Key points:
- Davis City Council receives public support for Village Farms Davis project.
- Project proposes 1,800 homes, parks, and community amenities in North Davis.
- Council members expressed support for Schedule A, prioritizing a fair hearing.
DAVIS – The Davis City Council on Tuesday received a flood of public testimony in support of the proposed Village Farms Davis project as staff presented two possible schedules for moving the 498-acre North Davis development forward to a Measure J/R/D election in June 2026.
The project would bring 1,800 homes—market-rate and affordable—to the city, along with a 20-acre community park, a smaller neighborhood park, a 47-acre natural habitat area, an educational farm, a fire station, a pre-K daycare, and more than 40 acres of greenbelts. It also includes a 118-acre urban agricultural transition area.
According to the staff report, the proposal requires a General Plan amendment, a Development Agreement, and certification of an environmental document before it can be placed on the ballot.
Staff presented two options for review. Schedule A would spread out council actions across multiple meetings, with workshops for both the Planning Commission and City Council, giving more opportunities for public comment and transparency.
It would also complete the necessary approvals with some buffer before the January 13, 2026, deadline to place the project on the ballot. Schedule B would compress the timeline, allowing more time after a council workshop to revise documents but leaving final decisions until the last possible meeting before the deadline.
Staff recommended Schedule A. The public testimony that did take place was also overwhelmingly in favor of the project and the adoption of Schedule A.
“I’m a 23-year resident and a realtor in town and I’m coming to talk just because I’m in support of Village Farms,” Leslie Blevins said. “We desperately need housing. We just don’t want to lose this opportunity to have this voted on in June. We cannot delay any longer building homes for families in this town and our town is aging. I am one of those aging people that have stayed in my home for over 20 years. We need more housing, we need more kids in this town. So I am just here supporting Village Farms, supporting getting this on the ballot and letting our citizens vote for this project.”
Another Davis resident, Katie Dooley Hedrick, noted both housing needs and the importance of keeping the process open.
“My husband and I moved here two years ago with our two daughters who are Davis Unified students,” she said. “We came here predominantly for the schools and the close-knit community and safety that this community can provide for our children and are very supportive of Village Farms. We moved into the Cannery and are eager to see the community develop to incorporate the Cannery more into the community and connect us more seamlessly across the North Davis corridor. And I really urge you to adopt Schedule A, which will allow the community more opportunities to interact with the process rather than delay and put all of the eggs in one basket per se, of delaying all of the necessary steps to a later date and really cutting it close to the wire. There’s a lot of community that are really eager to engage in this project and very supportive and would like to see the progress along the way. So I am in strong favor of Schedule A, please.”
Mary Joan Bryan added her support.
“When we did our study back in 2023, the number one issue was housing and overwhelmingly that was almost a thousand participants and it was a quick survey that we did throughout Davis,” she said. “And the thing is we got to move the process around for all the projects and so that we get housing going in Davis and see that result. So I support you going forward with Measure A.”
Joe Romero of the California Association of Realtors said the project was an opportunity Davis could not afford to miss.
“I grew up in Woodland, California. I’m with the California Association of Realtors, the statewide group, and we’re here in support of our association tonight for Village Farms and supporting the project development. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity for cities,” he said. “Looking at the city of Davis, how it’s growing, bringing in 1,800 new units, it will be a great thing for the area connecting the north part of the city, but keeping 50 percent of it open space so people can walk, travel, exercise and things like that. So this is a well thought out plan. Not to ding Woodland, but the housing is great also. So I think you’re losing a lot of folks from Davis to Woodland that are commuting to the university.”
Several residents described how their children, though raised in Davis, could not afford to return.
“We moved to Davis between 26 and 28 years ago. We raised our kids in town. Our kids went to school in town and then they graduated, they went to college and now they cannot come back to live in Davis and that is our problem,” said a resident. “Back 26 years ago when we moved to Davis, we were at entry level salaries. Me and my husband and all the other families were in the same position. We were able to purchase a house, five bedroom, three bath, brand new in Davis with our entry-level salary. It was an entry-level house.
