The debate over the Village Farms project has once again surfaced a familiar argument in Davis politics: that repeated defeats at the ballot box do not reflect a structural problem with Measure J/R/D, but rather the poor quality of the projects themselves.
If the city would simply stop advancing what critics describe as “terrible projects,” proponents argue, better proposals would pass and the system would work as intended.
That argument was articulated most forcefully in recent reader comments responding to the Vanguard’s coverage of Village Farms.
Commenter Eileen Samitz argued that Measure J/R/D is not the problem, asserting that the city keeps repeating a flawed planning process by placing “badly planned” projects on the ballot, rushing them through approval, relying on incomplete analysis and deferring key decisions until after voter approval.
In her view, Measure J/R/D functions exactly as it should by giving voters the power to reject projects like Village Farms, which she believes should return to the drawing board for a dramatically reduced-footprint alternative.
At first glance, this position appears persuasive. After all, if a project fails, why not assume the project is defective?
But the argument collapses when viewed through the lens of history rather than any single proposal. After roughly 25 years of Measure J, the issue is no longer whether a particular project is flawed, but whether a system that repeatedly produces rejected projects is itself producing rational outcomes.
This is the central point that the Vanguard raised in its original Village Farms analysis and that critics have largely sidestepped.
Measure J has now been in place long enough to be judged by its results. And the results are unmistakable: fewer homes built, rising housing costs, increasing state pressure, and a persistent inability to move large-scale housing proposals forward.
The claim that Measure J improves project quality by forcing developers to respond to community concerns sounds plausible in theory.
In practice, the record suggests nothing of the sort.
Developers continue to bring forward projects that voters reject, and the city continues to process and place those projects on the ballot.
If Measure J were truly functioning as a quality-control mechanism, one would expect to see iterative improvement—projects evolving in response to voter feedback until they cross a threshold of acceptability.
That pattern has not materialized. Quite the opposite—the only two projects that passed were in the same year and neither generated public concerns about traffic impacts.
Tim Keller’s comments address this disconnect directly.
He challenges the widespread assertion that Measure J projects are not rushed, arguing that while the Measure J process itself takes years, it is detached from genuine long-term planning. From a planning perspective, he contends, a functional process should anticipate infrastructure needs, transportation connectivity, fiscal impacts and climate considerations decades in advance.
Measure J, by contrast, introduces a late-stage political decision into an already fragmented process, leaving too many unresolved issues to be fought out in the final months before an election.
Keller also disputes the notion that Measure J compels meaningful responsiveness to community concerns.
In his view, developers respond primarily to city staff and political incentives, not to voters, and the city’s planning apparatus is structured in a way that reinforces that dynamic.
Under those conditions, Measure J does not improve outcomes; it merely delays resolution.
This critique aligns with one of the Vanguard’s core arguments: that Measure J has entrenched a system in which rejection is routine, delay is normalized, and accountability is endlessly deferred.
When projects fail, blame is distributed among developers, staff, councils, or voters—but rarely assigned to the structure that produces the same cycle repeatedly.
Richard McCann situates this pattern within the historical origins of Measure J.
He notes that the initiative arose in response to large-scale subdivision growth in the 1990s, when voters clearly rejected continued peripheral sprawl (I agree with this assessment).
That historical context is important, but it also underscores the stagnation of the current debate.
Developers, McCann argues, continue to bring forward proposals that closely resemble those rejected decades ago, and voters continue to respond in predictable fashion.
McCann further challenges claims that Village Farms represents a qualitative improvement over past proposals, pointing out similarities in scale and density to earlier projects such as Covell Village.
He also disputes projections about affordability, citing analyses suggesting that market-rate home prices at Village Farms would exceed current median prices in Davis, thereby failing to address the city’s core affordability problem.
These critiques raise legitimate questions about the specific design and economics of Village Farms, but they do not resolve the larger issue.
That assumption is doubtful given the project’s timing, financing and ownership constraints—and even if a redesign were theoretically possible, there is no guarantee that any project on that site, by that developer, could secure voter approval, all while the larger and largely unaddressed reality looms: escalating state oversight, HCD scrutiny and the growing likelihood of court intervention.
