The project’s timeline has been revised to June 2026 due to delays.
Davis, CA – The long-anticipated Village Farms development will not appear on the 2025 ballot as originally expected, city officials confirmed this week. The project, which proposes 1,800 new homes on 390 acres at Pole Line and Covell, is now slated for a public vote in June 2026, after the developer and city staff agreed to revise the project timeline.
The delay pushes one of Davis’ most significant housing proposals in years back by more than a year, further postponing a decision on a project that has already stirred deep community debate, drawn scrutiny from the Planning Commission, and become a key variable in the future of the city’s public schools.
Under Davis’ Measure J/R/D, any proposal to annex agricultural land for urban development must be approved by voters. The history of such efforts is not encouraging for developers: Davis voters have rejected seven of the nine projects brought to the ballot under Measure J, including the Covell Village project at the same site in 2005.
Village Farms, which revives the concept of Covell Village but with new features and greater attention to sustainability, faces an uncertain future at the polls. While recent surveys show growing public concern about housing scarcity, the project’s scale and environmental implications have stirred both hope and skepticism.
City spokesperson Barbara Archer emphasized that the city remains committed to ensuring a thorough process: “The City of Davis is dedicated to ensuring that all development projects, including the Village Farms proposal, follow the required process… Recognizing that this process can be complex, the City appreciates the developer’s continued efforts to bring the project to completion.”
The Village Farms team issued a statement reaffirming their commitment to the project: “Village Farms remains dedicated to creating a high-quality neighborhood that will serve as a valuable asset to our schools and the broader Davis community… We are optimistic that through these collaborative efforts, we can successfully bring the project to an election within the revised time frame of 2026.”
The project’s draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), presented to the Planning Commission in February, drew some criticism from commissioners and residents alike. Concerns centered on traffic congestion, lack of alternative project scenarios, and environmental mitigation.
“Village Farms remains dedicated to creating a high-quality neighborhood that will serve as a valuable asset to our schools and the broader Davis community…”
Village Farms team
Commissioners also cited concerns about planning for stormwater control, pedestrian safety, and grade-separated crossings for students. Several called for the completion of a new General Plan to guide decision-making—something the city has not updated in over 20 years.
While the land-use and environmental issues remain central, perhaps the most pressing context for the Village Farms delay is its potential impact on the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD).
In a stark presentation to the City Council last week, DJUSD Superintendent Matt Best warned that, without new housing, the district faces a decade of enrollment declines, budget cuts, and possible school closures.
“We’re projecting a drop of about 100 students per year for the next ten years,” Best said. “That’s a thousand students lost—and that has a real and immediate impact on how our schools are funded, staffed, and sustained.”
Demographic data show a dramatic decline in local birth rates and a growing number of non-resident students whose parents work in Davis but live elsewhere due to the high cost of housing. DJUSD now enrolls 1,300 students from outside the district, many from Woodland or West Sacramento.
Village Farms could help reverse that trend. According to DJUSD Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton, the project could add roughly 700 students over 15 years, with another project, Willow Grove, expected to bring in 300 more.
“Without either project, we’re looking at school closures, model changes, and painful boundary shifts,” Clayton said.
Former councilmember Rochelle Swanson, now a representative for Village Farms, summed up the tension: “We’ve improved our school campuses, passed bonds, and now we’re talking about closing them. That’s heartbreaking.”
“We’re looking at school closures, model changes, and painful boundary shifts without either project.”
DJUSD Chief Strategy Officer Maria Clayton
DJUSD Board President Joe DiNunzio was more direct: “The storm is here. We’ve kicked the can down the road on housing for 20 years. We’re out of road.”
While some residents remain wary of growth, citing concerns like flood risk, soil contamination, and affordability, the February Voices to Vision report by the Davis Community Action Network (DCAN) revealed growing support for sustainable housing development. Drawing from 13 community conversations with over 225 residents, the report found that housing, land use, and sustainability were top community priorities.
