by David M. Greenwald
How deep does the pushback against University Commons go, I asked on Tuesday night. Pretty deep was the answer—hundreds of emails, door-to-door leaflets in multiple neighborhoods, and mostly not the usual suspects.
It remains to be seen if lowering the height of the building by about 10 percent will quell concerns. The height is now equal to the highest point on the Fourth and G parking garage and, despite claims to the contrary from the U-Mall neighborhood, the parking garage does not dominate the landscape in Old East Davis and the University Commons will not dominate the landscape north of Russell between Sycamore and Anderson.
The city provided the Vanguard with the emails that were received on Tuesday—there were a lot and they ran at least 10 to 1 against the project. That the project was considered by many to be too big for the site and the neighborhood seems to be a matter of course. The degree to which the objections were not just to size but to type of housing was rather remarkable, especially in a university town heavily tilted toward UC Davis.
I was surprised by the number of UC Davis faculty and employees objecting to the idea that the city should consider student housing across the street from the university.
As one person wrote, almost apologetically, “I may sound like a curmudgeon, but I simply do not think it is essential for students to live across the street from campus.”
She added, “I rode a bus to my college 5 miles each way in a large urban area and I survived.”
Another person over on A Street added, “Allocating 45% of the project to renting per bed will create a mega dorm beholden to the whims of the seasonal student population.”
The anti-student sentiment was so virulent that, almost to a person, the council felt compelled to push back against it—irrespective of their ultimate vote on the project.
Gloria Partida said, “I was really taken aback at the hostility aimed at the students. I know that there is a long and deep-seated frustration at the university for increasing enrollment while not providing housing, but this is not the students’ fault.”
She was not alone in those concerns.
Lucas Frerichs pointed out that people said things “about how we shouldn’t give consideration to student opinions due to their transient nature—that is something that I find frankly appalling.”
Gloria Partida added, “That we don’t want (students) to live in our neighborhoods is unconscionable.”
Brett Lee said, “There’s this underlying notion that there is this blame on the university.” He noted the MOU signed by the city is “legally binding” not “an aspirational we hope to” that requires the university to provide one one-campus housing unit for each student added over and above what is already planned.
“This idea that by approving these projects we’re ‘letting the university off the hook’ is incorrect,” he said.
The entire opposition to this project seems laced with problems and misunderstandings. We saw the rhetoric of “mega-dorm” thrown in throughout, it was language even picked up by the faith community which wrote: “We urge you not to approve this plan and the EIR; we need a project that makes more affordable housing possible and avoids a mega-dorm for the affluent.”
That was in an email from Rev. Dr. Chris Neufeld-Erdman that was signed onto and re-sent by others.
Beyond simply the size, the notion that this would be student housing was a sentiment overwhelmingly punctuated in these emails.
The university should be building this housing, many argued, and should instead have housing for families and employees.
There seems little in the way of consideration as Mayor Partida put it: “Having housing that appeals to students, will likely be filled with students.” Especially across the street from the university.
The city got a key concession from the developer—they agreed to allow tenants to rent either by the unit or the bed, which will allow more flexibility of who can rent there. But make no mistake, whether this was a bunch of four-bedrooms or a bunch of studios, across the street from the university students are going to be the primary renters.
Aside from the overwhelming sentiment that people wanted students housed on campus, there seemed to be another notion—now is the wrong time.
One person wrote: “Dorms belong on campus. Apartments that rent by the apartment, affordable, and open to families or whoever else might want and be able to rent them is what we need. Especially now! We don’t even know how many or when students might be living in Davis year-long.”
There seems to be a lack of recognition that this project is not going to be built now—it is a several year process. Throughout this process, people have played up the uncertainty of whether students will return to campus.
That seems to be ignoring what is happening across the country. This week, several universities that have tried to remain open for on-campus learning have had to shut down the on-campus portion.
I saw on the news yesterday student after student complaining that distance learning is no replacement for on-campus, in-person experience.
The New York Times on Tuesday ran a story that noted students are asking if college is becoming “glorified Skype.” The Times writes, “Incensed at paying face-to-face prices for education that is increasingly online, students and their parents are demanding tuition rebates, increased financial aid, reduced fees and leaves of absences to compensate for what they feel will be a diminished college experience.”
