The political fight over Measure V and the proposed Village Farms project has taken a familiar turn, with dueling polls replacing substantive debate as the centerpiece of campaign messaging.
On Wednesday, the Yes on Measure V campaign issued a statement defending its decision not to release the full survey instrument from a recent poll conducted on its behalf.
“The survey was conducted by David Binder Research, a well-established, legitimate polling and research organization founded in San Francisco in 1994,” the campaign wrote. The firm, it said, “specializes in both qualitative research (focus groups) and quantitative polling, and has worked with high-profile clients including Barack Obama’s and Kamala Harris’s campaigns.”
The campaign described the poll as “a standard survey following industry best practices, with a representative sample of 300 likely Davis voters and a margin of error of ±5.7%.”
But when asked to release the full survey questions, the campaign declined.
“Regarding the full survey questions: It was truly painful for us to read the negative opposition messaging questions that David Binder included in the survey because many of them were not true,” the campaign stated. “We are not interested in spreading the misinformation that we had to provide on the poll to mirror what people would be hearing from certain opponents. That’s precisely why we’re not releasing those questions publicly.”
The campaign added, “It’s our job now to set the record straight and educate people on the many facets of this project. The poll results reflected that the community feels very positive about many of the features and benefits in Village Farms Davis including our large contribution to affordable housing, open space and habitat.”
The Yes on Measure V committee said it released the results “to combat the clearly-biased ‘Nextdoor Poll’ and potential myth that the public is against Measure V,” and that it is “moving forward now with our focus on sharing accurate information about the project with Davis voters ahead of the June 2nd election.”
Opponents were quick to respond.
Eileen Samitz, a vocal critic of the project, sharply criticized both the poll and the decision not to disclose the questions.
“This is priceless,” Samitz wrote, referencing the campaign’s explanation. “This Village Farms developer funded poll comes up with favorable results…what a surprise.”
She continued, “However, when asked for their poll questions, the developer refuses to reveal the questions that the poll asked the relatively small number (300) of poll participants.”
Samitz argued the poll “was clearly NOT objective,” adding that the developer “got what he paid for — a favorable result for a poll which was completely geared to get a positive result for the developer’s seriously flawed Village Farms project.”
She questioned whether the survey addressed concerns including “the 100-acre flood plain and flooding potential,” “toxics including carcinogenic PFAS’s leaking from the unlined adjacent Old Davis Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant,” “massive traffic including more than 15,000 additional cars PER DAY near Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Road,” and “unaffordable housing where the cheapest market rate house would be $740.000 (BAE Village Farms study) which means a $6,000 PER MONTH house payment to cover the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, CFD and other fees.”
Samitz concluded that the refusal to disclose the survey questions “gives these poll results ZERO credibility,” and described such efforts as “‘push polls’ or ‘pseudo-polls’ like this” that “are so disingenuous and dishonest.”
She also invoked a previous controversy, writing, “So folks, we go again with history repeating itself with the Village Farms developer team and their campaign bag-of-tricks, like their ‘Pizza-gate’ stunt during this same developer’s previous Covell Village election day scandal.”
The escalating rhetoric underscores a deeper problem.
Yesterday, the Vanguard ran the press release describing the poll’s topline findings. The absence of the full questionnaire was, in this writer’s view, a mistake both from the perspective of the campaign and the community.
When polling questions are withheld, reasonable people will assume that the wording may have influenced the outcome. Even if that assumption is incorrect, failing to disclose the instrument invites suspicion.
Several individuals familiar with the poll have stated that the survey followed professional standards. But in a community with a quarter-century of ballot-box land use battles under Measure J, trust is fragile.
Last month, opponents of the project circulated a non-scientific online poll as evidence that the electorate opposes Village Farms. That exercise lacked methodological rigor and should not have been treated as dispositive.
Now, the pro-Village Farms campaign has released a professionally conducted poll without providing the underlying questions necessary for independent assessment. The result is not clarity but further confusion.
The back-and-forth distracts from the central questions voters must ultimately confront: Does Davis face a housing shortage? And if so, is Village Farms an appropriate response?
The broader context cannot be ignored. Davis, like much of California, is grappling with a housing crisis. Over 25 years of Measure J, only two projects have been approved by voters, and only one — the senior housing project west of Sutter-Davis — is currently under construction.
In the meantime, housing costs have continued to rise, inventory remains constrained, and the effects are increasingly visible. Affordability challenges affect local families and workers. Declining enrollment in the Davis Joint Unified School District has been linked by district officials to housing availability, raising the prospect of school closures and mobilizing neighborhood groups.
This election features dynamics that may serve as x-factors: the school district’s framing of enrollment decline, the threat of school closures, and the ability of both supporters and opponents to galvanize turnout.
