Our local anti-growth ordinance, known as “Measure J,” was crafted under environmental pretexts to prevent urban sprawl and preserve open space. It was marketed to voters as a form of direct citizen control over the city’s growth in 2000 and was subsequently renewed in 2010 (as measure R) and 2020 ( as Measure D).
The aims of “Measure J” are in-line with the character of our city, our shared environmental values and the general feeling that we want to maintain our “college town” feel, and that we don’t want to become a sprawling city in the model of Natomas, or Elk Grove etc.
This does seem to be a point of consensus in Davis to this day: Nobody in Davis that we have talked to “wants sprawl.” And to that extent, Measure J has been a resounding success: it has slowed down the pattern of sprawling development that is the status quo in the rest of northern America.
Mitigation, not prevention
Now let’s be clear: “Sprawl” and “Building mostly single-family housing” are one and the same. Davis made the mistake of letting single-family housing dominate our development pattern for three generations. Even the famous Village Homes development is textbook urban sprawl. It isn’t bad to have single-family housing, but it is bad to have “mostly” single family housing… and in Davis, that is exactly what we are.
To easily demonstrate this point, please consider the current zoning map of Davis below. All of the light yellow zones are “R1” zoning—where only single-family homes can be built (higher density housing types are brown).
So Measure J has not “saved us” from sprawl, it has simply curbed it. From an urban planning standpoint, a lot of damage has already been done, and it is going to take a lot of political will and several decades to un-do it.
And this is where the “protection” of Measure J really starts to fall apart. There are three side-effects that Measure J has caused that were likely not intended or anticipated when it was originally passed:
- It is merely a mechanism for the community to say “No” to additional developments that the community doesn’t like. It does not lay out a preferred alternative for how we might encourage smart growth.
- It has preempted our planning process. Multiple city councils for the past two decades have let Measure J projects be our de-facto planning process for expansion purposes.
- Ironically, it ensures that ONLY sprawling housing proposals are brought before the voters. The incentives for developers to take on a million-dollar Measure J campaign mean that they are only going to propose projects that both make them the most money, and projects that are the least controversial—which means proposing more single-family tract homes at the highest possible prices they can command.
We need “housing” not “houses”
Since Davis is part of a larger metro area, this last consequence is particularly damaging.
The low availability and high housing prices in Davis have meant that a lot of our population needs to commute here everyday. 23,000 commuters in total.
If we care about greenhouse gas emissions or traffic, then making housing for this population of inbound commuters needs to be our absolute priority.
Developing expensive single-family homes not only doesn’t help our economically displaced population, it will only allow a more affluent outbound commuter population (living in Davis and commuting to Sacramento) to move in, increasing traffic. It might satisfy our RHNA obligations, but in every other way, developing more expensive single-family housing makes our community worse, not better.
(If you doubt any of this, just remember the Cannery… It was proposed as housing “for Davis” but in fact was marketed at top dollar to telecommuters in San Francisco. (And the “Davis-Connected Buyers Program” at Bretton Woods has been abandoned as well.)
The synthesis of all of this could unfortunately be summed up as follows:
With measure J the way it is, we only have two options:
No development, & BAD development.
There is of course, a minority population here in town that are totally okay with this tradeoff. They don’t want any development under any circumstances, so they are okay with Measure J the way it is. But the days of using this ordinance as a default “no” to all development are coming to a close:
- As it stands, Measure J is likely already illegal under state law, and could be overturned by a legal challenge.
- When the city fails to meet the minimum growth criteria as dictated by the state, the state is likely to step in and overturn measure J.
If either of these come to pass and we lose the protection of measure J, we know exactly what we are going to get: More low-density single family housing tracts all around the periphery of town (AKA the exact kind of “urban sprawl” we were trying to avoid all along).
So even in that case where measure J/R/D is overturned, there is still no path forward where “good” housing is on the table.
This is why we say that the only thing that is worse than measure J is no measure J. Once we commit the sin of building more low-density suburbia, it is something that is near impossible for us to un-do. At least with some protection on the books there is a chance that a responsible developer might come along with a project that is actually well conceived!