This doesn’t sound like the beginning of a movement away from in-person college experience—it sounds like the exact opposite, and yet Davis residents seem to have missed this debate, in part because the decision was made in California, almost without fanfare for the fall term.
The biggest problem with the pushback seemed the lack of awareness of just what the stakes were.
Some in the public were under the mistaken notion that we could simply leave it as it was. Others somehow believed that the project could get voted down and there could be a smaller project in its wake.
The reality is that the mall is dying and the applicants were ready to walk away.
The idea that this could remain the same was layered in nostalgia and fantasy. Malls across the country are dying.
“Why can’t it just be like it used to be—a vibrant mall,” one said, noting that this is one of the key criticisms of the project. “The retail equation doesn’t work the same way.
“The idea that Brixmor is going to plop a lot of money down and look to the glory days of the 1980s, that’s just not going to happen,” another said. “We see the devastation that retail is experiencing. In order to make it work, it needs to be a mixed-use project.
“This idea that it’s this wonderful gem of a mall,” he said. “Well kinda, I have rosy retrospection as well, but currently it’s on a path that doesn’t look that promising.”
One family wrote: “We have found out that thriving businesses with critical local goods such as Cost Plus World Market will be driven away.” Apparently they were unaware that World Market started the year on the brink of bankruptcy.
The Vanguard meanwhile confirmed on Wednesday that the applicants would have simply walked away without a workable compromise in place.
On Tuesday Bill Brown, representing Brixmor, explained the realities of financing. He explained that in order to underwrite the redevelopment, they need one level of retail and four levels of residential.
“Redevelopment is expressive, we have an existing asset that’s being devalued every day,” he said. “It takes a lot to underwrite the new expense for redevelopment.
“This is a very tight site,” he said, noting that they can’t simply spread this out across the site. He said he believed this was a great location across from a world-class university.
He noted, “I believe we can cut the height from 80 feet to 72. Take 10 percent of the height off it and still have the same cross-section. Still need the one level of retail. Still need four levels of residential And tuck that parking in the rear. It will take some redesign and it will take some program manipulation a bit.”
Otherwise, he noted that “we might have to table it,” saying that they have looked at the financials of this for seven months and “driven these numbers to the ground.”
If Brixmor walked away from this redevelopment, the city would not only be looking at the potential loss of nearly $1 million in tax revenue, they would be looking a shopping center that was largely not functional—you are probably looking at Trader Joe’s and Starbucks and not much else.
The mixed-use project gives them a chance to restructure this site and make it work for today’s economics. For all of the fears about traffic impacts, the city confirmed on Tuesday that the traffic impacts of these changes will be less than six seconds at most intersections. Close proximity to campus could actually have a positive impact by pulling more cars off the road.
And for all the fears about huge sight-line impacts, the reduced size and overall scale of the project should provide the neighbors with far less in the way of impacts than they fear.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s not only (undergrad) students that would benefit from living to next to campus, Trader Joe’s and bus stops, and close to downtown. Grad students, researchers, support staff, and other professionals need housing too, whether they are single, coupled, with kids, or whatever.
I’m glad this project includes some BMR units, but expecting housing affordability in Davis to be driven by ~15% subsidized units in new construction, often in very desirable locations, isn’t workable.
I have to say I am curious who these Davis student-haters are, how they ended up in a University town like Davis, and why anyone would heed the opinions of people who have made such self-destructive life choices.
Why don’t you ask them? Their names are a matter of public record. You could go ask them why they made such self-destructive life choices. Perhaps recommend they see a shrink. I’m sure they would so appreciate your concern.
I have always resisted the argument that UC alone should build the housing for its enrollment growth for a reason that gets little attention.
Students who live on campus are disenfranchised from participating in city politics because the university is not part of the city. I have never heard this concern addressed by any of the advocates of the UCD should house its own policy. From my perspective its not only about whose responsibility it is to provide the housing for a growing university it’s also about whether we want students to participate in our civic life. I believe that advocates of this policy have an unspoken desire to exclude students from participation in the civic life of Davis.
The fact that students who live on campus can’t vote in city elections makes an obvious difference in local politics. Look no further than the recent vote for parcel taxes to support teachers. The farther away from the university the fewer votes for the tax. If the boundaries for DJUSD were the same as the city the parcel tax might not have passed.
