For the better part of six months the Davis community has debated the Village Farms proposal from nearly every conceivable angle.
During that time, opponents of Village Farms have raised a long list of objections.
The problem with this process is that we are asking the average voter – many of whom have paid scant attention to the issues of housing in Davis and the housing crisis overall.
As such many of the same claims continue to be repeated long after the evidence has been presented. Again and again, the public debate has featured alarming rhetoric untethered from the findings of environmental review, planning analysis, housing data, and the testimony of experts.
The result has been more heat than light and a campaign that increasingly relies on fear rather than facts.
What stands out to me after six months of reporting is that much of this debate proceeds as though it were still the year 2000. Many opponents continue to assume that Davis can reject major housing projects indefinitely without consequence, that the state will remain a passive observer, and that local voters will retain complete control over growth decisions regardless of housing production.
We have argued that whatever people see as the relative strengths and weaknesses of this project, those assumptions no longer hold.
The opposition’s approach has not really been to advance a single coherent argument against Village Farms.
Instead, it has been a kind of spaghetti strategy: throw every conceivable concern at the project simultaneously and hope that enough uncertainty accumulates to defeat it.
From traffic and flooding to contamination, farmland, affordability, infrastructure, schools, habitat, home prices, and developer trust, opponents have presented nearly every conceivable objection to the project.
Any one of these issues, opponents suggest, should be enough to vote no.
The problem is that the evidence often points in a different direction.
Take housing need.
Davis has added roughly 2,800 housing units since 2009 – but only 805 of those are family housing units.
Most of those units have come recently and have been concentrated in student-oriented apartment developments such as Nishi, Lincoln40, Ryder on Olive Drive, and Sterling Apartments.
Meanwhile, Davis has built remarkably little family housing.
The result has been predictable. Families increasingly struggle to remain in Davis. Teachers, city employees, health care workers, and young professionals often find themselves priced out of the community. Adult children raised in Davis frequently cannot afford to return.
At the same time, the Davis Joint Unified School District faces a steady decline in enrollment.
District officials have repeatedly warned that declining enrollment threatens the financial stability of local schools and may ultimately force school closures.
District officials have repeatedly warned that declining enrollment threatens the long-term viability of local schools and may ultimately force school closures. While several factors contribute to enrollment trends, the evidence increasingly points to one dominant cause: Davis has not built enough family housing.
If Davis were to produce housing at levels consistent with its RHNA obligations, much of the enrollment crisis would likely be alleviated.
Village Farms and Willowgrove are among the few proposed developments specifically designed to bring substantial numbers of family-oriented homes to Davis. Taken together, they represent the kind of housing production the city has largely failed to provide for the past two decades.
Opponents frequently argue that many of the homes in Village Farms will be too expensive for the average family. That observation misses a more important question: what happens if the project is rejected?
Davis did not become one of California’s least affordable housing markets because it built too much housing. It became expensive because it built too little. Every year the city fails to add sufficient housing, demand continues to outstrip supply and prices continue to rise.
The relevant comparison is not between Village Farms and some hypothetical world in which thousands of affordable homes magically appear. The relevant comparison is between Village Farms and the status quo. Measured against the status quo, adding housing makes affordability better than it otherwise would be. Rejecting housing makes affordability worse.
Equally important, many opponents appear to assume that if Village Farms fails, a better project will simply emerge in its place. That assumption deserves far more scrutiny than it has received.
There is no line of developers waiting to propose large-scale family housing in Davis. There is no evidence that rejecting Village Farms will produce a smaller, cheaper, more environmentally perfect project with more affordable housing and fewer impacts. In fact, the city’s recent history suggests the opposite. Failed projects often result in years of delay, continued housing shortages, and no housing at all.
Voters are not choosing between Village Farms and a hypothetical ideal project. They are choosing between Village Farms and uncertainty. They are choosing between adding nearly 1,800 homes and hundreds of affordable units or continuing a pattern of underproduction that has already contributed to rising housing costs, declining school enrollment, and growing state pressure on the city to meet its housing obligations.
