- “The level of housing needed to stabilize school enrollment isn’t some extraordinary or optional target — it’s the same level the state already requires Davis to plan for.”
Some Davis residents continue to debate whether the city should build housing to support school enrollment, arguing that development decisions shouldn’t be driven by the needs of the Davis Joint Unified School District.
But recent demographic modeling shows something that’s been missing from the conversation: the level of housing needed to stabilize student enrollment is almost exactly the same level the state is already requiring the city to build under its housing obligations.
In other words, even if the community refuses to connect housing policy to school sustainability, the math shows those two outcomes are now inseparable.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requires Davis to plan for about 2,100 housing units every eight years, or roughly 260 to 275 units annually. Over a decade, that adds up to about 2,400 units. The Cannery contained roughly 600 homes, meaning the pace of development needed to comply with state housing law equates to about four Cannery-sized projects per decade.
Recent analysis from EPS, based on Davis Demographics (now MGT) enrollment generation data used by the school district, reinforces the connection between that housing level and enrollment stability.
The modeling shows that without several thousand housing units added every decade, school enrollment will continue declining, and budget pressures will intensify. Long-term, the district may face school closures.
The District and the Demographics believe that with the passage of the two projects voters are likely to face in 2026 — Village Farms and Willowgrove — they can forestall school closures.
Many are pushing back that that should not be the goal of housing — but our analysis shows it aligns with what the state is already demanding.
DJUSD enrollment has already been falling, and the district has publicly stated that without new housing, the trend will continue.
The EPS modeling treats Cannery as a case study for the impact that Village Farms (and by extension Willowgrove) can bring.
Based on current Davis-specific enrollment yields, the Village Farms project is expected to eventually produce more than 700 students — enough to meaningfully stabilize enrollment especially in conjunction with Willowgrove.
Critics have called that number unrealistic, but the data suggests otherwise. The estimate is based on existing patterns, not optimistic assumptions. And those patterns may undercount demand, because Davis’ ability to house families has been limited for decades.
State housing officials have repeatedly told the city that its shrinking family population is not the product of shifting preferences or a lack of interest in living here. Instead, they attribute the decline to a scarcity of housing suitable for families. That assessment matches the enrollment forecasting: when housing is added, families follow.
The tension now playing out locally reflects two competing narratives.
On one side are residents who argue that enrollment decline is inevitable and the city shouldn’t build housing solely to support schools.
On the other side are those who argue that housing, schools and community sustainability are interconnected.
But the demographic data and state mandates place the debate in clearer terms: the amount of housing needed to stabilize the district is the same amount of housing Davis must plan for under state law. Even if the community is not building “for the schools,” the result is the same.
The political implications are significant.
Davis has approved far less housing over the last two decades than what its demographic and state policy trajectory now requires.
Since the passage of Measure J in 2000, the city has added just over 700 single-family detached homes — a pace well below what would be needed to comply with current mandates or maintain enrollment.
During that time, the school district peaked and then entered its current period of sustained decline.
Meanwhile, state enforcement has changed.
Cities that fail to zone or approve mandated housing now face penalties, lawsuits and loss of local discretion. Davis has already drawn scrutiny from state housing officials, and failure to approve adequate zoning or projects could escalate that oversight.
The EPS and Davis Demographics data make something clear that often gets lost in the political debate: the level of housing needed to stabilize school enrollment isn’t some extraordinary or optional target — it’s the same level the state already requires Davis to plan for.
In practical terms, meeting state housing mandates and preventing further enrollment decline are not competing goals. They are the same number, measured two different ways.
That’s a point that has been lost in general — all the Vanguard is asking is for the city to build to the state mandates.
For Davis, the question has shifted. It is no longer about whether the city should link housing to schools. The math already links them.
What remains is whether the community will act in time to shape its future — or whether shrinking enrollment and increasing state intervention will define it instead.
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.
I disagree with the premise that there is a debate about building more housing. Aside from one Malthusian troll how many are saying we don’t need more housing? The debate is over what and where to build not whether or not to build. Of course I find the debate of what and where to build exhausting and think it only results in few units getting built.
Me too! I was for moderate growth and voted yes for most Measure J’s in the past. But the Vanguarders/YIMBYs/Weiners gaslighting us on housing has pissed me off, so I’m voting no on everything now. Unless it’s a really really really really really really good development, and/or the developers fly me to Vegas and what happens there, stays there.
The state “requirements” are fake – we’ve already been through this. Or more accurately, the housing elements are fake.
NONE of the housing elements are actually being implemented. Some cities and counties don’t even have an approved housing element.
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
As far as Ron G’s comments are concerned, I have encountered people who are opposed to any new housing on farmland. I also suspect that some people give “lip service” in support of housing, but aren’t actually supportive.