Another area where this has an impact is on Measure R votes. If students on campus, as likely future city renters, were included in Measure R votes it would significantly change the dynamics of any Measure R election.
When the advocates of the, its UCD’s responsibility alone policy, start to speak out for annexation of the campus into the city I’ll start to take them seriously.
I think you make a lot of interesting point. Not sure the driver is participation or nuisance, but there is definitely a desire to keep students out of town – even a part of town that seems like a nature fit.
I’ve raised a similar point that our responsibility as a community is to participate in the larger education of those students. Engaging in local civic affairs is one of those tasks.
We should change the City charter to allow students to vote. This only makes sense.
Not really, because most students never vote. They’ll go to Bernie’s rally’s, but not show up at the polls in numbers great enough to actually get him elected.
Measure R? Forget about it! The Campus Dems can even figure out that it is their greatest enemy.
No, that means incorporating UCD within city limits, and even changing state law about differentiating where one can vote from where one is registered. Neither is going to happen.
At the risk of being repetitious, I think there are 3 issues that are not being adequately addressed.
1. Favoring affordable housing for all in need thereof does not make one anti-student. As a distant graduate of UCD, I am very pro-student, and I recognize that the need for housing in Davis goes far beyond students.
2. When discussing this project, there is a general failure to acknowledge or account for the possible decrease in the need for student only housing based on the projects that are already under construction or approved.
3. Davis has a tendency to solve yesterday’s problems rather than envisioning future needs & possibilities. The most notable recent example that was actually built was an overbuild of public schools. The consideration of the Mace “innovation park” in whatever iteration we are now on is in the planning stages. Now, faced with the pandemic and what for many is an economic catastrophe, we are pretending we know that what we will be left with whenever these two intertwined crises are over, will closely resemble what we had before. I am going to stick my neck out and say we have no idea whether that will be true or not. So why are we pretending we know?
Tia – if this were even a mile from campus I would agree on the need issue. But given the location this is going to primarily be students.
As I have argued here, student housing is a perpetual need here. At worst this allows for repurposing other properties
“At worst this allows for repurposing other properties”
We partially had this conversation before, but you did not address my questions. This assumes that there is a will to repurpose. That was not the choice that was made with the site of the former Families First facility. Have you encountered any indication that anyone would be interested in repurposing the development near the Police Station or Lincoln 40?
I foresee there may be a major pandemic related shift in housing needs. Yet you continue to present this as though we knew what that may entail, when in fact, we do not.
There are two points here that are critical – the market is going to dictate to a large extent whether or not there is a will to repurpose. What I would expect is that once the pandemic subsides, the students are going to return. And the reason for that is just watching the national discussion – students want the college experience, they are even pushing to keep the universities in the east open because of that. I just don’t see that that is going to change. Second, is if that doesn’t happen, then what we are likely to see is students flock to the newer apartments and the ones closer to campus and that will force a market shift.
But my expectation here is that reduced in school populations are short term and that we actually have a chance to get ahead of the curve or Don put it the other day, really get to that 5 percent vacancy (in a healthy market) that can make a meaningful difference.
In all your post, you used the word ‘affordable‘ exactly once… you did not include it in the first quoted text, nor in your points 2 or 3…
Was it assumed that ‘affordable’ was implied? Honest question…
Given unemployment rates, gov’t worker reductions in total comp, “affordable” is even a bigger issue…
David’s response to this is that, given the location, this housing will be occupied primarily by students. As I have noted, because, for this reason, students will rent these units regardless of the model, there’s no reason to utilize a design model that, effectively, excludes others in need of affordable housing. Why not use a housing model suitable for a broader range of prospective renters?
Eric – I’m pretty sure they accommodated that. The affordable IRRC are rent by the unit and include the two bedroom units. They also are allowing either bed or unit rentals throughout. I think that was a good compromise by the applicant.
It’s OK. The whole d*mn article is a regurgitation of previously published material on the subject.
And yes, we have no idea how all this is going to play out . . . or if another unforeseen crisis will make things even worse.
Bill
I think it is safe to say when I write about housing, I am always taking into consideration affordability. I was an outspoken opponent of the Trackside development for several reasons, however, I would have bit my tongue and remained outwardly neutral had it been affordable housing rather than a luxury apartment mixed-use development in what was obviously a first step in the long-desired “gentrification” of OED.