The Vanguard’s original piece argued that Measure J has not reliably produced better projects or better outcomes. Instead, it has shifted responsibility away from the city’s obligation to plan proactively and onto voters asked to decide complex land-use questions at the ballot box.
Over time, this has fostered a politics of no—one in which the absence of housing production is treated not as a failure of governance, but as a virtue.
Supporters of Measure J often respond that voter approval is essential to prevent sprawl and protect community values.
But this framing presents a false choice between unchecked development and perpetual rejection, as though a city must either surrender entirely to developers or rely indefinitely on plebiscites, when in fact many communities have shown that clear rules, binding standards and proactive planning can restrain sprawl without forcing every major land-use decision onto the ballot.
Other cities have moved toward systems that establish clear, binding expectations upfront—regarding density, affordability, fiscal impact and climate performance—so that developers know what will be approved before submitting proposals and communities retain meaningful control without relying on plebiscites.
Several commenters implicitly acknowledge this need.
Keller argues for a systemic modification that creates a pathway for non-sprawling, revenue-positive, transit-integrated housing.
McCann suggests that the real failure lies in the absence of a mechanism to convey community expectations before proposals are submitted.
Even Samitz’s call for a reduced-footprint alternative reflects frustration with a process that surfaces conflict too late to resolve it constructively.
What Measure J lacks is not the power to say no, but the capacity to say yes. And after 25 years, that imbalance has consequences.
Davis faces mounting state pressure to meet housing obligations, rising costs that exclude younger and lower-income residents, and growing legal risk as state law increasingly constrains local discretion.
None of these realities are altered by rejecting one more project.
The uncomfortable truth is that Measure J has delivered exactly what its structure encourages: a slow-motion stalemate.
Developers propose familiar models because the system provides no clear incentive to do otherwise.
The city advances those proposals because it lacks an alternative mechanism.
Voters reject them because the tradeoffs are unresolved.
And the cycle repeats.
Village Farms perhaps will be the next domino to fall, but its fate will not answer the deeper question now confronting Davis.
That question is no longer whether individual projects are flawed, or whether voters are acting rationally.
It is whether a system that depends on repeated rejection can still plausibly be described as planning.
At some point, Davis must decide whether it is willing to confront Measure J’s empirical record rather than its aspirations.
Voting against every project is not a housing strategy.
Hoping for a perfect proposal that never arrives is not planning.
And relying on the ballot box as the primary mechanism for land-use decisions has produced stagnation at best, and growing vulnerability at worst.
The Village Farms debate has once again revealed how deeply entrenched these divisions are.
What it has not yet produced is a serious reckoning with the structure that ensures the debate itself will never end.
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.
“He notes that the initiative arose in response to large-scale subdivision growth in the 1990s, when voters clearly rejected continued peripheral sprawl (I agree with this assessment).”
This is inaccurate. In the 90’s Wildhorse went to the ballot in a referendum petitioned by the no growth constituency. The voters refused to reject the project at the ballot box.
Measure J was then sold to Davis voters as giving voters a choice through direct democracy not as an anti-growth measure. I remember interviewing Ken Wagstaff, who was Mayor at the time, making that argument about it when I spoke with him on the radio.
Years later, Rodney Robinson, a staunch anti-growth advocate, told me the way everyone else does it, by petitioning for a referendum on projects, was too much work.
What Measure J did was it made it easier to reject projects by requiring a referendum instead of doing the hard work of going out and collecting signatures to place a project on the ballot. By requiring a referendum on every project, Measure J made it too easy to block projects because, the easiest thing to do in California politics is get people to vote no on a ballot measure. We see this with the many rejected Measure J votes.
I actually went door-to-door for the wildhorse campaign in the 90’s.. it was a nice job while I was in college, back when I thought politics might be my career. ( I ended up not liking politics and became a winemaker instead.. a great decision I do not regret)
Here is the difference with the wildhorse example: It was part of the general plan.
THE MOST effective line of reasoning that the ~ 20-something year old younger version of me used when talking to voters in that campaign was: “This is part of the general plan, we approved it through a rational process”. That was why it passed, because a legitimizing process HAD been followed, and the voters chose to uphold it
That cannot be said of ANY of the post-J projects because the council surrendered the planning function TO the measure J process. And while that process might still be “legitimate” it has produced dis-connected outcomes because of the incentive structures it set up itself, and its very very easy to play the “developers are greedy and evil” card when the developers are doing the planning…
Maybe someone can explain to me what previous general plans said about the Village Farms property?
