As of Friday evening, Measure V appears headed toward a narrow defeat.
If the result holds, it will mark another chapter in Davis’ long and complicated history with Measure J. Since voters first approved the citizen-vote requirement for peripheral development in 2000, only two major projects have successfully navigated the process.
Every other proposal has either failed at the ballot box or never made it that far (another critical point that shows that Measure J is a constraint on housing because it acts as de facto gatekeeper).
Many in the community are already shifting their attention to the proposed Willowgrove project, hoping (or in some cases, fearing) that it can succeed where Village Farms appears to have fallen short.
But it is worth remembering that organized opposition to Willowgrove has not yet emerged.
Village Farms entered the campaign with broad support from city leaders, labor organizations, environmental advocates, affordable housing advocates and much of the local establishment, yet it still appears likely to lose.
At the same time, the underlying demand for housing in Davis has not disappeared.
I have seen recent polling showing that roughly 80 percent of Davis voters believe the city does not have enough housing.
And yet, even with that, Measure V could not win. And while you can argue that flaws in the project prompted that result — the overall history of Measure J suggests that the problem is more systemic than episodic.
The apparent contradiction between widespread recognition of a housing shortage and the repeated defeat of housing projects is precisely what makes Measure J such a problematic policy.
Measure V is not simply another election result but rather part of a pervasive pattern of land use issues that the community faces and represents another example of the structural difficulty Davis faces in producing housing under its current growth-control framework.
Throughout the election, we repeatedly analyzed the city’s housing obligations and available land inventory.
Our conclusion was that there is no realistic path for Davis to produce the approximately 930 lower-income units assigned through the current RHNA cycle without both Village Farms and Willowgrove succeeding.
Even under optimistic assumptions about infill development, accessory dwelling units and redevelopment opportunities, the numbers simply do not add up.
The question now is what happens next.
For years, some observers have dismissed concerns that the state might eventually intervene in Davis’ housing process. Others have argued that Measure J is not truly a housing constraint. Yet the state’s own housing officials have repeatedly raised concerns about exactly that issue.
In its Housing Element update, the city argued that Measure J was not necessarily an obstacle to meeting housing needs. According to the city, “While Measure J adds costs, extends processing times, and has been used to halt development projects that would convert agricultural land to urban development, it is only a constraint to meeting housing needs if the city lacks sufficient infill housing sites.”
On Dec. 8, 2021, the California Department of Housing and Community Development responded directly to the city’s analysis.
“As recognized in the housing element, Measure J poses a constraint to the development of housing by requiring voter approval of any land use designation change from agricultural, open space, or urban reserve land use to an urban use designation,” HCD wrote. “Since the ordinance was enacted in March of 2000, four of the six proposed rezones have failed.”
The state agency went further, noting that because Davis had identified a need for rezoning additional sites to accommodate its housing obligations, the city needed to analyze the constraints Measure J might impose on future development opportunities.
That warning came nearly five years ago.
As council members and city staff have acknowledged, Davis has realistically exhausted the inventory of infill sites that can realistically be rezoned or redeveloped.
The debate that once centered on whether infill alone could satisfy housing needs has gradually shifted toward whether enough infill opportunities remain at all.
That concern was publicly acknowledged by city leaders.
In December 2023, then-Mayor Will Arnold cautioned residents against assuming that Davis could satisfy future housing obligations entirely through infill development.
“I would just say to those who have said that we will be able to meet our next RHNA cycle numbers without going outside of the city limits… I suggest they tune in or watch the recording of this meeting as we really try to meet our current requirements simply with infill and the difficulty we’re having in doing so,” Arnold said.
For the last several years, many residents have remained largely unaware of the implications of these warnings. Others have attempted to downplay them. But if Measure V ultimately fails, those concerns become much more difficult to ignore.
The central question is no longer whether Measure J creates challenges for housing production. The question is what happens when voters continue rejecting projects while the city remains legally obligated to accommodate housing growth.
One commenter on the Vanguard recently argued, “The closeness of the result undermines arguments to weaken Measure J.”
In reality, the opposite conclusion may be more accurate.
When projects lose by overwhelming margins, it is easy to argue that the voters were reacting to fundamental flaws. Covell Village, Wildhorse Ranch and the second DISC proposal all suffered decisive defeats. When the defeat is resounding, it is easy to dismiss the problem as specific to the project—i.e., those projects were poorly timed, inadequately designed, politically mishandled or simply inconsistent with community preferences.
