DAVIS, Calif. — Measure V, the voter referendum on the proposed Village Farms development in north Davis, remained narrowly behind in early election returns Tuesday afternoon, but with turnout still relatively low and thousands of ballots likely left to count, the outcome remains far from certain.
According to the latest update from Yolo County election officials at approximately 1 a.m., Measure V had received 5,275 “Yes” votes and 5,748 “No” votes, leaving the measure trailing by 473 votes. The proposal was receiving 47.85 percent support compared to 52.15 percent opposition.
The results reflected 11,341 ballots counted from a city with 37,251 registered voters, a turnout rate of just 30.44 percent. Election officials had not yet indicated how many ballots remain outstanding, but the relatively low turnout figure suggests that many thousands of ballots have yet to be processed.
Depending on final participation rates, the remaining vote could easily number in the thousands and potentially well into five figures, making it far too early to draw conclusions about the final outcome.
Measure V asks Davis voters whether to approve the Village Farms project, a proposed residential community of up to 1,800 housing units on approximately 498 acres north of Covell Boulevard and west of Pole Line Road.
Because the project would convert agricultural land on the city’s periphery to urban use, it requires voter approval under Davis’ Measure J/R/D growth-control ordinance.
The campaign has become one of the most closely watched local elections in recent memory, serving as a referendum not only on a specific housing project but also on the broader question of how Davis should address housing affordability, population growth, school enrollment declines and long-term economic sustainability.
Supporters of Measure V argued throughout the campaign that Davis faces a severe housing shortage after decades of limited peripheral growth. They contended that the project would help address the city’s lack of family housing, provide opportunities for younger residents and workers who increasingly cannot afford to live in Davis, and generate new residents needed to stabilize enrollment in the Davis Joint Unified School District.
Proponents also highlighted the project’s affordable housing commitments, including deed-restricted affordable units, land dedicated for future affordable housing development, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, habitat preservation, park space and school-related amenities.
Supporters frequently pointed to the city’s difficulty meeting its state housing obligations and argued that Davis has exhausted many of its infill opportunities while continuing to experience housing demand.
The Vanguard’s coverage of the campaign has frequently noted that Davis has added relatively little family-oriented housing over the last two decades while enrollment in local schools has steadily declined.
Supporters argued that those trends are connected and that projects such as Village Farms are necessary if Davis hopes to maintain its schools, workforce and economic vitality.
Opponents, however, argued that Village Farms is the wrong project in the wrong location. Critics raised concerns about traffic impacts, infrastructure demands, flooding issues, environmental consequences and the loss of agricultural land. They also questioned whether the project’s housing would be affordable to the residents most in need of housing opportunities.
Throughout the campaign, opponents maintained that rejecting Measure V would not constitute opposition to housing itself. Instead, they argued that Davis should focus on alternative approaches that better align with the city’s environmental goals and growth-management policies.
The election follows a long history of contentious growth debates in Davis.
Previous peripheral development proposals have faced significant voter skepticism, while housing advocates have increasingly warned that the city’s restrictive growth patterns have contributed to rising housing costs, demographic stagnation and enrollment declines.
Judicial Race Remains Too Close to Call
In the race for Yolo County Superior Court Judge, Office No. 1, early returns showed an extremely tight contest between Ryan Davis and Diane Ortiz.
As of the latest update, Ortiz held a narrow lead with 13,442 votes (50.24%) to Davis’s 13,314 votes (49.76%), a margin of just 128 votes out of 26,756 ballots cast in the race.
Like Measure V, the judicial contest remains far from decided. Only 30,346 ballots had been counted countywide from more than 122,000 registered voters, and with thousands of ballots still expected to be processed, the lead could shift as additional results are released.
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.
Looking at the June 2022 election for some context, a total of 19,787 Yes and No votes were counted in that election.
If the turnout for this election ends up being similar to that election, then we are 55% of the way along in the current ballot count. The way the Governor race worked out in this election, a whole lot of Democrats held on to their ballots until the last minute, so getting close to 19,787 is still possible.
Well, it’s looking pretty good so far, but not the “beating” I had hoped for.
Apparently, Measure J allows too many ignorant (and/or self-interested) people to have input.
:-)
Fun facts: of the 11,023 votes tabulated so far in the Measure V contest, 310 people undervoted (didn’t mark Yes or No) and 3 people overvoted (marked both Yes and No, which results in their vote not being counted).
Regarding those 3 people, that’s more evidence that not everyone is (or should be) qualified to vote. Then again, there’s a lot of people driving around and/or having kids, who also aren’t qualified to do so.
:-)
Those 310 probably said to themselves, “A pox on them all. They have made the last 60 days very unpleasant and very repetitive.
Have had a bunch of conversations…
The belief out there is there will be somewhere around 20,000 votes in Davis – give or take.
The County will announce this afternoon how many ballots are left countywide and we should be able to extrapolate.
The next announcement from Davis will not be until Friday afternoon.
There is a belief that the late votes will break toward Yes on V, but that’s a guess, and then there is the question of how much and whether that will be sufficient to push it toward the yes side or if the No side prevails.
curious to know the basis / theory of that “belief” ?
It’s mainly demographics and who is likely to be late voters. Again the question is numbers and magnitude.
Tim, the basis is past comparable elections. The 2022 vote in a similar mid-term June primary had 20,364 votes cast in Davis, with 19,797 of them cast in the Measure H contest regarding DiSC.
One thing for sure – the closeness of this race demonstrates that Measure J does indeed work (in regard to those who support sprawl). As does the other two proposals which did win, the separate vote regarding Target, etc.
The best outcome will be if Village Farms loses by “one” uncontested vote. Close, but no cigar so to speak.
Did the “yes” side hire/recruit a bunch of UCD students, as usual? Or, do you suppose that it was those associated with the “other” educational institution that caused problems?
LOL
“The Vanguard’s coverage of the campaign has frequently noted that Davis has added relatively little family-oriented housing over the last two decades while enrollment in local schools has steadily declined.”
We know :-|
“We know :-|”
That might be the understatement of the year. 🤣
David Greenwald said … Previous peripheral development proposals have faced significant voter skepticism, while housing advocates have increasingly warned that the city’s restrictive growth patterns have contributed to rising housing costs, demographic stagnation and enrollment declines.
The voter skepticism was because those proposals were badly/incompletely planned, and they did not build what Davis has a shortage of … small houses with small prices.
The biggest contributor to rising housing costs has been the large size and rich amenities that the new houses have been built with. Davis has approached new single family houses the way the NFL has approached building an Offensive Line.
Demographic stagnation is a euphemism for Classism, and the size and price of new houses has mandated a Total Household Income that perpetuates that Classism. If you want demographic diversity the fastest way to fail is by only building houses that the wealthy class can afford.
Official DJUSD reports show that the enrollment decline was in full flower as early as 2006, but DJUSD has only fiddled while the enrollment burned. Why has the School Board buried its head in the sand for 20 years?