If Tuesday night is any guide, the path to reforming Measure J is going to be difficult—which is why I continue to believe that the most likely path to reform will be via litigation from the state or a third party.
Tuesday night’s Davis City Council meeting served as a case study in just how polarizing Measure J/R/D remains in the political and emotional life of Davis.
While the Council considered a narrow, affordable housing-focused amendment to the city’s voter-approved land use law, public comment made one thing abundantly clear: a significant share of the community views Measure J not simply as a land-use ordinance, but as a democratic bulwark worth defending at all costs.
The Council discussion was relatively restrained.
Councilmember Gloria Partida acknowledged the political risks involved in moving too quickly, stating, “I want to be clear that I support Measure J and the will of the voters.”
Councilmember Josh Chapman echoed this sentiment while stressing the importance of acting proactively rather than reactively: “If we don’t figure out how to make this law work better, we may not have the opportunity to fix it ourselves.”
But no amount of hedging could soften the deluge of opposition that followed. Over three dozen speakers, both in-person and through recorded comments, expressed concern, suspicion, and in some cases, outright outrage. The rare pro-reform voices, while thoughtful and constructive, were vastly outnumbered.
The message from most was clear: Don’t even think about touching Measure J.
“If we don’t figure out how to make this law work better, we may not have the opportunity to fix it ourselves.” – Josh Chapman
A Community Split, But Not Evenly
Among the commenters, there were essentially three camps: those who want to keep Measure J untouched, those who cautiously support reform for the sake of affordable housing, and those who see Measure J itself as an impediment that should be repealed outright. But by far the largest contingent was in the first group.
Elizabeth Ray, a longtime resident, warned the Council that in an era where democracy is under threat nationally, local leaders should not be “chipping away” at one of Davis’s own democratic institutions. Others, like David McLaughlin, questioned the very premise of reform, calling it a solution to a “non-existent problem” and accusing the Council of aligning with developers over residents.
The rhetoric was often personal, even accusatory. Several speakers insinuated that the Council’s true intent was to grease the skids for the controversial Village Farms project. “You put this on the ballot at your own peril,” warned one speaker.
Still, some did make nuanced arguments in favor of reform. Tim Keller, speaking as an individual, argued that Measure J has “neutered our planning process” and left Davis with only two bad options: urban sprawl or no housing at all. He called for a community design process to help voters visualize what high-quality, affordable, dense housing could actually look like.
Georgina Valencia offered a pragmatic take, suggesting that the proposed 50% affordable housing threshold might be too high to be feasible and calling for a better balance that includes rental and for-sale options.
Yet these voices were drowned out by a chorus of skepticism and distrust.
No Appetite for Change — Yet
The Council now faces a difficult strategic question: Is it even possible to pursue reform when so many in the community are primed to see any amendment as an attack on democracy itself?
Alan Miller called Measure J “bad law” and advocated for an urban limit line as a more flexible alternative. But even he seemed to recognize the political toxicity of the issue. Several others, like Eileen Samitz and David Sandino, advised the Council to wait until 2030, when Measure J is set to sunset and must be renewed anyway.
That may be the clearest path forward. Trying to pass even a limited amendment now, especially one seen as benefiting a specific development, is likely to fail at the ballot box. Multiple speakers noted the overwhelming support for the last renewal of Measure D in 2020, which passed with more than 80% of the vote.
In the current climate, any change may be interpreted as a giveaway to developers, no matter how well-meaning or narrowly tailored.
Is HCD the Only Hope for Reform?
This brings us to the elephant in the room: the state.
If the Housing and Community Development (HCD) department deems Measure J a constraint on the city’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the city could be forced to amend or abandon parts of it—either through state action or court order. That scenario may be the only politically viable way for Davis to revise Measure J: not by choice, but by legal mandate.
As Ron Oertel said in a recorded comment, “There’s no law stating that cities have to consider land outside of their own boundaries. It’s that simple.”
But the truth is more complicated. HCD does have the authority to reject a city’s housing element if it believes local ordinances prevent the city from planning for enough housing. The state has already taken similar action against cities like San Mateo, Elk Grove, and Huntington Beach.
