When I was a kid, a new affordable housing complex went up behind my house in South Davis. My neighbors fought it. There was much opposition. The fear was real: that something precious about our street, our Davis, was about to be taken away.
Then it was built. Years passed. I grew up sharing classrooms and lunch tables and bike paths with the children who lived there. Twenty years later, I love it. I love my neighbors. I love having grown up in a place diverse enough to show me the world before I ever left it.
That is the Davis I am fighting for. And it is exactly why I am voting Yes on Measure V this June.
I want to be honest with you. I am not a developer. I am not a politician, yet. I am a Davis kid who moved away and came home. Montgomery Elementary, Harper Junior High, Davis Senior High. Six years in Knoxville competing in the pole vault at the University of Tennessee, homesick in a way I did not fully understand until I came back. I now help run a mental health facility just outside town. I live here on purpose.
And I am scared.
Not of Village Farms. I am scared of what Davis looks like in ten years if we keep saying no.
I watch young families leave for Woodland and Vacaville because they cannot afford to stay. These are not strangers. They are people who love this city, who want to raise their kids here, who are priced out of that choice. And every time a family leaves, a child leaves with them. A seat in a classroom empties. A spot on a little league roster goes unfilled.
Patwin Elementary and Birch Lane are facing potential closure. If you grew up here, you know what that means. Those schools are not buildings. They are where Davis happens. Where kids from different backgrounds share the same hallways, the same teachers, the same idea of what a community can be. Losing them would not just be sad. It would change what this city is.
I understand the people who oppose this project. I have read their arguments carefully, and I respect many of them. The fears about contamination, about whether affordable housing will truly get built, about traffic on Pole Line Road. These are not silly concerns. Some of them deserve better answers than they have gotten.
But I will say this about traffic: when I came home from Tennessee, I was genuinely angry about the extra cars I found. I felt like Davis had been taken from me. Then I caught myself. I was frustrated about waiting one more cycle at a stoplight, in a city where I can bike to almost anything I need. That is an embarrassingly privileged thing to be upset about. And here is the part we rarely say out loud: much of those cars belong to Davis families who moved to Woodland because we would not build housing for them here. They are still commuting in. We did not reduce traffic by refusing to grow. We just made it someone else’s problem.
My father told me Davis was designed to be diverse on purpose. Not to cluster people by income. Not to protect what exists at the expense of what could be. To build something that actually reflects the values we say we have.
I cannot promise Village Farms will save our schools or solve our problems. No honest person can. What I can tell you is that I have read the EIR, I have read the opposition, and I believe this is the most Davis-aligned project this community has had the chance to vote on in a generation.
The Davis I love was built by people willing to share it.
Please vote Yes on Measure V on June 2nd.
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.
“I now help run a mental health facility just outside town. I live here on purpose.”
Sounds like you should live “just outside of town” then, whatever that location is. Assuming that you’re worried about commuters driving “to” town, as you claim. Might also help with your commute to CSUS, as you noted in your biography above.
“And I am scared.”
I, on the other hand am not. Though truth be told, I’m more “scared” of young people than I am of old people. Last time I checked, senior citizens weren’t blowing through stop signs at 40 mph on electric motorcycles, for example. (They’re more in danger of getting hit by one, though.)
All housing (every single unit) eventually turns over. The majority of sales consist of pre-existing housing.
I want to acknowledge what you said about the e-bikes and scooters, because you are not wrong. The lack of awareness from some of those riders is genuinely alarming. Stop signs treated as suggestions, full speed on shared paths, no regard for pedestrians. I have seen it too and it frustrates me. Bike culture is one of the things that makes Davis special, and reckless riding undermines it for everyone. I hope the city takes that more seriously than it has.
It’s not just the e-bikes.
Families (in general) create some of the highest impacts (and costs) of any demographic. These people have a minimum of 2 cars, require schools, libraries, sports parks, etc. And truth be told (since I was one, at one time – teenage boys in particular tend to cause more “trouble” than any other group).
Soccer Moms and SUVs also come to mind.
But either way, Village Farms isn’t going to attract “families” any more than The Cannery did. At least, not those without money.
The housing will either be too small (for a family), or too expensive for those without much money. There really is no other outcome. I don’t “blame” the developer for that, but it is a reality.
But there’s also nothing preventing the type of family that some seem to prefer from moving to Davis RIGHT NOW. I haven’t checked Zillow lately, but I routinely see housing that’s CHEAPER than the expected cost of housing at Village Farms, in a better location, with yards, garages, etc. Not to mention NO or very little Mello Roos!
