DAVIS, Calif. — With the release of the City Attorney’s impartial analysis and the official ballot arguments for and against Measure V, the debate over the proposed Village Farms development has formally entered the public phase, setting the stage for what could become one of the most consequential land-use votes in Davis in a generation.
Measure V, placed on the ballot by the Davis City Council, would amend the city’s General Plan to allow development of the Village Farms project, a nearly 500-acre site on the city’s northeastern edge.
According to the City Attorney’s impartial analysis, Measure V “was placed on the ballot by the City of Davis City Council” and, if adopted, “would amend the City of Davis General Plan to allow for development of the Village Farms project.”
The project covers roughly 498 acres on Davis’ northeastern edge, bordered by Pole Line Road, East Covell Boulevard, the Cannery neighborhood and Union Pacific tracks, and surrounding agricultural and recreational land, and if voters approve the measure, the property could then move forward through the city annexation process.
Under Davis’ Municipal Code, changes to the General Plan that convert agricultural or open space land to urban uses must be approved by voters. The analysis notes that the code “requires voter approval of General Plan amendments that change the land use designation from agricultural or open space to urban uses.”
That voter approval also covers “baseline project features” that cannot later be significantly modified without returning to the electorate.
The property is currently designated for agricultural use, and Measure V would reclassify it to allow the Village Farms development while locking in the project’s baseline development standards.
The City Attorney’s analysis states that the proposal would permit construction of as many as 1,800 housing units across high-, medium- and low-density residential zoning categories.
As described in City Council Resolution 26-006, the project is intended to create a mixed-income neighborhood offering a variety of housing types while emphasizing environmentally sustainable design and substantial publicly accessible open space.
The baseline commitments include the developer providing land and at least $6 million to support deed-restricted affordable housing, along with setting aside property for the Davis Joint Unified School District to use for Pre-K facilities and an educational farm.
Other listed features include preserving 47 acres of wildlife habitat, requiring all homes to be all-electric with solar on single-family houses, adding parks and recreation areas, building greenbelts and bike and pedestrian paths, planting at least 4,000 trees, making road improvements, and constructing grade-separated crossings for cyclists and pedestrians on both sides of the site.
The measure requires approval by a majority of Davis voters to take effect.
The ballot arguments reveal the sharply divided community framing the project in markedly different terms.
In the argument in favor, proponents open with a historical claim: “It’s been over a generation without family housing approved by voters in Davis.”
They argue that the consequences have been significant, writing that “young families, teachers and local workers can’t afford to live here, declining enrollment threatens our schools, small businesses struggle, and tens of thousands commute here daily, adding traffic and emissions.”
Supporters contend that Measure V “guarantees a dedication of 16 acres of land and $6 million toward affordable housing, the largest contribution in Davis history.”
They also state, “Twenty percent of homes are permanently affordable for income-limited households, exceeding city requirements” and, “Seventy percent of market rate homes are attached or on small lots, providing much needed ‘missing-middle’ housing.”
The pro-Measure V argument asserts that “DJUSD estimates Village Farms Davis will attract young families with 1,100+ new students to help enrollment.”
Supporters add that the development is “a 100% all-electric, solar-powered sustainable community” and emphasize open space commitments, noting, “Over half of Village Farms Davis is open space, habitat, agriculture, greenbelts, parks and trails.”
Opponents, meanwhile, characterize the proposal as unprecedented in scale and potentially risky.
In the argument against, critics state that Village Farms, “with a 15-year buildout, proposes 1,800 housing units on 498 acres, the largest residential project ever proposed in Davis with many serious impacts.”
They cite “Massive traffic, adding over 15,000 car trips DAILY near Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road.” Opponents argue that “80% of the project is market rate housing costing $740,000 – $1,300,000 which is not affordable to most local workers and families with young kids.”
The opposition also raises environmental and public health concerns, including references to PFAS contamination, floodplain conditions and soil toxics. It notes the need to move “ONE MILLION cubic yards (100,000 truckloads) of soil to move, trying to fill the floodplain.”
The argument concludes, “Village Farms is too big, too many impacts, including massive traffic and costs, predominantly unaffordable housing and potential liability to Davis long-term” and urges voters to reject the project.
The release of the ballot materials crystallizes long-simmering debates over growth, affordability and environmental limits, and because the proposal converts farmland to urban use, the ultimate decision now rests with voters, who must choose between competing visions for how — or whether — Davis should grow.
