DAVIS, Calif. — Throughout the Measure V campaign, one argument surfaced repeatedly: Davis should accommodate future growth by building upward rather than outward.
Supporters of that view argued that preserving surrounding farmland should take precedence over peripheral housing development and that the city could meet its housing needs through greater density within its existing boundaries.
I question whether that is possible, but, even if it is, it might not be practical.
Yolo County contains some of the most productive agricultural land in the world, and many Davis residents view farmland preservation as a core community value.
But what was often missing from the public discussion was a deeper examination of the costs and consequences associated with an infill-only growth strategy.
Every land-use decision involves tradeoffs.
Restricting development on the urban edge does not eliminate housing demand—it simply shifts the burden elsewhere, whether through higher density, higher housing costs, longer commutes, or growth in neighboring communities.
A city can absorb growth through greater density, push it to neighboring communities, restrict it and accept higher housing costs, or strike a balance among all three.
For many Davis residents, however, the practical implications of an exclusively infill-based strategy remain largely unexplored.
If Davis continues to grow while maintaining a fixed urban footprint, the city will eventually need substantially more intensive redevelopment than many residents appear willing to support.
When pressed some will state we need to grow higher, but others question whether Davis really needs to grow at all. All of these voices end up putting pressure on existing supply which helps drive cost upwards.
Accommodating future demand would likely require redeveloping aging commercial centers, converting low-rise retail corridors into mixed-use housing districts, assembling parcels for larger projects, and constructing significantly taller residential buildings in strategic locations.
That reality raises an uncomfortable tension in local housing politics.
Many of the same voices that oppose peripheral growth have also opposed major infill projects, citing concerns about neighborhood character, traffic, parking, building heights, and other impacts.
The result is a fundamental question: If growth on the edge is unacceptable and substantial redevelopment within the city is also unacceptable, where exactly should future residents live?
The issue is not unique to Davis—similar debates have played out across the country.
In the book Nowhere to Live, the authors argue that restricting development on so-called “greenfield” land while relying exclusively on increased density can create unintended consequences.
The book states, “That’s not to say that increasing density is a panacea, especially if it is accompanied by restrictions on ‘greenfield’ development—that is new housing developments on land previously used for ranching, farming, or open space. There is only so much density to go around, and when regions have tried to force all development into a small urban-defined footprint, there have been negative consequences.”
Using Portland, Oregon, as an example, the authors contend that urban growth boundaries can contribute to housing affordability challenges when development opportunities become increasingly constrained.
The book further argues, “With increased density and no escape valve outside of urban areas, increases in density result in increases in crime, traffic congestion, and pollution.”
Not all housing economists would agree with that conclusion. Many researchers argue that density can reduce vehicle miles traveled, support public transportation, and lower per-capita environmental impacts.
Nonetheless, the broader concept of an “escape valve” remains central to ongoing debates about housing policy.
If cities permit some outward growth while also encouraging infill development, pressure on land prices and housing costs may be distributed more evenly. If all future growth must occur within a fixed boundary, housing demand becomes concentrated within a limited supply of developable land.
For Davis, that debate is especially relevant because of Measure J, now Measure J/R/D, which requires voter approval for most peripheral residential development. Unlike many California cities, Davis residents have direct authority over whether the city expands beyond its existing boundaries.
That authority has allowed Davis to preserve farmland surrounding the city for more than two decades. At the same time, critics argue that it has limited housing production and reduced the city’s flexibility in responding to changing demographic and economic conditions.
Those conditions include declining school enrollment, rising housing costs, persistent workforce housing shortages, and increasing difficulty for younger families to establish themselves in the community.
The Measure V debate highlighted these competing priorities. Supporters emphasized the need for additional housing, including affordable housing, family housing, and opportunities for future generations to remain in Davis. Opponents emphasized farmland preservation, environmental concerns, and the importance of directing growth inward.
What often received less attention was the long-term physical form of a city that embraces an exclusively anti-expansion philosophy.
If population growth continues while outward expansion remains prohibited, density must continue increasing within the existing urban footprint. Over time, that means a city that becomes progressively more urbanized while remaining surrounded by preserved agricultural land.
For some residents, that vision represents sustainability. For others, it represents a contradiction: a small city transformed into an increasingly dense urban enclave in order to avoid limited peripheral expansion.
The debate is not simply about choosing between growth and preservation, but about determining what tradeoffs the community is willing to accept in pursuit of both.
Most metropolitan regions accommodate growth through a combination of redevelopment and expansion.