But Its more than simply the general plan. To stop a project Measure J changed the dynamics of the election from a yes vote on a referendum to a no vote on a ballot measure. Since it is easier to get people to vote no on a ballot measure than yes this gave an advantage to people who wanted to stop a project. Also by mandating an election Measure J made it easier for opponents to get to the ballot. In fact, it now takes no effort at all for opponents to get to the ballot, so they can spend all their time and money kicking up dust and creating enough doubt that people vote no as a default position.
Let the “dust kicking” begin -the spanking machine does create some of that.
Though if you think this is fun or easy . . .
I’d personally rather read and comment on articles regarding letting criminals out of prison early (and why that’s supposedly a good idea), whatever Trump is doing today, etc.
If they ever do change Measure J (to make it better, not worse) – they should change it to not allow more than one proposal every 10 years or so. (Maybe a couple of them on the same ballot – but no proposals at all except for 10 year intervals.)
For that matter, maybe they could have a “development-pooloza” every 10 years – put 3 of them on the ballot at the same time, for example.
As it is, Measure J is a “full-time employment act” (without pay) for someone like me.
Interestingly enough, they’re already getting approved at 12.5 year intervals (2 of them over 25 years or so).
RO say, “I’d personally rather read and comment on articles regarding letting criminals out of prison early (and why that’s supposedly a good idea), whatever Trump is doing today, etc.”
You forget socialism.
It works both ways.
Ron G
None of us are disputing your characterization of how Measure J/R/D works. The issue at hand is how to fix this situation. One imperative will be that voters have some direct say in what developments are acceptable–we already know that they support some form of a plebiscite. The question is what should that plebiscite look like?
DCPC has proposed that there be a specific set of development baseline features voted on and if a developer conforms to those, then the project only needs Council approval to move forward, avoiding the cost and risk of a political campaign. If the developer doesn’t want to conform then they have the option of a Measure J/R/D vote. The community still has direct input to the development and we tell the developer “yes” this is what we want.
Richard: You seem to be assuming that Davis voters would agree with your vision/conditions to bypass Measure J in the first place.
Good luck with that.
Maybe folks just have to stop constantly trying to change/grow the size of Davis (e.g., beyond what voters are already periodically approving), as well as the infill that’s occurring, etc.
It seems like the development activists are doing a lot of work, causing a lot of chaos and headache, and without much to show for it. Truth be told, I don’t even know what drives some of them.
Seems like there’s a significant number of people who aren’t happy with Davis, but at the same time – won’t leave. Even though they could find a city within 7 miles or so that accommodates what they’re looking for (continuous sprawl).
Tim Keller said … “That cannot be said of ANY of the post-J projects because the council surrendered the planning function TO the measure J process.”
The key word in Tim’s statement is “process.” Indeed, Measure J/R/D is simply a process, just like CEQA is a process and filing a tentative map plan is a process and having commission and Council hearings are processes. A process doesn’t determine what is chosen as input to that process.
The issue is the inputs that the City staff and developers choose to put into the process. The decision by staff, Council, and the School Board to mandate a fourth fire station and a pre-K facility and a school farm with all their attendant costs were not the result of The presence or absence of Measure J. They were politically valuable “goodies” that our elected and staff personally felt were valuable. The decision to force all the Affordable units into multi-family residences and not have a single affordable single family residence was a staff and Council decision that had nothing to do with Measure J/R/D. All of those decisions were free standing decisions that either made the project harder to pencil out or less attractive to the community.
All processes are susceptible to garbage in garbage out realities.
” School Board to mandate a . . . pre-K facility and a school farm ”
School board did what? How does the school board have any say in planning Village Farms? I thought they were shrinking and needed VF, supposedly for a crop; can’t they put a new facility on a closed school instead?
David Greenwald said … “ The debate over the Village Farms project has once again surfaced a familiar argument in Davis politics: that repeated defeats at the ballot box do not reflect a structural problem with Measure J/R/D, but rather the poor quality of the projects themselves.”
That statement is only half true … and represents less than half of the underlying cause. The poor planning, and there is lots of that from both staff and the developers, is actually a symptom rather than a cause.