The argument in favor was signed by former State Sen. Lois Wolk, former Mayor Will Arnold, elementary school teacher Brooke Agee, Katharine Dooley-Hedrick and small business owner Rose Cholewinski, while the argument against was signed by former Planning Commissioner Eileen M. Samitz, civil engineer Vijay Kumar, nature columnist Jean Jackman, former General Plan Mobility Committee member John Privara and retired teacher David McGlocklin.
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.
“They also state, “Twenty percent of homes are permanently affordable for income-limited households, exceeding city requirements” and, “Seventy percent of market rate homes are attached or on small lots, providing much needed ‘missing-middle’ housing.””
It appears only 10% of the market rate homes are shared wall affordable housing. The remaining housing is detached single family that will priced at or above the city-wide average of $830K based on the analysis our group, Davis Citizens Planning Group, has done. That will serve the needs of yet more commuters to Sacramento and Vacaville, not of those who work in Davis but are priced out of the housing market.
This proposal is just a rebaked version of Covell Village from two decades ago. The developers don’t seem to have learned anything in between. We’ve had several forums and processes that have shown how higher density transit-oriented development better fits the needs of our community. We need to sent them back to the drawing board with more specific direction.
There is no way that they’re going to build single-family, detached housing for less than $800K. More like $826K for a 1,472 square foot house. (Though the price actually dropped a little over the past week or so.)
https://www.centurycommunities.com/find-your-new-home/california/northern-california-metro/davis/harvest-glen/?utm_source=google_local&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=harvest-glen_gmb_ccs&utm_content=california
But the older I get, the more that sounds like a bargain. If I had the money and intent, I’d go for a larger, more-expensive one with a built-in ADU to help offset costs.
Or, a pre-existing house – which is generally the best deal (and usually has lower or no Mello Roos). Plus – has a yard, etc.
You say, “ There is no way that they’re going to build single-family, detached housing for less than $800K. ”
But what about the townhouses, row houses, half-plexes and the other missing middle’s housing?
“That will serve the needs of yet more commuters to Sacramento and Vacaville, not of those who work in Davis but are priced out of the housing market.”
The problem with your analysis is that you believe you know the circumstances of who will purchase the homes and the motivations people have for doing so. Of course you have no basis for your assertion beyond pure speculation. But even worse you fail to take into account the impact of working from home or telecommuting and assume to know the lifestyle of these future residents.
RM “We need to sent them back to the drawing board with more specific direction.”
Because that has worked so well in the past. I mean, the actions in opposition two decades ago made this version of the project better, right?
RM “This proposal is just a rebaked version of Covell Village from two decades ago.”
Oops.
The truth of the matter is that Richard’s advocacy, combined with his ‘my way or the highway’ approach, leads to him supporting the exact same outcome as does the advocacy of folks like Ron O.
The difference is that Ron would never support any development proposal under any circumstances, while Richard and the rest of our group have spent considerable effort trying to improve it so that is MIGHT pass.
You can lead a horse to water…
When I was a student teacher my mentor had a saying about setting limits. He would say “You can lead a horse to water and you can try and make it drink, but, you don’t have to go around to its rear end, stick a straw in and try to suck it up.”
I get trying to persuade and negotiate something more in line with your vision but we are now past that and the choice before you is no longer about making something better. The choice now is, to paraphrase Shakespeare, to build or not to build.
No matter the differences in your motivations you and Ron O now appear to be on the same page.
Ron, you have described the yes-no question very well.
Building homes alone, as this project does, will increase the City’s annual budget shortfall, which is currently more than $15 million each and every year for the next 20 years. Your mentor also had a saying about that … “when you find yourself in a (deep) hole, stop digging!”
That saying applies to more than City finances. Our City’s planning over the past 30 years has produced only homes that can not be afforded by teachers, and most of the Davis workforce, and most young families with elementary school children. Your mentor would also say that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
What you are advocating for is for Davis to simply roll over and take it. That seems masochistic to me. It it time to stand up and change our foolish ways.
Also, for those PTA parents who believe approving this project will avoid having a school closed, the DJUSD official reports show over 300 additional student losses over the next 5 years and another 500+ over the following 5 years (850 lost students in total). The schedule of certificates of occupancy for Village Farms shows very few certificates of occupancy in the next 10 years. DJUSD will have to close at least one school even if this proposal passes. Thinking otherwise is delusional.
