DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis Teachers Association has formally endorsed Measure V, arguing that a lack of housing growth in Davis is undermining school enrollment, limiting access for working families and threatening the long-term health of the community’s public schools.
In a letter announcing the endorsement, DTA political action chair Victor Lagunes wrote that the association has “always been an advocate for the students and schools of Davis” and emphasized the connection between housing availability and the future of local education.
“We understand the foundational role that our schools play in creating community, and believe that strong schools are vital to maintaining our identity as a family-oriented city that values excellent public education for all,” Lagunes wrote.
The endorsement comes as Davis continues to grapple with declining school enrollment, rising housing costs and ongoing debates over growth and development. Measure V, which would authorize the Village Farms development proposal, has become a focal point in the broader discussion over how Davis addresses housing shortages and demographic shifts.
Lagunes argued that limited housing production has increasingly made it difficult for families, educators and workers to remain in Davis.
“What has become clear is that with little housing growth in Davis, there is less access for families with children — which includes our own Davis graduates, university employees, teachers, and others who work and contribute to our city — to live in our community,” he wrote.
“The demand is present, but the supply of family-oriented housing does not match. This has increasingly strained the health of our schools and therefore the identity of our community.”
The letter framed housing growth as directly tied to preserving educational programs and maintaining Davis’ reputation as a family-oriented city.
“We believe our students deserve the best,” Lagunes wrote. “We want them to have schools with sufficient enrollment to continue to run the excellent programs that our community has supported for decades, staffed with teachers and educators that have the opportunity to live in the community that they dedicate their careers to.”
Lagunes also highlighted the amenities and infrastructure associated with new neighborhood development, including parks, bike paths and open space.
“We want students to have more open spaces, parks, and fields to play in, and bike paths to safely get around between neighborhoods,” he wrote. “And we want them to have housing options that suit the needs of their families so that they can live in the same city as their schools, and be more connected to our community.”
The Davis Teachers Association joins a growing list of organizations and community leaders supporting Measure V ahead of the November election.
“DTA wants Davis to continue to be a place for families and excellent schools,” Lagunes wrote. “Please vote Yes on Measure V.”
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.
Those associated with the school district are continuing to purposefully/blatantly alienate those who value open space/farmland.
They are doing so out of self-interest.
Assuming that one of the goals of the teaching profession is to demonstrate/promote ethical standards to the students they’ve been entrusted with, their continuing campaign flies directly in the face of that goal.
Not the first or last time, however. One might argue that the manner in which they created their parcel tax structure also lacks integrity (since those voting to approve it are often not subject to it, themselves).
At this point, I’ll admit that I’m going to find it personally satisfying when some of the louder, more shrill voices lose their jobs as a result of declining enrollment. Perhaps that’s when they’ll provide their students with an actual, real-life lesson (other than the self-interest they’ve already demonstrated – which isn’t limited to school districts).
But the difference (in regard to school districts) is that they uniquely claim to be “doing it for the kids” (despite actions which demonstrate the opposite, such as when they go on strike).
Ron O – Re: “At this point, I’ll admit that I’m going to find it personally satisfying when some of the louder, more shrill voices lose their jobs as a result of declining enrollment.”
I know you can’t possibly be that cruel. Why don’t tell us how you really feel?
Well, I did think twice about posting that (and asked David not to do so). But yes, it is how I “actually” feel regarding those who would actively advocate sacrificing farmland just to save their own jobs – while claiming that it’s “for the kids”.
It’s the claimed “Mission from God” aspect that bothers me most of all.
When the prison guard union, for example, advocates against prison closures – they don’t lay claim to divine purpose.
The other part of this is that our state needs fewer teachers; not more of them. So yes, I do want to see more of them pursue different careers for their own sake.
I’m also irritated by the persistent claims of low pay, when this is something to check out BEFORE you go into a particular field. Especially one that has about 1/3 of the “normal” working year off.