The challenge facing Davis is determining how much of each approach is appropriate while maintaining the community values residents seek to protect.
Farmland preservation undoubtedly provides benefits.
But preserving farmland is not cost-free—the costs may appear in the form of higher housing prices, increased redevelopment pressures, demographic changes, longer commutes from neighboring communities, or reduced opportunities for future residents.
As Davis continues to confront housing shortages and growth pressures, the central question may not be whether farmland should be preserved—it may be how much housing scarcity and redevelopment pressure the community is willing to accept in order to achieve that goal.
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.
David you keep catching up but you seemed to have missed my big revelation during the V campaign. During the campaign I wrote a letter about how much land Davis has already preserved with Open Space Tax money. Its around 9 square miles. An amount of land equal to the footprint of the city of Davis itself. I thought pointing this out would be picked up by others, but alas, the learning curve around here can’t get beyond the limits to growth debates of the last 50 years. The debate shouldn’t be about farmland preservation because we have done lots of that. The debate should now be how much farmland preservation is enough when considering other priorities?
I’ve previously pointed this out in a different way, that we are basically locking ourselves in so there are limited areas to even consider building on the periphery.
This was your letter but I posted a couple of maps – https://davisvanguard.org/2026/03/davis-openspace-housing-balance/
Okay, but you are making the wrong argument. Preservation of land is good but we have done plenty of that. The sprawl to infinity argument needs to be consistently rebuked. The way to rebuke it is by pointing out that we have preserved as much land as we have developed. Its a simple argument but requires constant reinforcement.
Sadly, as so often has been the case, you will get there, probably in about 25 more years, like with measure J.
The people moving to Davis are usually/currently living in areas where they have less environmental impact (compared to Davis).
Places like Davis would be doing the world a favor if it stopped accommodating that. And not just Davis, but all of the suburbs/exurbs. But don’t look for the latter to ever occur in regard to most of these type of communities. Development interests and their supporters can’t even leave the ONE TOWN in this area (Davis) alone, regarding the constant, never-ending drone for more development.
They want it ALL – ESPECIALLY Davis.
Apparently, it’s sweeter (more profitable) if a community has any resistance whatsoever.
The population itself is not growing. 1.6 kids per couple, and a reversal of immigration.
If the development supporters were actually concerned about “housing shortages”, they wouldn’t have also pushed DISC – given that it would INCREASE demand for housing beyond what it provided.
These people are not an honest bunch.
“The people moving to Davis are usually/currently living in areas where they have less environmental impact (compared to Davis).”
How did you ever come to a conclusion like that? Davis residents use cars less than in other cities to commute to work (see the recent ACS data), we have stronger building energy efficiency standards and more solar rooftops per capita, as well as many more EVs, we are above the statewide average in density and far above the regional average, and our transit system is more extensive than any other city in the region. To improve the environment, more people should be living in Davis, not less. And we need to create more jobs here so even fewer people commute by car.
In any case, the most likely outcome (regarding the state’s dissatisfaction regarding cities’ rate of growth) will be a continuation of fake housing elements, just like the current round (but even less-realistic). This is even more likely if the state itself doesn’t come through with a vast increase in funding for Affordable housing.
The fact is that some place like Davis isn’t expensive-enough for developers to tear down existing housing and replace it with something denser.
It’s not even happening in places like San Francisco, to any significant degree.
So yes, the fake plans will continue to be submitted and approved, and the YIMBY groups will continue to make noise regarding that.
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
And nothing to speak of will actually get built (other than continued sprawl, in the numerous locales which already welcome it). Mostly resulting in a relocation of those who currently live in less environmentally-impactful areas. (Who would then be replaced by high-wage tech workers.)
The discussion leaves out one important aspect: the changed nature of agriulture in Yolo County over the past 100 years. In 1980, tomator production, one of the marquee products grown locally, was grown on 65,000 acres in Yolo County producing 24 tons per acre. In 1984, tomato production in Yolo took up 30,000 acres but produced 51 tons per acre. We produced as similar quantity of tomatoes on half the acreage from 44 years ago.
We grow much less grains now, in 1980 grain, corn, rice and bean production occupied over 250 thousand acres of farmland. In 2024, 160,000 acres.
Housing policy vis a vis ag land conservation needs to be discussed in light of the changing nature of local agriccularal production and advances in crop yields.
BTW, all of the info was gathered by yearly ag reports published by the Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner.
Infill isn’t going to happen because it’s too complicated and too costly.
