Tim Keller and others made a critical point over the weekend: the only thing worse than Measure J might be no Measure J at all. But the real problem is this—Measure J doesn’t work. It doesn’t deliver on its promises, and it is increasingly putting the city of Davis on a collision course with state housing law.
Over the past 25 years, Measure J and its successors have functioned as a near-total blockade on new housing for permanent residents in Davis. Since the adoption of Measure J in 2000, just two projects requiring a public vote have passed—Nishi and Bretton Woods. One of those has yet to break ground, bogged down in the very complexities created by the process Measure J mandates. Twenty-five years. Two projects. That’s the track record.
This stagnation runs afoul of California Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a)(5), which requires cities to analyze and remove governmental constraints to housing production. The code is clear: jurisdictions must evaluate how land use controls, like Measure J, obstruct efforts to meet state housing goals across all income levels. That includes demonstrating a proactive effort to work around those barriers.
Even the city of Davis has admitted as much. In the second version of its Housing Element, the city committed to reviewing the cumulative impact of several policies—including Measure J—on residential development. The Housing Element states: “The city of Davis will complete a comprehensive review of the following policies to evaluate the cumulative impact on residential development…Measure J.”
The city acknowledged it failed to conduct this review prior to the preparation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element, but conceded that SB 330 has made such an evaluation unavoidable.
In response, the city concluded: “While Measure J adds costs, extends processing times, and has been used to halt development projects that would convert agricultural land to urban development, it is only a constraint to meeting housing needs if the city lacks sufficient infill housing sites.”
But here’s the problem: by the city’s own admission, it does lack sufficient infill sites.
The Housing Element itself concedes, “There is not currently (2021) enough land designated for residential development to meet the sixth-cycle RHNA.” The city skirted the issue by rezoning additional sites to meet the RHNA quota, claiming this action averted the need for a Measure J vote.
Flash forward to this year. The staff report accompanying the latest Housing Element update provides a virtual blueprint for litigation against Measure J.
It plainly states: “The city of Davis has been able to meet its legal fair share 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.”
That’s not just bureaucratic language—it’s a legal vulnerability. Staff reports are official public records and frequently serve as key evidence in land use litigation or in state reviews by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). When the city admits in writing that it is running out of infill space and that voter-mandated annexation procedures constrain housing production, it makes Measure J ripe for legal challenge.
HCD has already begun rejecting housing elements from cities that use voter-approved growth controls as a blanket excuse for underproduction. Cities like Pleasanton, Palo Alto, and Redondo Beach have all been placed under scrutiny. In some cases, their housing elements have been decertified. The precedent is being set: voter-enacted growth restrictions are not immune from state oversight.
Davis is unusual—perhaps even unique—in how completely it has locked its city limits against outward growth. Unlike many California cities that establish urban limit lines with room for some future expansion, Davis’s boundary is essentially coterminous with its current footprint.
More importantly, it is governed by Measure J/R/D, which requires voter approval for any annexation of land for residential development. This creates a de facto ban on meaningful greenfield housing growth. No other city in California combines such a rigid urban limit with a binding public veto in quite the same way.
Other cities, like Pleasanton, Ventura, or Napa, have voter-approved growth measures, but these typically allow for more flexibility—either through legislative processes, specific exemptions for affordable housing, or broader boundaries that already encompass future growth areas.
In contrast, Davis’s system leaves almost no room to expand, and no practical pathway to do so without a costly and uncertain ballot campaign. The result is not just a constraint on growth, but a near-total prohibition on building new housing outside the existing city limits.
California’s housing laws are rapidly evolving. SB 330, AB 2011, and SB 35’s “Builder’s Remedy” have steadily eroded local control in jurisdictions that refuse to meet their housing obligations. These laws don’t need to directly repeal Measure J. All they need to do is make non-compliant jurisdictions vulnerable to lawsuits and to loss of control over their own planning decisions.
Of course, Davis doesn’t have to wait for the state to act. It can act on its own. And it should, before the decision is taken out of its hands.
