For better or for worse, we entered Davis with a key question: “Can Davis Pass a Measure R Vote?” However, as I pointed out in an October 2017 column, it really wasn’t the most accurate question in the world. After all, in 1995, the city voters held a special municipal election in which (ironically enough) Measure R was on the ballot by citizen petition but ended up with enough votes to ratify approval of the project after a hotly contested election.
Five years later the voters passed Measure J by a 53.6-46.3 margin. The first two Measure J votes went down overwhelmingly. It would be seven years between Measure P (which lost by a 3 to 1 margin) and Measure A (which lost by 700 votes).
That set up 2018 with the question brewing – can Davis ever pass one of these? In 2018, of course, Davis would pass not one but two Measure R votes and pass them overwhelmingly.
In June Measure J got just over 60 percent of the vote to win overwhelmingly. In November, the margin narrowed slight but Measure L still passed by a more than 11 point margin. Suddenly the voters had answered a key question – Measure R votes can succeed in Davis.
We have asked the question a number of times – why these projects? Why did they succeed while others before them failed and like most such questions, the answer is somewhat complicated.
The first point is that Measure X in 2005 had two major things going against it. In 2005, Davis was coming off a period of major growth which is what led to the 2000 passage of Measure J in the first place. The second factor is that no one had really had to run a campaign for a project like this before.
The project size of over 2000 units, even phased in over time seemed enormous. The project was located (much like the original Nishi) in a congested corridor and there didn’t seem like realistic plans to deal with traffic impacts.
The result was overwhelming defeat for Covell Village in 2005.
Four years later, the Measure P project was plagued with different problems. If Measure P had come in 2018, it may well have passed. It was relatively small. It was very sustainable. However, it did have two major things going against it – first the near neighbors badly opposed a project there. Second, it was in the heart of the great recession and the collapse of the housing market.
The two factors reinforced each other and the project went down by an astounding 3 to 1 margin.
That led to many people believing more than anything that a housing project could not pass in Davis. It would be seven years before anyone tried again.
The Nishi project in 2016 was one we expected to pass. Student housing by this point was a clear need. The project also provided R&D space. They attempted to fix Richards Blvd by creating a new path from Richards directly to campus.
But there were two problems that ultimately sunk the project. First, instead of building on-site affordable housing, they first attempted to utilize the vertical mixed-use exemption and then they added $1 million for in-lieu of affordable housing fees. That caused a swath of younger more progressive voters to turn against the project.
Second, despite plans to work around and fix Richards with $23 million in improvements plus grant funding for the redesign, the voters leery of traffic impacts turned against the project.
I think but for the contested Hillary Clinton – Bernie Sanders race, the project still may have passed. But it went down by 700 votes.
The two projects that passed this year were obviously very different in key ways. One was student housing, the other was senior housing. One was rental apartments, the other was primarily single family detached homes.
But there were similarities. Neither one had near neighbor impacts. That eliminated key sources of opposition. Second, the traffic impacts were minimal. Nishi intentionally avoided Richards Blvd, the second time around. WDAAC had traffic analysis conclude maybe ten second impacts on a stretch of road that is not really a thoroughfare for most residents of the community.
Both projects addressed affordable housing needs – Nishi by providing it for students and WDAAC by creating the largest affordable housing site in the city.
It is not that either project didn’t have opposition, but rather neither seemed to have opposition that went deeper than an immediate core of voters.
In both cases the elections were heated and hotly contested, but contrary to perhaps expectations of many observers, in the end, the position of the voters seemed to be that we needed housing unless there was a compelling reason to oppose that housing – and for the vast majority in both votes, there simply wasn’t.
Measure R figures to a hot issue for the next 18 months. That is because it is set to expire at the end of 2020 and we expect there will be a renewal vote at some point in 2020.
The question that voters will have to answer: does Measure R work as designed and should it remain as it has for nearly two decades or are there modification needed.
As we presented in November, Councilmember Dan Carson told the Vanguard, “Measure J and R can work, at least if the losing side does not try to nullify the election results with legal actions that are at odds with the spirit of Measure J and R.”
