The Graying of Davis: How We’re Changing

In the next couple of weeks, the Davis City Council will consider a senior housing strategy to severely limit future housing choices for older city residents, based on reports by city staff and a private consultant.

Davis residents should oppose the proposed resolution because neither the staff report nor the consultant’s research truly reflect the official evidence regarding the growing number of Davis seniors, or the expressed desires of a large number of Davis’ residents.

While the Davis population has increased by only 9 percent since the 2000 census, our population has dramatically aged. The latest report from the U.S. Census Bureau finds the Davis population 55 and older increasing by 51 percent since 2000. As indicated in the accompanying graph, from 2000 to 2007, the Davis population age 55 and older accounted for two-thirds of the city’s growth. Equally important, the population of preschool and school-age children declined.

As a result of graying, the number of residents 55 and older now equals the number of children age 17 and younger. Previously, in both the 1990 and 2000 censuses, the Davis population younger than 18 was more than 50 percent larger than the number of residents 55 and older.

From 2000-2008 Davis¹ Population increased by 9%. The bulk of the increase is represented in UCDavis student growth. The non UCD student population age-groups have decreased, especially school age children. One exception: ­Davis' 55 and older population has increased by 51%.

In Yolo County and the state of California, the number of residents under age 18 is substantially greater than persons age 55 and over. The age distribution of the Davis population has shifted away from the prevailing norm in both the county and the state.

The city staff report, based on the consultant’s analysis, estimates the population growth of Davis residents age 55 and older from 2010 through 2030. But the city’s numbers likely will be an underestimate because they are based on the countywide population makeup, and do not consider the unique character of our city’s senior population, who are healthier and better off financially than the county average.

For those reasons, the Vital Statistics Branch of the California Department of Public Health reports mortality rates for each age group of Davis seniors significantly lower than those of the corresponding countywide rates.

The city staff contends there is little need for senior-specific housing because Davis seniors overwhelmingly would prefer to remain in their current homes. This position is not supported by the actual behavior of seniors in our city. The Census Bureau estimates that 12 percent of Davis seniors age 65 and older had moved to their present home within the previous year. During the three-year period of the recent census survey, up to one-third of current Davis residents age 55 and older had moved.

(This census estimate agrees with rigorous scientific research by Gibler et al that finds 26 percent of the U.S. population age 55 and older plan to move from their current home to suitable retirement housing.)

In an amazing twist of logic, the staff report states the city should seek to provide age-restricted housing for only 15 percent of Davis seniors age 65 and older despite the fact that, today, fully 25 percent reside in this type of dwelling. Will the City Council adopt a policy that has a goal of throwing many Davis seniors out of town?

Many Davis senior residents have made it clear they are dissatisfied with housing options that are currently available, and are seeking more and better choices. The city survey of existing senior restricted housing in Davis finds just eight dwellings are fee-simple ownership (land and dwelling), without income restrictions.

More than 370 Davis seniors have joined Choices for Healthy Aging to ask that the city allow fee-simple ownership homes, designed for senior living, to be developed now, as recommended in the CHA report to the city.

Allowing development of suitable senior housing could significantly increase the availability of family housing in Davis. For example, we have lived in the same two-story home in East Davis since 1975. But our children have long since graduated from Davis High School and now have careers and lives in other communities. Our home is not physically suitable for us any longer, but could be a comfortable home for a young family, should we choose to move.

There are some who say we should remodel our present home to accommodate our needs for greater accessibility. But the estimated cost of remodeling our two-story home to a minimum standard of safety and accessibility would require us to take on a hefty mortgage. We paid off our mortgage prior to retirement, and are not in a position to take on a new one. What makes financial sense is to sell our present home and move to a fee-simple-owned dwelling that is designed to accommodate our present and future needs.

Many of those who oppose offering a wider range of future housing options to Davis seniors fear the potential consequences of growth, and are hoping they can keep Davis from changing. Remarkably, these same individuals are blind to the fact that preventing or seriously limiting growth already has dramatically changed the age composition of our community.

Davis is changing. Not because Davis is growing, but rather because it is not. The resolution before the City Council in the coming weeks will severely limit the availability of the amount and types of senior housing and is not in the interests of Davis seniors. Adoption would mean the needs of Davis’ many older citizens are being ignored.

If you agree that we need more innovative choices for our seniors in Davis, please attend the City Council meeting at which this subject is discussed, or write to your City Council members.