My article earlier this week on the PPIC report led to an interesting exchange over Measure J – and let’s face it, many housing discussions in Davis have Measure J as the background.
Richard McCann: “Measure J/R/D is not going away. Voters want some sort of say in developments–that’s democracy. And we know for a fact that unfettered development has left our community worse off in many ways. Instead we need to work within the Measure J/R/D or an equivalent framework. Tim Keller, David G and others have offered viable alternatives that can enable new housing with less risk for developers while still offering them a reasonable profit.”
Ron Glick: “J isn’t going away before 2030 unless the courts take it down and maybe not after 2030 but unless and until more people call it out for its failure to provide opportunity for people to build home equity you will certainly be correct. But the point of my post was to reiterate that the PPIC only reinforces what I have been saying while David and all these other hand wringers, yourself included, have been reluctant to speak what they know to be true about the failures of Measure J. Until people are willing to speak honestly you are correct.”
Richard McCann: “You haven’t paid close attention to what we’ve been saying: 1) Measure J/R/D isn’t going away but it can be modified, either at the ballot box or in how projects are presented to the electorate, 2) here’s proposed modifications that will get us closer to a preferred future and doesn’t simply hand over all of the remaining control to developers who don’t really have the community’s best interest at heart (when push comes to shove, they always respond that maximizing their bottom line is most important.)”
Ron Glick: “The problem with this is that ballot box planning has proven to be a failure. Some want nothing, some want perfect, it has been impossible to reach consensus under J. Look at Nishi as an example. Nishi one was a better proposal and Nishi 2 has proven unbuildable to date six years later. Tell me measure J made it better.”
So let me say at the start, I definitely align much closer these days to what Richard McCann is arguing than what Ron Glick is arguing.
What I like about this discussion is both sides acknowledge we need housing, this isn’t a pro-growth versus slow growth argument, but rather it is an argument about the best way to move forward.
That said, I agree with Ron Glick on his Nishi point – Measure J made Nishi a worse project. It eliminated the for sale component. It eliminated the R&D center that would have been created right next to campus. That is in fact, in my view, nearly criminal. And it made it unbuildable (to this point) by demanding a campus only connection and no linkage to Richards Blvd.
Where I disagree with Ron Glick is that he believes that means that Measure J has to be eliminated.
I think there are practical but also policy-based reasons not to do that.
Here I agree with Richard McCann – “we need to work within the Measure J/R/D or an equivalent framework.”
At this point I favor one of several approaches. One would be, as Tim Keller proposed, some sort of urban limit line that extends beyond the current city boundaries that trigger a Measure J vote. A second would be preapprovals through some sort of General Plan update, that could add land to areas exempt from a Measure J vote, with certain stipulations attached. And a third would be a more simplified version of the rubric, whereby if a project met certain criteria, it would be exempt from a Measure J vote.
That would have allowed a project like Nishi to have avoid the devastating 2016 situation whereby the developer felt compelled to eliminate other types of housing and the R&D center and make it a campus-only accessed project.
It could also allow the city to move forward with projects like Village Farms and Shriners, if they meet certain criteria that are community-agreed upon needs – like housing, density, affordable housing, transportation and the like.
I don’t support simply eliminating Measure J. What has become clear is that, even within the portion of the community that supports housing, there is considerable variation. There are many who simply do not want what many developers are proposing.
I tend to favor an approach that takes a more middle ground, whereby the community has the tools to push developers to adopt more affordable, more sustainable, more environmentally friendly approaches while at the same time recognizing that there is a give and take.
We need to look at the Village Farms proposal to understand that give and take a little more.
The current proposal is removing about 47.1 acres from the development in order to address biological resource preservation. The applicant then decided to retain the 1800 dwelling units, which are desperately needed within the community.
The result: “To offset the shift of 47 acres of developed land to habitat preservation, while retaining the same 1,800-unit count, the BRPA Equal Weight alternative results in densification of the remaining residential areas. This includes a net increase of 360 missing middle units, an increase to 20% affordable units (a net increase of 60 affordable units), and an adjustment to right size the Down Payment Assistance Homes unit count to achieve a higher level of affordability impact with a meaningful down payment assistance dollar amount for each of the 90 units, while still balancing the overall project financial feasibility in light of the above noted adjustments.”
That gives you an idea of some of the tradeoffs that have to be made in order for a project to be viable. Is there still some give and take that can occur? Sure. But at the end of the day, the project needs to be something that the applicant can get financing for and can be built.
From a practical standpoint, Measure J is not going anywhere. The voters supported it last time by about an 83 percent level.
Would that number have been somewhat lower had there been a campaign against it? Sure. But I think the tax measure vote is instructive. Polling last November showed the measure with a theoretical 70 percent support. There was a strong campaign against it, and that lowered the support to about 63 percent.
That’s for a tax measure. People have much more stake in Measure J and much more invested. And it has a much higher starting level of support in the community.
Could the state take it out? I think there is a good chance that it will attempt to do so – particularly if Village and/or Shriners goes down in the next two years.
But, even then, that’s probably not the final say. The council and community will then attempt to come up with an alternative – probably along the lines I set forth above – that will preserve some community-choice while allowing for more development.
For me, that’s not only the politically viable place to come down, it’s also the right place to come down for the very reasons that Richard McCann laid out. It allows us to get more housing, which is my goal but also preserves community discretion for what the future looks like.
To me that is the sweet spot, the win-win.
Finally my purpose for presenting studies like PPIC is to show the impact of current policies on housing and social justice issues that matter to me. We need more discussion of that.
But at the same time, simply throwing out Measure J is probably not a viable answer for this particular community, and so the best approach is to find the sweet spot.
We have not built enough housing over the last 25 years. We have not built enough housing over the last 15 years. What we are doing is not working and therefore needs to be changed. I completely agree. Where I don’t agree is that that change can, OR should be, completely eliminating Measure J.
The sweet spot as you call it has led to a housing shortage and all the problems described by PPIC. So as long as you guys keep saying Measure J works don’t expect any of those problems to get any better.
The sweet spot has not been implemented – it is a halfway measure between the current Measure J and abolition of Measure J.
Do you two even hear yourselves? You’ve been arguing over this for how many years and where has it gotten you?
I find that comment ironic.
Keith, David has moved from supporting Measure J to wanting to fix measure R. Of course he folded when no changes were made and supported Measure D.
I actually think this is a healthy debate and maybe some good will come out of it by 2030 when D has to be reauthorized. In the meantime these ballot box planning processes will continue to exacerbate all the negative impacts described by PPIC.
And Measure D will be reauthorized–it will not be rescinded entirely unless the state steps into abrogate it. So we have to work within a framework which has some form of voter approval along the way. It’s truly a fantasy if anyone believes otherwise. Instead of trying to live that fantasy, a discussion about what’s the best and most viable alternative is what we should be focused on.
And Ron G, you can now stop saying that David still supports Measure J. You can say that he approves of some form of voter approval, but that’s a pragmatic support of democracy.
Even if the state does step in, it is likely that the city would try to enact some sort of modified version.