The idea that acknowledging this legal reality constitutes a “threat” misses the point entirely. Stating facts about California housing law and the direction of state enforcement is not a threat—it’s a reality check.
No one here is wielding political power to punish Davis. This isn’t coming from a legislator, or a judge, or HCD. It’s an observation rooted in documented trends and statutory requirements. The legal tide is turning, and cities that cling to outdated growth restrictions will be swept up in it.
So where does this leave us? With a choice.
We can hold onto Measure J in its current form, pretending it remains untouchable, and gamble that the courts and the state will continue to look the other way. But that is becoming less and less likely.
Or, we can act proactively. Davis voters can alter Measure J to allow streamlined annexation of designated housing sites, particularly those aimed at meeting affordable and workforce housing needs. We can carve out limited exceptions or fast-tracking mechanisms that retain local input without creating a veto point that paralyzes development.
Tim Keller put it best: the only thing worse than Measure J is no Measure J. If Davis refuses to amend it, we may get the worst of both worlds: a failed growth control measure that doesn’t produce housing, and a legal challenge that strips us of our say altogether.
The smarter path is reform. Adjust Measure J so that it aligns with state law, serves actual housing needs, and ensures that Davis remains a community that plans its future—instead of having it dictated by outside forces.
Because the status quo is untenable. And change is coming, whether we like it or not.
From article: “This stagnation runs afoul of California Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a)(5), which requires cities to analyze and remove governmental constraints to housing production.”
The code (and all of the state’s efforts) addresses land INSIDE of city limits. There is not a single incidence of the state forcing a city to expand its boundaries to address RHNA targets. Not one.
From article: “But here’s the problem: by the city’s own admission, it does lack sufficient infill sites.”
So does just about every other city in California – including those with urban limit lines, geographic barriers, etc. That’s a problem with the laws themselves, not a problem with the cities.
The state’s laws can force planning, but they can’t force building. The state is failing in its efforts. This was entirely predictable.
The link below includes a list of several communities which have enacted ordinances similar to Measure J, under the SOAR program:
https://rma.venturacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/soar-questions-and-answers.pdf
The truth is that ANY restriction to development is a barrier to housing, whether it’s urban growth lines, agricultural (or any other type of) zoning, agricultural mitigations, the state’s own Williamson Act, . . .
And that would also be true of a “weakened” Measure J – it would still be a “barrier” to development/housing that would otherwise be built.
https://rma.venturacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/soar-questions-and-answers.pdf
But perhaps the main problem is that the people (including some council members) who are pushing to weaken Measure J are the same people who don’t support it in the first place. In other words, their motivation is not driven by a desire to “save” Measure J. This is yet another reason that they’re going to fail – and probably doom the existing proposals in the process. (If I was Whitcombe, for example, I wouldn’t be too happy about trying to win an election under Measure J, while the council and others are simultaneously trying to undermine Measure J. Unless he’s perhaps working behind the scenes with the city and council.)
It’s true that the state has not yet explicitly mandated annexation to meet RHNA targets. However, that interpretation misses the direction in which the law and enforcement mechanisms are rapidly moving. HCD has begun holding cities accountable for actual housing capacity and production, not theoretical zoning potential. If a city’s existing limits cannot accommodate its fair share of housing, it must demonstrate a realistic pathway to compliance—including removing voter-imposed barriers like Measure J.
Moreover, it’s incorrect to suggest that “just about every other city” is in the same situation. Many cities—especially those without urban limit lines or voter-imposed growth controls—retain some flexibility to rezone or upzone within their boundaries. Davis is uniquely constrained because Measure J makes it nearly impossible to add land for housing without a citywide vote, and the city’s own staff has warned that “as the city reaches build out, it will become increasingly more difficult” to meet legal obligations. That creates a legal vulnerability other cities may not share. This is self-inflicted by the city of Davis – neither the state nor the courts are likely to look favorably on Davis’ situation.
David says: “it must demonstrate a realistic pathway to compliance—including removing voter-imposed barriers like Measure J.”