But a different pattern emerges when examining the close losses.
The first DISC (Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus) proposal narrowly failed in 2020. Measure V now appears poised to suffer a similarly narrow defeat. These outcomes suggest something different than outright community rejection. They suggest a system where projects that address documented housing needs can still fail despite substantial support, extensive revisions and years of planning.
In that sense, close defeats may be more concerning than landslides.
A project that loses by 30 percentage points tells state regulators that the community clearly rejected a proposal. A project that loses by a few hundred votes despite years of review, significant affordable housing commitments and demonstrated housing need raises a different question: whether the process itself has become an obstacle to meeting state housing requirements.
Preliminary precinct-level results appear to reinforce that concern. As with DISC in 2020 and again in 2022, opposition was strongest among voters living closest to the proposed project site. Traffic concerns once again emerged as the dominant issue.
That pattern is unlikely to disappear. Most remaining peripheral development opportunities are along arterial routes. Future projects will therefore almost certainly generate similar concerns about traffic, circulation and neighborhood impacts.
We have yet to see a project pass that has generated significant and realistic traffic concerns.
The reality is that the two projects that have successfully passed Measure J elections were able to avoid many of those concerns. Future projects will not be so fortunate.
That leaves Davis facing a difficult reality: the city remains under pressure to accommodate housing growth, has limited remaining infill opportunities, must secure voter approval for peripheral projects, and continues to see those projects rejected at the ballot box—even when the margins are exceedingly narrow and when significant swaths of the community recognize the need for housing and the value for that project.
The question now is what will happen, as the status quo is increasingly untenable.
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.
“Every other proposal has either failed at the ballot box or never made it that far (another critical point that shows that Measure J is a constraint on housing because it acts as de facto gatekeeper).”
True, in a sense. It can prevent housing from being built OUTSIDE of the city. Councils can also act as “gatekeepers” in this manner. So can urban limit lines, agricultural zoning, agricultural mitigations, the state’s own Williamson Act, . . .
“As Councilmembers and city staff have acknowledged, Davis has realistically exhausted the inventory of infill sites that can realistically be rezoned or redeveloped.”
If that’s true, it’s even more true for every city within 25 miles of the coast – where the vast majority of the state’s population lives.
This is why almost every county and city in the state is forced to submit fake plans, and is also the reason that the state’s “mandates” are doomed (and have been ever since Wiener and company came up with them). Especially as it relates to Affordable housing – since it requires government subsidies that are in extremely short supply in orer to “pencil out” – even when “free farmland” is offered.
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
With each passing cycle, the plans will become even more “fake” – statewide. Everyone involved in that game already knows this.
David Greenwald once again shared the following unconfirmed hearsay quote by HCD as if it is fact rather than fiction. Each time David has used this quote, he has been asked to provide a link to the public record where the quote appears. And every time, including this time, David refuses to provide the link. As a result, it is clear that David is taking a page from the Donald Trump playbook, by making an assertion from thin air that has no substance in fact.
”As recognized in the housing element, Measure J poses a constraint to the development of housing by requiring voter approval of any land use designation change from agricultural, open space, or urban reserve land use to an urban use designation,”
Once again David you attack the Davis housing situation with a blunt instrument … painting with a broad brush.
Once upon a time you asked some very reasonable questions about the Davis housing situation, the answers to which are worth repeating:
“David, regarding the Davis housing choices the 2025 transactions history tells us we have:
— an abundance of large homes,
— a dearth of smaller homes,
— insufficient information to make any determination on accessible homes,
— an abundance of rentals with lots more coming, but a problem that the wealth of student renters create a living environment in apartments that young parents find problematic for their impressionable children,
— an abundance of high priced ownership options, but a dearth of low priced ownership options,
— plenty of full-sized aging-in-place senior housing, but a severe shortage of small square foot downsizing ownership options,
— URC is Davis’s only retirement community option,
— As noted above the multifamily units for people with different needs at different life stages is not a supply issue, but rather a cultural issue with the lifestyles of UCD student renters being incompatible with the lifestyle desires of non-student renters.
— Davis is moving toward more attractiveness for UCD students and less attractiveness for non-students with more and more complexes deploying/converting to by-the-bed leases.”
From article:
“The first DISC (Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus) proposal narrowly failed in 2020.”
