When my voter guide arrived in the mail, I did what most Davis residents do: I sat down and read it carefully. I have spent months researching Village Farms, reading the EIR, meeting with both the Yes and No sides of the campaign and supporters in person, while engaging with this community online and face to face. So, when I opened the argument against Measure V and read the very first bolded claim, I knew immediately something was wrong.
No on V claims “the cheapest market rate house would be $740,000.” This is factually incorrect. The $740,000 figure in the City report is an average price, not the lowest price. Average and minimum are not the same thing. This number comes from a consultant (BAE Associates) hired by the City of Davis to assess the economic costs and benefits of the project to the City. Their report is clear: the $740,000 figure was not obtained by asking the developer what their expected home sizes and costs were, but rather an average size (1,741 sq. ft.) and cost for other medium density units in Davis. The No campaign either did not understand that distinction or chose to ignore it. When challenged on this, they continued pushing it anyway as fact.
That is not an honest mistake. That is misinformation printed and mailed to every Davis voter.
Here is what the housing plan actually includes:
1) 20% of units will be deed-restricted, or capital A affordable- 140 Very-Low Income rental units (under 60% AMI), 140 Low Income rental units (under 80% AMI), 80 Moderate Income homes (restricted for households making 80-120% AMI)
2) 70% of homes in the development will be for-sale attached or on small lots- 150+ townhomes and half-plexes starting in the $400,000s (900-1200 sq ft. range), and 850+ modest homes estimated to start in the $500,000s, significantly less than the Davis median resale price of roughly $1 million in 2025. For context, mobile homes in Davis are approaching $300,000. The idea that there will be no homes available under $740,000 is simply not supported by any data.
Why does this matter beyond the numbers? Because if the No on V campaign is willing to misrepresent straightforward data in the official voter guide, Davis residents deserve to scrutinize everything else they are claiming.
And when you do, a pattern arises.
On contamination and PFAS: The No campaign has raised alarm about toxic chemicals and forever chemicals reaching future residents. Here is what the actual science says. Groundwater testing conducted in 2024 showed that all volatile organic compounds previously detected beneath the site in the 1980s and 1990s had completely dissipated, including vinyl chloride. The chemicals the opposition claimed would never go away, did go away entirely.
When a formal complaint was filed by a project opponent with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board claiming the contamination posed imminent harm to future residents, the agency’s own expert scientists reviewed all available records and responded directly. Their conclusion: “Staff does not believe a risk is posed to the residential and commercial properties proposed for development if the development is connected to the existing City municipal water system.” In fact, every home at Village Farms will rely entirely on Davis municipal water for both potable and landscaping purposes. All existing wells on site will be permanently capped before construction. There is no pathway for future residents to be exposed.
On PFAS specifically, the certified EIR concluded that “substantial evidence exists to conclude that potentially contaminated groundwater from the Old Davis Landfill would not come into contact with the proposed project storm water system.” The No on V campaign response has been a chain of “could, possibly, maybe, might…” scenarios with no actual quantities, no predicted concentrations, and no demonstrated harm.
On traffic: The No campaign claims Village Farms would bring over 15,000 daily car trips causing gridlock and Level of Service F on Covell and Pole Line. What they leave out is that this projection does not account for the tens of millions of dollars in mandatory road and intersection improvements required as a condition of project approval. Once these mandatory street and intersection improvements are made, the Local Transportation Analysis in the EIR is clear: “The implementation of the recommended improvements would improve peak hour operations to acceptable levels at all study intersections.” The opposition’s traffic argument conveniently omits the part of the traffic study data that disproves their claim.
On farmland: The No campaign has raised concerns about the soil borrow site being lost to agriculture permanently. House Agricultural Consultants, a firm with forty years of experience analyzing land suitability including similar excavated sites, concluded that the soil at depth is near identical to what is currently on the surface, and that restoration would not change the area out of productive agricultural use. The concerns about agricultural viability were analyzed by certified organic farmers.
Every major concern raised by the No campaign was subject to years of independent analysis through a 5,000-page EIR certified unanimously by the Davis City Council and accepted by the State of California. When those findings did not support their position, the response was that the EIR itself was inadequate. At some point that stops being skepticism and starts being a refusal to accept any answer that does not confirm what they already decided.
I understand why a development of this size gives people pause. Davis has always been protective of how it grows, and I do not believe that instinct is wrong. But there is a difference between honest opposition and a campaign that opens its voter guide argument with a clearly misrepresented statistic and builds its entire case on concerns that independent experts have already reviewed and resolved.
Village Farms includes 360 permanently deed-restricted affordable units with an irrevocable donation of $6 million and 16 acres of land, the largest affordable housing commitment ever made by a private developer in Davis history. It includes 47 acres of permanently protected habitat, which was identified through the EIR process, the largest habitat donation in Davis history. It completes the Davis bike loop. It gives teachers, local work force, young families, and UC Davis employees a real shot at living in the city where they work with small market rate townhomes starting in the $400,000s range.
Davis has blocked needed housing for decades. The result is a city where mobile homes sell for $300,000 and the median home price is $1 million. Read the EIR. Check the City documents. The traffic study. Pull up the BAE report and find the $740,000 figure yourself. It is all publicly available. The deeper I have dived into this project, the stronger my support has become. Vote Yes on Measure V by June 2nd.
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.
“No on V claims “the cheapest market rate house would be $740,000.” This is factually incorrect.”
True – it is factually incorrect. The cheapest new, attached housing in Davis (with no yard and a long, shared driveway) is $795K.
https://foutshomes.com/pole-line-terrace/pole-line-terrace-site-and-floor-plans/
(But at least that development probably doesn’t have much Mello Roos.)
In any case, we have actual examples of the current price (which no doubt would be higher by the time that they’re actually completed at Village Farms – if it’s approved.)
Now, if you want to talk about how much a new single-family house (with essentially no yard) costs, we have an example of that as well:
(It’s $869K.)
https://www.centurycommunities.com/find-your-new-home/california/northern-california-metro/davis/harvest-glen/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=ccs-bay-ppc&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20500155110&gbraid=0AAAAAp2iyq-kNP6K9yyZfpq0rk8cnoVdj&gclid=Cj0KCQjw2MbPBhCSARIsAP3jP9zkfJmEvUGpnpaNi34fgs8WH_8SKgDe4E1yrVphvwOJpMDg0IkNXh8aAqCbEALw_wcB
Its difficult in campaigns like this, because both sides dont leave ANY arguments off the table. Neither side has incentive to have a rational, objective dialogue about the value of the project to the community.
ON the pro side:
-“protects habitat”. ( they were forced to NOT bulldoze a vernal pool… not sure you get a gold star for that one)
-” Affordable Housing”. There is “some” affordable housing, but then it jumps up to much expensive housing that is still not affordable by the people who are currently commuting in
– ” Will save our school district”. It likely wont and any importing of kids will rich kids whose parents commute out of town making traffic worse.
On the CON side
– “PFAS”. – This concern is far far overblown
– “Floodplain” – Real, but commonly solvable with engineering and significant expense
-“Gridlock” – Not untrue, but their argument is pure hyperbole. They apparently dont know what actual “traffic” looks like.
So.. no really sober / objective analysis coming from either side.
As someone who has no problems seeing Davis grow in population, I think that looking at it through either of these more extreme lenses is not helpful. ( astute readers will note I’m the guy who did the analysis that for us to be the “right size” with respect to the university, we need to be 120,000 people – yet still im extremely skeptical of the wisdom of this project.)
The better questions are:
1) Is this development GOOD for davis in a wholistic sense?
2) Is it a good use of land?
3) Does it solve our real problems?
The real shame here is that it easily COULD have been yes to all of those. The site ( at least the lower portion of it) is an important node in our transportation network, where we should have mixed-use, much higher density housing.