I do have a solution for the housing crazies, though – provide only “one” choice on any Measure J ballot proposal ballot (which says “yes”). (That’s pretty much what the crazies are implying in the first place.)
None of the current housing proposals actually do address the fake RHNA “requirements” in the first place.
As far as schools are concerned, I’ve already seen that the “sprawl for schools” campaign is going nowhere online.
“As far as schools are concerned, I’ve already seen that the “sprawl for schools” campaign is going nowhere online.”
Yes, I’ve seen the pushback too. Maybe Davisites don’t like the way the politics are being thrust on them by the pro-housing advocates.
I resemble that remark :-|
Imagine how they feel when the state comes and takes Measure J away from them.
Put up, or shut up – as they say. Measure J is of no use anyway, if the only choice is to vote “yes”. (Why even ask, if that’s the only choice?)
Tired of hearing threats (and frankly – outright lies), whether it’s from the school district, YIMBYs, or YIMBY blogs.
We (including “me”) will deal with it, if they try to twist the state’s goals into paving over farmland. (That’s never been their stated intention.)
That’s kind of how things are – the state has sued numerous communities that have rejected housing developments. Davis’ time will come as well if that continues.
None of the other examples (where the state has challenged communities) even remotely compares to forcing cities to expand outward onto farmland.
So again, I say “put up or shut up” – to you, a developer, the state, a YIMBY group, or anyone else that wants to give it a try.
So far, the only group that’s REALLY pissed me off is the school district.
Truth be told, some of what the densification efforts are at least understandable (if the state itself was actually growing – which it isn’t).
They don’t have to *force* Davis to grow onto farmland, they only need to remove constraints on development.
I realize you’re trying to pull me into a nonsensical argument regarding removing “constraints” for a city regarding farmland that isn’t in a city.
Save it for the courtroom. Again, I’m not trying to discourage you or your YIMBY allies from giving that a try.
And again, Measure J is of no use if the city is forced to approve “4 Canneries” on farmland outside of city limits, every 7 years or so. (As I recall, that’s one of your arguments – something similar to that in order to “save” Measure J.)
Truth be told, there isn’t even demand for that type of development in the complete absence of Measure J.
I say, let someone try to actually challenge Measure J – and then we’ll deal with it. (It’s not likely to be the YIMBY council who would take the lead, however.)
Frankly, I can hardly wait until the threats start flying again when one, or both of the current proposals are rejected.
No I think you want to hang onto to a very thin reed that has no legal basis.
Again, I’m not interested in your threats on behalf of the YIMBYs (or by extension, the school district). Put up, or shut up. Let a judge decide, instead of a blog.
You don’t seem to understand that I’m looking forward to that fight. Especially since it’s likely to have implications far beyond Davis (in regard to urban limit lines throughout the state).
For that matter, every single agricultural mitigation, easement, the state’s own Williamson Act, etc.
I realize that you’re not an attorney, but that you “play one on TV”.
Let the actual attorneys fight this. I’ll be supporting one side, at least.
This is NOT about one or two single developments, and there is no appeasing the bad guys by capitulation.
Ron O
What you have to say about Measure J is meaningless. Your threats are empty because you don’t live in Davis–you live in Woodland. You’re not a stake holder here.
Ron O
Not true–the a number of cities are taking action to implement their Housing Elements. Here’s two acting last week to comply state law
La Cañada Flintridge Moves Forward With Controversial Builder’s Remedy Project
Everybody thought the legal battle over La Cañada Flintridge’s builder’s remedy project would lead to a court ruling clarifying how housing elements must be approved. But after a judge said the city had to post a $14 million bond to appeal, La Cañada Flintridge decided to allow the project to go forward after all. CP&DR’s coverage can be found here.
Sausalito Voters Approve Rezoning
Voters in the traditionally anti-growth city of Sausalito moved forward with overlay zones in hopes of complying with state housing law. Santa Cruz voters also approved a pro-housing measure. Election coverage can be found here.
Richard, you are comparing apples to oranges. In both of your cited cases the projects were inside the respective City Limits of the referenced City. They provide no precedent for forced annexation.
For the record, the Vanguard is not allowing me to respond to Richard’s comments, which any reasonable person would conclude are incorrect and irrelevant.
Ron, I’m in the same boat. I don’t understand why my 5:56 comment hasn’t posted from yesterday.
“ State housing officials have repeatedly told the city that its shrinking family population is not the product of shifting preferences or a lack of interest in living here. Instead, they attribute the decline to a scarcity of housing suitable for families.”
The final sentence of the quoted excerpt above is inaccurate. There is no scarcity of housing suitable for families. Virtually every home listed currently, and virtually every home sold in 2025 was suitable for families … indeed more than suitable. What there is is a scarcity of housing that is affordable by those same families.
Davis does not have a shortage of housing. It has a shortage of affordable housing.