Again, point to a law (not just your opinion) which states this. You’re not going to be able to do so, because it doesn’t exist (much as you and some others would prefer that it did exist).
“Trends” have no legal weight whatsoever.
David says: “Moreover, it’s incorrect to suggest that “just about every other city” is in the same situation. Many cities—especially those without urban limit lines or voter-imposed growth controls—retain some flexibility to rezone or upzone within their boundaries. ”
And many more do not have that flexibility. The vast majority of the population (and the focus of the state’s efforts) are along/near the coast – places that are MUCH MORE DENSE than Davis is. (No comparison, really.) Infill (where economic development continues to be pursued) was the entire justification for the state’s efforts.
For now, These cities are likely going to be forced to “plan” for housing that will never be built. And if the state then comes back and says, “that’s not viable”, the response will ultimately be “then tell me where it is viable”. (And again, most of the heavily populated cities aren’t going to be pointing at agricultural land outside of city limits, in response.)
I’d personally like to ask state officials this question.
Also, Bapu himself ran on a platform of “infill”.
David says: “Davis is uniquely constrained because Measure J makes it nearly impossible to add land for housing without a citywide vote, and the city’s own staff has warned that “as the city reaches build out, it will become increasingly more difficult” to meet legal obligations.
As Matt pointed out, staff are not impartial observers, nor are they legal experts. Also, “correct me if I’m wrong”, but two large peripheral proposals WERE APPROVED under Measure J. Are councils (in contrast) expected to approve everything that comes their way? (Since when?)
But again, when the vast majority of the entire state is also in this same position, the laws themself becomes irrelevant and unenforceable. (At which point, they’ll be labeled “aspirational” – as you’ve previously labeled them yourself.)
David says: “That creates a legal vulnerability other cities may not share.”
Most of them DO share this same problem. But again, it’s the state’s problem, when they create unenforceable laws.
David says: “This is self-inflicted by the city of Davis – neither the state nor the courts are likely to look favorably on Davis’ situation.”
So far, the state has lost on SB9. I doubt they’d win on forcing sprawl outside of city limits – even if they were interested in attempting that.
But if they DO attempt that, it would expose all of their other claims regarding the “need” to force infill (rather than sprawl).
But again, let them try it, let it play out and see what happens (if anything, which I doubt). You’ve already suggested that approach, yourself. And if it does happen, that’s when there will be court challenges and delays, possible modification of Measure J at that time, etc.
Generally, it’s not necessary to shoot yourself in the head solely due to the possibility that someone else might try it, later.
There’s all kinds of barriers to housing – some of which I listed above. But some others come to mind, as well – such as building codes, Proposition 13, . . .
Just imagine all of the housing that could be built if there was no zoning, urban limit lines, agricultural mitigation, building codes . . . (There is a place like that in Texas, as I recall.)
The biggest “ally” that Measure J (and its supporters) have is NOT from the city itself. It’s from all of the other communities which are banding together to fight the state. That war is not over – not by a longshot. And if the state is ever actually successful, they’re going to awaken a tiger in those communities. (It’s already happening – even without much success by the state.)
Ron, you raise a number of points, but I think you’re missing the bigger picture about how California housing law is evolving—and how Davis’ unique circumstances make it especially vulnerable.
First, let’s be clear: Government Code 65583(a)(5) does in fact require cities to identify and remove “actual and potential governmental constraints” to housing production across all income levels. That includes local policies like voter-approved growth controls when those controls limit a city’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). You may not like that reality, but HCD has made this point repeatedly—just ask cities like Redondo Beach, Palo Alto, or Pleasanton, all of which saw Housing Elements rejected for relying too heavily on restrictive growth measures.
Your claim that “not a single city has been forced to expand beyond city limits” is misleading. It’s true that the state hasn’t yet compelled annexation—but it has said that if there’s no viable way to meet RHNA within existing boundaries, jurisdictions must explore alternatives. Davis’ own Housing Element acknowledges it’s rapidly running out of infill land and that Measure J poses a significant constraint once buildout is reached.