That is the reality that often gets lost in the debate. Saying no does not preserve the status quo. It produces consequences of its own.
But that criticism confuses the broader housing problem.
No one seriously believes that building 1,800 homes instantly creates affordability. Housing markets do not work that way. The question is whether adding supply improves conditions compared with adding no supply at all.
California housing experts, economists, state officials, and increasingly even editorial boards across the political spectrum have reached the same conclusion: communities facing severe housing shortages must build more housing.
The real choice facing Davis is not between an imperfect project and a perfect one. It is between building enough housing to begin addressing long-standing problems or continuing the policies that helped create them.
Since 2000, Davis has largely chosen scarcity.
The results are visible everywhere.
Home prices have climbed beyond the reach of many middle-income households. Rent burdens remain severe. Employers struggle to recruit workers. Young families leave. Students crowd into limited rental stock.
Against that backdrop, opponents continue to insist that Davis can somehow solve its housing challenges without building significant new housing – and given that the city has largely exhausted its infill supply – a lot of that housing is going to have to be on the periphery.
Traffic is another area where rhetoric has often outpaced evidence.
Opponents frequently cite figures such as 15,000 daily vehicle trips as though they represent an unprecedented transportation catastrophe.
But transportation planners evaluate impacts based on actual roadway performance, not raw trip numbers.
The Environmental Impact Report examined traffic conditions extensively and identified mitigation measures intended to maintain acceptable operations at study intersections.
More importantly, much of the congestion experienced on Covell Boulevard today is not generated by new housing developments but by regional commuting patterns and through traffic.
If anything our land use policies have made traffic worse – not better.
Adding housing near jobs and services can reduce regional vehicle miles traveled even when it generates local trips.
That point gets lost in campaign rhetoric.
Flooding concerns have likewise become a central talking point.
The existence of floodplain acreage on the site is not disputed. Neither is the need for significant flood protection infrastructure.
The flooding issue is often presented as though Village Farms faces a catastrophic flood risk, when in reality the concern involves relatively shallow surface flooding that can be addressed through standard mitigation measures routinely used in California development.
The project’s environmental review process examined those issues in considerable detail. Federal, state, and local agencies all participate in reviewing flood management requirements.
The same is true regarding environmental contamination.
Opponents have repeatedly raised concerns about historic landfill operations and potential contaminants.
Any contamination issue deserves careful investigation.
But there is a significant difference between identifying a concern and proving a danger.
Rather than demonstrating a hidden danger, the required testing, remediation, and oversight reflect the safeguards that exist to ensure potential contamination issues are addressed before development occurs.
What has often been missing from the public debate is proportionality.
Nearly every major development project encounters environmental challenges. The relevant question is whether those challenges can be mitigated to accepted standards.
The evidence developed through the review process suggests they can.
Perhaps the most surprising criticism involves affordable housing.
Village Farms includes one of the largest affordable housing commitments ever proposed in Davis – beyond the city’s requrements. The project contains hundreds of deed-restricted affordable units, land dedicated for additional affordable housing, and millions of dollars designated for affordable housing development.
Opponents respond that those commitments are insufficient.
California’s housing crisis is severe enough that almost any affordable housing proposal will appear insufficient relative to the scale of need.
But this debate often overlooks a basic reality: if Village Farms is not built, the affordable housing included in Village Farms is not replaced by something better—it becomes zero. The hundreds of deed-restricted affordable units, the affordable housing land dedication, and the millions of dollars committed to affordable housing simply disappear.
Rejecting one of the largest affordable housing proposals in Davis history does not produce more affordable housing—it reduces the number of affordable units from hundreds to zero.
The choice is not between Village Farms and a hypothetical project with more affordable housing. The choice is between the affordable housing that Village Farms provides and the very real possibility of no affordable housing on the site at all.
Underlying many of these debates is a deeper question about the future of Davis itself.
For years, Davis has attempted to reconcile competing goals. Residents want affordability, but they also want slow growth. They want thriving schools, but they resist family housing. They want environmental sustainability, but many oppose compact development at the urban edge. They want economic diversity, but housing scarcity increasingly limits who can live here.
