People keep asking me for my prediction on Measure V, and, to be honest, it is difficult to judge. If you read comments on Facebook and Nextdoor, you would likely conclude the measure is headed toward defeat — and, given Davis history, that would not be an unreasonable assumption.
For 25 years, Measure J votes have often reflected a deep skepticism toward peripheral growth and large housing proposals. Davis voters have repeatedly shown a reluctance about development, especially projects on the city’s edges.
At the same time, there are factors in this election cycle that feel fundamentally different from previous Measure J campaigns, and that could change the outcome potentially.
Historically, Davis voters were often skeptical of growth, but increasingly the electorate appears to acknowledge that housing scarcity has become a serious challenge affecting the broader future of the community.
Housing affordability, school enrollment decline, demographic stagnation and workforce displacement are increasingly part of the political discourse in Davis.
As such, they are being viewed as symptoms of a huge underlying problem: Davis has not built enough family-oriented housing over the last two decades.
The enrollment numbers facing the Davis Joint Unified School District are difficult to ignore. District enrollment has declined by roughly 300 students since 2019 and continues to trend downward — with projection placing the decline potentially at 1000 students over the next decade.
District officials and many community members see rising housing costs as the central cause of declining enrollment, arguing that families who once would have settled in Davis can no longer afford to buy homes in the city.
While some of that has been mitigated through interdistrict transfers of students whose parents work at UC Davis or DJUSD, projections show that will not be near enough to offset the decline.
As we have pointed out, Davis has built only about 805 single-family homes in the past 20 years — fewer than 40 per year.
In a city with a major research university, nationally ranked public schools and a strong regional job base, such limited housing production has had predictable consequences.
Home prices have risen dramatically, competition for available housing has intensified and more working families have been forced to live outside the city and commute in.
That includes many UC Davis employees, teachers, health care workers and young professionals who contribute to the city every day but increasingly find homeownership unattainable within Davis itself.
Even transfer students in local schools are primarily the children of people who work in Davis but cannot afford to live there full time.
When families cannot afford to live in Davis, schools lose students and funding, creating mounting pressure for staffing cuts, program reductions, school consolidation discussions and growing uncertainty about the district’s long-term financial stability.
For many supporters of Measure V, the answer begins with housing.
Linking Measure V to the future of Davis schools could prove politically significant because the community has historically shown an extraordinary willingness to financially support public education through repeated parcel tax approvals and other funding measures aimed at preserving school quality.
That pattern began in particularly visible fashion during the 2008 financial crisis, when the district faced severe budget shortfalls and potential layoffs. Community members mobilized to raise money to temporarily prevent cuts while also supporting a parcel tax measure to stabilize funding.
Support continued in 2020, when voters approved a substantial parcel tax increase designed to help teacher salaries remain more competitive with neighboring districts.
Then again in 2024, Davis voters approved making the parcel tax permanent and indexing it to inflation by a decisive 70-30 margin.
Residents in Davis have consistently placed a high value on public education and having consistently been willing to support policies they believe protect local schools.
For the past 15 to 20 years, Davis has struggled with two simultaneous realities: rising housing costs and declining school enrollment.
As fewer young families can afford to live in Davis, the effects are illustrated by declining enrollment, staffing concerns and discussions about possible school closures.
Many voters now recognize that family-oriented housing may be necessary — not simply to satisfy state housing mandates, but also to preserve the long-term vitality of the community itself.
That does not mean opposition to Measure V has disappeared. We see the usual concerns about traffic, sprawl, infrastructure, environmental impacts and growth.
At the same time — this time feels different.
District leaders, housing advocates and community organizations have repeatedly warned that Davis risks becoming increasingly inaccessible to younger households, teachers and middle-income workers.
Without new housing opportunities, many employees tied to UC Davis, local schools and essential services are forced into long commutes from surrounding communities.
That dynamic affects not only housing affordability, but also the social fabric of the city itself.
Fewer families with children living locally means fewer students in neighborhood schools, fewer long-term community connections and increasing pressure on institutions that depend on stable enrollment and demographic continuity.
In that context, the endorsement from the Davis Teachers Association may ultimately prove game-changing by taking huge swaths of the electorate away from the usual land use debate and towards a focus on the schools — which has proven time and time again in Davis to be politically viable.