Why do you and the other housing shortage people continue to lump-in a proposal that would have created more demand for housing than it would have provided? (That result isn’t even in question for BOTH of the DISC proposals.)
You do realize how hypocritical this makes you appear, in regard to concerns regarding a local “housing shortage”?
Your support for that proposal indicates that you aren’t actually concerned about “housing shortages”, let alone the impact of commuters driving to that site.
Pointed this out how many times now, without any response from you (or the other housing shortage people)?
The result in this case is that Measure J was used to PREVENT a housing shortage – twice.
Or in other words, Measure J was a “constraint” against CREATING a housing shortage in regard to the DISC proposals.
One thing we’ve never tried is a Measure J vote on a plan that the community came up with first. I was at the council meeting when Will Arnold conducted a full court press to move Village Farms forward, citing the arguments you mention about the State coming after us, even as newly elected Bapu Vaitla proposed to do a modicum of planning first. He was voted down 4-1, the rationale being that time would be wasted. Yes, it’s ironic that Bapu and others on the council were eventually won over to support the Village Farms plan, but now we have another opportunity to let the community speak first, and we better not squander it. The Council could greatly accelerate the portion of the General Plan that deals with the East Covell corridor, even initiate a Specific Plan for that area, by directing the consultant (or hire a sub-consultant) to conduct a fast-tracked series of workshops and public meetings (in, say 6 months) to look for a community consensus that landowners along East Covell could respond to. It also would be an opportunity for developers to finally weigh in publicly on what will “pencil” (a too-broad term that non-developers use all the time to justify their assumptions) and what won’t. There could even be some counter-intuitive agreement, which has been impossible to reach through the current “process”. Too much to hope for? We know what doesn’t work, and we shouldn’t waste another opportunity to reverse who opens the discussion.
There is no contradiction in believing Davis needs more housing and voting against housing expansion in Davis if you believe that regional housing pressure is such that any new housing Davis builds will be eaten up from the outside, leaving us with the same housing deficit and more overloaded infrastructure problems.
There are very large downward pressures on the California population. The baby boomer generation is aging out. People are leaving California more than they are coming to the state. All of our growth is from immigration.
Immigration has slowed, and we are already seeing reductions in housing prices in border areas. Rent levels are stabilizing. With 2/3 of Americans wanting the Democratic Party to move to the center on immigration, the projections of a more stable population in California may come to pass.
This will reduce external housing pressure on Davis, and there is hope our housing stock will once again become adequate. If the California population continues to grow rapidly, Davis is just too small to make a dent in regional housing demand.
Its good to think in terms of “regional” or “external” housing pressure, versus housing for out local workforce, because that is the lens that seperates the kind of growth we actually need from the kind we do not.
Building more single family housing for outbound regional commuters does not serve our needs as a community, in fact all data points to a net harm for our community creating housing like that.
Yet we still have 17,000 people commuting IN every day. That is a number that dwarfs the housing production potential at both of these sites, and doesnt go away. These are people who mostly need market-rate-affordable housing. Townhomes, condos, apartments for adults ( not student housing)
The RHNA numbers require affordable housing, there is no requirment that we produce housing to meet regional demand.
The housing we need to focus on is for our local workforce, and for the future growth of our local workforce – so we can retain the best UCD talent and tap into the huge potential of our entrepreneurial sector.
Have you (or anyone else) ever asked the “local workforce” what it would take to get them to move out of their current homes?
Or whether or not their households also contain someone who works “somewhere else” (e.g., Sacramento)?
RonO, you are wasting everyone’s time every time you make that argument. Why?
Because we know that over 17,000 people commute into Davis every day to go to work, and if only 1 out of 10 of those 17,000 is willing, then that’s 1,700 units of actionable housing demand. The supply of housing needs to match the characteristics of those 1,700 units of actionable housing demand to consummate individual sale events, but the opportunity is real.
Your argument rests on the premise that every member of our “local workforce” is the same. They aren’t.
Ron O
We know that people who worked in 1,500 positions at UCD were pushed out of Davis by high housing prices between 2007 and 2023 according to the UCD ITS survey. Most likely another 3,000 workers who used to live in Davis that work in other businesses were similarly pushed out. And that doesn’t account for the many who were likely pushed out prior to 2007 as Davis prices escalated away from other Yolo, Solano and Sacramento communities. And again we have 1,000 students commuting into town each day, a population that was largely non existent 20 years ago. I didn’t know any students who lived outside Davis when our son was in elementary school. Now I know a number of them where I volunteer at the high school. All of this empirical evidence, along with the 50% price premium over neighboring cities that shows excess demand and/or supply shortage, supports the position that in town workers want to live here, not elsewhere. Do you have empirical counter evidence rather than just rash speculation?