To us, we prefer to advocate for a more sustainable alternative, trying to work with the development community towards a better outcome. Unfortunately, to this point, all such efforts have failed.
So how do we get “good development”?
This is really the question at hand. There are many societal / governmental / financial / industrial forces that are aligned for the purposes of building bad housing, even though we have known the suburban model of development to be a failure ever since Jane Jacobs published The Death and Life of American Cities back in 1961.
We might compare this reliance on single-family suburbia to the continued existence of coal-fired power plants: We know very well that they are the worst possible way to meet the need, but there is an industry that is willing to produce the product and the customers are willing to pay for the product, often remaining ignorant of the actual long-term costs, and government is too spineless to step in and oppose the financially powerful industry forces.
We have written quite a bit regarding our alternative vision for what a better approach to development in Davis might be: (master-planned, medium density, walkable & transit oriented development) and we invite readers to explore our website at www.plandavis.org, and this article in particular.
At the moment however, let’s maintain our focus on the issue of Measure J:
Given the realities described above, it seems obvious to us that the best solution is simply to fix the things that are currently broken with measure J/R/D. Not abolish it. We want to maintain citizen control over growth, but we can’t set up a system that only says “no”. We need to introduce some parameters that we CAN say yes to: A neighborhood design better than what developers would come up with if left to their own devices, and one that WE affirmatively choose for our own future.
This needs to be the focus of our housing debate: What CAN we say YES to?
We have proposed one concept and written about it consistently for over two years now. Does anyone else have a better idea? If not, lets get to work fixing measure J by creating the conditions under which we ARE willing to see growth: A master-planned, community-approved vision for the entire northeast corridor: walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, designed to be served by a robust transit service… not cars.
We had hoped that in suggesting these ideas over the past 2 years that developers would see that we have the same interests in mind, engage with us on this issue, hopefully adapting their plans to be responsive to community input. But that hasn’t happened.
We had hoped that through the EIR process we could suggest the inclusion of more modern and sustainable city design concepts, but even those consultants couldn’t seem to break the mold of analyzing anything other than massive single-family tract homes entirely reliant on automobiles.
The proposals for Village Farms and Willow Glen are evidence that the developers and the development system itself have learned nothing, and perhaps aren’t even interested in doing so. Davis has held the line against the sprawl they want to produce for so many years, it would be unconscionable for us to pass on the opportunity to really change gears now, and let these proposals pass in their current forms.
We need to take on the housing and climate crisis we didn’t see 20 years ago, and vote in a new status quo—taking a stand against sprawl by creating a pathway for better forms of urban planning, and turning Measure J effectively into an interim master plan for responsible development. It could even be seen as a warm-up act to the general plan update once we actually get there.
Fixing Measure J is the only path to finding real solutions to our housing crisis. Not approving housing doesn’t help, and building single family tract homes makes a number of things worse. We have an opportunity to chart our own course as a city and to reject the failed development patterns of the 20th century. If we do nothing, all that is left is the choice between two bad options. We can’t let that happen.
The Davis Planning Group
Alex Aichmore
David Thompson
Richard McCann
Anthony Palmere
Tim Keller
From article: “Nobody in Davis that we have talked to “wants sprawl”.
(Right – what some try to do on here is to “re-define” sprawl, instead.)
From article: “Our local anti-growth ordinance, known as “Measure J”
(Measure J is not an “anti-growth” ordinance – as evidenced by Nishi and Bretton Woods.)
There is nothing preventing developers from proposing sprawl that is more to the authors’ liking. For that matter, there’s also nothing preventing Affordable housing developers from bypassing Measure J – it already contains a clause allowing that.
From article: “If we care about greenhouse gas emissions or traffic, then making housing for this population of inbound commuters needs to be our absolute priority.”
The authors are appparently talking about those commuting to UCD; not Davis. Ironically, some of these SAME AUTHORS have been pushing for more “jobs” (e.g., in the form of DISC) so that OUTBOUND workers don’t have to commute. In other words, they’re suggesting that vast numbers of UCD workers are going to move so that they can pay substantially more for a smaller place, while vast numbers of workers in other locales are going to “switch careers” so that they can work at a place like DISC.