So the question is whether the members of your planning group plan to campaign against this project, and I think we already have the answer to that question.
Interesting article in the Atlantic (link is through Apple News).
https://apple.news/ACPX054TvRUeF5_XzxFKf6w
Discusses this research “The Downmarket Impact of New Multifamily Housing: Evidence from a Honolulu Condo Tower.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5780364
Gist is that construction of ‘top of market’ housing results in access to lower cost housing as people move up. The situation is not as simple as some want to believe.
Matt said: “Building homes alone, as this project does, will increase the City’s annual budget shortfall, which is currently more than $15 million each and every year for the next 20 years.”
That is a canard Matt. Assuming your math is correct, and, I don’t doubt the veracity of your analysis, it would be true if the city only got the required statutory Prop 13 property assessment. The city understands this, as all cities in California do, and will impose supplemental property taxes through the vehicles available. I’m not a tax expert but they will do a CFD or Mello-Roos or whatever to cover the deferred costs. That is now SOP for new developments throughout the state.
“Does new housing pay for itself? Local governments often weigh the anticipated revenue from new dwellings against the increased costs for police, fire, schools, and infrastructure. This post explores how economies of scale, creditworthiness, and compact development tip the balance in favor of growth.
In the course of our housing work, some local governments ask us about the fiscal “break-even point” for new housing. Will the new housing pay for itself in terms of the additional cost-to-serve, additional police, additional wear and tear on the roads, additional emergency services, and additional students in the school system versus the per dwelling revenues from property tax revenue (and other revenues that may apply)?
Thankfully, economies of scale are in the local government’s favor. Research by Bettencourt et al. (2007) demonstrates that the new need for infrastructure scales sublinearly with population. This means that the cost of providing essential services per household decreases because the new homes leverage existing infrastructure and distribute expenses such as police, fire protection, and parks across more households.
More precisely, the relationship between growth and overall expenses is nonlinear as cities achieve 15% efficiency gains in infrastructure and service provision for each doubling of population. A 10% increase in housing units would only require about 8.5% additional resources as cities provide essential services like police, fire protection, and parks at a lower per-unit cost. When thinking about the “break-even point”, this beneficial economy of scale discounts how much revenue new homes would have to generate to cover their associated marginal cost-to-serve.
…
Fiscal Implications: Adding new households is less likely to strain municipal finances because the incremental infrastructure cost is lower than a one-to-one increase. The built-in efficiency means that growth can, in fact, improve fiscal health by spreading costs over a larger population.”
https://www.communityscale.io/economies-of-scale-housing-and-municipal-finance/
Is that right?
Does this mean that cities which are larger don’t have as many fiscal challenges as smaller cities?
Your claim is complete and total b.s.
There’s websites which show how much unaccounted-for debt (unfunded liabilities) each city has in California. Some of the largest cities have the highest per-capita debt.
Moreover, there’s also a likely difference between infill vs. sprawl (spreading outward) in regard to any such claims.
“Twelve Out of Fifteen Largest California Cities Don’t Have Money to Pay their Bills According to Accounting Study”
https://californiapolicycenter.org/twelve-out-of-fifteen-california-cities-dont-have-money-to-pay-their-bills-according-to-accounting-study/
So much for “economies of scale”.
Thank you for posting that Don. It is an excellent place to start, and the points made absolutely merit discussion.
Judging by the Area Code listed in the linked article, the writer lives in or near Altanta. That raises the question, do the described relationships work the same way in Prop 13 California? To answer that question it is useful to look at the revenues and costs history in our fair city of Davis.
The financial analysis done by BAE for the City presented to the Fiscal Commission in April 2025 reported that City revenues from the project can be expected to rise 2.5% each year, while City operating costs from the project care be expected to rise more than 4.0% each year. If the described economies of scale are reality in Davis, the annual increase in costs should be less than the annual increase in revenues. Bottom-line, our historical reality here in Davis is inconsistent with the model Don has referenced.
It is important to note that the costs growing by 4% each year reported by BAE do not include any costs (amortized or otherwise) for end of useful life repair/replacement of the project’s capital infrastructure (roads, bike paths, structures, Channel A, etc). To draw a parallel from our own annual budgets, if you had to put away money for a future car purchase, and repair/replacement of your home’s roof or driveway or kitchen appliances when they need to be replaced, your budget would go up substantially. So the 4% BAE reported is probably more than 8% when those future costs are taken into consideration.