The DTA formally endorsed Measure V this week (or at least publicly announced it), arguing that the city’s lack of housing growth is undermining school enrollment, limiting access for working families and threatening the long-term health of Davis 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” while emphasizing the connection between housing and educational stability.
“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.
Lagunes argued that insufficient housing production has increasingly made it difficult for families, educators and workers to remain in the city.
“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 connected to maintaining educational programs and preserving Davis’ identity 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 noted the neighborhood amenities associated with new 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.”
It is easy to dismiss the endorsement as self-interested. But doing so may miss the larger shift occurring in the public conversation.
Housing is no longer being debated solely as a land-use issue. Increasingly, many residents appear to see it as tied to the future sustainability of Davis itself — its schools, workforce, demographics and long-term identity as a family-oriented community.
Whether that shift is enough to change the outcome of a Measure J election remains uncertain.
However, the community seems much more willing to recognize the housing crisis than in previous elections — will that be enough to overcome the reluctance of longtime residents to build on farmland? Hard to know. But at least this time, it’s a different conversation.
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 growth advocacy has led to a decline in the quality of life in Davis. Presented as a path to sustainability no growth has led to the decline in school age children, decline of our roads, decline of infrastructure and our tax base to maintain that infrastructure, decline of affordability, decline in the number of families of child bearing age living in Davis, decline of the economic vitality of downtown Davis, and decline in the percentage of professionals who work at UCD, DJUSD and for the City of Davis who live in town.
The only things no growth policies have increased are home prices and commute distances for those who work at UC or in Davis who have been priced out and the number of houses occupied by empty nesters and retirees.
It’s a strange argument that the only way we can maintain infrastructure is by continuously growing our city. There is enough money in Davis to fill potholes if the city council made it a priority.
The housing crisis is a demographic choice combined with an immigration crisis. Davis does not produce enough kids to grow its population; without external forces, the city would be shrinking.
But Davis is not an island, and we are subject to population pressures around us. And California is not an island, and we are subject to external forces as a state as well. Without immigration, we would be facing the problems of a shrinking population. With high immigration, we face the problem of not being able to build fast enough to provide housing for a new, largely adult population.
It’s not clear that California’s population growth will continue; immigration rates are falling, they are not making more baby boomers (their average age is now 71), and people are, on net, leaving California for other states.
Mexico’s birthrate has fallen below replacement, and this is a worldwide trend. This means less immigration pressure. And immigration has become less politically popular; 2/3 of voters want the Democratic Party to move to the center on immigration.
A decline in California’s population, combined with lower housing prices, seems increasingly inevitable. We should really examine the reasons for demographic stagnation; it’s not just housing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lFXmDk-tps
Seems just as likely to lead to a much-needed backlash against the school district – some of which is coming from its own employees (e.g., regarding administrator salaries, purchase of an administrative building which doesn’t address its own needs, etc.).
I’m also seeing backlash against the “sprawl for schools” campaign itself.
The reason that the parcel taxes were approved is because it was structured in a manner in which those who have to pay it are often not the same ones who approved it.
But yeah, it’s an absurd position to take with a straight face – that schools should be the driver of land use decisions for a community.
Then there’s the fact that DJUSD is essentially seeking to steal students who would otherwise attend schools in other districts. This fact alone tells you that they don’t actually care about the kids, themselves. Stealing kids from other districts obviously impacts those who remain in those districts.
I can’t think of any other political campaign in which a self-interested group has come out with such bald-faced hypocrisy.
A school system should structure itself to fit the needs of a city, not a city structuring itself to fit the needs of a school system.
The city is best served by a school district that is not in declining enrollment, is not forced to shut down school, can afford to pay its teachers enough for them to stay, and have housing that they can afford to live in.
The whole state is in declining enrollment.
Face the facts!
The whole state has a housing crisis too. Both problems in Davis are not only self-inflicted but solvable.
1.6 kids NATIONWIDE. That’s not a “California” issue.
I’m not sure why some think that Village Farms would lower the cost of housing.
Apparently, some think that the proposed at Willowgrove would be more-affordable, but I don’t recall the reason for that.
But affordability in a given locale would also not result in more fertility across the nation.
Non-residents aren’t waiting for a developer to build them a cheap house in Davis in order to move there and engage in unprotected sex.