Despite the absurdity of their claims staring at them right in the face, they continue to do so.
By the way, what’s to prevent more “outside workers” from moving to Davis (e.g., working in Sacramento)? And do all Davis residents who work on campus or in town ride bikes or walk to work? Especially from the farther reaches of town? (Not to mention the even-farther locales that some want to create?)
Also, whatever happened to the staff housing that UCD planned on campus? (And is the number of UCD workers at the Davis campus even increasing, in the first place?)
Gotta be amused at those who claim they want to “Save Measure J” by dismantling it (before the state does – or so they claim).
The state’s housing “mandates” are turning out to be unenforceable. Sure, they can force cities to “plan” for housing that isn’t needed, but until someone learns how to pick up a hammer it’s not going to make much difference. (It will be interesting to see what the ACTUAL outcome is, as the state’s efforts become an increasingly-evident laughing stock.)
Flag this again, this is the critical point – the city is flashing a warning… From the staff report: “ the city of Davis has been able to meet its legal fairshare of housing within the city limits. However, that fact is becoming more untrue as the years pass and lands become unavailable or developed. As the city reaches build out, it will become increasingly more difficult to find property to designate for housing to meet our fair share requirements. Therefore, the Measure J/R/D process becomes
applicable to all annexation applications.”
Ron, as usual, you’re throwing out a barrage of half-truths and contradictions without grappling with the core issue: Davis has a housing crisis, and we’ve built so little that even modest efforts to allow more homes near jobs and transit get labeled “sprawl” — which, ironically, only ensures more real sprawl and longer commutes elsewhere.
If you look at the 25 years of development that the city puts out in its housing element updates, you see just how little the city has developed and it’s all in the current boundaries. And what that means if that the city cannot help but develop outward at this point – you call it sprawl, but I think your definition is fundamentally too expansive to be useful.
Measure J is, functionally, anti-growth. Sure, Nishi and Bretton Woods were approved — but after how many failed attempts? Measure J hasn’t facilitated responsible planning; it’s chilled it. A process that requires years of political wrangling and a public vote is a massive barrier.
You claim affordable housing developers can “bypass Measure J.”
Not really. The “exception clause” is so narrowly written and politically fraught that no developer has attempted to use it – in 25 years.
You’re accusing others of hypocrisy on commuting and job creation, but your logic is backwards. Yes — inbound and outbound commuting are both problems. That’s why Davis should both build more homes for people who work here (e.g., UCD employees) and create job space so that Davis residents don’t have to drive elsewhere. Those goals aren’t contradictory — they’re complementary.
Your dismissal of the state’s role ignores recent reality. Housing Element laws, RHNA targets, and builder’s remedy lawsuits are all reshaping planning in California — including in suburban holdouts like Davis. The state isn’t some paper tiger. It’s already forcing changes in cities like Redondo Beach and Huntington Beach, and more are coming. Pretending Davis is immune is shortsighted. Pretending it’s not happening is silly.
Finally, your tone suggests that nothing is broken — but it is. People can’t afford to live here. Workers commute for hours. Younger residents can’t stay. And the only consistent response from Measure J defenders is either to deny there’s a problem or to suggest other people should solve it elsewhere.
A sentence/conclusion from staff is not the same thing as a legal decision. You do realize that, right?
But the REAL problem with all of this is that the clamor to dismantle Measure J is coming from those who have been trying to do so for years. As such, they have a “credibility problem” when trying to convince the (more than) 80% of voters who approved Measure J.
There is no housing shortage – I’ve already presented a university study which shows that. By the way, is the theory that all of the UCD workers who would move to an expensive shoebox (from wherever they’re living now) ALSO going to give up their cars, when making that move? And that they would all
As far as the clause allowing Affordable housing developers to bypass Measure J, the fact is that it hasn’t been needed so far. Also, every time that government funds are used to build Affordable housing in Davis results in some other community not getting those funds. It’s a zero-sum “game”, for those pushing for more Affordable housing.