The cause is a total lack of leadership and vision for where Davis is currently going (backwards) and where it wants to be in 5, 10, and 20 years (and beyond). That lack of vision, which has existed for all of the 28 years I have been in Davis, has resulted in the steady decline of the local economy, the displacement of young families from our housing by wealthy retirees and wealthy international students, and a total fss as lure to keep UCD graduates with newly minted intellectual capital here in Davis.
The lack of vision and leadership (either from our electeds or from our business leaders or from the broader community … lots of dirty fingerprints on this) means there has been virtually no effort to study the local housing and jobs markets to see where the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities are. If we had such a study (and kept it updated), both our residents/voters and the developer community and our City planning staff would be able to provide the context of a set of goals that any new project proposal can be formulated and judged against. That would mean “directional planning” rather than Keystone Cops planning.
It’s SUPPOSED TO BE harder to development farmland outside of city limits, for obvious and multiple reasons.
Truth be told, I’m surprised that two such proposals have passed since Measure J was enacted. Of course, one of them doesn’t seem viable so far (you’d think the developers would have checked that out beforehand). But it does appear that there’s almost a glut of student housing now, despite the lack of Nishi (and the failed attempt to destroy the Trader Joe’s mall).
But it is interesting that David is already “calling the election” in regard to Village Farms and Shriner’s. What a doombody (from his perspective, at least).
The claim that it is “supposed to be harder to develop farmland outside city limits” has no basis in California law. It is a policy choice, adopted selectively, interpreted inconsistently, and often invoked rhetorically rather than grounded in binding doctrine.
In California, there is no statewide rule that development outside city limits must always be harder than infill.
Technically, there ARE statewide laws which restrict growth outside of city limits, including the state’s own Williamson Act, zoning, agricultural mitigations, voter-approved urban limit lines, etc. The state allows those, for good reason.
Your point has no relevance, but if you’re advocating for stronger statewide laws to protect farmland and open space, I’m fully on board! Are you gathering signatures?
I doubt that even Newsom, Bonta, or Wiener would tell you that their goal is “more sprawl”.
That doesn’t amount to a statewide rule that development outside city limits is supposed to be harder.
To take one example, the Williamson Act is voluntary and reversible.
Furthermore, zoning and urban limit lines are local political choices, and agricultural mitigation policies are designed around the assumption that conversion will occur.
Most importantly, California increasingly treats peripheral land as regulated and negotiable, not untouchable—especially when housing obligations are not being met. This is exactly the situation that we find ourselves in and therefore the relevance of the point.
The Williamson Act was CREATED by the state itself. Yes, it’s voluntary and reversible if farmers opt out. Your point?
You state, “Furthermore, zoning and urban limit lines are local political choices, and agricultural mitigation policies are designed around the assumption that conversion will occur.”
Agricultural mitigation polices are NOT designed around the assumption that conversion will occur. They are intended to PREVENT conversion of farmland for urban uses. Where are you getting your information?
There is no evidence (as in NONE) that the state is changing its position regarding development on farmland. Furthermore, you just claimed in your initial comment that they don’t have a position in the first place.
The state itself still preserves vast swaths of land for new parks, habitat, etc. Have you heard of the 30X30 initiative? (The following is from AI, though there are multiple sources regarding this:
“The 30×30 initiative is a global, national, and state-level commitment to conserve at least 30% of the world’s lands and oceans by 2030 to fight climate change, protect biodiversity, and improve, California Native Plant Society and Center for American Progress report. Key efforts include the U.S. “America the Beautiful” initiative and California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)’s goal to protect 30% of its land and coastal waters by 2030.”
You do realize, I assume, that there are also land preservation groups who are still preserving vast swaths of land on their own for various non-urban uses (parks, open space, agriculture, etc.). And one of the PRIMARY reasons they’re doing so is to specifically PREVENT urbanization. And they’re doing so in areas where housing is more-expensive than it is in the Sacramento/Davis area. In other words, in the same areas where folks like you are already crying about housing prices.
It will be interesting to see if California Forever is able to overcome its significant opposition (including from politicians, themselves).
Regarding the efforts to preserve land (prevent urbanization), I understand that the funding for that often comes from the state itself, via voter-approved ballot initiatives. In other words, via state agencies/grants to organizations which then implement it.