Richard: You should know better than to draw conclusions from data itself (though your 50% figure also isn’t accurate).
Do you think everyone in Spring Lake was “pushed out” of Davis? Or, is it more likely that they just wanted more for their money (for a product that isn’t really all that different)?
As far as “local workers” – the only ones that “Davis” has (to any significant degree) don’t work in Davis – they work at UCD (which isn’t increasing the total number of employees at its main campus).
Are you aware of how easy/convenient it is to bypass almost all of Davis entirely, via Highway 113?
Again, if you want “evidence” – conduct a survey and ask how many households in Spring Lake would be willing to move to an expensive shoebox (especially since many households have more than one worker, working at more than one location). And many of them have kids.
On the other hand, you have “NO” evidence for your conclusion. All you have is somewhat erroneous data which doesn’t support your personal conclusion.
If Davis needs 930 low income homes, how did Measure V address that issue. If memory serves, there was only a commitment of 100 low cost homes in the Measure V proposal.
Another issue was DJUSD favoring the measure because of declining student enrollment. I refer readers to the June 12th article in SF Gate: “California Schools are emptying out. Experts say its only getting worse”. Housing is a California issue not just a Davis issue.
That same article shows that it’s occurring in places like Texas, as well:
“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).”
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/california-public-school-enrollment-22296670.php
Once again, simplistic thinking fails us here.
Of course measure J is an obstacle to growth. The chart of the housing trendline before and after J is quantitative proof of it:
https://davisvanguard.org/2025/06/op-ed-this-graph-illustrates-the-story-of-measure-j-perfectly/
Now, people like my friend Matt will argue that Measure J isnt technically a limitation, and that if developers put together better plans the success rate would be different. And he is also (at least in theory) correct. Bretton Woods / Nishi 2 and perhaps willowgrove might be held up as examples of that.
So there is a middle story here that doesnt fit into soundbytes and easy explanations… and that story is one of “process” and “incentives”. Yes, in theory, the various property owners around town could try to engage the city in a long-term process to coordinate a master plan, and then volunteer whose propertys get built first etc… . But that will never happen in the real world. Developers need:
1) to plan a strategy that gets them past a ballot initiative
2) A plan that makes them the most money
And BOTH of those incentives have absolutely nothing to do with long-term health of the city, how nice a community they build long term, our carbon footprint, traffic impacts, etc etc.
Village Farms made that calculation, figured the “save our schools” argumet would carry the day ( I suspect it is the only reason it was this close) and they figured wrong.. So now all of that “hurry up and get this on the ballot”. and “No bapu, we dont have time to make a PLAN”. Just blew up in everyones face.
Its CRAZY to think that we can continue this process and expect different results.
We need to fix the system itself.
As to the “save our schools” panic, I was tipped off to this from a post on the Facebook page of Davis Parents, the DJUSD Board:
On June 4, 2026, the Board directed staff to pause Boundaries and Planning discussions and related community engagement activities. No decisions have been made regarding school closures, school consolidation, or boundary changes. The Board will focus on budget priorities during the 2026–27 school year and may revisit planning discussions in Spring 2027 or later.
https://www.djusd.net/cms/one.aspx?portalId=117173&pageId=208535788
https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/Attachment.aspx?S=36030750&AID=1559116&MID=62012
The timing is suspicious. And I’m disappointed that the Vanguard did not pick up on this.
At a May 28 school district boundary subcommittee meeting, we recommended pausing further discussion of possible school closures for the fall to let the housing votes play out. That was then discussed at the regular June 4 school board meeting with all the trustees present, and the recommendation was affirmed. The expectation is that the conversation will pick up again after November once the Measure J votes have settled. The district has to make about $3-4 million in cuts to prepare for the 27-28 school year, in part in response to about 150 student decline going into the 26-27 school year. The original estimate was about 100 student decline. Most of the decline is in lower elementary grades, especially TK, K, and 1st grade.
“A project that loses by a few hundred votes despite years of review, significant affordable housing commitments and demonstrated housing need raises a different question: whether the process itself has become an obstacle to meeting state housing requirements.”