Wow – you’re actually doubling down on “build more housing”, AND “build more jobs”? This argument makes no sense, for the reasons already noted. You and the other growth activists aren’t going to convince anyone with that. It’s way too easy to poke holes in the inherent absurdity.
It’s actually EASIER to commute to UCD from a place like Spring Lake (especially areas along Highway 113, which will include an ADDITIONAL 1,600 housing units from the “technology park” that escaped from Davis). It’s a straight shot down Highway 113, without even going through the city of Davis.
Compare that to some place like Shriner’s or DISC.
As I wrote and response to your comment from yesterday: Ron’s comment overlooks the legal and strategic significance of staff reports—especially in the context of land use planning and potential litigation.
Staff reports are part of the official public record and often play a critical role in defending city actions if challenged in court. When a city makes planning decisions—such as how to meet its RHNA—the rationale documented in staff reports can be used to show good faith compliance with state mandates. Courts and agencies like HCD often look to these documents to assess whether a jurisdiction is acting reasonably and lawfully.
So while a single sentence may not by itself carry the weight of statute, it absolutely matters in a legal context—especially if the city later needs to justify its approach to housing, annexation, or a Measure J/R/D amendment. Minimizing that ignores how land use lawsuits and administrative reviews actually function.
You’re also characterizing a proposal that would reduce the affordable component for a waiver from 100% to 50% as tantamount to dismantling measure J, which it clearly does not do and I would argue. It’s probably not gonna go far enough to alleviate the bottle neck.
What you’re attempting to do is to use “scare tactics” to convince supporters of Measure J to dismantle it, before the state has a chance to do so. This is yet another argument that isn’t going to work.
Again, you and the others making this claim have a credibility problem to overcome.
Especially since (as you previously noted), it’s not as if a lightswitch is activated, even if Measure J is temporarily negated. It would be dragged through the court system, and the city would then presumably also prepare an “adjusted” Measure J at that point.
And again, that’s assuming that the state would attempt this, and would be successful. Again, the state is supposedly focused on INFILL, not sprawl.
And again, there’s vast numbers of cities that “also” aren’t going to be able to plan for the state’s housing “mandates” – they’re in the same position as Davis.
You tell me what happens when laws turn out to be unenforceable on a vast scale. You think that their response is going to be to go after urban limit lines? And even if they did, what are they going to do about those cities which “can’t” sprawl outwards?
The state is already experiencing a significant backlash, even though they haven’t been successful in forcing growth. Ultimately, politicians themselves are vulnerable to the will of the people, as well as the laws. (See Proposition 13.)
Guess “who” has a problem here – it’s the state itself, not communities. (By the way, there’s some technical problems with commenting on the Vanguard, these days.)
My third comment.
Ron, this isn’t scare tactics — it’s realism. The state has already overridden local control in cities that failed to plan for housing, and Measure J’s barriers to infill near jobs and transit put Davis at risk. We can modernize it ourselves or wait for the courts and the state to do it for us, with less control and more conflict. Ignoring this doesn’t make it go away.
“To us, we prefer to advocate for a more sustainable alternative, trying to work with the development community towards a better outcome. Unfortunately, to this point, all such efforts have failed.
We had hoped that in suggesting these ideas over the past 2 years that developers would see that we have the same interests in mind, engage with us on this issue, hopefully adapting their plans to be responsive to community input. But that hasn’t happened.”
With some introspection, you might be able to figure out why you’ve made no headway with the development community.
But the upshot is that your advocacy, at this point, will simply prevent housing from being built.
The authors present a false dichotomy between Measure J and nothing when in reality what measure J does is it makes killing housing projects easier. Without Measure J the people could still petition for a referendum election if they don’t like a project as was done with the Wildhorse subdivision back before Measure J.
Measure J changes the dynamic from the people must petition for referendum to a referendum is automatically required.
The easiest thing to do in California politics is get people to vote no on a ballot measure. Measure J exploits this reality to make killing projects easier as evidenced by the dearth of houses built since its passage.