8th and west to the unregulated street (no preferential parking district) of your choice.

  40. Don Shor

    [quote]Don has never come to grips with the reality that new apartments will not be cost competitive with old houses and so his entire hypothesis fails. [/quote]

    New apartments will rent for higher prices than old ones. Other than that, I seriously don’t see why you keep saying this, or what you’re trying to prove by it. We need more rental housing. Are you seriously saying we don’t? If so, how do you propose we deal with the rental housing shortage and the low vacancy rate?

  41. Silent majority

    Don:

    Whitcombe and Ruff have demanded approximately 800-900 apartment units on Nishi as a precondition to any discussion about developing their land. The Solano Park redevelopment represents an opportunity to go vertical and densify. Apartments were the first choice for the owners of the land on the freeway in south Davis – derailed by some city regulation related to distance from the freeway (that strangely doesn’t appear to be an issue along Olive Drive). Interland tried to build apartments on their vacant land north of Cowell in the 90’s and got slaughtered by the no growth activists. I suspect they would be thrilled at a chance to try again. These locations represent an opportunity to provide several thousand beds.

    My point is that there are plenty of places to build apartments in Davis that don’t involve coercing uninterested landowners.

  42. Mr.Toad

    “Other than that, I seriously don’t see why you keep saying this, or what you’re trying to prove by it. We need more rental housing. Are you seriously saying we don’t?”

    I’m trying to tell you and you don’t seem to understand that apartments won’t free up existing housing. We need all sorts of housing for students, seniors and families. We have a 15 year deficit of new housing. We have self inflicted supply shortages. All this second guessing about who should do what where makes it harder to get anything done. Wipe away all the self inflicted constraints and market economics will take care of the rest. Putting up no cash but telling others what is best for them is annoying.

  43. Don Shor

    [quote]Putting up no cash but telling others what is best for them is annoying.[/quote]
    I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were one of the investors.

    Thanks for the background information, Silent Majority.

  44. Mr.Toad

    “Thanks for the background information, Silent Majority. 800 – 900 at Nishi would be a great start.”

    Then add 500 at cannery and as Jackie Gleason would say “And away we go.”

  45. Silent majority

    Don: Because of Measure J/R, properties like Interland are probably the low hanging fruit. If property owners, investors, and developers all got positive signals from the community (including at least some no growthers), staff, and council that apartments are a priority, then I suspect applications might be forthcoming.

    The biggest problem is the anti-competition oligarchy that runs Davis. They own a large fraction of the apartment stock in this town and like the vacancy rate to be as low as possible for obvious reasons. If what they are doing to the Cannery is any indication, they wield enough power to drive away outsiders that might want to try and serve the market demand for more apartments.

  46. Don Shor

    I would love to have even a single council member state that apartments are a priority. Evidence of that enacted into policy would be a requirement for higher densities in any new development, most especially the Cannery project. If it isn’t going to be a business park, then it should meet the clearest housing need we have.
    I would love to hear the university chancellor or any high university officials acknowledge that there is a housing shortage, and that they have largely created it.
    I would love to see those positive signals coming from the community.
    That’s why I repeat this stuff to the point of being annoying. IMO rejecting the current proposal for the Cannery would be a pretty clear signal.
    I haven’t gotten an impression there is outside influence on ConAgra’s planning process. They are simply pushing for the highest-profit use of their property. But I could be naive about that.

  47. Frankly

    Don Shor: [i]My “self-interest” would be for housing on that site. Apartment dwellers don’t exactly buy a lot of plants. So your statement is incorrect in my case.[/i]

    Well you would also have a self interest for affordable housing for your employees, right?

    What is your interest Don? You don’t live in Davis. It is interesting that you are so protective of growth. Do you plan to move to the city upon retirement?

  48. medwoman

    Mr Toad

    [quote]Wipe away all the self inflicted constraints and market economics will take care of the rest[/quote]

    This philosophy is what brought us Orange County ( now an oxymoron as there is hardly an orange to be found)
    or Vacaville or Natomas or Sacramento or Roseville or Folsom. This is precisely my concern. I simply do not like the results when people place blind trust in the outcomes when “market economics …take care of the rest”.

  49. Mr.Toad

    Not one of those places has a UC campus except for Irvine hardly a place that is not good to live. Maybe I offer an extreme example but it is to counterbalance the prevailing extreme best articulated by yourself and others.