As the saying goes, “When you find yourself in a deep hole, stop digging.”
“Judging by the Area Code listed in the linked article, the writer lives in or near Altanta.”
The authors of the linked article live in Los Alamos NM, Tempe Arizona, and Dresden Germany. You can find this information by clicking on the Authors Info & Affiliations link. Their residencies have no bearing on the subject.
If you’re referring to the author of the article by Nels Nelson, it’s a report on other studies so his residency has no bearing on the topic, either.
“That raises the question, do the described relationships work the same way in Prop 13 California?”
This is irrelevant to the economies of scale.
“The financial analysis done by BAE for the City presented to the Fiscal Commission in April 2025 reported that City revenues from the project can be expected to rise 2.5% each year, while City operating costs from the project can be expected to rise more than 4.0% each year.”
“Bottom-line, our historical reality here in Davis is inconsistent with the model Don has referenced.”
Which housing developments constitute this “historical reality” by proving that costs go up faster than revenues for a particular development project? I’m guessing that on your years of commission service, you were provided with documentation that verifies your underlying assertion here. Links to those documents would be useful.
EPS conducted a peer review of the BAE Urban Economics Memorandum [“Village Farms Fiscal Impact Analysis”, dated March 27, 2025].
Re: your assertion that “The financial analysis done by BAE for the City presented to the Fiscal Commission in April 2025 reported that City revenues from the project can be expected to rise 2.5% each year, while City operating costs from the project care be expected to rise more than 4.0% each year.”
A key point from EPS: “Inflation is assumed to be 2.5% per annum, except departmental wages set at 4%.” [emphasis added]
In other words, what you are stating as analysis actually appears to be simply an assumption. If you have evidence of the basis for their assumption, it would be great to have links.
For general interest, here are some notes from the EPS report Aug 1 2025:
— “The Village Farms project will expand the property tax base for the City of Davis. The estimated valuation for the housing units will total about $1.24 billion…. Other taxes will be paid to school districts and other special districts.”
— “The Village Farms project will expand school enrollment in Davis. Based on a school enrollment study from Davis Demographics MGT, the Village Farms development will increase school enrollment by 701 students, which would boost the District’s enrollment (currently about 8,300 students) by over 8 percent.”
— “Based on proposed housing unit costs and the qualifying incomes needed for those housing units, the Village Farms development will increase the available retail spending potential by about $74 million, with about $56 million on taxable retail goods….
The initial phases of the project development will likely result in sales growth for existing retail stores, particularly those located close to the Village Farms site. “
Don, none of their residences are California, so they may not be familiar with the special case that Prop 13 creates.
Economies of scale do not operate in a vacuum. They do impact costs, but are not the only factor impacting costs. The 4% plus annual cost increase in Davis … without even including capital infrastructure repair/replacement costs … tells us that economies of scale factors are being overwhelmed by the other factors.
The BAE study is available in the April 2025 packet of the Fiscal Commission on the City website. The EPS report, which acknowledges the BAE calculations and assumptions is available from the Village Farms development team, who provided that report to me directly, so no link to that one. The Nishi 2016 fiscal analysis by EPS for the City can be found on the City website in the 2015 Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) packets for the multiple Nishi deliberations by the FBC. Similar analyses for Nishi 2018 were done in 2017, and are in the FBC packets for those Nishi deliberations by FBC. Paul Navazio performed the first report that showed the disconnect between revenues growth and costs growth for the 2009 consideration of WildHorse Ranch. His graphs showing how even a positive margin in Year One becomes a deficit when the revenues and costs trend lines cross over one another was visually powerful. And those graphs didn’t even factor in capital infrastructure replacement costs.
The financial analyses of both DiSC projects showed the same revenue and costs growth rates.
Are those enough references for you? If they aren’t, then seval more are in the Strong Towns articles about costs … the link for one is https://archive.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/15/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-3.html … and a second is https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/6/17/if-were-not-going-to-maintain-what-we-have-then-why-bother-building-anything-new
Regarding “The Village Farms project will expand school enrollment in Davis. Based on a school enrollment study from Davis Demographics MGT, the Village Farms development will increase school enrollment by 701 students, which would boost the District’s enrollment (currently about 8,300 students) by over 8 percent.”
Let’s put that 701 students estimate into perspective. That is the number at the end of full buildout … after 15 years of building. If we assume that the first certificates of occupancy will not happen until 5 years from now, you get approximately 50 additional students each year from year 5 to year 20 … 750 in total.