But not everyone agreed that Measure R worked. As one commenter put it, “I think Measure R didn’t work in this case as imo the project didn’t deliver the type of housing that Davis really needed, was exclusionary and not dense enough.”
Another person I ran into, an adamant opponent of Measure R who voted no on the project, told me that Measure R was supposed to prevent these types of projects from being approved because it should discourage low density peripheral projects.
But as I pointed out at the time, viewing Measure R was outcome-based rather than process-based is a mistake.
As I have mentioned I do have concerns about Measure R as a process.
I think we need to ask tough questions headed into 2020.
One question is whether Measure R is producing better projects than would exist without Measure R? Nishi is an interesting case study. Some would argue that the 2016 version that lost was a better project than the 2018 version that won. That was a case that the opposition tried to make in 2018 (ironically several of the people doing that actually opposed both).
Others argued with less traffic impacts, a focus on student housing, and on-site affordable housing, the 2018 version was better.
Absent Measure R would we have a better project there? Hard to know.
My biggest problem with Measure R has been the increasingly hostile nature of the campaigns – even in the face of relatively overwhelming votes.
Both sides have learned over the course of five Measure R campaigns how to run them. Proponents have learned to avoid traffic and near neighbor impacts in order to win while the opposition has learned that in order to defeat Measure R project, you must attack them.
They are terrible by nature. You have to attack the integrity of the process. You have to attack the integrity of developers. You have to attack everything.
Colin Walsh tried to do that with Nishi, and finally Sandy Whitcombe had enough and labeled his attacks “Weird Red Herrings.” Even some of his allies on that day admitted that they cringed at some of his claims. His attacks, as it turned out, did not work.
But that approach did not work with Nishi and it was approved easily. And it didn’t work with Measure L, it was also approved easily.
Are these kinds of attacks good for the community? Good for good planning? Or does it subtract from the process.
We now know that projects can pass Measure R votes. The question over the next 18 months therefore will probably focus on whether the current process for conducting Measure R elections is the best we can do, or whether there are improvements that can occur with the process.
–_David M. Greenwald reporting
In my opinion this could be a title for an article:
2018 In Review: The Vanguard Transcended into Being a Developer’s Best Friend.
It wasn’t always that way. The V ain’t what it used to be.
I don’t think I’m going to miss the V much.
I prefer ‘cynical retorts’ (he says sarcastically).
Wait a minute . . . I understand the removal of most of yesterdays personal insults . . . but a compliment to K.O.? Not sure why that got deleted . . . so I’ll try again, to have it on the permanent #ahem# record. I think it’s good to honor this long-time, respected (by me at least) commenter, soon to be digitally deceased. K.O. said:
To which I answered (approx.): “We’ll miss your morning ‘first at bat’ comments to set the tone.”
The Vanguard itself is increasingly hostile to Measure J/R, its supporters, and anyone who opposes sprawl.
(Never mind the hostility that was demonstrated by the development team, during the last campaign in particular.)
As Keith noted, the Vanguard has become a developer’s best friend. It is harmful to the community.
“The Vanguard has become a developer’s best friend.” If you are used to making friends on a cash basis.
A loaded word, to be sure… code word for zero peripheral growth, often… yet also used by some for rezoning infill sites, if it means housing…
Yes, in some folks’ eyes, all developers are the spawn of Satan… therefore, all development, infill or peripheral, are inherently evil. Particularly if it involves any housing.
Funny tho’, opponents’ residences were created by developers and constituted ‘sprawl’… but that is different, right?
It is harmful if one claims to be presenting a balanced view, which is anything but.
You’re about the last person who should be talking about a balanced view. But who has claimed to have a balanced view on this issue?
Regarding balanced views, you’re a “developer’s best friend”, personified.
But what David does is more insidious. For example, he’ll state that he’s a supporter of Measure J/R, while subtly undermining it. It’s a demonstration of his political background.
You, on the other hand, don’t engage in such tactics.
Do you understand that I have friends who sleep every night in cars? I’m trying to get them housing. I don’t give a f—- about developers, not developers. That’s a game that you privileged folk play. This is all a game to y’all.
How is David undermining Measure R?
You’ve already acknowledged that you interned with a developer. Not sure if you’re struggling with housing, but maybe he didn’t pay you enough.