As I’ve noted before, I don’t think the state can mount a successful challenge to Measure J when dealing with peripheral lands — those not in the city limits — because the city lacks jurisdiction over those parcels. If a landowner really wanted to challenge Measure J they could annex their land to the city, then propose a project, and if it got voted down *then* I think they’d have a case.
So why hasn’t a peripheral land owner followed that process? At first I thought it was because they didn’t want to pay city taxes while moving through the process, but I later realized that taxes wouldn’t be much of a burden. I think the real reason is that, once annexed, the owner would lose control over the zoning: the city could rezone the land to suit its actual housing needs, which don’t line up well with land owner profit goals. By staying outside of the city they can negotiate a development agreement that predetermines the zoning to something that suits their business plan, and if the City Council doesn’t come to the table, well, there’s always another City Council election right around the corner. (In a way, Measure J actually protects the peripheral land owner from a development outcome they don’t want.) The net result is that I don’t foresee a successful challenge to Measure J as very likely.
I concur with all the points Jim has hade in his comment above.
With that said, it is interesting that the California state workers are focusing on productivity in their fight against the Governor’s RTO order. Just because an employee is sitting in a chair behind a desk doesn’t make them productive. A similar situation exists with David’s “years of review” argument. The time spent reviewing is meaningless if the quality of the reviewing is piss poor, or the applicant is impossible to deal with, or both.
Jim
An interesting observation. This further reveals the fatal flaws in Measure J/R/D and how we are very unlikely to get truly acceptable proposals from the developers with the current veto-only process. Good point that the developers don’t want to lose control of the zoning/platting process which they dominate under Measure J/R/D. (Another impediment is that the uncertainty created by Measure J/R/D increases the risk and thus the required return on investment must be higher than other alternative investments so developers make many fewer proposals here. That’s another factor that is constraining housing in Davis.)
Davis does have a degree of jurisdiction over these parcels through its sphere of influence. The question then is whether Davis can move to annex these lands ahead of time instead. Government Code Section 56375.3 lays out a path for annexing the southern portion of the Village Farms parcel. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/10-902.pdf
This article misinterprets the results of the vote because David is focused solely on the “always no” crowd as though they are the definitive voters. The facts are as follows:
– Opposition to Village Farms didn’t suddenly pop up. The numerous articles by the Davis Citizens Planning Group in the Vanguard started appearing in November 2024, engendered by the VF proposal. Eileen Samitz started writing articles in February 2025. In contrast there’s no such history of articles targeted at Willowgrove. The opposition to Village Farms started long before it was placed on the ballot. Willowgrove doesn’t yet face a similar level of opposition.
– DiSC I lost for two specific reasons. The most obvious is that students who likely would have voted for it in November 2020 were instead mostly living in their parents’ homes during the Covid pandemic. Just a few hundred votes would have kicked that over to “yes.” In addition, the DiSC developers, just as with the Village Farms, colluded with City staff to reject recommendations from citizens with professional experience (that time from several City commissions) that would have likely increased the support from those voters who had key questions about the development. DiSC II lost because the campaign shot itself in the foot.
– We don’t have any traffic problems from projects approved under Measure J/R/D because THE PROJECTS HAVEN’T BEEN BUILT! Nishi II and Bretton Woods don’t yet have any residents and Nishi II doesn’t even have any construction under way.
Instead, the close margin reveals something very different–that there’s a constituency that wants to build more housing but wants different housing than what Village Farms has offered. The Bretton Woods vote margin with 55% “yes” is much more illustrative of the potential support (even though Bretton Woods has not followed through on some of its key selling points–a reason for voter skepticism in the latest campaign.) There is a key group that will swing its votes if the developer is willing conform to community wishes. Along with DCPG, key organizers previously identified as “no growthers” voiced support for a different configuration of Village Farms, but to no avail.
Unfortunately, Jim Frame’s observation about developers wanting to maintain control makes the current process unlikely to offer many acceptable proposals. But perhaps future developers will learn the right lesson (not the purported lesson presented in this article) and be willing to accept more community input.
“The question then is whether Davis can move to annex these lands ahead of time instead. Government Code Section 56375.3 lays out a path for annexing the southern portion of the Village Farms parcel. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/10-902.pdf”
Thanks for pointing out the exemption in that code section, I wasn’t aware of it. It actually resembles an approach that I suggested a couple of years ago that pretty much nobody but me thought had possibilities.