  50. David M. Greenwald

    I just don’t think this is an appropriate line. Stick to the facts and the opinions in the debate rather whether people have a personal interest. In the end it doesn’t matter, the facts either stand or fall on their own merit.

  51. medwoman

    Mr. Toad

    [quote]Not one of those places has a UC campus except for Irvine hardly a place that is not good to live[/quote]

    Perhaps I misunderstanding. Are you implying that the presence of a UC campus would in some way save
    Davis from the adverse consequences that have occurred to the areas that I listed based on letting ” market
    economics take care of the rest”.

    Actually, I do not believe that what you wrote was “extreme” in your system of values and beliefs. Both you and Frankly have made many posts that imply that this is precisely what you believe should occur. Both of you have said, essentially in so many words that “size does not matter” and that the market will sort things out.

    I simply do not agree with this point of view any more than I believe that “central planning” will cure all woes.
    I believe in a balance between people acting in their own personal best interest and people acting in the best interest of their community. In an ideal world, these two would always coincide. Frequently, at least when looking a short term individual gain, they do not.

    What I see in Davis now is a community that attempts to balance these two extremes with very verbal proponents for each side of the spectrum, and a large majority somewhere in the middle. In the past 50 years, I have observed in California and my home state of Washington, many communities grow in alignment with the
    “market will sort things out” school of thought, largely to the environmental degradation of the area involved
    ( with Orange County as the poster child). I do not want similar poor planning to occur to the detriment of the only city along the I-80 corridor that has managed to counteract this uncontrolled, market determines all
    trend which I fail to see as either progressive or conservative in any true sense of the word.

  52. Silent majority

    Don: You seem to have missed my point.[quote]… there are plenty of places to build apartments in Davis that don’t involve coercing uninterested landowners.[/quote]I really don’t understand the rationality of trying to strong arm an applicant to abandon many millions of dollars of sunk planning costs to redesign a project to your specifications. You seem to dominate every single thread on the Cannery. What’s up with that?

  53. Frankly

    [i]I just don’t think this is an appropriate line. Stick to the facts and the opinions in the debate rather whether people have a personal interest. In the end it doesn’t matter, the facts either stand or fall on their own merit[/i]

    [i]Why are you personalizing this?[/i]

    Don, you are one of the most outspoken opponents of peripheral development and are completely against the Mace 391 project. You have explained your opposition to this business park, and larger business in general, as causing additional demand for Davis to grow. You support densification, the building of more apartments, and even building trailer parks. You seem to ignore the fiscal realities of Davis’s city budget… your only response to that topic when pressed is a very general and vague demand to the city to cut expenses.

    My problem is that I see the collection of your positions as incongruous. And when a person’s arguments come off as incongruous I can’t help but wonder what is driving their opinions.

    Taking the sum total of your positions, the vision of Davis that I can derive for you is, frankly, kinda’ weird. I cannot find another city in the world that matches your vision of a farmland-moat-surrounded, hyper -dense, primarily populated with renters, little city lacking sufficient shopping and sufficient single-family homes, with a growing demographic of young and old people, with fewer families and fewer young professionals… AND tremendous fiscal problems due to the lack of tax revenue per capita.

    Hence the question about motivation.

  54. Don Shor

    [quote]You seem to ignore the fiscal realities of Davis’s city budget… your only response to that topic when pressed is a very general and vague demand to the city to cut expenses. [/quote]
    Since that’s not true, the rest of your commentary is irrelevant.

  55. Frankly

    Sigh… I will now have to use the Vanguard’s crappy search capabilities to go find the post(s) that will prove you wrong.

    When pressed on the city budget problems and the fact that increased revenue could only happen with increased business activity, you clearly said that the city should focus on cutting costs to balance the budget.