You’re also incorrect in saying “most cities share this same problem.” Davis is unusual because its urban limit line is coterminous with the current city boundary—meaning, unlike most other cities, it has no unincorporated fringe or sphere of influence to rezone without triggering a citywide vote. That’s a fundamentally different situation from San Jose or LA or even Palo Alto, where upzoning within city limits remains at least theoretically possible.
I agree that planning doesn’t guarantee building—but the law requires a “realistic and demonstrated pathway” to compliance, and Davis is increasingly unable to show that. That’s not just my opinion—it’s based on statements from the city’s own Housing Element and recent staff reports.
Finally, it’s not about threatening the city or undermining Measure J. It’s about understanding the direction of state housing policy and how it’s being enforced. The legal trend is clear: cities that impose local restrictions without demonstrating viable alternatives are facing increased scrutiny and litigation—and in some cases, loss of local control.
Pretending that Davis can continue with business as usual just because others share some similar constraints isn’t a strategy—it’s denial.
David says: “That includes local policies like voter-approved growth controls when those controls limit a city’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). You may not like that reality, but HCD has made this point repeatedly—just ask cities like Redondo Beach, Palo Alto, or Pleasanton, all of which saw Housing Elements rejected for relying too heavily on restrictive growth measures.”
Again, you’re stating that – but I don’t see any reference to it whatsoever (especially in regard to anything like Measure J – despite challenging you more than once). What “restrictive growth measures” were they forced to abandon, and did it resemble Measure J in any way, shape or form? (The answer to that is “no”.)
Were ANY of those cities “forced” to expand their boundaries as a result of state mandates? I also already know the answer to that as well (“no”) – even based on your own comment.
David says: “Your claim that “not a single city has been forced to expand beyond city limits” is misleading.”
It’s not misleading. It is in fact, FACTUAL. It’s misleading to deny facts.
David says: “It’s true that the state hasn’t yet compelled annexation—”
Finally – you’re forced to admit the truth. How does it feel? There’s not even any support for you to insert “yet” into that comment. Pure speculation.
David says: ” . . . but it has said that if there’s no viable way to meet RHNA within existing boundaries, jurisdictions must explore alternatives. Davis’ own Housing Element acknowledges it’s rapidly running out of infill land and that Measure J poses a significant constraint once buildout is reached.”
Again, that’s a self-interested staff opinion (and as I just noted – there’s ALL KINDS OF RESTRAINTS to development, some of which are imposed by the state itself). NOWHERE do any of the laws state that jurisdictions must explore alternatives outside of their own boundaries. Not in ANY of the examples you provided. Not one. You just noted it yourself!
Just thought of a couple more “restraints” to housing: Land trusts, and rural zoning (not necessarily “farm” zoning). In Marin and Sonoma counties, for example, land trusts and rural zoning is literally “locking up” many thousands of acres of land that isn’t necessarily farmed, and would otherwise be developed. There are minimum lot sizes, for example, which can’t be subdivided (e.g., 5 acres, 20 acres, 100 acres, etc.). The sole purpose of such zoning is to PREVENT development. The same is true regarding the state’s own Williamson Act.
The Endangered Species Act also results in restriction of development. There was an article in the The Chronicle yesterday, discussing how a wealthy city on the peninsula (Woodside) wanted to address their housing element on land owned by CalTrans (yet another state agency), but CalTrans is objecting based upon an endangered species.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/housing-woodside-blocked-wildflowers-20311586.php
David says: “Finally, it’s not about threatening the city or undermining Measure J. It’s about understanding the direction of state housing policy and how it’s being enforced. The legal trend is clear: cities that impose local restrictions without demonstrating viable alternatives are facing increased scrutiny and litigation—and in some cases, loss of local control.”
Yes – WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES. But even then, the state is largely failing.
