By Vanguard Staff
DAVIS, Calif. — A survey released Tuesday by the Village Farms project team reports majority support among likely Davis voters for the proposed development, which will appear on the June 2 ballot as Measure V .
According to the press release issued by the project proponents, the survey found that 61% of respondents would vote “Yes” on the measure after hearing detailed information about the project and arguments from both supporters and opponents, compared to 32% who would vote “No.”
The poll was conducted by David Binder Research and commissioned by the Village Farms campaign. The survey reached 300 randomly chosen likely Davis voters through a combination of telephone interviews and text messages and reported a margin of error of plus or minus 5.7 percentage points.
Initial responses showed 54% in favor, 31% opposed and 15% undecided . After respondents were presented with what the release described as balanced information about the project, support increased to 61%, opposition was measured at 32%, and undecided voters declined to 7% .
The campaign release states that the seven-point increase in support indicates that additional detail about the proposal “resonates positively with Davis residents.”
The survey also asked respondents which elements of the proposal made them more likely to support the measure. Thirty percent of voters said they were “much more likely” to vote yes upon learning that the project would dedicate 16 acres of land and $6 million to affordable housing in Davis, described in the release as exceeding city requirements and representing the largest donation for affordable housing made by a development in Davis history.
Twenty-nine percent said they were much more likely to support the project after learning it would conserve a 47-acre natural habitat area north of the Cannery and include an endowment for future funding of habitat preservation.
The release also cited that more than half of the site would be designated for open space, habitat, agriculture, greenbelts and parks, including a large central community park with sports playing fields . Twenty-eight percent of respondents said they were much more likely to vote yes after learning of those components.
An additional 28% said they were much more likely to support the measure after learning that key project commitments could not be changed without another vote of the people.
David Binder Research, based in San Francisco, was founded in 1994 and has conducted polling and focus group research for both of former President Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns, according to the release. The firm’s clients include political campaigns, government agencies, health care organizations and nonprofit groups nationwide.
The Village Farms campaign said it plans to continue sharing information with voters ahead of the June 2 election. Davis voters will decide the fate of Measure V at the ballot box.
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.
Can we find a list of how the respondents were presented with what the release described as balanced information about the project.? How the pros and cons were actually worded and presented to the voters that participated? I have been part of some polling interviews in the past where it felt more like a campaign call than a polling survey.
They didn’t release the actual poll, I’m asking for it today.
I was one of the poll respondents. I’m not an expert in poll design, but it seemed to me that the questions and presentations were designed to lead the respondent toward support for the project. Lots of rainbows and unicorns.
Thanks Jim, I’m not surprised.
One of those rainbows and unicorns is “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. That 701 students estimate is the number at the end of full buildout of Village Farms … 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) enrollment will never increase in any of the Village Farms years. It will continue to decline every one of those years. Even with the additions from Village Farms DJUSD will be losing an additional 200 students a year each year. (2) DJUSD will have to face up to the crisis of its enrollment losses long before any homes at Village Farms are occupied.
“Rainbows 🌈 and Unicorns 🦄 “ 🤠 When I worked in Elk Grove I’d often leave a Sunny Davis and arrive at my Teaching job to find clouds ☁️ or fog 🌫️. I would tell my colleagues. “Well It’s always Sunny in Davis and we have rainbows and unicorns every day.” I was always surprised that nobody ever threw sharp objects at me. 🤠🤠🤠
I remember when Davis was “nuclear-free”, with frog signs along the freeway.
But seriously, I often noticed that the summertime temperature seemed to drop slightly (compared to Sacramento, it seemed).
Woodland is a little hotter than Davis, as well.
I always did feel a little “superior” to my Sacramento co-workers at the time, in regard to where I lived. And they periodically made fun of Davis (which I found amusing).
What with the frog tunnel, etc.
Only one of my co-workers actually lived in Sacramento. The rest of them had a much more difficult and lengthy commute than I did.
