By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The County of Yolo is starting to embark on new boundaries for the county supervisors. Davis has held, for years as the largest city in Yolo County, two of the five supervisorial districts.
But Davis’ power is declining, as Woodland and West Sacramento are growing much faster than Davis. While Davis has tended to believe it is its own island controlling its own destiny—that’s not necessarily set in stone.
The census data shows that Davis’ population ticked up over the last decade by just 2 percent total, from 65,622 to 66,850. Meanwhile, Woodland grew at 7.6 percent and West Sacramento by 9 percent. West Sacramento has grown from a city of around 30,000 people to one of over 50,000 in just the last few decades.
(There is an interesting caveat to that—there is difference between the Department of Finance cited figure of 66,850 and the Census page which links to the American Communities Survey that lists the population at 69,420. The city indicated that the numbers that will be used for the redistricting will be the lower figure. It’s a huge difference but it does radically change the growth projections from 5.8 percent down to 1.9 percent which does have implications. The city thinks the 69,420 is probably closer to accurate and that the 66,850 figure is probably reflective of students leaving town in April 2020).
How will this impact political power in Yolo County?
There will come a time when Davis probably does not get two supervisors, which could have a profound effect over Davis’ power and potential county growth policies—which I will explain shortly.
The changes are still on the margins. Davis has the largest population still, but that advantage is down to 7000 people over Woodland and 13,000 over West Sacramento. Another decade of growth at the current rate could make the three cities pretty similar in population.
Davis shrank from 32.7 percent of the county’s population to 30.3 percent. Still, a marginal rather than a radical decline.
On the other hand, each supervisorial district in Yolo would be 44 thousand with equal distribution. That means that, instead of two districts, Davis should have 1.5.
Is that a big deal? It could be. For example, Don Saylor is leaving his district. The new districting could reduce Davis’ share of the district to half, rather than the predominant number it currently has.
In addition, Davis remains at the mercy of the rest of the county in terms of what those districts look like, and 60 percent of the votes are outside of Davis.
My sense is that a lot of people are going to shrug this off, but they shouldn’t.
There is a notion that the county has been accepting of the fact that growth should be directed to cities, but that’s actually only a very recent phenomenon.
We can look back to the Mace Ranch incident from the 1980s to see a case where the county permitted growth on the borders of Davis, forcing its hand. That led to the pass-through agreement.
There has been a sense that the county won’t pursue growth, but look only as far as 2007—with two very different supervisors, Helen Thomson and Mariko Yamada—when we saw the exploration of the county developing in the Davis sphere of influence.
That led to some interesting battles in July of 2007 (see the article on the proposal). As it turned out, Yolo County backed down from that when hundreds showed up at the County Supervisor’s meeting, and then Davis elected two supervisors—Don Saylor and Jim Provenza—who were unwilling to allow county development on the periphery.
But the board is evolving. Gone is agricultural anti-growth stalwart Duane Chamberlain. He was defeated this year by Angel Barajas, whose base is in Woodland, not the rural areas. Moreover, Gary Sandy, the other Woodland Supervisor, for years worked for UC Davis in their Government Affairs office and has battled the city of Davis on growth from that vantage point.
Reduce Davis’ number of districts to one, and elect people less inclined to protect agricultural land and you could have profound consequences for Davis. Already, Davis has declining power in Sacramento.
In 2010, Davis was represented by Lois Wolk and Mariko Yamada. Both were Davis residents. Now Davis is represented by Winters’ Cecilia Aguiar-Curry and Napa’s Bill Dodd.
Both of those have much more agrarian and rural interests than Davis. But more importantly, both are far more pro-growth than Davis’ population, and that is reflective of what we see coming out of the legislature on housing policies.
A lot of people take for granted the ability of Davis to control its own destiny, but forget how perilous that has been in the past—and that the seeming stability has only been accomplished over the last 15 to 20 years. That could change fast.
I’m terrified.
I’m sure you will
I resemble that remark.
Or maybe they should.
Like growth, which would give us more population and thus more power? Seems like a self-correcting ‘problem’.
Color us terrified.
I resemble that remark.
Perilous, I tell you.