The issues involving Davis are local and Davis has a choice as to whether or not to address them.
True – and some want to eliminate the ability to make that choice (regarding how much more sprawl to build, in order to accommodate non-residents). All of whom already live in housing somewhere else – often times, from the Bay Area.
1.6 kids nationwide. It’s like a game of musical chairs, but with too many (rather than too few) chairs. And that’s especially true regarding school districts (too large, too many of them going forward).
Whoever told the younger teachers that there’s a “shortage” of them were not providing very good advice. Though it sometimes is true that labor shortages arise in declining industries – as the participants “jump ship”.
David, no matter how hard you try to make it so, this isn’t just a School District issue. You constantly discuss the Schools side, but you haven’t talked at all about the City side.
It is a well documented fact (by as many as 10 official financial analyses done for the City) that housing by itself produces less revenues for the City than it produces in costs for services and maintenance/repair/replacement of capital infrastructure.
Further, those same studies report that the City’s costs rise each year by over 4% while its revenues only rise by between 2.0% and 2.5%. That means what starts out as a loss becomes a bigger and bigger and bigger loss each year that goes by.
Rich Rifkin has written articles in the Enterprise about the City’s expenses versus revenues situation. Why haven’t you?
The City’s financial reports show that those losses have added up over the past 25 years to the point where the city has over $267 million of unfunded liabilities for streets and greenbelts and buildings repairs.
Also, the City just reported that its Revenues for this current year are going to be $95.6 million and expenses are going to be $102.4 million … a $6.8 million deficit. And that next year’s Budget will again be a deficit … digging the $267 million hole even deeper.
But, as you know it is worse than that. If the City included a portion of the streets repairs unfunded liability, that $102.4 million would go up to approximately $115 million.
And it gets even worse when you factor in the fact that the General Fund Reserve decreased from 11.5% to 8.9%.
And all that happened in a year where the voters passed a $12 million increase in Sales Tax. Can you imagine how bad it would have been without all of us ponying up all of thst additional sales tax?
Bottom-line, this isn’t just about schools. It is about the WHOLE community.
Your comment largely sidesteps the actual point of the piece, which was not whether housing pencils out (perfectly) for the city budget, but whether Davis can sustain its schools while pricing young families out of the community.
And that point is all about schools.
Where is your discussion of a balanced/inclusive look at all the impacts … schools AND local government? Your silence on the impact on local government is heavily biased.
As a result, the point of your piece is biased.
A healthy community can pay its bills.
You’re just trying to shift the argument
“A healthy community can pay its bills.”
What are some examples of healthy communities?
Atherton. (Just looked – and it apparently is fiscally sound.)
Atherton arguably proves the opposite point. While it is one of the wealthiest in the country, it has extremely high housing costs, very restrictive land use patterns and relatively few children compared to more family-oriented communities. It can “pay its bills” largely because of extraordinary concentrated wealth and a massive property tax base generated by ultra-high-value homes.
Needless to say, that is not a scalable civic model for most cities.
Atherton is a ridiculous example for almost any discussion. A town, not a city, of less than 7,000 very wealthy people. Zoning only allows one house per acre. Median home price over $7 million.
Per Wikipedia: “There is no commercial zoning in the town, thus there are no restaurants, shops or grocery stores.[32] Although city codes specify regulations for sidewalk maintenance,[33] many streets do not have sidewalks.[34]”
It’s hard to consider Atherton as being a good example of anything at all. It’s basically a wealthy gated suburban enclave that is entirely parasitic on the neighboring communities for goods and services.
I’ve lost track of what point you’re trying to prove. :-)
But I’m pretty sure that it has a good school district (which isn’t trying to undermine its own community, at least). Probably not out advocating for sprawl (or even infill on those 1-acre plus homesites).
I heard that Zuckerberg is essentially operating his own school on his property – something like that. (For a small group, which I assume includes his own kids.)
(Just looked, and I guess it’s on his property in Palo Alto – not Atherton.)
That just illustrates your lack of understanding of how school financing works. You’re making a bad argument because you are trying to isolate outcomes from the underlying fiscal structure that makes them possible.
I’ll use another example – Santa Monica.
The Santa Monica–Malibu school district benefits from an enormous private fundraising apparatus and endowment support that most districts could never replicate.
