When the city council discussed the timing of housing projects going to the voters, they argued that they didn’t want anything to interfere with the passage of the revenue measure.
That meant pushing the first housing project—presumably Village Farms—to a special election in 2025. That always seemed problematic in terms of getting a project approved.
The council then compounded that decision by mucking up the waters for the revenue measure anyway, with their handling of the commission issue.
But even with that misstep, the revenue measure is going to pass handily and by a wider margin than a sales tax measure passed in 2014. That result, despite the work by the No on Q folks, punctuates the flawed reasoning of pushing out consideration of Village Farms.
The council got their revenue measure—but clearly they would have gotten their revenue measure passed regardless of the timing of the housing measures.
But there is now a problem—housing.
As of right now, it appears most likely that Village Farms would go to the voters in November 2025—that’s assuming the council is ready to approve in June or July of 2025.
I have always been leery of a special election for a housing measure. The problem is that it will be the only thing on the ballot. That means that the infrequent voters are unlikely to come out. Unlike in November 2024, students, who are the demographic most likely to support housing, will likely not vote.
The folks most likely to vote in a special election align with the demographics least likely to support a housing project.
So that’s the first problem—pushing a housing measure that is likely to generate strong opposition to a special election which would be a low turnout event.
From the city’s standpoint, there are several things we need to be aware of.
First, just because the last housing element (sixth cycle) was certified by the state doesn’t mean the city is now in the clear until 2030. The state is now monitoring local jurisdictions to ensure that they are making significant progress toward actually approving and building the units.
According to the YIMBY Law dashboard, Davis is “making slow progress” and “is falling behind. It is not on track to meet its housing targets.”
That’s just for this cycle. It also is going to have an even more difficult time just finding the land to rezone for the next cycle. Contrary to what people think, the city can’t merely wait until 2028 or 2029 to do this, they are going to have to have land outside the city rezoned by then—which means the latest will probably be 2026 or 2028 for getting Measure J votes.
But, worse than that, if they don’t make substantial progress, the state could force changes much sooner. A big trigger could be the defeat of one or both of the Measure J votes coming up—and given where things are, the city has made it far more difficult to get a housing measure passed.
For those who believe the state wouldn’t come in and attempt to use the courts to take out Measure J, just look at how aggressive they have been elsewhere pushing through the courts to reverse local land use decisions blocking relatively small housing projects, as well as ensuring compliance with State Housing Law in other communities.
People in Davis are acting as though we can just operate as though business were normal—but the state is going to have a lot say about this.
If the city is still behind on its progress for the sixth cycle and the voters vote down the next housing project, it is very possible that is the point at which the state steps in to litigate.
Some of this is of course out of the hands of the city council, but their decision—which I believed was flawed from the start—to push off the projects in favor of the revenue measure coupled with the commission fiasco is self-inflicted damage.
Hindsight is 2020
I made most of these arguments a year ago
Three years after supporting renewal of Measure J.
You lament the consequences of supporting Measure J.
All I can say is you wanted it now you own it.
You missed the whole point of this column
No I didn’t.
Lamenting the future that is the consequence of the policy you supported.
I don’t see it that way.
First, the council made a calculated decision that was disadvantageous (and not just in hindsight).
Second, the Council’s action has made it unlikely a project will pass in 2025
Third, The very people who are the strongest supporters of Measure J are going to pave the road for the state to come in and take it out.
Whether or not you agree with Measure J, this was about a bad decision that will make it much harder to get housing approved although ironically make it much more likely that your preferred outcome happens – Measure J goes bye-bye
You want it both ways. First you support the biggest impediment to adding housing then second guess and criticize the policy decisions of the people who are hamstrung by the policy you support.
Then you lament the calendar because you fear it will be unfavorable to the housing construction you know is needed but is at risk of not getting built because of the policy you support.
Finally you worry that the success of Measure J in blocking new housing will be it’s undoing.
Obviously you still think Measure J is worth having. If the last 24 years haven’t taught you Its unworkable I doubt anything ever will.
As the old Pete Seeger song goes:
When will they ever learn
Oh when will they ever learn.
I may have missed an announcement, but I thought Village Farms was heading to a March 2025 ballot, not November. Am I wrong?
I just found out that it’s most likely going to be November rather than March. They have a lot of things to do before it can get approved and it’s already November.
It’s now on the agenda item as November – https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/2024/2024-11-19/05-Village-Farms-Information-Update.pdf see the very bottom of the document
By the way you forgot to explain the stated reason Will didn’t want it on the November ballot. He didn’t want another divisive Measure J campaign after the last one.
Also remember that Bapu told the people at the interfaith housing forum that if he could have one wish it would be to never build another single family home.
Your article fails to mention either of these positions and seems to argue that the tax measure was the only thing that motivated the Council to delay a concurrent Measure J vote.