The paradox is that while Davis’s current approach to growth may be defensible in terms of community values, it may not pass legal muster under California’s new housing laws. If that happens, the state may become the de facto reform agent—whether the residents of Davis like it or not.
A Way Forward?
If the Council still hopes to move a Measure J reform forward voluntarily, it will need to fundamentally rethink its approach. Any successful amendment will require the kind of public process that builds trust and shows voters they are not being circumvented but invited to co-create a new framework.
That means transparency, real public workshops (not just subcommittees), design charettes, and early engagement with skeptical residents. It also means being clear about what the tradeoffs are: declining school enrollment, housing unaffordability, climate goals unmet—all of these are downstream effects of housing scarcity.
Tuesday’s meeting made one thing certain: Davis residents care deeply about local democracy. But the definition of democracy cannot be frozen in time. A system that no longer meets the needs of the present must be re-evaluated, even if the process is painful. Still, that process must be led not by staff reports or subcommittee negotiations, but by the community itself.
Until then, reforming Measure J looks politically infeasible. And absent a mandate from the state or a dramatic shift in public opinion, Davis may find itself increasingly stuck: unable to grow, unable to change, and increasingly out of alignment with the laws and realities shaping the rest of California.
If the goal is to preserve Measure J, it may only be possible by allowing it to evolve. Ironically, refusing to touch it may be the surest way to lose it altogether.
Even most hardcore NIMBYs aren’t completely No Growth.
A better illustration would be of people standing holding a bunch of big hoops on a stage saying: “WE WELCOME GROWTH”. But under theses specific conditions. Now jump through these hoops (labeled: affordable housing, environmental, urban density, transit oriented, specific city requirements/reviews/fees)…..and a bunch of developers turning their backs and saying: “yeah, no thanks”.
The problem is that you’re advocating all these half-measures that are going to get caught up in debate and go nowhere. You gotta open the flood gates and say: “WE’RE OPEN FOR BUSINESS” and really mean it (as long as it makes financial sense for the city). No hoops, require very little review, just go, go, go,…build, build build. The city goes from safeguarding all the citizen’s special interests to being the developer’s partner and clearing the way to getting projects done. You just gotta be ready to slam the brakes before it gets out of hand (sprawl). I know this comment is going to get an “oh my god. oh hell no” by most of the overly self important “guardians of growth” here.
I’m all for planned growth. But it’s all planning for naught if the attitude by the city’s interested parties doesn’t change. That change needs to happen first. The city needs to be open for business…even before all the thoughtful planning is completed.
” . . . warned the Council that in an era where democracy is under threat nationally . . . ”
Nationally ???!!!? It’s clearly under threat at the STATE level. If you, as I, believe that local control over most issues is the gold standard. Even as I disagree with my City gov’t, I’d still rather they run the show than Gavvy, and indeed whomever is at the State helm.
“Alan Miller called Measure J “bad law” and advocated for an urban limit line as a more flexible alternative. But even he seemed to recognize the political toxicity of the issue.”
Yes, “even he . . . ”
. . . but my concern is more the ongoing, repetitive wars in the City between rabid housing advocates and growth tiny-ists and growth zero-ists. I’d rather have one major war than a civic war every year or two. Which is why I see an urban limit line as something to fight once, and then we’ll know/”agree” how big Davis can get for the next 40 years. It works well in Petaluma, they are densifying their core (mostly) tastefully. I don’t like seeing Davis tearing itself apart repeatedly over this. I say let’s decide as a City what the growth line is, and then replace Measure J with a Measure Urban-Limit-Line. This will also let the state know we are playing their game. That is, until cities and towns regain the power to tell the state to (edited: do something).
This idea of “amending” Measure J is pure political insanity. No matter what, you are dumping Measure J, and replacing it with something — hopefully something better.
“I’d rather have one major war than a civic war every year or two.”
I would, too. I’d like to see peripheral proposals limited to once every 10 years or so. How about if the council proposes “just that”?
But an urban growth line (well-outside of the city’s footprint) is a “goalpost”. And what happens when a city runs into that goalpost? How is this really much different than “business as usual”?
