DAVIS, Calif. — The defeat of Measure V did not reveal a city that has suddenly turned against housing. Nor did it demonstrate that Davis voters have become more hostile to growth.
Instead, the election reaffirmed something Davis residents have known for a quarter-century: Under Measure J, peripheral housing proposals begin at a disadvantage, and even carefully designed projects with significant community benefits can fail.
Even now at a time when the vast majority of people in Davis acknowledge that we need additional housing.
Village Farms lost by fewer than 300 votes. Yet despite the razor-thin margin, the outcome produced the same result Davis has seen repeatedly since voters first approved the growth-control ordinance in 2000. A peripheral housing proposal requiring voter approval did not pass.
The lesson of Measure V is not that local opposition is growing stronger. The lesson is that even as support for housing appears to grow, the structural barrier imposed by Measure J remains powerful enough to prevent projects from moving forward.
That reality raises an increasingly urgent question for Davis and for the state: How long will California continue allowing a local process that repeatedly acknowledges housing needs while blocking many of the projects designed to address them?
The final vote margin underscored how divided the community remains.
Nearly half of Davis voters supported Village Farms, a proposal that would have added up to 1,800 housing units, including hundreds of deed-restricted affordable homes, school sites, habitat preservation and transportation improvements.
At the same time, slightly over half did not.
The Yolo County Elections Office reported that no unprocessed ballots remained as of June 18, with 265 ballots left to be cured before certification. The county anticipates certifying the June 2 election by June 26.
A recount appears unlikely.
“We’re still watching the last ballots come in but as it stands, the margin looks to be just past the point where a recount would realistically change anything,” Village Farms representative and project manager Sandy Whitcombe told The Davis Enterprise.
The closeness of the result invites comparisons with previous Davis housing elections.
Covell Village, proposed on the same site in 2005, lost decisively under Measure X by a margin of 58.7 percent to 41.3 percent.
DISC lost twice, including by an overwhelming margin in 2022.
Village Farms, by contrast, fell short by less than 1 percentage point.
Those changing margins matter as they suggest that Davis voters increasingly recognize the city’s housing challenges. The city’s affordability crisis has become more visible. The pressure created by UC Davis enrollment growth is more widely understood. Concerns about young families, workers and older residents being priced out of the community have become harder to dismiss.
Support for housing appears broader than it once was.
But broader support has not translated into approval and that barrier has remained constant.
Measure J requires voter approval for peripheral annexations. That means every proposal must survive not only the city’s planning process, environmental review and City Council approval, but also a citywide political campaign.
The threshold is extraordinarily difficult to overcome in Davis as we just saw – the final outcome of Village Farms demonstrated that reality once again.
The election map itself illustrated how narrowly divided Davis has become.
According to The Enterprise, “According to a map of election results provided by the Yolo County Elections Office, there is a clear divide between yes and no voters, with ‘yes’ voters living closer to UC Davis and ‘no’ voters living in the eastern areas of the city.”
That divide also offers clues about future proposals.
One of the most consistent themes during the Measure V campaign involved traffic.
Opponents argued that the project would worsen congestion and alter neighborhood character. Supporters emphasized the site’s proximity to schools, transit and employment centers while arguing that growth could be managed responsibly.
Ultimately, concerns about traffic appear to have helped push enough voters into the no column.
That presents a challenge for virtually every remaining peripheral site.
Any project perceived as generating traffic impacts is likely to face similar headwinds. The issue is not unique to Village Farms. It is embedded in the political dynamics surrounding Measure J elections themselves.
Whitcombe acknowledged that identifying a single cause for defeat misses the complexity of such a close election.
“When a race comes down to well under one percent, you stop looking for the one big reason — there isn’t one,” Whitcombe told The Enterprise.
“A few undecided voters could have been swayed by last minute local coverage or misinformation online.”
She added, “Hindsight is 20/20 and sure, we’d word some things differently after watching the campaign unfold but we’re proud of the positive campaign we ran and the plan we put forward.”
Despite the defeat, Whitcombe argued that the Village Farms site remains one of the city’s strongest housing opportunities.
“The General Plan update is already underway, and this parcel appears to be a main focus,” she said.
“It’s still one of the best infill sites in Davis, close to schools, jobs and transit, exactly where thoughtful growth is supposed to go. We’ll let the public hash it out.”
Her comments point to a larger contradiction confronting Davis: the city acknowledges its housing needs, faces persistent affordability challenges and remains subject to state housing mandates, yet continues to rely on an approval system that repeatedly blocks almost all of the projects intended to address them – including many that never make it to council.
The city’s own Housing Element recognizes the need to accommodate future growth.
Yet the mechanism Davis uses to approve peripheral development repeatedly produces outcomes that make meeting those obligations more difficult.
That tension has not gone unnoticed in Sacramento.
The California Department of Housing and Community Development has repeatedly questioned whether Measure J functions as a constraint on housing production.
In its review of Davis’ Housing Element, HCD emphasized that projects requiring voter approval complicate the city’s ability to satisfy state requirements.
“It should be further noted that to be counted towards this Housing Element cycle for RHNA, requires that rezoning of the property must be completed and adopted for HCD to count it,” the city’s Housing Element update stated.
“Therefore, sites requiring annexation and/or Measure J/R/D voter approval could not be counted unless and until voter approval is achieved.”
The report continued: “Based on current election schedules this could not be achieved under any Measure J/R/D project until 2025 at the earliest.”
Legal Services of Northern California similarly argued that the city had failed to adequately assess Measure J’s effects.
“Housing Element Version 2 continues to fail to adequately analyze the impact of Measure J/R and its extension to 2030,” the organization wrote.
“The Element acknowledges Measure J adds to cost and time for the development review process but indicates it is speculative that it will limit housing supply or affordability.”
Those warnings now carry added significance.
Although Village Farms was rejected by only a few hundred votes, the outcome was ultimately the same as previous Measure J elections, carrying implications that extend far beyond this single project.
Attention now shifts to Willowgrove, another peripheral proposal expected to go before voters.
Whether Willowgrove succeeds remains uncertain.
The project differs from Village Farms in important ways, including its affordable housing components and specialized units. It has also benefited from receiving comparatively little public scrutiny while Village Farms dominated the local housing conversation.
That may change once a campaign begins.
But whatever happens with Willowgrove, the broader issue will remain unresolved.
Measure J continues to reflect deeply held community values about local control and direct democracy.
At the same time, California has increasingly embraced the position that housing production represents a statewide concern that cannot be left entirely to local political processes.
Eventually, those two principles may collide.
Measure V did not answer whether the state will continue to permit a local approval system that acknowledges the need for more housing while repeatedly blocking projects designed to provide it, but it posed that question more clearly than ever before.
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.