“Participants were clear: They want City leadership to provide a vision and plan for addressing housing deficits,” the report states, urging a mix of affordability-focused policies and innovative models like cooperatives and cohousing.
The revised 2026 ballot timeline provides additional time for revisions to the Village Farms proposal and more community engagement. But it also delays critical relief for the school district, whose restructuring decisions are expected in October 2026 for implementation in the 2027–2028 school year.
“If neither project moves forward,” Superintendent Best warned, “we will need to restructure the district. That means school closures. It’s not something we want to do—but it’s unavoidable if these trends continue.”
As Davis begins the long-overdue process of updating its General Plan, the future of Village Farms will remain a litmus test for the city’s ability to balance environmental stewardship, community values, and the urgent needs of its schools and families.
From article: “Without either project, we’re looking at school closures, model changes, and painful boundary shifts,” Clayton said.”
Per the Vanguard’s article the other day, DJUSD is looking at “painful boundary shifts” even if the development is APPROVED.
From article: “Former councilmember Rochelle Swanson, now a representative for Village Farms, summed up the tension: “We’ve improved our school campuses, passed bonds, and now we’re talking about closing them. That’s heartbreaking.”
What an odd thing to say – sort of like mourning all of the potential babies that “could have been born” if every woman had as many children as biologically-possible. Just think of all of the additional schools that could have been built as a result.
“Per the Vanguard’s article the other day, DJUSD is looking at “painful boundary shifts” even if the development is APPROVED.”
You’re making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. This happens all the time, and when children have to move from one school to another, that causes some level of angst but structurely it really is a pain rather than a problem.
I’m not the one who used the phrase “painful boundary shifts” – which would occur even if the developments are built.
The other odd thing about all of this is how those who claim there’s a housing shortage (in other words, an “under-supply”) are the same ones who refuse to acknowledge that there’s an “over-supply” of local schools.
The common theme seems to be a purposeful disregard of “demand”.
Right, but what I’m saying is that you are misconstruing what was meant by painful
When a school district is the highest performing in the region and housing prices for that district have a 50% premium over neighboring communities (see Zillow) due to that performance difference (see research I’ve posted before), that means that its a housing shortage that’s the problem, not an oversupply of schools. There is excess demand for those schools which is reflected in the price of access. This is fundamental economics.
There’s several problems with your argument.
First of all, one doesn’t have to live in Davis to attend Davis schools. In fact, those moving to the area can attend Davis schools without even paying the parcel tax, which would (logically) “increase the premium” in surrounding communities, instead.
But the bigger problem (for those concerned about equity) is that any additional house built in Davis (assuming it attracts families with school-age children) is a “loss” for some other community in regard to THEIR school districts. (That is, unless you’re arguing that young families move to Davis to have children that they otherwise wouldn’t have.) And since those moving to Davis are willing to pay more, it is likely that parents with the most resources are the same ones who would abandon other districts as a result of a move to Davis.
I believe your figure is off as well, and that it’s more like 40%.
But perhaps more-importantly (for those concerned about equity issues
There are several problems with you argument
This changes the potential for us to fix the REAL problem… measure J itself substantially.
We have been discussing this for almost 2 years now. No better alternatives have come to the fore.
Lets put THAT on the ballot in November and see if it passes, and if not… then the developer’s less-than-perfect option is a fall-back.
Tim, the ballot language for an amendment to Measure J would need to be finalized and sent to Yolo County Elections by early July for it to be part of the November election.
Do you think the Council could come up with that language by then?
Do I think there is any chance that the council would do something bold and controversial? No I do not
Why would the council even bother to discuss revising Measure J? Given the margin it passed by last time, there’s not much chance that any modification that makes development easier would ever pass the voters.
This town is broken.
I’m not sure they will – but the answer to your question might be in your previous post – “how difficult it is to develop anything in Davis.” At some point the state is going to step in – the only question is when.
DS: “This town is broken.”
Truer words were never spoken :-|
I think its the sentiment that “this town is broken” that is why it has a chance of passing.