If you want to discuss “trends”, we could discuss the trend of increasing opposition to the state. Here’s one example of that – I just received an email from them asking me to sign a petition:
https://www.ourneighborhoodvoices.com/
My third comment for the day. But I’m sure that you’ll continue goading the council to try to undermine Measure J tomorrow, as well. It won’t take much convincing for some of them to try, but it’s likely going to doom ALL of the proposals for awhile. So be it, since some of those same growth advocates don’t like the current proposals, anyway.
But do me and your readers a favor, David. Quit wasting your time, my time, and readers’ time making claims based upon conjecture (as if it was fact).
I have better things to do myself, than to repeatedly point out your incorrect claims, day-after-day. But I do see the reason that you’ve implemented a “three comment policy” for your readers, so that you can continue making unchallenged false claims.
If you’re going to make claims, put forth REFERENCES which actually have some connection to what you claim. Not irrelevant conjecture or your “opinion” – which often directly contradicts what your “opinion” was last week (when the council wasn’t considering weakening Measure J).
“But do me and your readers a favor, David. Quit wasting your time, my time, and readers’ time making claims based upon conjecture (as if it was fact). I have better things myself to do, than to repeatedly point out your incorrect claims, day-after-day.”
You could just not respond? I think you’re missing the core argument. You’re right to note that the state has not yet compelled annexation—that’s not in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim that Measure J does not represent a constraint under state law (there is a reason why the city and lawyers for HCD went back and forth on this very point). Nothing you’ve said changes that and if that’s the case, the state has the power to address constraint of housing. You don’t have to spend your time arguing this, you watch as it plays out – it’s not like you live in Davis or are a registered voter or something much less on the city council.
I think we have a really exciting opportunity here, and its one that we should see in the lens of “the future history” of our city.
Do we yield to the pressure of developers and just accept what THEY want to build even though it hurts us in the long term, and is totally disconnected from any citywide vision or strategy? Or do we proscribe what WE want our city to look like in our grandchildren’s time?
This debate is not about whether we need to grow or not. It is about HOW we grow and WHAT we become as a city.
To me, I want us to build a city that is a perfect companion to the institution that defines our city: UC Davis, the powerhouse research university #1 Food and Agriculture and many other disciplines. That is the one thing that makes us unique from other nearby municipalities, it is our differentiation, our competitive advantage, our identity, our duty.
I know that is going to trigger some people, but frankly, I long ago accepted that we have some “barnacles” in this town who dont care at all about the university and want to enjoy a univeristy town experience while not shouldering the obligation being a partner to the institution that makes the town special. They dont mind creating drag so long as they get a free ride in a nice college town… I will never agree with those people, its fine, we can acknowledge the difference in worldview and move on.
Which brings us to what I think is really important to recognize here: we are at an important fork in the road for our city. We can do what we have always done and accept more of the status quo, or we can focus on what is best FOR DAVIS, both the city and the university and build a community going into the future based on a better vision.
I think our grandchildren can (and should) judge us based on what we had the courage to do in this moment.
I agree with much of what Tim says—especially his point that the real question isn’t whether Davis needs to grow, but how we grow and what kind of community we’re shaping for the future. It’s time we move beyond the tired debate over whether housing is necessary and start focusing on the more constructive question: what kind of housing do we want, and for whom? If we don’t define a clear, inclusive vision, we risk defaulting to a patchwork of reactive, developer-led proposals. But if we embrace the opportunity to build a city that reflects both our values and our relationship to UC Davis, we can shape a future that supports affordability, sustainability, and our identity as a research and innovation hub. That takes planning—and courage.
If we want to define a “clear, inclusive vision” that developers will follow, we need to first provide a clear pathway to obtaining approval for their projects. Our approach needs to be, ‘follow these guidelines and our default answer for your proposal will be ‘yes.’
Unfortunately, we are precluded from providing that sort of clear pathway to ‘yes’ due to Measure J, with its default pathway to ‘no.’ Unless and until we revoke Measure J and its mindless “no” default, the fine sounding ideas that you, Tim and others are putting forward are completely worthless. The City has no way of providing a mechanism for approval of the projects you prefer, so your proposed “clear, inclusive vision” has no value, and producing said ‘vision’ will be a complete waste of time, community engagement and money.
