When Measure J—the original version—was put on the ballot in 2000, it was a tightly fought and hotly contended election. It wound up winning relatively narrowly. The idea was to require a citizen’s vote any time the city developed on land outside of the current city boundaries.
Since then the support has been overwhelming—there was no real opposition in 2010 and it passed by a 3 to 1 margin.
While the housing climate in Davis is clearly shifting, even in 2020 there has been at most scattered voices of protest.
But those voices are few and far between. They did not put an opposition statement on the ballot. There were few opposing views expressed at either council or the Planning Commission meeting. And the votes to move forward were all unanimous.
The strongest critical voices expressed were by Darryl Rutherford on the Planning Commission and Gloria Partida on the council. Both ultimately supported it going forward.
Some of the melting of that opposition is due to the fact that in 2018 two measures passed by comfortable margins.
Now Mayor Partida said, “I agree that if I hadn’t seen the last two projects pass, I would be feeling a lot different about this particular measure.”
But she also expressed concerns.
Partida stated, “I also think we need to acknowledge some pretty negative impacts that we have created” with the city’s overall policy on development.
“Our cost of housing has increased so much that it’s impossible for people who grew up here to stay here,” she said. “It’s also made it impossible for graduates of UC Davis to stay here as I did 30 years ago.
“These types of initiatives cause a lack of diversity in communities,” she said regarding racial and socio-economic issues. “It’s a sad irony that most of the progressive cities in America are also the most segregated.”
Gloria Partida also pushed back on the notion that this community has preserved agricultural land.
“We have driven our people onto other ag land and caused them to commute into Davis,” she said, noting her difficulty turning left from Picasso onto Pole Line because everyone is commuting from North North Davis. “When we say we’re trying to preserve our life and the environment through this measure, we must acknowledge that mostly (what) we’re preserving is the footprint of the city. Unless we are working to provide some infill housing and really work on mitigating the effects of the increase of the population here, I think we need to do a better job there.”
While I understand that people will point to the two measures passing in 2018, to me those don’t prove nearly as much as people think. Neither project figured to directly impact people’s lives. A much bigger test for Measure J will be DISC.
I do think—and polling I have seen in the last year proves—that people are more concerned about housing and the impact of higher costs on the community. But ultimately it comes down to near neighbor effects to drive city policy.
While the concerns laid out by Partida echo some of the concerns expressed in yesterday’s Monday Morning Thoughts column, there are several reasons I believe that Measure J is not the barrier to housing that many critics believe.
First, as we have analyzed before, there really is not a huge amount of developable land near the city. Looking at a map, huge swaths of land are effectively off the table—to the south due to the county line, southwest due to UC Davis, to the west due to agricultural easements, while to the north there are a few developable properties and to the east, not so much.
Basically we have the portions of the northwest quadrant, Covell, and the few properties to the north and east of the Mace Curve—and that is largely it.
Second, even without Measure J/R there are huge barriers to development.
Really focus here on three:
First, as we have seen with most of the infill projects, there are quite a few internal barriers to developing. Modified projects have been approved for things like Sterling and the Hyatt House, but University Commons remains in doubt, despite its proximity to the university, and housing costs have hindered the development at the University Commons Mixed Use project.
Second, lawsuits. Lawsuits at the University Park effectively shut down the conference center proposal there. It delayed other projects like Lincoln40 and Nishi. It stopped Trackside. Whether you agree or disagree with the lawsuits, they have had an impact—slowing down the development of projects, raising the costs, and on rare occasions stopping them altogether.
Third, this is a point that Dan Carson has made and he is correct on—nothing prevents the public from putting projects on the ballot anyway.
One of the most contentious land use battles was Wildhorse—Measure J was not in place yet and, still, it ended up on the ballot as a contentious land use issue.
The issue here is clear—if people want a vote, it is not that hard to gather signatures and put it on the ballot. Better to have a formal process, baseline features, and the expectation of a vote.