I’d also prefer it if they stopped poaching students from other districts, for the sake of preserving their own jobs. Again, while claiming that it’s “for the kids”.
So yeah, I think some of them are an immoral bunch. (Some people think that about you in regard to Village Farms, as well. I have tried to steer clear of that.)
“DAVIS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION ENDORSES MEASURE V”
I’m shocked I tell ya. I mean how did everyone think they would vote?
They have an oversized bloated school system they’re trying to keep afloat.
There are elements here that are surprising given that the DTA has never endorsed a housing proposal before and how late they decided to do it, that should probably mitigate against your flippant response.
Flippant? How? They endorsed it whether it was late or not. That doesn’t mitigate anything…
Keith – My recommendation if you oppose Measure V – Tread lightly when knocking the teachers. The more you disparage our beloved school teachers, the more Yes votes will be tallied. Thems toes you don’t want to step on.
The “toes” of some of them need to be stepped on – badly.
With friends like that . . .
And truth be told, once there’s fewer of them – the “sprawl for schools” campaigns of the future will be less of a factor.
There’s a day of reckoning coming, when these people will find out that they’re no holier than anyone else.
Of course, it’s only some of them who would gladly sacrifice farmland (and damage other school districts via poaching activities) in order to save their own jobs. Some of them (including at least one former teacher) do have more morals, than that.
School administrators are some of the most overpaid bureaucrats in existence. If you cut back on waste in our school system, you will not have to close schools for financial reasons. The proposed development is not going to change the lack of children in our town. Union votes are just that, votes for the interest of the union, not what is best for the public good.
The math simply does not support the argument.
If DJUSD’s administrative spending is roughly 8.5 percent of the general fund (it’s somewhere around, btw), even aggressive cuts to administration would not offset the structural losses tied to declining enrollment.
California school districts are funded largely through ADA. Roughly speaking, losing 100 students per year translates into approximately $1 million in lost annual revenue. That loss compounds year after year. You might be able to cut some from the administration, but year over year, no way is that going to prevent loses and the need for school closures.
DG: “If DJUSD’s administrative spending is roughly 8.5 percent of the general fund (it’s somewhere around, btw), even aggressive cuts to administration would not offset the structural losses tied to declining enrollment.”
For the current year (2025-26), administrative spending is 7.7% of the general fund. 6.75% if one adjusted for indirect administrative costs for the school parcel tax (Measures N & G). Refer to the April 16 school board meeting, IX. c. Declining enrollment and budget study session.
In other news, “Sun Hot”
Exactly…
I think its interesting that DTA has endorsed V especially since Matt Williams has spent a good amount of time whining about affordability of housing for teachers.
RG, how many teachers do you think will be buying any of the new housing?
I would be willing to bet that if this project gets built the number of teachers who end up living there will be greater than zero. It probably won’t be the beginners or the ones who don’t have a partner but I have no doubt that there will be DJUSD employees who have spouses with careers who will buy homes there and have children there and raise those children here in our schools while they pay taxes and participate as members of this community and give back to the commonweal we call Davis.
“there will be DJUSD employees who have spouses with careers who will buy homes there”
They’re probably already living in Davis.
Maybe, and I know more than a few DJUSD employees who fit that description and do already live in Davis. So we agree that more than zero is a real possibility. The question is do we want more people like that? I’m a yes on having more talented people joining in our community.
Ron G, it really isn’t interesting at all. For DTA members the most important issue by far is protecting their pay checks. It is hard to worry about housing affordability if you don’t have a job.
I’m amazed that your brain missed that basic reality.
With that said, DTA asked five very good questions in advance of their separate interviews with the Yes and No teams. Those questions were:
1) Tell us about your campaign, and the position you are taking on the Village Farms housing development.
2) What relationship do you see existing between housing and our existing schools? How has that relationship changed over time, and what do you see it looking like in the future?
3) Should Measure V pass or not, what impact do you see the Village Farms development having on families with school aged children?