I find this comment to be refreshingly honest.
Truth be told, I see nothing inherently wrong with having some higher-priced (and higher-income) people, in Davis. Especially near the downtown area.
At some point, somebody has to pay for something. And that goes for the city, as whole. And, if the entire city is filled with people who have no money (and the properties that they live in pay no property tax), etc., the city will go bankrupt.
But, Trackside was too large, considering the buildings around it.
The basic problem (especially in the absence of rent control) is a falling-behind of incomes, compared to costs.
Bill
“Truth be told, I see nothing inherently wrong with having some higher-priced (and higher-income) people, in Davis”.
And neither do I. After all I bought my little bungalow near downtown 10 years ago. It would be quite hypocritical to say I think only low-income folks should live anywhere. Having said that, I do believe that as a city, we have a duty to meet our needs first and then focus on our luxury desires. People who are already affluent will be able to find a place they can afford in a desirable location eventually if they keep looking. That cannot be said of our low-income population. Davis, like most affluent places I have lived, is very good at meeting the wants of the affluent, but not so good at meeting the needs of others. I would like to see that change.
That was me who said that, not Bill.
But, my point was more related to the impact on city (and even school district) finances.
For example, if folks living in Affordable housing are primary consumers of school services, but are not paying for it via parcel taxes – then that cost is shifted to others. And even then, it will never be enough for an oversized school district.
Same thing, regarding property taxes.
And, it’s not necessarily limited to Affordable housing, due to the way that parcel taxes are allocated to multi-unit structures.
But if you also discourage people with money from locating in Davis, you’ll exacerbate that problem.
I’m not sure that I’d describe Davis as all that affluent (overall), in the first place. In fact, I think the opposite is true – when considering the student population, long-term residents who purchased a long time ago, etc. Pretty sure that this is documented, somewhere.
The truly affluent (high-income) are already a minority, I think.
Though I’m still not sure how International students can afford approximately $45,000/year in tuition. (18% of UCD students, I think.)
(These are the students who are classified as having “no color” – not even “white”, by UCD. Their color is classified as “International”, or “Non-Resident” – as if that was a color category, side-by-side in comparison to all the other colors they list.)
Then, there are those (from California) who come from wealthy families. I’ve heard of cases where their families simply purchase houses in Davis, while their kids are attending school.
What, like that is some freakin’ problem we have to deal with? I think we have PLENTY, and I’m sure we’ll have MORE.
Tia… your 1:44 post was a fair answer to an honest question… thank you…
David
While I agree that getting back to a healthier housing market is important. However, I see a tendency to take on a rather cavalier optimism about the duration of the pandemic. We need to bear in mind that we could be in for a longer duration than I think most people are considering. The pandemic of 1918 actually lasted for 3 years. Another unique feature of COVID-19 is its subseuent long lasting sequelae with long term medical costs.
One question I feel we should be asking before making any major decisions is, would I make this same decision if I knew we would be living under the same social and economic conditions 3 years from now? Perhaps people are making this calculation and I am just not seeing it, but somehow I doubt that.
I think you pose an interesting question in the second part, but I will remind you that while that may be your bottom line (three years from now), my calculation is based on my assessment of the probability of living under those social and economic conditions – and I think it’s unlikely and if we are, what happens at this particular site may well be the least of our concerns.
I think it’s likely that this site, like many others, doesn’t get built anytime soon. Finances/Uncertainty.
For the vacancy rate in the current market to be 5%, there would have to be 592 more apartments available right now. That would be a 5% increase in housing units.
UCD has admitted 9500 new freshman and transfer students for 20-21. They have admitted 17.5% more students and are expecting, after acceptances, a 5% increase in enrollment.
They substantially increased the admissions, presumably expecting a higher rate of students choosing not to accept at this time.
Based on their projected acceptance of those offers of admission, the campus estimates it will enroll about 9,500 new freshmen and transfer students this fall.
Yes, many of those students will possibly work from home until the campus fully reopens. But that is a lot of students in the pipeline expecting to complete a four-year degree here.
There’s a lot of housing in the pipeline, but thanks to various delays some of it is not going to be coming on line for another couple of years. We can expect UC enrollment to increase as much as they possibly can through that period and beyond. This is why UC/Davis joint planning and communication was one of my top three priorities on another thread.