Likewise with Atherton — extreme property wealth can mask demographic and structural problems that would devastate an ordinary middle-class community.
Davis does not have:
• billionaire tax bases,
• massive private school endowments (not private school as an entity but private, school endowments),
• or unlimited philanthropic backstops.
So you’re attempt to compare to Atherton is meaningless because you don’t understand the underlying fiscal structures.
Don asked the question, regarding an example of a city with fiscal “health”. Apparently, its school district is also probably solvent. I immediately suspected that Atherton did not have any fiscal problems, for obvious reason.
But you’re now switching the argument, by implying that a relatively well-off community like Davis can’t support a school district without more sprawl.
While ignoring the savings resulting from closing down a school or two, as enrollment declines. (Not sure if they can do much regarding administrator compensation.)
It probably is true that in the long run, Davis (or almost any other community) cannot support an oversized school district. But it can certainly support one that is appropriately-sized.
I understand how funding for schools generally works. I also understand that if DJUSD, for example, poaches students from other districts, those districts then lose funding (sometimes at a higher rate than DJUSD does).
If Davis had a billion dollar endowment it could cushion the loss of $1 million a year without even touching the principal
Well, good luck with that. Maybe some alumni from UCD will be interested. (Though I think the money would be better-spent in a community that’s actually struggling, vs. one that’s relatively “privileged” as they say.)
Though I’m not sure why you phrase it as “Davis”, when you’re apparently only referring to DJUSD (I think). Perhaps that “Freudian slip” is pretty telling regarding how you see “Davis” vs. “DJUSD”.
Exactly – not going to happen. But the point is the example you chose cannot possibly be replicated in Davis
I wasn’t even initially referring to Atherton’s school district (which again, seems to demonstrate how you conflate cities with school districts).
Pretty much what Matt was pointing out above, as well.
School districts serve a minority of a given community’s population. I never even thought twice about them, until I noticed that they started causing problems for cities. (There’s a somewhat related example of a problem they created in Woodland, as well.)
Until recently, I never even voted for anyone on a school board (and wouldn’t have been able to tell you any of their names).
Actually it’s your fault.
Watch this, my 10:45 comment did not mention schools (except for the mention of children).
You then morphed it back to schools when you wrote: “I’m pretty sure that it has a good school district (which isn’t trying to undermine its own community, at least). Probably not out advocating for sprawl (or even infill on those 1-acre plus homesites).”
My 10:45 comment was primarily about municipal finances you then shifted it to schools. Take the blame.
Pretty sure that my initial comment was in response to Don’s question (regarding fiscal health of a city).
This is all that I said, regarding that first comment:
“Atherton. (Just looked – and it apparently is fiscally sound.)”
But it doesn’t surprise me that they also apparently don’t have a school district that’s advocating for sprawl (and I suspect this has more to do with culture of that area, than it does with finances). I don’t think that particular community would look too kindly on their own district if it started advocating for sprawl OR infill.
And again, DJUSD doesn’t need continuing sprawl either – they just need to right-size themselves. And they will ultimately do so.
I’m not sure how much more discussion you want to engage in, but I’m well-beyond five comments at this point.
Don, Palo Alto is a healthy community. I suspect, but do not know for a fact that Santa Cruz is a healthy community. I have heardd Fresno touted as a healthy community. Winters is a healthy community. Bishop is a healthy community.
Matt: “Don, Palo Alto is a healthy community.”
“Palo Alto faces growing budget deficits amid sales tax slump
Decrease in car sales, business leases help drive downward trend
Facing slumping sales tax revenues, a sluggish economic recovery and spiking expenses, Palo Alto is bracing for a period of growing budget deficits, including a $14.9 million hole in the coming fiscal year, according to a newly released economic forecast.
The Long Range Financial Forecast, which the City Council’s Finance Committee discussed on Tuesday, projects a sequence of lean years, with budget deficits in the city’s general fund topping $10 million every year between 2027 and 2031. The new forecast comes months after the city wrestled with a $9-million gap in the current fiscal year, a deficit that the council tackled largely by eliminating vacant positions and deferring capital projects.”
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/city-government/2025/12/03/palo-alto-faces-growing-budget-deficits-amid-sales-tax-slump/
“ The Santa Monica–Malibu school district benefits from an enormous private fundraising apparatus and endowment support that most districts could never replicate.”