Davis voters are smart. Yes measure J was passed by a high percentage, but the decision on the ballot at the time was “measure J versus NO measure J at all”… I voted for it too. I fear not having measure J because we know the kind of projects we will end up getting, especially in the absence of a master plan.
That doesn’t mean that our city is full of die-hard anti-growth purists who are deeply committed to measure J as its currently written. In fact that would be a very odd conclusion to draw.
I have seen this from the hundreds of conversations with people across this city… every chance I get, especially with people who do NOT hang out in the vanguard comments section… and its pretty clear: Measure J is about fear of the unknown, fear of bad projects sneaking past.
If we proactively state what we WANT to occur.. and couple it with other restrictions that make it very clear what is going to happen… I think that is a very different story. Again, I think davis voters are smart and are capable of understanding that if we dont fix it, we are going to lose it.
Responding to Matt’s question… yes, the measure language we worked out long ago… I think the most recent post of mine with those specifics is this one:
https://davisvanguard.org/2024/01/guest-commentary-lessons-from-testing-the-measure-j-amendment-at-the-village-farms-site/
” . . . and its pretty clear: Measure J is about fear of the unknown, fear of bad projects sneaking past.”
Good luck with that argument.
You are so out of touch regarding what will happen. Weakening Measure J is low-hanging fruit to a degree that you don’t seem to understand.
Odd comment from someone who hasn’t been a registered voter in Davis in over a decade. Tim has spent a lot of time meeting with people and working on this issue, certainly his view doesn’t warrant that kind of response.
David says: “Odd comment from someone who hasn’t been a registered voter in Davis in over a decade.”
You (or one of your minions) did take a relatively-recent photo of me and Eileen at The Cannery, right? You certainly posted it.
Efforts to weaken Measure J is a much easier task to challenge to take on than even Village Farms – as you yourself noted.
David says: “Tim has spent a lot of time meeting with people and working on this issue, certainly his view doesn’t warrant that kind of response.”
I’ve met him, and heard other talk about him in regard to what I’m going to say next. (He doesn’t know that I’ve met him, but I knew who he was.) He imagines/presents “coalitions” where none exist.
There is no personal attack regarding my comment to Tim. I find him personable, though he obviously has a “business interest” (and a loan from the city in regard to his business).
Tim’s proposed amendment language from the link is:
The proposed Measure J Amendment:
A property that lies inside the geographic boundary indicated in Exhibit 1 may be annexed into the city for development by a majority vote of the city council if the proposed project is found by the planning commission and the City Council to have met ALL of the following four requirements:
• The proposed development plan is materially compliant with the most recent city masterplan adopted by the voters for that area.
• The initial plan is indicated in Exhibit 2,
• This plan can be updated by majority vote of the citizens during even-year November elections.
• The overall gross density of the project is at least of 20 du / acre for designated residential areas.
• 7% of the project gross acreage is dedicated to the city for the development of affordable housing.
• All buildings are constructed to energy efficiency, green building and other sustainability standards set by the city.
That is a good starting point. It does raise a few questions for me.
(1) Do we have any “most recent city masterplan adopted by the voters” for any of the areas of the City? The Downtown Specific Plan comes to mind as one possible example, but wasn’t adopted by the voters.
(2) Why 7% of the land area?
(3) What price threshold for affordable? As I demonstrated with the annual housing cost numbers yesterday a $740,000 home with a $600,000 mortgage costs in excess of $70,000 a year in recurring housing costs. Is that affordable.
(4) Davis has a historical legacy of classist, and before that racist, housing policies. How does your proposed amendment to Measure J help us achieve social justice in housing and transcend that dark past, which continues to exist in the present?
Matt,
Some quick answers to your questions.. I probably should just write another article re-stating all of this stuff, and capturing some of the finer points.
(1) the voter approved master plan is what we would be approving with the meature J ammendment itself. We wanted to have a mechanism for updating it in the future without the council being able to unilaterally doing so.