While I share a lot of the concerns that Gloria Partida expressed, and I very much regret that we did not have a deeper discussion on both the positives and downsides of Measure R, I think overall Measure R itself is a symptom of a larger problem, one that was articulated quite fully in the Politico article and our analysis of the Davis situation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
I’m not sure anyone has suggested that Measure J is the only, or even the primary, obstacle to development needed to address housing affordability. One of my problems with Measure J (and the initiate process generally) is that it’s an up or down vote, with no opportunity to address issues that may arise or become apparent after the Council decides to put a proposal on the ballot. Further, it encourages the public decision makers to avoid addressing difficult issues, instead reasoning, let the voters decide.
Above should have read: “… (and the initiative/referendum process generally) …”
“Third, this is a point that Dan Carson has made and he is correct on—nothing prevents the public from putting projects on the ballot anyway.”
Problem is that J/R shifts the responsibility from being a referendum on a project to being an initiative. In other words it moves the vote from after the fact with a tight timeline to before the decision with an infinite planning timeline. The result is that lawsuits, delays and voter denials have combined to prevent any J/R project from being built in 20 years.
True story… been saying that for years. Measure J/R/D is unnecessarily redundant, and adds only to “the spanking machine”…
Here, we disagree… first, a referendum is a formal process, after all the other formal processes… Measure J/R/D is unnecessary, and a wrongful impediment. Second, Wildhorse (the referendum you cite), had pretty much all approvals, including a Development Agreement (nailing down ‘baseline features’, and then some) in place when it was placed on the ballot. Third, there is always the expectation of a vote without J/R/D… a vote by the CC, our representatives. Fourth, a referendum is always a ‘risk’. Just not in favor of codifying risks, if their are ‘remedies’.
I do like the letter assigned to the extension measure… “D“… as in, Deleterious, Delaying, Dumb, etc. The genius of those who support J/R/D, is the realization that when put to a vote, anything that isn’t crystal clear will generate ~ 10-15% NO votes… when in doubt, 10-15% of folk vote no… on ANY matter..
I oppose the extension (wish I had a “hell no” option on the ballot!), as there are already ‘remedies’ in place, and as David has noted,
And it should be noted that the Wildhorse referendum, failed, big time…
Ex: Note how easy it was to get over twice the signatures needed to put the DJUSD trustee replacement on the ballot… in a pretty short period of time…
Why the talk that the people can just do a referendum if they want to vote on a project in lieu of Measure J/R??
The people have already spoken (voted), twice, both times passing Measure J and R.
The “people” here now, under the current facts, are not necessarily the same (two levels)… Measure J/R did not come off the top of a mountain in the Mideast, written in stone, as much as some folk would like to believe that true… a fact no one can Sinai…
In previous generations, it was established law that there was slavery, race restrictions on housing, no booze sales (or ANY shopping) on Sundays… things change…
My point was that even without Measure J there are ways for the voters to stop or slow projects.
An epiphany?
I’ve made that point for a long time, and you generally dismissed it (referendum).. saying it was too onerous, or other ‘excuses’/rationalizations…
But now it’s “safe” to say, when the oddsmakers consider renewal a “gimme”?
Was just pointing out that there are ways to block projects even without Measure J.
As I have, repeatedly… and you have repeatedly dismissed them…
I don’t understand the title of this article. What is “it” that won’t be this year on Measure J?
IMO he’s saying this won’t be the year that Measure J/R/D gets defeated.
Yeah, my ‘take’, too, Keith O… the dude needs more sleep, so he can ‘proof’ himself, IMHO…
And, altho’ I’ll be voting “no on D”, I think the conventional wisdom (and way to place bets) is that renewal is semi ‘done-deal’… as are two of the DJUSD trustee seats (but, I drift)…
Yet, when the odds are long, that J/R/D will fail, I’ll sometimes take the ‘contrarian bet’… in investments, that sometimes helps balance the portfolio…
I completely, vehematly reject the idea that the measure is racist… I believe that there is some (yeah, actually, a lot) measure of ‘greed’ in support of the measure… but the ‘protecting investment’ issue is our kid’s problem, not ours…
I just believe Measure J/R/D is unnecessary, and bad governance. Purely philosophic (and beware when an engineer/surveyor type waxes philosophic!)… can’t imagine a scenario where I’d vote to approve an extension of an unnecessary, and troubling ordinance…
Measure J/R/D, at least IMNSHO opinion, an expression of folk wanting to have nearly complete “control” over others… just to “have control”… ‘the environment’, ‘preserving prime Ag land’, etc. are ‘window dressings’… not the true, underlying motives…
I neither support, nor oppose development/growth… I’m one of those jerks that believe in fair and transparent ‘process’… J/R/D [wish I could come up with a clever way to express that, but all I can come up with is JeRkeD]…
So, now my PSA… please vote (assuming eligible) in November, and trust me in saying that VBM is not a nefarious plot [by any entity] to influence the elections… every VBM actually gets more scrutiny than ‘normal’ ballots… before they are counted!
