Defenders of Measure J have often described it as “democracy in action.” Following the defeat of Village Farms, many proclaimed that because the voters had spoken, democracy had prevailed and no further questions needed to be asked.
I disagree.
Measure J undoubtedly allows Davis voters to decide whether agricultural land should be converted to urban uses—that is democratic in the narrow procedural sense.
But democracy is more than holding elections. Its legitimacy rests on whether the people whose lives are affected by public decisions are meaningfully represented in the process that produces them.
By those measures, Measure J resembles not democracy, but gatekeeping.
Davis continues to find itself confronting the cumulative consequences of nearly a quarter-century of this system.
Rising housing costs have left young families increasingly unable to remain in Davis, forced many essential workers to commute from surrounding communities, made it harder for employers to recruit staff, and intensified competition for scarce student housing.
Yet none of those people have a meaningful voice in the elections determining whether additional housing can be built.
Supporters of Measure J often respond that every Davis resident has an equal vote, but that point ignores the people who don’t have a vote (and I’m not arguing for people who live outside of Davis to have a vote).
The problem is not unequal voting among current residents. The problem is that the electorate itself excludes many of the people most directly affected by the decision.
A family hoping to move to Davis because of its schools cannot vote.
A UC Davis employee offered a position cannot vote.
A graduate student searching unsuccessfully for housing cannot vote.
The teacher commuting from Woodland cannot vote.
The nurse driving from Dixon cannot vote.
The young adult who grew up in Davis but had to leave because housing became unaffordable cannot vote.
Their interests simply do not exist within the Measure J electorate—indeed they are systemically excluded.
Instead, every election is decided almost exclusively by people who already possess what others are seeking: housing within Davis.
Political writer Jerusalem Demsas has argued that local housing politics suffers from precisely this democratic distortion. Existing homeowners vote on decisions whose costs largely fall on people who cannot participate in the election. Those inside the community receive the benefits of scarcity while many of the costs are shifted onto outsiders.
Measure J institutionalizes exactly that dynamic.
Housing differs from almost every other local issue because every decision about whether to build also determines who will someday become part of the community. Existing residents are not merely deciding what their city looks like. They are deciding who gets the opportunity to join it.
That is an extraordinary power.
It deserves closer scrutiny than simply labeling it “democracy.”
Ironically, representative democracy already provides a mechanism for making these decisions.
City Council members are elected precisely to evaluate competing public interests. They spend months reviewing environmental impact reports, infrastructure plans, fiscal analyses, traffic studies, affordable housing agreements and thousands of pages of public testimony. They debate projects in public meetings that stretch late into the evening. Ultimately, voters can remove them from office if citizens disagree with those decisions.
Measure J adds a second election after all of that work has already occurred.
Supporters argue that this provides additional accountability.
In practice, it often does the opposite.
Instead of requiring elected officials to own difficult decisions, Measure J allows them to transfer responsibility to a citywide campaign. Rather than saying, “This is the right project for Davis,” elected officials can simply ask voters to decide.
The result is diffuse accountability.
If a project fails, councilmembers can blame the voters.
If housing shortages worsen, voters can blame developers.
Developers can blame Measure J.
Everyone shares responsibility, which often means no one is accountable.
That is one reason I have argued previously that Measure J provides the illusion of democratic consent while weakening representative democracy.
The empirical record raises even more serious questions.
After twenty-five years of Measure J, Davis continues to struggle to produce enough housing across virtually every income category.
The city’s Housing Element demonstrates the magnitude of the challenge. Davis must produce hundreds of additional lower-income housing units over the current planning cycle while continuing to add moderate- and above-moderate-income housing as well. The city’s own Annual Progress Report shows that progress has been slow, particularly for lower-income units.
We treat these as numbers on a spreadsheet or dots on the map, but they also represent real world shortcomings of our process.
They represent housing for seniors on fixed incomes.
Housing for working families.
Housing for young professionals.
Housing for people who already contribute to Davis every day but cannot afford to live here.
Supporters frequently argue that projects fail because they are flawed, not because of Measure J.
The fallback position is often that the project was flawed and we need need another shot at it. That works at the microlevel, but not when we zoom out.
After a quarter century, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that every major proposal has independently suffered from fatal defects while ignoring the structural incentives created by the system itself.
