|
Trabisnikof posted:This part I don't understand. It'd drastically reduce the profit incentive for building housing, and since housing in California is commodified, that's the only incentive to build that exists. It could lead to more housing by way of accelerating the crisis to such a degree that a majority coalition forms around social housing, but that's quite the bank shot, and it'd create a lot of misery in the short term. I feel like I'm without a country when it comes to CA housing policy. There's a capitalist neoliberal element in YIMBYism that grosses me out, but the DSA doesn't seem to acknowledge the urgency in building that's demanded by the housing crisis. I found the Chapo episode really disappointing. They mock the straightforward logic of building more housing to accommodate pent-up demand (what the gently caress else are you going to do?), and Shanti's calls to action at the end of the episode were to get involved with tenant rights organizations -- hardly a bad thing to get involved with, but all the eviction protections in the world aren't going to solve the housing crisis. I'd really like them to acknowledge that the only lasting solution is more housing, and then get into the more worthwhile debate of where that housing gets built, how it gets funded, and who owns it.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
No one disagrees that we need to build more housing, the issue is that if you leave it to the developers then they'll just build more luxury units that they can afford to leave empty. This doesn't solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This part I don't understand. I think the argument is that every municipality that wants to block new housing does it, while still retaining all of the hurdles that make approvals so hard now in place. The result: no rental projects are able to get financing, only dwellings intended to be sold get built, shortage is exacerbated. Rent control is intended to insure landlords get less revenue over time than they would otherwise, which means it will either a) take much longer to begin providing return on the initial investment, or b) require initial rents to be even higher than they are now, and there simply isn’t a population of renters able to pay that much. So the argument goes. I live in a rent controlled apartment, I really really like it because if I lose it my family and I would likely have to leave the state, and I love my city almost as much as my children. I would very much like to guarantee that stability, precarious as it is, to a much larger share of the population. So I am interested in ways to repeal Costa-Hawkins while simultaneously providing for increased production of new rental housing. The trick here: I want so much new rental housing built that it dramatically reduces rents. That means developments have to be much denser than is currently allowed to project profits. Not possible in the anti-development climate of today. I don’t think the anti-market-rate affordable housing advocates are the biggest obstacle to that much new housing. I think the traditional NIMBY concerned about keeping their views, their parking, and their sky high property values and bargain basement property tax assessment are the enemy. They are the ones who wield more influence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:No one disagrees that we need to build more housing quote:the issue is that if you leave it to the developers then they'll just build more luxury units that they can afford to leave empty. This doesn't solve the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
acksplode posted:No one disagrees that a bunch of empty luxury units is an undesirable outcome. If the empty luxury units underwrite production of new affordable units, while simultaneously increasing municipal revenue without adding to costs, I think we should build a million of them. Empty luxury units don't increase any kind of knock on displacement pressures like pricey restaurants and upscale retail either. But I don't actually think that happens all that much: Hermsgervørden posted:SF vacancy rates comes from a SPUR report. It includes second homes, which make up about half of the "vacancies". Second homes, while gross, aren't part of rental stock. A very large portion of the vacancies are older rent control eligible units which haven't changed ownership in a long time. Holding a property vacant makes a lot more sense if the property tax assessment is 30 years old. This figure is deliberately misrepresented to claim that new construction isn't getting leased up. The SPUR report found 4 of 1,954 condos identified as "investment properties" which were not occupied by either the owner or a renter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
to me, repealing costa hawkins is more about giving the annual 3% rent increase limitation to more peeps. i cant imagine the stress of starting every month (assuming you're m2m after the initial lease expires) knowing that you're t-30 days from potentially being priced out of your drat home. That's hosed up. I couldn't live like that. My head would explode due to the anxiety. Unless my understanding of RSO is wrong. Vacancy stabilization is cool too but i dont think it would pass. i would love to cap rent increases at inflation or something but idk trying to "keep it real" as they say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:I'm curious, is this a YIMBYs are developer shills, we'll never fix the housing crisis until private property is banned type of thing? You also run into the situation where the tech boom creates a demand for housing so high than simply adding housing units, even tens of thousands, will do little to reduce price. Manhattan has 4 times the density of SF and its only recently that SF has eclipsed it to become as the most expensive real estate market in the country. If you could snap your fingers and *poof* into existence 50k new 2 bedroom apartments in the city, not only would they be instantly filled, it still wouldn't change demand (and would probably have little impact on the market rate). Would anyone argue that Manhattan's problem is that they just don't build enough high density housing? So long as YIMBY pays lip service to low income renters and opposes rent caps/controls then they can gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