I actually care not how you vote… if for Measure D, fine… if against Measure D, even finer… but no vote, no whine, as to outcome! I’m adamant on that!
I suggested that repeatedly several years ago: take Saturday off. “And on the seventh day, God rested, but David Greenwald kept on going”.
I guess it’s a testament to how far we’ve come – no one seems to notice the days when I don’t write anything.
I don’t think most people’s intent is racist. I think the outcome is it keeps out even more of the lower end of the economic spectrum than Davis already does.
“I very much regret that we did not have a deeper discussion on both the positives and downsides of Measure R,”
With this, I completely agree. I also think if we are going to consider doing away with Measure R, we need to not only consider, but come up with an alternative which provides for not just building, but building in such a way that the targeted populations ( lower socioeconomic and or minority) can actually afford that housing.
Actually, that is, practically, off the table… it has been set up that it is either a 10 year extension, or perhaps a re-do…
Then, you should vote NO on D… or wait 10 years to get to the place you suggest… your objectives would be best realized by voting NO in NOvember, and following up with a measure that aligns with your stated objectives… but, I realize that “won’t be a happening thing” for you, but if D is approved, there is not a ‘snowball’s chance in Hell’ that your objectives will be met… at least not in the next decade…
Tia, if you want that honest discussion, vote no. Voting no will mean that the next city council will need to have a serious discussion about reauthorization instead of the panglossian exercise they engaged in this time. In the meantime, as both David and Carson have argued, we will still have the referendum.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the primary reason I oppose most peripheral developments might be summed up in the photo accompanying this article. Preserve farmland, discourage sprawl, encourage infill (“smart growth”).
Very little discussion of that, on the Vanguard.
If other communities want to encourage sprawl, so be it. You’ve got to pick-and-choose your battles. If it was up to me, development across the region would be much different.
I recall about 15 years ago, someone telling me that the site proposed for DISC might someday be proposed for development. I thought he was nearly insane. Who, exactly, looks at that site and says to themselves, “if only there was a huge development there, it would be so much nicer”?
But obviously, Measure J/R can be used to approve peripheral developments, as well. We’ve already seen that.
Measure J/R has nothing to do with sprawl or smart growth. In fact, it’s antithetical to smart growth: By simply voting up or down on individual projects, there’s no overall planning involved.
That response is nearly insane, as well.
By the way, despite the way it’s portrayed on here – Davis is (by no means) the only town which discourages sprawl.
Though it might be the strongest in the immediate region.
You might want to look at actual documentation, regarding the underlying reasons for Measure J/R (before putting forth theories).
”Insanity – a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.” ~ R. D. Laing
Things don’t always work out as planned. Initial intent isn’t always reflected in implementation outcomes.
I think it worked-out pretty well, regarding Covell Village and the Wildhorse site.
And at this point, I’m not terribly unhappy about Nishi or WDAAC (though I still don’t think much of the “Davis buyer’s” program).
Now, would approval of Covell Village “spared” the creation of Spring Lake? I doubt it. Woodland, for example, has almost never met a development they don’t like.
Again, if it was up to me, development would be much different across the region.
One of the first things I would suggest is looking at the German model, where “profit” resulting from conversion of farmland (for development) are kept be the community, rather than the developer.
I get it now. Smart growth is simply growth that Ron Oertel agrees with.
And in fact, plans for Spring Lake were created PRIOR to the Covell Village proposal.
And Eric, your 9:36 a.m. comment above is something I might routinely expect from others on here, but not you.
The truth is dawning on others as well. Ron, you try to dress up your irrational opposition to all change with “reasoning” that is full of holes.