The perfect is the enemy of the good and, as we dither, Davis becomes more and more unaffordable.
Developers understand Measure J before they submit proposals.
They know that years of planning, environmental review, engineering studies, affordable housing negotiations and public outreach culminate not with a decision by elected officials but with a costly citywide political campaign.
Because campaigns reward simplicity over nuance, traffic becomes easier to campaign on than housing need, fear often proves more persuasive than long-term planning, and the electoral hurdle discourages some projects from ever being proposed while prompting others to be scaled back before voters cast a ballot.
Still others fail to incorporate innovative elements because political risk discourages experimentation.
The result is not simply that projects lose elections, but that the entire planning system becomes oriented toward avoiding electoral risk rather than maximizing public benefit, making Measure J less a planning tool than a structural constraint on housing production.
Ironically it does not work—and we fail to ask whether it can work.
Supporters often point to Davis’ preservation of agricultural land as proof that the system works, and agricultural preservation, environmental stewardship and maintaining community character are all important public values.
But none of those objectives necessarily requires a simple majority veto over every peripheral housing proposal approved by the City Council.
Other California communities successfully balance growth, farmland preservation and environmental protection without requiring citywide plebiscites on individual projects.
Indeed, many land-use decisions involving enormous public consequences are entrusted to elected representatives precisely because representative democracy exists to weigh competing interests over the long term.
Ironically, some of the strongest defenders of Measure J acknowledge elsewhere that simple majority rule is not always sufficient.
California parcel taxes require approval by two-thirds of voters because a subset of residents bears a disproportionate financial burden. Whether one agrees with that constitutional framework or not, the principle is clear: where significant interests are at stake, supermajorities can serve as safeguards against majoritarian overreach.
Housing presents a different but equally important imbalance: current residents hold the political power while future residents bear the consequences of exclusion without any opportunity to participate in the decisions determining whether housing will be built.
If Davis wishes to preserve Measure J while reducing its democratic shortcomings, there may be a workable compromise.
Rather than allowing a simple majority to overturn housing projects already approved by the City Council after years of technical review and public hearings, Davis could require a 60 percent vote to reject such projects.
Such a reform would preserve Measure J and voter participation while ensuring that projects facing overwhelming public opposition could still be rejected.
But projects that had already survived environmental review, planning commission hearings, extensive public input and City Council approval would not be overturned unless opponents demonstrated broad community consensus rather than a bare majority.
Such a standard better reflects how California often balances direct democracy with institutional stability.
Supermajority thresholds exist because some governmental decisions carry consequences significant enough to require broader agreement.
Housing in Davis clearly falls into that category because the city is not merely deciding where buildings go, but who will have the opportunity to become part of the community for the next generation.
Measure J was adopted with worthy goals—to protect farmland, preserve community character and give citizens a direct voice in major planning decisions—but institutions should ultimately be judged not only by their intentions, but by their results.
After twenty-five years, it is fair to ask whether Measure J continues to serve those original purposes or whether it has evolved into something quite different: a system that empowers today’s residents to exclude tomorrow’s residents while allowing everyone involved to describe the process as democracy.
Democracy is strongest when those affected by public decisions have meaningful representation, yet Measure J does the opposite by granting decisive authority to those already inside the gates while denying any voice to those hoping to enter.
That may be legal (we might be about to find out), and it may be popular, but we should stop pretending it represents the fullest expression of democracy when it more closely resembles its illusion.
The map screams Nimby.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation and emotional abuse in which someone persistently distorts the truth to make another person doubt their own memories, perceptions, or sanity. The manipulator’s goal is to gain power, control, and emotional dependence over the victim.
What does that have to do with the map?
Ron G
Your analysis is overly simplistic. West Davis voted for Measure V for two reasons:
1) the threat to Patwin that DJUSD raised if Measure V didn’t pass
2) the preponderance of students that rent in the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to UCD.
Without those two motivations, Measure V would have lost by even more across the city.
Richard, you have no evidence for this analysis.
I totally agree with Richard, especially on reason #1
Don, do you have any evidence to the contrary?
You want me to prove a negative?
The success or failure of any development proposal on the ballot in Davis is mostly proportional to the near-neighbor impacts, especially if those neighbors are higher income homeowners rather than lower income renters.