cheese posted:If you could snap your fingers and *poof* into existence 50k new 2 bedroom apartments in the city, not only would they be instantly filled, it still wouldn't change demand (and would probably have little impact on the market rate). Would anyone argue that Manhattan's problem is that they just don't build enough high density housing? Is your argument that SF's rent control doesn't go far enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
cheese posted:trust the market enough to think that allowing a zoning/building free for all would fix housing" and 2) doing that without addressing all of the other aspects of CA's hosed up housing market (such as prop 13) is not a real solution. This is the platform of zero YIMBYs. I don't "trust" the market, but I don't ignore the market. Any proposed solution which doesn't include adding houses to the market is not a real solution either. cheese posted:If you could snap your fingers and *poof* into existence 50k new 2 bedroom apartments in the city, not only would they be instantly filled, it still wouldn't change demand (and would probably have little impact on the market rate). I mean, that's the dream. If it happened today under the current rules it would mean ~7,000 of them would be BMR, which would probably be a relief to that many households waiting to hit the lottery. If it didn't have any effect on the market rate, that would be incredible, as even the modest by historic standards amount housing built in the last few years has resulted in essentially flat or even a mild decline in market rate rents. cheese posted:Would anyone argue that Manhattan's problem is that they just don't build enough high density housing? Well, it seems that as NYC builds more high density housing, rents are in decline. "NCY rental market report posted:“While a flood of new construction has been the main driver of the rental market slowdown we’ve witnessed over the last year, the fourth quarter’s rent cuts are more far-reaching than in years past. The cooling in the market is no longer limited to new, high-end buildings in select pockets of the city — there’s a broader trend of rents topping out across all price points. The slowdown is forcing landlords across the city to cut deals, and renters now have the most negotiating leverage in years.” cheese posted:So long as YIMBY pays lip service to low income renters and opposes rent caps/controls then they can gently caress off. I consider myself a YIMBY. I live in San Francisco, and I have advocated for these kinds of projects in my neighborhood: market rate condominiums, market rate rental apartments, market rate rental apartments with ~15% on site inclusionary units (affordable to a mix of 60%, 80%, 100%, up to %140 AMI), 100% affordable condominiums (Affordable generally to 80%+ AMI, and you gotta qualify for the loan in the first place), apartments for and affordable to medical students at UCSF, 100% affordable apartments, including two projects specifically for formerly unhoused people, and also a Homeless Navigation Center, which is a kind of longer-stay shelter. I have advocated for the affordable housing density bonus. I want every parcel in my neighborhood up-zoned, and I want by right approval for zoning conforming projects on sites with no current tenancies and no evictions in the past 10 years. My advocacy has taken the form of giving public comment at city hearings, standing up to NIMBY neighbors, campaigning for ballot initiatives which create housing, and voting for candidates I consider to be pro-housing. I believe that the most important way to address the lack of affordable housing for low income people is to support to create the greatest number of BMR units for low income people. I believe in strong eviction protections including a right to counsel funded by the city for tenants facing eviction. I believe rent controls are an essential part of displacement prevention. They do precious little to help anyone too young to have found a stable situation already, and they increase the difficulty of accommodating any low income newcomers. If the only goal of affordable housing advocacy in the Bay Area is displacement prevention, and it comes at the expense of the production of more affordable housing, this is the very last generation of affordable housing advocates, because there will be no subsequent low income people to displace. Substandard and dangerously crowded living situations, displacement, eviction and homelessness are the most visible and heart wrenching consequences of the housing shortage, which is 40+ years in the making. I know that especially for the most vulnerable communities, market rate housing construction alone will provide no immediate relief. And I know immediate relief is what is needed. Blocking market rate housing won't bring that relief either. If there are no market rate units added to the inventory of housing, the wealthy will continue to outcompete the poor, inexorably and inevitably. And I don't intend to gently caress right off, because I love my city. I will keep working to give my kids a fighting chance to find their own place in the city of their birth. A city that refuses to make room for newcomers also refuses to make room for it's own children. If you want me out, buy my building from my landlord and do an owner move-in eviction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