(2) The 7% land area is in response to the fact that when you do the land dedication as “a percentage of units” it actually dis-incentivizes density in the main project… it works like a tax on density. So its a lot simpler to take the number of units and the density out of it, and just ask for the kind of land dedication you would get if you did a standard suburban development with single family housing… which ends up being 7% of the land.
I’ll email you a spreadsheet that shows this pretty well.
(3) the affordable parts are just land dedication in this ammendment. How the dedicated sites get developed is up to the city and the developers of those sites. What is important is that in order to get to 20du / acre in the rest of the transit-served area, you have to be building apartments, towhomes and condos… by definition.
(4) regarding class. It is the fact that so many cities developed themselves ENTIRELY out of expensive housing forms like single family suburbia that has caused such disparity. It was a feature , not a bug, of the original suburban concept as you point out. The way to have an inclusive society is to make sure we have housing for local workers at EVERY wage level present in our community. I dont think I’d be a fan of more agressive targeting than that…
Tim, land dedication to provide for “big A” affordable housing does very little if anything to actually achieve anything .., especially social justice progress toward addressing Davis’ current classist housing realities or remedying Davis’ historical racist housing past.
Land dedication is a golden parachute for the developers. Like Pontius Pilate they get to wash their hands of responsibility for actually providing affordable housing to the community and its workers. The historical record in Davis shows that it has often taken over 20 years for the dedicated land to actually have housing on it.
Far better, and consistent with your densification goals, would be to pursue (and include in the amendment and City ordinances) procedural carrots that incentivize developers to build truly affordable … “small a” affordable … homes that have between 900 square feet and 1,100 square feet, and sell for well below $600,000, ideally below $500,000. Those would be truly affordable for the young families that currently work in Davis businesses and/or on the UCD Davis campus. And they wouldn’t have to wait for 20 years to come to fruition. The developers would very naturally densify those smaller units onto smaller lots in order to get their desired profit margin.
Matt says: “Land dedication is a golden parachute for the developers. Like Pontius Pilate they get to wash their hands of responsibility for actually providing affordable housing to the community and its workers. The historical record in Davis shows that it has often taken over 20 years for the dedicated land to actually have housing on it.”
Also, it appears that such sites might only be counted “once” (in regard to housing elements), per the information that David referred to. (In other words, if it remains unbuilt for more than a single RHNA cycle.)
Matt, We get the “market rate affordable” category and the economic diversity you are interested in simply with the density requirement. I hesitate to make the ballot language any more specific than that.
The goal here is to actually get a large amount of more-affordable market rate housing types than we would get via the status quo. That means we need to give the develolpers a way to make money so the housing actually gets built.
So by stating that the density just needs to average 20 du / acre in the specified zone… they cant really achieve that number by doing anything other than making affordable housing types: Condos / Apartments / townhomes.
If we want to get specific with different densities and housing types, we can do that by revising the map in subsequent development cycles.
Regarding capital-A affordable
I acknowledge that the capital-A affordable via land dedication takes a long time to get developed, but I’m not aware of a suprior model that has been successful here, and this metric for low-income housing is a very important to a lot of the community members I have talked to… in fact quite a few of them put it as their #1 metric… even being okay with NOT producing missing middle housing if it means more affordable units.
Now, I don’t personally agree with that last sentiment… Im just saying there is a breadth of opinions on this issue, and providing low-income (means tested) housing is HIGH on the list for a lot of people, and the best mechanism for getting that done reliably seems to be land dedication. (open to better ideas… )
Again, with the goal of keeping this ballot language concise and simple, 7% land dedication gets us MORE capital-A affordable than we would get if developed as single-family suburbia… and we dont dis-incentivize the developers building more densely in the rest of the market-rate areas. win-win.
Tim says: “The goal here is to actually get a large amount of more-affordable market rate housing types than we would get via the status quo. That means we need to give the develolpers a way to make money so the housing actually gets built.”