Regarding student housing, perhaps the 15,000 beds that have been approved on campus and off will make a difference. But, as someone else pointed out, those sleeping in cars will still have to come up with rent money. (Not sure why they aren’t doing so already, as some have pointed out that the Davis housing market essentially includes surrounding areas. I’m not the one who pointed that out.)
Regarding your other question, one thing that David does is to constantly make the claim that Measure R is leading to inferior proposals. He (and other Measure R opponents) have been forced to make this claim due to the recent Measure R approvals. (They can no longer claim that Measure R prevents approvals, so they’ve had to “expand” their arguments.)
And, when folks like David suggest that Measure R can be “improved”, what he’s really referring to is weakening it, e.g., by creating “exceptions”.
You can be sure that David will continue to attempt to undermine Measure R, in the months to come.
Measure J/R ain’t what it presumed to be. A complete no growth measure. (intention, not now fact)
I don’t think I’m going to miss the J/R very much.
Says the guy who has acknowledged voting against two Measure R proposals. (Not sure if there are others he opposed, as well.)
It’s “challenging” to make much sense of that dichotomy. Starts drifting off into “Alice in Wonderland” territory.
BS… gave my reasons… would not have chosen to vote on them, but, if they are on the ballot… you’re obviously trolling yet again… ~ 4 days…
Your single-minded pursuit of spaghetti to be hurled will truly not be missed…
For the record, I voted against both the ‘original’ Measure J, and the subsequent measure R…
4 days for you, as well. How odd it is that you often initiate responses with your own spaghetti, and then call attention to the Vanguard’s new policy that will prevent you from commenting and responding.
More “Alice in Wonderland” dichotomy.
Without Measure R, you wouldn’t have had an opportunity to vote against, or for any proposal. In the case of Nishi 1.0 (and possibly WDAAC), all of the council members apparently supported those proposals. And yet, you voted against them.
As they say, your comments are becoming “curiouser and curiouser”.
I would have preferred that neither I or others, could vote for or against proposals, absent such a vote being initiated by a public-initiated referendum on the specific project approval… like the original Mace Ranch and original Wildhorse ones… both of which failed miserably…
Measures J/R are hopelessly flawed… the citizens have an ‘out’… the normal referendum process.
By your own logic (and demonstrated by your acknowledged voting record), council approvals are sometimes flawed. Measure R provides an opportunity for folks like you to weigh in on those flaws, or to affirm that the decision was correct.
Again, folks who try to argue against Measure R have their work cut out for them, at this point. It’s even difficult for a talented political writer like David to make a case for its elimination or weakening. (But, I’m sure that he’ll continue to try.)
This whole conversation is strange – how many here believe we don’t need new housing in Davis right now? The voters approved two measures overwhelmingly. The democratically elected council approved student housing projects. The two no-growthers on the ballot, lost. Maybe the Vanguard isn’t the one out of touch with the community?
Well, Craig, you asked the question, bass-ackwards when you wrote,
If you had asked, who believes we need additional housing (all types) right now, I’d say “I so believe”… but there is generally a 12-18 month delay (or more, if the litiginous get involved) between ‘approvals’, and occupied units on the ground… many reasons… Chiles Ranch was approved over 7 years ago… no significant controversy… anyone occupying a unit yet?
And apparently had their houses located and the values assessed by Craig Ross and others in the “creepy political move of the year” self-admission of yesterday.
Ron… your 11:40 post…
Do you not get the clue that CC exercises LESS judgement with J/R, knowing that they aren’t the decision makers, so they can punt to the electorate? Guess you’d have to know how things have and are working… you clearly don’t…
I do.
And, there is also the referendum process…
Not sure why my response was deleted, but will alter it slightly:
Howard: That’s a theory, which may not have any basis in reality. And even if true, that’s an argument for the council to do a better job reviewing proposals, and not an argument to abandon Measure R.
Just to be clear, you’re essentially stating that you’d prefer “punting” all decisions to the council (despite your acknowledged disagreements with their decisions).
The logical conclusion of your statement would be something along the lines of, “I disagree with some council decisions regarding peripheral proposals, but would prefer to have no ability to weigh in on that”.