“Now our kids cannot afford anything near that. They are building their lives. They want to establish their life here. We want them to be here, we want them to be back to Davis. They cannot because of the prices of the homes in Davis. So we all are supporting the Village Farms community because that is a hope for us to bring our kids back to the community.”
Longtime resident Norb Kumagai said his classmates from Davis High School faced the same barrier.
“My graduating class, the class of 75, is celebrating their 50th high school reunion. The question I will have brought asked constantly ad nauseum is how is it that you could afford to still live in Davis? And I always reply, we were fortunate because my parents bought a house here in town,” he said. “Quite frankly, there are only about a handful of other classmates that have been able to settle down into Davis because of the circumstances with moving into their family’s home.
“Many of my classmates who want to come back to Davis have wound up going to Woodland and they all say we really want to have the same experience for our children and now our grandchildren that we had growing up here in town as one of the best public schools in the state. And there has to be a way to do this and Village Farms is one of the proposals that’s coming up to do it.”
Project manager Lydia Deli Schlosser told the council that her team had worked closely with city staff.
“Together city staff and the Village Farms Davis team have invested thousands and thousands of hours over the past two years refining the plan, advancing the EIR process and finalizing the development agreement to ensure that every detail has been thoroughly addressed,” she said. “We have brought forward [a project] and are eager to continue toward a Measure J/R/D election, and for that reason we fully support staff’s recommendation for Schedule A. Schedule A is the schedule that provides a necessary time for a thorough review while also building a buffer for unforeseen delays and holiday schedules. Keeping us on track for the June, 2026 election.”
Other speakers, including UC Davis alumni, young parents, and longtime residents, spoke of affordability, declining school enrollment, and the need for family housing.
“I just wanted to come up here and voice my support for Village Farms Davis and for it to be on Schedule A,” said Charlene Iry, executive director for the Yolo County Association of Realtors. “Unfortunately when it came time to purchasing a home with our child, we had to move into Woodland just due to the affordability and availability issue. And it’s something that’s really common amongst my cohort, despite having pretty decent jobs.”
Val Garris, a parent of three, told the council, “It is really important to me that our town has affordable family friendly housing and that enough families can live in our community to keep our schools thriving and well supported. Therefore, I wanted to express my support for the staff’s recommendation to follow the timeline laid out in the Schedule A to ensure that Village Farms will be on the June, 2026 ballot.”
Another resident, Deanna Gallagher, added, “We cannot delay this being on the ballot. We need to think about our declining enrollment and make decisions that prioritize and address that. By choosing Schedule A Village Farms Davis will have a better chance of passing. Families and teachers need more affordable housing options here in Davis and Village Farms will provide that. Please support Davis Schools and families by choosing Schedule A.”
Other residents, including callers and in-person speakers, repeated the same refrain: support the project and keep it on track. “Village Farms provides the right mix of homes that are urgently needed in Davis today. In fact, they were probably needed yesterday. Please don’t delay,” said Lauren Gary, a 40-year Davis resident and mother of three.
“I’d like to give a brief comment on my positive thoughts on Village Farm. This is a very well sought out project. It has many benefits for the community, including affordable housing, which we always need and desperately need now,” said longtime resident Carolyn Leonard. “They’re even going to have a firehouse there, two parks, lots of green belt trails, lots of open space. It looks like a wonderful, wonderful project and I would urge you please to stick to the timeline for Schedule A.”
In the end, council members indicated support for Schedule A but noted they wanted flexibility if major revisions were required.
“I definitely don’t want us to feel pressured because I think actually the city, you might have different opinions on this, but I think the city’s been a pretty good partner in this process and any delays that have resulted have not really been because of staff failing to respond on time, et cetera. So we’re kind of moving things along as fast as we can,” Mayor Bapu Vaitla said.