4) This interview is being conducted to provide a report to DTA members, but also to consider endorsement. If you are, why are you seeking an endorsement from DTA, and what kind of support would you expect to come from it?
5) Anything else you would like to add, or do you have any questions for us?
They conducted the interviews way back in the last week of April, but didn’t decide which option to endorse until a month later. Ron, why do you think it took them so long to decide?
Three weeks ago is way back? Maybe they were busy. I mean they have day jobs and lives to live unlike all these old selfish boomer retirees that are willing to keep the next generations down for their own convenience.
four weeks, and yes in the world of political endorsements that is an eternity, especially when the ballot mailing happens in the middle of those four weeks.
Regarding your comment “selfish boomer retirees that are willing to keep the next generations down for their own convenience” you clearly haven’t been listening, or your ears are filled with wax. The selfish boomers have consistently been saying that (A) Davis needs affordable housing that fits into the modest budgets of the next generation, (B) housing that is below Channel A, and (C) housing that is a safe distance from the old landfill burn site.
As I said earlier, you have become a caricature.
“With that said, DTA asked five very good questions in advance of their separate interviews with the Yes and No teams. Those questions were:”
Where did you find these questions? I’d be interested in the answers that were provided.
Don, happy to oblige. Here is DTA’s Question One and our answer. Will you be asking the Yes team to provide their answer as well?
DTA’s Question One: Tell us about your campaign, and the position you are taking on the Village Farms housing development.
Question One: Tell us about your campaign, and the position you are taking on the Village Farms housing development.
The six unifying positions of our campaign are that:
A) Our group opposes Village Farms because it is too big, has too many impacts and costs. It would have unaffordable housing, and has a seriously inadequate affordable housing plan which can very likely result with no affordable housing.
B) Davis needs housing, but the kind of housing our community needs is missing from the Village Farms project.
C) Davis has a substantial shortage of workforce housing designed and built to be affordable for members of the Davis workforce of modest financial means and modest annual salary and benefits … workers like DTA members, whose starting salary at DJUSD ranges from $49,930 to $61,570 per year (see https://www.teacher.org/school-district/davis-joint-unified-school-district/)
D) Davis has systematically excluded the members of the local workforce from ownership and owner occupancy by only building expensive homes … building no market-priced single-family homes small enough to be affordably priced. In our opinion, the exclusion borders on discrimination.
E) Davis has a surplus of housing only affordable by wealthy folks who are more often than not empty nesters, without children who will be going to DJUSD schools.
F) Annual Housing Costs in Davis are very high. According to HUD, annual housing costs should be no more than 30% of total annual household income. In Village Farms a $740,000 home with a 20% cash down payment and a 6.0% mortgage has a total of over $6,000 of housing costs per month … over $75,000 per year … requiring an annual household income greater than $250,000. Ask your members how many of them have a household anywhere close to $250,000.
$740,000 Sale Price
1,740 Square Feet
$46,512 mortgage payments,
$2,285 PMI (mortgage balance life) Insurance,
$7,400 property taxes,
PARCEL TAXES
$89 DJUSD 2000 Bond
$414 DJUSD 2018 Bond
$327 DJUSD CFD #1
$1,621 DJUSD CFD #2
$236 DJUSD Measure G
$797 DJUSD Measure N
$170 Los Rios CCD
$0 Fire District
$176 Davis Special Library Tax
$24 Davis Open Space Tax
$55 Davis Parks Tax
$2,224 CFD taxes,
$1,512 HOA fees,
$2,442 homeowners insurance ($0.3 per $100 assessed value),
$1,100 FEMA flood insurance,
$??.?? home maintenance and repairs
UTILITIES
$1,100 gas,
$3,000 electricity,
$1,992 water,
$613 sewer,
$130 storm sewer,
$112 municipal service
$88 public safety,
$706 garbage/recycling
$91 green waste
——————————
$75,215 Annual Housing Costs
$6,267.92 Monthly Housing Costs
In conclusion:
1) We are not anti-housing. We support a smaller “Reduced-Footprint” alternative below Channel A that avoids the vast majority of the floodplain and toxics problems. This plan also avoids City liability exposure into the future due to the toxics exposure and flooding potential.