However, as I read both the code and the AG opinion, I question whether or not VF qualifies. I haven’t read the Fig Garden case (yet), but I get the impression that the statute and the AG (and probably the court) consider an island to comprise an entire legal parcel. If that’s the case, then VF isn’t eligible for the 150-acre exception because the parcel is about 386 acres, and both the statute and the AG opinion (and Fig Garden court as well?) disallow splitting an island larger than 150 acres.
If you have a more detailed insight into this, I’d be interested in learning of it.
With respect to Village Farms, a vote is required regardless, as it was for Nishi. Here is the relevant text of Measure J:
“H.1. Establish and require a citizens’ vote process for any proposed amendment to the Land Use Map as amended through August 1, 1999 from an agricultural or urban reserve designation to an urban designation or from an agricultural designation to an urban reserve designation; or for any development proposal on the Covell Center and Nishi properties….“
Yep, I had forgotten about that.
As Don pointed out, §56375.3 is moot with regard to VF because of the Measure J language, but for discussion purposes I read enough of the Fig Garden case to understand that the court was dealing with multiple legal parcels, so there wasn’t a need for the justices to determine the relationship between an island and a legal parcel. But I think a court would not agree to allow a definition of “island” to include subdividing a large parcel like VF — circumventing the Subdivision Map Act — just to enable a narrow exception to the requirement for a landowner vote on an annexation.
“Along with DCPG, key organizers previously identified as “no growthers” voiced support for a different configuration of Village Farms, but to no avail.”
Other than the four of you in DPG, I don’t know who the key organizers are, or who the no growthers are that “they” have identified.
But pretty sure that whoever this handful of people are (who have decided to “identify/label” others), they in no way represent anyone other than themselves.
If you doubt that, try to cram in the same 1,800 housing units at a reduced-footprint Village Farms, put the park where no one else can see it from outside of the development – and see what happens. (Apparently, some people are pushing for three losses in a row.)
Normal people (not even referring to “no growthers”) don’t want to see high rises on the outer edges of an expanded city along Covell/Mace – all the way to the I-80 interchange.
RonO, I fit that description. Eileen fits that description. Colin Walsh fits that description. Nancy Price fits that description. Amanda Sanchez fits that description. Roberta Millstein fits that description. Donna and Jim Provenza fit that description. Greg Rowe fits that description. Johannes Troost fits that description. I could go on and on and on.
Most of the people (including yourself) have never been “no growthers” (referencing Richard’s comment).
But even within that small group, there are significant differences of opinion at times.
Alan Pryor was previously a member of that informal grouping (slow growthers, not no-growthers), as well. And perhaps will be again.
I suspect that there’s still a significant number of people who are still voting against just about every proposal, but it’s declining at the current time.
Interestingly-enough, the big “housing shortage” claim is occurring as the population itself is leveling-off and possibly declining (1.6 kids).
Ron you blew past the quotation marks that Richard encased the words “no brothers” with.
Matt: Did a quick “word find” in this article, and the only time “brothers” appears is in your comment (and now mine, as well).
Measure J/R/D was approved for very valid reasons. Prior to its approval, developers ran rough shod over this town. I, for one, I am very thankful for Measure J/R/D, so citizens of this town have some say in what type of housing gets developed outside the city limits.
If Measure V goes down defeat, there is good reason. It has two major problems: part of it is in a flood zone, and with 1800 homes to be built it will create significant traffic problems. I suspect if this project had stuck to building 1100 homes below the flood zone (which would have had significantly less impact on traffic), it would’ve been looked up upon more favorably by the citizenry. Additionally, city staff managed to create an unnecessary controversy with respect to this project over a proposed fourth fire station and a low income down payment program, neither of which the city could afford, which didn’t help matters. I will not be at all surprised if Measure V goes down defeat.
The second point I’d like to make is our town has a unique problem, and that has to do with UCD students. A lot of homes have been snapped up by outside investors, only to be turned into mini dorms to accommodate the students. This phenomenon is the result of UCD not building sufficient housing for its students. UCD is most definitely to blame for a part of the city’s housing problem.
Third, the type of housing this city needs is more starter homes that don’t cost an arm and a leg. Such housing would include smaller single-family residences, duplexes, quad plexes, and condos. A ballot measure coming in November will provide down payment assistance for such homes, which should help.