Like many communities, Davis faces competing priorities, but eventually those priorities must be reconciled through actual choices rather than avoided through inaction.
The consequences of underbuilding are no longer abstract: they can be seen in rising housing costs, shrinking school enrollment, and growing pressure from the state.
Voters will come to the conclusion that Village Farms is not flawless.
But, I conclude that much of the opposition rests on an implicit assumption that Davis can continue avoiding difficult housing decisions without paying a price.
The evidence suggests otherwise.
Reasonable people can disagree about Village Farms. They can disagree about project size, design, infrastructure, and implementation.
What becomes harder to defend is the notion that doing nothing remains a viable alternative. Make no mistake – if Village Farms goes down on Tuesday, nothing will happen on that site for a long time.
For decades, Davis has benefited from choices made by previous generations who built neighborhoods, schools, parks, and housing that allowed the community to grow and thrive.
The question before voters is whether they are willing to extend that opportunity to the next generation.
Ultimately, the Village Farms debate is not simply about one project but about the future direction of Davis and whether the city is prepared to confront the consequences of continued housing scarcity.
Ironically, the path many opponents advocate may be the one most likely to undermine local control.
California has made clear that cities cannot indefinitely avoid their housing obligations while preserving complete autonomy over land-use decisions.
If Davis continues to reject major housing opportunities and falls further behind on production, the likely result will not be preservation of the status quo but increased state oversight, stronger legal mandates, and fewer local options.
The choice facing Davis is not between growth and local control, but rather may become one between planning for growth ourselves or having more of those decisions made for us by Sacramento.
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.
Congratulations David. It took several decades since your no growth days but you have shown you can learn, a quality that many in Davis lack despite having the innate intelligence to do so. When I look at the no on V crowd I see its the same old limits to growth boomers who have selfishly denied opportunity to others.
I’m a very, very young boomer, apparently!
More like a wannabe boomer.
Measure J turns the referendum process on its head. It changes opposition to a government approval to a project from a yes vote on a referendum to a no vote on an mandated election . Hence, it allows the no side to do the easiest thing in California politics, get people to vote no on a ballot measure.
The no on V campaign has exploited this Measure J dynamic by running a throw mud at the wall campaign, seeking to cast enough doubt that voters find something not to like and do what voters find the easiest default thing to do, vote no. What has been interesting to me, as I’ve talked to people about Measure V is the diversity of the objections raised. I have refuted so many stupid arguments in the last few weeks on so many issues that I have become more convinced than ever that at the core of almost every problem Davis faces lies Measure J.
You have been convinced of that since you were wearing diapers.
“The choice is not between Village Farms and a hypothetical project with more affordable housing.”
This is a fundamental point on which we disagree. No project is perfect, so it’s up to each voter to determine where on the spectrum between perfect and abominable they assess Village Farms to lie. If it’s close enough to perfect for you, then by all means vote Yes. For me it’s too far from perfect, so I voted No.
My vote wasn’t predicated on traffic impacts, or flood risk, or contamination risk; it was based on the essentially flawed design: housing types and car dependency.
I acknowledge hat it will be years before another project is proposed for the site if Measure V fails. Whether that will be two years, or ten, or twenty, I can’t say. But the site will surely be developed at some point, and I’m content to wait for that hypothetical project to come along.
Adding to Jim’s point, we have Willowgrove queued up for a November vote, and the considerable amount of considerate (to the community’s housing needs) work that that development team has done addresses in large part the housing types concerns Jim and others have raised.
In addition, City staff’s recent reports to Council show that 341 housing units are currently under construction, another 1,294 units have completed the entitlement process and awaiting commencement of construction (some may already have commenced), and an additional 848 units are in approved projects that are pending entitlement approval. That is a total of 2,483 units … 37% greater than Village Farms at full buildout, and close to 100% greater than Willowgrove at full buildout.