Why can’t they replicate it? There is plenty of wealth in Davis to tap into. Where there is a will there is a way.
As a past Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission wisely said several years ago, “As a community we have promised ourselves a very rich and robust suite of services, but at the same time have not stepped up with the dollars to pay for them.”
We are ostriches with our heads buried in the sand.
David Greenwald said You’re just trying to shift the argument.
No, I’m simply trying to balance the argument.
You only want to talk about one leg of a two-legged situation. And even worse, you know that building up the one leg will make the diseased other leg envelopes more diseased.
I agree with David and Don that Atherton is not a good model to use.
David Greenwald said Your comment largely sidesteps the actual point of the piece, which was not whether housing pencils out (perfectly) for the city budget, but whether Davis can sustain its schools while pricing young families out of the community.
Davis can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Young families will no longer be priced out of the community if we guide anyone that wants to build housing here (both on our periphery and as infill) with entirely 2 or 3 bedrooms … mostly 2 … with modest amenities that carry modest price tags. Mom and Dad in the master bedroom and if they have any children, those children sharing the second bedroom.
“ Davis can walk and chew gum at the same time.”
I see no evidence of that… sorry could not resist.
David, Davis is able to do those things simultaneously, but doesn’t currently have the intestinal fortitude to actually deliver on that ability.
Resistance is futile.
Please tell me where communities building lots of homes are facing declining enrollment?
More than that, there is a lot of research that indicates the cost of housing is leading to the declining birth rate and therefore it’s actually just a circular argument.
Ron G says: “Please tell me where communities building lots of homes are facing declining enrollment?”
Woodland, for one. I can provide documentation from the district itself which shows this.
But again, it’s an absurd goal – to pursue endless growth to stave-off declining enrollment.
Regarding David’s comment: If the cost of housing actually is a factor (nationwide), then the resulting lower birthrate is a circular “solution” regarding high prices. (Though the cost of everything has risen – sometimes more than housing has.)
Again, see “musical chairs” (but with too many chairs).
Who can blame the teachers for doing this endorsement when the School District administration is terminating educator staff positions? Meanwhile, the School District administration has bloated salaries with raises far higher than the teachers are getting. I think the teachers were feeling pressure from the administration for this endorsement.
https://davisvanguard.org/2026/04/djusd-school-board-terminates-educators/
Where women have access to effective birth control, reduced childbirth rates strongly correlate with economic insecurity.
It is expected that immigration will resume when the current enforcement regime leaves. There are entire sectors of the economy that are struggling due to the aggressive enforcement. The demand for immigrant labor is strong, especially in California.
Projecting the current birth rate into the future would be inadvisable without considering the factors that go into that decision-making process.
If the city ever manages to achieve economic expansion by drawing more employers to locate near the university, the local population would increase if sufficient housing is available.
The present ossification of the city’s housing supply directly inhibits economic growth. Lack of labor supply and lack of housing for workers and executives are considerations for any business thinking to expand or relocate.
The school district should plan for possible expansion of the Davis economy by retaining facilities to the greatest extent possible. That entails reorganization of the current school boundaries, including relocation of magnet programs. Community input is necessary for those changes.
” . . . reduced childbirth rates strongly correlate with economic insecurity.”
You’ve got this backwards.
Wealthier people/communities have fewer children – pretty sure that there’s substantial, documented evidence showing that birthrates generally decrease as wealth increases.
Which, by the way, would conflict with the claim that “high housing prices” are causing fewer children.
Ron has this right. More wealthy and educated countries tend to see lower birthrates.
“Wealthier and more educated countries consistently experience lower birth rates, a phenomenon known as the demographic-economic paradox.”
“The demographic-economic paradox (or demographic-transition paradox) is the inverse relationship between wealth and fertility. It describes how, contrary to basic logic, as a nation’s GDP per capita, education, and standard of living increase, its birth rates consistently fall.”
You are citing the wrong research.
Here look here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4685765/
This study funded by the NIH found that expensive housing delays child births by 3 to 4 years which leads to declining birth rates.
From the study: “The effect of being in an expensive housing market is a delay of first births by three to four years.”
Another study from NEBR Lisa Dettling and Melissa Kearney found: “A 10 percent increase in home prices leads to a 1 percent decrease in births among non-homeowners.”
