DAVIS, Calif. — In a recent column, Roberta Millstein raises concerns about the reliability of affordable housing commitments tied to the proposed Village Farms development, arguing that many of the project’s promises are “extremely misleading” and ultimately unenforceable.
Her central argument is that because only Baseline Features are guaranteed under Davis’ Measure J/R/D framework, and because key affordable housing provisions sit outside those features, voters could approve Measure V and still see little or no affordable housing materialize.
That argument elevates a largely theoretical risk while ignoring how housing development has actually functioned in Davis, and in doing so sidesteps the far more consequential reality: the city’s decades-long failure to build enough housing of any kind.
Over the past 25 years, Davis has added just 805 housing units. That record falls far short of demand in a region where population and housing pressures have continued to grow.
By focusing on guarantees of affordable housing, she overlooks a more basic reality: that if the project isn’t built, there will be no additional affordable housing at all.
Most people in Davis agree that the city needs more housing.
The disagreement is over how that housing should be delivered, and under what conditions. Millstein’s argument focuses on the risks embedded in approving a project that does not lock in every promised benefit.
But what her analysis underweights—if not ignores—is the cost of continued inaction.
Every project that is not built guarantees one outcome: zero new affordable housing.
If Village Farms does not move forward, there will be no deed-restricted units attached to that project, no inclusionary housing tied to its approvals, and no incremental increase in supply that might ease pressure on the broader market.
In a city with a decades-long pattern of underproduction, the likelihood that an alternative project of similar scale will emerge in the near term is, at best, uncertain. The twenty five year track record bears this out.
Millstein is correct to draw a distinction between capital “A” Affordable Housing—units that are deed-restricted and tied to specific income thresholds—and what is often referred to as “affordable-by-design” or “missing middle” housing.
She is also correct that the Development Agreement governing Village Farms allows for modifications, and that City Council decisions—both present and future—can alter the trajectory of a project.
But the implicit premise of her argument is that the risks of under-delivery are so significant that they outweigh the benefits of approving the project at all.
That premise deserves closer scrutiny.
The housing market isn’t driven by whether projects are perfect or flawed but rather driven by supply, demand and scarcity.
In a constrained market like Davis, scarcity has been the dominant condition for decades and that has grave consequences: rising home prices, limited rental availability, and increasing barriers to entry for younger residents, working families, and even long-time community members seeking to remain in place.
In her piece, Millstein points to past developments, including the Cannery and Willowbank Park, as evidence that affordable housing commitments can be weakened or eliminated over time.
Millstein is focused on the risk that developers may weaken commitments later and that the City Council will probably allow it—I grant that point but think it misses the overall picture.
The larger lesson of the last 25 years is that rejecting projects in search of something better has left Davis with too little housing overall—in fact, it has created the local housing crisis.
The real-world consequence of that approach is not stronger affordability—it is scarcity, higher costs and fewer affordable homes.
The criticism of the Cannery, a critique I share, overlooks a key fact: it is the only major development approved in Davis in the last 25 years, and it moved forward only because it did not require a Measure J vote.
The result has been a city with fewer homes, higher prices, and a tighter market that worsens inequality, not one with stronger guarantees or abundant affordable housing.
The result has been just 805 single-family homes over the past 17 years; if that’s the legacy we want to continue, then we should proceed exactly as we have for the past quarter century.
In that context, the question isn’t whether Village Farms is perfect, but whether rejecting it moves the city any closer to its housing goals.
There is also a broader policy framework that Millstein’s analysis does not fully engage: California’s increasingly assertive housing mandates.
The state now requires cities to plan for and accommodate substantial housing growth through the RHNA process.
Failure to meet state housing requirements carries real consequences, including the potential loss of Measure J and, with it, the city’s control over local land-use decisions.
People may question it, but the risk of losing Measure J is real—Davis is not insulated from these pressures, and the idea that the city can maintain a low-growth posture indefinitely is becoming legally and politically untenable.
Millstein also challenges claims about “affordable-by-design” housing, noting that the 70% figure for smaller, attached homes is not in the Baseline Features but in the Development Agreement, where it can be changed.