“I acknowledge hat it will be years before another project is proposed for the site if Measure V fails. Whether that will be two years, or ten, or twenty, I can’t say. But the site will surely be developed at some point, and I’m content to wait for that hypothetical project to come along.”
That is an attitude that is afforded by one already having appropriate housing, but it doesn’t do much for those who are not as fortunate.
A lack of empathy appears to be a common trait amongst the ‘no’ crowd, especially when they try to justify another decades-long delay in building sufficient housing so that they may continue searching for their own version of perfection.
Lots of people just milling-around, waiting for a developer to build them a cheap house? Do I understand that correctly?
Thank you Ron, that was my first thought too.
People who can afford a $700,000+ house would’ve already bought or be buying one of the many on the market today.
I dropped by the new development on Pole Line on Saturday, which I think was its opening day. No one else there looking at the models during the approximately half-hour I was there.
They’re all duplexes (not very large or fancy ones, at that) selling for $795K. No yards – just a little patio for each duplex. (Though one on the end had a side yard.)
1-car garages, accessed via a long, shared driveway running through the middle of the development.
https://foutshomes.com/pole-line-terrace/pole-line-terrace-site-and-floor-plans/
The entire premise (that there’s going to be $500-$600K housing units that appeal to families/local flunkies is flawed). Families are going to continue purchasing an actual house in Spring Lake (starting around that price), though they’re also on small lots, etc.
Get yourself some money, folks! (Then again, the people actually shopping for houses probably never even heard of the Vanguard, and are not aware of the proponents allegedly speaking on their “behalf”.)
Refreshing to read the honesty of Jim Frame and the incisive analysis of Mark West. I made the same argument recently. No project is perfect but are your objections great enough to be willing to veto the project? Time will tell.
David Greenwald said … ”Again and again, the public debate has featured alarming rhetoric untethered from the findings of environmental review, planning analysis, housing data, and the testimony of experts.”
So you are saying “Trust our government!” and my response to you is “What has our government done in recent memory to earn our trust?”
I just came back from the Supervisors meeting at the County Offices. One of the ceremonial items was a recognition of Juneteenth 2026. One of the public comments was delivered by Garth Lewis, Yolo County Superintendent of Schools. There were two very resonant phrases he used in his remarks.
1) dealt with the importance of monitoring that our ideals (at all levels, but especially as a community) are being realized in our practices. He went on to say that ideals lose their value if we don’t consistently put them into practice.
2) he noted that we are living in times where “accountability is being undercut in this country every day.” That isn’t just a national problem, or a Trump problem. We have seen that play out in blinking neon letters in Measure V.
Curious as to what his point was, as it’s not obvious in that quote.
Ron, where does accountability fit into anything that our POTUS does? Our Congress has an approval rating of 10 or less out of 100. Are they held accountable for their dismal performance. The roads of our State, County and City are in abominable condition. Is anyone held accountable for that? Our Governor appoints investor owned utilities “alumni” to the CPUC, which allows the state’s investor owned utilities to gouge all its customers and pay its senior executives exorbitant annual pay. Is there any accountability for that? Our City government has run up an unfunded liability of over $267 million by deferring capital infrastructure maintenance/repair/replacement. Where is the accountability for that?
The list goes on and on and on. It amazes me that you couldn’t understand what he was saying.
I was referring to the following quote, and didn’t initially notice that you’re the one who said it – not the county superintendent. It definitely would have surprised me if anyone associated with schools said anything negative about sprawl.
“We have seen that play out in blinking neon letters in Measure V.”
Though truth be told, it seems to me that leaders associated with schools shouldn’t be making ANY statements (as a representative of school systems) that can be construed as politically-biased. And in regard to what he did say, I’d view that as implied political bias.
The county Superintendent of Schools is a 100% political position. If he didn’t say things political that would be a surprise. He’s not like a School Board member. He has no specific district to think about.
Thanks for the clarification – that’s yet another political position that I never previously paid attention to.
If that guy lives in Davis, I’d say there’s like 95% chance that he’d support Measure V, given that he’s associated with schools.
Describe “housing crisis”.