  56. Don Shor

    9/21/13:
    [quote]…
    I suspect that the residents of Davis would be willing to tax themselves at a higher sales tax rate, as the residents of Woodland and many other communities have done, if it were for a specific and well-explained purpose such as road maintenance. Particularly if it were coupled with a prudent and carefully planned economic development strategy to replace the tax in the long run.
    But the voters would have to be given the numbers honestly. They would need to believe that the council and the city manager have made substantive efforts to reduce expenses. They would need to see progress on reducing the long-term issue of labor and pension costs hanging over the city’s future. The purpose of the tax would need to be clearly defined in the context of a broader package of fiscal reform and long-term stability. It is my opinion that coupling it with an aggressive development posture would likely lead to the failure of both.[/quote]
    I have also urged that we move forward with the 3 near-term recommendations of the Innovation Task Force Committee, and begin the planning process for annexing land on the poorer soils in North Davis, particularly along 113.
    By the way, it is not a “fact” that “Increased revenue could only happen with increased business activity.” The voters of Woodland added 0.25% to their sales tax to deal with their budget deficit, and that generates at least a couple of million dollars of revenue each year.

  57. Mark West

    Don Shor: “I would love to hear the university chancellor or any high university officials acknowledge that there is a housing shortage, [b]and that they have largely created it[/b].” [emphasis mine]

    No, the housing shortage was artificially produced by our no to slow growth policies. Without those policies there would be no housing shortage. While the University may be a significant source of the demand for housing, it in no way created the shortage.

    Don Shor: “Since that’s not true, the rest of your commentary is irrelevant.”

    Hello Pot, meet kettle.

  58. JustSaying

    “I would love to hear the university chancellor or any high university officials acknowledge that there is a housing shortage, and that they have largely created it.”

    The basic problem I have with your “apartment-apartment-apartment” tune is that it seems to outweigh all other considerations and overwhelm every development question as a burden the city has to solve. Since the problem has developed principally from an apparently unconcerned, uncaring UCD leadership over many years, I can’t accept the sole responsibility for solving it.

    I don’t mean to personalize things, but you have little problem about saying “enough’s enough” on other matters. Why can’t we direct that to to university and get them to assume responsibility and act on it. Why are you only one even speaking up about the university’s role here?

  59. Don Shor

    [quote]No, the housing shortage was artificially produced by our no to slow growth policies. Without those policies there would be no housing shortage.[/quote]
    The 2020 Initiative and the addition of thousands of students over a decade prior without any cooperative housing plan by the city and the university has led to a critical shortage of housing for renters.
    As you know, Davis was the fastest-growing city in Yolo County in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s. We built lots of single-family homes and, fortunately, a fair number of apartments then. The university has never provided anywhere near the level of on-campus housing for their own students that they should.
    When the 2020 Initiative was announced, it was more of the same. They’re doing a lot of re-construction, but the net increase in beds doesn’t come close to covering the increase in students. Again: no planning by UCD for the housing of their students. And no apparent concern by our political leaders about this issue.
    So yes: they have largely created the problem.

  60. Frankly

    [i]So yes: they have largely created the problem[/i]

    So then I guess you would not mind if they fixed their own problem developing on their own land or even south of the campus on Solano County land?

    Could the university develop their own mall on that land?

  61. Frankly

    [quote]Stanford Shopping Center is an upscale open air shopping mall located on Route 82 (El Camino Real) at Sand Hill Road in Palo Alto, California. It is on the campus of Stanford University although the university only owns the land and not the actual buildings or stores. Also, unlike the rest of the campus, the shopping center and the neighboring Stanford University Medical Center are counted as part of the city of Palo Alto, not the census-designated place (CDP) of Stanford, CA. The shopping center buildings are owned by Simon Property Group, which manages the property and leases the land from the university.

    The outdoor center is 1.4 million square feet (130,000 m²) and includes four major department stores: Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Neiman Marcus, and Nordstrom. Stanford Shopping Center also includes such luxury retailers as Louis Vuitton, Tiffany & Co., Burberry, Polo Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Wilkes Bashford, Ermenegildo Zegna and Juicy Couture.[/quote]

  62. Don Shor

    How would a mall on the university property solve the rental housing shortage?
    I don’t really care where they build student housing, so long as they provide some percentage of what is needed. The city and the university need to plan this together. Any housing they do build will probably have some retail component, so it would be great if any university housing was annexed. Mr. Toad and I agree on that. But it seems there are political obstacles to annexation.

  63. JustSaying

    Any organization that can develop the nicest hotel in town against the expressed desires of Sue Greenwald can develop a nice, moneymaking shopping mall with shops, restaurants and a multiplex. Any outfit that has ignored the impacts of its enrollment decisions on the local community for a long time and now is in go-it-alone mode, is setting up a gown vs. town relationship. We need to get back into a cooperative relationship and not just respond by building more and more apartments to the near exclusion of other types of housing.

