I once asked an opponent of pretty much all housing what Davis should do—the flippant response was what the major coastal cities are doing to meet their housing demands.
It was an absurd response then, and even more so now.
Well, San Francisco is about to go vertical again—big time. But that doesn’t mean that Davis should follow San Francisco’s lead in this respect. Davis is not in the same situation as San Francisco and its solutions to housing dilemmas SHOULD look different.
To illustrate this point, let’s look at the new proposal for 88 Bluxome Street in SoMa.
To understate the point, it would dramatically reshape the city’s skyline with two gleaming towers—rising 51 and 58 stories, adding 1,500 much-needed rental units to the city’s constrained housing stock.
The plan from Strada Investment Group isn’t just a flashy architectural feat but a tacit recognition of something fundamental about California’s urban landscape: when you can’t build out, you build up.
That’s the reality in San Francisco. Hemmed in by water on three sides and locked into decades of dense urban development, the city has little choice but to grow vertically. If it wants more housing—particularly near major transit like Caltrain and Muni Metro—it has to take to the skies.
And San Francisco, for all its challenges, is doing just that. Thanks to new state laws like SB 330 and SB 423, developers are bypassing red tape and taking advantage of streamlining mechanisms that allow them to fast-track projects that include affordable housing. This project, for example, reserves 10% of its 1,500 units for low-income residents. That’s not enough, but it’s better than nothing in a city desperate for new homes.
Contrast that with Davis.
Davis, unlike San Francisco, isn’t boxed in by geography. Davis has plenty of land on its borders where housing could be built. What’s boxed in, in Davis, isn’t the landscape—it’s the politics. Measure J (and its successors, R and D) has made it nearly impossible to expand outward. Any proposal for housing on the city’s periphery must face a public vote, and nearly all of them have failed. The result is predictable: a slow-growth city in a high-demand region, where housing scarcity is self-inflicted.
This isn’t about comparing skylines. Davis will never need 58-story towers, nor should it try to replicate San Francisco’s density or design. But it does need to learn a basic lesson from its bigger neighbor: housing doesn’t appear without political will. In cities like San Francisco, that will is expressed through vertical ambition. In Davis, it’s buried under layers of voter-imposed restriction.
The irony is painful. While Davis boasts of sustainability and progressive values, its housing policies have produced exclusionary outcomes. Limited housing supply has driven up prices, pushed workers and students out of town, and forced long commutes that increase carbon emissions. Measure J was designed to give voters control over sprawl, but, in practice, it has given them veto power over inclusive planning. The result is a bottleneck that stifles growth, affordability, and opportunity.
Meanwhile, developers like Strada are reclaiming underused land in the heart of San Francisco and turning it into vertical neighborhoods. The 88 Bluxome project replaces a defunct tennis club with homes, open space, retail, and bike parking—all within steps of public transit. It’s a blueprint for urban regeneration that Davis, with its wealth of flat, buildable land, doesn’t even need to emulate. Davis just needs to stop stopping itself.
Opponents of new housing in Davis often cite traffic, water use, or loss of farmland. These are valid concerns—but they are not unsolvable. Sustainable development is possible. Urban growth boundaries, green building standards, and smart infrastructure investments can help ensure that new housing is both environmentally responsible and socially inclusive. But none of that matters if every project is subject to a citywide vote where the loudest voices drown out long-term needs.
San Francisco isn’t perfect. Projects like 88 Bluxome still face challenges, including lawsuits, financing hurdles, and community pushback. But at least the city recognizes that housing is essential infrastructure. Davis, by contrast, clings to a status quo that has produced housing scarcity, displacement, and inequality.
If San Francisco can look upward and say, “This is how we solve it,” then Davis needs to look inward and ask, “Why can’t we even try?”
Until Measure J is reformed—or repealed—Davis will continue to pretend that its housing crisis is someone else’s problem. But in the long run, the problem will come home to roost, in the form of rising costs, declining diversity, and a generation priced out of the city they grew up in.
Davis can’t build up like San Francisco. But it can build out. The question is: will it?
Could you clarify what you mean that Davis “cant” build up?
Mid-rise buildings perhaps up to 10-12 stories in our downtown at some point in my lifetime probably not crazy. Densification close to campus or along transit-served arterials is always going to be better for everyone than automotive-served horizontal expansion.
Event though I am totally supportive of the development of the VF site and the rest of the mace curve, the only development pattern that makes sense there is also significantly more “up” than the flat sprawl contained in the developers proposals ( not high rises mind you, but density closer to the south end of the cannery). and then it only makes sense if there is REALLY GOOD TRANSIT.
If we cant do transit well, we need to design for walkablity, which means very tall buildings adjacent to the university. I dont think there is a fundamental reason why we “cant” do that… (?)
“Mid-rise buildings perhaps up to 10-12 stories in our downtown at some point in my lifetime probably not crazy.”
I agree with that. But I don’t see going up as a short-term solution to the next two or three RHNA cycles – that’s what I meant by that statement.
Did some quick research on this site, and it’s apparently a site that previously housed a tennis club (which was demolished, in order to make room for an office tower – which failed to materialize). There was also a group that had gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the ballot requiring the developer to “replace” the recreational facility onsite, and to resurface 24 other tennis courts in the city) – which then fell through when the office tower proposal failed. Ultimately, the site was sold (but the new developer was still on the hook for $7.5 million for city recreational facilities, which they agreed to provide).
At least, that’s what I’m gathering.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/s-f-tennis-courts-development-19369174.php
David says: “San Francisco isn’t perfect. Projects like 88 Bluxome still face challenges, including lawsuits, financing hurdles, and community pushback.”
I’m not aware of any other opposition to this proposal based upon my quick Internet search – possibly due to its location?
But it does NOT appear to be a “builder’s remedy”, in regard to the low percentage of Affordable housing. It’s the “affordable” component that cities generally find most-challenging to fulfill in regard to RHNA targets.
And again, there is no indication that San Francisco (and almost every other city) is on track to meet current RHNA targets, let alone future RHNA targets.
The “mandate” itself remains an almost total/complete failure – STATEWIDE – and not just in San Francisco. So that’s something to celebrate, regardless.
“And again, there is no indication that San Francisco (and almost every other city) is on track to meet current RHNA targets, let alone future RHNA targets.”
Really, so what?
“The “mandate” itself is a failure.”
Only from that extremely limited perspective. The totality of policies is pushing cities to do more – I consider that part a success.
So what, you ask?
Really? You’re trying to undermine/weaken Measure J (in order to “save it” or so you and other development activists claim), based solely upon mandates that almost no city is on track to achieve.
Look – I don’t insult your intelligence, so maybe you shouldn’t insult the intelligence of your readers. You know something is “wrong” with your position when even folks like Ron G point it out.
What you and the city are doing is endangering the two proposals put forth under Measure J – which is fine with me.
Of course, with all of the new housing laws, you never know what they might build on land that’s annexed to the city (regardless of how it’s described on a Measure J ballot). Say goodbye to any chance of a developer-provided grade-separated crossing at Village Farms, for example. (Which ALREADY isn’t even being proposed.)
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
Do you believe that’s a legal defense? Moreover, Davis has a far lower number than other communities of comparable size.
I don’t believe that Davis has to defend anything. There is no law requiring cities to expand outward.
But yes, when a law is unachievable, it simply cannot be enforced. At some point, a judge could throw it out entirely, based upon that alone. That’s what will occur if cities submit housing elements that the state won’t approve, due to lack of feasibility. Assuming that the state or some other entity then attempts to force (what, exactly? – especially when CURRENT housing elements aren’t even being realized), that’s when the issue could come to a head. But my guess is that the state isn’t that dumb, and isn’t going to try to sue the majority of cities in the state.
Again, your premise is that the state or a court will look at land outside of city limits, and enforce the law “differently” for cities that could conceivably expand outward (which is probably most of them, in one way or another). And yet no law (NONE) supports your claim.
The state hasn’t even brought up Measure J. The city did.
Again, the problem with the effort to overturn Measure J is that it’s coming from those who don’t support it, and in a complete and total absence of any threat from the state.