2) In addition to the Social Justice issues described above, it is important to clearly say that Village Farms is a poorly conceived project that should be rejected at this time, and go back to the drawing board for a reduced footprint with housing that is affordable. We will address those “bad project, bad planning, bad process” issues in your Question 5.
3) It is the largest residential project ever proposed in Davis: 1,800 units on about 498 acres at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd. with the most impacts and costs.
4) Our concerns are the same core concerns Davis voters had with Covell Village (voted down 60/40 in 2005) – massive traffic, floodplain risks, toxics, unsafe access, habitat impacts, costs, and unaffordable housing.
Don, here is DTA’s next question and our answer.
DTA’s Question 2: What relationship do you see existing between housing and our existing schools? How has that relationship changed over time, and what do you see it looking like in the future?
The relationship between housing and DJUSD’s existing schools depends on a number of factors:
A) The most positive relationship is when the housing is owner-occupied by members of the current Davis workforce … young families with DJUSD-aged children.
B) The least positive relationship is when the housing is owner-occupied by wealthy empty nest seniors or near-seniors … more generally wealthy families with no DJUSD-aged children.
C) As described in our answer to the first question, Davis has a substantial shortage of housing for A) and a substantial surplus of housing for B).
D) The relationship has changed over time by members of A) aging out of A) and becoming part of B), as well as wealthy Silicon Valley and Bay Area families without children moving to Davis.
E) Unless Davis stops building large, expensive housing targeted for sale to buyers in B), and begins building small, affordable, owner-occupied homes targeted for … and affordable by … buyers in A) Davis schools will continue to experience declining enrollments.
F) As described in our answer to Question One, Davis has systematically excluded the members of the local workforce from owner occupancy by only building expensive homes and building no small-a affordable (in other words, not deed restricted) market-priced single-family homes small enough to achieve affordable pricing. This exclusion borders on discrimination. Continuing that exclusion will only make the situation described in E) worse.
G) Unfortunately, the Village Farms developer and City Council have consciously excluded any commitment to group A) housing from the Baseline Features of Measure V. Anything that isn’t in the Baseline Features can be changed at any time by three votes of a future City Council whose composition is unknown at this time. (For more on this, see https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/commentary-promises-of-affordable-housing-are-misleading/article_c27c02b8-5312-43df-80ec-371abdda0132.html
H) The whole reason that Measure J was brought forward by the citizens of Davis was because our local government had badly failed the “Have they earned our Trust?” question. It is now 26 years later and that “Have they earned our Trust?” question is still front and center. There are numerous clear examples why the answer to that question is “No, they haven’t.” The accountability provisions of the Baseline Features of Measure V should provide that protection, except City Council and the developer mutually agreed not to include those protections. Instead they said, “Trust us.” They want us to give them our Trust even though they haven’t earned it.
I) Timing also matters. Unbuilt houses don’t benefit the schools. Village Farms has an estimated 15-year buildout … but is being marketed as a near-term solution to the school enrollment problem. The City Attorney, in the last Planning Commission meeting, revealed that Village Farms is not realistically expected to start construction for many years because of all the detailed planning and regulatory work that was deferred until after their Measure J/R/D vote.
J) In addition to these Social Justice issues, it is important to clearly say that Village Farms is a poorly conceived project that should be rejected at this time, and go back to the drawing board for a reduced footprint with housing that is affordable. We will address those “bad project, bad planning, bad process” issues in your Question 5.
K) Going forward, Davis needs housing that is realistically attainable for working families, teachers, staff, and younger households. Housing that is built on a timeline that can help our schools. That is not the Village Farms project.
Don, here is our next question answer.
DTA Question 3: Should Measure V pass or not, what impact do you see the Village Farms development having on families with school aged children?
