We got a rare chance this week to see what a discussion and debate on Measure J would look like—the results are not unexpected but also not encouraging.
One of the problems is the looming train wreck that will eventually result from the failure of the Davis system to produce sufficient housing to satisfy not only the state demands—but internal needs.
The comment section of the Davis Vanguard’s recent article—“Op-Ed | After Public Comment, Is Reforming Measure J Even Politically Possible?“— in addition to the public comment on Tuesday, offers a snapshot of where the community stands.
The reactions range from defiant defenses of local control to strong calls for more housing, from skepticism of developers to worries about the state’s growing pressure on cities like Davis.
But one thing is clear: the longer Davis delays serious Measure J reform, the greater the risk the state—or a court—will take the matter out of our hands entirely.
There is no question that Measure J has played a foundational role in how land use decisions are made in Davis. Approved by voters in 2000 and extended twice since then, Measure J (and its successors, R and D) requires a public vote for any project that proposes to convert agricultural or open space land to urban use.
This was originally seen as a safeguard against sprawl and speculative growth. But two decades later, it’s clear the law has also become a barrier to meeting the city’s housing needs and has placed Davis on a legal collision course with state mandates.
Some commenters argue we should simply wait until Measure J sunsets in 2030 before making any changes.
“Let the current projects go to a vote,” they say. “If voters approve them, there’s no problem. If they don’t, then we can think about reform.”
This logic might sound reasonable, but it’s dangerously flawed.
If either of the next two Measure J projects—Village Farms or the other soon-to-be-announced proposal—is rejected by voters, Davis will almost certainly fail to meet its 6th or 7th cycle RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) targets.
Failing to meet RHNA opens the city up to the builder’s remedy and to potential litigation under the Housing Accountability Act or other state housing laws. More importantly, it invites a deeper question: does Measure J itself constitute an unlawful barrier to housing production?
The state, and potentially the courts, may well decide that the answer is yes. And if that happens, we won’t be debating how to tweak Measure J anymore. We’ll be scrambling to respond to a legal order invalidating it entirely.
Waiting until 2030 isn’t a strategy—it’s a gamble with long odds and high stakes.
The irony is that we don’t have to choose between total repeal and doing nothing. Thoughtful reform is possible—if we act soon.
Alan Miller’s recent proposal for an urban limit line is a promising middle-ground approach. It would establish a boundary beyond which development would still require a Measure J vote, but within which the city could plan for and approve the housing it needs to meet RHNA targets without going to the ballot. Structured properly, the line could be set to align with ten-year planning horizons and be offset from RHNA cycles to provide predictability.
This would allow us to maintain voter control over peripheral growth while removing unnecessary friction from projects that are consistent with the city’s general plan and housing goals. It’s a strategic adjustment—not an abandonment—of Measure J’s intent.
Opponents of reform often shift the argument to developers: “Even if you change Measure J,” they ask, “won’t developers just build expensive homes no one can afford?”
It’s a fair concern. But as someone who has met repeatedly with developers in Davis, I can tell you: affordability—including missing middle housing—is high on their list. The challenge is financial feasibility. Projects must “pencil” or they won’t get built. And that’s true whether they’re market-rate or affordable.
Developers like John Whitcombe have not only supported local housing but have literally donated millions to the Davis school system. This caricature of developers as profit-hungry outsiders is not only inaccurate—it’s unhelpful. The goal shouldn’t be to punish those willing to build housing, but to incentivize the kind of housing we want.
One commenter proposed that the city adopt an ordinance requiring over 50% of homes in new developments to be priced between $500,000 and $600,000. That sounds good on paper—but as H.L. Mencken said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”
The economics of construction—land, labor, materials, fees, and financing—make it nearly impossible to hit that price point at scale without subsidies or significant trade-offs.
But we can—and should—create process incentives, streamlined reviews, and density bonuses for projects that voluntarily exceed affordability standards. That’s how you align community goals with market realities.