He added, “We would like to get a fair hearing on people to vote on JRD as soon as possible. I don’t want City Council to be squeezed in their feedback and decision making. So I’d support Schedule A. I also feel like if we do have extensive feedback, there’s the option to pivot to Schedule B.”
The council will continue policy discussions on September 30 that could influence Village Farms and other proposed peripheral projects.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Not too interested in what realtors have to say.
Since this article consists of anecdotes, I’ll repeat one of my own. I know an older couple who moved TO Davis in order to be closer to their daughter and grandkids who ALREADY LIVE in Davis.
And the older couple moved FROM one of the most-expensive cities in the state.
Can someone remind me again how much housing prices supposedly “dropped” when The Cannery was built?
Prices went up less than they otherwise would have had the Cannery not been built.
How would you (or anyone else) know?
I recall being surprised at the prices, and figured that existing houses were worth more than I thought. (Pretty sure I’m not the only one who thought so.)
Also, it’s possible that something like The Cannery creates its own demand (that otherwise wouldn’t exist). As I recall, they ended up advertising in the Bay Area, for example.
But one thing I do know is that as prices rise, demand decreases – with all other factors being equal (law of demand). This has to do with “alternatives” – including (but not limited to) not moving to a given locale in the first place.
Make no mistake – ANY housing that is built has one primary result – it increases the size of the locale’s population (assuming there’s demand for it).
(I realize people like to make up stuff which conflicts with this basic reality.)
So for those “not satisfied” with a Davis population of about 70,000 or so, it’s right up your alley.
“Many of my classmates who want to come back to Davis have wound up going to Woodland . . . ”
The horror :-|
I twice tuned in over the weekend to get the agenda and the City Calendar showed a closed session and an open session as “cancelled”. Was this an error on the part of the City? I didn’t attend and was sorely missed, and because of the error all business conducted at this meeting is void and must be re-done at a future meeting.
They cancelled August 5 not September 2.
Yes, we need more housing in Davis to make housing more affordable for the 17,000 people who commute into Davis every day to work but can’t afford to live here. But the Village Farms proposal instead builds for the 17,000 people who commute OUT of Davis every day to higher paying jobs. Village Farms needs to be reconfigured to have higher density housing on a smaller footprint which will make that housing more affordable while also reducing the environmental and traffic impacts. And the developer can still make the same amount of profit based on our calculations.
I’d suggest that you ask whomever wants to move into whatever development you prefer where each member of their household works.
And (assuming that they all work in Davis or at UCD – and therefore “qualify” for the privilege of moving to Davis), require them to sign a contract stating that they won’t change their place of employment for the next 10 years, or so.
Actually, you might want to try that regarding “pre-existing” housing, as well.
I’d suggest that’s highly impractical not to mention illegal
Of course it is.
Here’s another suggestion, along those same lines:
If something like DISC is ever built, require all of those employees to move to Davis.
And anyone who currently lives in Davis (but works in Sacramento) should be forced to move there. (Maybe give them 60 days’ notice to get their things together.)
And require any DJUSD employee who lives outside of Davis to work in their own district.
Needless to say, these requirements should apply to anyone living in a given household.
What’s the point of this?
The point (which seems pretty obvious to me) is that no one has any control over who lives or works in any given locale, other than the individuals, themselves. (Which again, often includes more than “one” individual – working at different locations.)
It’s a fool’s folly to try to build housing “intended” for some preferred group. (In fact, I’d call it an outright lie promulgated by growth activists.)
Truth be told, even “cheap” housing (e.g., townhouses in the $600K range, for example), provides absolutely no assurance regarding who ends up living there. (Though chances are that it won’t be families with kids, in small units. And larger units will likely appeal to those with money or higher salaries (part of Richard’s point).
We know that.