Woodland has a voter-approved “urban limit line”. How’s that working out? (In my opinion, it isn’t even working out that well in Petaluma, given all of the subsequent growth on the east side of that locale.)
“I would, too. I’d like to see peripheral proposals limited to once every 10 years or so. How about if the council proposes “just that”?”
The best way to do that would be to set a limit line in such a way that it would allow for sufficient growth to meet RHNA obligation – ten years would be off-set from the RHNA cycle so that would be something to consider. Honestly, Alan Miller’s suggestion of the urban limit line is one of the “solutions” that makes most sense to me.
The flaw with that David is that developers would continue to do what they do now, which is build high-priced housing that the current population of Davis workers can not afford.
Further, the 85% -15% proportion of market rate to big A affordable is really 95% – zero % because land dedication sites don’t get actual units on them for upwards of 20 years.
The result is that Davis becomes more and more unaffordable AND nothing is done to provide housing in Davis for Davis workers or young families with young children. Bottom-line the developers do not care about Davis workers or DJUSD enrollment. They care about profits.
How do you know what developers care about? Have you ever spoken with the people who are bringing forward Village Farms? They are longtime multi-generational residents of Davis who care deeply about this community. Do they need to make a profit? Sure they do. That is our economic system. Perhaps you would prefer some other system than our capitalist one but attacking business people for wanting to make a profit seems pretty weak to me.
One thing that developers do while they strive to make a profit is they subdivide land so that others can build equity by purchasing smaller lots and hopefully provide some inter-generational wealth to their children. I’ve spoken with John Whitcombe and he talked about providing opportunity for people to achieve the American dream of home ownership.
The solution is simple. The City Council should pass an ordinance that provides significant incentives in process to development proposals that have well over 50% of the houses with sale prices between $500,000 and $600,000. The developers could avail themselves of those process incentives or not. They could build the houses for the $500 per square foot costs they currently build for and make a profit.
The houses would be small and dense (like Tim Keller and others have been calling for) and would attract young families that don’t need a lot of space, as well as current Davis workers looking to buy and build equity (like Ron Glick wants them to do).
And finally Davis would actually be doing something other than virtue signaling about the racism and classism of its housing past.
“The solution is simple”
H. L. Mencken reputedly said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”
Racism and classism is wrong too. Davis has a solid history of both.
Matt Williams slams capitalists and wants price controls. LOL!
Ron Glick embraces racism and classism. LOL!
“Is Reforming Measure J Even Politically Possible?”
In my opinion, there is no reason to take on revising Measure J before it sunsets.
Village Farms is almost ready to go on the ballot, and the other project isn’t far behind. The voters can decide about those. If they approve even one of them, the issue of what the state might do will be moot.
There are plenty of reasons to reform or repeal Measure J. It’s simply that doing so now is, as I said at the meeting, a heavy lift. I think the people who brought this forward have good intentions but because the Measure J re-authorization in 2020 was for ten years reforming it now is not the path of least resistance and would complicate the years of planning that are bringing development proposals to the ballot next year under the current rules.
The path of least resistance is for the City Council to amend Measure J during the re-authorization process in 2030. The citizens would then have the option of accepting the changes, ending Measure J or citizens could put forward their own new ordinance through the initiative process. Maybe by 2030, twenty years after I started speaking out against Measure J, this community will be finally willing to reconsider Measure J as currently constructed. I mean even David has finally recognized that Measure J has had negative consequences for Davis. I say better late than never.
I want to point out that in 2020, I was a lone voice calling for a two or four year re-authorization, something that looks prescient now, so that the community could have a robust debate post Covid. Other voices like David’s called for an amended renewal but supported re-authorization when no amendments were approved. David has been calling for amending J ever since but I have been chastising him for his foolishness all along and we can now see that he has been tilting at windmills the entire time.
The sad part of all of this is the impact Measure J’s rules,
entrenched by the limits to growth Baby Boom generation, with its Malthusian scarcity mindset, has impacted the communities Millennial generation desire to be part of this community where abundance is now viewed optimistically as opposed to the pessimism of the boomers scarcity.