And if that’s somehow not “good enough”, there are several housing projects under construction right now in Davis, with another one to come at the horse ranch adjacent to Wildhorse. And possibly another one next to that, as well (Shriner’s).
How much is “enough”, before a question is asked – “why”?
Like homelessness, this is not a Davis issue. Before the pandemic, I rode across San Francisco fairly often on my bike. I rode across yesterday for the first time in a bit, certainly before the explosion of electric scooters/motorcycles/skateboards/ebikes . . . etc etc etc. It was a terrifying circus. All the issues in Davis, but on steroids – people zipping everywhere, doing the scooter slalom, zipping left or right, heavy, higher speeds. We’ve ‘solved’ the ‘last mile issue’, and created a huge safety issue, that I believe is not solvable. We’re just screwed.
True, regarding electric motorcycles, etc.
But my bigger point is that this is what “families” bring to places like Davis (not to mention much more demand for schools, libraries, sports parks, 2-car garages, etc. Senior citizens generally have a much lower impact than other cohorts.
There’s reasons that seniors pursue “senior-only” communities.
Seniors generally aren’t clamoring for new job creation, and also aren’t as supportive of pursuing sprawl in order to keep schools open.
This piece is kind of embarrassing. I really haven’t decided. For me it’s all about transportation, and I’ll probably vote for it if Whitcomb can convince me that the connection from under Covell along the tracks to H Street tunnel will be built. Otherwise, probably NO. And the more pieces like this I read, the more is pushes me towards NO. I mean, twisting not wanting Davis to change to mean, to always be accepting of that kid from the housing project that the big bad NIMBY’s opposed — I mean seriously it’s like a bad Saturday morning cartoon for kids that is actually indoctrinating them politically left while urging them buy stupid capitalist toys in the ads and product placements. And “I’m scared . . . ” ? Really? I don’t think you are. That’s not something to be scared of. But the bad NIMBYs you said had fear, so if they had fear, I guess you can be scared. And maybe they were right . . . maybe that housing project sucked for the neighborhood, even as you played with its children.
I appreciate the honesty, and some of that criticism of the piece is fair. Storytelling has limits and this one has them.
But I want to focus on what you actually said, because it matters: you are undecided, and your vote comes down to whether the Covell underpass connection along the tracks to H Street gets built. That is a specific, legitimate ask, and frankly it is a better argument than most of what I wrote.
I do not have the answer on Whitcomb’s commitment there, and I am not going to pretend I do. What I would say is that if that connection is the thing standing between you and a yes vote, it is worth getting that answer directly before June. That conversation seems worth having loudly and publicly so others who care about it can apply the same pressure.
I genuinely hope you get the transportation answer you need. That feels like exactly the kind of accountability this process should produce.
Well, NJH, I must say your humilty is rather disarming. Almost everyone on here totally goes bonzo if you threaten their ego, which just makes me want to threaten their egos to get a reaction, because I’m a simplistic a-hole who enjoys cheap entertainment. Major points to you.
I actually have gone before the Council and Transportation and Planning Committees to present this concept, and how much cheaper, and more useful this connection would be than trying to Tunnel under Covell. And most of the right of way is under the control of Whitcombe if I’m not on mushrooms (I could be on mushrooms). I do plan to present this again and put it in the media and see if the developers get how important this is and if they will make a binding commitment that I will believe.
Again, kudos for not reacting and attacking. Quite refreshing.
I personally agree with this. I feel like we’ve been so focused on protecting what Davis looks like right now that we forgot to protect what actually makes Davis worth living in. And what makes it worth living in is the people. The neighbors. The full classrooms. The little league teams. That stuff doesn’t just happen — it needs families who can afford to stay. And right now? They can’t. They’re packing up and moving to Woodland not because they want to leave but because we left them no choice. And then we wonder why the schools are facing closure. Like, come on. We did that. Not on purpose, but we did it. This piece hit me because the person writing it isn’t some developer trying to make money off this — it’s someone who grew up here, left, missed it, and came back on purpose. That means something. And their point about traffic is the one I think people need to really sit with — we didn’t stop the cars by refusing to build housing, we just made those same families drive in from further away. That’s not a win. Voting yes on Measure V to me isn’t really about being pro-development. It’s about being honest that saying no has consequences too, and those consequences are already showing up. We can still be the Davis we’re proud of. We just have to actually let people live here.
Amar says: “They’re packing up and moving to Woodland not because they want to leave but because we left them no choice.”
I can assure you that a lot of them “want to” live in Woodland (e.g., Spring Lake) – especially because of the price differential. And that’s not going to change. But if they’re “leaving” Davis, that means that they ALREADY LIVE IN Davis in the first place!
“And then we wonder why the schools are facing closure.
Woodland kids are ALREADY attending Davis schools. The “problem” (other than DJUSD’s unwillingness to right-size itself) is that even the sprawl in Woodland isn’t enough to avoid school closures in Davis OR Woodland. However, there will be another 1,600 housing units to come at the “technology park” (in addition to the ongoing construction within the original portion of Spring Lake).
How crazy it is to continuously build solely for the purpose of keeping schools open. Does anyone actually put forth that type of argument in a serious manner?
This is no different than arguments to keep military bases or prisons open – even if the “need” declines.
“How crazy it is to continuously build solely for the purpose of keeping schools open. ”
Has anyone made the argument that we should build “solely” for one purpose?
Yes, some have.
But it’s not a legitimate purpose at all, for the reasons that I’ve already noted many times. Those kids then come from “somewhere else”, for one thing. From districts which are experiencing declining enrollment, themselves.
By the way, who is NOW occupying all of the housing that the unfortunate “hordes” from Davis supposedly vacated, when they moved to Woodland? Or is it just sitting empty, in this scenario?
“some”
Who has argued that that is the “sole” reason to build and is that of sufficient number to create a strawman argument around?
Some associated with the school district (whose jobs might be in danger), as well as a handful of parents who are concerned about being slightly inconvenienced for a few years – assuming they even close a school before their own kids age out.
Also, it’s certainly one of your “primary” concerns, given the number of articles you’ve written about it.
Again, it’s not even a LEGITIMATE concern at all. That’s the more important point, here.
Keeping unneeded facilities open (of any type) is perhaps the most blatant example of lack of social/civic financial responsibility, based ENTIRELY on self-interest.
Turns out that the prison guard union also doesn’t think it’s a good idea to close prisons.
I asked who? I want a specific quote that shows that someone specific and real is only concerned about the school district. Right now I believe it’s a canard.
More broadly why do you get to decide it’s not a legitimate concern? It’s a concern of mine. Who are you to tell me I shouldn’t be concerned about our schools – particularly when I still have kids in our district and you don’t?
Again, you seem to be purposefully ignoring your own comments (as well as comments submitted by some members of the public/school district to the council, on Facebook, etc.).
I don’t generally keep track of names, though the superintendent and one of the school board members comes to mind (Hiram). Granted, the superintendent essentially claims that he’s just being “informative”.
But again, why are you ignoring the actual point – it’s not a LEGITIMATE concern.
Why is it my business, you ask? For all you know, I might be subsidizing YOUR kids – directly. Probably even more so given that you live in Affordable housing.
But more importantly, pursuing growth in order to avoid closing a school is unsustainable, it damages other districts, and results in endless sprawl.
Those aren’t “reasons enough”?
Your “personal reasons” (e.g., being slightly inconvenienced for a couple of years) aren’t even close to being legitimate.
My interest here isn’t based on my “personal” advantage. I am fundamentally and deeply opposed to pursuing growth in order to keep a school open.
Why are you dodging? You made a claim, back it up.
I already provided two names (as well as yours).
Granted, we don’t know what else someone might say, other than what they put forth in public comments or on social media. Maybe some of those people just like sprawl “for its own sake”.
Again, I don’t keep track of names – especially when I don’t know those people. But I have seen plenty of comments (including from the entire council, I think) claiming that this is a “legitimate” or primary concern.
Now, if you want to claim that they have “other” reasons to support sprawl, that could be. Again, we don’t know the entirety of what anyone thinks, unless they state it (and are telling the truth). Maybe some of those people are just “fans of sprawl” in general.
Again, why are you continuing to ignore the primary point (repeated several times, now)? It’s not a LEGITIMATE concern – even if it’s only “part” of a justification.
You have plenty of articles SOLELY focusing on schools.
I don’t believe that the schools are the sole reason for additional housing. So that’s false. (And I don’t see any names or quotes)
Would have to look them up again, to see what they’ve said.
But even if I found them, that obviously wouldn’t necessarily be “proof” of everything they’ve said.
But you are probably correct, that no one has said that the “only reason to pursue endless sprawl” is to keep schools open. Are you happy with that acknowledgement? And more importantly, do you think that’s the primary point of my comment?
Again, it’s not a legitimate concern – regardless of any imaginary hierarchy of reasons that someone supports sprawl.
I have no doubt, though – that some do in fact support sprawl SOLELY because they want to keep “their” school open – regardless of what they would publicly claim if asked.
For the same reason that the prison guard union thinks “their” prison is needed.
Amar
First I agree we need more market rate affordable housing here to maintain the vitality of Davis. Unfortunately, Village Farms isn’t going to deliver that. It’s just going to bring us more older commuters which won’t help maintain our schools.
Instead the developer should come back with Alternative 4 from the Draft EIR that conforms much better with the multiple objectives of our community. Village Farms is the wrong answer to the right question and we deserve a much better answer.
Nate
We’ve had conversations on Nextdoor about this issue. I’m disappointed that despite saying you’re open to changing your mind that this article appears not to reflect what you might have learned from your interchanges with Roberta Millstein and me. As we’ve pointed out, our extensive experience (we’ve both been on several City commissions) shows that developers find ways around “commitments” unless they are in the Baseline Features. None of the “promises” about Affordable housing and other key amenities are the Baseline Features, as Roberta has written about several times, for example here: https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/commentary-promises-of-affordable-housing-are-misleading/article_c27c02b8-5312-43df-80ec-371abdda0132.html
But beyond that, what the most likely prices will be for the homes offered in Village Farms has been misrepresented. A more realistic assessment using real estate websites shows the average house will sell for $100,000 more than what the developer claims, pushing even more of this housing out of reach of young families. You will not be able to afford to buy a house here.
In addition, the development largely ignores the requirements of the City’s Climate Action & Adaptation Plan because Council gave it a pass by voting for unjustified overriding considerations in approving the EIR. If instead the Council had mandated that the developer use a scaled down version of Alternative 4, we could have 40% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The developers is mortgaging your future livability just gain higher profits.
Village Farms is the wrong answer to the right question. Vote No and send it back for the developer to give it another try. Whitcombe did this before with Nishii and he can do it again.
Hey Richard, I genuinely appreciate you engaging and I mean that. But I want to be honest with you: the more I dig into the opposition arguments, the more my support for this measure grows rather than shrinks. That is not me being closed minded. It is me following the evidence where it leads. On affordable housing and the baseline features, I hear you. The language could be stronger and I have said so publicly. But “it could be better” is a different argument than “vote no and start over.” Davis has been waiting decades for meaningful housing progress.
Sending this back is not a guarantee of something better. It might just be another decade of nothing. On prices being higher than advertised, that is worth scrutiny and I take it seriously. I do not foresee all of the homes being 740,000-1.3 million as some peoples fears have expressed. Much of the opposition is based on hypothetical scenarios that might play out in worst case scenario and is attached to previous experiences with the city and other outside developers. It makes me question if the opposition simply does not want housing and will find any flaw in any plan to discredit the project. I am not saying you are in that boat at all, but I fear some of the opposition is. I still wish Roberta had taken me up on meeting in person. I think a real conversation would serve both of us better than comment threads. That offer stands. And I would greatly value both you and her experiences in City Council and with the city. We can disagree and both love Davis. I just have not heard the no side make a case that accounts for what happens to this city if we keep saying no. That is the question I cannot get a straight answer to.
RM: “Vote No and send it back for the developer to give it another try. Whitcombe did this before with Nishii and he can do it again.”
I’m sure all the people currently living in the new housing at Nishi will agree with you.
Strangely-enough, we don’t seem to be hearing much about a student housing shortage anymore (despite Whitcombe and whoever the other developer is) apparently having trouble with the railroad tracks. (Actually, getting access under or over those tracks was the ENTIRE JUSTIFICATION for having student housing at that site.) Had the original proposal been approved, it would likely be built with Olive/Richards-only access.
Seems like something that should have been checked out BEFORE a Measure J vote was sought.
If they ever do change Measure J, I’d like to see some kind of provision that the result is “revoked” if the plan turns out to be unfeasible. At which point, it returns to what it’s always been since the white man arrived, at least.
Strangely? That wouldn’t have anything to do with both UC Davis and the City building capacity?
Yes, “strangely” – since those proposals were (also) being considered/pursued at the time of the Nishi vote, no doubt.
They didn’t arise BECAUSE of the problems with Nishi.
At this point, Nishi might even be having problems penciling-out – even if they could get past the railroad tracks.
Not sure where and why you are going here, but the reality is that the city and university have attacked the housing problem for students with volume – with or without Nishi – and the approach has worked by easing the housing crunch for students. Nishi would be built but for Measure J and insane direction they had to go to pass a vote. But you probably don’t want to talk about that.
Sometimes, you seem purposefully dense (given that you can’t or won’t see the point).
Nishi apparently isn’t even “needed” at this point.
