For more than 20 years, Measure J/R/D has shaped the way Davis grows. It was passed with the intention of giving residents control over development at the edge of town—letting voters weigh in before farmland or open space was rezoned for housing. The measure was born out of a legitimate concern: that development was happening too quickly, without enough community input.
But today, that same process is producing distorted and unworkable outcomes.
Instead of encouraging community planning, Measure J/R/D has turned into a system where the only two options presented to the public are “take it or leave it.” If you’re a voter in Davis, your job isn’t to help shape projects in advance. It’s to approve or reject whatever a landowner or developer has decided to put before you. That is not democratic planning. That is planning by ballot box roulette.
As the Davis Citizens Planning Group aptly put it, “Measure J/R/D is a simple voting system that has led to poor choices.” That simplicity—vote yes or no—is exactly the problem. It obscures the fact that neither choice may serve the broader public interest. It also gives voters no ability to support something better.
What the community needs is a third option: an amendment to Measure J/R/D that allows for preapproved planning standards and clear, transparent community benefits. Projects that meet specific, democratically decided criteria—such as affordability, density, walkability, climate responsibility and open space protections—should be allowed to proceed without requiring a separate, expensive ballot campaign every time.
This approach does not eliminate voter control. It refines it. It moves us from an ad hoc, project-by-project guessing game to a coherent process rooted in shared values.
That notion seems to be a threat to some. There is a thought by others that this means weakening the protections of Measure J. So be it. We need a way forward that does not destroy our community by trying to hold things in stasis.
There are some who claim we can meet our housing needs through infill alone. But as the Davis Citizens Planning Group rightly pointed out, “infill alone won’t be sufficient.” The city’s own Housing Element admits this, and state housing mandates make it clear: Davis will need to expand in a planned, intentional way to meet our fair share of growth.
Others argue that housing will naturally become available as baby boomers move out or pass on. But again, this is misleading. The homes likely to be vacated are not the kinds of homes working families can afford.
As the Citizens Planning Group noted, “their release won’t aid middle-income families and will take 10–15 years.” By then it will be too late—this community will be out of reach for families with kids, and most likely the state will come in to take away any semblance of local control.
Some critics point to California’s recent population decline to claim that we don’t need more housing. But that dip was temporary, driven by pandemic-era dynamics. The state’s population is stabilizing and, in some regions, growing again. Meanwhile, household size is increasing—a clear sign that the supply of housing is not meeting demand. As more people double up or delay starting families, it becomes harder to claim that the housing market is fine.
On the other side of the spectrum are those who argue that any new housing is good housing—that if we simply build more homes, prices will come down. This too is misleading. Supply is only helpful when it matches the needs of the people who live and work here. New subdivisions filled with million-dollar homes don’t lower costs for low- and moderate-income households. They just expand the range of options for those who can already afford to buy. As the Citizens Planning Group reminds us, “‘adding supply always lowers prices’ is a myth.”
Take the recent development proposals for Village Farms and Willowcreek. Both claim to meet the need for “Missing Middle” housing. But the numbers tell a different story. Seventy-three percent of units at Village Farms are detached single-family homes, and 57 percent at Willowcreek fall into the same category. These are not the kind of smaller-scale, more affordable options that Davis so badly needs.
Fortunately, the Davis Citizens Planning Group has outlined a different path forward.
“A community-driven amendment could provide a better solution,” they write. Such an amendment would allow the city to modify the exceptions under Measure J/R/D and design a new process where projects aligned with voter-approved criteria can proceed without needing another ballot fight.
Councilmember Linda Deos put it plainly: “To think the people of Davis wrote a document that can never, ever be touched is just absurd.”
And she’s right. Laws evolve. Planning needs change. The spirit of Measure J/R/D—community control—can and should remain intact. But the process must evolve if we want to produce better outcomes.
Moreover, no one knew what the impact of Measure J would be from the start—now we do. It makes sense to adjust.
There are real political risks to doing nothing.
As Vice Mayor Donna Neville warned, it would be a serious mistake to place a Measure J/R/D amendment on the same ballot as a major development project. The two could get conflated in the public’s mind and both could lose. An amendment needs to be its own campaign, with its own rationale and coalition.
The alternative to amending the measure ourselves is having it amended for us. Sherri Metzker, the city’s Community Development Director, recently cautioned that “It’s very likely [state lawmakers] will pass legislation… basically to take it away [Measure J/R/D] by virtue of state action.” In other words, if Davis continues to obstruct housing in ways that violate state law, the Legislature will intervene.
If that happens, we will lose the very local control Measure J/R/D was intended to preserve. A court or Sacramento lawmaker won’t care about Davis exceptionalism. They’ll care that we’re failing to meet state housing goals, and they’ll act accordingly.
We can avoid that outcome. But only if we act soon.
Measure J/R/D was created to protect Davis from reckless growth. But in its current form, it’s also “protecting” or, more to the point, blocking us from thoughtful, equitable growth too. It’s time to amend it—before the state forces our hand.