That is a fair point, but it overlooks how housing affordability actually works in practice.
Market-rate housing, even without deed restrictions, plays a key role in the housing ecosystem, as research shows that adding supply—especially at the higher end—reduces pressure on existing units.
As higher-income households move into new construction, they free up older homes for middle-income residents—a process known as filtering that, over time, improves affordability across the market.
This dynamic does not replace the need for subsidized housing, but it does mean that blocking market-rate development can make affordability worse, not better.
Millstein questions whether Village Farms will deliver the full 360 affordable units referenced in campaign materials, noting that the Baseline Features specify “up to” that number and that only a portion of those units are tied to specific construction triggers.
That skepticism is understandable, but it must be weighed against the alternative of continuing current trends in which little to no new affordable housing is built at all.
The choice facing Davis voters is not between certainty and uncertainty, but between a project with both guaranteed and negotiable elements and a status quo that has consistently failed to deliver enough housing of any kind.
Millstein concludes that “a changeable promise is no promise at all.”
That is a powerful line, but only partially true. In housing policy, changeable promises can still produce real outcomes—units built and pressure eased—while rejecting projects guarantees continued scarcity.
Davis has spent the better part of a generation preserving farmland and open space, often with broad community support.
Those efforts have yielded tangible results, protecting thousands of acres and shaping the city’s physical footprint.
But preservation, by itself, does not address the needs of a growing population.
The challenge now is to balance those values with the need for housing by accepting imperfect projects, enforcing agreements where possible, and recognizing that incremental progress is better than continued stagnation.
In a city that has produced just 805 single-family homes in 17 years, no single project will solve the housing crisis—and we shouldn’t try to.
Village Farms is not a panacea, but it is an opportunity that must be evaluated in the context of Davis’ broader housing trajectory.
If the past 25 years are any indication, the greatest risk facing Davis is not that a project will fall short of its promises, but that the city will continue to produce far too little housing for far too long.
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 criticism of the Cannery, a critique I share, overlooks a key fact: it is the only major development approved in Davis in the last 25 years, and it moved forward only because it did not require a Measure J vote.”
Key fact: voters approved Bretton Woods, a major development about the same size as the Cannery, less than 10 years ago.
“That argument elevates a largely theoretical risk while ignoring how housing development has actually functioned in Davis”
“People may question it, but the risk of losing Measure J is real”
You criticize the author for citing a theoretical risk by citing a theoretical risk. Hypocrisy much?
You have no idea what the “demand” for housing is in the first place (and won’t even discuss it or how that’s defined), nor do you have any idea how much housing prices were supposedly “lowered” when Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, The Cannery, and Spring Lake were built.
And yet, your entire argument is that building more housing will lower existing housing prices.
Put forth some numbers regarding how much housing prices will be lowered if Village Farms is approved, for example. Again, it’s your claim that it will (and that developers will suddenly build and release a whole bunch of housing all at once to accomplish that).
You and the other growth advocates don’t even have a plan (or engage in any discussion) regarding how large Davis “should” be. (Other than Tim Keller, who thinks that Davis “should” consist of 120,000 residents as I recall.)
“You have no idea what the “demand” for housing is in the first place ”
How would we determine the “demand” for Davis and second, is that the relevant measure?
I’m the one asking YOU to define/determine “demand”, since you cited that word throughout your article as the reason to pursue growth. I’m also asking you to put forth some numbers in regard to how much housing prices were “lowered” as a result of previous developments, since this is apparently “how” you’re measuring demand.
For that matter, I’d also like to see you put forth some numbers regarding how much housing “should” cost (by type of housing). For example, is $800K “too much” for a new single family house? (That’s about the minimum price, per the two developments currently under construction in Davis.) $825K if you want a “detached”, new single family house.
Also wondering why there’s complete avoidance of discussion regarding pre-existing housing that’s for sale. Never actually examined in any of your articles, even though it’s usually a much better deal.
