A recent poll on Nextdoor has shown that the Village Farms proposal is already deeply unpopular and statistically has no chance of passing.
This poll was viewed over 2500 times by users of Nextdoor and at time of writing received 137 responses.
With 139 responses out of 68,000 residents, the poll is 650 times denser than standard national polls which routinely predict election outcomes within a few percentage points.
With 21 people in favor and 98 opposed, the sample shows barely 15% support. When the gap is this wide, statistics lets us calculate how likely it is that the “true” citywide vote could still end up above 50% support — and that probability is effectively zero.
Even under the most generous assumption that every undecided person ends up voting yes, the chance that the measure would go on to pass is still less than one in a million. Under standard assumptions, it’s even worse. The number we calculated amounts to a one in 100 quintillion… but we invite readers to check our math.
In short: the sample size may seem small, but the overwhelming imbalance in responses makes this poll extraordinarily powerful at predicting that the measure will not pass.
The last remaining source of doubt in this data is the question of whether the population on Nextdoor is biased in some way: Are “no” voters for some reason over-represented on the platform?
We don’t have cause to believe so. In fact, similar Nextdoor polls such as this one from the 2022 DiSC / Measure H election proved to be quite predictive:
Measure H went on to lose with 36.5% for and 63.5% against once the undecideds apportioned out. In this case 70% of the undecided population ended up voting yes, which was not nearly enough to come back from the significant baseline unpopularity of the proposal. This gives us no basis to believe that there is an anti-development bias on the platform. If anything it would be the reverse.
It should be pointed out that Village Farms is polling even worse than Measure H did. More people are already against it, and fewer people list themselves as undecided.
With results this significant, stakeholders in this election (the developer, the city, and citizens) should rightly react to this reality and consider whether pursuing this current course is worth the time and effort.
-Davis Citizens Planning Group:
Alex Achimore / Richard McCann / Anthony Palmere / Tim Keller / David Thompson
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.
Editor’s note: While I am comfortable publishing this piece and agree that Village Farms faces a very difficult path under Measure J, I do not sign off on the statistical inference drawn from the Nextdoor poll. A self-selected, non-representative sample cannot support claims about citywide voter behavior or probabilistic outcomes. At most, the poll reflects sentiment among a narrow slice of engaged Nextdoor users, not the Davis electorate as a whole.
As the article pointed out the Nextdoor poll regarding Measure H was pretty accurate so there is some history to compare to.
A single prior instance where a non-representative Nextdoor poll happened to align with an election result does not validate the method.
David, is the validation you argue for equally flawed? Validation is a high threshold, and one has to wonder whether the national election polls achieve a validation level of certainty.
What I believe is a more important question for you, David Greenwald, to ask yourself is what do you think the likelihood is that the premise of the article is correct, based on the not validated poll results?
Another question to ask yourself is what level of poll responses greater than the current 139 would provide you with more comfort?
Once you have answered those questions for yourself, please share your answers here.
I don’t understand, they are using a flawed poll to make an argument. We could all make arguments why Village is not likely to pass and I wouldn’t disagree with most of them, but using flawed science is just wrong.
We understand this is flawed which is why we looked for a means of validating those results. We often have to make decisions using data that we know if flawed. We then look for a means of calibrating the data to adjust it for the biases that we expect. We found another example asking among the same pool of participants, and we have an election result to compare against. What we found is that the previous poll fell within a reasonable uncertainty bound from the poll indicating the bias was fairly small. If I was to calculate the 95% confidence interval for both of these polls, it is highly unlikely that we would get to 50%. To get to 50% requires that the poll results move four standard deviations downward. This is out at 0.02% in the probability distribution.
We don’t have another poll that has asked this question, so we are left with result. The only poll I’ve seen ask a very general question (on a comparable resolution of asking “Democrat vs Republican” in an election poll which is relatively meaningless) about whether voters wanted more housing. It did not get to the specifics of the project. We’ve seen these before in Davis where prospects look encouraging but the election results diverge. This is the start of the conversation. Quantitatively show the bias in a Nextdoor poll so we can determine how we should adjust this result. Not providing the information is not an option.
To be clear: We are not saying that we have confidence that this is poll is “accurate”. It may be off by a significant amount due to the issues you raise.
But it is SO deeply underwater that “accuracy” is not the problem. The question is “What are the chances that the “for” population is actually 51% or more?” If this poll is off by 10 points, or 20 points.. it still doesnt matter.