One might think that if the state is “opposed” to land preservation, they wouldn’t be funding it. (And frankly, celebrating it at times.)
Though one thing that has increasingly occurred as a result of these initiatives is privatization for tribes, instead of the public at large. (Usually, but not always, with some kind of development restriction attached I believe.)
Ron O
The state has reduced financial support for the Williamson Act substantially, indicating that the state finds agricultural land preservation much less important. Further, the state is looking to mitigate retirement of up to one million acres of land due to groundwater pumping restriction through the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Yolo County is impacted by SGMA.
https://www.counties.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/legislative_issue_brief_-_williamson_act_final-1.pdf
I see (online) that the state started reducing funding for the Williamson Act, as a result of budgetary issues under the Brown administration (approximately 15 years ago), but that counties have an option to make up for it. Don’t know what Yolo county is doing.
I guess it depends on what you or David mean by “state”, as I view it as more than state government. There’s also the state’s California Coastal Commission, which was specifically created to restrict development along the coast (and which still exists, though it has been criticized).
Don’t know much about the retirement of a million acres, but I assume that DOESN’T mean that the state is encouraging development on it.
In fact, it sounds like the retirement is the RESULT of development. Ultimately, farming is part of what is needed to support existing and future development. It’s not being done to support the natural environment, though it’s generally less impactful than sprawl.
Development has an environmental impact far beyond its own footprint, and what you’re describing is apparently an example of that (overpumping of groundwater).
This is also the reason, for example, that climate change isn’t just occurring in the atmosphere immediately above cities – and is instead happening globally. Just like habitat loss, extinctions, etc. (Byproducts of development.)
With the above said, a perfect example of bad planning is the decisions about the timing of the EIR. I have been told directly by the development team that it was not them who forced the early commencement of the EIR process, but rather city staff. Using the metaphor I posted here earlier this week, the project at that time was an unripe (sour) apple. So the EIR assessment process was like an apple pie recipe in which the key ingredient ( the apple in the pie and the project definition in the EIR) was not ready for prime time.
Both the developer team and I stated in that conversation (several months ago) that the reason staff wanted the EIR to start was because they wanted to force the project into the June election.
The damage that that premature commencement of the EIR process caused is that it locked the Developer into the housing unit configuration being analyzed. That meant they could not be responsive to the strong community feedback that more market/rate small-a affordable houses were needed and less, or no, McMansions.
“ Both the developer team and I stated in that conversation (several months ago) that the reason staff wanted the EIR to start was because they wanted to force the project into the June election.”
There you have it.
There you have “what”? The fact that they didn’t want to wait for the next election?
Perhaps because they wanted their proposal to appear “first” (before Shriner’s)?
I do recall observing that the Shriner’s developers weren’t too happy about this, at an earlier council meeting.
Personally, I think they should put both on the ballot at the same time, and include the attempt to eliminate Measure J on that same ballot, as well. That oughta piss off and confuse the voters (and probably the developers, themselves).
You are 100% correct David. Staff had no interest in a “be the best that you can be” approach to considering the project proposal … no interest in the quality of the outcome … just an eye to how their workload was going to be sequenced.
That, and protecting their paycheck and job security.
“… perfect project…”? I think that for many this is gaslighting.
Perhaps the most-effective land preservation effort I witnessed started occurring when I was still a kid, when acreage minimums were increasingly established in places like Sonoma county (essentially, new zoning). Prior to that time, it was apparently pretty much “anything goes” in regard to lot splits – and the unfortunate results of that can be seen to this day (weirdly-shaped, small lots).
For example, I recall the time that lots could no longer be split into anything below 5 acres in one rural area that I’m familiar with. In other nearby areas, it might be 10 acres, or more. And yet, in those same areas, you can find half-acre sized lots, as a result of lot splits that occurred decades ago.
Needless to say, 5 acre minimums are NOT generally located in areas with a lot of commercial farming. Instead, that minimum size for lot splits was INTENDED to discourage development.
(Can’t help but wonder if the descendants of those who pursued earlier lot splits are sorry about what their ancestors did, especially since they likely only received a few thousand dollars for it at the time.)