Other commenters dismiss the threat of state intervention entirely, arguing that even if Davis falls out of compliance, the builder’s remedy would result in more housing than Measure J ever would.
It’s hard to see that being the case. One problem that Davis already has is a lack of infill sites for builder’s remedy to matter. Moreover, Davis would require the kind of dense infill that a 20 percent affordable housing requirement would render difficult to build—indeed, there is a reason that one of the builder’s remedy proposals has been withdrawn.
But even if that’s a practical possibility, it’s a dangerous game to play with our long-term autonomy.
If the state or courts determine that Measure J violates state law by creating an illegal constraint on housing, we won’t be talking about a few builder’s remedy projects. We’ll be talking about the potential nullification of Measure J in its entirety.
It’s also worth noting that California’s housing crisis is not a passing phase. It’s structural. The state has already passed over a dozen bills aimed at accelerating housing production—SB 330, SB 9, SB 35, and more. Each year brings tougher mandates and sharper enforcement. Davis is not immune. In fact, because of Measure J, Davis is in the crosshairs.
Let’s be honest with ourselves: if we truly value local control, we have to exercise it responsibly. That means updating outdated policies before they’re torn down by someone else.
Some say the political will isn’t there. But leadership means making the hard choices before crisis forces your hand. The City Council’s current plan is vague and overly cautious. Their slow walk toward reform is unlikely to move the needle, and it certainly won’t shield us from legal scrutiny if RHNA targets aren’t met.
We can either act now to design a version of Measure J that is both legally resilient and responsive to modern housing realities—or we can wait until someone else does it for us.
This is our opportunity to show that Davis is capable of governing itself responsibly—that we understand the gravity of the housing crisis and are willing to evolve to meet the moment.
The time for hesitation is over. We need to begin serious Measure J reform now—before the courts do it for us.
Here’s what Sherri Metzker had to say about it, per your own article:
“Community Development Director Sherri Metzker warned that while there would be no immediate penalty, it would likely put Davis in the crosshairs of state lawmakers. “It’s very likely they will pass legislation… basically to take it away by virtue of state action,” they said. “We’re not the only ones being watched.”
https://davisvanguard.org/2025/05/davis-council-housing-policy/
I say, let them try – no legislation is even being proposed at this point. And if they did, it would point out the lie that they’re promulgating (that they’re focused on infill).
By the way, where’s Cecila Aguiar-Curry on this (and Christopher Cabaldon), and has the council reached out to them (other than to support the state’s efforts)?
I am quite certain that Cecilia Aguiar-Curry is on the side of the “YIMBYs”, as is most of the council. But since she’s the only Democrat on the ballot, there really wasn’t much choice, was there. At least, not when it comes to a place like Davis.
This demonstrates the problem with the “system” itself – no actual choice.
“The state, and potentially the courts, may well decide . . . and if that happens, we won’t be debating how to tweak Measure J anymore.”
So much drama! We can still pass another measure that would have legal standing. There is no ‘tweak’, only new policy. That can be done in advance, or in response, if your ever-present claim of state intervention does come true.
“Waiting until 2030 isn’t a strategy—it’s a gamble with long odds and high stakes.”
With all the developments and concerns about timing, everything is a gamble with high stakes, especially for the developers actually willing to deal with Davis.
“The irony is that we don’t have to choose between total repeal and doing nothing. Thoughtful reform is possible—if we act soon.”
This ‘reform’ idea . . . what the . . . actual . . . ANY change is new policy, no matter how similar or different it is from the current Measure J. Let’s stop this ‘tweak’ language.
“Alan Miller’s recent proposal for an urban limit line is a promising middle-ground approach.”
Much as I’m a narcissist and attention wh*re who appreciates seeing my name in lights, I’m hardly the first to propose an urban limit line.
“It would establish a boundary beyond which development would still require a Measure J vote,”
Actually my proposal was to abolish Meaure J and establish an urban limit line. Measure J is bad law and causes problems for Davis like periodic infighting. I see no advantage for keeping it around so developers can get beyond the urban limit line.