So again, the REAL question here is why the ACTUAL SUPPORTERS of Measure J aren’t trying to weaken it despite the laughable fear you’re trying to generate. Your argument being to destroy Measure J, before someone else has a chance to do it. (That type of argument simply isn’t going to be successful.)
My third comment.
There are so many different problems with Ron’s conception here I’m not gonna spend any more time on it today
“You know something is “wrong” with your position when even folks like Ron G point it out.”
Yes, Ron G has David’s number.
83?
Do you want to become a member of Invisible 83?
Technically I guess I am. I voted yes in 2020. I wonder how many people like me are out there – were wanting to see some changes but ultimately voted yes. That’s the problem trying to infer from binary choices.
You supported renewal without any amendments for ten years in 2020. As Forest Gump said “Stupid is as stupid does.”
That may be, but I won’t again
“Mid-rise buildings perhaps up to 10-12 stories in our downtown at some point in my lifetime probably not crazy.”
Maybe but unlikely. First it would be hard for the community to accept such buildings while UCD only has 7-8 stories. It’s an anthropological thing that as Joseph Campbell observed “Whoever has the tallest buildings runs the town.” Turns out its true, even in Davis. When Dinerstien wanted to go ten stories next to the Post Office the City Council said no. Doing so would be an admission that the landlords are the most powerful force in the community not the university. While it may be true, recognizing that reality, represents the failure of progressive politics to facilitate the fundamental American and Lockeian ideal of property ownership. What we call the ownership society or equity and inter-generational wealth or in the old days the simple Anerican dream of home ownership.
Right now densification under the downtown plan can’t even pencil out four story buildings.
“Davis, unlike San Francisco, isn’t boxed in by geography. Davis has plenty of land on its borders where housing could be built. What’s boxed in, in Davis, isn’t the landscape—it’s the politics. Measure J (and its successors, R and D) has made it nearly impossible to expand outward. Any proposal for housing on the city’s periphery must face a public vote, and nearly all of them have failed. The result is predictable: a slow-growth city in a high-demand region, where housing scarcity is self-inflicted.”
I think David is copying things I wrote a decade or more ago or perhaps the light bulb in his brain finally went on.
“Measure J was designed to give voters control over sprawl, but, in practice, it has given them veto power over inclusive planning. The result is a bottleneck that stifles growth, affordability, and opportunity.”
Once again you are 15 years behind on the learning curve.
“Opponents of new housing in Davis often cite traffic, water use, or loss of farmland. These are valid concerns—but they are not unsolvable.”
No they are not unsolvable – develop around Davis and increase traffic, water use and lose farmland. Problems solved :-|
“But none of that matters if every project is subject to a citywide vote where the loudest voices drown out long-term needs.”
You almost sound like you oppose Measure J – yet you still support it (modified, whatever the F that means).
“Davis, by contrast, clings to a status quo that has produced housing scarcity, displacement, and inequality.
If San Francisco can look upward and say, “This is how we solve it,” then Davis needs to look inward and ask, “Why can’t we even try?” ”
Davis is so immoral and wrong and it’s people so selfish and rich. Why would anyone want to live here? Problem solved :-|
“But none of that matters if every project is subject to a citywide vote where the loudest voices drown out long-term needs.”
“You almost sound like you oppose Measure J – yet you still support it (modified, whatever the F that means).”
David has a very “nuanced” position on Measure J.
Not so nuanced. The current form of Measure J is untenable. We need to change the law to be able to allow some housing but still protect Davis from sprawl. Is that really nuanced? I think it’s a middle ground between the current gridlock and unfettered development. BTW, I think most people in Davis come down somewhere in between the two – how far things will move, we’ll see.
Davis doesn’t “need” to do anything regarding Measure J. And not that it’s relevant, but two proposals have recently been approved under it.
You’ve done nothing but advocate for every proposal that’s arisen for the last 10 years that I’ve been reading the Vanguard, while simultaneously criticizing Measure J.
That’s why Ron G “calls you” on your position. Now, it could be that you did vote for it last time, but (of course) your readers would have to take your word for that, regardless.
But for those who want to weaken or eliminate Measure J, my advice would be the same as Ron G’s advice: Wait for its renewal. (And if the two Measure J proposals fail before then, you’ll have more ammunition for your crusade.)