The DJUSD enrollment report shows 8,241 students in 2024, dropping to 7,747 in 2031. Then dropping 356 more students three years later in 2034. In 2034, the third year of Village Farms occupancy, EPS estimates say Village Farms will add 150 students (50 going to 100 going to 150 over the three year period). So the “bleeding” will be two times greater than the “transfusion.” Bottom-line, (1) DJUSD will have to face up to the crisis of its enrollment losses long before any homes at Village Farms are occupied, and (2) even with the additions from Village Farms DJUSD will be losing an additional 200 students a year each year.
“Let’s put that 701 students estimate into perspective.”
Sure. It is estimated that there will be 701 more students enrolled in DJUSD if Village Farms is built than there will be if it isn’t built.
In a normal city, people would already be living there.
You oppose it.
“In a normal city, people would already be living there.”
What’s a normal city, Elk Grove, Natomas?
Natomas isn’t even a city
Okay, so maybe Woodland, West Sac…is that better?
That would probably be more reasonable in addition to accurate
Natomas isn’t even a city
Neither are the sites outside of Davis (the proposed Village Farms, Shriner’s, DISC, etc.).
They consist of farmland, outside of city limits.
Ron, you need to do your homework before you open your mouth. The deficiency in your knowledge of how developers and jurisdictions are using Mello-Roos taxes is significant. The CFD at Cannery does a good job of illustrating how they actually are used. At Cannery (and at Mace Ranch many years ago) the developer argued that they did no have enough money to build the approved infrastructure (parks in the case of Mace Ranch) and they received an $8 million check from the City, which they pocketed. There was no money in that $8 million for the ongoing annual maintenance of the infrastructure, or its repair/replacement at the end of its useful life. That maintenance was/is an unfunded liability of the City, as are the end of useful life repair/replacement costs. The reason the streets and bike paths of Davis are crumbling under us is that our taxes don’t add up to enough money to cover our costs.
In the words of Planning Commission Chair Michelle Weiss, “We have promised ourselves a rich quality of life, but not stepped up with the necessary money to pay for that quality of life.”
BTW, the residents of The Cannery will pay over $21 million in tax payments to cover that City check of $8 million given to the Cannery developer. And the City will receive zero dollars of net revenue from those tax payments. 100% of the tax dollars will be used to pay the principal and interest of the $8 million borrowing.
When the City’s financial analyst BAE was asked about infrastructure maintenance costs, he said that “staff has told me those are in our current property taxes.” The crumbling deterioration of our City streets tell us all that staff was misinforming BAE about that.
Matt said: “Our City’s planning over the past 30 years has produced only homes that can not be afforded by teachers, and most of the Davis workforce, and most young families with elementary school children.”
First, our city’s production of houses over the last 30 is almost zero.
Second, there you go again with your scarcity argument. Its not either or, as I’ve pointed out several times, and yet you seem to willfully fail to comprehend the weakness of your argument, DJUSD is in the planning process for building workforce housing and I’m for that housing too. Additionally who says that there won’t be teachers living in Village Farms someday? Many teachers in Davis are married to people who are also professionals and together they will be able to afford a home there.
Ron, in your “many teachers” example, are they young new teachers or older long standing teachers? Are their kids grown and long since out of elementary school, or are they young and in elementary school?
Let’s drill down into the scarcity argument. How many units of workforce housing will DJUSD be building? Compare that number of units to the number of DJUSD teachers who commute to their jobs in Davis. Compare that number of units to the number of UCD employees who commute to their jobs on the Davis campus.
When the Village Farms developer includes a $1.3 million home on a large lot there are Zero Davis workforce families of modest financial means would get to live in Davis. If the Village Farms developer cut that lot in half and built two $500,000-$600,000 homes on the two resultant half-sized lots, then Two Davis workforce families of modest financial means would get to live in Davis.
Matt said “The schedule of certificates of occupancy for Village Farms shows very few certificates of occupancy in the next 10 years. DJUSD will have to close at least one school even if this proposal passes. Thinking otherwise is delusional.”
Building nothing guarantees one or more school closures. Anyway, once again you are making a scarcity argument because we can build even more housing to add to the housing stock and that housing will also produce little ADA’s for DJUSD. Maybe I’m delusional but I do check for lucidity regularly, something I recommend the septuagenarians and octogenarians who drone on incessantly in this town should do more often.