The relationship between housing and DJUSD’s existing schools depends on a number of factors:
A) The most positive relationship is when the housing is owner-occupied by members of the current Davis workforce … young families with DJUSD-aged children.
B) The least positive relationship is when the housing is owner-occupied by wealthy empty nest seniors or near-seniors … old families with no DJUSD-aged children.
C) As described in our answer to the first question, Davis has a substantial shortage of housing for A) and a substantial surplus of housing for B).
D) The relationship has changed over time by members of A) aging out of A) and becoming part of B)
E) Unless Davis stops building large, expensive housing targeted for sale to buyers in B), and begins building small, affordable, owner-occupied homes targeted for … and affordable by … buyers in A) Davis schools will continue to experience declining enrollments.
F) As described in our first answer , Davis has systematically excluded the members of the local workforce from owner occupancy by only building expensive homes, and building no market-priced single family homes small enough to be affordable priced. The exclusion borders on discrimination. Continuing that exclusion will only make the situation described in E) worse.
G) Davis has a substantial surplus of housing only affordable by wealthy folks who are more often than not empty nesters, without children who will be going to DJUSD schools.
H) Annual Housing Costs in Davis are very high. According to HUD Annual Housing Costs should be no more than 30% of total annual household income. In Village Farms a $740,000 home with a 20% cash down payment and a 6.0% mortgage has a total of over $6,000 of housing costs per month … over $75,000 per year requiring an annual household income greater than $250,000. Ask your members how many of them have a household anywhere close to that.
$740,000 Sale Price
1,740 Square Feet
$46,512 mortgage payments,
$2,285 PMI (mortgage balance life) Insurance,
$7,400 property taxes,
PARCEL TAXES
$89 DJUSD 2000 Bond
$414 DJUSD 2018 Bond
$327 DJUSD CFD #1
$1,621 DJUSD CFD #2
$236 DJUSD Measure G
$797 DJUSD Measure N
$170 Los Rios CCD
$0 Fire District
$176 Davis Special Library Tax
$24 Davis Open Space Tax
$55 Davis Parks Tax
$2,224 CFD taxes,
$1,512 HOA fees,
$2,442 homeowners insurance ($0.3 per $100 assessed value),
$1,100 FEMA flood insurance,
$??.?? home maintenance and repairs
UTILITIES
$1,100 gas,
$3,000 electricity,
$1,992 water,
$613 sewer,
$130 storm sewer,
$112 municipal service
$88 public safety,
$706 garbage/recycling
$91 green waste
——————————
$75,215 Annual Housing Costs
$6,267.92 Monthly Housing Costs
I) We believe Village Farms is a poorly conceived project that is coming forward at the right time … a time where we need workforce, owner-occupied, “missing middle” housing.
And now the fourth Question:
DTA’s Question 4: This interview is being conducted to provide a report to DTA members, but also to consider endorsement. If you are, why are you seeking an endorsement from DTA, and what kind of support would you expect to come from it?
• We are seeking fair consideration from DTA because this is a major community decision with long-term consequences.
• If DTA wants to endorse, we would want that endorsement based on the reality that Village Farms is not a simple school or housing fix.
• While a “No on Measure V” endorsement would be beneficial to outside, our group agrees that the best position your organization to take is a neutral ”Non-endorsement” either way for many reasons.
• One reason is that, the reality is that taking a pro-position would be perceived by many due to the donations that the Tandem Properties partners who are also the Village Farms developers.
• Rather than taking a pro- or con- endorsement position, it would be more beneficial for there to be discussions amongst your members on subjects including the following:
—- Urging caution about the project’s affordability and timing claims.
—- Recognizing that this project Is not likely to deliver the near-term benefits being promised.
—- Consider encouraging the “Reduced Footprint” alternative instead which would come on-line sooner, and with housing that is far more likely to be lower cost because it does not need to move 1 MILLION cubic yards of soil nor reroute Channel A, plus it distances the housing from the toxics leaking from the unlined Old Davis Landfill/Burn Dump and Sewage treatment Plant which is a health, welfare and safety issue. This “Reduced Footprint” alternative also avoids City liability into the future.