In Zurich, when I lived there, there was an extreme housing shortage despite the already ridiculous density of homes. It was at a point where all 600 units in a new apartment complex were filled before the first brick was laid and the wait list was 3000 people long. Zurich has a population of 400k, but a working population of close to 1.5 million. The solution is that those people live far away but a strong train and bus network makes the commute short and consistent. By all means, keep building homes in urban areas, but realize that the real solution is trains and public transport, and you will never out build the growth a high economic urban area experiences. Homes in Zurich price out the working class pretty easily but few people care because homes along the rails leading to Zurich are always available.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:This is the platform of zero YIMBYs. I don't "trust" the market, but I don't ignore the market. Any proposed solution which doesn't include adding houses to the market is not a real solution either. Hermsgervørden posted:I mean, that's the dream. If it happened today under the current rules it would mean ~7,000 of them would be BMR, which would probably be a relief to that many households waiting to hit the lottery. If it didn't have any effect on the market rate, that would be incredible, as even the modest by historic standards amount housing built in the last few years has resulted in essentially flat or even a mild decline in market rate rents. Hermsgervørden posted:Well, it seems that as NYC builds more high density housing, rents are in decline. Hermsgervørden posted:I consider myself a YIMBY. I live in San Francisco, and I have advocated for these kinds of projects in my neighborhood: market rate condominiums, market rate rental apartments, market rate rental apartments with ~15% on site inclusionary units (affordable to a mix of 60%, 80%, 100%, up to %140 AMI), 100% affordable condominiums (Affordable generally to 80%+ AMI, and you gotta qualify for the loan in the first place), apartments for and affordable to medical students at UCSF, 100% affordable apartments, including two projects specifically for formerly unhoused people, and also a Homeless Navigation Center, which is a kind of longer-stay shelter. I have advocated for the affordable housing density bonus. I want every parcel in my neighborhood up-zoned, and I want by right approval for zoning conforming projects on sites with no current tenancies and no evictions in the past 10 years. My advocacy has taken the form of giving public comment at city hearings, standing up to NIMBY neighbors, campaigning for ballot initiatives which create housing, and voting for candidates I consider to be pro-housing. I believe that the most important way to address the lack of affordable housing for low income people is to support to create the greatest number of BMR units for low income people. Anonymous Zebra posted:In Zurich, when I lived there, there was an extreme housing shortage despite the already ridiculous density of homes. It was at a point where all 600 units in a new apartment complex were filled before the first brick was laid and the wait list was 3000 people long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:In Zurich, when I lived there, there was an extreme housing shortage despite the already ridiculous density of homes. It was at a point where all 600 units in a new apartment complex were filled before the first brick was laid and the wait list was 3000 people long. Trains aren't very useful in a suburban neighborhood of individual detached tract homes. You have to build both transit and housing together. One of the problems in California is how even when you have a good transit system that can support high density, the local government prevents any new construction that might change the character of the neighborhood. I think you are also underestimating the scale of the problem. The housing shortage isn't confined to San Francisco, the entire state is affected. Zurich has an area of ~90 km^2. The city of Los Angeles has an area of 1,214 km^2. The state has hundreds of thousands of residents fewer than it would have had otherwise if housing costs hadn't increased so rapidly. There's no public transit scheme that's going to let anybody commute into the Bay area who has moved to Texas. Unlike in Texas Californian cities can't just keep sprawling forever across the plains, they are constrained by geography and protected lands. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Mar 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
Can you explain more about how more below market rate housing ultimately doesn't help low income families stay in the city? I don't really know anything about how new BMR units relate to rent control, since all I know about rent control is in regards to older buildings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:In Zurich, when I lived there, there was an extreme housing shortage despite the already ridiculous density of homes. It was at a point where all 600 units in a new apartment complex were filled before the first brick was laid and the wait list was 3000 people long. I don't mean to contradict you, I know absolutely nothing about Zurich, but the density of Zurich is far less than San Francisco, and your tallest building is 36 stories. There are three cities in the Bay Area with larger populations, and huge tracts of San Francisco are single family homes. We have 24+ transit agencies. BART has the largest ridership, at 423,395 weekday daily boardings, across 46 stations on 6 lines covering 110 miles of track. Very few places along BART have low income affordable housing readily available. Many BART stations are surround by acres and acres of parking lots. Within a half mile of one BART station (Montgomery) there are a quarter million jobs. Yet if you try to replace a surface parking lot three blocks from there with a 30 story apartment building, it will be fiercely opposed. Caltrain, the commuter rail between SF and San Jose has 62,190 daily boardings and virtually no dense housing along it's entire length. There's a station (Atherton) not far from Menlo Park and Palo Alto (short bike ride) which is surrounded by mansions and only open on weekends. An abandoned mall in Cupertino, directly next to the absurd Apple ring campus, could easily house ten thousand people without breaking 10 story towers, and yet Cupertino residents would prefer nothing at all be built there. Within San Francisco our municipal transport agency has buses and light rail/subway lines, and has 658,500 daily weekday boardings. The 38 Geary bus line has ~55,000 weekday boardings and is in it's 15th year of planning a BRT upgrade. It runs from downtown through the Richmond district, and for most of it's length the buildings