The pandemic is not going to last forever. Even if it suppresses housing demand for three years, there is unmet demand here.
When we get to a 5% vacancy rate, sustained for a year or two, perhaps we can talk about slowing down or delaying planning for additional housing. Until then, it just seems that folks are taking a short-term approach to a long-term problem.
Absolutely. I’ve been arguing on behalf of increased supply of rental housing for over a dozen years on this blog. Until we meet the simple metric I’ve proposed before, I see no reason to hold off from continuing to advocate for it. The current market is hurting renters. The pandemic is a short-term issue by land use planning standards. I heard the same argument in 2009-10, since we were entering the great recession. We can go through economic cycles, pandemics, drought, wars, pestilence, famine, and hordes of cicadas, and we still seem to have a chronic housing shortage for renters who need to live here.
I think someone here noted we already have the bolded item here in Davis in spades, and tends to be in the 18-23 year old range.
I’m forever mystified by the expressed anger directed toward city government (especially Davis city government with a limited tax base) for their “failure” to get affordable housing built. The production of housing is a private sector profit-making activity. Since we can only get affordable housing from profit making entities by cutting into their profits why do we direct our anger at city government? Who is supposed to build any housing let alone truly affordable housing? No one here has proposed a reasonable idea about how that might realistically occur. The discussion goes nowhere.
Maybe someday, folks will someday accept that not all communities can be all things, to all people.
That’s why folks move out of the Bay Area (to Davis), for example. It’s CHEAP, compared to there.
And if Davis is too expensive, you move to Natomas, Elk Grove, Woodland, West Sacramento, Dixon, parts of Sacramento (not all), Roseville (a little cheaper), Stockton, Modesto – but maybe not El Dorado Hills.
And, beyond that – Plumas Lake/Marysville, etc.
And beyond that, there’s MANY places around the country that have a better salary/cost balance than anywhere in California. That’s why there’s a net outflow, from California. This is essentially capitalism at work.
And if UC Berkeley is too expensive, you look to Davis. If Davis is too expensive, you look to UC Merced (which for some reason, seems to be at the bottom of many students’ list).
But the most inefficient thing you can do is to try to make a more-costly place “less expensive”, with the exception of Affordable housing, rent control, etc. And frankly, what that does (primarily) is to subsidize low-wage employers. In the case of Affordable housing, it probably also (traps) people into remaining there, to some degree.
Rent control is a much bigger, and more-widespread hammer. And (unlike Affordable housing), it doesn’t encourage people to limit their earning ability, to qualify.
If you limit (or prioritized yearly) affordable housing to people working for Davis locally, then the circle is closed: They are not paid enough but get to live in these “dorms” in Davis. If they don’t like it they could leave and work elsewhere. And as long as they are not “fired” by the community, they could continue to live and work in Davis.
I’m not sure, but I think Affordable housing is (already) generally limited to those with a connection to a particular geographic area.
The advantages of rent control include a much greater degree of freedom (including no limitations on income). In addition, it applies uniformly to all rental properties (or at least the ones allowed under California law).
It is what I’d describe as “brutally effective”, over time. VERY effective, for long-term tenants.
I’m always surprised that tenants haven’t been more successful in having rent control implemented, in cities throughout California. Looks like there’s some effort in the city of Sacramento again, to enact something more substantial than what they already have:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stricter-sacramento-rent-control-measure-is-back-on-the-november-ballot-for-now/ar-BB18awk9
I’m also surprised that the significant declines in college enrollment (a decline of two million in this decade alone, as of last year) haven’t yet impacted the UC system more than it has. (Although it appears that applications are starting to be impacted within the UC system, as well.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/12/16/college-enrollment-declines-again-its-down-more-than-two-million-students-in-this-decade/#75ef28b73d95
https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-uc-applications-20190131-story.html
I suspect that the type of enrollments that are most “at risk” in the UC system are International students – for whom they charge approximately $45,000/year in tuition at UCD. It doesn’t seem like a sustainable/long-term (reliable) source of income for UCD. And if that ever dries up . . .
Just noticed this quote, from the LA Times article I cited above:
https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-uc-applications-20190131-story.html
So, an actual decline predicted for UC Davis, at least from California students.
And presumably, a decline in “demand” for student apartments in the city, or on campus.