However, the “granny units” that they’re now allowing are sort of bypassing the original intent, it seems. (But at least they’re remaining as a single parcel.)
In any case, I suspect that even people who complain about high housing prices are generally happy that many places in Marin and Sonoma county were largely preserved (for parks, open space, or farming), and that effort is continuing across much of the state to this day (largely as a result of environmental/land preservation organizations).
I’m aware of a couple of new parks created/opened along the Sonoma coast just this year. One of them recently appeared in The Chronicle (and it was then overrun with new visitors trying to park as a result of that article). This occurred last weekend (Estero Americano).
The rural areas in Sonoma and Marin county are preserved because there are few business with jobs nearby. There’s little housing pressure. That’s not the case in Davis, so this analysis is not apt.
Marin county is not near San Francisco? Last time I checked, they share a border on the Golden Gate Bridge itself. Housing prices in Marin are some of the highest in the country.
There was (and still is) enormous pressure to develop Sonoma county, as well. Housing prices there exceed Davis’ prices by far as well, in some areas. There was fear that the area would essentially become similar to the peninsula/south bay area (Silicon Valley).
Watch “Rebels with a Cause” on PBS if you want to learn more about the history of the land preservation movement (in Marin in particular).
At the end of that (hour-long?) program, they did touch upon the impact of restricting growth on housing prices. The participants acknowledged it, but essentially stated that they would do it again – regardless. Many of those behind that movement (starting around the 1960s-1970s) have now passed away.
Of course, with only 1.6 kids being born across the nation today, the housing shortage is essentially fake news in the first place.
Richard, your statement is incomplete. Jobs within the City Limits of Davis are predominantly paid at a very modest level. Further a very large proportion of those jobs are part time rather than full time. In addition, a vey large proportion of those jobs are held by UCD students. The result is that the majority of those within the City Limits job holders are not making an annual income that can afford to purchase and occupy the kind of $740,000 to $1.3 million home that Village Farms is offering.
Looking beyond the City Limits at jobs on the UCD campus, what the UCD employee residency statistics over the recent decades tell us is that more and more UCD employees do not earn enough to afford those $740,000 to $1.3 million Village Farms homes either.
The trends of Davis home ownership tell us that the quality of life in Davis is considerably better than the quality of life in surrounding communities … especially for empty nesters and retirees, who DO have the financial assets to be able to afford a $740,000 to $1.3 million home purchase. The proportion of the Davis population in those two demographic cohorts has soared over the last two decades. Although I am a renter, not a homeowner, I fall, as do you in that empty nester / retiree demographic cohort.
Interestingly enough, for those empty nesters and retirees coming to Davis, the quality of DJUSD schools is for the most part a non-factor in their determination of the value of the Davis home they purchase because they no longer have DJUSD-aged children.
Also interesting is that the supply of housing available for sale to these empty nesters and retirees is more robust than it is in Woodland, West Sac, or Dixon. That robustness is supported by the real estate sales and listing statistics history.
An important fact about projects winning Measure J approval: they have both been targeted at specific populations that the community believed were underserved–students (Nishi II) and local seniors (Bretton Woods). Village Farms and Willowgrove do not appear to target populations that the community finds need more housing. Building more market rate affordable housing for missing middle buyers and limiting housing for well-served commuters are what the community is calling for.
Thought I’d try to see if the “state” itself has any statements regarding protection of farmland, and found the following. So, maybe Newsom isn’t monitoring his own press releases?
(Of course, this also shows the problem I mentioned earlier – Newsom is prioritizing tribes over the public at large. He also personally appointed the leader of a casino-owning tribe to the UC Board of Regents, for that matter.) Also, that same tribe was essentially given hundreds of acres on the Marin coast, about a year ago – which now appears to be essentially a private compound. Still, I suspect that there’s development restrictions on that land (haven’t looked further).
There are many, many examples of privatizing land for tribes instead of the public, lately. But again, some of them likely have some kind of development restriction attached.
In any case, this is the first press release that popped up, when searching for what the governor is doing in regard to farmland. (I believe it includes a former ranch house, as well.)
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/10/14/california-protects-over-40k-acres-of-agricultural-land-supporting-rural-communities/
My comment above got screwed up, and I wasn’t able to correct it in time.