This is also the reason that developments such as Village Farms and Shriner’s would appeal to Sacramento-based workers. It’s an exceedingly easy commute, already well-served by express busses to Sacramento.
“This is also the reason that developments such as Village Farms and Shriner’s would appeal to Sacramento-based workers.”
Don’t forget about those Bay Area transplants…
“Bay Area transplants”
I understand that would include me, you, Alan M., and at least half of the people already in Davis and the Sacramento region.
I’m starting to think that the ONLY people who should be accommodated are those who move from the Bay Area and bring a ton of cash with them. (In other words, just like now.)
Much as I think that UCD should ONLY admit non-resident students, who presumably pay full tuition (provided by the Chinese government, I assume).
Overall, I’d prefer to live amongst people who are smarter and wealthier than I am – not the other way around. (But please – no wisecracks about how easy it is to find those people – since I already know that.)
:-)
I sometimes do wonder how gullible voters are, even in Davis. Literally voting to make their own lives worse in every possible way, but especially regarding traffic. And yet, these same people (at least the eastern half) use the Costco Highway themselves, not to mention Covell (both directions), Pole Line, etc.
Apparently, they look out at the lovely field across the street from Nugget and say, “you know what would look better there? A housing development, of course.”
“And of course we need more housing, since the school district is sized “just right”. The same district that already needs to poach students from other districts, just to survive.
I’m confused by your comment, given your view of view of housing, haven’t Davis voters actually aligned with your views… repeatedly and with very few exceptions?
All I can tell you is that if I received a call like that (referencing the survey), we wouldn’t get past “who is funding this survey”?
Or if we did, we’d be moving on to other questions arising from me – not the other way around.
One question that doesn’t come up that often is, how much did Whitcombe pay for that land? I understand he got “quite the deal”, at the time. Do you think the survey takers would respond to that?
If they ran into someone like me, it would be one of those rare times that the salespeople ended the call prematurely, rather than the intended respondent.
Though truth be told, I’d probably try to hide my intention, at first.
The one I responded to was online, so no opportunity to ask questions or make comments.
Online surveys are difficult to adjust for volunteerism bias. It’s important to have comparable surveys compared to empirical outcomes to determine if the survey is accurate.
So David, being you like to question polls and surveys, especially ones that don’t coincide with your views, how do you feel about this survey that was commissioned by the Village Farms campaign?
I’d like to see it before I answer that
David, I think that is a fair answer. Keep us posted on what the Village Farms development team tells you. If they refuse to share the poll script with you, that will speak volumes about it.
I sent the request, we’ll see what response I get.
I wonder what the counter arguments were. If it was only the flood risk ones that Alan Pryor wrote about, that’s not a very extensive list and probably the weakest set against the project.
I wonder if they asked respondents to the poll about how they felt about increased traffic impacts, loss of farmland, more sprawl, unaffordability, etc.
All these things will come out in the coming “NO on V” campaign.
“Online surveys are difficult to adjust for volunteerism bias.”
I’m unsure what “volunteerism” means in this context. As far as I know the poll wasn’t available to anyone who wanted to respond. I received either an email or a text with what appeared to be a unique link, and that’s how I was able to respond.
Sounds like a push poll and its seems pretty clear that the proponents are running an effective campaign and know the points they want to raise.
I recently declined to participate in a poll on “local issues.”
What’s interesting is the seven point improvement among undecided voters as opposed to the 1 point improvement in the no vote from the undecided voters. It seems as though the yes and no votes are already decided with the only movement coming from undecided voters. As people like to say about Davis 30% are automatic no votes.
. . . and when the poll shows the opposite of what they want, they never release it.
But smart to do so (release a poll that shows what you want), as most people are uninformed and joiners and start with the first thing they hear (human, and sheep, nature). So the sheep see the poll as their first test of public opinion, and they go, ‘oh, us sheep are going that-a-way’, and then the NO side has to convince the sheep otherwise, which takes more effort.