I maintain that’s not the relevant question
David, you cite “demand” in your article as the reason to pursue expansion.
Do you need me to go back and quote your own article? If so, here ya go:
“Over the past 25 years, Davis has added just 805 housing units. That record falls far short of demand in a region where population and housing pressures have continued to grow.”
So to get this back on track, how about if you define “demand” as well as the other questions I asked?
You’ve got plenty of examples (e.g., Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, The Cannery, Spring Lake). How much did those developments lower housing prices?
How large should Davis be, and what is your “target” price for housing (by type)?
But you morphed my comment on regional demand into a comment on Davis demand.
Bottom line, the city of Davis is not SACOG and it’s not RHNA, those entities came up with a number that we need to build. Your continued position is simply ignore the state authority.
I don’t believe that fake RHNA targets (which are failing statewide) is your motivation. But even if it was, the proposals that have been recently built (and are being proposed) don’t address those targets, as Matt notes below.
So you’re actually claiming that RHNA targets are your “motivation”?
Your own council ally notes that the limited “Affordable” component in Village Farms has no viable funding.
Also, do you really think that Davis voters are going to approve a development due to some vague, implied threat (that probably most of them don’t even understand in the first place)? The threat that you seem to prefer talking about, rather than trying to define what YOU mean by “demand”?
Wouldn’t you and the other development activists “do better” if you actually came up with some numbers, regarding how much housing prices would supposedly be “reduced” by something like Village Farms? Isn’t that your actual goal?
You say you don’t believe it, but the state is enforcing them and litigating. So I don’t know what that means?
My central argument on housing for Davis is build to the RHNA line.
The state is NOT “enforcing” RHNA targets, since they’re not achievable (see link below). They are going after some cities which have basically thumbed their noses at even coming up with a fake plan.
Every city along the coast is addressing those targets WITHOUT expanding outward onto farmland. And the state is approving those plans, with the knowledge that they’re fake. Why would the state view Davis as any different?
Or are you now stating that the state is encouraging sprawl for select communities (without any evidence whatsoever)? You’re claiming that the state “looks at” cities with surrounding farmland “differently” than cities along the coast? Where’s the document which states that? Is the state now maintaining an inventory of such land outside of city boundaries for each city in the state? (I already know the answers to these questions that you’d prefer to avoid.)
Your our motivation is demonstrated by what you’d “prefer” to talk about, vs. what you’d prefer to avoid talking about. A pattern (not just related to growth issues).
Based on your articles, RHNA targets are not your motivation, and the proposals don’t even address those fake targets.
Yeap, it’s still not “looking too good” (not even seeing much change) regarding statewide compliance with the state’s targets. Apparently, the YIMBYs are going to have their hands full with lawsuits. (They’d do better if they dropped the lawsuits and picked up a hammer, themselves.)
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
David Greenwald said .., “My central argument on housing for Davis is build to the RHNA line.”
If that is your central argument then the 1,800 units at Village Farms would be;
Very Low-Income: 503 units
Low-Income: 304 units
Moderate-Income: 293 units
Above Moderate-Income: 698 umits
How close is the VF proposal to those numbers?
How do you plan to get to 920 without the 360 from VF?
Are you being purposely obtuse in that question? Just read the City’s approved Housing Element. Getting there is all laid out in black and white. If it weren’t, then the State Housing Department wouldn’t have certified the Housing Element.
You also missed the point. If you are going to build to the RHNA mandate as you propose, the 360 needs to be 503 plus 304 plus 293. Those are the RHNA proportions … 1,100 in total, not 360.
Ron O
We have at least three quantitative measure for the demand for housing in Davis. We know that housing in Davis holds a 50% premium over neighboring communities. Working with the demand elasticity for housing (which I don’t have readily, but it can be derived) we can calculate the amount of housing that would be added to get prices to equilibrate across the region. That’s one measure of the demand for additional housing.
We have 1,000 interdistrict transfer students coming to Davis from other towns. There were almost none of these students two decades ago. These students represent a minimum of 1,000 households who would prefer to live in Davis if housing was sufficiently affordable.