Ron – I’m pretty much with Howard on this. The logical conclusion from your position would be “I disagree with some Council decisions, so there should be a public vote on all land use issues, or all significant issues that come before the Council.” Why limit public votes to peripheral land use issues? Why should we not trust the representative decision-making process only in this one area?
Eric: Howard is stating that the council uses less judgement, as a result of Measure R. Is that what you’re agreeing with?
Regarding infill vs. peripheral decisions, some have indeed argued that the council shouldn’t be conducting “planning by exception”, and changing zoning to accommodate whatever developers propose. Unfortunately, that seems to be what’s occurring.
Regarding peripheral developments / expansion of the city’s footprint, I see nothing wrong with allowing voters to weigh in on such proposals. In fact, such protections are not unlike what occurs in other communities, such as Ventura county and its cities.
The “alternative” is pretty clear, regarding what will occur without such protection.
One goal (that some seem to forget) is the protection and maintenance of surrounding farmland/open space.
In regard to Ventura county (that David recently highlighted as essentially a “model of something wrong”), here is what SOAR does:
https://www.soarvc.org/about/what-is-soar/
I would have a fundamental disagreement with anyone who opposes such efforts, in Davis or elsewhere.
I’m not necessarily agreeing with Howard’s speculative conclusion that the Council scrutinizes Measure J/R issues less rigorously because they are not the final decision-maker. But I do believe that there are other ways of approaching peripheral land use decisions other than abdicating the Council’s responsibility and putting the issue before a mostly uninformed, or less informed, public. One could have a more rigorous public participation process for peripheral land use issues–for example, holding special Council or Planning Commission hearings to address such issues. These might involve panels representing varying perspectives and interest groups, including expert testimony, as appropriate, rather than simply agendizing these issues for regular Council meetings where developers do formal presentations and other perspectives are heard only through random public comment.
I’m just not a big fan of the current initiative process–at the state or local level–particularly on complex issues (as opposed to relatively more straightforward issues, like a bond or sales tax measure, for example).
It’s more than a theory… ask Robb Davis, Lucas, Brett, other CC members who have approved projects that went to J/R votes. I welcome that ‘test’ of my ‘theory’.
Patently untrue. Your words/concepts, not mine. You distort the plain meaning of my words.
Your “logical conclusion” is not, and is patently incorrect.
The CC spends hours of time reading about, listening to views on projects. I’ll wager that the average voter relies on ‘sound bites’, and the equivalent of posts like yours focusing on little bytes by folk with no concept of balance, but rather a biased advocacy bent.
The CC can certainly err, in my opinion, but I trust that process more than a plebiscite on everything…
Wood burning was not put to a vote… plastic straws were not put to a vote.
Every two years, we get to vote in or out 2-3 CC members… there is also the recall process, which is viable. We have the referendum process on any CC decision.
Here’s one of the problems with J/R… it requires a majority vote for approval… perhaps we should reverse the question, and have the vote be “shall the CC approval of the project be overturned?”
With ~ 1/3 of voters voting “no” on most things (reflex [or reflux] action?), a lot more projects will be approved with that ‘simple’ change to J/R… the J/R folk know that ‘voter bias’, but probably not one will admit to it. That’s why the referendums on Mace Ranch and Wildhorse failed so miserably… same voters, but the vote was worded to overturn, not to affirm. An inconvenient truth.
That would be in line with the laws re: utility rates… CC sets, but a majority protest can overturn…
Those are the same folks who are supposed to be reviewing proposals, before they’re presented to voters. And, you’re stating that they’re “complaining” that their own review process is not up to par?
Are you sure that it’s not you claiming this, instead of the individuals you cite? (Seems strange for someone to be “complaining” about their own job performance.) Perhaps no one should complain if some Measure R proposals are rejected, as a result.
Not sure why anyone has a goal of approving “more” Measure R proposals. I’d like to see fewer of them come forward in the first place. However, I suspect that the declining housing market will take care of that, for awhile. (With the possible exception of a vote regarding MRIC, which I suspect the council will force upon the city. And, it will include housing, in all likelihood.)
You’d think that the development activists would be happy with the two proposals in a row that were recently approved. I guess they want more (and more, and more . . .).