There’s a part of this that makes no sense to me, if it’s defined as “high cost”. That is, why would a given homeowner vote for a proposal (presumably to lower the cost of existing housing), but are unwilling to sell their current home below market rate (or direct their heirs to do so)?
Something’s not adding up, regarding this argument.
Why would they seek to lower the cost of their own house (by approving sprawl, thereby making their own community worse), while at the same time aren’t just willing to lower the cost on their own – when the time comes? (And it comes every single day in a given commmunity, by the way.)
The solution to the problem of the fact that measure J allows us to defeat bad housing proposals, is NOT to blame the people who are objecting to bad housing proposals, it needs to be asking “how do we get good proposals”.
That is the real issue here. And the root of the problem lies in the incentives of the measure J process itself.
If village farms fails, THAT is where we need to start looking – lets address the root issue and find out how we can chart a path to growth that doesnt ruin our city. We have already put in a lot of work to figuring that out. Its very doable. We just need to break out of our pattern of thinking and do the right thing.
Measure J is the ONLY thing that allows Davis voters to weigh in, in the first place.
Without it, Covell Village would have been approved 25 years ago. As would Village Farms now.
There is no way that you or anyone else is going to be successful in weakening Measure J, short of some far-fetched legal challenge.
Measure J allowed Nishi to arise (without connecting to Richards), Bretton Woods, and Willowgrove (the latter of which seems to be unfortunately generating support).
Measure J may also force the Whitcombe family to come back with something you’d prefer.
You can’t use Measure J to vote against something you don’t like, while also complaining about Measure J.
I’m not sure that some people understand how fortunate Davis is to have Measure J. And it wasn’t just luck or action by city officials – it was the result of a lot of effort by some local citizens.
It is essentially the “Proposition 13” of land use revolts. That’s what happens when elected officials don’t represent their constituents. (And I suspect that there will be more to come, as a backlash against the state).
Im not talking about ‘weakening” measure J. Im suggesting we complete it.
Measure J is just a veto… a veto that is necessary because developers have outsized political power and they just do what they want if we didnt have measure j. I agree that we are fortunate to have it. As DCPG has written before, the only thing worse than measure J is no Mesaure J.
https://davisvanguard.org/2025/05/measure-j-and-sprawling-development/
There are some people like yourself who will not accept any growth under any circumstances, and that is what it is.
But there are other people who are willing to accept some growth so long as it is well planned, is sustinable and we know what is coming. These people are the ones who are clued into the fact that low-density single family sprawl is in fact, BAD for cities and that there ARE alternatives to building just huge single family housing tracts.
Those people, who are more discerning, are the ones you need to convince to win an election. And an expanded version of measure J, that is not just a veto, but a proactive plan for the more sustainable housing we DO know meets those higher standards, Is something I think would pass.
that margainal voter is the the informed voter, the one that knows we can do better and is willing to hold out for somethign better.
David is right, the developers are not going to be quick to come back to the table with a better plan. Our system works against the production of good housing, and the develoers arent going to be our saviours here because their interest is aligned with low-risk because of the election required and offsetting that risk with high reward: VERY profitable single family housing. Doint the same thing time and time again expecting different results IS the definition of insanity.
We need to fill in the gap left by measure J. We can keep the citizens veto and provide a path for approval of the housing that DOES meet a higher set of standards. Thats the only win-win option anyone has ever put on the table in this housing debate.
Your reasoning is flawed.
Two proposals have passed via Measure J so far, and I’d lump Target in as effectively a “third” one.
There is no way you’re going to get agreement regarding how to weaken Measure J. That’s a much-more difficult task than obtaining agreement on individual proposals in the first place.
It currently appears that Willowgrove has some support (though I’m hoping that some opponents come out of the woodwork, after Village Farms is dispatched).
Apparently, the Spanking Machine isn’t doing a good-enough job scaring off developers these days. Though I’m hoping that Village Farms will soon be asking, “thank you sir, may I have another?”
Then again, I also didn’t think that Trump would win twice (or three times, according to him).