I recently went to a party of young Davis parents struggling to make a home for themselves and their families here. These were professional people, well educated, family oriented, employed, taxpayers, who any normal community would welcome. I empathize with these people because they remind me of myself and my family two decades ago when we wanted to buy a home and be part of this community and I felt the sting of the indifference of people who thought that in Davis if we don’t build it they won’t come.
I agree with Don.
Further, what I saw Tuesday night was a Council that really has no idea about what modifications they want. What that tells me is they are unlikely to put together the kind of process that Chapman called for.
Just like the last Council that also failed to do anything but put the same Measure on the ballot while talking up a storm about so-called ‘modifications’ to J/R/D. Great way to look like you care, while doing nothing.
I think the entire argument that the state will step in is absurd. First, it’s going to be a long time before Davis will be out of compliance again so why would anyone care? Given the choice between we approve stuff or the state will do it for us isn’t persuasive if you are opposed to new housing. Second if you favor new housing like I do I say bring it on. It seems to this observer that the builders remedy is likely to produce more housing than Measure J will.
I think I’d be careful about drawing too many conclusions from the comments on tuesday. There was certainly a lot of bad information out there and people were responding with so much ire because they thought the council was going to just vote to end measure J that night. I cant blame them for being pissed if that was what they were reacting to.
As the council tried to point out multiple times, and multiple times kept asking for this to be pulled back onto the screen… was that HCD is ALREADY on to us that measure J is an obstacle and they are EXPECTING reform. This isnt a “I hope we get away with it” / “maybe they wont notice” kind of thing. We are already on double secret probation with the state, and though I’m not totally clear on this point, I think it seems like we promised the state we WOULD fix it… ( someone please clarify that if you can)
We are in “fix it or lose it territory”. All of the people who commented in defense of J, WOULD be in favor of amending it if they understood that. If we don’t fix it, we lose it, and then all of the sprawling growth that these same people have tried to embargo is going to be built anyway. Those are the real stakes. As we wrote over the weekend “The only thing worse than measure J is no measure J”
So I very much agree witih David’s conclusion here: This needs to be a massive community-focused engagement / education effort. People need to understand the position we are in, and understand the alternatives. If they did, then the same outpouring of support for J that we saw on Tuesday will rally to save it.
But we need to engage those people, listen to them, hear their concerns, present some solutions and alternatives, get feedback about what they would prefer…. etc. Davis voters are smart. I think they can figure this out but the city and I think probably all the various civic groups interested in reform are probably going to need to help organize as well.
“As the council tried to point out multiple times, and multiple times kept asking for this to be pulled back onto the screen… was that HCD is ALREADY on to us that measure J is an obstacle and they are EXPECTING reform. This isnt a “I hope we get away with it” / “maybe they wont notice” kind of thing. We are already on double secret probation with the state, and though I’m not totally clear on this point, I think it seems like we promised the state we WOULD fix it… ( someone please clarify that if you can)”
(Edited: I disagree)
“As we wrote over the weekend ‘The only thing worse than measure J is no measure J’”
That is a false dichotomy as I pointed out in response to your earlier article. If Measure J is overturned we don’t end up with nothing. Instead we end up with the system that was in place before Measure J, whereby, if people don’t like an approved project they can do the hard work of collecting signatures to place a referendum on the ballot.
The problem with Measure J is it requires a voter referendum allowing naysayers to do the easiest thing in California politics, get people to vote no on a ballot measure.
Ron G, I acknowledge your point that there IS an alternative mechanism for “citizen control”.
Where I would agree with you that such an option might be better than measure J however really hinges on whether if, in the absensce of measure J, the city actually would jump in and do some master planning. If they dont, and if the mechanism goes back to “developer leans on city / citizens resist”. then we really havent changed much.
TK say: “We are already on double secret probation with the state”. It’s also possible the state is on double secret probation with us. Too much state telling cities what to do is going to lead to a backlash/revolution. Keep it up and win stupid prizes, State.
An Orwellian statement if ever I read one. Double ungood Winston Smith.