• Village Farms would not serve the families nor the schools because of the unaffordability of the housing.
And now the fifth and final question: Anything else you would like to add, or do you have any questions for us?
• This is not a choice between Village Farms and no housing. It is a choice between this seriously flawed project and a better-planned smaller alternative. The later path potentially provides a faster pathway to the needed housing and more likely to have school kids because it would not have some of the major infrastructure costs that the current massive project has and the delays that would come with it for housing which would likely be lower in cost and built sooner.
• Davis deserves housing that is safer, more affordable, and more realistic for families.
• Village Farms is being marketed as helping schools, but the infrastructure cost-impacts on home prices, timing of actual occupied homes, and enduring site risks/problems all point towards adverse outcomes for the city, the school district, and new homeowners.
• Questions for DTA:
—- How is DTA evaluating the difference between near-term school needs and a likely Village Farms slow start and extended buildout since it would take at least 15 years (which is overly optimistic.) Plus, the project may result with possibly only 100 affordable apartments in 10+ years in the last phase of the project or none at all if the City can’t produce the affordable housing, Further, as one Councilmember pointed out repeatedly, in the last phase the developer could walk away from building the 100 affordable apartments and since 90% of the expensive market-rate units with massive profits will have been built by then of the project?
—- How much weight is DTA giving to actual affordability of the Village Farms housing for families with children versus general unit count?
—- Is DTA willing to consider the “Reduced-footprint” alternative would better serve Davis in the long run?
—- Is the DTA willing to look beyond all the (a) objectively misleading marketing and (b) undeliverable promises being made by the Village Farms project and do independent fact-finding with an open mind?
“For DTA members the most important issue by far is protecting their pay checks. It is hard to worry about housing affordability if you don’t have a job.”
For what it’s worth, I actually have more respect for this (honest) argument, than I do regarding “it’s for the kids”.
Though I suspect that most teachers live in a household with a partner who has income, as well.
In any case, society needs “fewer” teachers going forward. Partly as a result of a declining birthrate, but also (likely) as a result of artificial intelligence playing a bigger role in education. (Education that might not even be needed, when artificial intelligence also replaces workers in general.)
Regarding “generational warfare” – it’s ultimately not a factor. Each/every day, more assets are inherited by younger generations – the children and grandchildren of boomers.
Last time I checked, no one was able to “take it with them”.
If society actually wanted to “level the playing field”, the laws regarding inheritance would be changed. As I recall, Japan has laws which “level the playing field” a lot more than what the U.S. has in place, as well as housing that’s not built in such a permanent manner.
David Greenwald said As enrollment falls, districts face a difficult reality: many operational costs remain fixed even as revenues decline. Schools still require principals, counselors, custodial staff, transportation systems and maintenance regardless of whether enrollment falls by several hundred students.
The question isn’t as much how much the administration is being paid, although in fiscal responsibility terms that is indeed important. The more important question is whether the administration is delivering value for that pay.
The declining enrollment situation faced by DJUSD is more than 25 years old. In 2007 I was part of a DJUSD task force focused on what to do with “surplus property” and the whole task force was given an information pack. Close to a dozen of the pages of the packet focused on declining enrollment and efficient use of existing school facilities. That is clear evidence that the declining enrollment issue is not a new one.
However, as a problem it has been eclipsed by the administration and the School Board’s inability and/or unwillingness to take steps to address it. They have instead chosen to fiddle while the district burned money it did not have to burn.
With that said, the current School Board does appear to be more engaged and aware.
Declining enrollment has been an issue since Measure J passed in 2000. Until now the district has only had to close one school. But now the chickens are coming home to roost and a no vote on Measure V will only hasten the decline of our schools.
Sadly, when people talk about no growth, they think its means steady state, when, in reality, it means decline, as we can now see empirically from the data.