That said, you mention that this is a self-selected poll, and there are certain engaged neighbors that may not be representative of the davis electorate as a whole., and I completely agree, but do you know what else is a self-selected poll of only engaged davis voters? A special election. I suspect that any selection bias that exists for participation on next-door likely co-varies with the same kind of people who actually turn out for special elections ( only 30% of the registered voters most of the time)
There is no getting away from the raw number here. If this were polling at 30% or 40%, I would say that the data is too unreliable to act on, but 15%… is impossible to ignore.
At the end of the day – your conclusion may be correct (I would not bet on any project passing a Measure J vote at this point) – but I think we need to use proper data measurement tools in our assessments.
David, isn’t “I think we need to use proper data measurement tools in our assessments” tantamount to “don’t let the quest for perfection get in the way of actually accomplishing the good.”
No using this is like using fraud science stuff, wrongly convict someone fortunately the stakes aren’t very high in this
David,
False comparison. We are not going for “beyond reasonable doubt.” Even “preponderance of evidence” is not applicable. I was against publishing this poll until we found the previous poll on DiSC II that was remarkably close to the outcome.
This poll result (which has been available on Nextdoor for months) is a heads up for project proponents that opposite is very high and in a previous election, a similar poll mirrored the final outcome. We are not making a final decision with this poll–we are providing a warning. This is not “fraud science”–it’s a preliminary exploration which is very consistent with valid scientific analysis. As an analyst, I very often use preliminary results to narrow options, knowing that there are shortcomings. In this case, it raises a significant red flag that shouldn’t be ignored.
If you’re going to hold this poll to such a high standard, then you need to go back to all of the previous local election polls published over the last decade and compare the results to the election results. I doubt that many were any closer to the final outcome than the DiSC II Nextdoor poll.
In short, I don’t think we should be using flawed methods. It’s really important not to do that. Again, I don’t doubt the results, I doubt the method. For all we know the people who responded could have largely been the Ron O’s of the community. We don’t know. I don’t need to look at a non representative poll to recognize at this point in time, the measure seems in trouble. But then again, we are five months out from an election and there hasn’t really been a campaign, so things can change. Again, I would never bet on any Measure J vote passing in Davis.
David,
Every method is flawed. Some are more flawed than others, and if we understand those flaws we can then interpret the results. The fact is that someone else using this flawed method came up with a result that was consistent with a final outcome. I have frequently used biased estimates in my four decades of consulting to make an initial estimate. That’s the same practice we are presenting here.
More importantly, you are ignoring the main message here–that the proponents should see a red flag about their project, and the City should question whether it wants to burn yet more credibility by placing on the ballot a measure that is looks like it will go down to defeat unless the proposals is significantly modified. This is what this conversation is about rather than criticizing the validity of the red flag. Take it for what it is.
“if we understand those flaws we can then interpret the results”
This is where we are disagreeing.
Let me give you example let’s say 100 of 150 No votes were somehow registered by Ron O. I remember the Enterprise doing polls online and they stopped because everyone figured out that by clearing their cache they could vote repeatedly. In that scenario, no amount of understanding could allow the results to be interpreted because it would be completely invalid.
Second example, what if someone sent a notification of the poll to their no growth list and thereby generated a disproportionate number that way? We may have no way of knowing and it would invalidate the result.
We could go down the list. The main problem is the same – we have no control over sample, the sample size is exceedingly small, and we can’t check to see who actually voted and who didn’t.
You can’t interpret the results because the method is too flawed. I’m not disagreeing with the ultimate conclusion but I am very bothered at the poor methodology here which I consider a far more important issue given everything happening in this country.
David, your Editor’s note should be prominently stated at the beginning of this sham of a “poll”. I am disappointed in you and this intentional deceit. There is nothing professional or unbiased about this poll.
And now I get blamed for it!
Yeah, far be it from me to defend DG as a norm, but you’ve been calling out the poll since your first comment. Squelching articles or calling them out up front is not a good practice.
I mean, if you wrote the article the criticism may be more appropriate, but it was a submitted article.
Georgina, your comment surprises me, especially coming from you. The Vanguard is in the business of reporting on news. Is the existence of this poll/survey not news? Are the results not news? What grounds would the Vanguard have for denying the public access to that news?
Further, David didn’t write the story. It was submitted to him. Do you want him to censor submissions? That is a slippery slope indeed.
I’m even more perplexed at your reaction given that the City and the developer pulled your long and hard fought-for first time buyers program from the draft Development Agreement without even giving you personally, or the Planning Commission collectively, the courtesy of letting you know that program had been deleted. It was almost as if they were hoping you were so unobservant as to miss that key last-minute deletion. I would think you would be pissed.
