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.
David Greenwald said The California Department of Housing and Community Development has repeatedly questioned whether Measure J functions as a constraint on housing production.
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. In its review of Davis’ Housing Element, HCD emphasized that projects requiring voter approval complicate the city’s ability to satisfy state requirements.
Once again David shares the hearsay supposed comments by HCD without providing a link so that Vanguard readers can see the comments for themselves. In repeating this hearsay tactic David is acting like Donald Trump saying “I have heard … “ before making up some outlandish assertion about an election being stolen or fraud in vote counts or progress in the war in Iran.
The City’s planning director told the Planning Commission a similar story late last year and told the commissioners that the HCD statement about Measure J was in their meeting packet as an attachment. However, when that attachment was inspected, it said nothing about Measure J, and the Planning Director admitted that there was no written document from HCD.
So the question for David is ”Is your repeated hearsay assertion about HCD just another belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, or is it simply a cynical page from the Trump political play book?”
“David is acting like Donald Trump”
Woah, them’s fightin’ words.
I laughed
Matt Williams essentially called you a serial liar again – and your response was to laugh?
And yet I’m not losing sleep over it
I’m sure that Trump isn’t losing any sleep, either.
But it goes to credibility of the Vanguard, itself. “Making stuff up” is not a valid form of journalism (nor is it every effective at convincing anyone in regard to opinion pieces).
No, it goes to your credibility since you don’t know my hole card
What an odd thing to say. Also, if you think you have a “hole card” (in regard to what you desire?) that has nothing to do with “my” credibility. What that means is that you think you have something of value to report, but are withholding that from readers.
(Speaking of “not losing any sleep” over such a claim.)
You’re making this personal for no reason. Matt noted that you’re making stuff up, but you’ve once again chosen to not address that. Journalism, including opinion pieces have no credibility when they’re based on lies.
“Matt Williams essentially called you a serial liar again – and your response was to laugh?”
“But it goes to credibility of the Vanguard, itself. “Making stuff up” is not a valid form of journalism (nor is it every effective at convincing anyone in regard to opinion pieces).”
You’re calling me a liar and accusing me of making stuff, that seems pretty personal. Maybe check yourself.
Yes – Matt is calling you a serial liar, and he provided the exact reason for that (cited in his original comment above). Not just today, but several times now.
If someone lies, then yes – they are a liar. Sorry if you don’t like the term, but if the shoe fits – then it’s not personal (it’s factual).
Pretty sure that most of us have lied at some point in our lives (thereby making us all “liars”), but most of the rest of us haven’t made a career out of it, day-after-day.
The problem, of course, is that your influence/credibility (and of the Vanguard itself) depends on whether or not readers can see that you’re lying.
It’s really pretty straightforward, if you just addressed what Matt noted. You’re either lying, or not – it’s that simple.
Then don’t act surprised by my reaction. I have no problem with Matt’s comment. I have a big problem with yours.
You’re deflecting.
If you have “no problem” with Matt’s comment (again, not the first time he’s noted this without any response from you other than to “laugh”), then address it in a serious manner.
One way you could do so (which would address whether or not you’re “lying”) is to delineate exactly what HCD states, vs. what you state. If you try to continuously blend the two (as you usually do), it implies that the statement is coming from HCD instead of you. Which leaves you open to allegations of “lying”.
Again, basic journalism. Quote, include citations (which you rarely do), and THEN put forth your own opinion/interpretation.
The Housing Element, posted on the city website, references communications between the city and the HCD and specific courses of action are detailed about Measure J and/or the city’s growth cap.
Don, the words in the Housing Element are City staff’s words, not HCD’s words.
In the Planning Commission meeting I referenced in my original comment, staff told the Commissioners that HCD had sent the City a letter about Measure J, and told the Commissioners that a copy of the referenced letter was in their meeting packet; however, that referenced letter was (A) not actually in their packet, and (B) never produced by staff, and (C) staff subsequently admitted that no such letter had ever been received.
City staff has been crystal clear through public statements that they would like Measure J to either go away entirely, or be significantly amended. The fact that they would put words into HCD’s mouth should come as no surprise.
It is what it is.
