For more than two decades, housing debates in Davis have followed a familiar pattern. Nearly every major project is met with organized opposition, competing demands for redesign, and arguments that the proposal before decision-makers is fundamentally flawed.
That pattern is again playing out as the Davis City Council prepares to consider the Affordable Housing Plan for the Village Farms project, a step that has become a focal point for broader disagreements about growth, affordability, and the viability of the city’s voter-approval framework for peripheral development.
Criticism of housing proposals in Davis is not new, nor is it confined to any single project or political faction.
Over the years, opponents have raised concerns ranging from traffic and environmental impacts to water supply, infrastructure costs, neighborhood character, and city finances. The current debate mirrors earlier housing battles in Davis, in which opposition has persisted even as critics have failed to agree on what, if anything, would constitute an acceptable alternative.
While critics broadly agree that the Village Farms proposal should return to the drawing board, that consensus breaks down over what should replace it. Some call for a substantially reduced footprint, others argue that only much higher density could justify peripheral development, and still others oppose building on the site altogether. These competing visions point in opposite directions, complicating any effort to identify a path forward that could command broad support.
At the center of the debate is a fundamental tension that has shaped Davis housing politics for years.
Polling data has consistently shown that housing affordability is a top concern for local voters.
At the same time, past measures and surveys suggest that a substantial share of the electorate remains skeptical of new housing development in general, particularly projects that require voter approval under Measure J.
In some cases, polling has indicated that as many as 40 percent of voters would oppose any housing project, regardless of size or design.
This narrow window of political feasibility places housing proposals in a precarious position. To succeed, a project must appeal not only to residents who recognize the need for additional housing, but also to a skeptical bloc that has historically been resistant to growth. The result is a system in which even carefully negotiated proposals struggle to gain broad consensus.
The Village Farms project illustrates these dynamics in real time.
In response to concerns raised by the council and the public, the applicant has revised elements related to density, infrastructure phasing, and affordability.
The plan centers on the project’s affordable housing framework following earlier council direction, even as debate continues over the broader merits of developing the site.
Nevertheless, critics continue to argue that the plan does not go far enough or that it is conceptually flawed.
Calls for a reduced footprint conflict with demands for higher density, while broader calls to abandon the project altogether leave unanswered questions about how Davis intends to meet its state-mandated housing obligations and address affordability pressures that continue to intensify.
Davis faces rising rents, limited housing availability, and growing constraints on workforce retention. Students, young families, service workers, and even professionals with stable incomes increasingly struggle to find housing within the city. These conditions have ripple effects, contributing to longer commutes, displacement to surrounding communities, and challenges for local employers and institutions.
Against that backdrop, the council’s consideration of the Village Farms Affordable Housing Plan is a procedural step, but also a symbolic one.
The plan outlines how affordable units would be integrated into the project, how they would be phased relative to market-rate development, and how the city would ensure long-term affordability through mechanisms such as land dedication and contributions to the city’s housing trust fund.
The criticism that the project must restart from scratch raises a broader question about the function and sustainability of Measure J itself.
Adopted to give voters direct control over peripheral development, Measure J has become a defining feature of Davis governance.
Yet over time, it has also revealed structural limitations. The requirement for citywide voter approval adds cost, uncertainty, and delay to large housing projects, often deterring proposals before they reach the ballot.
At the same time, Measure J creates incentives for prolonged negotiation and incremental changes aimed at appealing to an electorate that is deeply divided. Projects are refined and refined again, yet opposition remains entrenched.
The result is a system that struggles to produce housing at the scale needed to address affordability while satisfying the procedural and political demands placed upon it.
Some observers argue that this dynamic risks undermining the city’s ability to respond to changing conditions.
State housing law has grown increasingly assertive, with mandates that limit local discretion and penalize jurisdictions that fail to plan for adequate housing supply.
While Davis has largely complied with planning requirements, the gap between planning and production remains significant.
In that context, the Village Farms debate takes on added significance.
If a large project with an established affordable housing component cannot navigate the Measure J process successfully, questions arise about whether the system is capable of delivering meaningful housing outcomes at all.
For supporters of Measure J, that question is uncomfortable but unavoidable.
The council, for its part, faces a constrained set of options.
It can move forward with the Affordable Housing Plan as drafted, recognizing that it reflects prior policy direction and negotiated compromise. It can seek further modifications, knowing that additional changes may satisfy some critics while alienating others. Or it can effectively stall the project, pushing resolution further into the future while housing pressures continue to mount.