From this poll result it looks like the argument of Davis needs more children or there will be school closures isn’t resonating.
Are you guys proud? What do you expect to happen if it fails? Remember its been 20 years since Measure X failed. As Keynes observed “In the long run we are all dead.”
RG say, ““In the long run we are all dead.”
Who is dead? Property values will remain high for property owners, rents will remain high for those who own residential rental buildings, and we won’t have to put up with all those pesky children these projects will bring. So not everyone is dead :-|
“Are you guys proud? ”
Why would we be proud? This is Sad. Just because we bear bad news doesn’t mean we take pleasure in it.
We are a PRO-housing group, that has sought to improve the project at every step, to bring the project closer to the better urban planning concepts we know to be effective in designing effective cities. More market-rate affordable, better design for transit, better energy efficiency, better land use. We had hoped that by getting the developer to embrace better more sustainable planning principles they would have a better, more responsible, more palatable and more popular project.
That hasn’t happend. We failed. There is nothing to celebrate here.
I agree 100% with Tim. I too am pro-housing for Davis, but this project and the City staff and council members who are championing it are ignoring the reality that Davis has an abundance (thank you Ezra Klein, et.al.) of housing that our moderate income workforce can not afford to purchase, and a significant shortage of housing that our moderate income workforce can afford.
This project effectively denies home ownership opportunities to the people who teach our children and grandchildren in DJUSD.
Yesterday Ron Glick made the argument that those teachers should be provided homes by some DJUSD-owned hypothetical dream project some time in the future. The problem with that is that that project will only happen if DJUSD gets its act together. Village Farms is a bird in the hand, not some dream-state possibility. Further, the rumored DJUSD project will have a very limited number of units because of the constrained size of the parcel behind the Junior High School.
Ron is simply kicking the can of actually helping DJUSD teachers down the road … and quite possibly never helping those teachers. That is why I called him a hypocrite yesterday, and I call him a hypocrite again today.
The problems with the Village Farms proposal are a direct result of a lack of leadership in our community. No leader has stepped up and engaged the community in a dialogue about what we actually need in terms of housing. As a result the housing consideration process for the most part is developer driven. The inevitable result of that is the current mess … and poll results like the ones on NextDoor.
Matt you obviously don’t know what DJUSD is doing on workforce housing.
Incorrect Ron. I have met with two different School Board members discussing the specific topic of workforce housing, both for the DJUSD workforce and the larger workforce filling jobs throughout the City Limits and UCD campus.
The Board members related that DJUSD is barely at the concept level, and that the maximum scope of the project would be the District-owned land behind the junior high school on Covell. Compared to the population of DJUSD employees living outside Davis and commuting to their jobs here, the number of contemplated units is extremely small. So, you are throwing a whole lot of DJUSD employees under your bus. You are also throwing seniors who have few downsizing options under your bus. And moderate means young families under your bus. You are catering to people with wealth.
Matt, yesterday I asked you to provide me with a quote about DJUSD employee housing that I made that underpins your repeated assertions of some sort of hypocrisy. I ask you again as I don’t remember having done so and certainly can’t remember doing so in the recent past. I admit I might have at some point in the past but I’m not sure of that and wonder to what you are referring? Usually, and in fairness, when attacking somebody personally for a position they have held in the past it should be expected that there be an actual reference provided.
Beyond that your argument that Village Farms is a bird in the hand and DJUSD housing is a pipe dream is pretty bizarre. The VF proposal is what it is. If you vote no you don’t get any housing so its not an either or proposition.
Ron, more than a half dozen times you and I have personally discussed housing for DJUSD employees face-to-face at Mischka’s. You have repeatedly argued that young families under are being denied the opportunity to be owner-occupants in Davis. You have gone on to say that a key component of the American Dream is building wealth through home ownership.
So your embracing of the Village Homes proposals putting all the affordable residences in rental units and ownership of homes out of reach of “families of modest means”
Is hypocrisy pure and simple.
I don’t recall limiting myself to DJUSD employees and yes I support providing people opportunity to build equity but just like Richard you are making the scarcity argument. VF is not the only place to build housing so because it may not meet the needs of people of limited means who want a chance to build equity does not make me a hypocrite it makes me an optimist. My optimism lies in the hope that adding supply will eventually help make housing more affordable in general.
Ron, based on your comment above I will amend my description of you … you are an optimistic hypocrite.