  64. Adam Smith

    Davis needs more of all types of housing, including apartments, but also all forms of single family housing. Don uses vacancy statistics to demonstrate apartment needs, but similar stats (median price, price/square foot, inventories) can be used to demonstrate shortages. According to Zillow, the median price of a Davis home is 526,000. Dixon is $289,000, Woodland is $247,000 and Sacramento is $205,000. Davis average psf is $294, while Woodland and Dixon are each $165 psf. With the University adding 5,000 students, there will be more professors and administrative staff needing homes. We need to build for all of that pent up demand, not just apartments.

  65. Don Shor

    What’s interesting is that the university is adding housing for faculty and staff in West Village, and of course Aggie Villa is an equity-limited housing development restricted to university employees. I agree that they probably aren’t covering the total increase in those categories.

  66. Mark West

    Don Shor: “[i]The 2020 Initiative and the addition of thousands of students over a decade prior without any cooperative housing plan by the city and the university has led to a critical shortage of housing for renters.
    As you know, Davis was the fastest-growing city in Yolo County in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s. We built lots of single-family homes and, fortunately, a fair number of apartments then. The university has never provided anywhere near the level of on-campus housing for their own students that they should.[/i]”

    So what? The University is not responsible for the decisions made by the City. We chose to have a housing shortage through our policies. Blaming the University for our self-induced problem is nonsensical.

    “[i]I don’t really care where they build student housing, so long as they provide some percentage of what is needed.[/i]”

    The near entirely of the University is located on prime farmland. The land where West Village is located was historically some of the most productive farm land in the region. If preservation of farm land is priority #1 as you have repeatedly stated, then it shouldn’t matter who is doing the building. Your statement above negates every argument you have ever made against building on farm land.

  67. Don Shor

    [quote]Your statement above negates every argument you have ever made against building on farm land.
    [/quote]
    Always great having a conversation with you, Mark.
    We can’t control what the university does, or where.
    If you’re actually interested in discussing issues, maybe you could try not being so unbelievably hostile and rude all the time.

  68. Frankly

    [i]”unbelievably hostile and rude all the time”[/i]

    My head is spinning with the hypocrisy of your sensitivity over the same exact statement you directed a me.

    This reminds me of the “dish it out but can’t take it” principle.

    Don, just because somebody challenges your points does not automatically make them hostile and rude. I think you might need to learn how to accept a more direct communication style without going personal.

  69. JustSaying

    [quote]“Can you imagine an editorial board for a paper the size of the Sacramento Bee writing an editorial urging a relatively small town’s city council to approve a relatively modest housing project?”[/quote]David, did you get your answer yet? It’s “yes, we easily can.”

    Now, we’re off to rehashing the same old contentions, repeating the same old testiness.” Is that what you had in mind with your deceptively innocuous question?

    Maybe you could reserve one day a week for Davis development topics. We could cut-and-paste any of the 15 versions of our past comments and move on.

  70. Don Shor

    For the record, the university has participated in purchases that protect large amounts of farmland by creating agricultural conservation easements along the south property. I assume also that any development involves an EIR and that soil and land conservation is considered in that. UC land use planning is not in the oversight of the city of Davis, and it is obviously true that most of the campus is on prime farmland. But there is a strong record of protection of ag land there.
    [url]http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7136[/url]
    [quote]If preservation of farm land is priority #1 as you have repeatedly stated, then it shouldn’t matter who is doing the building. [/quote]
    As I said when you tried a similar line of reasoning in discussing Nishi, what matters most is the proximity of a developable parcel to other farmland; i.e., the risk of development leading to more development. Thus wise stewardship intended to conserve farmland focuses on high-quality soils that are adjacent to urban boundaries. The university developing housing on its existing land is not a risk to leapfrog or expansion onto nearby farmland.

  71. Mark West

    Don Shor: “Mark knows what I am talking about.”

    No, actually I don’t. Please explain how my comments above were rude and hostile?

    In the first case I repeated the words you used to attack Frankly, but pointed them at you instead. In the second I pointed out the obvious inconsistency of your oft stated positions.

    Now tell us all Don, why do you think it is rude and hostile when someone challenges your statements or treats you in exactly the same way that you recently treated another?

    For the record, you pounding on your pulpit and shouting down any opinion that differs from your own is not a conversation Don, though it is a pretty good example of being rude and hostile.