The insistence on single family housing is also tragic. Proponents are now trumpeting that these are “small lot” homes around 1000 square feet… which means that they functionally will feel a lot like townhomes, but be smaller inside and have twice the energy costs and carbon footprints. they should just actually BE townhomes! – but you can charge less with a shared wall, so environment be damned…
This proposal very easily could have been a slam dunk at the polls. It could have met our real needs AND provided ample return to the developer. It doesnt have to be an either-or. But Mr Whitcomb looked me in the eye and said “this is MY vision, and I’m comfortable with giving the people of davis a chance to approve it””
The people of Davis are going to have that chance. Its a shame that this choice isnt more clear.
No on V claims “the cheapest market rate house would be $740,000.” This is factually incorrect. The $740,000 figure in the City report is an average price, not the lowest price.
It has been fascinating to drill down into this issue.
Specifically, what found was that in the official City documents the 1,130 “Medium Density” lots cover/use 135.9 acres. That calculates out to a density of 8.315 units per acre. That is a problem that is much larger than the $740,000 claim. The reason is that 8.315 is 20% less dense than the State’s lowest threshold of Medium Density as published by HCD, which is 10 units per acre. So the Development Agreement, which lists the 1,130 units as “Medium Density” is factually incorrect. So, before the ink is dry on it, the Development Agreement Agreement needs to be amended
In addition the 135.9 acres City documents report for the 1,130 units divided by the 1,130 value calculates out to 5,238 square feet per lot. So the “under 5,000 square feet” description in the Development Agreement is also a misrepresentation, and needs to be amended to “Low Density.”
By the way, the above math explains in crystal clarity why BAE’s numbers are 100% correct. The fact that the 1,130 units were outside the range of Medium Density, BAE had no alternative other than to treat all the lots equally. As a result the $740,000 figure used by BAE was not only the “Mean” (the average) but also the “Median” (the midpoint) as well as the “Mode” (the most frequent value). So the Yes on Measure V proponents can stop their assassination of BAE’s professional integrity. They handled all the 1,130 lots identically because the data provided by the developer gave them no alternative given the Lots were 20% out of compliance with the HCD standard.
Re: “BAE had no alternative other than to treat all the lots equally” – Uhh…they could have just asked the developer what size of units were planned. That would seemingly have solved the problem. The fact is that much smaller units are planned for the project than 1,714 sq ft estimated by BAE, the opponents of the project knew that much smaller units were planned, yet they continued to use the $740,000 number (obtained from an average of other recently sold homes in Davis as explained in the article) claiming it was the minimum price of all units.
Notwithstanding the above math gyrations, small (800 – 1,000 sqft) townhomes will be available starting in the $400,000s in current dollars and modest size houses (1,000 sq ft and above ) will be availabe starting in the $500,000s. That is a lot less than $740,000 minimum price spouted by the project opponents, the project opponents knew it, but still continued to say the higher $740,000 number was a minimum price. That is just dishonesty now matter how you tie yourself up in math knots trying to prove otherwise.
Like the dishonesty of calling Low Density lots “Medium Density” in the Development Agreement when they do not fit that definition.
The mistake of using a number formally provided in an official City public meeting by a highly respected third party professional consultant … a number never challenged by the development team before, during, or after the public meeting was indeed a mistake. It was an honest mistake, which now is being blown all out of proportion by you and others Alan.
Look at Table 1 of the staff report for the Fiscal Commission’s agenda item. The data in that table was provided to BAE by the City as input for their INDEPENDENT analysis. Involving direct communication with the developer, as you suggest, would have compromised the independence of the analysis.
Why didn’t the developer and the City provide the housing sizes to BAE in the first place? For that matter why hasn’t the developer provided those housing sizes in either the Baseline Features or the Development Agreement?