Ultimately, this contest will not be decided by press releases or competing surveys.
It will be determined by whether voters conclude that the status quo is acceptable, that Village Farms is insufficient or flawed, or that the project represents a necessary step toward addressing Davis’ housing constraints.
With more than three months remaining before the June 2 election, the conversation is only beginning.
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.
“The Yes on Measure V committee said it released the results “to combat the clearly-biased ‘Nextdoor Poll’”
LOL, did the Nextdoor Poll hide its survey questions?
It simply asked if you were ‘for’ or ‘against’ the project with no leading questions or messaging.
Do you know how you will vote on the Village Farms Housing Proposal?
I am for the proposal
15%
I am Against it
69%
I am Undecided
16%
These are not “competing polls.” Online surveys have almost no statistical significance. They employ no data-quality controls, they typically don’t eliminate multiple votes, and they reflect significant bias via self-selection. They’re fun but not meaningful.
A professionally conducted opinion poll gave us clear results with the baseline: 54% in favor, 31% opposed and 15% undecided.
“A professionally conducted opinion poll gave us clear results with the baseline: 54% in favor, 31% opposed and 15% undecided.”
Don, do you know what questions were asked in order to get to the baseline numbers?
Does anyone know what questions were asked to get to their reported baseline numbers?
We presented the Nextdoor poll results because a previous poll on a similar election issue using the same methodology came very close to the final vote results. We wouldn’t have presented it otherwise. I understand the statistical problems but often there’s other evidence that comes into play. Empirical evidence corroborating results provides a degree of validity. We haven’t seen a similar calibration from the VF online poll which has its problems as well, including a rate of volunteerism bias. This is a general problem across polling now.
Given that is a commissioned survey, these are often biased. You can read about the spread of results across Dem vs GOP polls in any single election for evidence. It’s difficult to determine if the results might have been cherry picked or favorably adjusted in the statistical weights.
The nextdoor poll was slammed for being biased.. but the poll questions were entirely neutral. Yes the population on ND is likely a source of bias but calling davis voters and asking for opinions creates a bias in-and-of itself.
Its the same bias whereby Hillary soundly won in the polls but lost to Donald in 2016:
If you CALL a voter and ask them if they are going to vote, they will probably say yes… but on election day are they actually going to get off the couch and do it? The people who are motivated by “no” are much more likely to do so.. THEY have a dog in the fight. The rest of the city? Much likely less so – unless perhaps you are the parent of a Patwin student (?)
So I think that the represenative bias of ND isnt actually that much different from the turnout bias for special elections in general. It will be interesting to see how this one shakes out. Maybe the yes campaign will be effective, maybe not.
“If you CALL a voter and ask them if they are going to vote”
The first bias might consist of how the survey takers obtained the phone numbers (e.g., does that represent voters)?
The second bias might consist of those willing to answer the phone, vs. those who don’t.
The third bias might consist of those willing to participate in a survey, vs. those who don’t.
The fourth bias might consist of those inclined to lie, vs. those who aren’t inclined to do so.
The fifth bias might consist of . . .?
It could be for example, that those who are planning to vote “yes” or “no” are not represented accurately in each of those “biases” in regard to a survey.
(And that’s just “sample error”, for starters. Beyond that, you can also examine the questions. For example, if “I” was asked if I’d be more likely to support a proposal if “half” the land was preserved, I’d probably say “yes” – even though I’d still vote “no” overall. As such, the questions themselves are usually flawed.)
Another example: If I was asked if I was more likely to support a candidate that hadn’t been convicted as a child predator, I’d also say “yes” (even if I had no intention of voting for that candidate).
This is also the reason I have no interest in responding to customer surveys, in regard to products or services I’ve purchased (or how the “representative” treated me).
If you ACTUALLY want to know my satisfaction with how “your” company responded to my call, you’d ask about your phone tree and attempt to direct me to your website or artificial intelligence (fake agents), BEFORE I reached your human representative. The system that caused me to waste twenty or more minutes BEFORE I even reached your representative, when I already knew that I’d have to speak to a human in the first place.
And yes, I already knew that “many of the answers to your questions can be found on our website”. Honestly, do you think I would have even made the call unless I absolutely had to go through that punishment?
Don has already “called” the result, so I’m failing to see why a Measure J vote is even needed at this point. Might as well start digging the pit and dumping the contaminated dirt across the rest of the site to raise it above the flood zone. :-)
But I’d suggest a really heavy compactor, after that – if the buyers hope to avoid issues with settling.
I wrote “IMO this measure will pass.”
Do you know what “IMO” means?