The reason that is an accurate description is that you are willing to throw people of financial means under the bus and deny them the opportunity to be the owner occupants of a Village Farms home from a project that is currently in the pipeline … for the future possibility of being the owner occupant of a proposed project that isn’t even real or in the pipeline yet.
All you are doing is perpetuating Davis’ classist (originally racist) housing history.
You are not pro-housing you are pro a certain kind of housing and in doing so you are helping this community shoot itself in the foot on housing.
We are not pro “build anything, including paving all the way out to Woodland” which is the standard that you are using. That is very unreasonable. It’s the same argument being used by those who support deporting all immigrants who are not properly documented by any means possible, even if it means violating US citizens’ rights. You are putting no bounds whatsoever on what can be reasonably asked of a developer–only the developers is allowed to make any decisions that affect the entire community using your reasoning. That’s the attitude that the techbros have about running their businesses with no government interference. And that attitude will run our nation into an authoritarian ruin.
Paving all the way to Woodland? Are you aware that between Davis and Woodland there is a large watch of land that everyone agrees won’t be developed?
Wow dude, tech bros and xenophobes, pretty far out there. I fail to see the analogy but hey its not me posting that.
Anyway you are making the scarcity argument that land is limited and if we don’t build what you want we won’t get to ever build your vision. This is a false argument and one look at the map can show you that there is plenty of land left to build on in directions other than towards Woodland. The sad part is that you would rather wait years, perhaps decades, with nothing to show for it because of your false assertion that land around here suitable for housing is limited.
I’m making the abundance argument that we can and should build housing for all classes and that we would have much more success if we stopped trying to tell other people what they should build and simply started building more. As I’ve said before I’ll support what you want to do if you come forward with a project proposal on land that you control or own.
Ron G
You’re taken the extremist position that only you know the appropriate path and that is unfettered development into the future. We already had that and now we are suffering the consequences of too much housing for commuters and not enough for in town workers. The exodus of workers over the last 20 years that I’ve documented supports this assertion. How is building more of the same going to solve our problem.
That’s the direction of the town’s character that I’m pointing to–Davis will not remain the same because it hasn’t remained the same for the last two decades, nor the past six decades. It’s naive to somehow claim that VF will just keep everything just as it has been–instead it’s going to continue to drain the vitality from Davis that we’ve experienced of late. We need to reverse that to maintain the community that we love.
Pure projection Richard, I’m not the one saying what should be built. Nor am I saying we should build to infinity. What I’m saying is that you should build your dream project instead of telling others what they shouldn’t do. Where we differ is I believe there is room to do both.
Mr. Keller you are not bearing sad news…you are representing something that is a complete sham. What an embarrassment you and your group are to me. I expect better from my community.
“We are a PRO-housing group, that has sought to improve the project at every step,”
LOL…you guys a PRO-housing as long as it meets your super special fantasy specifications not grounded in reality. At this point I’d expect opposition or “improvements” to a planned community of Hobbit holes dug into the side of grassy hills is not good enough for the environment and too big…(Bilbo’s place, Bag End was a good sized single family home after all). “Better urban planning concepts we know to be effective”….says the group that’s never planned and built a master planned community….but hey…I read Strong Towns!
The problem with your “recommendations” is that they don’t do much for the developers. To get anything built you need a partnership with the developers and not an adversarial one….not a …..we gotta get this from the developer at every stage of planning…kind of relationship. Think about it; if you had to risk your money on a project…would you risk it in Davis where it might not even get passed the annexation stage or tentative map approval…or any other host of hurdles along the way? Or go to a a developer friendlier type of place like Woodland, West Sacramento or Vacaville? The number of developers considering projects in a city greatly effect the number of projects that will be completed. If you’re really Pro-Housing should want developers to want to be here.
Or to put it another way…if you really think Davis needs housing….then BEGGARS CAN’T BE CHOOSERS.
Keith, your argument … especially your final sentence .., is built on the premise that all housing is the same. I wholeheartedly disagree with that argument. Davis is definitely not a “beggar” for $800,000 and up homes. Nor is it (currently) a beggar for apartments. The segment of market demand where Davis is a beggar is in houses that “families of modest financial means” (Ron Glick’s term … one that I like a lot) can afford to purchase. Arguably, housing purchase prices for that segment are right around $500,000. For the most part a two-school-teacher household can afford to purchase a home at that price, and at $500 per square foot the developers can make a profit.