The challenge with Ballot Language, as you personally experienced in the DiSC elections and the Nishi 2018 election is that once an error is identified, the only way to rectify it is by going to court. Why didn’t the Village Farms developer, or for that matter you personally since you are so worked up about this, file suit in court.
Instead of constructively engaging the message, pointing out what you believe are its flaws, you have chosen over and over again to attack the messenger, and attack the professional integrity of BAE. You even accused me falsely of attacking you personally, and when I challenged you on that you disappeared without a peep.
If you had engaged the message you might even have uncovered, as I did, the significant misrepresentations in the Development Agreement.
Matt – It’s just incredible the lengths you will go through to try justify a blatently dishonest statement once you put your name on it.
Mirror mirror on the wall …
You have been asked at least a dozen times why the developers have chosen to avoid accountability by keeping commitments out of the Baseline Features … like the housing sizes that you have touted over and over. But to date you have avoided answering those questions. What are you afraid of?
Regarding “blatantly dishonest” your hyperbole machine is working overtime. The number $740,000 is not dishonest. It is an independent third party financial analysts estimate given the assumptions they used … assumptions that fit the data they were provided by their client, the City of Davis, who got that data from the developer.
The reason that there is no “blatant dishonesty” is that there is a chance that that number may turn out to be correct … a reasonable chance. It is a number that probably has an equal or greater chance than any other singular number.
Do I personally think it is the best (least likely to be wrong) number. No, I do not think that. I suspect the average sale price will be more than 10% higher.
But as you know from your own personal DiSC ballot language kerfuffle with Dan Carson, ballot language choices are made on a tight time frame and with tight constraints.
In closing, my name isn’t on the ballot language, contrary to your statement above, but that doesn’t prevent you from lashing out at me personally. I want you to know that I’m aware that you are using me as a scapegoat, and you have my permission to do so.
“I want you to know that I’m aware that you are using me as a scapegoat, and you have my permission to do so.”
You haven’t received the worst of that, and neither have I. But no one actually knows why Alan P is doing so.
It would be one thing to say something like, “I like the proposal for XX reasons”, but it’s another thing entirely for someone like Alan P in particular to turn into an attack dog on behalf of a development proposal.
But like you, I’m not going to react to it an overly-negative manner. The reason being that Alan P has also done a lot of good things, and I trust he’ll return to that after Covell Village loses again. And on a personal level, I still like the guy (as much as I do anyone – regarding the “usual suspects”).
I still proudly consider myself a “usual suspect”, even as I’m not involved with Davis as much as I once was.
I’ve heard plenty from someone else who doesn’t like Alan P, but I never quite understand it.
I scratched my head while looking at my Yolo Voter Information Guide as well. The Argument/ Rebuttal list of Proponents of Measure V includes politicians, business owners and a single scientist. The Opposition to V is science based and includes a physician, chemical engineer, transportation engineer, geology professor and a civil engineer. I’m inclined to follow the science and not the money and politics regarding this issue. Vote No on V and let the developer come back with something more environmentally and affordably sensible. Perhaps we should look at a project that takes a “bite of the apple” rather than wanting the whole orchard. (And BTW, once covered, the prime farmland being taken away by Village Farms will never grow apples or anything else).
Nathan says … “ Why does this matter beyond the numbers? Because if the No on V campaign is willing to misrepresent straightforward data in the official voter guide, Davis residents deserve to scrutinize everything else they are claiming.”
Nathan, where do those housing plan numbers exist? Are they in the Baseline Features? If “no,” why not? Are they in the Development Agreement? If “no,” why not? Are they in any official document filed by the developers with the City? If “no,” why not?
Nathan
The mid-tier lot sizes that the developers claim will be market rate affordable are 2400 to 3500 sf. Those can accommodate houses up to 2000 sf and bigger. The developers have not put any apparent restrictions on house size for the builders who will acquire those lots. Houses of that size will sell well in excess of $740K and more likely at the current average of $850K. We are unwilling to take the developers at their word. Trust has been eroded over the last three decades on these issues.