I would say that the opponents have a higher hill to climb than the supporters. My impression is that the demographics of Davis voters are changing and this project is very likely to succeed. I would guess it will fail in the precincts nearest to the project, and pass relatively easily elsewhere in the city.
I was being a smart-arse, though there was apparently nothing “scientific” about either of those surveys. All kinds of reasons that they could be off.
But when you say this, what do you mean?
“My impression is that the demographics of Davis voters are changing”
Seems to me that Davis is becoming even MORE of a community that’s older, established, increasingly-retired, with fewer school age children – and therefore sees no reason to go along with those advocating for massive new developments outside of city limits.
Then there’s those like Richard/Tim, who support growth (but not this proposal).
I guess we’ll see.
What the proponents do have going for them is the big “housing shortage campaign” initiated by the YIMBYs and their political hacks.
Oh, and the school district people (some of their staff and “customers”), who are more than willing to support sprawl (and poach students from other districts) in regard to their self-serving interests.
That’s another factor which might help the proposal.
Of everyone, that’s my least-favorite group of “supporters”, for several reasons. Mostly because they only care about themselves – regardless of the damage they cause.
Pretty sure I’d like the developer himself, more than that particular group.
I feel it is necessary to correct this:
“Last month, opponents of the project circulated a non-scientific online poll as evidence that the electorate opposes Village Farms. That exercise lacked methodological rigor and should not have been treated as dispositive.”
DCPG is not “an opponent of the project”.
We are a think-tank that advocates for sustainable planning in a city where master planning is entirely absent.
Our criticism of the project is something that the project itself has EARNED. It is not our fault that they have proposed exactly the kind of sprawling suburbia that measure J was precisely created to defeat.
We have advocated for a better project, we have engaged in every community outreach opportunity possible, we WANT good ( not perfect but good) housing here in town.
Our intent was never to “oppose” the project, but to advocate FOR sustainable development. I mean… Im the guy who has publicly written articles in these pages that I think Davis should be 120,000 people.
DCPG is not (and will not) be engaging in advocacy against this measure. We have advocated to improve the project during the planning stages, the developer has not listened. At this point if village farms it will fail at the polls is on THEM. We have done what we can.
We will NOT be endorsing the NO campaign, but WILL be challenging the no campaign and voters who are inclined to vote no to answer this question: If you do not support Village Farms.. what kind of development CAN you support?
The answer to THAT question I think, is what need to drive the next steps for this community, because we cannot just say NO in perpetuity. If we can engage voters to consider THAT question, whether VF passes or not, it will help any attempts at measure J reform, or the general plan, or whatever next path we take to unlocking the kind of sustainable growth that our city desperately needs.
Tim,
The below Channel A “reduced footprint” alternative for the Village Farms site has been advocated for repeatedly by residents since the beginning of the Draft EIR. This would distance the housing from the 200-acre flood plain and from the toxics leaking from the unlined Old Davis Landfill including the carcinogenic PFAS’s. This alternative should have been included in the Draft EIR, but instead was ignored.
So the question is Eileen: If we could find a way to have a path to approving a “lower half” option, would you be willing to commit to support it?
These are the kind of conversations we need to have.
DCPG’s advocacy comes to a similar land-use conclusion for entirely different reasons:
– The multiple reasons why single family housing is bad for our city.
– The multiple reasons why we need to be building not for older richer people but for younger families just starting out as well as our currently displaced workforce.
– The need to plan medium-density housing in conjunction with transit ( which only works at the lower end of this project)
So if we end up agreeing that the best plan for this site really only involves the lower half, would you be willing to commit to supporting such a plan?
I realize this question wasn’t directed to me (and I can’t vote in Davis now, anyway). But if some plan was devised to permanently save the “upper” half of the site, as well as the Shriner’s and DISC sites, I probably wouldn’t be involved in a campaign against it.
In other words, make the lower half of Village Farms the “last” (final) subdivision allowed on farmland outside of Davis.
And as far as I’m concerned, you can put a skyscraper on that half if you’re so inclined.
But it would also need a grade-separated crossing fully paid for by the developer.
What many of want to see is this below the Channel alternative analyzed to understand what the impacts would be. But development of the land only below the channel looks promising. However, what is important here is that the current Village Farms proposal is disastrous and unacceptable for many reasons including the toxics leaking from the adjacent unlined Old Davis Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant and flooding potential due to the 200-acre flood plain predominantly north of the channel and the disruption of trying to re-route the channel, and the subsequent liability to the City. Other issues include the enormous infrastructure costs (which will add to the cost of the housing as well) and of course the unaffordable housing which will not help the schools since families with young kids cannot afford even the cheapest market rate house at $740,000 which mean a $6,000+ per month house payment for the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, CFD and other fees.