As it stands right now, the city’s “voluntary mission” to overturn Measure J is likely going to doom the two current Measure J proposals. (Almost as if that’s the plan.)
If/when the time comes to attempt to weaken or overturn Measure J, I’m confident that whatever arises as a counter-proposal will have its own glaring weaknesses. Which will then be pointed out again-and-again.
“ Davis doesn’t “need” to do anything regarding Measure J‘
Opinions vary
“But for those who want to weaken or eliminate Measure J, my advice would be the same as Ron G’s advice: Wait for its renewal.”
What do you see as the advantage to doing that?
Already provided the reasons, but also thought of a couple more:
1) It’s coming up for renewal pretty soon, anyway. As such, it won’t have the baggage associated with the current effort to undermine it (e.g., originating from those who don’t support it in the first place).
2) There’s two pending proposals under Measure J right now. Can’t imagine that those developers are happy about the chaos originating from those trying to undermine Measure J, while they’re simultaneously seeking approval under Measure J.
3) Those opposed to Measure J might benefit from the failure of the two current Measure J proposals by the time of renewal, at which they can then point to and say, “see – we told you so – the NIMBYs can’t be trusted. And they can then also make a big fuss about it to the state.
4) If one or both of the current Measure J proposals is approved, those opposed to Measure J would presumably feel less need to weaken it in the first place. As such, they could get what they want (more sprawl) without even undergoing the hassle and expense of launching a campaign.
I disagree that the point of the reform is to undermine it. In fact, I would argue the opposite, by making it workable it can allow the measure to protect against runaway growth while allowing for modest growth.
The fact that you’re arguing for delay leads me to believe you see it as an advantage to delay.
That said…
Point 1: The framing has been leave Measure J as is. That was the framing in 2020, that’s going to be the argument regardless.
Point 2: I haven’t asked their opinion, but my assumption is any effort to change Measure J will not impact the two current projects.
Point 3: There is something to point three, although I believe it is not to Davis’ advantage in any way shape or form for both to go down.
Point 4: The most interesting scenario is what happens if only one project passes. It’s not enough to meet state housing requirements. But it would make it more difficult to both change Measure J or have the state come in. Best case scenario for you and others would be this outcome. I’m sure that’s why some folks are supporting one or the other, in hopes of a split.
David says: “I disagree that the point of the reform is to undermine it. In fact, I would argue the opposite, by making it workable it can allow the measure to protect against runaway growth while allowing for modest growth.”
“Runaway growth” and “modest growth” have no objective meaning.
But under Measure J (as it currently is), voters can certainly decide that for themselves (and they’ve used Measure J to approve a couple of peripheral proposals).
David says: “The fact that you’re arguing for delay leads me to believe you see it as an advantage to delay.”
Well, you asked me for the reasons that I think that those opposed to Measure J would be better-off waiting, and that was my honest response. “My” personal advantage is not really relevant here (I can’t control any outcome). But in some ways – I’d like to see all three efforts occur simultaneously (that is, try to weaken Measure J, while simultaneously putting both proposals on the ballot at the same time, or close to each other). I’d like to see all three go down in a flaming heap, even if it draws the attention of those who want to force sprawl.
Your preferred option (e.g., urban limit lines well-outside of current city limits) are not a “tweek” of Measure J, as Alan M. pointed out. And as Eileen pointed out, urban limit lines essentially become “goalposts”.
And it will be downright amusing to watch those opposed to Measure J try to come up with those goalposts. That alone is going to sink their effort.
David says: “Point 1: The framing has been leave Measure J as is. That was the framing in 2020, that’s going to be the argument regardless.”
“Probably, yes. But there will also be discussion regarding how to weaken it (presumably without two pending Measure J proposals. Plus, waiting for renewal will provide you with another 5 years to write about all the reasons it should be changed (eliminated).”
David says: “Point 2: I haven’t asked their opinion, but my assumption is any effort to change Measure J will not impact the two current projects.”
It will impact voters in a negative manner. And in turn, that is likely causing the two development teams concern. (I witnessed myself that the Shriner’s developer wants to get their proposal on the ballot, but that the city itself essentially required them to wait.)