From article: “The state has already taken similar action against cities like San Mateo, Elk Grove, and Huntington Beach.”
No, it hasn’t. No comparison whatsover. No city in the state is being forced to grow beyond its boundaries. That would defeat the claimed purpose of the state’s efforts in the first place.
David says: “Honestly, Alan Miller’s suggestion of the urban limit line is one of the “solutions” that makes most sense to me.”
It ends up being a “goalpost”, as Eileen noted. And once that line is reached, then what?
Also, good luck getting something like THAT approved, when voters (already) don’t approve very many “known” proposals – despite only occupying a small portion of the space within the probable “line” that would be proposed.
Also, I disagree with Alan M. regarding how this has worked out in Petaluma, for example. Although much of the land west of town is seemingly-protected, that doesn’t seem to be true of land east of that city.
But it wasn’t that long ago that NOTHING was “off-limits” – can you imagine that? And yet, it was a “big controversy” when even SOME controls were enacted.
“I’ve spoken with John Whitcombe and he talked about providing opportunity for people to achieve the American dream of home ownership.”
I don’t doubt Mr. Whitcombe’s desire to help others achieve the American dream. But couldn’t he could help more families by building a lot of $500k homes instead of fewer $1M homes? Perhaps he prefers doing the latter because there’s more profit in it.
I don’t blame any developer for wanting to maximize profit. But the developer’s interest is — currently, at least — at odds with the community’s interest in making enough affordable housing available to meet state mandates. The developer holds the land and capital necessary to develop, while the community holds the authority to approve or deny permission to develop. I believe the community should withhold that approval unless/until it’s able to get its needs met.
“I believe the community should withhold that approval unless/until it’s able to get its needs met.”
It’s a dilemma. With Measure J there are likely 10,000 different ideas of what constitutes the appropriate needs of the community. Some want nothing, some want affordable by design, some want big A Affordable, some want dense, some want zero greenhouse gas emissions, some want missing middle, some want free land through Affordable dedication, some want housing today, some want to hold out forever for something better, some want down payment assistance, some want… well you get the idea. Threading the needle of the demands of this community is insanity on steroids.
I should add you have written you want eminent domain condemnation. BTW, that ain’t happening.
“ Threading the needle of the demands of this community is insanity on steroids.”
Threading the needle of the demands of the developers is easy. They want profits, and lots of them, as well as no responsibility for actually making Davis a more affordable community.
Agreed matt… but I would re-phrase: They want the best deal they can get.
And I think thats what is important for us to focus on. These are rational people, and if you offer them a 100% chance to make 80 million dollars or a 20% chance to make 100 million dollars, they will do the math and so long as they think that sufficient margin is there for them to please their shareholders, they will do it.
Regarding Ron G’s comment about “threading the needle”…. its funny because most of the things he lists in the list of demands are easily rolled up together in one proposal.
There are really only a few constituencies:
1) People who see any growth as bad
2) People who are picky and only want “good” projects
3) People who arent picky and see housing developments through the lens of “maybe I might want to live there”
The picky people ( like me admittedly) mostly want good urban design and a much wider range of property types for a long list of reasons. but those requests listed off by Ron aren’t even close to mutually exclusive. We can have a project that starts with a planned transit line, has missing middle housing clustered within 1/4 mile of that line with little mixed use neighborhood shopping centers / cafe’s etc, sprinkled around and 7% of the land in that range can be dedicated to capital-A affordable housing.
Thats not a list of competing visions, thats a master plan.
Admittedly, such a master plan misses the people who just dont want growth, and thats fine. we cant thread ALL the needles, but I think that the people in categories 2&3 can be satisfied, and that should be enough.
I like how you constantly claim to be in agreement with those who disagree with you. The mark of a true salesman.
But the truth is that dense proposals are even more-likely to be rejected than less-dense proposals. A gauntlet of high-rises outside of city limits (even if it “was” approved) is likely to be occupied by UCD students.
High-rises belong in downtowns (or better-yet, on campus regarding UCD’s “needs”); not on far-flung farmland, away from the city center and UCD.