As long as Measure J is in effect, nothing will change despite the thousands of words you and others have dedicated to the subjects of better planning and development. Simply put, if you want say ‘yes’ to a new approach for development, you first need get rid of Measure ‘No.’
Mark, the working idea is to create a map and a set of standards which we can agree to say “yes” to.
The working idea is this:
1) A map that contains a very high level master plan indicating how we want transit to run, ( making sure all the properties connect in the same way) and an indication of where we are willing to allow housing to be built so long as the proposal conforms to….
2) A list of building standards for development within the map zone that calls for a number of things, including a 7% land dedication for affordable housing, a minimum of 20 units per acre, mixed use zoning, compliance with energy efficiency standards… etc.
So I very much agree with you that asking for a different vision is meaningless unless we have a vision to point to and a pathway for making it real, but that is exactly what we are proposing to do.
——
That said, this would be a modification rather than a replacement of measure J because these properties are all owned by different developers and we cant force anyone to build anything. The idea is to offer them a path to building better housing by statute IF they comply with measure J, or they can roll the dice and try to come up with their own plan and ask the citizens to vote for it.
That turns measure J into a blend of carrot and stick instead of 100% stick.
Tim:
I’m curious. Did you all create this plan after extensive consultations with local developers, planning staff and/or affordable housing experts, or did you create it all on your own? Based on a comment in a previous post lamenting the lack of engagement, I assume that it is mostly the latter, though I will happy to have that assumption corrected if necessary.
Mark, No I definitely did not create it “all on my own”. The original idea came from Robb Davis and I initially expanded his ideas as part of a “lets look at our housing issue from the top-down” series of articles that I was interested in exploring at the time.
From there, multiple people have been engaging on this issue in the community, not just me. We now have a handful of pro-housing groups in Davis: DCAN, Strong Towns, Interfaith, Sustainable growth yolo, the Davis planning group. There is overlap in those groups to be sure, but it is truly a community discussion.. amongst those groups and many others.
We have an impressively deep bench talent-wise here in davis when it comes to these issues. Davis planning group by itself has has an architect, an affordable housing developer (and urban planner) a transit planner (former head of unitrans) and a couple of environmental policy experts. Amongst that group… Im “the economic development guy” and am undoubtedly the least qualified of the bunch… but as a tech entrepreneur, I know how to get a groups of smart people organized so I try to play that role
I have met with a lot of people outside those groups, as have my colleagues. Off the top of my head, we have talked to multiple other developers who arent involved in these projects at the moment, other transit planners, members of the planning comission, most of the council, and just about anyone and everyone who is willing to chat with us…. and many of us in one of these groups have gone to talk to other groups…. Truly the words “community discussion” are the right ones do describe it.
That’s all great, Tim, but I noticed in listing your bench of talent-wise people, you didn’t mention a single major residential or commercial developer. How do you know that what you are proposing will be viable for the very group you need to build things if you do not engage with them from the start? You are expecting them to change their approach to their businesses, yet you are offering them nothing in return, except perhaps perpetuating the myth that our development problems are all due to their greedy actions.
The bottom line is that you and your group of smart people are working on the wrong problem. The developers as a group have simply responded to the environment that we in the City have created for them to work in. Their actions are not the ‘disease’ if you will, but a manifestation of that disease. Our problems with development in town, both commercial and residential, are due entirely to the decades long mismanagement of the City by our City Councils and City Managers, which has been exacerbated by the equally bad public response that was Measure J. Bad management is the disease that needs to be addressed, something your group could be adept at doing. There are already enough people in town bashing developers so they really don’t need your help.
I strongly suggest you re-examine your approach as you are currently destined to fail. Stop trying to treat the symptoms and instead work to identify and treat the underlying disease.