Letter from HCD to City of Davis, January 2022, quoted in the Vanguard Jan 08 2022:
HCD expresses concern about the impact of Measure J and other growth control measures on the city’s ability to deliver on its housing needs.
“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 writes. “Since the ordinance was enacted in March of 2000, four of the six proposed rezones have failed.
“As the element has identified the need for rezoning to accommodate a shortfall of sites to accommodate the housing need, the element should clarify if any of the candidate sites to rezone would be subject to this measure and provide analysis on the constraints that this measure might impose on the development of these sites.”
HCD also warns, “The analysis must evaluate the cumulative impacts of land use controls on the cost and supply of housing, including the ability to achieve maximum densities.”
That’s right – what this says is that the city cannot include any unapproved peripheral sites (outside of city limits) in a housing element.
I could have told the city that, myself. Who tried to include sites outside of city limits in the first place – without acknowledging that they aren’t approved (and that the city itself has no control over that)?
Just like every major city along the coast, where the vast majority of the population lives (and where HCD’s efforts were “born”) – which are also not expanding outward. And yet, have to meet even more-stringent, fake housing mandates.
How hard is this to understand?
Seems like I (of all people) are on the same side as HCD regarding the obvious. And that it’s only the growth monkeys who are trying to pull a fast one on HCD.
Though HCD (at this point) also knows that their mandates are fake (statewide). But just like any other government agency, as long as the appropriate boxes are checked . . .
There’s no indication that some low-level HCD bureaucrat even cares about any of this.
Don, I have repeatedly asked David for the link to that HCD letter, rather than someone quoting what they believe was said. However, until today in a PM to me with a City Staff Report, David has been unable to provide a link. I haven’t yet been able to read David’s linked document. Once I do, later today, we will know what the date of the HCD letter was and to whom it was addressed.
As I pointed out earlier, City staff has provided words that they said HCD communicated, only to have to back off from that assertion.
It all boils down to understanding the difference between what people want HCD to have communicated versus what HCD actually communicated.
Good point Mr. Williams. A new Davis resident, after reading the editorial, would think voters have never approved a housing development under measure J. Voters have approved developments with a measure J vote. Given how much money was spent to pass V, its failure to pass shows enough people took time to study the issue and see its fatal flaws. I am no more afraid of the state winning in court against Davis residents’ right to vote, than I am that its failure will cause schools to be shut down. Oh, that’s right, that was a baseless scare tactic we now know since just after election day.
I question this, as well:
“Even now at a time when the vast majority of people in Davis acknowledge that we need additional housing.”
Where, exactly did they say that? What was the exact wording of the question, and what was the exact wording of the responses? Also, was this a survey in which the responses were voluntary (meaning that it primarily consisted of housing activists, and not a reflection of the “vast majority”?)
My guess is that it had something to do with “affordable” housing, and that even that term was not defined in a survey.
Seems to me that Davis just had an election in which your imaginary “vast majority” didn’t quite make it.
Man, that’s got to be frustrating to spend something like $800K – $1 million, and come that close. (But it also goes to show how much money they can afford to lose.)
“My guess is that it had something to do with “affordable” housing.”
No mention of affordable housing in the question. Not divulging my source.
O.K. – well “my” source is the result of the Measure V election. Not really seeing a “vast majority” on either side. But a razor-thin majority who apparently don’t agree with your undivulged source.
Is that the same source you use to misquote HCD? Or is that your “ace in the hole” lurking in cyberspace somewhere?
But seriously, I “heard” that the “yes” side spent at least $800K – and perhaps closer to $1 million at this point (pretty sure that can be verified by looking at disclosure documents).
Who has that kind of money to burn, other than developers? And what does that tell you regarding the profit they expected to earn, if it was approved? (While also claiming that they want to build in order to lower housing prices?)
That’s not a source, that’s a referendum on a specific project.
“Even now at a time when the vast majority of people in Davis acknowledge that we need additional housing.”
“Not divulging my source.”
Why not?
Because journalists do not disclose confidential sources. If people provide information on the condition of anonymity, I have an ethical obligation to protect them. You are free to question the information itself, but not my responsibility to honor confidentiality agreements.
Really? Someone or something doesn’t want to come out in the open regarding a simple (almost non-controversial question) like that?
