Sunday Commentary: The Future of Davis Schools Hangs on Housing—and the Fate of Measure J

Key points:

• Davis Joint Unified School District faces potential decline due to declining enrollment.
• District may lose 1,000 students over next decade, with closures and boundary realignments looming.
• Davis’ aging population and housing shortage exacerbate school enrollment decline.

The Davis Joint Unified School District has issued a clear warning: without growth, the district may shrink. Projections show a potential loss of 1,000 students over the next decade—with drop-offs hitting by 2028–29—and the board has prepared for hard choices: school closures and boundary realignments unless new housing comes online.

Those decisions fall squarely into the hands of Davis voters, with critical ballots on the Village Farms and Willowgrove developments slated for 2026.

The school board’s “hope for the best; prepare for the worst” strategy centers on whether these developments win voter approval.

If both pass, at least enrollment stays stable, but school reconfigurations will still be needed.

If neither succeeds, the district could lose between one and three schools.

Even in a middle scenario, with only one passing, the district is ready to close one—and possibly two—schools.

That’s the reality mapped out in the board’s latest enrollment forecasts and reconfiguration plans.

Superintendent Matt Best reminded trustees that earlier projections were based on assumptions from more than a year ago—factors like housing yield and development schedules that have already shifted.

“Now we know things have been changing since then. We know, in particular, that none of these projects made the November 2025 ballot,” he said.

The delay to 2026 makes contingency planning unavoidable.

Board President Joe DiNunzio noted that looking at worst-case scenarios is not pessimism but prudence.

“This is about making sure that if we need to implement major changes in 2027 or 2028, we are ready,” he said, underscoring the board’s commitment to engage the community in a transparent process.

He pointed to multiple outreach rounds in 2026 and early 2027 that will give parents, students, and residents the chance to weigh in before any closures or reconfigurations are finalized.

Vice President Hiram Jackson pressed the city to do more, calling for a vision that prioritizes families and education.

“There are families who work in Davis, who live in neighboring districts, like Woodland and West Sacramento, who are building this housing there. They like the Davis schools, but they could have the option to go to their local schools, and even improve their enrollment. And so these are probably even people who might like the opportunity to live in Davis. It would be nicer to have a more robust vision from the city. We’re not quite getting it there at the moment, but this is what we’re responding to,” he said.

Former mayor and longtime trustee Don Saylor reminded the board that the last General Plan update, in the 1990s, included a rare “youth and education” element to keep schools at the center of city planning. That commitment, he warned, has eroded.

He urged the council to “continue their focus and to work in deep partnership with the school district,” warning that without stronger ties, Davis could lose more than just enrollment.

Underlying the enrollment challenge is a broader housing issue: Davis is aging in place while younger families find themselves priced out or pushed beyond city limits.

The irony is stark—so many want to send their children to Davis schools that some employers have secured residency-by-employment exceptions to bring students in, but those numbers are waning as well.

Families who might otherwise move here are settling in Woodland, Dixon, or West Sacramento, where housing is cheaper and more plentiful, and their children attend schools there.

At the heart of Davis’ housing gridlock is Measure J, the voter-enacted restriction requiring citywide ballots for any conversion of agricultural or open-space land to urban use. While intended to protect the city’s character, Measure J now stands as a growing barrier to meeting housing needs—which in turn threatens to undermine an important component of the city’s character.

In a recent analysis, Davis officials themselves recognized that, although the city has managed to meet current state housing requirements within city limits, that position is eroding.

Developable infill sites are running out, and peripheral expansion will trigger Measure J’s voter-approval requirement on every annexation—or essentially hit a wall.

Some defenders argue that the state cannot compel the city to annex land, and in a narrow sense that is correct. But state law focuses not on whether annexation is forced, but whether a local land-use control acts as a constraint on housing.

The authority lies in Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(5), which requires an “analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.” The statute specifically calls out “land use control” and obligates cities to demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder meeting their share of regional housing need.

In the city’s second Housing Element draft, Davis acknowledged that it had never completed a comprehensive review of growth measures like Measure J to evaluate their cumulative impact on housing. The document conceded that “with the passage of SB 330, the City understands the importance of an evaluation of its growth management measures to ensure that they do not conflict with State law.”

The city then conducted such an evaluation, ultimately concluding that, while Measure J adds costs, extends processing times, and has blocked multiple projects, it is only a constraint if there is insufficient infill capacity.

At the time, Davis argued it could meet its RHNA obligations through rezonings inside city limits. But that was before the current housing element.

Even then, the state’s response was telling.

In December 2021, HCD wrote back: “As recognized in the housing element, Measure J poses a constraint to the development of housing by requiring voter approval of any land use designation change from agricultural, open space, or urban reserve land use to an urban use designation. Since the ordinance was enacted in March of 2000, four of the six proposed rezones have failed.

“As the element has identified the need for rezoning to accommodate a shortfall of sites to accommodate the housing need, the element should clarify if any of the candidate sites to rezone would be subject to this measure and provide analysis on the constraints that this measure might impose.”

In other words, HCD made it clear that Measure J is indeed a constraint on housing.

Legal Services of Northern California went further, calling Davis’ position a “false conclusion.”

They argued that a constraint exists even when the city can technically show enough infill to meet RHNA in one cycle. The simple fact that Measure J adds cost, time, and uncertainty is itself a barrier.

They pointed to the City Council’s decision not to put any of the five peripheral proposals on the November 2024 ballot as proof: Measure J had already limited housing supply because it added time to the process.

That has been made even worse by delays to 2026.

Even city officials have acknowledged that the current workaround is temporary.

Then-Mayor Will Arnold admitted that it is unrealistic to think the next RHNA cycle can be met entirely within city limits.

Then-Councilmember Bapu Vaitla and then-City Manager Mike Webb voiced similar concerns. The city barely cobbled together its sixth-cycle sites; there is little confidence it can do the same in the seventh.

That’s where the long-term peril lies.

If voters continue rejecting peripheral projects while Measure J remains unreformed, the city may face lawsuits arguing the measure is a governmental constraint under state law.

The likely claim: that Davis has failed to mitigate the constraint, as required by section 65583. The triggers would be clear—a defeat of the next ballot measure, followed by either an unwillingness or a failed attempt to amend Measure J. At that point, the state or the courts could intervene, and local control would hang by a thread.

This is the bind Davis finds itself in. The school district needs families, which means housing. The city needs to plan for growth, but Measure J makes every peripheral decision a political war.

The state has signaled its willingness to act if cities obstruct housing production, and Davis’ reputation as a slow-growth enclave puts it at risk.

Meanwhile, DJUSD is mapping out scenarios that include closing multiple schools, redrawing boundaries, and consolidating programs—consequences that would ripple through neighborhoods and affect the community’s fabric.

You haven’t seen a political war—even in Davis—until you’ve watched the district try to close a school.

Davis has long prided itself on its schools. They are among the community’s strongest institutions, a central part of its identity, and one of its biggest draws. But schools cannot thrive without students, and students cannot come without housing.

The upcoming votes in 2026, coupled with the city’s willingness—or refusal—to address Measure J, will decide more than just the fate of two developments. They will shape whether Davis remains a vibrant community with strong schools or slides into decline, aging in place while its institutions contract.

The next few years will be decisive. The board has its timeline. The city has queued up the votes. HCD is watching closely. The walls are closing in, both literally as classrooms sit half-empty and figuratively as options narrow.

The question is whether Davis acts in time, or whether it leaves its schools to shrink and its future to drift away. The voters will decide in 2026. The state may step in after. But the future—for the schools, the neighborhoods, and the city’s very identity—remains in Davis’ hands.

Categories:

Tags: