At the beginning of the 21st century, after a period of strong growth, concerned citizens of Davis passed two major reforms to preserve farmland. The first was the Measure J ordinance that requires a popular vote to rezone agricultural land to other uses. This is the reason Measure V, which I support, is on the June ballot. The second reform was a parcel tax dedicated to the preservation of open space around Davis.
Together, these two reforms have been incredibly successful in preserving farmland in the area directly surrounding the city of Davis. In the last 25 years, and with little acrimony or fanfare, thousands of acres of land have been purchased by the city or otherwise preserved under conservation easements. The City of Davis Open Space Commission deserves the thanks of everyone in Davis who cares about land preservation.
Most people don’t realize it, because much of the land that has been preserved is in farm production and not open to the public, but almost 6000 acres, more than nine square miles of land near Davis, has been preserved to date. In fact, and I was shocked when I learned this, the amount of land preserved exceeds the footprint of the city itself. See: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/open-space-program
When these two reforms were enacted, the hope was that half the land surrounding Davis could be preserved. We have more than accomplished that goal.
It is for this reason that I will be voting yes on Measure V in June. Davis has done a wonderful job of preserving farmland but farmland preservation can’t be the only priority of this community. We have other needs and housing is a big one.
Under Measure V, Davis will get 16 acres with the developed infrastructure to build Affordable homes. It will also get six million dollars as seed money towards the construction of those homes. There are lots of people who would benefit if that housing gets built. Additionally the construction of market rate housing will provide much needed supply to the local and regional housing markets.
Davis should be proud of itself. We set out to preserve farmland and even taxed ourselves to do so. We have been wildly successful in that endeavor. But now it’s time we built more housing. Please join me in voting yes on Measure V.
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
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.
Unfortunately, a lot of the land that has been “preserved” is not the land that is under threat of development. (And that may be a purposeful decision.)
There is no “Davis moat” of farmland protection.
I recall a few years ago, when the city councils of Davis and Woodland made a “big deal” out of preserving land between Road 27 and Road 29 – which is literally still MILES from both of those respective cities. Gee, thanks??
If they were actually preserving land under threat, Davis wouldn’t even need Measure J.
There kind of is if you look at the conservation easements – also the Solano County line is an effective moat.
It is not a complete moat yet, but it’s getting there.
I figured you’d find and post a map – that’s nowhere near a “moat”.
As Matt periodically points out, there isn’t even a plan (or even any kind of discussion) regarding how large Davis should become. Other than comments from people like Tim Keller, who thinks Davis should consist of 120,000 residents as I recall.
And then there’s Woodland, with a voter-approved “urban limit line” that looks like it could have been created by someone like Tsakopoulos.
I’m pretty sure that most Davis residents who support Measure J (and farmland protection) would prefer that programs focus on land that’s under threat and adjacent to the city, rather than land that’s miles away (and is not under immediate threat). In fact, that’s sort of the entire point of that effort.
It isn’t a moat yet, but it’s getting there. There are not a lot of places on the Davis periphery where development can take place. That’s a reason why the focus is on the north end of town, most of the south end is buttressed by either Solano County or UC Davis. The city mostly can’t grow west, although there is one parcel there. It can grow north, there are a few parcels to the east, that’s it.
The map shows how very little preserved land adjacent to Davis. (I actually think that many voters would be shocked if they knew that.)
As for city/county lines, not sure they mean much (see El Macero). City boundaries themselves change as a result of Measure J elections.
Also, I see almost no protection whatsoever on the south east side of Yolo county.
https://visityolo.com/maps-and-transportation-overview/
But just think – the council itself (at the time) believed that it was an “accomplishment” to preserve land between Road 27 and 29. I recall a photo op celebrating it, for that matter. Really?
And as someone else pointed out, those type of boundaries end up being “goalposts”.
Again, the map you posted yourself does not show anything remotely resembling a “moat”.
If there was a moat, you wouldn’t need Measure J in the first place.
“The map shows how very little preserved land adjacent to Davis.”
That’s why I added the second map that shows UC Davis and Solano. But you understand that you have to get the agreement of the land owner in order to do a conservation easement, so you aren’t going to get a lot of land directly adjacent to Davis – however what the map shows is that the second tier of parcels is almost completely locked down.
Here is a second map that shows UC Davis and Solano County
You’re actually citing “sphere of influence” as a final boundary? Since when? Also, what is that vast area on the southwest side of the current sphere? (Isn’t that part of UCD?)
Again, the Davis council itself has a “goalpost” of Road 29 (well north of the “sphere of influence”). The “current” sphere is already concerning.
Also, last time I checked, county lines do not result in a lack of development between two counties. And Yolo county itself extends far-beyond that map (see the link I posted above).
There isn’t a “farmland moat” between ANY county lines. Sacramento development blends right into development in Placer and El Dorado counties, for example.
Have you ever been to the Bay Area, and can you tell any difference between San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara county demarcation lines?
Again, the first map you pasted shows just how little land that’s adjacent to Davis has been “preserved”.
Now, we could overlay all of the maps (county, sphere of influence, and ag mitigation maps) to see what’s actually developable, but that’s a little more complex.
But again, how large do you think Davis “should” be?
I’m citing UC Davis which the city doesn’t have jurisdiction and the Solano County line as a hard boundary.
” . . . the hope was that half the land surrounding Davis could be preserved.”
That doesn’t actually mean anything. At least not as written.
I don’t get the argument of this article. ‘we’ve saved so land, ‘yeah, and there was much rejoicing’ ‘, so now we should build on other land? Why don’t you just say, ‘I believe we should have housing’ and skip the spurious argument?