But then Tim goes on to state this: “I acknowledge that the capital-A affordable via land dedication takes a long time to get developed, but I’m not aware of a suprior model that has been successful here, and this metric for low-income housing is a very important to a lot of the community members I have talked to… in fact quite a few of them put it as their #1 metric… even being okay with NOT producing missing middle housing if it means more affordable units.”
So it sounds like what YOU advocate for is not what a “lot of community members” (as you say) actually want.
As a side note, I’m pretty sure that your market-rate density advocacy is pretty easier to defeat via a Measure J vote than a less-dense proposal. Wanna give it a try and find out?
Also, what “problem” exactly is trying to be “solved” with all of this nonsense?
This is very unfortunate news and illustrates, once again, how difficult it is to develop anything in Davis.
Don, wouldn’t it be wise to …
(1) Develop the local economic landscape to add jobs that contribute resilience and robustness to that local economy.
(2) Build homes that the current employees of local businesses like yours can afford.
As follow-up to the discussion of housing costs from several days ago, I did the research to put together the following (only partially complete) list of the recurring annual housing costs for a $740,000 home in Davis.
Mortgage Payments, $46,512
Mortgage Balance Life Insurance, $2,285
Property Taxes, $7,400
PARCEL TAXES
DJUSD 2000 Bond $89
DJUSD 2018 Bond $414
DJUSD CFD #1 $155
Djusd Measure N $768
Los Rios CCD $148
East Davis Fire $278
Davis Special Library Tax $121
Davis Open Space Tax $24
Davis Parks Tax $55
CFD Taxes, $2,224
HOA Fees, $???
Homeowners Insurance, $2,500
Fema Flood Insurance, $1,000
Home Maintenance and Repairs $???
UTILITIES
Gas, $1,424
Electricity, $3,944
Water, $1,992
Sewer, $613
Storm Sewer, $130
Municipal Service $112
Public Safety, $88
Garbage/Recycling $706
Green Waste $91
TOTAL $73,072
Don, wouldn’t it be wise to …
(1) Develop the local economic landscape to add jobs that contribute resilience and robustness to that local economy.
After 20 years of discussion, I think we can conclude that it will be a complete waste of time to even discuss this any further.
(2) Build homes that the current employees of local businesses like yours can afford.
I suggest you stop trying to dictate what types of homes get built.
Don, so you believe the City should continue on its current path where its annual revenues only cover its annual operating expenses and don’t cover (provide for) any capital infrastructure repair and replacement?
BTW, I am not dictating the type of homes that get built. The market is dictating that. The market, as well as Davis’s classist history of bias (originally racist history of bias). Either we as a community are believers in and committed to social justice, or we are not.
Matt: As I recall, your calculations assume a $140K downpayment (and also don’t account for closing costs). Is that correct?
As I said in my comment Ron the categories ad dollar amounts are for recurring annual expenses. Any down payment and/or closing costs are upfront and one time, not annual recurring costs.
You did say that.
I think I have a solution for first-time homebuyers: Get yourself some money. (And a lot of the younger generation has been doing just that, often times by living with their parents while first paying-off the student loan debt that they shouldn’t have taken out.)
But those generations are going to inherit everything, anyway. That’s how it works.
If we wait long enough, the housing crisis people themselves might start fading away.
Ron wants to stop housing at all costs.
I see that you didn’t like my original response, so I’ll change it.
Let’s just say that I don’t think there’s actually a housing shortage (and as you know, I can post a link to a study which shows this).
There may be a widening gap in wealth in this country. And if so, that’s where your problem is – which has nothing in particular to do with housing. (It’s just that housing is always the biggest “category” of costs.)
Sometimes it’s better to just point out that you’re against housing than to debate it.
I’d say that, except that it isn’t true.
But you have to start out by examining the claim that there’s a housing shortage, first. Wouldn’t it be rather ignorant to not do so?
Don says: “After 20 years of discussion, I think we can conclude that it will be a complete waste of time to even discuss this any further.”
Made me laugh (in a good way, I think).