The further a precinct is from the project, the likelier it is to pass. In this case, South Davis is a bit of an outlier in this analysis as it broke even there.
Margin of No vote:
Green Meadows, Mace Ranch, Lake Alhambra: 60%
Old East Davis etc: 57%
Northstar etc: 50%
South Davis: 50%
downtown and North Davis: 46%
Central and old West Davis: 43%
West Davis: 41%
Numerically, the no votes from Green Meadows etc. overwhelmed all the other districts.
Note that Birch Lane Elementary, which was mentioned for closure, is in a district where Measure V was rejected decisively. So apparently the possible closure of Birch Lane had little impact on the voters of that precinct.
Sure Richard you can parse this vote but it misses my point that on Nishi it was the people closest to that project in Cental and South Davis who voted the most in opposition. My point is that proximity matters. It’s not simplistic to point out this pattern. Its called analysis of the data. Do you have a contrary analysis of the votes on Nishi too?
When those who are closest to each project are consistently most opposed I call that Nimbyism. What do you call it, smart growth?
I call it: there’s nothing inherently wrong about being concerned about the effects of a giant project near you, and therefore it doesn’t deserve a pejorative. When Ryder went in 200′ from me, was I expected to shove electrodes onto my forehead, turn the machine up to 11, and then sit around with my left thumb up my butt until the construction was completed?
Okay, but what do you call it, altruism? I call it Nimby. How about something more scientific like Mammalian Territorial Behavior? It’s funny to watch you all try to argue that it’s not. Just own it. Why is that so hard? At least you will claim it as a natural thing so you are more honest than most. Could it be because you all collectively have lost the power of inference or is it that you can’t handle the truth?
Actually I get it. It’s a bitter reality sandwich to swallow when we are confronted with our own predilections. But hey Alan let’s do something positive and support Willow Grove together. Its a great project, aligned with what all the do gooders claim they want and its not in either of our backyards.
It maybe whimpers it. Of course people near projects are going to be more concerned about the effects of that project. Smearing people for that very human and very real concern is of no help. I wouldn’t have been taking up a huge portion of my free time at the time fighting Trackside if it was in West Davis. Unwritten philosophy of our neighborhood association is we rally for those who are effected most by projects in the neighborhood, because it could be us.
When 700 students came up housed 200 feet from my front door I was the one most effected, and those nearby much so as well, and less so. So of course I did the most work, but others helped because we must help each other or others won’t be there for us. This criticism of people being concerned about the effects of projects and smearing them with the N word is nonsensical to me.
Now I think Measure J should be abolished and instead get quality city councilpeople who would consider the effects of projects on neighbors. That’s my perfect world – but of course we have Measure J because of low quality council people overly influenced by developers and not looking out for the people and truly balancing the two.
So now we have the sh*t Measure J system that has its own pitfalls such as school boards campaigning for developers and developers having to act like they are running a campaign for office by using what they think Davisites want to try to outweigh concerns of the people of the effects of their project. That is a bad dynamic. Of course the only real solution is a much more effective pandemic that kills a lot more people so that we don’t need housing.
Excellent defense of Nimbyism Alan
You say Nimbyism like its a bad thing; I believe using Nimby as a pejorative is a bad thing. I think Orange County is a sin against humanity.
I will own my pejorative use of Nimby. If that is the worst anyone can say about me I’ll own it. But I say to all these people who have voted to block housing to step up and prove they actually care about anyone less fortunate. Go ahead prove me wrong. Make my day .
Ron G
What are you going to say when Willowgrove passes, even with majorities in East Davis?
I’ll say Hallelujah. But still if my thesis holds the people in the proximate neighborhoods will vote yes in lower percentages than people on the other side of town.
Richard we can drill down to individual votes if you want.
Eileen has been for housing everywhere particularly on campus but not near her home.
Carson sued UC over West Davis near his home but was for both VF and Ramos’ failed project across town.
What I find hilarious is the horror expressed at the notion that I use the pejorative Nimby to describe the empirical evidence the voter maps reveal. I guess the truth hurts but I’m trying to challenge people to prove me wrong and step up and do the right thing and build the housing they claim they want. Are you on board with Willow Grove Richard?
