Three years ago, my family moved to the Cannery, drawn by Davis’s reputation as the ideal place to raise kids. Our daughters were five and two, and the strength of Davis’s public schools was central to our decision. Shortly after moving to town, our oldest started kindergarten and my husband left for a 6-month deployment with the US Navy. In those months as a solo mom to two young kids, I found what so many do in Davis: a community of friends and neighbors that welcomed and supported us. Davis’ commitment to community and neighborly engagement is not something easily found elsewhere.
Today, I cherish the independence my children have found here—the freedom to bike to school and explore our neighborhoods with a sense of security that is increasingly rare. My support for Measure V is rooted in the desire to make this wonderful community more accessible and attainable for other families like ours.
Over the past two years, I’ve spoken with countless community members while volunteering with the Village Farms project. It has been inspiring to hear the many reasons people are drawn here. For many, Davis attracted them as an ideal place to raise their family. Unfortunately, that dream is increasingly unattainable due to a lack of family-friendly homes.
This is why I am voting “Yes” on Measure V. Our community thrives when it is dynamic and multi-generational. By welcoming more families and young people, we do more than just fill houses; we sustain the local businesses that make our downtown vibrant and ensure our schools remain robust. A younger, active population provides the economic energy necessary to keep Davis’s local economy healthy and resilient for the long term.
As a Cannery homeowner, I am also excited by how Village Farms will bridge the gap between our neighborhood and the rest of Davis. We’ve been waiting for our local retail space to thrive. By adding a thoughtful population of neighbors next door, we create the “critical mass” needed to make those shops and cafes a reality. The project delivers the 47 acres of preserved natural habitat that so many of us in the Cannery advocated for, while the new parks and bike paths build upon the connectivity we value.
My family is a direct beneficiary of the only family-friendly development Davis has built in over a decade: The Cannery. Our neighborhood is evidence that when we build it, families come. You can see this yourselves on any weekend day at the pool or the gangs of kids in bike trains every morning to school. I want to see more of what makes Davis such a special place to raise our kids, not pull up the drawbridge behind me.
Village Farms offers a path toward a more accessible, attainable, and connected community. I hope you will join me in voting Yes on Measure V.
Katharine Dooley-Hedrick, Davis Mom and Cannery Homeowner
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Interestingly-enough, Woodland’s school district is also projecting an overall decline in the number of students enrolled in its system – despite that city’s ongoing pursuit of sprawl.
As the link below notes, a large part of the reason is a decline in that district’s birthrates (more than 30% lower than in 2008). You can see this by clicking on the document labeled “Update on Boundaries” that can be seen in the link below.
https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/SB_Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx?S=36030798&MID=60024&Tab=Agenda&enIID=yplusihzUr8vsgwXXVDGTHCGA%3D%3D&fbclid=IwY2xjawR1be1leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFkTUxacWxjUXd1NkZOVEN2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHqEWaRj-oAzCxYZdBRJcvc_yXAThiM-SNC3E3iQObZ0zU2w-3tL58jFCxtMQ_aem_7NzqbrnfEiDXLC-rli5ghA
You want more kids build more houses.
Housing doesn’t “create” kids. Are you stating that Woodland is (also) “too expensive” for people to have kids?
Or, are you stating that young couples only have kids if they’re able to move to Davis? Otherwise, they’re choosing to remain childless if they can’t move to Davis?
1.6 kids these days – Nationwide.
Studies show housing actually does increase children
If there are any studies showing a correlation between high costs (in general – not just limited to housing), that might make more sense.
In fact, I haven’t seen one single study which shows that housing shortages are causing a nationwide decline in births.
There is no way to claim a housing shortage in vast sections of the country. The vast majority of the country embraces growth and sprawl. There are major markets (including the Sacramento region) where housing prices are dropping – which would indicate an “oversupply” using your logic.
And again, are you (or Ron G) claiming that Woodland isn’t producing enough spawl for your taste? Granted, it is somewhat more expensive than Yuba City (or vast sections of the country).
1.6 kids Nationwide.
What you’re seeing is an ageing-out of the school system. Housing would have to turn over (with new families ready to have kids) much more quickly in order to avoid a reduction in kids in new developments.
I just noticed that I made the mistake of conflating housing prices vs. housing shortages (two different concepts).
I’m not sure what you mean by “studies show housing actually does increase children”. Would you care to explain that?
For the sake of argument though, let’s just assume that housing shortages and/or high housing prices are the sole cause of a 1.6 kid birthrate across the entire country. Wouldn’t this, within a relatively short period – also “fix” the so-called housing shortages and high housing prices? A declining total population each and every day that deaths outnumber births? (That’s where we’re headed.)
Seems like something that the housing advocates would embrace, rather than reject.
I agree that we need to build housing, every housing development we have every build was built over the opposition of some others. If we listened to the “no” voices we would have built nothing.
But not everyone saying “NO” are trying to “pull up the drawbridge”.
There are at least three constituencies in this city:
1) People who never say yes to growth
2) People who are picky about growth
3) People who are not picky about growth.
To win a measure J vote, you need to convince that middle group, and in THIS election, the people who are “picky” are almost universally saying no.
I tried to convince the developer of this years ago. We had developed multiple PRO-housing groups by then. Groups who were concerned about affordability, about sustainability, and the economic health of our city. Those groups were natural potential allies, people in the #2 catagory who could be won over if the design of the project addressed their concerns, people who would champion and fight for a good project because they really do understand that we need housing badly – but they also understand that not all housing is equal, there are good projects and bad projects.
All of those Pro housing groups are sitting this election out. When people write the epitaph of this one, they are going to need to make sure to take note of that. It speaks volumes.
The middle group is so pervasive in Davis because “being picky about housing” is the same thing as “being informed on the issues around housing”…. It is our concentration of intellectuals, people who pay attention to the details, people who understand that these decisions have real consequences. That is why OUR electorate is so much more difficult to pass projects through than another city like woodland or dixon, or elk grove or roseville. Its because we are informed and we CARE.
Yes lot of the “no” voices are indeed group #1 people who are just against anything. Im not denying that at all. But they aren’t more than 30-40% of voters. They are a minority that CAN be overcome when those who are more discerning Group #2 voters are satisfied. Measure V should have been an easy project to support. They had a chance to propose something better, but the design came from the mind of ONE man who had strong opinions on what housing looked like – opinions based on now dis-credited housing patterns from the 50’s and 60’s. “This is DAVIS” he told me while pointing to a map with his proposal. And he was right. This IS how he had developed large other parts of Davis.
What he did not appreciate is that we now KNOW that building large tracts of single family housing, all designed to be accessed by car, was indeed a mistake: Like Asbestos, leaded gasoline, smoking, DDT, bloodletting, lobotomies, CFC refrigerants, lead pipes, and Guy Fieri
So at least for the middle “group #2 Voters”. its not about “pulling up the drawbridge”, its about asking for a package that is in-line with our actual needs, that addressed both our housing crisis AND our climate crisis. THIS plan does nothing for the latter, and the bare minimum for the former.
We have a general plan process underway. Its not crazy to think we can do MUCH better.
“Its because we are informed and we CARE.”
No it because we have Measure J.