Matt,
Yes Davis is a beggar. How much housing is actually being built? Not a lot. How many builders are banging down Davis city hall doors trying to get projects approved….not many. What housing is being built predominately in the Sac region? Single family MARKET rate housing. Builders build to make money. They build what will make them money (and not lose their investment). If you want to have homes built for “families with modest financial means” find someone to SUBSIDIZE it. There’s not a lot of funds out there to put all your eggs in the BMR housing basket. Build smaller homes? The market doesn’t want smaller homes….not the market that is targeted that will protect my investment by offering the greatest ROI/IRR.
“the developers can make a profit”…how kind of you to dictate their profits to them. hmmm….invest in an EXTREMELY risky venture with a less than ideal community partner and build little homes that the market doesn’t really want….so sub-optimal from a financial/risk/reward standpoint. Or go where I can build the homes that sell to people that make the ROI/IRR worth the investment risk (where the actual risk is less).
“LOL…you guys a PRO-housing as long as it meets your super special fantasy specifications not grounded in reality. ”
Absolute Nonsense. There are literally thousands of successful projects that embody the principles we have advocated – they exist all across the country.
These principles are SO ubiquitous that different people find different ways to talk about the same concepts… “walkable cities”. “15-Minute Cities” Hell even the Leed-ND “rubric” the council bandied about was basically a scorecard for how well project adhere to new urbanist principles.
We CAN have a well designed city, we DESERVE a well designed city.
Jesus…dude…I’ve been studying this stuff (urban planning/new urbanism and the real estate market) since the 90’s. What were you doing back then?
lol…”there are literally thousands of projects”……..I’ve seen it all. Yes you can incorporate ELEMENTS of new urbansim to a degree But you gotta be realistic with what the market will bare.
“deserve a well designed city”….what new aged non-sense. you DESERVE what the market will bear. Just like any other place where assets are owned privately. Self righteousness over the issue will just get in the way of getting stuff done….done probably not in the fantasy way you want it…but done…none the less…..or we can keep going with the almost adversarial attitude towards new development this community continues to exhibit and see how far it gets them.
Personally, I don’t care if Village Homes gets built. I kind of hope it doesn’t. But I know that if the city wants to turn things around that it needs to start to be perceived as “open for business” because it’s the business part that really needs to happen and housing is just the side dish to the meal that needs to be planned and cooked. Economic development needs to happen and housing is a part of it…but isn’t the driving force that most mistake it to be.
Keith, I think we are mostly on the same page, you just THINK we are asking for more than we actualy are.
1). Trade some of the small-lot single family housing for more multifamily. ( multifamily IS being built in infill locations around the city so we know it pencils in the market)
2) Move the park north and have the multifamily along the southern edge so that it can be in walking range of transit. ( this is free… no bearing on economics)
3) Our “stretch” ask: Preserve a transit corridor from the cannery and out the bottom for a future transit line… just so its an option. ( also free)
4) Nice to have: Lets have some mixed use commercial at the south end as well.. within reason.
These are not absolutist crazy idealistic ideas. We have only advocated for “elements of new urbanism to a degree”. as you put it
—–
I agree with you on economic development, and Im personally involved in this issue because of my advocacy for the city’s innovation sector.
Davis’ core differentiating economic asset is our TALENT – university affiliated technical expertise in the sciences. Some of that talent is professors and more stable older residents, but a LOT of it is Grad Students and postdocs – most of whom will end up in industry not academia.
If we cant house this younger generation, we are giving away our core economic asset. (if one cared about the schools I would point out that it is this population that are also in the phase where they are getting married and starting families ). Village farms has only subsidized housing and expensive housing.. with a HUGE gap in the middle for these people who do not need ( and wont qualify for) subsidized housing, but who also cant afford a 800k home either.
What we have advocated for isnt unrealistic at all.
Ron G
The “build anything” attitude has failed in Davis, and it looks like it will fail again. The only two projects that passed Measure J/R/D were targeted to specific populations (students after it was significantly modified in the first go around, and local seniors). That should be a strong message to any developer who moves forward–they need to clearly identify a specific community need or desire and work with the community to achieve. Unfortunately the VF developers have acted like what they built prior to 2000 should be just fine today. Whitcomb was a partner in Nishi–he should take the lessons from that project as they listened to the community.