The UCD ITS Travel Survey shows that 1,500 job positions that use to be filled by Davis residents are now filled by commuters. Making a reasonable assumption that this situation extends proportionately to the rest of the Davis workforce, there’s 4,500 workers who use to live in Davis who are now priced out of this market but would prefer to live here.
Lots of words, Richard – but I’m still not seeing any numbers regarding housing prices were “reduced” when Mace Ranch, Wildhorse, The Cannery, and Spring Lake were built.
The “1,000 households” you’re referring to don’t necessarily prefer to live in Davis. You seem to forget that I lived there myself (and could easily do so again, at this point). You yourself have pointed this out as a reason I shouldn’t be commenting.
In fact, I’m the exact type of person you are advocating for, in regard to housing in Davis. Ironic, isn’t it? Also, you have no idea if there’s anyone else in my household, or where they work. And the reason I don’t share that with you is because it’s both irrelevant, and could give you and others a reason to continue irrelevant personal attacks.
And why would my neighbors move to Davis when they have to pay a significant premium to do so, and when they can send their kids to Davis schools without even paying the DJUSD parcel tax?
Of the two of us, who do you think knows the type of people that you claim would “abandon” their houses to move to Davis? And for that matter, who would live in the “abandoned” houses, then?
Families prefer the type of housing that you’re fighting against, in Village Farms. Now, I don’t blame you for that, but it’s a fact. (They’re just not the type of low-income “local” workers that you’d prefer.)
Of course, most households consist of more than one worker, working at more than one location anyway.
Richard, regarding your first point, I don’t think the 50% premium is as simple as you make it for several reasons.
The first is that housing prices are affected by the amenities that the houses you are comparing have, starting with square feet of living space and size of lot. Comparing price per square foot is probably a much better comparative measure.
The second is that an even better measure to compare is Return on Investment rather than price. Every home owner in Davis paid the premium percentage when they bought their home.
Third, is demand quantitative or qualitative? If the former, then each homeowner was one unit of demand when they bought and when they sell the new buyer is only one unit of demand. If the latter, how can you compare the qualitative demand of one city to another? That is like comparing a Monet to a Rembrandt. Even more interesting is comparing demand qualitatively within a single city. For example, how do you compare the demand associated with 4220 Mahogany Lane in Davis, which sold in 2025 for $383,576 ($334.71 per square foot) with the demand associated with 34718 Corcoran Hill Lane, which sold in 2025 for $2,475,000 ($735.51 per square foot). Quantitatively, they are each one unit of demand. Premium-wise from a price difference the premium is 545%. but on a price per square foot the premium is only 120%. Qualitatively, I really don’t know how to compare them.
Bottom-line, it really isn’t as simple as your answer to Ron would make it seem to be.
True, Matt. Also, prices aren’t the same WITHIN any given city – irrespective of other factors.
I’d view Mace Ranch, for example, as solidly “middle class”. It is not a “wealthy” neighborhood. Same thing (but slightly “worse”) in the Stanley Davis homes between Mace Ranch and Pole Line Road.
I myself am more of a “suburbanite” than an “urbanite”. I grew up in a very dense, intense city (S.F.) and had enough of that even when I was young. Even though my family lived in a relatively nice neighborhood at the time.
When I used to periodically park my vehicle in Lake Alhambra (when it was raining and/or I was late for the bus to Sacramento), one of the residents there ultimately asked me to park my vehicle somewhere else (left a note on my vehicle). I did oblige that request, though I knew I didn’t have to. (They claimed they were trying to sell their house, but I believe that was a “fib”.) In any case, I’m pretty sure that the request was related to not wanting “riff-raff” (and their already-old vehicles) parked in front of their house. (I still have that vehicle – purchased new almost 32 years ago – the only “new” vehicle I’ve ever purchased other than the 2-wheeled kind.)
I should probably park that same vehicle there again now, just to see if it would garner the same reaction.
One of the female Sacramento news anchors used to live in Lake Alhambra. Maybe she still does, don’t know.