From all of the talk on here, you’d never even know that they’re planning to build almost a hundred single family units WITHIN city limits (Chiles Ranch). Not to mention whatever is planned on the site of the former skilled nursing facility, on Pole Line.
“whatever is planned on the site of the former skilled nursing facility, on Pole Line.”
Singles and duplexes, at least when Foutsie owned it. Don’t know what the new people are going to do.
Have you spoken to any retail consultants about the likelihood of successful retail in these neighborhoods?
Don, this is a VERY well established concept that has been successful in hundreds of communities. Its not “my idea”.
There is widespread consensus in the planning community that the ideal suburban neighborhood is slightly denser, mixed use, and designed around transit. The term “15 minute city” / “walkable neighborhoods” / “Strong towns” / the “LEED-ND” rubric… they ALL describe and call for the same thing. We don’t need “high rises” as Ron puts it. Nobody has EVER once called for that. We don’t even need “mid-rise” buildings in modern terms.
But despite this modern consensus, it is worth pointing out that this “design” of mixed use development is actually just a return to how we used to plan our cities before the automobile. At the turn of the 19th century, most cities had very well developed public transit systems, streetcars and railroads, and developers themselves put these streetcar lines in so that people had a way to get into the city from their developments on the periphery.
One of the nicest things about these streetcar suburbs is that they were designed to be walkable from the transit shop, and they naturally developed local shopping / pubs / cafes etc… exactly what I was talking about. So not only is this a well studied thing in modern urban planning, it is a reversion to a 100-year old pattern of development that was quite successful, and the streetcar suburbs that have survived today are some of the most desirable neighborhoods in town.
But you don’t have to take it from me… here are a couple of videos that explain the concept in more depth:
https://youtu.be/fcQKp12ePxw?si=vrKskPKO0iqdUjn0
https://youtu.be/MWsGBRdK2N0?si=toVBuLvkLc-p1EGw
Tim, you didn’t answer my question.
Have you spoken to any retail consultants about the likelihood of successful retail in these neighborhoods?
There are metrics for the number of households needed for certain types of retail. Other factors would include the existing successful shopping centers, the likely demographics of the new developments, and more. Proposing decentralized retail where there’s already existing centralized retail has some issues. We have examples of this problem already in Davis. It actually leads to blight when you do it wrong.
Based on what I’ve read, I believe you’d need about 10,000 households along Covell to make sufficient market for a mix of retail and dining within the neighborhoods. But I’m not an expert.
You’d need to be willing to accept some retailers that are a regional draw, which would have different requirements for traffic flow and parking.
I also don’t know what number of households you’d need to make the transportation corridor successful in getting people out of their cars.
Every situation is different. That’s what those consultants are for.
Don, when we get around to actually designing these neighborhoods and determining how much mixed-use commercial is needed where, I would agree that we absolutley need to engage those kinds of consultants.
But in general, the necessity for local-retail and service businesses in walkable neighborhoods is not disputed.
Local retail and service businesses are already provided in the three shopping centers along Covell.
Don, watch either of those videos. None of those shopping centers are “walkable” and none are in range of shriners.
In fact, because there is a park at the bottom of village farms, the nugget plaza isnt even “walkable” they would have to walk a quarter mile to covell and then walk THROUGH a parking lot. Everyone at the current incarnation of VF would drive there.
“there is a park at the bottom of village farms”
On the south end? Seriously? Are they just trying to lose the vote?
tell me about it….
JF: “the developer’s interest is — currently, at least — at odds with the community’s interest in making enough affordable housing available to meet state mandates.”
That’s what the “the community” CAN think it wants, but ‘affordable’ housing has to be paid for by someone. Does everyone not see that we’ve been pursuing this pie in the sky, always hoping the invisible man in the sky would pay for it?
RM say: ” I should add you have written you want eminent domain condemnation. BTW, that ain’t happening.”
Who “you” ? I don’t see anyone wrote that, and they idea of condemning land so developers can develop is a very controversial if not downright illegal interpretation of “public good”. It would start a nice little civil war, not to mention cost and time and lining lawyer pockets, not to mention terrible precedent. Who wants that?