As Tim says, we have reached out repeatedly and published numerous articles and City submittals on the topic. We have maximized participation in the public process in a reasonable manner. We have not been just saying “no” or using fallacious arguments to oppose any solution through subterfuge. We’ve backed up our proposals with quantified analysis (even finding errors and proposing corrections in project-related studies) and references to relevant literature. And we’ve pointed to a specific counter proposal that has already been analyzed in the DEIR that would have a much higher chance of passing–Alternative 4 scaled to 1800 homes. (Willowgrove has this version in Alternative 3.)
Large property owners don’t have the right to create something that will change the character of the entire city without listening to the community. The VF development team has only made adjustments at the margin–that likely will be insufficient based on this poll.
Village Farms will change the entire character of the city? I thought you were arguing its more of the same.
So much hyperbole going on. I don’t particularly like the Cannery, but it didn’t change the entire character of the system. What might change the character of the city is if the state comes in or if a project’s defeat leads to no more housing projects coming forward that would address the housing crisis.
I know several people who live in the Cannery and like doing so. One couple even has two kids under five.
“A recent poll on Nextdoor has shown that the Village Farms proposal is already deeply unpopular and statistically has no chance of passing.”
A Nextdoor poll? I didn’t read past the first line. You all did take statistics in college, right?
““DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN” — Chicago Tribune, November 3, 1948
Lol Alan,
You didnt read past the first line but still took the time to comment? Gracious of you. ;)
Dewey-Truman were polling at like 45% to 41%… a three point gap.
This is a 54 point gap. Even if the source of the data has significant structural biases, there is no coming back from that number.
This isn’t correct. The size of the gap is irrelevant if the sample itself is non-representative. Structural bias does not shrink as margins grow, it can just as easily produce large margins.
We dont have any evidence of structural bias though.
the one and only piece of evidence that we have that might point to whether a next-door poll is accurate or biased indicated that it was indeed predictive.
Of course all of that analysis ignores the more blatant fact that measure J was designed exactly to defeat projects like this in the first place. Remember the definition of crazy? Yeah…. Thats whats happening here. Thinking that a measure J will pass and deliver us relief from having to take on the core problem of measure J is wishful thinking.
David, not irrelevant … subject to interrogation. All polls are subject to
Interrogation,
Like Don, I had not seen the poll on NextDoor but asked for a link and now know that the Poll was initiated (put up) by a pro-housing group. Where is the bias in that?
I don’t think you understand I don’t consider something constructed in this method to be a poll.
“Like Don, I had not seen the poll on NextDoor but asked for a link and now know that the Poll was initiated (put up) by a pro-housing group”
Please post the link.
David
You seem to be unaware of the adjustments that are made in every poll because they are all to some degree non representative.. We don’t have all of the data to make those adjustments, but one of those adjustment factors is for the previous accuracy of polls using a similar method. This has been described by Nate Silver in his previous website 538.org (which I read frequently). This is the type of adjustment we are doing which is quite valid.
You can’t adjust complete crap. Ask Nate Silver, this is just noise.
More to the point, if you are a pollster and you have the raw data you might be able to weight things, but you don’t have that.
No David, it’s not “crap”. I am professionally much more qualified than you on making these assessments. Nate Silver has discussed extensively working with surveys of this type and using them to inform a decision. This is a better source of information than simple anecdotal observation. Bayesian decision making processes delve how to update our assessments starting from an initial evaluation. That’s how we move forward with this information.
You just seem to be in denial of how underwater this proposal is at the outset of the campaign.
Two words: sample bias
And sample bias can be adjusted for. One of the adjustments is assessing the predictive ability of the survey method. Our finding is that it has been close before.
hey I got a D- in advanced statistics at UCD, and I still say sample bias
Alan
If you know you’re history, the last Gallup poll was taken in late October in 1948. That mistake that missed that voters change their minds late in the campaign forced Gallup to change its practices.
But more importantly even then, the final results were within the statistical error range of that poll. Same thing in 2016, the final result was at about the 25th percentile in the probability distribution. This poll is indicative of where this project stands, and it has a very hard road to climb to get into positive territory.
(Removed)
In any case, it does feel like this proposal is in trouble, especially when those pushing for growth are opposed to it (e.g., this group, Bapu, etc.).
Ron, that has pretty much been my other bell-weather observation of this project the whole time, and why I suspected it would fail long ago.
One particular vignette: In the city council chambers at the DEIR scoping meeting. I watched as the leader of one of the other pro-housing groups in town and a few other PRO-housing activists around her were debating with the developer as to why he was insisting on building almost entirely detached single family housing… and not building any appreciable amount of more affordable multifamily product types. The developer ended up saying ” I believe in my plan and Im confident in letting the voters decide”
If that is how you engage the people who really should be your allies in the community, then honestly, your project has no chance. Not in Davis. We now have MULTIPLE pro-housing groups in this town at this point, and none of them are fighting to endorse and pass this. That speaks volumes.