“no one has any control over who lives or works in any given locale”
Exactly. Which is why I say this is a transportation issue, not a housing issue. ( Notice I didn’t say “crisis”, but I could have :-| )
So I asked chat GPT to analyze if any of the homes in Village farms would actually be affordable to a family of teachers (2-income) starting out in the davis schoold district and here is what I got:
A two-teacher family starting out in the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) would likely only qualify for the most deeply subsidized homes in the Village Farms development and would be unable to afford any of the “missing middle” or market-rate units.
Income calculation
To determine affordability, we can estimate the combined income of two new teachers and use standard lending formulas.
Individual salary: The average starting teacher base salary at DJUSD is estimated to be around $74,000 per year.
Total household income: Two starting teachers would have a combined gross annual income of approximately $148,000.
Maximum housing payment: The City of Davis limits mortgage payments for affordable units to no more than 35% of a household’s gross monthly income. Using this rule:
Monthly income: $148,000 / 12 = $12,333
Maximum monthly payment: $12,333 * 0.35 = $4,316
Affordability of Village Farms housing types
Village Farms is planned to offer a mix of housing types. Based on a two-teacher income, only the “income qualified Affordable Housing” units are likely accessible.
Income qualified affordable housing
Eligibility: The development will provide 20% of its units as income-qualified affordable housing. Eligibility for these units is based on area median income (AMI) limits. In Davis, the Moderate Income limit (120% of AMI) for a two-person family is $130,500. A two-teacher household earning $148,000 would be over this threshold and therefore not eligible. However, some units may be designated for low- and very-low income households, which this family would not qualify for.
Potential eligibility with higher income limits: Some housing programs use a different threshold, and the city offers a down payment assistance program. If the two teachers have more experience and a higher combined salary, they may become eligible for moderate-income programs, but this is not guaranteed for starting teachers.
“Missing middle” homes
Percentage of homes: Missing middle housing will make up 63% of the project. These are primarily “affordable-by-design” homes with some first-time homebuyer assistance.
Likely affordability: With a maximum monthly housing budget of approximately $4,316, a two-teacher household would struggle to afford the mortgage on most market-rate and missing middle homes in Davis. Median home prices in existing nearby neighborhoods are well above $800,000, which would require a much larger monthly payment. While down payment assistance may help, it does not address the fundamental issue of the high price relative to income.
Market-rate and custom lots
Percentage of homes: These homes make up the remaining 17% of the project.
Affordability: With a combined starting salary, two teachers would not be able to afford these units. It’s a commonly cited issue that even two-teacher households in California struggle to afford homes in high-cost areas.
Conclusion
A two-income family with both partners as starting teachers in the Davis school district would not be able to afford any market-rate homes in the Village Farms development. While the project is designed to include a mix of housing types, the city’s income limits for subsidized units and the high cost of market-rate homes exclude them from purchasing a significant percentage of the housing stock. Their best option would be to explore the city’s very limited existing affordable ownership programs and waitlists, or wait until their incomes increase significantly to attempt purchasing a market-rate home.
I agree that we need housing badly. But we need to be directed by policy driven by FACTS, not platitudes.
You cant make an honest presentation talking all about “how badly we need affordable housing”, when the numbers dont line up for that project ACTUALLY DELIVERING affordable housing.
This is not the way.
From the project description:
Twenty percent (20%) of the residential units in the project will be Affordable Residences for income-qualified households.
In addition to the “capital A” Affordable units mentioned above, over six percent (6.25%) of the market rate residential units in the project will offer a down payment assistance program to first time homebuyers.
The breakdown of housing:
Affordable Multi-Family 360
Medium-density: single-family and duplexes 1130
Low-density: single-family and duplexes 310
Pretty sure that some important “details” have been left out of that.
We need housing in all categories.
The current needs are for move-up housing to free up starter homes, and housing for seniors to move into as they cash in the equity of their current homes.
You don’t get affordable housing by building new units unless it’s subsidized or built by the government. The affordable housing in Davis is the older housing stock in east Davis, where we have older homes and duplexes, in mobile home communities, and in quad-plex subdivisions such as La Buena Vida.