Vanguard has an audience of about 4 commenters with a 2×2 argument for pro vs anti sprawl. Not a great representation of the city at large,
The owners wanted this on the ballot in November 24 then 25 now June 26. Why is the city slow walking this project?
Especially when they are running up to state deadlines on the other end. We are almost getting to the point where if this fails, the city will not be able to make their next RHNA obligations.
They’re not going to be able to do so THIS time, either. Very few cities will.
That’s because it’s not an achievable task (in terms of actually seeing them built).
They’ll end up “recycling” the same unbuilt sites, over-and-over. (This actually provides an incentive to NOT allow those sites to be built.)
“ They’ll end up “recycling” the same unbuilt sites, over-and-over.”
Can’t
From what I previously read elsewhere, they absolutely “can”.
They changed the law so you can’t – look it up
Under California law, cities and counties are generally prohibited from counting the same site more than once across housing element cycles to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations. This restriction is detailed in California Government Code §65583.2(c), which outlines the conditions under which previously identified sites can be reused in subsequent housing elements.
Already did – I’m referring to how things are now, per what I recall.
In such cases, those sites subsequently have fewer restrictions on them.
But you’re looking at this backwards – it’s not the problem of cities throughout the state. It’s actually the state’s problem, for creating a system that is failing even as we write this.
California Government Code section 65583.2(c)
This does NOT state that they can’t be “re-used”. In fact, it literally states that they CAN be re-used.
This restriction is detailed in California Government Code §65583.2(c), which outlines the conditions under which previously identified sites can be reused in subsequent housing elements.
And those conditions are?
I’m not seeing the conditions – how about you reference them?
Here’s what AI summarizes, regarding re-use of sites:
California Government Code §65583.2(c) outlines the conditions for reusing previously identified sites in subsequent housing elements, particularly for accommodating lower-income housing. Specifically, a site can be presumed realistic for development if a lower-income housing development has been proposed and approved on it. If a site was used in a prior housing element to accommodate low or very low-income needs, the current housing element must include a program requiring rezoning to allow residential use by right at specified densities.
So now you see how realistic it is to attempt to re-use a site.
So perhaps the sticking point would be “presumed” – if the condition listed is the ONLY way to “presume”. And what, exactly, is meant by “lower-income”.
But again, the “requirements” are failing across the state. So, I’m not sure how the state is going to “punish” all of these cities.
You yourself noted that the “builder’s remedy” is not financially-viable in most circumstances.
It seems likely that further court challenges will occur regarding such issues, especially from cities which are able to show sites that haven’t been built. Seems to me that this provides further evidence that the state’s program is not realistic.
Builder’s remedy is not going to be lever to unstick housing in Davis.
But actually, I’m not sure that court challenges will even be necessary, due to the massive failure of the state’s “mandates”.
I can see a scenario in which almost all cities fail to meet the “mandates”, and will simply acknowledge it. At which point, they’ll just say to the state, “o.k. – do what you gotta do to us, then”. (Which will end up being nothing due to the lack of viability of “tools” such as the builder’s remedy.)
Ultimately, the state is going to lose one way or another – due to lack of viability, or an uprising from the people who elected them.
A general failure is immaterial, every locality is going to have to find a way to do their housing. In Davis, that’s a relatively easy answer.
And as far as Davis in particular is concerned, I’m getting tired of hearing about your threats to Measure J. Go ahead and try it, I say.
If the only option is to vote “yes” on everything, what good is Measure J in the first place?
But if the state did somehow strike it down, it would lay bare their lies regarding the reason for their “mandates”. They essentially claim that they never intended it to be used for sprawl.
The next projects will go to a vote. If they pass, probably nothing will happen. If they fail, it is very likely that the state or a third party will sue and then it will go to the courts. The courts have generally not been very forgiving on barriers to housing. It’s a very simple calculation. BTW, it’s not a threat, I will not be party to anything of the sort.
David says: “A general failure is immaterial, every locality is going to have to find a way to do their housing.”