Ron G.,
I am just seeing this snide comment you lobbed about me which is completely untrue. I was an advocate for the original Wildhorse project, I supported the Cannery project, and I support the Willowgrove project, all of which are in close proximity to where I live. I support good planning, not abysmal project like Village Farms which had so many problems, impacts, costs, and unaffordable housing.
Margin of No vote:
Green Meadows, Mace Ranch, Lake Alhambra: 60%
Old East Davis etc: 57%
Northstar etc: 50%
South Davis: 50%
downtown and North Davis: 46%
Central and old West Davis: 43%
West Davis: 41%
Numerically, the No votes from Green Meadows etc. overwhelmed all the other districts.
Perhaps that result is related to the reason that the school district specifically threatened to shut down a school on the west side of town, if they didn’t vote for a development on the east side of town.
“Old East Davis etc:”
There is no “etc”. You are either an Old Easter, or you’re not :-|
I’m assuming that you are 100% FOR having the absolute final word on what gets built in your personal back yard. Why shouldn’t the citizens of Davis have the final word on what gets built in their collective back yard?
Going to 60% isn’t going to fly. I think there are two solutions. One is obvious. Get rid of Measure J and return Davis to the referendum system that most of California uses.
The other is to change Measure J from a vote on a project to a referendum on a City Council decision to approve a project. That should be doable. It is a simple solution that mimics the process most of California uses but still requires a vote without eliminating the heavy burden of collecting the signatures required to place a measure before the voters. As in other jurisdictions that use referendums it would mean a yes vote would be a vote to overturn the CC and a no vote would be a vote to proceed with a project.
The citizens still get to vote in a simple majority election, but, it raises the bar on those wanting to overturn a CC decision by requiring them to convince voters that the people elected to serve, have done all the work you describe above, and still got it wrong.
In changing what a yes vote and a no vote mean it changes the behavioral dynamics of voting. It makes the opponents of a project have the burden of convincing voters with little interest to vote yes instead of the easy thing of getting the votes of people with little interest who default to voting no.
Ron G
You seem to have failed to learn the lesson as to why Measure J was enacted in the first place. The City had approved a series of peripheral projects that led to the City population growing 50% in a decade, and those neighborhoods looked like the sprawl in the rest of the Sacramento region. Measure J was a convulsive response by the voters to the failure of elected officials and City staff to gain control over these types of projects. The solution you propose just returns back to the situation that the voters rejected and are still way and cynical about.
That’s why we are trying to craft a proposal that can hasten development while giving strict guidelines approved by the voters. And then still leaving developers the option of going straight to a vote if they don’t want to adhere to those guidelines. In this way the voters don’t have to rely on “trust me” statements from elected officials that historically haven’t panned out. You apparently object to providing those guidelines, instead just relying on developers to somehow be good actors despite histories to the contrary.
Your proposal is politically unrealistic and we shouldn’t even bother debating it. It’s like Ron O’s refusal to accept the empirical evidence that the Davis housing market has excess demand and a supply shortage that makes it unaffordable for most households.
Actually Richard my idea is a simple modification. You still have a mandatory vote without the heavy lift of petitioning for a referendum. The vote is still simple majority rule. What are you afraid of?
David, with your logic, every local election would be undemocratic because people outside any jurisdiction can’t vote.
So for example, the recent Davis sales tax increase is undemocratic because people buying goods in Davis that live elsewhere didn’t get a vote.
Or we could take it national, foreigners wishing to migrate to America didn’t get to vote for politicians who make immigration policy.
Taken to the extreme, this is extremist socialist dogma such as I was reading last night that there should be no borders and that all people should have the dignity of being able to live where they want. Really? How is that going to work, Skippy? What if we all want to live on the coast between Santa Cruz and San Francisco?
So all this ‘everyone should be able to live in Davis’ rhetoric seems to me just an offshoot of this carp. People should be given the dignity that if they set their sights on something they shouldn’t be excluded because of discriminatory practices. But that doesn’t mean we subsidize everyone and build skyscrapers so everyone can live in Davis. Because ironically they wouldn’t really be living in Davis anymore, would they?
Democracy is the illusion of democracy.
David says: “. . . I’m not arguing for people who live outside of Davis to have a vote).”