“. . . but within which the city could plan for and approve the housing it needs to meet RHNA targets without going to the ballot.”
That part I agree with.
“Structured properly, the line could be set to align with ten-year planning horizons and be offset from RHNA cycles to provide predictability.”
Structure properly, it could be the forever limit of the City. Or until someone drops a nuke, or until the state gets Republican control and backs off on telling cities what to do. Whichever comes first.
“This would allow us to maintain voter control over peripheral growth while removing unnecessary friction from projects that are consistent with the city’s general plan and housing goals. It’s a strategic adjustment—not an abandonment—of Measure J’s intent.”
Not my intent. I say urban limit line replaces Measure J.
” . . . developers in Davis, I can tell you: affordability—including missing middle housing—is high on their list.”
High, but a mile lower.
” The challenge is financial feasibility.”
Uh, yeah. Thus why a mile lower.
“Developers like John Whitcombe have not only supported local housing but have literally donated millions to the Davis school system.”
Really???!!! That explains why the school board is putting forth these insane ideas about ‘saving the schools’ by increasing development — honestly one of craziest postulations I’ve ever heard put forth. Now the pieces fit together. They are bought and paid for by developers, like any ‘good’ politicians :-|
“And the beat goes on” — Sonny Bono
The voters will be aware of those risks.
The state has no authority to require cities to expand their boundaries in regard to barriers to housing production. If that’s what they’re claiming, then perhaps Jim Frame’s suggestion (for the state to engage in eminent domain) will come into play.
There’s all kinds of barriers to housing, both inside and outside of cities. Urban limit lines are only one such barrier.
Also, it was pointed out that any CHANGES to Measure J (at this point) are what might actually make it vulnerable to legal challenges, in regard to more-recent laws. You can be sure that voters will be “made aware” of that, as well.
I guess we’ll see.
But the city and the other growth activists have their work cut out for them, since they’re the ones claiming to be trying to “save” Measure J (by dismantling it). It’s a pretty tough “sales job” when opponents of a Measure are the ones claiming to support it (by weakening it).
These growth activists are also likely dooming the current proposals put forth under Measure J.
Now, if the supporters of Measure J were the ones trying to change it, they’d have some credibility. But that’s clearly not the case.
But the “biggest threat” to Measure J might result from an APPROVAL of one of the proposals, since the state may then dictate what is allowed to be built on the annexed land – rather than what’s described on the ballot. The annexing of the land is likely what would provide the state with authority to dictate what is actually built (or “allowed”).
Two years ago I did the math on the idea of an urban limit line, and started that analysis with the question of what is the “natural size” that Davis needs to be given the size of the university and our natural economy around it.
When I did that work and just looked at comparable university towns etc and approached it numerically, the answer came back that Davis probably would be “at balance” with a population of about 120k people. Much like Ann Arbor MI or Urbana / Champagne IL. Both of those cities have similar universities of similar sizes and nature to UCD.
Further, I calculated that within the urban limit line proposed by Robb davis, and while assuming that we densify a number of obvious neighborhoods… we COULD probably accomodate that population within the propsoed limit line. But ALL of the area inside that line would have to be 20 units per acre…an assumption that falls apart as soon as you start drawing the most obvious transit routes and you realize there is no way to serve those neighborhoods with effective transit.
The article in question by the way is here: https://davisvanguard.org/2023/06/guest-commentary-how-big-should-davis-be-university-towns-part-2/
So the urban limit line, as a concept by itself, isnt close to enough. Developers will fill that land with expensive low-density single family homes that wont help our inbound commuting workforce, and it will instead be sold to refugees from silicon valley who telecommute or attorneys and lobbyists who commute to sacramento. All of that will be purely automotive transit… I honsetly would rather leave it as farmland if that is the solution.
Where it might make a lot more sense is if we have a band of transit-served, medium density neighborhoods running across the bottom of these developments and down to DiSC, and the limit line applied to any “additional” development above it. Since “walkability” basically means 1/4 mile, this means the only place where the more sustainable neighborhoods make sense is at the most a band of 1/2 mile to the outside of covell / mace.