David Greenwald said … ”If Village Farms does not move forward, there will be no deed-restricted units attached to that project, no inclusionary housing tied to its approvals, and no incremental increase in supply that might ease pressure on the broader market.”
Bretton Woods moved forward 8 years ago when it was approved by the voters. In those 8 years what progress has been made in the Affordable deed-restricted portion of the project? David Thompson answered that question recently when he wrote, “After four years of gaining the support of the Davis public that they would be building 150 units of affordable senior housing DSHC vanished from public view. No apologies to the Davis public: who supported the West Davis project, who voted for it, who wrote letters in support and who testified at public meetings. No DSHC apology to possibly 100 or so Davis residents who put their names on the Bretton Woods Interest List for affordable senior housing and no effort to contact them. There are Davis seniors out there who still think they have an opportunity to move into the DSHC housing.”
Is there any reason to believe the deed-restricted Affordable housing at Village Farms will suffer any different fate? If there is no light at that end of the Bretton Woods Affordable units tunnel, what reason is there to believe there will be light at the end of the similar Village Farms tunnel?
So we are down to the “no inclusionary housing” argument. If we look at the inclusionary housing in the most recent RHNA cycle, 100% of them have been in the Above Moderate Income category. None have been in any of the affordable income categories
Finally, regarding “filtering” just look at the detached Single Family Residences (SFRs) at the Cannery to see how much filtering actually happened. The overwhelming/vast majority of those homes were purchased by people whose current home was outside the Davis City Limits … more often than not not even in the Davis Region. So the filtering benefit of the existing house that was freed up by the Cannery purchase went to a Bay Area (for example) community other than Davis.
The real estate sales numbers of houses for 2025 show that 123 out of the 405 total sales were over $1 million sale price and another 46 had a selling price between $900,00 and $1 million. We do not have a shortage (much less a crisis) of these types of homes, yet you want to build more of them so they can be bought by people not currently living in Davis. Where is the social equity in that?
The choice facing Davis isn’t between a perfect project and a flawed one but rather between building something—with both firm commitments and elements that may evolve—and continuing a status quo that has produced almost nothing.
Over the past 25 years, the problem hasn’t been that Davis approved too many imperfect developments but that it approved too few developments of any kind. The fact that you can focus on two specific projects bears that out.
My point again is that while any single project may fall short of its promises, rejecting projects altogether guarantees a far more predictable result: ongoing scarcity, rising costs, and no new affordable housing at all. And it also heightens the importance of every project which as you can see from this discussion simply reinforces the current status quo.
David, what is the underlying reason for a City to grow its housing. The answer is simple … growth of that city’s jobs base. We have seen close to zero jobs growth in the City Limits of Davis, as well as close to zero jobs growth in the combination of UCD’s Davis campus and the city.
If we are not adding jobs, why are we adding housing?
“David, what is the underlying reason for a City to grow its housing. The answer is simple … growth of that city’s jobs base.”
The answer is simple: demand for housing.
Cities don’t “grow” their housing stock. Developers do. In response to housing demand.
“If we are not adding jobs, why are we adding housing?”
The newly armed left that has suddenly fallen in love with the 2nd amendment will position themselves outside the new homes and follow people to work, and if they get on I-80 or 113 they will have their tires blown out. You must work in Davis comrade.
MW gave DG numbers and facts, and DG waved his arms like a flailing scarecrow in a windstorm.
Alan’s point about David’s response to those numbers and facts applies to the whole premise of the article in which David concedes ALL of Roberta’s points. And then goes on to say whether her points are correct or not doesn’t matter, because he thinks any project is better than a project with no affordable housing.
The flaw in that “roll over and capitulate” logic is that voters don’t like to be deceived. Voters DO care about affordable housing and DO want to know that there is a very real likelihood that they might not get any and DO want to know that they might get a project that is all high-end housing.
Those realities, which he doesn’t dispute, are all buried in the copious verbiage of the article. An honest title for the article would have been: “Yes, we might get little or no affordable housing, yes the developer’s promises are misleading, but I think we should build the project anyway.”