That’s exactly what you’re arguing, but you probably wouldn’t be happy with a vote from someone like me. I’d also vote against the destruction of Lagoon Valley and California Forever, if I had a chance.
There’s plenty of housing for sale every single day of the year in Davis – no one is “preventing” anyone else from buying it.
The reason that newcomers buy in places like Spring Lake is because it’s CHEAPER (more for your money) – not necessarily that they can’t afford Davis. Though I don’t know why anyone is moving to the area in the first place, since UCD is not increasing its total number of employees at its main campus. (And apparently, DJUSD might have to “jettison” a few employees, itself.)
The reason that places like Daly City exist is because people wanted a place that’s cheaper than San Francisco. (Of course, this was occurring well-before the term “NIMBY” even existed.)
But since the state and country itself is essentially no longer growing, there’s no justification to continue spreading outward. Ask yourself where the people who have been moving to Davis and the region are coming FROM.
It is true that if a city decides to not simply let the market “decide” how large it’s going to be, then some people who might otherwise live in that city don’t necessarily move to that city. And that’s a “tragedy”, because ???
Ron O
Such an ironic statement from someone who lives outside of Davis yet wants a say in Davis policies despite having no intension to move back to Davis.
Making decisions that raise prices so that lower income households can afford housing here is preventing those people from living here. Your logic is identical to the segregationists in the South who argued that they weren’t actually preventing Blacks from improving their lots. You being willfully blind to what’s actually happening in Davis.
And people continue to bid up prices in Davis because they want more amenities that Davis offers than what they can get in Woodland or other neighboring cities. By your logic, I don’t understand why Beyonce hasn’t moved to Woodland, or even Detroit, instead of spending $20M on a mansion in Malibu.
“Other California communities successfully balance growth, farmland preservation and environmental protection without requiring citywide plebiscites on individual projects.”
Name one (regarding sprawl outside of city limits). Though I am somewhat familiar with SOAR, as well:
https://soarvc.org/myth-buster-fact-sheet/
I think my favorite part of the entire effort to weaken Measure J is that it reminds me of something Trump might try (“find 11,780 votes”). Or, January 6th.
In other words, if you have trouble winning and don’t like the most-recent outcome – change the rules.
Of course, he’s not complaining so much about that after actually winning again.
Unlike some people (who would no doubt lead the fight to preserve Measure J), I think I’d actually look forward to helping with that particular campaign. It’s laughably easy to demolish an attempt which asks voters to reduce their own power. ESPECIALLY when they just used that power to defeat the type of proposal that would have otherwise been approved by a council or via a weakened Measure J.
Basically saying to them, “we don’t like what you just did, so we’re now asking you to remove your ability to do something similar in the future”.
It’s really quite amusing, when you think about it.
“Rather than allowing a simple majority to overturn housing projects already approved by the City Council after years of technical review and public hearings, Davis could require a 60 percent vote to reject such projects.”
I think it is very, very unlikely that the voters of Davis will choose to reduce their veto power. So Measure J is a fact of life here for now. Only the state or a lawsuit is likely to weaken it.
I agree with Don.
“veto power”
It’s also the power to “approve”. Some people aren’t satisfied with the rate of approval, and therefore want to change the rules.
Personally, I wish the measure contained some kind of restriction regarding “how often” peripheral proposals can appear in the first place. Once every 10 years seems like a good starting place to consider.
And at that point – perhaps no restriction regarding the number that can appear on a single ballot. A “free for all”, at that point – let them duke it out once every 10 years. A veritable sprawl-fest on a single ballot.
David,
Here we go with another Vanguard brainwashing attempt with yet another flagrant attack on Measure J/R/D. And this time you re trying to redefine democracy. Oh, and your new angle is “Let’s make it a 60% vote for approval.” So now you also are trying to change the rules of democracy too because you are disappointed that you backed a really terrible project which was was rejected by Davis voters.
The simple truth is the Village Farms developer proposed a disastrous project with toxics, flooding potential, massive traffic, unsafe access, enormous infrastructure costs, habitat destruction, including threatening vernal pools, unaffordable housing and an abysmal affordable housing “plan”.