Single family housing could be part of the mix between the strip of walkable neighborhoods below them and up to the limit line, and we could potentially condition the developer being able to produce that housing only after they have fully built out the more affordable portion of the property.
“The time to act is now.”
No David, the time to act was 2010 or 2020. But where were you then? You supported a ten year renewal with a tepid lament in 2020 for an amendment. Perhaps after 25 years you might realize that Measure J has resulted in housing scarcity in a place of abundance. We have the land we don’t have the will. All this hand wringing about losing Measure J shows you haven’t learned a thing about supply and demand.
Who will lose control completely? A bunch of homeowners who don’t give a shit about anybody but themselves. A bunch of boomers that are keeping millennials down. A bunch of progressives who want to dictate how others should live without living that way themselves. A bunch of self described planners who want to dictate policy to people who actually are willing to put their own capital at risk. A bunch of limits to growth population bomb malthusians who haven’t learned a thing since Jerry Brown’s small is beautiful days. A bunch of Affordable housing blackmailers who want to be given land in exchange for support. I say sweep them all away and open the floodgates.
As was entirely-predictable, there is a city near the coast which is leading an effort against the state’s mandates. Of course, since this article is in The Chronicle, it is written in a manner that is opposed to this city’s efforts.
“This rich beachfront city is trying to launch an anti-housing insurgency in California”
“But as Newsom and state leaders have rightly diagnosed, California is full of Encinitases.”
“City leaders in Encinitas are fully aware of that, and they emphasized that the key to their effort would be recruiting and joining with other cities that similarly want the ability to block new housing.”
“One Encinitas council member who urged his colleagues to support the local control measure argued, “There’s no reason not to do this. There just literally isn’t — it’s not costing us anything.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/encinitas-housing-nimbys-20327363.php
Thought I’d look into this further. Apparently, the more pro-development council was swept out of office in Encinatas, and replaced with people like this (the new mayor):
“Ehlers is no stranger to the fight against state housing mandates and has previously taken different approaches.”
“He was the author of Proposition A, a growth-control initiative approved by voters in 2013 that requires a vote by Encinitas residents for any major zoning and density changes.”
“During his time on the Planning Commission, Ehlers regularly pushed back against proposed housing projects leading to him being removed from the Planning Commission in 2022 by the then-City Council, who said Ehlers had a record of opposing the city’s efforts to stay compliant with state housing laws and an inability to remain unbiased and objective when considering housing projects.”
“Now, he believes the answer lies at the top.”
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2025/02/20/encinitas-mayor-push-to-regain-local-control-must-start-at-the-state/
Although I think doing a ballot measure before re-authorization is the stupid way to amend Measure J and is likely to fail I actually don’t have a problem with the City Council putting something on the ballot in 2028. What I do object to, as a majority of the CC agreed, is complicating the election process by adding an amendment during 2026 when two long planned Measure J votes are headed to the ballot.
Finally , I believe, Eileen Samitz, one of the most vociferous opponents of Village Farms, is also opposed to a competing amendment on the ballot.
It seems that the people who are most involved on all sides want a clean ballot. I think that desire should be respected.
So far, all I’ve seen from those trying to weaken Measure J are comments from the CITY ITSELF (and from the local growth activists) as a “justification” for doing so. Such as the comment below – which is not only speculation; it would ALSO require Legislative Action which isn’t even being discussed at this point by legislators:
“Community Development Director Sherri Metzker warned that while there would be no immediate penalty, it would likely put Davis in the crosshairs of state lawmakers. “It’s very likely they will pass legislation… basically to take it away by virtue of state action,” they said. “We’re not the only ones being watched.”
So when you see the council attempt to force this onto a ballot (and without any written prodding from HCD whatsoever), keep in mind “who” it’s coming from. It’s not coming from the state, no matter how many times such claims are put forth.
Seems like the local growth activists are living in an “alternative facts” universe.