Conserving farmland is certainly a desirable goal, but it’s moot at this point. If Willow Grove is approved, as now seems likely, it will lead to development pressure all down Covell and around the corner onto Mace within the next 20 – 30 years. The city limits will be expanded whether that is a conscious planning decision or not.
In that sense, Willow Grove definitely constitutes urban sprawl and will hasten the expansion of the city limits. In my opinion, it’s a necessary project. But it would be great if the voters realize what they are doing as they support it.
This is an overall excellent observation by Don.
Though there’s plenty of infill opportunities in places like Woodland and West Sacramento – without even removing any buildings. And they are occassionally developed, like this place:
https://www.dailydemocrat.com/2026/05/17/woodland-opportunity-village-celebrates-grand-opening-of-freeman-garden-court/
I see absolutely NO reason to try to cram something like this into Davis.
But yes, the Willow Grove proposal is in a far-worse (farther from everything in Davis and UCD) location than the Village Farms proposal, and would likely encourage even more sprawl. Perhaps someone like Alan Pryor will arise from the ashes of Village Farms, and get back to leading campaigns against sprawl.
Though the embers haven’t even cooled regarding Village Farms, and we don’t yet know if it’s “really most sincerely dead” (to paraphrase the proclamation from the mayor of Munchkinland). As such, we can’t even really celebrate until the proclamation from the county arrives – hopefully bearing good news announcing the death of the development proposal.
I’m not sure I understand the logic. Why would WG lead to development pressure? If development relieves demand, wouldn’t WG lead to less pressure? If VF fails to pass, why would WG put pressure? Pressure how?
I remember when the left was all about farmland conservation :-|
“Farmland preservation undoubtedly provides benefits.”
BUT . . .
There has always been a divide between the environmental and social justice left.
I’m older than you :-|
Not necessarily true. I remember when the Enviros on the North Coast of California got together with the Native Americans, specifically the Hoopa tribe, to defeat the forest service attempt to build a road through a sacred Hoopa roadless area to gain entry for logging.
I remember Tim McKay, the long serving Executive Director of the North Coast Environmental Center, talking about the different interests of the Native Americans and the enviros and how both groups understood that it was a moment of the convergence of interests and not that the interests were always going to be the same.
Environmental groups have increasingly drifted toward social justice, and are engineering massive land giveaways to tribes (as a result of their drift). And this includes groups like The Trust for PUBLIC Land.
But I do recall reading that the Sierra Club was essentially the first to go down this path decades ago, and the environmentalists “lost”.
“Eventually reconciled with the Sierra Club, Brower was elected to the board of directors for a term from 1983 to 1988, and again from 1995 to 2000. Brower was deeply concerned about issues of overpopulation and immigration – one of many issues that led to his resignation in protest from the board of directors in 2000.[14] “Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us,” he said, “and immigration is part of that problem. It has to be addressed.”[14] His favorite example of how immigration should be addressed was the work of his cousin Boone Hallberg, a botanist who immigrated to Oaxaca to build a more sustainable agricultural economy in the area that so many of the workers on his family’s California farm had been forced to leave.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brower
In a sense, the environmental movement is (at its core) “anti-people”, which is the reason that it doesn’t align with social justice. The environmental movement arose to protect the rest of the environment FROM the negative impacts of people.
The skin color, sex, preferred pronouns, etc., of the person doing the environmental damage is irrelevant, when the focus is on the natural environment itself. (Again, a reason that social justice is not aligned with environmentalism, since social justice types are quite obsessed with the former.)
Tribes haven’t consistently been known as environmentalists – for good reason.
“The environmental movement arose to protect the rest of the environment FROM the negative impacts of people.”
So did Smokey the Bear. But as we have seen the Native Americans who used fire to manage the landscape did a much better job than the white environmentalists who put out every forest fire until the couldn’t.
But the main problem is you obviously failed evolution because you wrongly think humans are not part of nature or as Darwin famously observed “Not man apart.”
Truth be told, the landscape (as well as every single plant and animal) didn’t need the native population, either. And the landscape predates them by millions/billions of years, as well. Native people burned landscapes to help themselves; not to help the environment in general. (Though they were obviously more intimately connected to and directly dependent upon it.)
Smokey wasn’t an environmentalist creation.
Environmentalists and government agencies are using fire more often now, partly so it doesn’t get out of hand and destroy man-made structures.
Humankind isn’t separate from nature. But mankind is having an outsized impact on the rest of the environment (e.g., climate change, habitat destruction, extinctions, etc.).
David Attenborough is probably the foremost spokesperson regarding the impact that modern society is having on the planet. Since he’s now 100 years old, he points out the changes he seen in his own lifetime.