“That is an attitude that is afforded by one already having appropriate housing, but it doesn’t do much for those who are not as fortunate.”
No argument there. But the thing about land use decisions is that they’re effectively permanent, so it doesn’t work to say, “Okay let’s build this project now, even though it doesn’t meet our needs well and imposes a bunch of undesirable burdens, and then a little later we’ll replace it with a better project”
We only get one bite at the apple, so in my opinion it’s better to wait.
“With more than a bit of science fiction than anyone expected, the moment after the yes
or no vote was announced the entire population found themselves completing the general plan update several years prior to the election…” – from Democracy, Equity, Friends and Perfomance: Davis in the 2020’s.
Somehow this article only convinced me to vote NO. All the terrible arguments and the embarrassing process and so so many doubts — and for me not convinced on the transportation commitments — especially after the previous failures at Cannery and elsewhere. And the school district weighing in and all the BS over affordable housing at Council. Gawd.
I don’t believe that Measure J is good for Davis, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to use it while it is the law of the land. Note I voted for Measure X, both Nishis and will be voting for Willowgrove.
“The relevant comparison is not between Village Farms and some hypothetical world in which thousands of affordable homes magically appear. The relevant comparison is between Village Farms and the status quo.”
This is a false premise. The developers want us to turn off our imaginations and visions about what we can get that is much better. We wouldn’t settle for buying a car that doesn’t have enough seats or trunk space–we’d ask the dealer to come back with a better option. And that’s what we can do here.
We’re not being offered pizza with the possibility of being offered a burrito tomorrow. We are voting on having more and more pizza extending long into the future with no possibility of burritos. If we don’t want to have pizza in perpetuity, we need to exercise our option to tell the developer to come back with the burritos we much prefer.
Whitcomb can get Village Farms 2 back on the ballot in 2028 easily and with luck, after we have approved the General Plan Update that the project can comply with. By shrinking the project south of Channel A, we’re more likely to get the full 1800 homes BEFORE the current proposed time line. This isn’t a fantasy–Whitcomb came back two years later after losing on Nishii I with Nishii II that won approval. Even this project is a rehash of Covell Village. (And I suspect that they were banking on voters forgetting why they rejected it the first time around.)
“The choice facing Davis is not between growth and local control, but rather may become one between planning for growth ourselves or having more of those decisions made for us by Sacramento. ”
Seems you are calling for Davis voters to give up local control so they can maintain the facade of local control. True local control means that developers must listen to local voices and if they don’t their project will be rejected and they’ll need to come back again. It’s that simple. You know what is being asked for is quite reasonable. Willowgrove better reflects this sentiment. The VF developers need to acknowledge this.
“Whitcomb can get Village Farms 2 back on the ballot in 2028 easily and with luck, after we have approved the General Plan Update that the project can comply with. ”
Not going to happen. Its manana or bust.
“Not going to happen. Its manana or bust.”
Maybe, maybe not. Mr. Whitcombe must be in his mid-80s now, and his kids and younger business partners may not share his sense of timeline. I don’t imagine that the property is very profitable as ag land, so the prospect of rezoning to urban must be pretty tempting. Time will tell.
Well, it’s pretty much in the bag one way or another now. I doubt that any arguments over the next hour-and-a-half are going to make any difference.
David didn’t even bother writing a separate “housing crisis” article, today.
Davis Spanking Machine – do your thing! (Hopefully.) Or to paraphrase DEVO – “I say whip it – whip it good”.
Though it doesn’t seem like the machine will be ready to take on Willowgrove. Or more accurately, no one to run it.
You seem a little too obsessed with spanking
I was going to quote one of Salt-n-Peppa’s hits, until I realized the lyrics weren’t quite right.
As much as I hate to say it I feel Measure V will pass tonight.
Once they brought school closures into the conversation that sealed the deal in my view.
David, are you attending any election parties tonight?
So far Measure V is failing, 53% NO to 47% YES.
Still a long way to go but I must say that I’m surprised.
https://fox40.com/news/local-news/davis-california/measure-v-trails-late-tuesday-but-results-still-unclear/