Then the City allowed the developer to strong-arm them to fast-track this terribly flawed project to a early vote with a seriously inadequate EIR. Then the City forced the Planning Commission to vote on the EIR which was not even complete. Never in the history of Davis has the Planning Commission voted on an EIR which was not a Final EIR.
So stop trying to blame Measure J/R/D. The simple truth is that Village Farms failed at the ballot because the City put a terrible project on the ballot which had enormous impacts environmentally and financially, massive traffic, unaffordable market rate housing, and an abysmal affordable housing “plan” which would very likely resulted with ZERO affordable housing. THAT is why Village Farms failed.
That is true for some people Eileen, the ones that studied the project closely, and to them I raise the challenge to put up and back the next project that tried to thread the needle of a design that is more aligned with what the better development types claimed to want. I applaud you for getting on board with that effort and I’d like to see your compatriots step up as you have. It’s time they walk the walk of the talk they talk.
You may be correct that the margins might have come out differently if the Measure V people had done things differently but that is water under the bridge now. Still its important to note that there are people like Ron O. and others I know who are simply in the against it all camp. I actually respect the honesty and clarity provided by that position even though I vehemently disagree with them.
I find the Nimby positions harder to reconcile where we continue to see the proximate votes of the neighbors in everyone of these Measure J votes go more heavily against each project. With Nishi it was the people Downtown and in South Davis. With both Ramos’ and Whitcombe’s projects it was North and East Davis. I do find irony in the fact that the people who now live in the subdivisions that riled up the older generation, back in the day, like Wildhorse and Mace Ranch, so much that they passed Measure J in response, now treat others with the same disdain today that the town elders felt toward these same people when they were newcomers. I would call that emulation of the oppressor. What would you call it.
Honestly, Eileen – I’m pretty sure there are still some people like me who wouldn’t vote for any peripheral proposal. But it’s not related to self-interest.
I like the site the way it is, as well as the Willowgrove site. But if I was still able to vote on such issues, I’d probably at least “not oppose” some drastically scaled-down version of Village Farms (but not Willowgrove – which I’d never go along with).
Apparently, the developer of Palomino Place will be proceeding with wrecking the site tomorrow. I rarely go by that site these days, but I used to walk/bike past it periodically.
https://www.facebook.com/CityofDavis/posts/work-on-the-palomino-place-housing-development-by-builder-k-hovnanian-will-start/1424307129730754/
Apparently, developments like this (as well as Chiles Ranch, and Pole Line Terrace) aren’t enough for the growth monkeys. (The same people who want to INCREASE local demand for housing via something like DISC, while simultaneously claiming that their interest is driven by local housing shortages.)
In conversations with knowledgeable individuals, it appears that the Village Farms EIR was vulnerable to a court challenge because of the way the EIR was conducted in an unusual manner that placed haste over process. The project would have still a rough road if Measure V had passed.
Where is the housing shortage?
David Greenwald is right that Measure J grants extraordinary power to current residents over land-use decisions that affect future ones. That asymmetry deserves scrutiny. But the premise that this power is excluding a desperate incoming class doesn’t survive a look at the local market.
I’ve been tracking single-family rentals across Davis and surrounding cities continuously since March. 3210 Trawler Place in Stonegate was listed on April 11 and was still listed, unleased, on June 16 — 66 days on market. 537 Hudson Court went up around $3,000 and dropped to $2,850 within two weeks. 5010 Glide Drive #3 dropped from $2,400 to $2,195. 4430 Sunrise Court has been on the market roughly three months. None of these patterns are consistent with the sub-two-percent vacancy crisis the Measure J reform argument requires.
The comparison gets harder. Across 71 Davis listings and 13 Dixon listings since March, average asking rent is $2,851 in Davis and $2,850 in Dixon — a one-dollar gap. Median rent is higher in Dixon. Greenwald’s nurse isn’t fleeing to Dixon to save money.
Now add what the article sidesteps: California lost roughly half a million net residents from 2020–2023 and continues to see domestic out-migration. The Measure V we just defeated would have added 1,800 units. To absorb what?
I’m not arguing Measure J is good policy. I’m asking what specific present-tense harm the article claims it’s causing. The nurse is a rhetorical device. The empty listings on Trawler Place and Sunrise Court are data. A serious Measure J debate has to start from the market we have, not the script we’re used to.