Mark, we have indeed talked to the developers of these projects multiple times, and engaged other developers who dont have a “dog in this fight” so to speak.
You are correct that the developers are responding to the environment they are in. But what you are missing is that measure J is a key driving factor in that environment. Fixing measure J changes those incentives and rewards the building of more affordable, more responsible housing. That is the entire point of this.
“But what you are missing is that measure J is a key driving factor in that environment.”
No, Measure J was created in response to the poor management environment of the pasts two or three decades. The ‘spanking machine’ description of planning in Davis predates Measure J by at least a decade or two. Incompetent planning and management is what has created the environment and as that situation continues, your efforts to change Measure J won’t have the impact you want. The expression ‘lipstick on a pig’ comes to mind.
By all means, feel free to propose a better idea.
I’ve been hoping someone would come forward with one for years now.
How to go about changing Measure J? See the path I laid out below.
Measure J should be reformed if not eliminated altogether? But doing so now by placing changes on the ballot prematurely may not be the best way to go about it. The need for reform is well known but behavioral economics shows that the path of least resistance is to wait until 2030 when Measure D comes up for renewal. At that time the City Council can put before voters whatever changes they want and the voters will have the choice of accepting those changes, letting Measure J/R/D expire or members of the public can do the hard work of petitioning to place their own proposal on the ballot.
Putting something on the ballot before the sunset date is a heavy political lift and requires taking on a divisive campaign. Maybe they can pull it off but it could also fail or come at a high political cost like we saw with Dan Carson and Ramos in a previous campaign.
There is another reason not to do an amendment now. Measure J was renewed in 2020 for a ten year period. There are currently several projects queuing up to go to the ballot. Doing an amendment now is essentially changing the rules in the middle of the game because of the long lead time to place projects before the voters. Adding a divisive amendment to the ballot risks undermining proposals that have been years in the making. Of course as we have seen nationally investors don’t like uncertainty when making business decisions. Changing the rules in the middle of the game only makes Davis that much less attractive as a place to do business.
For the record, in 2020 I was the lone voice for a two or four year extension, so that post-Covid we could have a robust debate. Looks like I was right then as we see the desire for changes coming more in line with my timeline than the 2020 Davis CC. Will they follow my advise this time? Time will tell.
Currently there is only one person from that 2020 CC still on the dais. She voted for a 10 year renewal with no amendments.
“But the real problem is this—Measure J doesn’t work.”
Depends on your perspective. For the people who value tomatoes over housing it has worked wonderfully.
Ironically, for 20 years, David has supported an ordinance he now admits doesn’t work.
Why is that ironic? I supported Measure J when I thought Davis needed a brake on growth following a period of rapid expansion in 2000. My views started to change in 2016 when the local housing crisis started to deepen. In 2020, I would have supported a modified Measure J. The data now for 25 years is pretty overwhelming. I do not think simply ending Measure J is politically practical nor do I believe ultimately it is in the best interest of the community. So based on changed information my views on measure J have changed – there is nothing ironic about that.
I love it David, you have been wrong for 20 years and only now admit it doesn’t work for people who need housing, yet still can’t bring yourself to admit you were ever wrong. You wanted amendments, but didn’t get any, so you went along anyway. How has that worked out?
I’ve been wrong about a lot of things – I have no problem admitting it.
“My views started to change in 2016 when the local housing crisis started to deepen.”
No doubt you have a long, low sloped, learning curve.
The bottom line is that it probably doesn’t matter what Tim Keller (or developers) propose.
If land is annexed to the city, THAT’s when all bets are off, regarding what ACTUALLY gets built on annexed land (e.g., builder’s remedy, etc.).
Measure J itself would be irrelevant, other than the “approval by voters” to pursue annexation.
Developers might as well promise “everything and anything”, when it has no meaning. Might as well “humor” the Davis CAN group as part of that, as well. “Sure – whatever you say you want, we’ll do”. You want bike paths and grade-separated crossings, for example? You betcha! *
* Disclaimer: The new state laws will determine what we can “actually” build, once its annexed.