And again, it seems likely that the ONLY access for Nishi 1 would have been Olive/Richards. You do realize, I’,m sure – that this was the primary concern.
The fake commercial component was put forth to avoid Affordable housing requirements. (I don’t even recall at this point if Nishi 2 has ANY Affordable housing either – especially for non-students.)
But I can tell you that I’m pretty happy to be getting my tools sharpened to this day, at JB’s Power Equipment.
Here is the most recent data about the vacancy rate… https://davisvanguard.org/2026/02/davis-apartment-rents-decline/
From the university: “Continuing to add campus housing remains a key priority for the university.”
Congratulations to them then, for something they should have considered from the time that they themselves started “stealing students” from CSU and community colleges in light of an overall crash in the number of university students.
Have they (UCD) put forth any effort whatsoever, in regard to addressing the railroad crossing from Nishi? Given that it was intended to serve their “customers”?
I think I can see why, at this point, they didn’t get that land themselves.
But that’s o.k. – it’s kind of nice to see some open space from the freeway (I used to wondered why that was the case).
For that matter, I barely even noticed that Davis existed when traveling between the Bay Area and Sacramento (or the Sierra) – partly because of that open space.
I do realize that some people think that Davis is the center of the universe, though.
Most people across the country have at least heard of Sacramento, in contrast.
Richard said: “First I agree we need more market rate affordable housing here to maintain the vitality of Davis. Unfortunately, Village Farms isn’t going to deliver that…”
That is no reason to vote no. The project will deliver needed housing of various types. Its not some sort of zero sum thing. We build this and then we need to build more projects with other housing mixes too.
Ron, anyone who does budgeting knows there is a huge difference between “need” and “nice to have.”
You need to look at the real estate sales data for Davis and Woodland. In 2025 Davis had more home sales and more listings than Woodland. 41.4 listings on average each day in Davis, and 37.3 listings on average each day in Woodland.
When you look at price cohorts, Davis had 123 sales over $1 million, while Woodland had 11. Davis had 144 sales between $750,001 and $1 million. Woodland had 34. Based on those numbers there is no “need” for houses with sales prices over $750,000. And for anyone who thinks it would be nice to have a home in Davis would have over three dozen to choose from.
On the other hand in the Under $600,001 category. Davis had 61 sales, while Woodland had 240. There is a very good argument that Davis “needs” houses priced under $600,001. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Baseline Features or the Development Agreement that indicates that Village Farms will sell affordably priced homes. Their glossy marketing materials spin a tale somewhat to that effect, but as we all know that can turn on a dime.
The saying “fool me once, shame on you … fool me twice, shame on me” comes to mind.
Difficult thing is: Davis NEEDS to change. We cant build the next 50 years of housing in the same way we built the last 50 years.
Suburban single family sprawl is unsustainable. There is a pletohra of sources where you will learn this if you look.. hell just ask your favorite AI: “Is building single family housing responsible?” It WILL tell you. “no” … please dive as deep into that well as you want, you will learn something very important, and if you actully pay attention will end up voting no on this measure.
That is certainly true given that the last 25 years we have not built housing
Amazing, how you can put forth a response that is both untrue and has no relationship to what the commenter said.
I responded to this: “ We cant build the next 50 years of housing in the same way we built the last 50 years.”
25 years of data says 800 or so sfh
David, there has been a lot of housing built in the last 25 years. Sterling, Lincoln 40, Cannery, Plaza 2555, Research Park Mixed Use (now called Greenhaus), 3820 Chiles, Willowbank Park, Willowbank 10, Grande, the Taormino homes in Wild Horse.
Pole Line Terrace is underway, as is Bretton Woods, as is Chiles Ranch, as is Palomino Place.
Doesn’t add up to much. We have the data.
Perhaps prior to expressing your personal dissatisfaction regarding the amount of housing that’s been built, you might want to acknowledge your false statement (which you’re proving by providing data yourself, above):
“That is certainly true given that the last 25 years we have not built housing”
After acknowledging that, you might want to respond to Tim’s point.
Are you by chance new to conversational English?
I’m familiar with lies.
Just the other day, you repeatedly challenged me to provide “names, dates, addresses, and phone numbers” of those who support sprawl solely for schools (in response to my own “conversational English”).
But of all the points here, I’d actually like to see you respond in an honest manner to Tim’s comment, more than mine. (That’s the comment you were originally responding to.)
I have a certain amount of respect for Tim and Richard’s point of view (for what that’s worth).
Given that I can’t top my prior line, I’ll let it drop for tonight
“Given that I can’t top my prior line, I’ll let it drop for tonight”
I’ll have to remember that one.