But as you point out, humans are ultimately part of nature. It’s not clear if the path that society is on is ultimately sustainable for humans, either. (But you and I will be dead before they find out, I suspect.)
In the meantime, we’ll probably continue to lose a couple of Pacific Palisades every year going forward.
The best way for humans to help the natural environment is to leave it alone in the first place. Nothing needs “fixing”, until mankind starts screwing around with it.
The problem with humans is so VERY few are capable it seems of processing nuanced thought and “systems thinking” …forget about it.
That was never more evident to me than during this current housing debate. The difference between building “housing” and “houses” is night and day, but SO many posters on next-door (and here) just seemingly cant get their little minds around the idea that not all housing is the same and there are types that we need and types that we do not need.
I don’t know why that is so hard.
The same thing applies to farmland and infill.
Yes, infill is superior in almost every respect, but DCPG showed mathematically that there isn’t enough infill / densification realistically available to move the needle. (that spreadsheet is here by the way:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mv9I44HS4-beKSneJBhdENwVOaZIRMPDZDD_w4IJlxM/edit?usp=sharing)
Feel free to make a copy of that for yourself and play with the areas, the strategies, and the densities…. come to your own conclusions.
We have to give up SOME farmland for growth, humans will always have SOME impact… our duty is simply to have the lowest possible impact we can… We can densify, we can convert shopping centers to mixed use… but none of those strategies is enough on its own. Thats what the numbers show. The optimal solution is to adopt multiple parallel strategies.
I shared this work with a member of our planning commission and one of the pieces of feedback to me was: “it might be too complicated to sell to the public”… If THAT is where we are as a city, then we are living in an idiocracy. This is the kind of thinking that stalled the idea of measure J reform… all of the concepts created had to first pass through the filter of “is this idea stupid simple?”… sometimes stupid simple isnt enough, and that is definitely the case here.
We can preserve ag-land by using the very least amount of it necessary. We don’t have to use ZERO of it… we just need to be responsible and good stewards of the land we DO use.
Converting huge amounts of Ag Land to low-density housing that loses us money and will be occupied by people who commute out of town is in fact a stupid idea. Its worse for us in almost every single way. Converting a smaller amount for more affordable housing that serves a population of people who currently have to commute in…. MUCH better idea…. both ideas do require conversion of farmland, one is net positive, the other is not. This really shouldn’t be this hard.
It looks like your no housing is better than housing you don’t like philosophy got you zero housing with no affordable housing. Congratulations.
Ron, he gets another bite at the apple in November.
Patience is a virtue … grasshopper.
In the long run we are all dead.
I strongly disagree Ron. I believe each of us never does. We are each the current incarnation of an energy stream that goes infinitely back in the past and infinitely on into the future. As Einstein famously said energy is preserved. So what you see as dying, I se an simply turning the page from the current chapter to the “next” chapter.
What you been smoking?
Spirituality.
Saying no to a demonstrably bad, and definatley permenant land use decision is the right call. We have multiple chances to get it right. But we can only develop it once.
The general plan process – a process where it ISNT the developers making design decisions is a much better alternative for that site. Even some the people who are more consistently on the “no” side have agreed that a lot of multifamily / mixed use at the bottom edge of the site, and keeping the whole thing below the ditch would be something they support.
The shame here is that if the developer had listened to feedback at the very beginning, had been tuned in to the changing understanding of our housing needs within the community, including the desire to build a lot more missing middle… they would have had a lot more marginal people on the yes side and would have won. Instead it was just ego over collaboration and they wasted a HUGE amount of everyone’s time.
“The optimal solution is to adopt multiple parallel strategies.”
Exactly.
Unfortunately, you are only interested in your own strategy and seem to view other approaches as “stupid.”
Mark
So what are your multiple parallel strategies? How do they differ from what David is discussing?
Build it all and let the market sort it out. Call me old fashion.
RM: “So what are your multiple parallel strategies? How do they differ from what David is discussing?”
I was responding to Tim, not David. I thought I made that clear by quoting his words.
A one trick pony who got nothing and thinks somehow that is better than something. Maybe it is for his interests but not for those under-priveledged people who would have benefited someday from the 16 acre land dedication for affordable housing. Sadly they suffer while the victors gloat.
The people whom you refer to as “gloaters” aren’t the ones who wanted to create a local housing shortage in the form of DISC.
That would be people like YOU, instead.
They’re also the same people who don’t care what impact that poaching students from other districts has on those districts.
So you at least might want to get off your high horse regarding morality.
People can have legitimate different opinions without attacking each other.