are 1-3 stories tall. Every city in the Bay Area should improve it's transit network, access and connectivity. And every city in the Bay Area should build housing around the existing transit infrastructure, with high density infill developments. Pretty much only YIMBYs are actually working toward this productively right now. Colin Mockery posted:Can you explain more about how more below market rate housing ultimately doesn't help low income families stay in the city? I don't really know anything about how new BMR units relate to rent control, since all I know about rent control is in regards to older buildings. BMR units are actually better at sustaining affordability than rent controlled units, because their affordability is portable across tenancies. This is also know as "permanently affordable". Rentals and for sale BMR units are means tested, and the resale value appreciation of for sale BMRs is capped at a certain amount and can only be sold to buyers who "win" that right through a housing lottery. Rent control only applies to multi unit housing built before a certain date, and the rent is allowed to reset to market at each change of tenancy. Rent controlled tenancies are vulnerable to Ellis Act and Owner Move-In Evictions, which are both strategies employed to roust tenants with rents locked far below market. Within the next ~20 years, the vast majority of rent controlled units will likely revert to market rates well above the 150th percentile of area median income. BMR units will still be leased or sold to families at across income levels ranging from no income at all to 150% AMI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
The Cal Train situation is by far the most absurd when it comes to dense housing with access to transportation. Its literally multi million dollar single family homes with a sprinkling of new 3-4 story luxury apartment buildings along the entire track up the peninsula. I'm thinking specifically of the San Antonio development in Mountain View that is 2 blocks from Cal Train where the old Sears was. They tore it down and put in one of those 4 story luxury buildings with expensive restaurants on the first floor. Its interesting because right next to it is like the only 10+ story apartment building in the whole area but god forbid they build a few more of those.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
To say that only YIMBYs are trying to improve transit in the Bay Area takes an incredible amount of ignorance of what the rest of the community organizations are doing. Besides, what have the YIMBYs done to improve access to transit in not-SF? What have the YIMBYs done to improve things in Fremont, Richmond, San Jose or Oakland?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
YIMBYism is a recent movement so they haven't done much total, but they're generally strongly for good transit. edit: and yes the whole Caltrain situation is stupid as all hell. Dense developments right next to stations seem to be few and far between. My son's old daycare was like a block away from Lawrence station and some new housing went up next to it while he was there, it was...townhomes. I mean that's obviously better than detached SFH's but still, wow, what a wasted opportunity. Cicero fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Mar 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Did the YIMBYs oppose Berkeley withdrawing from AC Transit's Bus Rapid Transit program? Or are they too new to have an opinion on that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:To say that only YIMBYs are trying to improve transit in the Bay Area takes an incredible amount of ignorance of what the rest of the community organizations are doing. You are absolutely right, that would be an impressively ignorant thing to say. There are in fact many many much older community organizations working to expand transit systems. Hermsgervørden posted:Every city in the Bay Area should improve it's transit network, access and connectivity. And every city in the Bay Area should build housing around the existing transit infrastructure, with high density infill developments. But it sure seems like an incredibly disingenuous reading of my post. YIMBYs get out to work for housing near transit at pretty much every opportunity that presents itself. Which are the specific new housing projects near transit that other groups are working to get approved and YIMBYs aren't? Trabisnikof posted:Besides, what have the YIMBYs done to improve access to transit in not-SF? What have the YIMBYs done to improve things in Fremont, Richmond, San Jose or Oakland? I'm afraid I don't participate much east bay things, I rarely cross the bridge. But I do know that East Bay For Everyone is a very active group which does a lot of work trying to replace surface parking lots near BART stations all over the East Bay. In El Cerrito YIMBYs are fighting for housing. At North Berkeley BART YIMBYs are advocating to upzone for dense housing. I think a fundamental YIMBY premise of land use in the Bay Area is that the number of people who have access to our existing transit infrastructure is severely curtailed by the low density of housing near the stations. There are also YIMBY groups in San Jose, although I don't know how big or active they are. SF YIMBYs regularly trek to community meetings up and down the Peninsula to give public comment in favor of housing projects near Caltrain stations. YIMBY is focused very tightly on housing production issues, in part because there are so many very established and dedicated groups working on system expansions and improvements. Trabisnikof posted:Did the YIMBYs oppose Berkeley withdrawing from AC Transit's Bus Rapid Transit program? Or are they too new to have an opinion on that? I think that was around 2010? The YIMBY movement as we think of it today wasn't a thing, but YIMBYs would absolutely go to bat in favor of BRT. The Richmond (SF) YIMBY group is a real big advocate of 38 Geary BRT. If you go back more than 5 years none of the organizations or leading personalities of YIMBY were at work yet. YIMBYs regularly get asked where they were when x, y, or z housing project was proposed in the early '90s or whatever, when half of them were toddlers. I did my first proto-yimby stuff in 2006 advocating for the Bay Meadows housing development in San Mateo at the Hillsdale Caltrain. About 750 homes at 10% BMR 12 years ago. Would you rather that was still a bankrupt racetrack? Do you know anyone displaced by it? What specific new affordable housing projects have you advocated for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