In any case – all of the Measure J failures (taken together) don’t support the notion that the vast majority of voters, at least, believe that more housing is needed in Davis. (Or at least, not desperately-enough to vote for proposals that they deem as lacking.)
My guess is that there’s still some voters like me there, who may not vote for ANY peripheral proposal. Apparently, they’re a minority (and have been for some time, given the other proposals that have been approved).
I also would suspect that if a proposal contains NO affordable housing (however that’s defined), it would likely lose.
So, it does seem to me that the imaginary survey was not detailed-enough to provide an accurate response. Or perhaps it was an advertisement “disguised” as a survey.
“So, it does seem to me that the imaginary survey was not detailed-enough to provide an accurate response.”
I guess we’ll never know, it’s highly secret. 🤫
Keith and Ron O
If you don’t believe in the First Amendment and integrity of the free press, please come out and say so explicitly. Otherwise, the right of the press to protect its sources are integral to maintaining our freedom. Without it we’ll slip into an authoritative state. David has provided the general source of his information. You can choose not to believe and conduct your own rigorous survey to find contrary results.
As many of us have shown, it is possible to support the need for more housing but also to oppose specific projects that we see as failing to provide the type of additional housing that meets that need.
Sure – and the Supreme Court also said that money is free speech. Including that which supports corrupt candidates and issues. The type of interests who are meeting with Newsom right now, regarding California Forever.
In the case of Village Farms about a million dollars of free speech – which fortunately went down the drain. Along with another $500K to the school district over the years, and whatever they spent on the first attempt.
Forgive me if I suspect that the “survey” in this case might have been an advertisement disguised as a survey – especially since the question itself was rather “non-controversial”, and was apparently asked without any specifics (such as whether it was referring to affordable housing). (Suggesting that we shouldn’t know why that response was sought.)
Also, surveys themselves aren’t “secret” by their very nature. And yet, David didn’t even state exactly what the question was, or where it (or the results) can be found.
Apparently, it’s so secret that we can’t even see the question or the results.
Ron, most of the members of the No on Measure V team were explicitly clear in thre campaign that they believed Davis needs moderately priced housing for Davis’ moderately paid (largely service-oriented) workforce.
That would seem to be consistent with Davis’s statement.
The no vote spanned from the better assortment crowd Matt describes all the way to the fairy shrimp uber alles Puritans like the non-Davis voter who spews mostly non-sense on here constantly. That was the brilliance of Eileen’s no campaign. Throw enough BS out there so that everybody can find something not to like.
But if the true social justice nimby’s like Matt will, as they say south of the Mason-Dixon line, take a cotton to Willow Grove’s housing mix, the likelihood of passage should go way up at Kaleshi since the V vote was so narrow. Come on over to the dark side, I mean the yes side Matt, Eileen and Tim. With your help we can get something done.
Eileen did not have any influence over the McCann and Keller types in Davis, and I don’t believe she even communicated with them. They were not part of the campaign – and had separate reasons regarding their opposition.
As a side note, it seems to me that you’d be a perfect fit for a “non-Davis” voter. I’ve never understood why the growth monkeys don’t just move 7 miles away, where they’re already in control.
Are they determined to wreck Davis as well? The one and only local city that has any brakes at all, regarding sprawl?
Or are they so connected to the DJUSD school district that they’re willing to continue to throw both cities under the bus to keep that going? Not to mention the destruction of farmland.
Ron G
Eileen has already expressed her support for Willowgrove, several times here.
You don’t seem to get it that Willowgrove is offering the two things that we found wanting in Village Farms–almost 50% higher housing density that will create more affordable by design housing, and demarking the northern boundary at Channel to limit flood risk and environmental damages. You don’t seen to understand the nuances of opposition–it’s either black or white for you apparently.
Not black and white more like all or none and so far all I’ve seen is people preaching something but the community ending up with nothing. So how about you Richard are you going to support Willow Grove?
Here’s a survey question I’d ask developers:
Given what we now know, would you agree to spend another million dollars or so (only to lose by a couple hundred votes)? Plus however much you spent during the first attempt?
Not to mention all of the contributions to the school district (totaling around $500K), the effort to get almost all officials on your side, etc.