From article: “The alternative to amending the measure ourselves is having it amended for us. Sherri Metzker, the city’s Community Development Director, recently cautioned that “It’s very likely [state lawmakers] will pass legislation… basically to take it away [Measure J/R/D] by virtue of state action.” In other words, if Davis continues to obstruct housing in ways that violate state law, the Legislature will intervene.”
So, I’d wait for them to try that. And by then, Newsom will be out of office, the “final tally” of the statewide failure of housing elements will be recorded, etc.
Now if we had local leaders who actually stood up for Measure J, that would help as well (e.g., the council, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Christopher Cabaldon, etc.). And yet, you know that someone like Aguiar-Curry (in particular) would likely (but “quietly”) work against Measure J – without ever being called out for it.
At least someone like Bapu makes his intent to dismantle Measure J clear, despite running on a campaign of “infill”.
Ron O
David now has confirmation from an official source–the City’s head planner–that Measure J/R/D is at risk. If you disagree with her assessment, which likely is backed by internal legal discussion, then you need to come up with better than political speculation that has no particular expertise or experience. (edited)
As for “standing up” for the measure, that is particularly foolish because those representatives would be abdicating their responsibilities to the state’s voters and to broader society. Yoni Applebaum points out how closing the housing market as Measure J/R/D does causes wider economic harm and divides out nation further. We need to move on to a better approach. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/american-geographic-social-mobility/681439/
The city’s “head planner” (whatever that means) suggests Measure J is at risk from some undefined future legislation. I’m not holding my breath.
As far as “putting any weight” on my comments, that’s up to you. (And yet, you continue to respond to my comments.) I’m pretty sure I can cause some damage to the effort to undermine Measure J (and not just by commenting on the Vanguard). But the effort to protect it from those who want to undermine it would not be coming from “just me”. In fact, I NEVER work “alone” regarding these issues.
As far as elected officials, I’m not sure why elected officials often don’t represent the populace. But that’s also the underlying REASON that Measure J exists – elected officials (and the system which limits actual choices to either “growth” candidates, or “extreme growth” candidates). In a state (and really the country) that’s no longer growing as it once did. (Needless to say, the growth activists aren’t happy about that.)
Housing delayed is housing denied.
Dude you are beating a dead horse. It was decided not to put an amendment on the ballot in 2026 conflicting with Measure J votes now in the pipeline. So you are looking at 2027 as the soonest but because of the cost 2028 is more likely. But then you are pushing up against re-authorization in 2030 when amending it is easiest to do. So when do you want an amendment on the ballot?
Let’s see if we can dial down this three-way vitriol a bit. If I were the moderator I would delete all the comments with personal attacks.
”Take the recent development proposals for Village Farms and Willowcreek. Both claim to meet the need for “Missing Middle” housing. But the numbers tell a different story. Seventy-three percent of units at Village Farms are detached single-family homes, and 57 percent at Willowcreek fall into the same category. These are not the kind of smaller-scale, more affordable options that Davis so badly needs.“
Because of the City’s and the developer’s failure to obey the provisions of the Mace Ranch development agreement, the voters/residents of Davis assembled and passed Measure J as a way to avoid future occurrences of that kind of bad (illegal?) planning. The message was (and continues to be) clear to the developers. Well thought out plans presented to the voters would be approved. The message to the City was also clear. The voters expect the City to abide by and enforce the written provisions of the project.
The subsequent history of The Cannery and the City Council approved amendments, including the CFD tax unilaterally imposed on the residents, is proof that the City can’t be trusted.
With that said, the percentages contained in the quote from the article clearly show that the developers are not interested in well thought out plans. And the fact that the City hasn’t shown the backbone courage to tell the developers their proposals are not well thought out is not a fault of either the voters or Measure J. That fault falls squarely on the shoulders of the developers and the City.
Matt – you want to dial down the vitriol, but then you ramp it up in another direction… “With that said, the percentages contained in the quote from the article clearly show that the developers are not interested in well thought out plans. And the fact that the City hasn’t shown the backbone courage to tell the developers their proposals are not well thought out is not a fault of either the voters or Measure J. That fault falls squarely on the shoulders of the developers and the City.”
So let me ask you a question – how do you know?
“how do you know”?
Maybe because even Richard and Tim criticize the current proposals?
That’s not an answer.
That said: unless you post a substantive on topic post, it will be posted.
David did not post my initial response to Richard and Tim, for reasons unknown to me. So let me try again, in a different manner.
Richard’s comment about me on 6/23 is not correct, and this has been pointed out to him more than once. But again, I’m not here to talk about myself – I’m here to talk about the issues (and am willing to engage regarding that, in a respectful manner).
I’m not seeing where any comment I’ve made is inaccurate.
Also, no single person (or small group of people) can claim to represent the entirety of Davis.