cheese posted:Interesting take, although I think we are already looking at the last of the low income people in SF. Most of them left years ago lol, no they didn't
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
They probably wish they could leave
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
I read and article today where the Inland Empire and Sacramento are the only areas where housing construction is exceeding demand. We’ve got tons of land available here in the IE but I really wish someone sort of business or tech center would set up shop so we all don’t have to commute to LA and OC. I’m sure Sacramento is experiencing the same thing with people making massive commutes to the Bay Area.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:I read and article today where the Inland Empire and Sacramento are the only areas where housing construction is exceeding demand. I used to live in Davis and commute to Alameda everyday and the Capitol Corridor Amtrak line was loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
It occurs to me that I know next to nothing about what living in Sacramento is like or how the city looks. I'm well familiar with San Francisco, Los Angeles, and even San Diego, but I've never seen or heard anything about Sacramento besides "them Sacramento politicians!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Sacramento is the most diverse city in America, still relatively affordable and from what I’ve heard everyone who lives there seems to like it (recent police shootings notwithstanding).
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
it is however in the Central Valley so i hope you like heat
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Sacramento is the most diverse city in America, still relatively affordable and from what I’ve heard everyone who lives there seems to like it (recent police shootings notwithstanding). Shhhhhhh goddamnit we've got it good in Sacramento, don't alert the fly by investors!!! Davis is one of the most absurd nimby towns in the state, seconded only by like arcata, Monterey county, or Carmel by the sea...
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:it is however in the Central Valley so i hope you like heat It’s a dry heat, which can be endured by walking in the shade, dressing properly, wearing a hat, and not being a big baby. It’s cheap even by non-Californian standards if you’re willing to settle for one of the painfully boring suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:it is however in the Central Valley so i hope you like heat also roving hordes of white supremacists
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
stone cold posted:also roving hordes of white supremacists They burned down a synagogue a few years back. They are no joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
stone cold posted:also roving hordes of white supremacists
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
stone cold posted:also roving hordes of white supremacists
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:I used to live in Davis and commute to Alameda everyday and the Capitol Corridor Amtrak line was loving amazing. It runs at 1865 speeds and takes 2 hrs to cover 90 miles, only runs once per hour during peak and is basically standing room only now since they run the same number of cars as in 2010. Glad I only have to go once per week.  Oh and now that the Kings new arena is downtown you usually come back to your car after a 12 hr day and find beer bottles under it and barf and pee on it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:They burned down a synagogue a few years back. They are no joke. i was being sincere about the central valley being full of nazis Rent-A-Cop posted:Sadly everywhere has police these days. weren’t they working with the white supremacists in sacramento too, even besides hiring them
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:I used to live in Davis and commute to Alameda everyday and the Capitol Corridor Amtrak line was loving amazing. Textbook example of how low our mass transit expectations are in the great US of A
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
stone cold posted:weren’t they working with the white supremacists in sacramento too, even besides hiring them
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I've heard it said that some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses. MotherFUCKER!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I've heard it said that some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses. But what are they killing in the name of?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:But what are they killing in the name of?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Martin Random posted:Shhhhhhh goddamnit we've got it good in Sacramento, don't alert the fly by investors!!! As someone who went to UC there, it is INSANE how much the City of Davis really tries to ignore the fact that the only reason it is relevant is because of the UC being there. The place turns into a ghostland during the holidays as people visit home. It draws a large amount of it's student population from norcal overall, so it's pretty easy for most students to find a way home during holidays, and Davis just becomes barren. The city has a population of 68k while the UC has an enrollment of 35k. There was some insanity back when I was going there because a grad student who had purchased a home there was trying to get on the city council or some poo poo and the residents went completely loving nuts that a student was trying to effect change. I still like Davis, but they got a lot of poo poo to fix to get that up to "love".
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2018 03:45
|
|