I guess that’s good news, though one wonders if UC Davis will simply stop building housing on campus as a result. (I seem to recall that the agreement that was reached requires UC Davis to pay the city and county a minimal amount, for each promised unit that they don’t build. Perhaps someone can confirm?)
What a concept. No, I think we have to subsidize people so they can live where-ever they want, no matter what. Then eventually everyone will have an ocean view along the Santa Barbara coast, in 2087 floor skyscrapers, and the Central Valley armpit will go back to the coyotes.
And of course, the most “efficient” way BY FAR for many, and probably MOST students is to stay at home (at least for the first couple of years), and attend the SAME COURSES at a a local junior college.
Ultimately earning the SAME DEGREE – even if they transfer to a UC away from home, for the last couple of years.
Unless one likes taking on unnecessary student loan debt, while also sharing a room with others.
I have Dave. By letting demand be met by additional supply you let the free market balance the market. A balanced market is a more affordable market.
Sorry, Ron, but the free market does not build affordable housing. It builds housing that is most profitable and so we have this perpetual hand-wringing about the city’s “failure” to “force” private sector builders to provide affordable housing. The private sector will or cannot do it and meet their profit expectations, so the market cannot or will not provide affordable housing. There are no builders willing to build houses at zero or negative profit. The market can’t get it done. Please try again.
Its true that the free market alone won’t fix it because the developers will seek the highest return but I think adding supply wouldn’t make things worse. Still you are correct that the free market alone can’t totally fix things.
If you want to build subsidized housing you need government intervention on a scale we haven’t seen since the New Deal or the Great Society. You are correct for challenging the pie in the sky notion that we should maintain a redevelopment percentage without redevelopment dollars. Redevelopment, I believe, was started as part of the New Deal.
There is an interesting Measure J angle to this. Measure J exempted Affordable housing from an annexation vote, yet, in 20 years, not one exempted Affordable project has been proposed.
Sadly the CC didn’t take up this issue and try to address the inadequacy of the provision in their woefully under deliberated discussion of renewal. So the CC deserves ridicule for doing nothing, where they might have, if they were serious in doing more than passing the buck on Measure J/R renewal.
But what entity would build affordable housing if it is unprofitable? We’re going around in circles here with the exception of your comment about federal government intervention.
> But what entity would build affordable housing if it is unprofitable?
COOPs. SCHA-types.
Beyond that: subsidized housing is a scam.
True story… and it will not be remedied for 10 years, if Measure D passes… it is what it is… one of many reasons I’ll vote “No” on D in November…
You will vote no on D because no affordable housing is going to get built? No affordable housing will get built whether D passes or not. We really do need to get real about affordable housing and the role and power of local government in bringing it about.
You obviously did not fully read my post… not surprising… I wrote “one of many reasons”… you also missed context… not surprising, again… I responded to someone concerned about the effect of J/R/D (aka jerked) affecting affordable housing… I simply pointed out, that if that was a concern, D would lock it in for another 10 (ten) years…
Reading is FUNdamental… so, we can assume you’ll be a definite “yes” on D… and like to TRY to put down people like me who will be a definite “NO”… that’s cool… your right… I’ll not change your opinion/vote, and you will not change mine… all good…
The post I’m replying to right here or something earlier? I’m not directing at you personally. Bill. But, to address this immediate post, a tiny insignificant reason that is pointless to bring up if we actually want to get truly affordable housing built for significant numbers of people? Is that better? Just trying to get to the kernel of that issue.
OK, what the h*ck was that anyways? The idea was to go from 7 to 5 stories. Rule of thumb – first floor 15′ – above that 11′ – so 81′ – about right, so if you take off 2 floors, that should be 59′ – but they are like, ‘yeah, five stories, that’s 72′ – that’s off by 13’ – WTF!???
Oh, puleeeeeez. Stop, all of you. Vanguard, Campus Democrats, posing City Councilmembers. So some resident express themselves rudely and you choose to focus on them for political points or to inflame the community, that doesn’t mean Davis is anti-student. There is very little actual ANTI-student hate out there. This is disagreement on growth, on policy, on land use. People aren’t hating on students, and disagreeing about development isn’t “anti-student”. You all act like there are Davis residents out there hunting students with a crossbow for sport.