All Measure J/R/D does is provide a relief valve to remove the pressure to move forward with a comprehensive planning exercise. Have you noticed that we are more than a decade out of date on our General Plan? When you can leave decisions about land use to the voters and avoid any direct responsibility, why would you as a Council member want to take on a controversial process that will make you more enemies than friends?
To Richard’s point I would note that for a City Council member Measure J/R/D is very difficult to deal with and I left the CC really unclear how to approach projects subject to it.
With Nishi 1, I spent weekends and nights negotiating terms of that project to try to get what I thought was best for the community. Anyone who remembers that knows that I spent significant time listening to MANY people in the community. I paid attention to various perspectives. I tried to account for these needs in what I attempted to put into the baseline features and DA. When I voted to put that one on the ballot, I really felt like we had offered the community a solid project that, while imperfect, met community needs.
For my efforts I was told I had sold out the city, that I did not care about affordable housing, and that I was “in the pocket” of the developers (in other words, I was corrupt).
Nishi 2 and West Davis were very different. Council members did not want to serve on a subcommittee with me to shepherd the process. And while I took the attitude that my job was to negotiate the best terms, I questioned how much time I should really spend on this given that it would all be attacked anyway and no matter what opponents would say whatever it took to defeat it. I also knew that it was all going to come down to “marketing”—who could define and control the narrative that would go into the campaign. I had been naive about that in Nishi 1.
I also expected lawsuits. I focused mostly on the disclosures related to the EIR so that no one could say we failed to disclose critical EIR issues. But I guess I came to the conclusion that Measure R/J was not really about due diligence concerning the merits of the project and how to make it better because no matter how much time I tried to put into making it something that could benefit the community there was going to be a fight. And, of course, I was right.
Maybe I should not admit this but I really do not think Measure J/R/D is about sound planning.
And yet, Robb – the city is facing a lawsuit regarding Trackside. To which it’s lost, so far.
Is anyone arguing that Trackside would “lower housing prices”?
And, UCD faced a lawsuit regarding its prior LRDP (which at the time, included a technology park on campus). With a current council member apparently as a party to that lawsuit.
The same council member who thinks it’s “just fine” to put it on the other side of town, on prime farmland, with almost 6,000 parking spaces – adjacent to an already-impacted roadway system and freeway.
I honestly do not understand the “And yet…” What is your point there. I was laying out the challenge of how to conceptualize and engage Measure J/R/D as a CC member. Trackside was not a Measure J/R/D so I am not sure what your point is.
You mentioned lawsuits (e.g., in regard to a Measure R proposal), so I was providing an example of an infill proposal which resulted in a lawsuit. By no means the only infill proposal that has faced lawsuits.
> For my efforts I was told I had sold out the city, that I did not care about affordable housing, and that I was “in the pocket” of the developers (in other words, I was corrupt).
Haters gonna hate. “Shake it Off!” — Taylor Swift
I appreciate your efforts in Nishi 1, a far superior project to what was approved.
> I guess I came to the conclusion that Measure R/J was not really about due diligence concerning the merits of the project and how to make it better
It’s about how to sell to the public with race/age/green talking points.
> I really do not think Measure J/R/D is about sound planning.
Well said. It seems sitting council members (at least those that want to be re-elected) can’t admit this, as JeRkeD is seen as the third rail of Davis politics (even though no railroads in Davis have a third rail).
> Is anyone arguing that Trackside would “lower housing prices”?
At the time, the Campus Democrats did. I know, cuz I asked a couple of them when they showed up en masse at the meeting where the council voted, after two years of our attending council meetings (OEDNA) and the Camp Dems having never complained or even showed up before that last meeting. I asked, “why would you take a position and show up to support something that isn’t for students and is designed as a luxury project”? I was told (paraphrase): “We support any project in Davis that will increase housing stock”.
Well, they would be wrong.
So, the Trackside proposal that Robb (and other council members) supported wouldn’t do anything to lower housing prices, nor did The Cannery.
But truth be told, I think Trackside wasn’t bad, except for those little cottages next to it.
And frankly, it seems to me that there’s nothing inherently wrong with “luxury housing”. I’d rather have “luxury housing” next to me, than anything else. (Actually, I’d rather live in “luxury housing”, as well. But, that’s another subject.)
Ultimately, those living in or near downtown probably should expect some changes. Now, whether or not a 3-story proposal would “pencil out” is something we may never know.