Though at least they got a good deal on the property itself, I understand.
David vs. Goliath, and David (no – not Greewald) is doing pretty well so far. I know of no other situation where the “good guys” comparatively little, but still have a big impact.
Having said that, it does seem to me that they could have won by pursuing the environmentally-superior option in the EIR, for example. And had that been proposed and approved, then perhaps Willowgrove – in a much worse location – would have less support.
You can argue about state intervention or amendments to measure J all you want but any changes are at least a few years off at best. So these discussions aren’t particularly useful in getting anything built in the short term.
Next up, in November, we will vote on Willow Grove. It will be interesting to see if the supposed pro -social justice Nimby’s get on board or if all their talk is total bullshit.
Ron G
Have you seen the same level of coherent opposition to Willowgrove? You saw comments and articles questioning whether Village Farms should be approved in its proposed form back to at least January 2025. I haven’t seen anything like that about Willowgrove so far. You appear to be trying to raise the specter of “ghost” opposition that hasn’t yet arisen.
Matt Williams said: “As I pointed out earlier, City staff has provided words that they said HCD communicated, only to have to back off from that assertion.”
That is highly concerning. So, we can’t even trust the supposed quotes on here? (It’s one thing to question David’s interpretation, but it’s an entirely more-serious matter if the quotes themselves are incorrect.)
If I had a dime for every word the Vanguard has used to promote Village Farms and a dime for each argument to both support or oppose Mr. Greenwald’s “belief” that our State’s HDC mandates will be the “monster under the bed” to usurp the will of the citizens of Davis, well I guess I’d have a truck load of Dimes. I’m living on a school teacher pension yet I volunteered both funding and many hours toward defeating Measure V. I’m not at all happy that time I could have spent with my family was diverted to campaign against a flawed development focused more on profit than community benefit. I pledge, however, if any challenge to our City’s well founded Measure J (JRD) mandate arises, I’ll be fighting the issue at the Capitol if need be.
Hey JC, you know what THEY call people who work to oppose housing initiatives? From the Vanguard and comments here and elsewhere on Measure J, THEY call ’em:
1. NIMBYs
2. Anti-housing
3. Obstructionists
4. Exclusionary homeowners
5. Growth blockers
6. Housing deniers
7. Gatekeepers
8. Defenders of privilege
9. Protectors of the status quo
10. People who don’t care about young families
11. People who don’t care about affordability
12. People who stand in the way of social justice, equity, and climate goals
That’s the sort of rhetoric routinely directed at people who fight housing projects. So when I hear that you spent your own money, volunteered your own time, and sacrificed time with your family to oppose Measure V, I don’t see a villain. I see a citizen who cares a about the character of Davis, transportation infrastructure overload, and the environment — participating in democracy.
You left out vetoers. Yeah real heroes but what have they done for the poor lately.
Once again, how many actual “poor” people would’ve been homed if Measure V had passed?
As I said before if even one got housing it would be more than we will get now.
I’m just saying both are valid stances and I personally embody both, having voted for the last three Whitcomb projects to come to vote. I just tire of the pejoratives used to tear down the ‘other’ side in the housing fights.
Boomers. “Generation greed”, as I was looking up derogatory terms on the Internet. The “me” generation.
“Yuppies” (about 30 years ago).
DINKS (some of them – though that might better-apply to the generations that followed).
Banana (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone)”.
But, also subject to “boomer removers”.
The generation that went from “cocaine to Rogaine” (per George Carlin).
“Flat earthers” – according to one former council member as I recall.
(This is kind of fun.)
From CBS on Senate passage of housing bill:
“Speaking from the Senate floor last week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee, outlined some of the bill’s more than 45 housing provisions. The legislation would remove some regulatory barriers and streamline environmental reviews to increase development of affordable housing; update chassis requirements for manufactured housing; create an innovation fund for communities increasing housing supply; and support housing opportunities for veterans, among other things.”
Of course we will never know if the sixteen acres of dedicated Affordable housing at Village Farms would have ever been built but as I predicted the naysayers assumption that it wouldn’t was premature.
Are there numbers available for the near and not so near split on VF?
What was the turnout amongst registered voters?