The accomplishment of seeming stability is the ‘Davis Way’ 😐
Sounds like “fear of change” which ye are often mocking among people who don’t want growth. Maybe ye shouldn’t fear change, such as a loss of power. Probably be good for us – humbling, even . . . or was that humiliating?
So if I read this right: ‘not having enough power due to lack of growth could lead to more growth due to lack of power, so we should grow so we can control growth, which in turn would limit our power’.
About right . . .
So pro-Davis growth in order to continue restricted growth across the county?
I didn’t make an argument either way. Just showed where things could go. Personally I would argue for balance.
That’s they way your article’s reasoning played out and it amused me.
Hey, I can appreciate a blatant attempt or concern for gaining or holding on to power…especially when it’s cloaked in an oxymoron of anti-anti-growth.
Balance? What happened to the Jedi when they tried to achieve “balance to the Force”? They were wiped out. Thanos tried to bring balance to the universe. How’d that work out?
Bah! Just set your agenda and overpower your opponents to the best of your abilities and eventually be forced to begrudgingly settle for some degree of compromise.
The nature of this forum makes it look like I’m a lot more pro growth than I actually am. Partially because I’m debating constantly with negative growthers like Ron Oertel. I would argue that the problem is a matter of balance. We went too far in the direction of growth prior to 2000 which is why I supported Measure J, now we’ve gone too far the other way as exemplified by the 2 percent growth over the last decade
Damn it David; you’re ruining my fun on the subject with rational discussion. FINE….
Yes, it’s an issue of balance. The question is what defines that balance? I support economic growth which is supported my necessary residential growth (I do not believe in residential growth for the sake of residential growth). I support economic growth because I believe at the very least the city’s economy should be more vibrant (superficially better stuff to buy, better eats, better entertainment….but to be clear it’s least important) and offer better to it’s residents; support better city infrastructure, better social services, recreation…etc.. I believe the city’s financial situation isn’t in great shape (but that’s mostly due to Covid….but I could be wrong but it wasn’t exactly robust before Covid). But then at what point is the growth going to provide what you/me want(s)? To be honest, I know the direction I want to go in for now but I can’t define what “balance” will be…or when I want to stop growing….other than in basic economic terms (that and maybe some better streets and traffic mitigation).
I think that’s a reasonable assessment. In 2000, it felt like things spun too far on the side of growth, there had been several major new developments over the previous decade. Now it feels like there has been very little new housing for 2000 years. Much of that student housing – for obvious reasons. So it seems like it has swung too far.
By the City’s calculations, the amount of housing recently constructed or in the pipeline is 8,399 Beds/Bedrooms and 3,153 Units.
That doesn’t include new housing built on campus
8,399 is a growth rate of over 12.5% of the Census population
Yet I’d argue that the city doesn’t have the economic base to support an additional 8,399 units without impact on the quality of life for existing residents (the easy example is traffic, parking and road conditions…but there’s impact on recreational facilities and programs…etc…).
I know I’m sort of preaching to the choir in my response to you but hopefully others will read this….here’s a fascinating article about pro growth and no growth towns in the central valley
The article kind of paints the no growth city of Modesto in a bad light for not providing housing. And their restrictions go too far (much like Davis). But I don’t think the massive sprawl that’s become Manteca is the desired outcome either (though I’d love if Davis had Manteca’s waterslide park). As David and I discussed, somewhere in-between hopefully some sort of balance can be found.
UC added thousands of beds that won’t be included in redistricting but will have the ability to vote for ten years in the districts generated by the census.
“Already, Davis has declining power in Sacramento.”
This has nothing to do with redistricting or growth. The reason Davis went from being home to both an Assembly member and a State Senator to none is because the politicos in Davis didn’t coalesce around a single candidate the last time these seats were open. When Davis splits its votes it loses, otherwise historically it has won.
“This has nothing to do with redistricting or growth. The reason Davis went from being home to both an Assembly member and a State Senator to none is because the politicos in Davis didn’t coalesce around a single candidate the last time these seats were open. When Davis splits its votes it loses, otherwise historically it has won.”