If there is any ANTI-student, it’s in regard to specific situation, like when a over-packed house of partying students moves into the rental next door and has loud parties who’s attendees urinate on your lawn and leave half-drank beer bottles in your driveway. That might actually cause some anti-student sentiment. But that’s against dumb-arse students, not students in general.
The problem isn’t the few rude emails, the problem is the parties listed above who make hay of it.
Amen… I say 3 times…
Amen! Amen! Amen!
Can I get an amen?!!!!!
You did…
What is THAT supposed to mean?
Not the names of people we see speaking at every meeting
People are encouraged to participate in city government. And when they do, they are shamed for it. Welcome to Davis.
Sorry who was shamed?
This is the comment; “Pretty deep was the answer—hundreds of emails, door-to-door leaflets in multiple neighborhoods, and mostly not the usual suspects.”
It was descriptive of who wrote emails, no one was mentioned, no one was criticized. Seriously – the only point was that it wasn’t people who normally speak up at meetings with some exceptions including yourself, Mr. Oertel.
The term itself is a lot more offensive to some, than “megadorm”. It implies that they shouldn’t be listened to, for one thing.
Although the “usual suspects” might describe a particular group of students, at this point.
Personally, I don’t find either term that offensive. Then again, I didn’t grow up during the “cancel culture” (or whatever they call it), these days.
How is it that Family Guy is one of the most popular programs on TV?
Other offensive names for buildings might include “sprawl”, “minidorm”, “McMansion”, “car-centric, freeway-oriented development proposal”, etc.
This is the very definition of being a “The David”. Going into someone else’s neighborhood, and despite the fact those living there 24/7 may find a building to be a dreadful eyesore and wallish edifice and declare: “no it isn’t”. What kind of an argument is that? It’s up there with “I know you are but what am I ?” from my Age 6 lexicon. And why the repeated obsession with the 4th & G parking garage as some shining example or modern beauty and the ability of a building to disappear and let people see right through it like it’s not actually there, blocking the sunset every night until the year the wrecking ball finally swings.
I believe it’s actually the exact opposite of the exact opposite. Students were already realizing college was a horrible ripoff, with no-world-experience ideologues regurgitating pablum easily found on the internet. But to tone that down — for many major, a college experience may be nice, but you really can learn that S on the internet — without flushing $10,000’s into a bureaucratic green pipeline to prop up the state budget. Note: several majors excluded, but even so you can shave and save by doing a few years online, even if you have to live in your parents basement instead of the 2nd floor of the sorority house.
There are universities that have built essentially their entire curriculum online.
Personally, I don’t see the value of attending courses in person, for courses that have very large numbers of students. (I’ve heard that some have quite large enrollments, indeed.)
Online learning (and working) provides much greater flexibility – with no commuting, etc.
It also has the potential to GREATLY reduce costs, in the case of online learning. (But, universities themselves may not “like” that fact.)
I think we’re still in the early stages of this (e.g., the possibilities surrounding artificial intelligence, interactive computer programs, etc.).
“Personally, I don’t see the value of attending courses in person, for courses that have very large numbers of students.”
You’re also not a 20 year old college student.
I was one. So was just about all of the people concerned about megadorms, which are unprecedented in the city.
I sometimes believe that people forget what it was like. Looking back, I can’t even begin to comprehend how different my life would have been if I hadn’t moved to Davis in 1996 to become a grad student. Changing the college experience to distance learning would not have allowed for my growth. Of course you would probably be happier…
By the way, is it “megadorm”, or “mega-dorm”? (It doesn’t seem to be consistent, on here.)
Also, “minidorm”, or “mini-dorm”?
Personally, I prefer it without hyphens. I’m all about simplifying things.
For what it’s worth, my total college learning was extended over a much broader period of time (and included a period in which I was working full-time).
Some of my potential professors (at the time) would not excuse me from taking a course with the rest of the class (in-person, at the scheduled time), even though I had to travel for work during those times. (Needless to say, I started “interviewing” professors prior to enrolling in their courses.)
By the way, what happens if you say “megadorm” three times in a row?
Bettleguise comes out…
I like it. 😉
And truth be told, I like most students that I’ve met. I admire them, and what they put themselves through. I have not forgotten about that experience, myself.
I don’t like it if they align themselves with development interests (something I’ve NEVER done), and/or fail to see a bigger picture. (Actually, that thought is not limited to students.)