To me this is summed up as the perfect is the enemy of the good. While I have seen plenty of opposition to housing projects, student and single family, over the past 25 years, I have seen no alternatives presented by the perennial naysayers. Perhaps commercial housing development is not the mechanism that will bring us “affordable” housing. We then need to take up the mantle championing subsidized or public housing. But in lieu of that, it seems that many of those expressing such concern for buyers and renters priced out of the Davis market are happy to maintain the status quo, while bemoaning the lack of perfect alternatives.
This Village Farms project is the antithesis of “perfect.” But I guess you could say it is the “perfect storm” of a disastrous project proposal with its toxics issues including carcinogenic PFAS’s leaking from the adjacent unlined Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant to Village Farms, flooding potential due to the massive 200-avcre floodplain, infrastructure costs, massive traffic, habitat destruction, unaffordable housing, and an affordable housing “plan” which is not really a plan.
Regarding an alternative, an alternative was formally presented to the City Council early on in the EIR process when the EIR alternatives were being determined. This is for a “reduced footprint” alternative which would develop only below Channel A. This would distance the housing away from the toxics leaking from the adjacent unlined Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage Treatment Plant and also away from the vast majority of the floodplain. The vernal pools would be protected with a conservation easement and funding to maintain it, and the number of units would be reduced to 900 -1,000 units. This is similar to a “environmentally superior“ alternative included in the previous Covell Village EIR, However, the City Council ignored this alternative to be included in the EIR.
This current Village Farms needs to be rejected to instead have this reduced footprint alternative proposed. This reduced footprint alternative would avoid the toxics and flooding risks, reduce other impacts, and avoid the City liability that the current Village Farms proposal would bring.
Mike, I encourage you to seek out Tim Keller or Richard McCann or Archie Archimore or Anthony Palmere or David Thompson. They have been presenting an alternative for well over two years, oriented around the creation of transportation corridors in Davis that will support UCD and downtown Davis workers being able to take public transit to their work activities. I am sure they would be glad to have you attend one of their biweekly Tuesday 4:00 to 5:30 meetings to learn more. Tim has posted several articles here in the Vanguard on their ideas.
In addition I personally have suggested that Affordable housing using government subsidies and government oversight/control of the perpetuation of the affordable subsidy is a fool’s errand. I have argued over and over again to let/empower the market to do what it does well … set a fair price based on value received. The only way to do that is to approve and build small owner-occupied houses on small lot. As Planning Commission Chair Rob Hoffman once wisely said, “Affordability by design is a myth. Affordability by size is a reality.”
This article, as many written by David comes from a position of “build anything” no matter what the impacts, damage to the environment, no matter what the costs are to the community and no matter what the potential health risks, no matter what destruction to the habitat, and no matter if a token amount of or no affordable housing is built.
For a blog that announces “housing crisis” and the need for affordable housing on a daily basis, this article is hypocritical to say the least. Nice try, but you can’t excuse or diminish the fact that this project does not really guarantee any affordable housing because of the “may” loophole that the City put in the documents. That loophole leaves the door wide open for NO affordable housing, so not even the supposed 100 apartments in the last phase to materialize.
On top of that City Council member Vaila raised the concern, repeatedly, that the developer could walk away from building the 100 affordable apartments in the projects Phase 3 that he “may” provide out of 1,800-unit mega-project. By then, the developer has built the vast majority of the projects expensive market rate houses and made a fortune. And the longshot to get this minor number of affordable apartments built would not even occur until the last phase of the project, Phase 3, 10+ years down the road.
This same developer has not delivered on his Nishi project housing nor its grade-separated crossing. What makes us think he is going to deliver this massive housing project which needs TWO grade-separated crossings? That on top of that, is the plethora of problems Village Farms has including toxics, flooding risks, massive infrastructure costs, habitat destruction, traffic and unaffordable housing with no real guarantee for any affordable housing to be built. This developer did not even dedicate the entire required 18.6 acres of land for affordable housing, out of 498-acre project. Affordable housing is clearly not high on this developer’s priority list.