Gary
The shortage is shown in the fact that house prices in Davis are 50% higher than in neighboring cities and that 1,000 students used interdistrict transfers to attend school here because their parents can’t afford to buy here. That’s according to both Zillow and Redfin. In addition, 1,500 positions at UCD are now filled by out of town workers that 20 years ago were staffed by city residents. The ONLY way to measure a housing shortage to look at relative market prices–there’s not “magic” number of houses that one can point to (except maybe in a Communist country where they assign housing.)
They can afford Woodland. They just don’t want to pay Davis prices – especially when they can send their kids to Davis schools without even paying DJUSD parcel taxes.
You probably wouldn’t like the comment I saw on NextDoor the other day, extolling the virtues of Willowgrove. One of the main “advantages” that person cited was the ability of future Willowgrove residents to access I-80 to commute to UCD itself. (Presumably, by exiting at Highway 113 and taking the exit for UCD from there).
I see things a little differently than that commenter, however. I see Willowgrove as a commuter site to Sacramento.
You are right about house prices — Davis is expensive to buy relative to surrounding cities, but rental values are more similar than I imagined. My sister is looking for less expensive housing, and I used AI to scan listings from Santa Rosa to Davis for the last four months. I was shocked to see Davis come up repeatedly as one of the cheapest alternatives in the daily report.
So I guess the reality is that Greenwald’s nurse could live here, but not easily buy here. Woodland is close to Davis, so it is easy for parents to bring their kids here. When Measure J passed, there was a notion that we would build a linear park around the city, so there would be at least some open space as Woodland expanded toward us, filling everything in. This is happening now, as people are nicknaming parts of Woodland “North Davis”. Woodlands expansion has been breathtaking.
It would not be communism for the University to build more housing for its employees on its own land. They would do this if the commute from nearby communities were more difficult. But were Measure V to have passed, it is unlikely that a large percentage of UC employees or parents from adjoining communities would get many of the houses. They would need to compete with folks from the entire Sacramento metropolitan area and all of the communities to our West.
Davis is not an island, and what I learned from months of scanning the rental market is that prices are well-balanced across the region.
Gary, its about equity. The rental market is in better shape since both UC and the City have built a lot of rental housing. The increased vacancy data tells us that. Although those 2k-3k rents seem painful to this old boomer who can remember when gold was $35/oz.
People who want to be part of the community, maybe want to have a family, with kids, people who work, pay taxes, need to save for retirement, want to own a home as a place to live and build equity. They want to have a stake in the place they live. That is the kind of home construction that has been lacking.
I agree with your point on equity. I’m also a boomer and have done well with Davis real estate, as have many boomers. But it’s not clear that we will see the kind of appreciation we saw in the past moving forward. Boomers are getting old, more of our kids are leaving California than people are coming in from other states, and our birthrate is well below replacement.
For a very long time, the only source of growth has been immigration, and the boomers have profited greatly from it. Our gains have come at the cost of younger generations who need to compete with large populations for housing. As immigration slows, prices are softening. I have property in Oakland, and I’m lucky to get the same rent I had pre-COVID. In border areas, real estate is starting to decline quickly.
In natural growth, new people start as kids and live in the same household for a long time. Immigrants come largely as adults, which shifts the demography to an older age and increases housing pressure more than child birth because kids live at home.
If we have too little immigration, we will have excess housing and little equity gain. Too much and we see a housing crisis emerge. It’s hard to say what the future holds, but both supply and demand matter, and I don’t think Davis is big enough to build its way out of exploding regional demand if that occurs.
“The result is not simply that projects lose elections, but that the entire planning system becomes oriented toward avoiding electoral risk rather than maximizing public benefit, making Measure J less a planning tool than a structural constraint on housing production. ”
Yes, that’s what we’ve been saying for years on these pages. That said, we need to craft a solution that meets the anxieties of the voters that led to the creation of Measure J. Taking away control from voters will not lead the solution you are proposing.
However, David, your account and solution ignores why local governments exist. They provide residents the ability to differentiate among level of services and community amenities. Tiebout (1956) wrote the seminal paper describing this process. What you are suggesting would undo the constitutional structure that well predates the founding of the U.S.
That darn supremacy clause.