What the council cannot do is resolve the deeper philosophical divide underlying the debate.
That divide is not simply about Village Farms, but about Davis’ identity and future trajectory. Is the city willing to accommodate growth as part of a broader strategy to maintain affordability and economic diversity, or will it continue to prioritize limits on development even as costs rise and access narrows?
The debate also highlights a recurring challenge in local housing politics: the absence of a shared baseline for evaluating tradeoffs.
Reduced footprints, increased density, environmental preservation, fiscal sustainability, and affordability goals often pull in competing directions.
Without consensus on which objectives take precedence, every proposal becomes a battleground rather than a problem-solving exercise.
As the council takes up the Affordable Housing Plan for Village Farms, the immediate decision will focus on technical details and policy compliance.
But the broader implications extend well beyond a single vote. The outcome will signal how Davis intends to navigate the intersection of voter oversight, state mandates, and the practical realities of housing supply in the coming years.
Whether this moment marks another chapter in the city’s long-running housing stalemate or a step toward a more functional framework remains to be seen.
What is clear is that the current debate reflects not a failure of individual projects, but the cumulative strain on a system increasingly at odds with the scale of the problem it was never designed to solve.
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.
“…but the cumulative strain on a system increasingly at odds with the scale of the problem it was never designed to solve.”
LOL dude. It has been hugely successful at its original goal to stop development. That is the huge problem it has solved. Its just that suckers like yourself refuse to recognize that reality. Instead of taking it on directly you want to tinker around with it thinking that process matters while you recognize 40% of Davis is getting the nothing that it wants.
“LOL dude. It has been hugely successful at its original goal to stop development. That is the huge problem it has solved.”
It sort of has, with the exception of the two that “slipped through” so far.
The problem being continuous sprawl onto farmland.
Measure J (in my mind at least) was INTENDED to reduce that problem.
” . . . the current debate reflects not a failure of individual projects, but the cumulative strain on a system increasingly at odds with the scale of the problem it was never designed to solve.”
Oh, RG quoted the same finale sentence. “Dude” (to be consistent), the ” ‘problem’ it was never designed to solve” is the ‘ housing crisis “solving” ‘ growth you want to inflict on Davis. It’s only a ‘problem’ if you define it as such, but why not just say your beliefs instead of this weird backhanded implication? Because – I say assuming you motivation – you assume you are ‘correct’ in you stance, so your stance is reality and of course we all know it :-|
Well, nope, JeRkeD had nothing to do with mass growth, it was done because the City Councils at the time – and I think currently too – never saw a project that ‘just building it’ wasn’t better than being sufficiently critical, and that raised the ire of voters at the time enough to get JeRkeD passed, and then entrenched. And no it’s a property owner’s price-propping tool. Just like with getting a majority of voters on government subsidies to fund their lives, similarly with JeRkeD, once people realize they can vote themselves money (in the form of property values) it’s all over (unless you somehow get student renters to vote en masse, but good luck with that).
“the absence of a shared baseline for evaluating tradeoffs. Reduced footprints, increased density, environmental preservation, fiscal sustainability, and affordability goals often pull in competing directions.”
Ya THINK ???!!! There’s no such thing as a ‘shared baseline’, unless it’s forced at the end of a military’s gun.
“And no it’s a property owner’s price-propping tool.”
This belief would not explain opposition to, and defeat of DISC (which would have created MORE demand for housing – presumably raising existing housing prices).
So for those bashing the “no-growthers” (not you), they’re going to have to come up with a different insult to explain that. (Twice, at this point.)
“Calls for a reduced footprint conflict with demands for higher density… ”
That’s simply not true. Our group Davis Citizens Planning Committee has shown how 1,800 homes can be fit on a much smaller footprint that increases density and delivers benefits in reduced VMT and other environmental damages while increasing opportunities for greater community. It also avoids the flood and pollution hazards that others have pointed to. Despite my previous opposing discussions with Eileen Samitz, I believe that we could be aligned on these issues. There is a path forward if you and other media are willing to highlight these alignments rather than the differences.
How many in your group live on a parcel as small as what your proposed lot size should be?
“There is a path forward if you and other media are willing to highlight these alignments rather than the differences.”
This is something I’d like to see explained.