Taking care not to gentrify our existing affordable housing stock is important.
Seeking to build lower-cost housing via free market development is not very achievable.
Trying to force a new development to contain a lot of affordable units simply reduces the likelihood of any project getting built.
Don says: “The current needs are for move-up housing to free up starter homes, and housing for seniors to move into as they cash in the equity of their current homes.”
You’re familiar with Bretton Woods, right?
But truth be told, it’s increasingly ill-advised to “cash out equity” to move down the street. That’s a good way to lose a tremendous amount of equity (and incur a whole slew of other costs).
Despite what real estate agents tell us, it’s never a good time to sell your home – for you, or your heirs. (Your heirs get a stepped-up basis on assets when the time comes.)
Most seniors have figured that out, and aren’t looking forward to downsizing. If anything, you need MORE space at home when you retire (since that’s where you and your spouse will be a lot more of the time).
In any case – regardless of where the residents of Bretton Woods are coming from, turnover is going to be higher than most housing (for obvious reasons). It’s going to be the “last stop” for the majority of those residents – before they have no need for housing at all.
(Actually, that’s true of the general population as well – it’s ageing, mostly in place. But see “Silver Tsunami” in regard to what’s already occurring.)
DS say, “Taking care not to gentrify our existing affordable housing stock is important.”
I’m sure that’s why “they” made this entire area an Opportunity Zone (tax credits for developers to scrape & replace).
Something important was left out of this article. The Mayor needlessly scolded the young staff person from the dais about the timeline in Option B that the staff warned might result in the City Council not having its input adequately addressed. Of course this is why the staff recommended Option A.
I thought the Mayor’s behavior showed poor judgement in both his understanding of why the staff report was being presented with a recommendation for Option A and in his callous treatment of the staff from the dais. He really needs to check himself before he goes off on people from the dais. It’s really unbecoming of the office of Mayor of Davis.
I’m going to be advocating for Option C – the environmentally-superior and less-expensive alternative. (Farmland.) And the good news regarding that is that it already exists – no destruction needed.
Also, no need or cost to staff an additional fire station, etc.
Of course… But the state will have something to say about it.
Regarding the state – go for it.
I hope they try to sue every city in the state, at this point.
It’s unfortunate, in a way, that their housing mandates are failing so miserably (as you yourself noted in yesterday’s article, as I recall). The reason this is unfortunate is because they haven’t done enough damage to awaken the populace, yet.
There’s really only one way to put a permanent stop to this, and that’s by removing power from the state (as voters did with Proposition 13).
“Regarding the state – go for it.”
Yeah doesn’t matter to you either way.
If the only option (regarding Measure J) is to vote “yes”, it’s the same thing as eliminating it.
The time to deal with this is if the state decides that it should, in fact, force sprawl outside of cities. And that the existing laws enable them to do so in the first place.
You’ve even acknowledged this yourself, regarding the time to respond to a threat that hasn’t even materialized.
But I find it difficult to believe that you think it “doesn’t matter to me”, given my comments on this blog. In fact, I’m looking forward to some momentum to remove power from the state, entirely (e.g., via a proposition).
The state isn’t saying communities must automatically “vote yes” on every housing project or sprawl proposal.
California has determined that there’s a statewide housing shortfall, especially in affordable units across income levels. The Department of Housing and Community Development then assigns each city and county a RHNA—basically, a target number of homes at different affordability levels that the jurisdiction is expected to plan for and zone.
If a city repeatedly fails to zone for or approve enough housing to meet its RHNA, the state has tools to intervene.
This includes both removing or limiting local barriers to development (like restrictive zoning) or reducing the legal protections of measures such as Measure J/R/D if they’re being used to block housing that the state says must be built.
So the state isn’t directly forcing “sprawl” as Ron continually argues. Instead, what it is saying that cities need to meet their housing obligations. If local voters block projects under Measure J, and as a result the city doesn’t meet its housing goals, the state may act to modify or override those barriers.