If there’s a “general failure”, that means that every locality does not have a way to “do their housing”. That is a threat to the state’s mandates themselves; it is not a threat to individual cities.
If you require someone or some entity to do something they literally cannot do, “punishment” is ineffective. Especially since the punishment is also not viable.
In other words, you can’t say oh San Francisco didn’t fulfill it’s obligations, therefore we don’t need to true. The courts would reject such reasoning.
David says: “The courts have generally not been very forgiving on barriers to housing.”
And yet, the state has lost on SB-9.
Again, Measure J is not useful if the only option is to vote “yes”. As such, your repeated threats (and that’s what they are, even if you’re not a direct party to any action) are not effective.
We all know that you want to weaken Measure J, so your denial of interest in seeing it weakened is a form of “thou does protest too much”.
I’d say let them drag it through the courts. Better than kowtowing to them constantly out of fear.
And again, it’s not just Davis which has urban limit lines, etc.
They lost at a district level court on SB-9 on the specific issue of whether it applied to Charter Cities.
“Again, Measure J is not useful if the only option is to vote “yes”.”
It’s also not useful if the only outcome is no, except under rare circumstances.
David says: “In other words, you can’t say oh San Francisco didn’t fulfill it’s obligations, therefore we don’t need to true. The courts would reject such reasoning.”
You have seen the “YIMBY scorecard”, right? It’s not just San Francisco.
But again, it’s not that court challenges even need to occur, when the state’s mandates are failing statewide. This is a system failure, not an individual city failure.
And again, the punishments themselves (statewide) are not viable either.
The state is going to have its hands full, when they try to take over local planning statewide.
The state has shown a willingness to engage on this issue.
They have gone after some cities which are outright hostile to the state’s mandates.
And I strongly suspect that very little housing has been built as a result in most of THOSE cities, either.
None of which is material to the issues in Davis
I’m not sure if you’re purposefully being dense.
When the system itself is failing, it’s going to be hard for the state to single-out ANY city.
The point is that they already are. And the state is not the only entity that could sue to invalidate measure J.
So again, David. Measure J is not useful if the only option is to vote “yes”. As such, these type of scare tactics don’t scare me, at least. They irritate me, however.
Take it though the courts. And while they’re at it, they can try to eliminate urban limit lines throughout the state.
The argument is that measure J is an unlawful barrier to housing. If the next project gets approved, that would undercut that argument. If it fails, it augments it. If the next two project fails, that further augments it.
David says: “I don’t really see the point of continuing this.”
You brought it up, and you responded to my comments.
David says: “I’m passing along what I’ve heard and what I would predict to be a given course of action, we’ll see how it unfolds.”
Developers do indeed seem to communicate through you. It’s unfortunate that they don’t make their threats directly – out in the open for all to see.
That doesn’t mean we have to continue
I will add that you make a lot of assumptions in your last paragraph that is not accurate – you’re focused on the wrong boogeyman. It’s not developers you should fear on this.
David says: “It’s not developers you should fear on this.”
As I recall, you referred to some kind of social justice organization, in the past. (Figures, as I strongly dislike most of them in the first place.) Would you care to remind us who that is?
But just wanted to clarify (again) that I personally have no “fear” regarding any of this. If Measure J is actually that vulnerable, I’d rather seem them challenge it sooner, rather than later. The reason being that it will always have a dark cloud/threats hanging over it, until it’s settled in court.
So I say, “put up or shut up” to any organization that wants to challenge it.
“I personally have no “fear” regarding any of this.”
Which is why you spent an hour arguing over it
My “fear” is that you’ll influence voters to approve a proposal out of their own fear.
Not that I fear a challenge through the court system. As I said, I’d rather see that occur sooner, rather than later. The reason being that it will constantly be used to instill fear, until it’s settled.
Mu-hu-ha-ha-ha :(evil cackle)
That’s what we call “blackmail”.
And Measure J would STILL have the same vulnerabilities even if the next couple of developments are approved, if you’re conclusion is correct.
We’ll see if the state or courts consider land that is outside of city boundaries, for example, subject to their “mandates”.
I generally don’t try to predict all of the issues that would arise in any court challenge – which are likely far more than would arise on a blog.
But again, if I could vote on these proposals, I wouldn’t let “fear” influence me.
I don’t really see the point of continuing this. You’re not a voter in Davis, you’re not a lawyer, you’re not a judge and I’m not going to sue anyone personally, so neither of us are deciders here. I’m passing along what I’ve heard and what I would predict to be a given course of action, we’ll see how it unfolds.
That is a reasonable approach David. Sit back and watch how it plays out.
Ron G, is it the City that is slow walking this, or is it the developers? The developers have clear taken a “need to know” approach to this project application, trying to sweep under the rug the key challenges that come with this site and their specific proposal. Many of the assumptions they channeled into the analysis process have been illuminated as either insufficient or inaccurate or both. A perfect example was demonstrated in the financial analysis presented by BAE to the Fiscal Commission last week. According to BAE’s analysis, the project is a money loser for the City unless the City’s taxpayers shoulder 68% of the costs of the new fire station proposed to be built to service Village Farms. Former Council member Dan Carson came to the meeting to clearly state that the City’s past analyses of the need for an additional fire station showed that there were much better options and more cost efficient options than building and staffing a fourth fire station. Bottom-line, including an onsite fire station was a bad assumption.
Similarly, a bad assumption was made about how to include the end-of-useful-life capital infrastructure repair and replacement costs in the financial analysis. City staff told BAE that the property taxes include the dollars needed for that, but the fact that the City has accumulated over $250 million of unfunded liabilities for deferred maintenance of its capital infrastructure tells a very clear different story.
Similarly, the transportation study VMTs are calculated using an assumption that virtually all of the Village Farms residents who work will work either in the City or on the UCD Davis campus. There is no sensitivity analysis of the impact of that assumption, nor any sensitivity analysis of what happens to the VMTs when the employment location assumption starts at 100% employed in Davis and ratchets across the percentages to 100% employed across the Yolo Causeway or down Interstate 80. To not provide those sensitivity analyses was a bad assumption.
The developers have made a social justice assumption about the project as well that has come into the light of day as a result of the BAE analysis. BAE told the Fiscal Commission that the affordable units would have a sale price of $740,000. Using a $600,000 mortgage and all the existing taxes and Mello-Roos and utilities and HOA and insurance costs, the annual recurring costs for that $740,000 home would be in excess of $76,000 per year. Using the “30% of income” standard that means a household annul gross income of over $253,000. Can the existing jobs pool in Davis and the UCD Davis campus produce 1,800 households with over $253,000? Or are there going to be lots and lots of those households that have to rely on out of town jobs to produce that kind of household income? Out of town jobs mean increased VMTs.
As an FYI, here are the components of the $76,000 annual recurring costs
$46,500 mortgage payments
$2,200 mortgage balance life insurance
$7,400 property taxes
$4,300 parcel taxes
$2,200 Mello-Roos CFD taxes
$1,500 HOA dues (current dues at the Cannery)
$2,500 Homeowners Insurance (sure to go up due to wildfires)
$1,100 FEMA Flood Insurance
$9,000 Utilities
As for an amendment to Measure J putting one on the ballot before it comes up for renewal in 2030 is a waste of time and would come at a huge cost of political capital.
“…is the city slow walking this or are the developers?.”
You’re blaming the victims.
No Ron the victims are the tens of thousands of people who work in Davis businesses, providing you and me with goods and services … all for a gross income of less than $50,000. The developers and our City leaders are content o grind those contributors to Davis under their heel while they pursue profits and political power.
It is through the subdivision process that developers profit from that allows people to build equity from the purchase of subdivided land and homes.
Is your problem with people engaging in business to make a profit or is it in allowing people to build equity? I’m not sure I understand your point.