“You are citing the wrong research.”
Depends on which research you’d prefer. But fewer children in wealthier countries is a world-wide trend. We could spend hours going over this, but they all show the same thing. As wealth of a country increases, fertility decreases.
I’m going to go out on a limb, and claim that there isn’t a single incidence of increasing wealth causing an increase in birthrates in any country on earth. Increasing wealth is CONSISTENTLY correlated with lower birthrates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
https://www.nber.org/digest/202510/declining-fertility-wealthy-nations?page=1&perPage=50
https://blog.iiasa.ac.at/2017/08/01/falling-fertility-rates-why-do-wealthier-people-have-fewer-children/
The question is what happens in the US when housing prices increase, world-wide trends don’t capture that
Last time I checked, the U.S. was part of the world (and doesn’t even have the highest housing prices).
A primary reason that wealthier countries have fewer children is because they become a financial liability, rather than an asset – as they are in less-developed countries.
And part of the reason for that (in developed countries) is because a couple then generally pursues a larger house.
Pretty sure that in the “old days” (even in this country – even within my own family) – many kids did not have their own bedroom. Nowadays, it’s pretty much expected (both for the parents’ sake, as well as the kids’ sake).
I don’t recall – but didn’t the “Brady” kids share bedrooms as recently as the 1970s? I only partly bring that up in jest, because TV shows sometimes reflect society.
This is also the reason that families will continue to pursue “actual” houses in places they can afford.
“A primary reason that wealthier countries have fewer children is because they become a financial liability, rather than an asset – as they are in less-developed countries.”
This is not a good explanation. You are collapsing together *children are expensive in developed countries* with the much broader historical question of why fertility declines as societies industrialize and urbanize. And we don’t need to do it. We can study the impact of increased housing costs on people’s decision of when and how many children to have – that’s exactly what the cites I posted show.
You could also just talk to young adults in their 20s and 30s and you’ll find that:
1) they never expect to buy a house in their lifetime, and
2) they are delaying or forgoing having children due to the economic conditions they’ve experienced in their formative years.
The old social contracts are broken beyond repair. Young adults graduating college don’t have career paths ahead of them. The major industry that is keeping the market afloat is about to implode. Government jobs are no longer secure. 30 years of mortgage payments and 18 years of child care costs are not within a reasonable planning horizon based on current economic conditions. With a return to normalcy, renewed immigration, and an expanding economy, you will likely see a modest increase in childbirth rates.
The studies I cited (and a whole bunch more of them) discuss the fact that children become financial liabilities in developed countries. If anything, it seems likely that this is even more true these days.
I noted that this is related to the type of housing that they then pursue. (But that this wasn’t the case for previous generations – even within my own family.)
Personally, I think it’s an improvement to expect each kid to have their own bedroom, but it comes at a cost.
But if my family had that expectation at the time, I wouldn’t be here today.
Bottom line is that this is the reason there were six of us running around (when there’d only be 1.6 of us today).
I’m glad that I wasn’t born until some of that chaos was already on its way out.
“Depends on which research you’d prefer. ”
Again, proof positive that thinking in non-simplistic, complex, nuanced terms is difficult for some people.
Both sets of research are correct. What Ron and Keith are not accepting is that in cases of economic hardship, WHERE CONTRACEPTION IS READILY AVAILABLE, women will limit their births if it is left up to them.
It happens in developing nations and is happening here, too. David already provided evidence.
Those *facts* do not negate the fact that women with higher levels of education and more affluence will limit their births, also.
I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand about both of these sets of facts. smh
“Both sets of research are correct. What Ron and Keith are not accepting is that in cases of economic hardship, WHERE CONTRACEPTION IS READILY AVAILABLE, women will limit their births if it is left up to them.”
David has instructed me (and you) to not respond to each other.
This is the third time you’ve been allowed to violate that rule. I have not done so a single time, other than to respond like this when you violate that rule.
Also, neither David nor I have even mentioned birth control.
I never said you mentioned it, nor was I talking to you.
“Violating a rule.” LMAO!
“Again, proof positive that thinking in non-simplistic, complex, nuanced terms is difficult for some people.”
So again, this is the type of insult that you engage in, which David is supposedly trying to discourage.
It is interesting that you’d direct your comment against me and Keith, when it could have just as easily been directed at David in regard to your supposed “point”.