From my perspective, Ron is missing that distinction. It isn’t about forcing “yes” votes on every project but rather the city’s obligation to plan for enough housing. If Davis fails to do so, the consequence is state action—not because the state wants sprawl, but because it wants cities to allow sufficient housing across income levels.
David says: “Reducing the legal protections of measures such as Measure J/R/D if they’re being used to block housing that the state says must be built.”
There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the state’s laws refer to “blocking housing” outside of city limits (in regard to cities).
But again, let’s see if they even try to claim otherwise.
You’ve already read the discussion between the city and HCD that addresses the issue of whether Measure J is a constraint on housing, so I’m not sure absent an actual judicial ruling what more you could want.
It is a constraint on housing OUTSIDE of city limits. But again, there is no law whatsoever which requires cities to sprawl outward to address RHNA targets. It’s not even documented anywhere.
Yes – let’s see if anyone puts forth a claim otherwise in court. If they do (and the court somehow “makes up” a law that doesn’t exist), it’s going to have ramifications far beyond Measure J, and is likely to lead to more than one court and political battle.
Interestingly-enough, there was a time that the state was the entity that tried to control sprawl more than cities do. (They still do at times, such as with the Williamson Act – the state’s own “constraint on housing” outside of city limits). There’s a multitude of “constraints on housing” (such as agricultural zoning, land mitigation, land trusts and easements, etc.).
Perhaps the biggest “actual” constraint on housing (within city limits) is that it doesn’t make financial sense, a lot of property owners (including churches) aren’t willing to pursue it, etc.
That’s a primary reason that the state’s laws are failing. They’re based on ill-conceived, unrealistic assumptions – which would also simultaneously destroy any city which actually implemented them, in regard to impacts on infrastructure, traffic flow, etc.
That’s what happens when you allow ignorant political ideologues who are supported by business interests into office, instead of (for example) engineers and city planners.
Like I said, the populace is going to have to suffer a little more before they toss these rascals and their ill-conceived laws out of office and existence. Unfortunately, since the laws are already failing (miserably) on their own – the populace hasn’t really woken up yet. Just sporadic, unorganized resistance so far.
It could be that the laws will just keep failing, and there won’t even need to be an “uprising”.
Your Option C remark is nonsense and beyond that isn’t even relevant to Option A or B.
Yes, when I came here for School nearly a half century ago, things were different in this Central Valley “Mayberry”. Opie would go to the Courthouse to see his Dad Andy just as Otis was waking up from an all night bender. Gomer or Goober would show up and then Barney would drive everyone home for supper cooked by Aunt Bea. I can’t imagine why we can’t remain “Small” and reject “Sprawl “. The newest iteration of the “Covell Village “ or “Covell Farms” or now “Village Farms” is the change the Tandem group would love to see. Unfortunately, that “change” is actually aimed at extra “change” in their pockets. UCD has plenty of land to accommodate new employee families to the West of campus. With minimal traffic impact due to proximity. My friends in Elk Grove who watched the explosion of growth there have warned me that once a huge tract is annexed, it sets a future precedent for accelerating growth. We need to use measure J/R/D
(And M,N,O,P …, if need be) to fight this beast. The Whitcombe family would like everyone to believe this is a “legacy” change for our small town. But again, that is designed mostly to put “change “ 💰 in their pockets.
Okay Boomer.
“UCD has plenty of land to accommodate new employee families to the West of campus.”
Why should UCD employees be disenfranchised?
“Why should UCD employees be disenfranchised?”
So were students disenfranchised when UCD built housing for them West of Campus?
Yes
Really?
So where is it acceptable to you for UCD to build housing so they don’t disenfranchise students?
We could annex the campus. Problem solved.
That is definitely one point that has been raised, even if it is not likely to occur
No one living on campus is “disenfranchised”, and have every right to vote on issues which impact them.