Stealing students from other school districts, plain and simple.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/why-american-governments-cant-get-things-done
Francis Fukuyama on Vetocracy can be applied to Measure J
Here’s where I differ from Matt (for what that’s worth):
“If the Village Farms developer cut that lot in half and built two $500,000-$600,000 homes on the two resultant half-sized lots, then Two Davis workforce families of modest financial means would get to live in Davis.”
No, they’re not. Instead, they’re going to buy an already-small house (on an already small-sized lot) in Spring Lake for that price, assuming they want to buy a new one. Note the phrase “cottages” (with no yard) in the name itself:
https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/california/sacramento/woodland/ruby-cottages
But I don’t know why they’d be moving to this area in the first place. No one (especially UCD) is hiring.
I would say, however (after visiting both the “Cottages” and “Harvest Glen”) that Harvest Glen is a little nicer (better fixtures, etc.).
Harvest Glen feels like an urban environment. And Davis is superior overall to Woodland, despite Davis being more of a “hassle” to move-around in, etc.
But families prioritize space, for obvious reasons (generally more than 2 people).
Ron, in concept you are correct, but only on a level playing field with a supply/demand curve in balance.
Regarding the level playing field, by most measures the quality of life in Davis is significantly better than Woodland’s. Every home buyer puts together a set of decision criteria when they embark on a home purchase process. When I personally last went through that process, we cast a net from Vacaville on the west to Sacramento on the east Woodland on the north and Dixon on the south. In the end after seeing 63 listings over a very busy weekend, with good options in all those compas points, the quality of life amenities in Davis that the other communities did not have won the day. But we didn’t have any children, so I’ve spent some time talking to young families with children to better understand their needs and desires. Many will like you describe chose physical space, but others see having their children’s ability to learn and play with neighborhood peers as more valuable than physical space.
Given that we have over 17,000 of our community’s workforce commuting into Davis or UCD even if one out of 10 of those workers chooses Davis, then all the units in Village Farms would be sold.
In addition, given that there are over 250,000 living UCD alumni, many of whom have warm personal associations with Davis and their time here as students, that warmth/affection for the community will trump the desire for space.
Bottom-line, home buyers are not a monolithic homogeneity. Your argument appears to think they are.
Not sure what 17,000 workers you’re referring to, unless it includes those working at UCD.
But there’s lots of workers commuting from Davis to Sacramento (or elsewhere), as well. For that matter, most families now have “two” workers in a household, and they usually don’t work at the same location.
Families (e.g., those with “2 kids”) aren’t going to buy a house that doesn’t have at least 3 bedrooms, a garage, etc. And they can get it for a couple hundred thousand dollars less in Woodland.
Davis offers bike paths, proximity to UCD and I-80, but it is also increasingly a hassle to move around in, doesn’t have a Costco, Home Depot, etc.
And increasingly it seems, Davis Joint Unified School District is also “Woodland’s” school district (but without having to pay DJUSD parcel taxes).
I didn’t say that all buyers were “monolithic”, but it’s pretty obvious what families choose. Obviously, they’re not going to buy a two bedroom house or condo if they have more than one kid.
However, the “reason” that some want more young families in Davis has never been made clear. In general, families are the “most demanding” cohort there is (in regard to schools, parks, libraries, etc.). Not to mention they generally have at least two cars (and drive them A LOT).
Also as far as school-age “peers” are concerned (since you mentioned it), you’ll find them in Woodland, as well. Much more so than in Davis.
One other amenity that Woodland has (that Davis doesn’t) is a large first-class sports/recreation/senior center – with a brand new pool as well.
It is surprising to see, if you’re not familiar with it.
Sometimes, I view Davis as an upper middle class “slum”, for those too blind to see anything around them. Crowded, overpriced, can’t even maintain its bike paths, etc. (I recently walked on one of the bike paths that goes through Mace Ranch park, and was shocked to see the patches which were apparently applied some time ago, and are sinking well-below the asphalt path at this point. What an embarrassment for a city that supposedly prides itself on such things.
In some ways, Woodland is more of a “can do” city than Davis is. (Partly because they don’t hear that much from constituents, unlike Davis – where everyone is a mayor in their own minds.)
Sometimes, I view Davis as an upper middle class “slum”, for those too blind to see anything around them. Crowded, overpriced, can’t even maintain its bike paths, etc.