Regarding the “alignment”, I also suspect that there isn’t one (in regard to the number of units).
There might be agreement (or a lack of organized opposition) regarding the footprint itself, if it didn’t exceed beyond the Cannery, for example. (With the rest of the site preserved).
If 1,800 housing units are the unyielding “issue”, I’d personally suggest that they fit it on a quarter acre of farmland. I’d like to see that, and might even hold up a sign in support of it. :-)
Hey, they probably do it in New York or Hong Kong, at least. How much land does Trump Tower occupy?
Richard,
While we may not agree on the number of units, I do appreciate that you agree that building only below Channel A makes sense.
As usual, the Vanguard tried to draw Measure J/R/D into an issue that is about City planning, or lack of. The problem is that the Village Farms proposal is unacceptable as proposed for a plethora of reasons and when a more rational project design is suggested, the Vanguard does all it can to undermine it. On top of that, the Vanguard continues to be divisive rather than look for real solutions.
The reality is that the project as proposed does not even has a rational affordable housing plan, but proposed predominately UNaffordable housing where the cheapest housing is $740,000 per the BAE fiscal report which means a monthly house payment of $6,000. Local workers and families with young kids simply cannot afford this. So, it would not bring 700 kids like the School District would like to believe, but instead, would bring a deluge of Unaffordable housing which will not help the schools nor local residents.
Meanwhile, the proposed Village Farm project would bring a cascade of serious impacts: flooding risks, toxics exposure from the adjacent unlined Old City Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant, major destruction of Channel A due to the plan to reroute it. The re-routing raises contamination issues because the runoff can intersect with the groundwater contaminated with carcinogenic PFAS’ and other chemical contaminants. This in turn would expose Wildhorse residents and the waterways and habitat areas in Yolo Basin and to the Sacramento River. Add to that unsafe access issues, uncertainly about if the two grade-separated crossings are feasible, and the fact that the developer is only being asked to pay for 20% of these multi-million-dollar projects. This means massive infrastructure costs to the community. There are also unprotected vernal pools so far, and massive traffic impacts.
Village Farms and its “process’ has been aberrant, chaotic, and then rushed through the holidays to accommodate the developer’s demand to be placed on the June 2026 ballot. NEVER has any Davis Planning Commission been asked to recommend certifying an EIR BEFORE a Final EIR was released. Yet, that is exactly what the City did when Staff pressured the Planning Commission to approved the recommendation to certify a Final EIR which did not exist at that time. It is disappointing that a majority of the Commission went along with this, except for two who understood the serious consequences of the issue, Commissioner Greg Rowe and Commissioner Jon Troost. Rowe recently wrote an article explaining one of the major reasons that the Village Farms EIR must not be certified, which is the flooding risks which are being side-stepped by the inadequate EIR. But the list is much longer than that as I have explained above.
The bottom line is that the Village Farms project is not ready for the June ballot. The City needs to prioritize our community needs for a fair and adequate process rather than prioritizing the wishes of the developer for a premature ballot in June. There is no rush for this project now because we have an approved Housing Element through 2030.
What is needed is analysis of the below Channel A alternative, similar to the “environmentally superior” one included in the Covell Village EIR. This reduced footprint alternative would preserve the vernal pools and have 900 – 1,000 housing units. Davis residents have been asking for this repeatedly since the beginning of the EIR process. Even the County recommended a below the Channel alternative to the EIR process yet this logical alternative has been ignored.
Further, the recently released Final EIR is certainly not ready for certification due to the multitude of inadequacies. This includes the fact that the EIR did not do the analysis needed for the carcinogenic residues typically resulting from the burn pits on the Old City Landfill site that were used for over 30 years. We already know about the high levels of carcinogenic PFAS’ and manganese leaking from the Old Landfill but the analysis for the carcinogenic dioxins, furan and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons has still not been done. On top of all of this is the laundry list of other issues raised that are still not resolved by the Final EIR. These serious unresolved EIR issues are why the EIR must not be certified because if certified as is, it will expose the City to the flooding and toxics exposure impacts and liability into the future.
The City needs to stop this chaotic, rushed process to accommodate the developer’s wishes for a premature June ballot and prioritized the community’s needs for resolving the many inadequacies of the Village Farms EIR and include the analysis of the reduced footprint alternative for 900-1000 units below Channel and preserving the vernal pools with a conservation easement