As for me, I’ve seen more than enough continuing sprawl all over the area. I saw enough 50 years ago, in some places.
I’m glad that there’s only 1.6 kids per couple these days, and that immigration is better-controlled.
“Unfortunately, you are only interested in your own strategy and seem to view other approaches as “stupid.”
I will invite you to read what we wrote / or try to understand the objection before you critisize.
Its not ME that has condemned the practice of building large tracts of almost entirely car-served single family housing. Its the entirety of the urban planning profession / economists / environmentalist… You might as well argue for flat earth than say that village farms was anything approaching “best practices”
With regards to “multiple strategies”. what Im referring to is the research we did, crunching actual numbers to develop an understanding of our housing requierments and what strategies we can employ to meet those requirements. The evidence shows that densification and conversion of shopping centers to mixed use it not enough to meet our needs. Those are both good ideas on balance and we SHOULD do them, but we cant just do those two. But we develop only on the periphery and ignore those infill opportunities we are also making a mistake.
Feel free to study this from other angles, and come with your own data. So far DCPG are the ONLY people I think ever, in this town to put their time into developing actual alternatives that might be superior to what everyone who pays attention to these issues knows is a failed development paradigm.
TK: “I will invite you to read what we wrote”
I did read what you wrote, fully understand it, and am criticizing both it and you. I’m not the one calling other’s ideas stupid.
I look forward to reading your alternative ideas.
The other issue (regarding Affordable housing) is that the vast majority of money for it comes from government sources OUTSIDE of Davis.
So, every dollar of that which is used in Davis is a dollar that isn’t available for some other community (which might have a greater need).
The world doesn’t revolve around Davis, though I’m surprised at how many people (including those whom I personally know) seem to think it does. There is life outside of Davis, and places that are much, much better overall. Almost anyplace in the Bay Area comes to mind, regarding weather, geography, outdoor activity opportunities, culture, food, job opportunities, etc.
Last time I checked, Davis has no beachfront property (other than the causeway during winter). Though some seemed to think that Village Farms might create its own issues with water dispersion.
Allow me to be the first to say, “stick a fork in it, the wicked which is dead” (I think). Though it was pretty close.
https://elections.yolocounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/633/Unofficial-election-results?bidId=
Though in taking a second look at this after typing the claim above, there’s still a lot of uncounted ballots (and they are indeed trending toward Darth Vader’s side).
It looks like the lead was narrowed by 50 votes and they only counted about 1500 votes from perhaps as many as 10,000
Maybe you could go ahead and do the math regarding how many (or what percentage) of the 10,000 estimated votes would need to swing toward Measure V? I can probably figure it out, but too lazy to do so.
Without looking at it again, I think there’s still something like 30,000 votes not yet counted countywide.
In any case, I’m hoping that this issue gives us three separate celebrations (election night, today, and whenever the next update is – Tuesday?)
Hopefully, it’s the gift that keeps giving (though it is a little nerve-wracking).
Honestly, though – this is probably the only issue that Davis voters, at least, care about. No one cares who voted for governor (but didn’t a Republican lead – statewide in regard to the upcoming runoff election)?
My original calculation is that the post-election votes would have needed to break about 53-47 to flip the result. What took place is kind of in between in terms of whether or not it’s enough to change the outcome.
How about now? (I realize that the 10,000 uncounted votes is also an estimate out of the 30,000.)
One thing I would agree with you on is that the willingness of the electorate to approve sprawl via Measure J has changed since the last time. Though even 20 years ago, I recall that something like 40% of voters approved of Covell Village).
And that’s before you joined the dark side, yourself.
Needless to say, this indicates that Measure J is not always going to be preventing sprawl. Not when considering what Davis voters have already approved, and the lack of opposition to an even-worse location (Willowgrove).
Where’s Alan Pryor when we need him?
Davis sure isn’t Atherton, Tiburon, or Beverly Hills.
Actually narrowed by 57 votes out of 2,079, which were split 51.37% Yes and 48.63% No.
That split fell short of the 53-47 calculation David felt was needed to overcome No’s lead … a calculation I agree with.
If the total number of votes for Measure V is the same 19,787 that were cast for Measure H in 2022 then we have 6,685 votes to go, and Yes would need to garner 53.11% of those votes to get to even. So David’s 53-47 has inched up because the 51.37% reported today fell short of 53.
Note: Measure J in June 2018 garnered 19,210 total votes in an election that Countywide had lower turnout than this one did. So a vote count for Measure V between 19,000 and 20,000 would seem to be a good bet.