In any case, here’s a link to the land that the Graton tribe was given along the Marin coast. This one does appear to have development restrictions attached (though I believe it includes a pre-existing ranch house. Pretty sure it is not open to the public, and likely never will be:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2024/09/05/graton-rancheria-acquires-prized-marin-coastal-property-in-land-back-conservation-deal/
The leader of this tribe was also appointed to the UC Board of Regents by Newsom.
Honestly, the whole thing stinks – except for the development restrictions. I’m not sure that folks realize the connection between Newsom and tribes (which I view as inherently corrupt).
Tribes are private organizations – not even open to everyone with indigenous heritage. They’re also often fighting each other over their casino monopoly, that the voters of this state ignorantly approved years ago.
There is a very limited number of developers willing to work in Davis. Mostly it is folks who are local and/or have already been through the process. Continued attempts to force them to build according to specific urban planning principles with high amounts of affordable housing are unlikely to succeed. You’re not going to entice out-of-area developers to work here because you have a 50-year+ history of Davis being considered too difficult to do business with. Not the staff, nor the council. It’s the voters who have created this reputation, and they can do it again any time they want.
That is why there was never going to be housing at the University Mall site. They could not find a willing partner.
Any plan put forward, regardless of baseline features, can be forced onto the ballot by a referendum process. That’s what happened before Measure J and what will likely happen again if disgruntled neighbors of a project site don’t like the traffic and other impacts, even if it meets baseline features. The council cannot stop a citizens group from gathering signatures and forcing a referendum.
The projects that were approved targeted specific demographics and, more importantly, had few neighbors to object.
Nishi 2 was a worse project than Nishi 1. Requiring the closure of Olive Drive access and routing all traffic through UCD gave the campus complete leverage over the project, which they then basically used to scuttle the project. If it weren’t for Measure J, there would already be people living there.
“That is why there was never going to be housing at the University Mall site. They could not find a willing partner.”
Voters had no control over that.
In fact, the city approved housing on that site (and as a result of that entire process) delayed the redevelopment of the mall by at least a couple of years. The developers weren’t seeking to put housing on that site in the first place.
Regarding Nishi 1, the problem WAS the access to Richards.
Don: “That is why there was never going to be housing at the University Mall site. They could not find a willing partner.”
Ron: Voters had no control over that.
My point in that comment was about the difficulty of finding developers willing to work in Davis.
“My point in that comment was about the difficulty of finding developers willing to work in Davis.”
If only (aka, I wish).
Though truth be told, the main problem is those developers willing to work OUTSIDE of Davis, on farmland adjacent to the city.
How do we get rid of those folks? I ask, because they keep coming back.
Don: it’s clear that UC Davis had disproportionate influence over Nishi 2.0 especially after the public vote on annexation, but could you flesh out a bit on why it is a scuttler?
Don’t forget to include the many lawsuits filed to stop or delay to death the projects, even after the developer has survived the planning process and received approval. I believe that this strategy has caused such harm to our community and is never mentioned.
So, here we go again with the Vanguard playing the blame-game trying desperately to hold Measure J/R/D responsible for abysmal City planning “process” placing terrible project after terrible project on the ballot. The problem is not Measure J/R/D, the problem is the City can’t seem to learn from its mistakes.
And this statement in the article is completely incorrect:
“Even Samitz’s call for a reduced-footprint alternative reflects frustration with a process that surfaces conflict too late to resolve it constructively.”
This recommendation DID NOT come too late. This recommendation was formally submitted in writing by a group of Davis residents who waited until 1:00 AM to testify, presenting it at the Dec. 12, 2023 City Council meeting AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EIR PROCESS. This was the City Council meeting item, specifically, of the Village Farms alternatives to be included in the EIR. The problem is, the City Council corrupted the process by not allowing the proper process of having the impacts determined first, then the alternates are decided by the planning consultants, to determine which alternatives with lesser impacts are to be compared to the project in the EIR as CEQA requires.