This Village Farms proposal is a mess. It’s too big, would bring too many impacts and costs, and it would bring unaffordable housing, with no serious affordable housing plan.
“By focusing on guarantees of affordable housing, she overlooks a more basic reality: that if the project isn’t built, there will be no additional affordable housing at all.”
Not very convincing. Kind of a the “sucks” is the enemy of the “sucks more” argument.
I think it is an important point that Nishi never got built and this is the same developer. I believe Nishi would have counted as affordable housing. Wasn’t it 700 apartment units? Someone who should know (can’t say who) told me Nishi will never get built because the project is too expensive to build. This person said it will likely go back to another measure J vote to reverse the earlier vote and likely will end up an office/tech park. This developer seems to be “allergic” to building affordable housing because it doesn’t make them money or enough money. The history of Nishi squares with the deflection in the DA and BPF of their responsibility to build the affordable housing in Village Farms.
“But what her analysis underweights—if not ignores—is the cost of continued inaction.”
The premise of this argument if fatally flawed and false–it follows the propaganda that the choice is between this project or no project, which is simply wrong. At least one group of opposition if offering an alternative that has already been created and considered as the Environmentally Preferred Alternative in the Draft EIR–Alternative 4. That Alternative can be scaled down to 1,800 homes, which would reduced VMT by 41%, and would deliver substantially more market-rate affordable housing. Voting No and telling the developer to go back and resubmit this alternative can be done very quickly. We can even align the revised proposal with the upcoming General Plan Update instead of rushing off to make a hasty decision that will cause serious problems here for decades. I believe that even Eileen Samitz would agree that this option is much better.
The solution proposed here is like seeing someone who is undernourished and proposing the solution is putting them on a permanent diet of Coke and popcorn because that’s the fastest way to get them calories. Of course, that’s a foolish answer. We are not in such a crisis that we can’t slow down sufficiently to come up with proper prescription–especially when we have that solution right in front of us.
Building yet more housing for commuters and retirees will not solve our housing problem. Measure V is the wrong answer to the right question.
If your little group manages to come up with something that permanently preserves all land north of the Cannery (as well as all of the Shriner’s and DISC sites), I, at least, probably won’t be walking around The Cannery anymore drumming up opposition (which is pretty easy to come by).
As far as I’m concerned, you guys can build a replica of Trump Tower on 1/2 acre of land, and call it a day. Of course, the bottom couple of floors would have to be permanently managed as “Affordable” housing in your scenario – due to your fantasy of creating housing in Davis that’s cheaper than Woodland, for example).
Also, there are no “local workers”. You’re referring to UCD workers, and they aren’t increasing the number of their employees. And their employees already have housing – in Woodland (at least the newer, non-tenured staff). And their spouses work in Sacramento.
“The premise of this argument if fatally flawed and false–it follows the propaganda that the choice is between this project or no project, which is simply wrong.”
To the contrary.
You have provided no evidence that any landowner or housing developer is interested in your proposal. The developers have heard your pitch and rejected it.
The choice is, in fact, very likely between the current Village Farms proposal, or no development on that site or any other peripheral site anytime in the next few years.
What I believe is ‘false’ is the notion that blocking this project will lead to a better project on that site any time soon.
The only developers willing to work here are those who have done so before. None of them are interested in what you’re proposing. Outside developers won’t work in Davis because of the well-earned reputation as a difficult community in which to do business.
in the next few years.
There’s your critical “qualifier”.
Even I suspect that “something” will eventually be built on a substantial portion of the Village Farm site.
And in the meantime, no one is going to go homeless waiting for some developer to build something there. (If anyone is actually waiting for that, something tells me that they won’t qualify to buy a house – anywhere.)
Certainly, no one commenting on the Vanguard is waiting for a developer to build them a house on that site.
“At least one group of opposition if offering an alternative”
But you haven’t put up any money, have you? No skin in the game as it were, just playing with other peoples assets. When you come forward with an actual proposal that you are willing to build, I’m sure we will all be willing to consider it. Until then…