Jim Frame posted some time ago about how we should seize private property through eminent domain condemnation and build a giant Affordable housing project. Apparently, from his remark below he still thinks its a good idea.
“seize private property through eminent domain condemnation and build a giant Affordable housing project.”
Didn’t that go to the supreme court over a mall and get shot down? There’s a big difference between seizing land for something like a transportation corridor, and for a development. That is CAN philosophy on meth.
“Threading the needle of the demands of this community is insanity on steroids.”
I said community needs, not demands. And needs are easily defined as what is being required to satisfy state law.
I agree, meeting community needs through eminent domain condemnation isn’t happening…yet.
Exactly.
It would be a lot more-efficient (for everyone) if the state stopped fighting its own cities, and simply took over all aspects of local planning for the growth it intends to force. Less need for EIRs, city staff, planning commissions, even councils themselves.
The housing elements could also then be created by the state, directly – along with all of the steps needed to implement them.
They could still conduct hearings (if they so choose), but there wouldn’t really be much point in doing so.
Do you really want the state to take over local planning or do you think that would be untenable and therefore support it as a way to block housing more effectively?
You’re asking “me” what I think of that?
I just said it would be a lot more efficient than the charade that’s currently occurring. Otherwise known as the “full employment act” for various parties currently involved.
It’s almost as if the state is a “teacher” or a “supervisor” who purposefully doles out impossible assignments, and then gleefully fails their subordinates. (Sometimes, this type of thing actually does occur in employment situations, when they’ve already decided to get rid of someone – but they need to “document the failure”, before firing the employee.)
But Jim’s comment is interesting, in that it’s essentially the same argument that those who are attempting to weaken Measure J are using – taken to its logical conclusion. (Of course, those same forces probably aren’t going to “like it” if the state actually used eminent domain to force sprawl. Not that they’re against sprawl – they just don’t want the state to dictate what occurs – e.g., Affordable housing, etc.).
Obviously, I was wanting you to elaborate unfortunately you spent one of your comments, not really addressing the point. I question whether it’s actually more efficient for the state to try to micromanage local and use planning. I can see how it would remove conflict between state and local, but in terms of actually carrying out policy, I don’t see any way that the state could do it so therefore I would argue that it’s much less efficient to do it that way. But given that it’s never gonna happen I don’t see the point of going any further than that
“It’s almost as if the state is a “teacher” or a “supervisor” who purposefully doles out impossible assignments, and then gleefully fails their subordinates.”
Brilliant metaphor, RO.
“In fact, because there is a park at the bottom of village farms, the nugget plaza isnt even “walkable” they would have to walk a quarter mile to covell and then walk THROUGH a parking lot. Everyone at the current incarnation of VF would drive there.”
I live over half a mile from Trader Joe’s lots of people walk there from my neighborhood. What distance do you consider walkable? If the distance you consider walkable is less than 1/4 mile we need about 50 new supermarkets in Davis.
One thing that (I believe) Don Shor, Ron Glick, and me agree on is that it’s a fantasy to think that Village Farms (or any other development) would be designed in such a manner that would (realistically) eliminate, or even reduce vehicle usage. (Other than perhaps by providing no parking whatsoever at the site.)
That type of development/thinking might work in San Francisco (to some degree), since they have a multi-pronged war against cars (e.g., make it extremely difficult to park, enable car break-ins, traffic/street “diets”, extreme congestion), as well as extensive public transit and a compact but dense city. But despite ALL of that, San Francisco still has plenty of cars, and public transit systems are on the verge of financial collapse in San Francisco and the Bay Area.
There isn’t even a grade-separated crossing planned/funded at Village Farms, at this point. They’d probably even drive to Nugget – right across the street! (I always kind of laugh at the bus stop near Costco, as if anyone purchases and transports items at a place like that using public transit. And if I ever see anyone on a bicycle with a 50-roll pack of toilet paper strapped to their bike, I’m going to ridicule them myself.) :-)
“(I always kind of laugh at the bus stop near Costco, as if anyone purchases and transports items at a place like that using public transit.)”
I don’t think very many people want to carry their groceries home from Nugget either.