I will say what I want to say. If the moderators want to remove my comments, that is fine, but I will say what I want to say.
If you were insulted that is in you.
Moving this to a new comment to make responding easier. From the article …
Lai noted that the projected deficits aren’t entirely surprising. The city’s prior forecasts similarly showed budget gaps in forthcoming years, and the recent data is consistent with those projections. “We’re continuing to adapt to financial conditions that are forthcoming and are happening right now,” Lai said during the Dec. 2 discussion.
Three huge differences than Davis. (1) They are proactively disclosing it and talking about it. (2) They are seriously talking about personnel costs cut backs. (3) They are proactively staying ahead of deferred capital infrastructure maintenance (see https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2013/4207.pdf).
Bottom-line, Palo Alto is facing challenges like all cities all across the USA, but their healthiness as a city has them dealing with those challenges proactively.
“(3) They are proactively staying ahead of deferred capital infrastructure maintenance (see https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2013/4207.pdf).”
That report is from 2013. They have a deficit right now, which is going to increase into the future. So a healthy city, by your definition, is one that has been talking about their deficit for over a decade.
No Don, not talking. Talk is cheap. What focused initiative does the City of Davis have underway, or even planned to address the $267 million of unfunded Capital Infrastructure repair/replacement liability?
To put that $267 million into context, the City Budget shows that the total “need” is over $510 million.
What has flowed out of the Palo Alto 2013 effort documented in the report you shared is a proactive program that has resulted in minimal deferred maintenance.
Because of that proactive program Palo Alto has an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 83, which puts it at the very top of a comparative listing of PCIs throughout the State. By comparison Davis’ PCI for roads is 62, and an even worse 52 for bike paths. The statewide average roads PCI is 66. So Davis is below average and Palo Alto is very healthily above average … way above average.
David, I think you are swimming upstream against a strong current. Reading articles on EdSource.org, the following comment jumped out at me.
“Today’s enrollment update is yet another reminder that California’s demographics are changing, and that school districts in many parts of the state should be bracing to serve fewer students over the long term,” said Carrie Hahnel, senior associate partner, with Bellwether, a national nonprofit that works to improve educational opportunities for underserved students.
“This is not just a pandemic issue, and state and local leaders can’t pretend that enrollments will rebound. District leaders in declining-enrollment areas should be having conversations with community stakeholders now about how to consolidate schools and programs while increasing the quality of what districts are offering to every student,” she said.
If that is true – why make it worse through self-inflicted wounds? All it takes for Davis to stabilize its enrollment is to build to the RHNA numbers. You’re attempting to use macro level data to apply to a local situation.
So what you are proposing is (1) stealing students away from other cities, by (2) building homes with price tags that the bulk of young families can not afford, or (3) forcing the young families to live in apartment complexes dominated by UCD student tenants, while (4) pushing the City of Davis deeper and deeper into insolvency, in an economy where jobs growth has been minimal for 25 years, so (5) the people who can afford the high priced homes have to commute to jobs that are outside the city Limits, thereby (7) contributing significant VMTs and GHGs to the environment.
There you go again with the no job growth nonsense as if the city is completely independent from the university. It is only independent jurisdictionally not geographically.
And (8) we aren’t building one or two bedroom “downsizing” homes for seniors to move into and free up their legacy large home.
David, I wish you’d just come out and publicly declare your allegiance to the North Davis Land Company, LLC and embrace the bias you bring to the “Measure V” debate. Of course endless comments from Matt, Don and the Ron’s provide you some editorial cover, but your personal link to DJUSD and pro development colors are blatant and obvious. Let’s suppose we do agree that more housing is desirable. I would still argue that accepting a less than “Environmentally Superior Alliterative” proposal for 1800 homes in Village Farms ought to have been rejected by our City Council at the onset as it was by 2 members of the Planning Commission. I’ve only been in Davis for 4 1/2 decades, so I may not have my fingers on the pulse of our City quite as well as you.