David says: “Point 3: There is something to point three, although I believe it is not to Davis’ advantage in any way shape or form for both to go down.”
Of course there’s “something to it”. There’s already “something to it” in the eyes of those who aren’t happy that most proposals have been rejected by voters and would like to weaken Measure J. (This is one time that we’d all be on the same side, but for opposite reasons.)
David says: “Point 4: The most interesting scenario is what happens if only one project passes. It’s not enough to meet state housing requirements. But it would make it more difficult to both change Measure J or have the state come in. Best case scenario for you and others would be this outcome. I’m sure that’s why some folks are supporting one or the other, in hopes of a split.”
I have yet to see any analysis regarding how “either” or “both” proposals meet state housing
“requirements” – as you put it. Especially since they haven’t even been created for the next round, at this point.
But as previously pointed out, it may not matter regarding how the proposals are described on the ballot, if state housing laws override Measure J once a site is annexed.
I do believe that you may be correct regarding the hopes of some who support “one” proposal, but not the “other”. But there’s no evidence that there won’t be a continuing attempt to weaken Measure J regardless of ANY outcome.
As for my own view, I simply don’t accept arguments from those opposed to Measure J that it needs to be weakened so that the state doesn’t do it. (This is akin to throwing away your lunch money so that some bully doesn’t take it, when the bully hasn’t even threatened you in the first place. Instead, your “friends” are the ones suggesting that you do so (even though they’re actually friends of the bully – and are subsequently scouring the bushes for the lunch money you threw away.)
But hey, those “friends” at least “saved you” from also getting beat up (in addition to losing your lunch money), right? (Or so they say.)
Again, listen to what Ron G has to say about this. Overall, he’s one of the most honest/straightforward commenters on here – says exactly what he thinks without any “games”. (Obviously, NOT a political science major.)
My third comment again today.
“ I do believe that you may be correct regarding the hopes of some who support “one” proposal, but not the “other”. But there’s no evidence that there won’t be a continuing attempt to weaken Measure J regardless of ANY outcome.”
Don’t agree with notion that reform = weaken. You are correct that efforts to reform will likely not go away. But it will make it less likely to succeed if one passes.
My preference fwiw…
1. Both pass
2. Both fail
3. One passes
In short from my perspective only one passing is the worst outcome- not enough housing but enough to prevent reform
“We need to change the law”
Who is “we”? You think the council should develop a revision to Measure J and put it on the ballot in 2026? Has a single council member shown any interest in doing this? In the face of near-certain failure, you want them to develop, place before the voters, and campaign for, a revision to Measure J? Before the two current projects go before the voters?
This sounds like total chaos, to no avail.
Ron O: “But for those who want to weaken or eliminate Measure J, my advice would be the same as Ron G’s advice: Wait for its renewal.”
David: “What do you see as the advantage to doing that?”
The advantage is that the City Council can make whatever changes they want during the re-authorization process and the voters can accept those change or reject renewal altogether ending Measure J.
They could do that tomorrow as well? (If they could get it on the ballot tomorrow that is)
No you are wrong. If they put an amemdment on the ballot now and it fails we still have Measure J as reauthorized as Measure D. If they put it on the ballot for re-authorization when it expires and it fails then Measure J is not renewed.
Which makes sense in a world where there are no political interplays.
Yes, but you fail to see an important interplay. The easiest thing to do in California politics is to get people to vote no on a ballot measure. An amendment before re-authorization plays right into this dynamic.
That is why candidate positions on Measure J will be the most important issue on the next two City Council election cycles.
Ron G says: “The advantage is that the City Council can make whatever changes they want during the re-authorization process and the voters can accept those change or reject renewal altogether ending Measure J.”
For what it’s worth, I’m “officially” supporting the council’s effort to try to gut Measure J now (ASAP). Due to the housing crisis, as well as the state’s threats – which requires a sacrifice to temporarily stave them off and what-not. (Let’s hope the growth gods are temporarily appeased as a result.) (And it has “nothing to do” with Ron G just noted, of course.)
:-)
And since putting something on the ballot costs the city money, it would be more-efficient to see all three growth measures (Covell Village, Shriner’s, and “Gut Measure J”) on a ballot simultaneously.