Everyone has who has time to think about it … some people spent all their time just trying to survive each day one at a time … has a hierarchy of the things they believe are most important to their happiness. The lists are many and varied. Your list informs your comment above. My list is different. When, in 1998, we arrived in Davis we put together a list of seven criteria we used to sort through the 63 for sale houses that we saw in the weekend devoted to house hunting that we flew in from Nashville for. As we narrowed down the list from 63 to 5 and then to one, we found the five were one each in Land Park and Curtis Park, and three in Davis. We also found that our list of seven criteria had evolved into “light, light, light, light, light, light, and light”. Senior Centers and Bike Paths etc. never were a consideration.
The home we chose has always lighted up our lives, and we’ve never regretted that home choice.
Matt: My observation is way more simple (and factual) than that (and has little to do with the type of things you and I might seek).
Families (e.g., with 2 kids) need space – this isn’t really a “choice”. And they also need a 2-car garage (or at least space for 2 cars), minimum.
They’d generally prefer a yard as well, though that’s becoming less of a desire.
Now, if they weren’t able to get that at a price they can afford, they won’t even move to a given city in the first place. (And that’s actually what we’re referring to here – people moving TO Davis. Not sure why that’s a goal of the city in the first place, but that’s the reality.)
Developments like this INCREASE the overall size of the population of an area; they don’t just shuffle existing residents (including those in nearby cities) around. Not unless they start tearing down houses in other nearby communities, as a result of a new development.
This is also an underlying reason that the “lets build housing for the local workers” fails a basic logic test. Well that, plus the cost differential.
This is also a reason that there aren’t many families in San Francisco. Those who do live there move out to places where the cost is less, and the school districts are better (if they decide to start a family). (Unless they have a LOT of money, and can send their kids to private schools. There are some families like that, as well.)
Ron, I agree wholeheartedly that your observation is way more simple than that. In achieving that simplicity you are treating families as a monolithic homogeneity. They aren’t. You define a family as having 2 kids. Many families have only 1 kid … and in many cases that kid is still a babe in swaddling clothes.
“Need” a 2-car garage? In my neighborhood there are many homes that have a parked car on the street every night.
When you say, ”Developments like this INCREASE the overall size of the population of an area” you are thinking narrowly. Population in the day time or population at night? For Palo Alto the daytime population ins 110,000 people higher than the population at night. That movement of people in and out creates impacts. Much of the target demand for $500,000 homes are people who currently are being counted as part of the daytime population and counted as not part of the nighttime population. If we can achieve a status where they are counted in both daytime and nighttime, the impacts on the community will be a net decrease. Population will indeed rise but impacts will decrease.
For the $1.3 million homes that won’t be the case because Davis has an acute shortage of jobs that pay a high enough salary to cover the costs of living associated with an expensive home like that. So for expensive homes population and impacts will both go up.
Bottom-line, Life isn’t as simple as you make it out to be.
RO say, “I view Davis as an upper middle class “slum”, for those too blind to see anything around them. Crowded, overpriced, can’t even maintain its bike paths, etc. . . . What an embarrassment for a city that supposedly prides itself on such things.”
You are not wrong about that.
Didn’t the voters of Davis once upon a time vote against a parcel tax that would have maintained its roads and bike paths?
It’s not just the bike paths, though that’s bad enough.
The housing itself falls short (showing its age, small, nothing special for the price, etc.).
It’s also kind of noisy and increasingly hectic in Davis. Truth be told, it’s a relief to get the heck out of Dodge, as soon as I reach the current northern boundary.
Though I do miss things about Davis (e.g., the bike paths – even though they’re crumbling, the overpriced/crowded but “uspcale” Nugget store, the proximity to UCD and I-80 – the latter of which you can actually hear throughout much of the city.
The fact that my Davis neighbors were all smarter than I am (despite not recognizing the shortcomings of where the live). Living next door to engineers in housing that was worse than mine, etc.
Then there’s the kids and UCD students going 40 mph while doing wheelies on their electric motorcycles (seems like there’s more of them in Davis than elsewhere), even though Davis supposedly doesn’t have kids.
The fact that they’ve outlawed yards/water usage, etc.
The fact that it’s chock-full of social justice lunatics, who see racism based on one’s white skin color alone (that they themselves share). The same people who think it’s tolerant to attack the local anti-trans activist.
(Wait – I’m starting to drift into things I don’t like about Davis, again.)
Bah, humbug.