For what it’s worth, I grudgingly have some respect for those pushing the vision of your group (which basically includes those pushing for affordable housing).
If “normal” single family housing is built, it’s not going to be affordable to those who don’t already have assets.
But I don’t think your vision would house “families”, either. It would appeal to non-families (probably UCD students, etc.).
Families demand normal houses, and they’ll get it in Woodland. (They could also get a pre-owned one in Davis that would suit their needs, but they still need assets.)
I believe that new-home builders (such as those in Woodland) are generally more flexible regarding the terms they offer to buyers (especially first-time buyers). They are in the business of selling, just like car dealerships.
Although pre-existing homes are almost always a better deal, the process is likely more challenging – especially for first time buyers.
Here’s what Harvest Glen in Davis is currently offering, for comparison. Not bad I guess (starting in the mid $700K range), but I’d rather buy a nearby Stanley Davis home – by far. (Also, probably no or little Mello Roos for an older house.)
https://www.centurycommunities.com/find-your-new-home/california/northern-california-metro/davis/harvest-glen/
Ron O
Again I refer you to the NAHB survey study that shows that young families are now looking at smaller common wall housing as a means of getting into affordable housing. They are now deferring their preference for larger single family housing to later when they are later in their careers. We need housing for this younger cohort, not for older commuters.
Richard: Surveys like that would first have to define what a family is (I’d define it as a couple with 2 young children), in their 30s, etc. (Or at least, that’s what I understand some in Davis “think” should occupy this site.)
Then, the survey would have to compare a community like Davis to what’s available in a very nearby community like Spring Lake (where prices are much lower).
I’ve seen what families are selecting, and so has DJUSD.
What I don’t understand is why they’re moving to the area.
In any case, if they can’t afford a “regular” house somewhere in the area right now, they’re not going to be able to bear the costs of selling and buying another one later.
I’ve also been hearing reports that the “move up homebuyer” concept is increasingly a thing of the past, and that homebuyers are increasingly looking at their “first” home as their “forever” home.
https://www.effectiveagents.com/resources/where-did-all-of-the-move-up-buyers-go
So maybe people are becoming smarter.
Actually, a similar trend is occurring regarding car sales, but for somewhat different reasons (e.g., cars last longer these days).
Not a good time to be in the real estate sales (or maybe the car sales) business.
But good for everyone else.
The truth is that as long as a house or car has enough space for the “maximum” number of people who plan to live in it, THAT’s your “forever home” (and almost your “forever car”, as well). The only new vehicle I purchased will be 31 years old, this year.
I’m in Davis Manor neighborhood on Next Door and never saw this poll. Can someone provide a link?
Only in Davis would people who consistently vote no on housing proposals call themselves pro housing.
I have voted yes on every previous Measure J/R/D proposal except DiSC II (because they ignore our proposals from the NRC). I don’t know how else I’m supposed to show that I’m pro-housing. Your litmus test is extremely unreasonable where we MUST give unfettered approval to ANY proposal regardless of its merits.
Good for you Richard. You weren’t who I was referring to.
Ron G
Yes you were referring to me because you’ve been arguing with me. Tim Keller similarly has been voting consistently for those projects and has even been accused of being a developer tool by anti-housing individuals.
Well good for Tim. Guess again and I apologize if you thought I was referring to you. Looking back, for the record, my relevant post was not in reply to you.
I agree with Richard on both his points. Tim has indeed been clearly and relentlessly attacked as a tool of the developers. Both the DiSC I and DiSC II campaigns were littered with personal attacks on Tim. Ron Oertel can corroborate that since he was one of the most vociferous of the attackers.
I am “guilty as charged” regarding Tim K., since I believed his connection with that developer (including being a commercial tenant of his, and a potential tenant at DISC) colored his view.
I still do think that his motivation is influenced by his desire to have more local workers to support his business.
But I no longer think he’s the incarnation of Darth Vader, for what that’s worth. He doesn’t know it, but I have briefly met him and found him personable.
Of course, people sometimes assume I have ulterior motivations as well. But (again, for what it’s worth), I’ve been a no-growther (or more politely, a “slow” growther) since I was a wee lad. Having grown up in the Bay Area, I’ve seen what occurs.
Personally, I think the state should have implemented more policies to discourage growth some 50 years ago.