This is actually not correct. The fact that Davis split their vote didn’t make a difference. After the elections, I sat down with the consultants and they showed me why Davis was not going to win the seat. It had to do with districting of Davis with more rural and moderate areas as opposed to where it was previously situated in a more liberal district.
Tempest in a p!$$pot.
Any representative is supposed to represent their district. Period. Where there is no “consensus”, they are supposed to find ‘common ground’ and do their best to at least acknowledge the more diverse views.
Guessing I’m similar to Alan M’s view… which I interpret as, as long as I have a good representative, I really don’t care how many.
Isn’t in the nature of elective officials to represent the dominant view of the people who elected him/her? That’s how they got elected and how they stay elected.
Absolutely correct… also, unethical and not what they SHOULD do, as far as at least acknowledging the minority views… thought I said that, earlier… maybe not…
Ex. : what if the dominant view is that all POC’s be “suspect”? What if the dominant view is all whites are racist? Should the representative only express the dominant view? Or SHOULD they represent all, voting for the dominant, yet pointing out the ‘less dominant’ views? Nah, that would be ethical, and contrary to smart politics.
.
In simple numbers that is correct; however, laying out the districts isn’t as simple as pure ratios. The area that Provenza represents includes Clarksburg and El Macero and Willowbank. A rough guess is that that district is somewhere between 0.8 and 0.9 of the 1.5, leaving between 0.6 and 0.7 of Davis for the area Saylor represents, which includes Patwin and North Davis Meadows and the UC Davis campus within the City of Davis sphere of influence. So, functionally Davis will continue to be the dominant political force in two BOS districts.
Ah, yes… “power to the people!” As long as they are MY people (right?)! Hear where you’re coming from David, but I’m not there. You sing the song of progressives (uber-Liberals) and the uber-Conservatives. I am neither.
Huh? Why should an urban area be better suited to protect ag land than rural/ag folk? Do they need a ‘conservator’, to protect them from themselves? Does Davis qualify for that role?
Am not getting your logic, unless the bottom line is you, and the rest of Davis, should dictate what is best for others… I’m not there… I reject that view. Point out issues, educate, attempt to persuade, I can be there… dictate, no. [edited]
Again, I’m not really coming from anywhere – that’s why this is an analysis, not a commentary. I’m just pointing out the potential fall out of shifting demographics.
It is an incomplete analysis.
Of course it is an incomplete analysis.
.
I think David overestimates the number of people who care about the amount of power Davis wields in Sacramento. I believe the vast majority of people residing in Davis are focused on simply living their own personal lives as pleasantly and productively as possible.
In the 2010 Census 15,000 of the residents were in the 0-19 age cohort. They certainly aren’t concerned about Davis’ power in Sacramento. Another 17,000 were UCD students, who for the most part have much more pressing concerns than Davis’ political power. Another 12,000 are in the retirement age group(s). I believe that group does have a higher level of political interest, but that it is focused predominantly on politics within the City Limits, as well as national politics, leaving Davis’ power in Sacramento a small remnant of their attention. That leaves 22,000 in the 25-54 age group, and a substantial proportion of that group is focused on their daily employment and their families. There are a lot of State of California employees in that group, and I suspect their focus on power in Sacramento is much more day-to-day on their personal power status rather than on the City’s power status.
JMO
“I think David overestimates the number of people who care about the amount of power Davis wields in Sacramento. ”
I had a whole section addressing that very issue. I tried to lay out some reasons to care. I suspect most people won’t.
So, is this whole article exorcising your personal demons?
If people currently don’t care … and are unlikely to care at any time in the future, what is the point?
I try to offer a reason why they should care, but in the end………
They could just add two more districts. I’m less concerned about Davis ‘losing influence’ and more concerned about lack of representation of the rural communities and areas. There’s nothing sacrosanct about having five districts.
Government Code Section 25000 requires each county to have a Board of Supervisors consisting of five members.
San Francisco has 11. Is it unique in that regard?
https://www.counties.org/post/board-supervisors
Answered my own question: yes. And they have to be a charter county.
Even LA has five. San Francisco is a bit unique in that they have a duel governance structure.
And, SF is both a charter city and charter county… I believe SF is the only City and County in CA. Same borders…