But they don’t live in the city (and depending upon their location on campus, they might not even live in Yolo county).
This is also the reason that UCD itself has very little legal responsibility to the city (other than the MOU). They are an entirely separate entity. As I understand it, they also make no contribution to DJUSD.
That’s kind of an argument by tautology. It’s kind of link arguing that the Blacks in Tuskegee weren’t enfranchised because they didn’t live in the city.
Don’t know about that example, but let me know when someone living in Spring Lake (or Dixon), for example, can vote on Davis city matters. Do you call them “disenfranchised”, as well?
Some of them work in, own businesses in, or have other connections to Davis. Some of them are subject to Davis property, parcel and sales taxes, as well.
Bad arguments.
So if we’re going down this rabbit hole do you also consider people disenfranchised who want to live in Davis but end up buying a more affordable house in Woodland?
I’m in the “edit” feature because I see that Ron also posted the same question. Great minds think alike.
No. Both you and Ron need to look up the definition of contiguous in the dictionary as well in the law books for applicable law. This is ridiculous
Why is that a “bad” argument?
Actually, I believe there is one difference between living on campus (outside of the city), and living in a nearby city: Those living on campus have a “right” to attend DJUSD, if I’m not mistaken. And pay no taxes/fees to DJUSD for the privilege of doing so. (And that UCD has no obligation to pay those taxes/fees on behalf of their residents, either.)
Though I imagine that school-age children do not comprise a large population of residents living on campus.
I assume this would also apply to anyone living on campus who is actually in Solano county. (Don’t know if there’s any residences on campus that are actually in Solano county.)
See my response to Kieth
“contiguous”
Daly City is “contiguous” to San Francisco. Do residents of Daly City get to vote on San Francisco measures (and vice-versa)?
Every city on the peninsula (all the way to San Jose, at least) is contiguous to another city (usually two of them – one on each side).
Every city in the East Bay is contiguous to another city (or most of them, at least).
Every one of them has city boundaries which abut a separate city limit.
If it were annexed. Davis can’t annex Woodland or Dixon but it could with consent and approval annex West Village. You really need to look things up before wasting everyone’s time on these half-baked arguments.
I’m sorry, did the city annex West Village?
If not, who, exactly, is “wasting everyone’s time” here?
And wouldn’t UCD have to agree to that as well?
And since it hasn’t been annexed, why are you claiming that they’re disenfranchised in regard to a city that they don’t live in?
Don’t know if two adjacent cities can agree to redraw boundary lines. For sure, I’d rather say that I live in San Francisco (instead of Daly City). Maybe Daly City can even be dissolved and incorporated into S.F., entirely. And while you’re at it, include South San Francisco.
But when it comes to Burlingame, I’d be inclined to be more proud of my home town.
Perhaps the city should annex the ENTIRE UCD campus, rather than just the portion of it that UCD might not want. That way, the city might have more control over what UCD does.
Just like UCD building housing for their employees or living in Woodland. No one is forcing anyone to do either. If people were to choose to buy UCD housing west of campus or in Woodland it’s their choice, no one is forcing them to. If they want to vote in Davis elections then they need to locate in city limits.
Annexation of UCD isn’t going to happen because the locals in power don’t want to empower the students to have real political power. Its been that way for as long as I have lived here. Unless UC and Davis do another deal like Aggie Village we should accept that on campus faculty housing isn’t going to be part of the city. Still that is not a reason to not build faculty housing on campus.
There seems to be a lack of creativity about faculty housing on campus but there are other UC’s that offer ownership/equity models that might work for UCD. With new changes to prevailing wage laws maybe it is time for more faculty housing on campus.
RG say, “Annexation of UCD isn’t going to happen because the locals in power don’t want to empower the students to have real political power . . . ”
Why? If numbers of students voted they would vote for more housing and that would lower rents and those with massive real estate holding would lose lots of money . . .
Oh . . . . . . . . yeah
More complicated than that