DAVIS, Calif. — Earlier this month, The Yolo County Democratic Party formally endorsed Measure V, lending organized political support to one of the most consequential local ballot fights in recent Davis history as housing affordability, school enrollment and growth policy converge in the June election.
The endorsement was celebrated this week at the home of former Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor, where elected officials, Democratic activists, project supporters and community members gathered to rally behind the Village Farms proposal.
Speakers argued the measure represents more than a land-use decision, casting it instead as a referendum on whether Davis will make room for younger families, workers and future generations who increasingly find the city financially out of reach.
Measure V asks voters to approve the Village Farms development, a long-debated housing proposal on the city’s edge that supporters say would bring a mix of market-rate and affordable homes, open space preservation, transportation improvements and relief to a strained local housing market.
Saylor, opening the event, tied the current proposal to the failed 2005 Covell Village campaign, calling the new version stronger and more practical.
“We were on the city council in 2005 together when the precursor project, the Covell Village Project — we were able to put that to the voters,” Saylor said. “Unfortunately, that one didn’t pass, but this one, I think really, I think it will pass.”
He added that the updated plan improves on the earlier proposal because “it’s a practical project that will be built and it’s a sustainable affordability.” Saylor said that by including “duplexes, townhouses, and small size starter homes,” the project would provide affordability “for the 50-year life of those buildings.”
The event drew several current and former public officials, including members of the Davis City Council, former school board members and Democratic Party leaders. But the core argument repeated throughout the evening was that Davis’ resistance to growth has carried unintended consequences.
Councilmember Gloria Partida told attendees that while many residents fear becoming another sprawling California city, limiting housing production has reshaped Davis in other ways.
“I think that by constraining growth and by making it impossible to live here, we have also changed the fabric of our community,” Partida said.
She described a city where rising prices have pushed out younger households and reduced socioeconomic diversity.
“We’ve squeezed out small families. We’ve squeezed out diversity,” Partida said. “We’ve squeezed out so much of the things that we have been so desperately trying to hold onto because the only people that can live here are people who can afford the astronomical prices.”
Partida connected the issue to intergenerational continuity, recalling that her grandson attended the same elementary school as his father. That kind of continuity, she warned, is becoming harder to sustain when families can no longer afford to live near one another.
“For us to say to people that this is off limits is, I think that’s wrong,” she said. “That’s not the community that we are.”
Project supporters also emphasized the local roots of the development team. Doug Buzbee said the families behind the proposal have longstanding ties to Davis and a history of shaping neighborhoods in the city.
“This project is a continuation of that vision,” Buzbee said. “It’s brought forward by these families who have been invested in this community for generations, literally generations.”
He said the goal is to create opportunities for younger households to experience family life in Davis the way previous generations had.
“The desire we have is to create opportunities for young families to have this incredible experience of raising families in Davis,” Buzbee said.
Patrick Huber, chair of the city’s Open Space and Habitat Commission, said the site includes a rare alkali vernal pool habitat and a key wildlife corridor. He argued the project would not only preserve those features but improve them through restoration and management.
“If I didn’t care about affordable housing, if I didn’t care about all these other things you’ve heard of, I would still be in support,” Huber said noting that he did care about affordable housing.
He said the project creates an opportunity to leave “the environmental footprint of this site better than how we found it.”
That message reflects a broader strategic shift among some pro-housing advocates, who increasingly argue that environmental protection and housing production need not be in conflict.
Schools were another recurring theme. Former Davis Joint Unified board member Marty West warned that enrollment declines threaten neighborhood campuses and linked that challenge directly to the lack of new family housing.
“When I was on the school board in 2003, we became a declining enrollment district,” West said.
She noted that more than 15% of district students now come through interdistrict transfers and said those transfers are declining.
“So if we don’t build village farms, we’re going to have to close two elementary schools, Patwin and Birch Lane,” West said. “But if we build Village Farms, that will generate over 1,100 students over the next 10 years.”
Whether that projection is realized will be debated during the campaign, but supporters clearly view school stabilization as a central selling point.
The strongest political framing of the night came from Yolo County Democratic Party Chair Jake Whitaker, who said the endorsement followed a formal process in which both supporters and opponents had opportunities to present their cases.
“We gave equal opportunity to both the yes and the no campaigns to present their arguments,” Whitaker said.
He said the final vote was overwhelmingly in favor of endorsement.
Whitaker rejected the idea that Democrats should stay neutral on local land-use fights. Instead, he argued that housing costs and cost of living are among voters’ top concerns and that parties must deliver tangible results rather than abstract messaging.
“What people are looking for is not ideology,” Whitaker said. “They’re looking for results.”
He broadened the argument to national politics, saying Democrats must address affordability if they hope to counter authoritarian currents.