Again you repeat Gloria Partida’s great remarks on Measure JeRkeD, and my complete flabbigastory as to why she didn’t follow her comments with a NO vote.
If she was concerned about the creation of housing shortages, maybe she shouldn’t be advocating for DISC.
In this case, Measure J/R can actually be used to DISCOURAGE housing shortages.
You keep making this argument but its sort of an if we don’t build it they won’t come argument. Something that in my lifetime has been proven wrong by the empirical evidence that world population has gone from 2.7 billion to 7.5 billion and California has gone from 15 million to 40 million.
Ron O prefers to live in a fantasy land where the Davis housing market will somehow fall back into a “sweet equilibrium” if we just stop trying to encourage economic activity of any kind and freeze our community into a continual “Groundhog Day” loop. He’s rather not have to acknowledge that he may have some inconveniences for us to solve our societal problems. It’s ironic that he seems to profess progressive ideals but puts forward reactionary solutions.
I don’t know about “sweet”, but markets are always ultimately in “equilibrium”. The supply-and-demand model that you seem so fond of (while somehow ignoring the purposeful creation of “demand”, e.g., with DISC).
While also ignoring “who” fulfills that demand (e.g., Bay Area transplants, for example).
You gotta love the arguments being put forward that elected officials should be deciding development policies not the voters but when elected school board officials filled a temporary position then oh no, that must be voted on.
Yeap – that’s what I noted yesterday. How odd.
If anything, council members are more susceptible to corruptive influences (to achieve office), than the elected representatives on a school board.
There is at least one better solution, e.g., voting on a binding set of development requirements such as resource use, housing requirements, transportation measures and if a developer complies, then the Council can approve it.
I must have accidentally “ignored” you as a commenter, as I can’t see your comments unless I log out. Therefore, I’ve repasted your comment above.
I’m not sure what “argument” you think I’m making. I just noted what’s in the SEIR for DISC, in that it will create a demand for 1,200 residential units in ADDITION to the 850 on-site units. (And, that’s in Davis, alone.)
In addition to the 1,700 units needed in surrounding communities, to support DISC.
As far as the rest of your comment, another commenter provided data which SHOWED that Davis has been keeping up with its fair share of growth, using the comparisons you’ve noted. (Without even discussing the RHNA requirements, which it has also met and exceeded.)
There is still a problem regarding whether or not the “megadorm” (group housing) will count toward those RHNA requirements. And yet, the city just continues to plow ahead, without knowing that answer. Something that continues to be ignored on here, as well.
Rather than repost, I will refer us back to the discussion yesterday where I pointed that Measure J/R/D is perpetuating racial segregation in Davis.
https://davisvanguard.org/2020/08/monday-morning-thoughts-we-resemble-this-politico-article-the-clash-of-suburbs-housing-and-race/#comment-432454
Robb, thank you for sharing your concerns. I would have to agree with your comment:
The problem confronting Davis is an unwillingness to face the need for planning. As others have observed, Planning is inherently contentious and expensive and politically fraught. While at the same time, we are a community of “acknowledged experts” who feel qualified and entitled (as residents) to “help direct the process” (even in topics for which such experts have no certified or professional qualifications). Efforts to navigate those competing tensions has proven to be a major challenge for this community.
Measures J/R/D are reflective of, and in response to, this dysfunction and serve as a project-by-project failsafe – in the absence of a sound planning backdrop. They serve as an escape hatch, rather than as a tool of proactive planning.
A more thoughtful approach to this renewal would have recognized, in advance of the current election cycle, this long overdue need to confront our failed planning process – and use the occasion of this renewal as a reminder of our delinquent status and a lever – with maybe a two-three year extension – to accelerate community conversations around the topic of future plans.
Sadly, the occasion of this renewal wasn’t even used to discuss or explore, much less recognize, the urgent need for this long overdue conversation within the community – and does no favor to incoming City Councils in terms of prioritizing the issue.
Doby
You inappropriately dismiss the expertise that this community brings to many issues, which most often exceeds the expertise of the City staff on many matters. Please respect the well informed opinions and facts presented on many of these issues.
Richard,
My sincere apologies if that is how you and others have interpreted my charge.