I totally agree with this. I remember in the last Presidential election the Democrats tried to get it out early that Kamala had a big lead in order to try to influence voters. Their undoing was Kamala was a terrible candidate.
This is getting off topic – topic is Measure V in Davis
“Initial responses showed 54% in favor, 31% opposed and 15% undecided”
I consider this the relevant data point. IMO this measure will pass.
I received this statement in response to my inquiry:
The survey was conducted by David Binder Research, a well-established, legitimate polling and research organization founded in San Francisco in 1994. The firm 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. This was a standard survey following industry best practices, with a representative sample of 300 likely Davis voters and a margin of error of ±5.7%.
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. 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.
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.
We released the poll results to combat the clearly-biased “Nextdoor Poll” and potential myth that the public is against Measure V. We’re moving forward now with our focus on sharing accurate information about the project with Davis voters ahead of the June 2nd election.
Thank you,
The Yes on Measure V Davis Campaign Committee
Well Matt Williams did say:
“If they refuse to share the poll script with you, that will speak volumes about it.”
Smoke and Mirrors by the Whitcombe Group. Would someone who participated in the “poll” please post the opinions listed by proponents and opponents and what/how questions were asked. In the interest of full transparency, a demographic break down of respondents according to their City Council District and number of years as a Davis resident would also be appropriate. When a developer with deep pockets pays for the number crunching , we should all be suspicious of the tactic. Reminds me of the saying attributed to Mark Twain. “There are lies, damned lies and there’s statistics.”
This simply fails the smell test imo.
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
The contribution in no way guarantees that the affordable housing will actually get built, and even if it does get built, it will almost surely happen many years after the market rate housing is both built and occupied.
The contribution was the developer emulating Pontius Pilate and washing their hands of any responsibility for seeing the affordable units actually get built.
From the Yes on Measure V’s campaign response to being asked to release their polling questions from their developer funded poll which (conveniently) had favorable results:
“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. 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.”
This is priceless. This Village Farms developer funded poll comes up with favorable results…what a surprise. 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.
So, this developer funded and driven “poll” was clearly NOT objective, and as a result 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.
I’ll bet NONE of the questions including concerns about 1) the 200-acre flood plain and flooding potential, 2) toxics including carcinogenic PFAS’s leaking from the unlined adjacent Old Davis Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant including carcinogenic PFAS’s, enormous infrastructure costs , 4) unprotected vernal pools with no conservation easement, 5) massive traffic including more than 15,000 additional cars PER DAY near Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Road, and 6) 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. The vast majority of local workers and families with young kids cannot afford this, so Village Farms is not going to bring 700 kids, like the School District wants to believe.
So, Village Farms would not help the schools also because the houses would never be built in time for the School District’s short timeline due to the massive infrastructure issues of: a) moving ONE MILLION cubic yard of soil to try to fill the enormous 200-acre flood plain, b) building TWO grade-separated crossings, and 3) re-routing Channel A with all the destruction that would create including endangering the vernal pools and potentially contaminating the Channel A runoff to the waterways, habitat and wetlands to the east from communicating with the PFAS contaminated groundwater, where the chemical contaminants in high levels are leaking from the adjacent unlined Old Davis Landfill and Sewage Treatment Plant.
So, this announcement of this Village Farms developer funded poll claiming to yield favorable results to the developer’s seriously problematic project, yet refusing to disclose the polling questions, gives these poll results ZERO credibility. Given the developer’s refusal to disclose the polling questions, it is evident that the polling questions were geared to be leading to get responses to support the project. “Push polls” or “pseudo-polls” like this are so disingenuous and dishonest.
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 Covell Village Pizza-gate disgrace (and elections code violation) was widely covered in the media where free pizza coupons with Covell Village literature was being offered at polling stations, particularly targeting UCD students.
Also, it’s time for history to repeat itself with a resounding NO on Village Farms (i.e. Covell Village replay.)