“At the bigger picture level, I think that that’s what the Democratic Party has to focus on in order to effectively turn back the rising tide of fascism in this country, is delivering real results for working people in this country,” Whitaker said.
Turning back to Davis, Whitaker cited local home prices and limited production. He said only 805 new single-family homes had been built in Davis over the last 17 years and that the city’s constraints on growth have intensified housing pressures. Whitaker also personalized the affordability gap by comparing his own experience buying a home in Woodland with what the same property would cost in Davis.
“I’m 32 years old, and I’m very fortunate to be one of the few people that I know in my generation that has been able to attain homeownership,” Whitaker said. “I bought a home in Woodland in 2023 for $470,000. It’s three beds, two baths, little over 1,400 square feet.”
Then he drew a direct comparison to Davis’ housing market.
“If you took that exact same lot with that exact same home and just transplanted it to Davis, it would be selling for about a quarter of a million dollars more than what I paid for it,” Whitaker said. “There’s no way I would have ever been able to afford that.”
He said the disparity illustrates why many younger workers and families are forced to look outside Davis even when they want to remain part of the community.
He said the consequences are already visible: long commutes, teachers and workers priced out of town, and schools relying on transfers to remain viable.
Whitaker described Village Farms as “a thoughtful and community focused answer to those challenges.” He cited plans for 360 permanently affordable homes, additional market-rate units, parkland, habitat protection, conservation easements and transportation improvements.
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.
This isn’t news – the local Democratic party has long-favored sprawl. They’re YIMBYs, just like Democrats in the state legislature and governor’s office. (Though the governor lives in a $9 million dollar house in Marin, and has kept his multi-million dollar compound in Sacramento last time I checked.
Jake Whitaker says, “If you took that exact same lot with that exact same home and just transplanted it to Davis, it would be selling for about a quarter of a million dollars more than what I paid for it,” Whitaker said. “There’s no way I would have ever been able to afford that.”
Sounds like Jake has found himself a solution, then. (That guy was tossed off the school board in Woodland by voters, though – couldn’t even win re-election – and he was the school board president at the time, as I recall. Perhaps it’s fitting that he’s now in charge of the local YIMBY organization.) Perhaps Jake should have focused on making Woodland’s school district competitive with Davis’ district, rather than enabling Davis to poach Woodland’s students.
Partida says, “We’ve squeezed out so much of the things that we have been so desperately trying to hold onto because the only people that can live here are people who can afford the astronomical prices.”
Davis housing prices are nowhere near “astronomical”. Regardless, Village Farms wouldn’t lower them. (And even if they did, why would existing homeowners vote to reduce the value of the only asset most of them have – other than to reduce property tax extractions?)
No one is getting “squeezed out” of Davis. What Partida and others are referring to are people trying to move TO Davis without having any resources to speak of whatsoever.
But if you want “cheap” housing in Davis, listen to those like McCann and Matt Williams.
Ron O
About 1500 employees at UCD have been squeezed out of Davis according to the long running UCD ITS Travel Survey of employees and students. If we extend that proportionately across the city that’s about 4500 workers who have been squeezed out.
They’re not squeezed-out. They’ve chosen to live elsewhere (and no doubt, that’s been occurring for years/decades). Partly because not everyone in a given household works at the same location. But mostly because it’s CHEAPER to do so – as you yourself have noted.
Having said that, the approach that you and Matt advocate (smaller, attached units) would be cheaper, at least. But that’s not what “families” seek (and can obtain more cheaply outside the city). See Jake Whitaker’s example in the article, above.
There’s no problem to solve, here. It might even generate FEWER greenhouse gasses to commute from Spring Lake to UCD, than it would from Shriner’s for example.
But the bottom line is that you can’t control what occurs in Woodland. And what occurs in Woodland “doesn’t stay in Woodland” (to paraphrase a Las Vegas advertising slogan).
This isn’t a “housing fight”, it’s about a particular project. And when you WOW the people they tend to vote for your project. Village Farms hasn’t “wowed” me yet on what I care about: transportation. I haven’t decided yet, so wow me, promise me. I’ve been very clear what I want – a dedication on a connection between the bike path under Covell south of the Cannery, through Cranbrook (owned by the same people) and conneting to the H Street bike tunnel. 1000′ of commitment and you have my vote.
Willowbrook. They wowed me on Tuesday. Their circulation and connections for all modes is brilliant. I understand they’ve convinced housing folks as well. Not one person on Tuesday spoke against Willow Bank. In Davis? Amazing. VF has tons of opposition whenever it comes up. I’m pretty sure that Willow baby is passing the voter and will get built. At this point, Village Farms is at best a maybe.
“Honest” question – why would you vote for what is clearly sprawl?
What benefit does that provide, exactly, to the residents of Davis? (I can think of plenty of negatives, but not even one benefit – other than to perhaps partially appease the state’s fake housing goals).
Or do you think this would somehow “save” your area from a bunch of “Tracksides” – which somehow still isn’t penciling out?
Personally, I believe that some are using Shriner’s/Willowbrook as a way to increase opposition to Village Farms. Sort of like how The Cannery did for Covell Village. (Not a bad strategy, though.)
“I can think of plenty of negatives, but not even one benefit”
That makes sense. You seem to struggle placing yourself in the shoes of others.
I was actually asking Alan, but I see that you also haven’t provided a response regarding any benefit for current residents.
Alan mentions “transportation”, but I assume he means within the Willowbrook development itself – since it sure wouldn’t improve the situation on Covell/Mace (and every other street in the city).
As for putting myself in the “shoes of others” as you say, my values/goals haven’t changed going back to the days when I owned nothing (and was priced-out of my original hometown). Perhaps the “problem” from someone with your point of view is that you don’t understand how someone can be driven by values/goals that aren’t self-interested.
In other words, the only thing that you might understand is “self” interest (e.g., a school district that tries to protect itself from right-sizing).
(Though in this case, I actually was asking what benefit this provides to Davis residents.)
Seems to me that if the “non-selfish” argument is to “lower existing housing prices” for the imaginary crowd who are just waiting for a developer to build them a cheap house, then current sellers could simply lower their asking price – right?
My point is that you should be able to intellectually identify strengths and weaknesses of positions that you do not personally hold.
Oh, I can and do.
But you still haven’t named any benefit for current residents (other than perhaps a handful of parents who might be slightly inconvenienced if a school closes down that would otherwise stay open for a few more years).
Of course, the assumption you’re putting forth is (also) that housing prices would be lowered as a result of this sprawl. But that’s not a “benefit” in the first place, for most current residents.
So you see, this isn’t a question “about” me, or my understanding, your claim regarding a lack of empathy, or anything else about me.
I’m asking what benefit sprawl provides for current residents (overall). Again, if they actually believe that lower housing prices are a personal benefit, then they could simply ask less for their houses, when it comes time to sell. (All housing eventually turns over.)
And since they generally don’t sell their property for less than market value, what makes you think that they’d approve sprawl for the same reason (based upon an argument that it will lower housing prices)?
You “can and do” but you haven’t
Open mindedness and lack of bias are two elements of critical thinking that some comment writers seem to be lacking.
“Open mindedness and lack of bias are two elements of critical thinking that some comment writers seem to be lacking.”
Yes Ron Glick, some comment writers also live in a glass house.
How did you know I live in a 58 year old Strang starter home with some really big windows? But what does that have to do with my open mindedness or bias? I fully understand the NIMBY’s and the no growth arguments because I was once, long ago, in that camp.
Certainly you should be able to come up with a cut that is better than your “I’m rubber and you’re glue” nonsense.
“why would you vote for what is clearly sprawl?”
Loaded question.
I vote for projects if they are extremely well-planned. Usually the Vanguard attitude is “so it’s not perfect, the perfect is the enemy of the good enough, so what if it’s poorly planned, built it anyway”. I vote against projects that aren’t very well planned. Willow Baby impressed me. Nothing more to it.
“Or do you think this would somehow “save” your area from a bunch of “Tracksides” – which somehow still isn’t penciling out?”
Clearly that’s makes no sense or I’d be for sure voting for VF too, which would have a lot more effect to “save”, as you put it, “my area” as you put it, from a bunch of “Tracksides” as you put it, since it is much bigger.
I am tending towards a NO on VF unless they commit to what would be the greatest alternative transit connection to the ENTIRE NE sector of Davis — connecting bikes and peds to a grade-separated bike path UNDER COVELL that ALREADY EXISTS and be connected to the H Street bike tunnel using 1000′ of Whitcomb property (and a bit of that through another complex that would have to cooperate or have eminent domain). Wow me for V.
I was asking what benefit you think that Willowgrove provides for Davis residents.
You mention transportation, but I assume you’re only referring to flow WITHIN the development, since there’s no way it’s going to improve transportation outside of the development (e.g., on Covell, Mace, and every other street in the city).
Overall, it appears to be a commuter site to me – for people who work in Sacramento.
As for “sprawl”, there is no other way to describe Willowgrove (a spreading outward of the city, onto farmland). It’s also pretty far from downtown and UCD, and requires going “through” the city to reach those places.
At least Village Farms “appears” to be infill when looked at from space (e.g., a satellite). Maybe the crew of the Artemis took a picture of it on their way back that they could provide to the campaign?
Look at my public comment at last Tuesday’s council meeting. I don’t feel like typing it all out.
https://davis.granicus.com/player/clip/1951?
Timestamp: 2:34:05
Shamma Lamma Ding Dong
I appreciate Ron O’s honesty in opposing both Measure J projects heading to the ballot.
It is important to note because I have already heard no on V advocates trying to pit Willow Grove against Village Farms. In reality we need both projects. Of course as soon as this election is over I fully expect many naysayers on Measure V to flip flop on any support they express today for Willow Grove.
Ron G: You won’t see Eileen “reversing” her position (or anyone else I suspect), though it is true that some are more opposed to one of the developments or the other because they think it will have a bigger negative impact. And as such, are more willing to support (or at least not actively oppose) the “other” development proposal as an alternative.
Eileen, for example, actively supported The Cannery (and didn’t “reverse” her support once Covell Village failed).
I, on the other hand, and hoping to help pick-off both of them. And in my personal opinion, Shriner’s/Willowbrook is a worse location than Village Farms. (Though Willowbrook is a lot smaller.)
As a side note, I see that you got the ridiculous name of Willowbrook wrong as I started to do. (Corrected it in time.)
Oh, wait – you did get it right Ron G. (I was using Alan’s incorrect citation as a reference for the name.)
I didn’t say anything about Eileen.
Yes and it isn’t sprawl its infill on three sides.
When viewed from space, “everything” is infill on ALL sides.
Certainly, everything in-between Davis and Woodland, for example.
The key is proposing something so large that it abuts against other development – like Village Farms does.
urban sprawl
noun
Simple Definition
: the spreading of urban developments (such as houses and shopping centers) on undeveloped land near a city
That is not a very good definition, and I think most urban planners would dispute it
What definition does the “ urban planners dictionary” give?
“What definition does the “urban planners dictionary” give?”
From https://www.planetizen.com/definition/sprawl
The term “sprawl” describes the result of unrestricted and rapid expansion of development into the periphery of metropolitan areas. In the United States, sprawl is most often characterized by single-family residential housing, the separation of residential neighborhoods from retail and commercial land uses, and the increased reliance on the private automobile for transportation. In some other countries, sprawl has less of a suburban connotation than in the United States. In Mexico City and New Delhi, for example, sprawl describes expansive mixed-use density, usually home to low-income, marginalized communities.
The word sprawl is highly politicized and is almost always used with a negative connotation, as evidenced by the origin of the term: “sprawl” was first used in an article in The Times in 1955 as a negative comment to describe the outskirts of London.
….
Sprawl is frequently characterized as the result of a lack of planning, but the history of development in the United States is far more complex than this reductive description allows. Much of the development that would be classified as sprawl is highly planned, in fact, to respond to demand in the market for homeownership. Sprawl is usually organized into subdivisions of master planned communities, with homes grouped onto one part of the development, separate from retail areas.
To new urbanists, sprawl is just another term for suburban development. It refers to housing that is a separate development on vacant land (farmland or open space) that is not integrated with the existing urban area.
“What definition does the “ urban planners dictionary” give?”
LOL
I don’t like the ballpark at the south end of WG because it impedes pedestrian and bike access to Covell and I suspect the softball lights will be undesirable the Alhambra neighbors across the street. WG is better than VF in many respects but it still has more to do on the transportation side. Overall our biggest problem is that we are prevented by Measure J/R/D in its current incarnation to prepare a comprehensive Covell corridor plan that could address the overall transportation plan.
Don’t assume that this endorsement represents all Democrats by any means. This same committee endorsed DISC so Davis voters did not agree with them there either. But it is notable that the original recommendation from the endorsement committee was “Non endorsement” but interestingly that changed at the meeting to vote on it where the vast majority of representatives voting on this were from other districts which would not be negatively impacted by Village Farms.
That is correct – an endorsement never means unanimity. There is an elected body in Yolo County called the Democratic Central Committee. That body met earlier this month and voted overwhelmingly to endorse the project.
David,
My point is that the majority of those members who voted for this Davis land use project do not live in Davis. They live in other districts in other cities outside of Davis, and this issue does not impact their cities, so it does not seem fair to have had this Davis issue voted on by this committee at all. This vote certainly does not represent me (a lifelong Democrat), nor the vast majority of Democrats that I know.
Yes Eileen, and we know how Davisites feel about outsiders injecting their opinions about Davis issues.
Just look at how one person from Woodland is treated when he tries to comment about housing issues on the Vanguard.
Yolo County Democratic Party Chair Jake Whitaker, “At the bigger picture level, I think that that’s what the Democratic Party has to focus on in order to effectively turn back the rising tide of fascism in this country, is delivering real results for working people in this country,” Really? Rejecting a troubling environmentally questionable , sprawling and traffic challenging development is FACIST? Please let me call your High School Civics teacher to change your passing grade to an “F”.