I’m also no fan of “smart growth”, since I view that as an excuse to bide time.
I think you guys are wasting your time arguing over the validity of the survey.
There will be a more important (binding) “survey” this year, and the developer has already indicated that he’s willing to take his chances.
Which means that (if it fails), it might come back for “another bite at the apple” (more in line with what this group wants).
If I cared about the survey – you would be correct. But my concern is otherwise.
Ok.
No link.
No idea who posted the survey.
No idea which neighborhoods on Next Door saw it or where the responses came from.
No way for any of us to evaluate the assertions being made.
Serious problems with calling this a “poll.”
This was a pretty pointless exercise, in my opinion.
Don
Here’s the link. I’ve been too busy reply to comments to those who are uninformed about how to conduct statistical analysis.
https://nextdoor.com/p/NPg8J7sT_6wM?utm_source=share&extras=NTIwMjAyMQ%3D%3D&utm_campaign=1768845462114&share_action_id=af0290d9-0a11-4dd2-a855-7464b9adff58
How do you conduct statistical analysis if you cant drill down?
But here’s a bigger problem, Tim turned into a de facto push-poll
So in the comments, you have Tim pushing people on their position.
I fail to see your objection. I answered a question with a question.. how is that “pushing” at all?
Don: Neither you nor I will count in the “official” survey this year.
So I’m not sure why you think it’s important to weigh in on this one.
As for me, I hope to count in other ways. Getting my sneakers laced up, now.
(Does anyone say “sneakers”, anymore? Survey says, “I must be a boomer”. And I also knew who Richard Dawson was.)
Why are all of you so afraid to confront the point of this message that this project faces a significant red flag? And that red flag can only be addressed by significantly modifying the proposal?
And why was the 2022 Nextdoor survey so close to the final outcome and somehow this poll has no validity? Your arguing against empirical evidence.
Eventually there will be a real poll. One that actually matters.
I agree with David- “I don’t think you understand I don’t consider something constructed in this method to be a poll.” At best this might be considered as an unscientific sample or survey. Tim, Richard or others can state that this is in sum form an indication of community sentiment or a significant red flag and they may…. or may not… be correct. Let me sum up with the words of Ron Glick- “Eventually there will be a real poll. One that actually matters.”
It is kind of interesting to see that those who support the proposal (but don’t like Measure J) are now suddenly fans of the “official” survey. Presumably, because they think this proposal has a chance under Measure J. (As do the developers, it seems.)
Seems like this is going to be the battle of the century, coming up. My guess is that there will be a couple more Vanguard articles about it, over the next few months.
Or, in other words – “Let’s get ready to ruuummble . . .”
(We already know what the council is going to do – or at least the majority of them.)
Let’s see if we can send Whitcombe off with one more “L” in the scorecard.
This is why I don’t care much about EIRs, surveys, etc. – the real test begins after tonight.
But let’s not forget that those who are trying to make the proposal “better” (and would support a better proposal) are being summarily dismissed. In other words, the growth activists are at war with each other – a “perfect” proposal in that sense.
Poll smoll. Thanks Bob for your kind words. BTW, the only thing I said about the poll is time will tell. The rest is conjecture. Am I worried? Yes, but not for myself.
Like most of the blowhards on here I am luckily and thankfully housing secure. I’m worried for all the people for whom housing delayed is housing denied. For those in the community who dream of more housing choices and perhaps a chance at gaining equity in this community I want you to know that I understand your pain. Twenty years ago I saw the same indefference in the opposition to measure X when I wanted to make a home here and be part of this community. Its why I fight for more housing today.
“Housing delayed/denied” – complete and total b.s.
People don’t know about Zillow?
What kind of person is waiting around for someone to build them a house on farmland?
Just to get this straight, they’re looking on Zillow, they’re looking at Spring Lake, and they go, “nah – I think I’ll see if Whitcombe succeeds”? And THESE are the imaginary people you’re concerned about?
How does that song go?
“You don’t know how it feels”
Sure they have choices but they also have dreams.
One thing we learned, this little Nextdoor poll sure upset a lot of Davis YIMBY’s.
If the poll is so flawed why are they worried about it?
You’re smart enough to know the answer to that – we can walk through the literature on propaganda and manufactured studies.
“we can walk through the literature on propaganda and manufactured studies”
Yes sir, I agree and I’ve complained about a lot of that on the Vanguard over the years.
Especially much of the propaganda and manufactured studies coming out of progressive think tanks and such.