But unfortunately, that was not done, and the alternatives were pre-determined by Vaitla, and the Council went along with this aberrant “process.” Instead, this compromising “process” lead by Council member Bapu Vaitla to put a thumb on the scale, was to pre-determine outcome of the alternatives. This is the job and responsibility of planning professionals, not City Council members who are not professional planners. Greg Rowe uncovered this up-ended Village Farms EIR “process” in this article recently: https://davisvanguard.org/2026/01/davis-city-council-ceqa-alternatives/
So, on top of inappropriately pre-determining the alternatives without FIRST doing the impact studies, the City Council also ignored including a reduced footprint alternative similar Covell Village “environmentally superior” alternative that was formally requested by a group of Davis residents at the Dec.12, 2023 City Council meeting regarding the Village Farms alternatives. This was because that alternative significantly reduced as determined by the correct process of determining the impacts first, not later, by the EIR consultants. There was plenty of time to include this logical reduced footprint alternative proposed, but the City Council wanted to pre-determine the EIR alternatives outcome. So, the result is that we wound up with another mess of a project, Village Farms, with all the same massive impacts as Covell Village, and more that we know about now.
So, the Village Farms EIR was a compromised document from the time it began and just got worse with the rushed process and the lack of issues being fully fledged out and resolved, and side-stepped. This includes, but is not limited to the toxics and the massive flood plain issues. The Village Farms EIR process was corrupted right from the beginning.
So, David, you can complain all you want about Measure J/R/D, but the problem is not Measure J/R/D, it is the City’s abysmal planning process and the placing of badly planned projects on the ballot. The lack of new housing built over the last 25 years is nationwide, not just Davis. It is because during that time period we had a massive recession and after that mess, when the country was just starting to recover, we got hit by a worldwide pandemic killing millions of people.
On top of that, in Davis we have the UCD problem of not building enough housing on campus when they have the largest campus in the UC system of over 5,300 aces and a 900-acre core campus. Yet, UCD still is not building enough on-campus student housing for their 40,000+ students. The City foolishly approved 4,000 exclusionary student mega-dorm beds, instead of traditional apartments (which many of us advocated for) that any worker or family could live in.
So, while the other UCs are building hundreds of student beds (or more than 1,000 at UC San Diego) on campus. On-campus housing is the best way forward for college campuses because it keeps the housing costs lower long-term, and is more sustainable since no commuting would be needed by students. Instead, UCD continues to push roughly 60% of their students off-campus, which in turn, is using a disproportionate amount of our housing in Davis. THAT’s the biggest problem impacting our City housing, is UCD being so irresponsible by not building far more, and far higher-density housing on campus.
But, no David, Measure J/R/D is not the problem, the City putting bad projects on the ballot is, so stop trying to blame Measure J./R/D for the City’s failed planning process. And as inconvenient as it is for you and the Village Farms developers, Measure J/R/D is democracy in action. The vast majority of Davis residents are in no mood to give up their voting rights, particularly now, especially seeing how aberrant this Village Farms “process” has been.
Eileen said … “And this statement in the article is completely incorrect:
“Even Samitz’s call for a reduced-footprint alternative reflects frustration with a process that surfaces conflict too late to resolve it constructively.”
I disagree Eileen. The statement is in my opinion correct. However, that frustration with the process is due to how City staff mishandled the CEQA EIR process. Measure J had nothing to do with the terribly mishandled Alternatives.
That mishandling of the EIR also made Dead On Arrival any consideration of the DCPC density proposals or my proposal to make the 310 lots in North Village less than half the size and build market rate small-a affordable homes on them.
I had to go to the Arden-Arcade area of Sacramento again, today. Man, do I hate that area (e.g., Watt Avenue).
And I also witnessed the new housing in Natomas (RIGHT AGAINST THE FREEWAY), while stuck in traffic.
Honestly, there’s a lot of losers around here. Highly-aggressive drivers, housing adjacent to freeways. Of course, they’re driving faster/newer/better vehicles than I am, since I don’t have to participate in that daily b.s. At this point, I’m halfway frightened of it (partly because I don’t insure my own vehicles for collision damage due to their age – cost/benefit analysis), partly because I’m not used to it, and partly because the vehicle I was driving (more than 30 years old) isn’t very powerful or fast.
What an embarrassment that this is allowed to happen in our state capitol. You’d think that some governor would address this, rather than living in Los Angeles (Schwarzenegger) or Marin (Newsom).
Watt Avenue – 3 lanes (at least) in each direction – chock full of losers. And by “losers”, I’m referring to those who allowed that (weren’t objecting to it).