You are just being argumentative… all heat, no light.
When one runs out of logical arguments (or cannot support the nonsense that they themselves have espoused), they attack the messenger.
Thread cleanup: 34 comments removed.
Some additional information regarding SOAR in Ventura county, the same county that David held up as a model of something “wrong” in regard to agricultural/open space protection:
https://www.soarvc.org/about/what-is-soar/
(Emphasis added by me.)
I wonder if communities in Ventura county have their own “versions” of the Vanguard, attacking community efforts to preserve agricultural land / open space (and aligning themselves with development interests).
A Vanguard record?
It is just a matter of years, if not months, until the Democrat controlled State government moves to preempt all local no-growth ordinances. In fact, Davis is likely to be used as the poster-child for the new social justice cause of inadequate housing.
If I were Ron, I would be getting ready for a Davis with no Measure J/R. The no-growthers will have to get back to getting their people elected to the City Council as a way to thwart growth instead of blowing fake reports of toxic air to scare the uniformed voters.
The state will likely move against communities that have resisted growth/development to a much larger degree than Davis has. (The vast number of communities that have rejected “fair share” growth requirements, for example.)
It is not likely that the state will force sprawl. However, it is likely that the state will try to force more infill where it’s not wanted. Ultimately, I suspect that their efforts will largely fail. (The declining housing market will also take care of that.)
Someday, perhaps folks will realize that California may be at its functional limits, in regard to 40 million people living in a semi-desert state. And with no significant increase in infrastructure, for the past several decades.
Opinion, not fact, and that is cyclical, in any event.
We are a ‘mediterranean climate’, not semi-desert, as a state…
And for folks hoping that the state takes legal action, you might want to review the history of SOAR:
https://www.soarvc.org/about/history-of-soar-in-ventura-county/
I’m going to have to “thank” David, for his article which led me to search for and discover this organization, online.
Reminds me of some of the same type of battles that occurred in Marin and Sonoma county.
On a related note, I’m sometimes asked “where will people live”, if California is already essentially “full”. And then, I run across articles like the following. I’d take advantage of it myself, if I weren’t already tied down to this area.
I especially like #5.
https://www.countryliving.com/real-estate/g2143/50-houses-under-50k
This is how California used to be, not so long ago.
#5. Fairfield, Maine, your apparent ideal destination for Californians because our state is “full,” has one remaining paper mill as the sole employer and no other industries, and the population is declining. Median home price is about $100K and, yep, you can buy old fixer-uppers for less than that.
Gee, I wonder why people are leaving this idyllic community and coming to California.
I guess you’d have to ask if they make 1/20th of the salary, in Maine. Or, if someone could save $46,000 here, and then pay cash for that house (with no mortgage).
Perhaps they would welcome an innovation center. Regardless, there are some places in the U.S. that are extremely affordable.
There are certainly places where the income/housing cost equation is more balanced, than it is in California. (Probably almost every other place, with the possible exception of New York City.)
When housing costs rise above an amount supported by local salaries, that’s when it’s time to leave. (And unfortunately, “replaced” by those earning a higher salary – according to the other article it seems.)
https://www.google.com/search?ei=h7olXOGdMIfAtQXQ0KeYDw&q=fairfield%2C+ME+median+income&oq=fairfield%2C+ME+median+income&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299.19491.29887..30344…0.0..0.459.3422.0j8j3j3j1….2..0….1..gws-wiz…….0j38j0i71j0i7i30j0i22i30j0i22i10i30j33i160j33i22i29i30.Iy0Uh0mzFjk
Asked and answered…
$40,000 X 20 = $800,000
Guess you are doing real well if your household makes more than that (median) in Davis!
If you do, you should support an additional $10,000 per year in DJUSD taxes, and an additional $20k in City taxes! Chump change!
Or.
https://datausa.io/profile/geo/fairfield-me/?compare=davis-ca
whatever…
Thanks, Howard.
So, the median income in Fairfield, Maine is $40,704, and in Davis it’s $57,683.
Adds support to the point that the income/housing cost ratio is more favorable in other areas. (Something we already knew, and which is leading to an exodus of lower-income Californians to other states.)