  72. Mark West

    David: Perhaps it is time for you to consider implementing a limit on the number of comments one person can make on a topic so that there is more opportunity to hear from unique points of view, without those ideas being drowned out by repetitive thumping from the ‘regulars.’ Maybe by being forced to limit and edit their own commentary, posters will take the opportunity to listen to and learn from someone else’s point of view instead of simply firing another salvo in their ongoing war of attrition.

  73. Matt Williams

    Mark West said . . .

    [i]”No, the housing shortage was artificially produced by our no to slow growth policies. Without those policies there would be no housing shortage. While the University may be a significant source of the demand for housing, it in no way created the shortage. “[/i]

    I respectfully disagree Mark. Back in 2000 the UC Office of the President formed a UC-wide Housing Task Force in early 2002 and in November 2002 that task force created the [b]UC Housing in the 21st Century[/b] report where every single UC campus committed to housing 40% of its students on-campus by the 2011-2012 Academic Year. UCD has made virtually no progress toward that [u]self-committed goal[/u], and currently stands at just over 20%. West Village was a step toward meeting the 40% UC Office of the President goal, but simultaneous to bringing on the West Village units, UCD took a virtually equal number of beds out of service.

    You can read the whole report by going to[url] http://www.ucop.edu/busops/init.html%5B/url%5D and clicking on the UC Housing for the 21st Century: Report of the Housing Task Force (2002) (pdf) link.

    UCD has plenty of dirty fingerprints all over this problem.

  74. Mark West

    Matt:

    Are you claiming that there was no housing shortage in Davis prior to 2002 and that there would be none today if UCD had met their goal?

    UCD did not create the problem by failing to follow through with their goal of housing 40% of their students on campus, our growth policies did so. You may well argue that UCD’s actions exacerbated and already existing problem, but to claim that UCD is largely responsible for causing it makes absolutely no sense.

  75. Matt Williams

    Mark, do some rough/quick math. UCD Student population in Fall 2012 was 33,300. 40% of that is 13,320. 20% is 6,660, which means 6,600 students currently being housed in the City would bbe housed on campus. That would put apartments and houses, currently being rented to students, back into the rental market for non-student rental

  76. Adam Smith

    Matt –

    While its clear that the UCD didn’t what it committed, I would make three other points:

    1. According the apartment vacancy statistics for Davis, the City’s apartment inventory has actually declined by about 1,000 units since the early 2000’s, so the City has clearly failed in helping support its primary reason for being.

    2. Many of those students (and associated faculty, staff, etc) actually live in neighboring communities, and as such, do not compound any problems with the housing prices or vacancy rates in Davis.

    3. Davis vacancy rates and housing prices have defied norms for the market place for much longer than the last few years.

  77. Matt Williams

    Adam, I don’t disagree that all three of your points have applicability, but they don’t change the fundamental reality that if you suddenly increased the number of students being housed on campus by 6,600, that action would free up 6,600 beds in rental units for non-student renters. Do you have any doubt that those 6,600 beds would be filled instantly? I don’t.

  78. Adam Smith

    Matt –

    I don’t doubt that the campus beds would be filled if available. I also don’t doubt that the 1000 apartments that the City somehow managed to lose in the decade would also be filled. You seem to want to place the preponderance of the blame on the University. I very much see it as a shared problem that would not be relieved if the University filled its commitment.

  79. Matt Williams

    Adam, I both agree with you and don’t agree with you. I don’t see this as a shared problem, but rather see it as two separate and free-standing but parallel problems. I agree with you that if 6,600 beds were filled on the campus rather than in rentals in the City that the problem would not evaporate, but it would be substantially mitigated. The part of the problem that the University can not impact is housing for seniors who want to downsize from their current home in Davis to something smaller and easier to maintain.

    So IMHO it is both/and, but not shared.

  80. JustSaying

    “…the City’s apartment inventory has actually declined by about 1,000 units since the early 2000’s, so the City has clearly failed in helping support its primary reason for being.”

    The City of Davis’ primary reason for being is the University of California at Davis? Granted that we’ve grown together, but we still would be here if the Berkeley Aggies never had shown up.

    And, we would have gotten to rely on something other than auto sales, quaint litte eateries and housing for students. Who knows, we might have become Silicon Valley.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for