I try to be informed and value different opinions. Though I may not always speak kindly of hired-guns and consultants, I don’t dismiss lightly the work of recognized experts in a given field and I know we have many such experts here in Davis. It is very helpful to me to understand a given commissioner’s or commenter’s academic achievements, together with their career and professional experience in a given field of specialization. Where I have a problem is with self-professed experts (some with limited direct experience, some none) who believe – that because they are an expert in one field – they are somehow entitled to be influential voices on multitudes of important topics pertaining to city government – but for which they have little direct experience or expertise.
I would never want to discourage anybody from pursing their passions, interests and enthusiasm – particularly for projects offering a common, civic benefit but I am clearly more likely to listen to those with achievements and accomplishments to accompany their admonitions.
From a standpoint of good governance and civic priority setting, the related challenge for any academically oriented community, with a plethora of subject matter experts, is the tendency for any topic to be technically parsed and siloed to near death status – often losing sight of the forest from trees. We often seem to end up in this very pasture. Just saying it can be a difficult field of play.
For our professional Administrators, attempting to oversee and umpire the big picture, it’s got to be a bit overwhelming – setting limits and knowing how much time should be devoted to POV “A” versus competing POV “B”. Bottom line analysis overload from TMI. Davis is a “high maintenance” constituency for anyone trying to “be inclusive, and do good government”.
Like you, I suspect, my much larger concerns involve “How do we get to good process?”.
In that regard, I don’t consider a General Plan which is practically-speaking two decades out of date to be a good indicator of good process. Were that we had kept up on our planning obligations, I like to imagine we would have far fewer deeply contentious outcomes and seemingly intractable squabble over the details.
One solution is for the City staff to do less, not more. We have released a proposal to improve City decision making by relying on the expertise in our commissions. You can find more here: https://www.facebook.com/DavisCitizensforTransparentGovernment/ and here: https://www.change.org/p/city-of-davis-a-proposal-for-improving-city-of-davis-decision-making-cdfea38b-0754-4cd4-b068-dbdfa3a3ff9d
Great idea… solves two problems…
Get rid of staff, their expertise, professional opinion… just go with the commissions, appointed by CC, w/o any vote… the commissioners are unbiased, knowledgeable, SME’s… gods and goddesses… oracles…
Saves a lot of money with the elimination of professional staff, inc. pension, medical, other liabilities, and will be truly be ‘democratic’, and much wiser, better informed…
Better governance right?
“Maybe I should not admit this but I really do not think Measure J/R/D is about sound planning.”
Of course this begs the question what do you think J/R/D is about?
I too, have this out of the box idea that I have been reluctant to share, about development in general that J/R/D is part and parcel with (pun intended).
I believe it is really about territory. Territory is one of the things that humans will fight over. The others being food, mates, self defense, protection of children and social status.
Of course people will never admit this but the behaviors we can observe meet the test of inductive reasoning. If you are against peripheral growth of housing and against densification of housing it demonstrates that you are against more housing. Underneath it all, whether the argument is about traffic, noise or farmland, it says you don’t want more people in your territory.
I think this is the case with the U Mall and the neighbors. They don’t want to give over what was a community resource to hundreds of students. They don’t want to give up territory they perceive as part of their dominion or even share it with more people.
Since territory is something that humans are willing to fight over it should be no surprise that Robb Davis, someone who I would describe as a model of what a public servant should be, because he led by example, was accused of being what he described as corrupt.
I remember Will Arnold being called a “traitor” shortly after he said that the day he was sworn in as a CC member was the proudest day of his life.
When it comes to protecting territory humans can become vicious so it should be no surprise that fights over development reach reflexive levels of hostility that reach far beyond what we think of as civil discourse. It becomes almost Pavlovian. You ring the development bell and those that are against giving up any territory immediately start to salivate over opportunities to undermine the proposed project.
Welcome to Davis.
That’s an odd, and I don’t believe accurately descriptive, metaphor.
Davis claims to home to many “progressives.” That means that they are willing and able to overcome their base human emotions and drives when they conflict with the greater good. Overcoming those drives is why we have civilization. If progressives in Davis are not willing to put aside their base desires to protect their “territory” then they must admit that they are hypocrites. Or they can identify that flaw and work to overcome it after acknowleding it.