I have observed the demographic engineering scenario of increased population equaling increased student population. I began my 30 year teaching career in the Elk Grove Unified School District in 1990. I would have loved to teach in town, but the pay scale for Davis teachers then, as it is now, was insultingly lower than most surrounding districts. Elk Grove Unified thrived based on a growing student population as the incorporated population of Elk Grove leaped from 76,000 to 185,000 over the last 25 years. While the district stayed solvent, the cost was relentlessly unfettered sprawl. The once productive acreage lying 15 miles between South Sacramento and the original small burg of Elk Grove is now box stores, fast food and endless Housing Developments with bucolic name endings such as Meadows, Park, Orchard, Dairy and of course FARM. And of course there would be no Meadows, Orchards etc remaining.
And no “Farm” remaining in Village Farms save for a symbolic yet paltry educational garden. I suppose lesson one will be how to turn priceless agricultural assets into pavement and real estate profits.
Any hint that the promised affordable housing at Village Farms will demographically engineer new students for our School District is a fantasy in my opinion. There is another, better planned development coming on the ballot that seems to propose faster affordable housing growth without the monetary encumbrances of a dig pit, vernal pool, burn pit, historic landfill, flood plain and extensive hydro engineering of an existing drainage channel. So hey, maybe I’m wrong, but a No Vote on V allows another bite at the apple for the developers. A Yes on V will set in motion a difficult and contentious chapter in our fair city’s history.
And as always: If you are a No on Village Farms voter, please go to noonmeasurev.org and order a lawn sign. We will deliver free of charge by an unpaid volunteer.
“So hey, maybe I’m wrong, but a No Vote on V allows another bite at the apple for the developers. ”
Yes, you are wrong. If this fails it will be many years before anything happens on that site and it won’t be by the same people taking another bite at that apple.
Mostly agree. But there is a caveat – if Measure J gets taken out or amended that might re-open the possibility, not that it’s what Fenimore would want.
Funny, why don’t do some reporting on this. Some of the people are available. Some of the partners have passed away. Others are in their 80’s. Its taken 20 years to bring this back to the ballot. These developers are not coming back for another bite.
“ If this fails it will be many years before anything happens on that site”
Well I imagine “something” will happen there. Perhaps continued farming on some of the most fertile acreage in California. And in my opinion, if this particular site is never developed in my lifetime, I be just fine. I would , however, likely support a project with a significantly smaller footprint, guaranteed affordable housing and far fewer “moving parts”
Fair enough, but my issue with what you said is that you were too presumptive, and I believe wrong, about the intentions of the developers should they fail at the ballot box.
Thank you John Cooper, very well sated. 👏
I’m more-worried about Willowgrove, as I’m not seeing anyone willing to run the Davis spanking machine regarding that one.
And it’s in a location that should never be developed. The horse farm should be the last one developed in that area. And frankly, the horse farm is ALREADY a loss – and was previously and soundly rejected by Davis voters about a decade ago. (Thank the state for essentially taking away the choice regarding that site.)
In any case, I’ll be looking for a leader to run the spanking machine for Willowgrove, as there doesn’t seem to be any right now.
“These developers are not coming back for another bite.”
Perhaps, but that parcel will continue to be a logical place for some level of development, so I expect that whoever controls it in the future will try to develop it. The Covell Center owners handed it off to the current group — many of whom are descendants of the Covell Center proponents — in 2005, and if VF fails to win approval the current group may decide to hand it off to someone else, but I don’t expect it to retain an ag zoning over the long term.
Couple of interesting articles regarding enrollment declines (even in Texas!)
“Driven by a range of factors including lower birth rates, families moving to more affordable areas and immigration crackdowns, the declines are spreading to inner cities, suburbs, rural communities and even fast-growing areas across the country that once seemed immune to demographic slowdown (even Texas, which has drawn California transplants, enrolled 76,000 fewer students in the 2025-26 school year than the prior year).
“This is happening everywhere. … There are very few districts that aren’t experiencing it,” Michael Kirst, a professor emeritus at Stanford University and former president of the California State Board of Education, told SFGATE.”
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-public-school-enrollment-22296670.php
But I really like this second (mainstream) article, which attributes the decline to smart phones. Interesting-enough, the graph that’s included actually seems to back that up, regarding the introduction of the iPhone in 2007:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/america-s-birth-rate-has-plunged-are-smartphones-to-blame/ar-AA25kaVo?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=NMTS&cvid=6a2b62daed174b89b4fe38b452dcf4c1&ei=10
I dunno, but it seems to me that the “no growthers” have won the (overall) “war” – and not just in the U.S.