The latest election returns suggest that Measure V, the proposal that would have authorized the Village Farms development on Davis’ northwest edge, faces an increasingly difficult path to victory.
As of Tuesday’s update from Yolo County elections officials, the measure trailed by 438 votes, with 8,391 votes in favor and 8,829 opposed. The measure support rose to 48.73 percent , but remains below the simple majority required for passage.
While the election is not over, and additional ballots remain to be counted, election observers know better than to declare victory or defeat before the count is complete.
Yet there is a growing sense that the measure’s challenge is no longer merely overcoming a deficit—it is overcoming the trajectory of the race itself which puts Measure V on course to face the same fate of all but two of its predecessors, albeit with a much narrower margin of defeat.
Throughout the counting process, Measure V has remained under 50 percent.
While the margin has narrowed somewhat from election night, the measure has yet to demonstrate the kind of sustained movement that would suggest it is on the verge of overtaking the opposition.
For supporters, the result is particularly notable because Village Farms entered the election with a broad and unusually diverse coalition. The project secured support from housing advocates, labor organizations, business groups, education supporters and others who argued that Davis faces a housing shortage that cannot be addressed without significant new housing production.
Proponents pointed to the project’s affordable housing commitments, school-related benefits, environmental mitigations and infrastructure investments as evidence that Village Farms represented a different kind of peripheral development—one designed to address multiple community needs simultaneously.
Opponents remained unconvinced. Throughout the campaign they raised concerns about traffic, flooding, farmland conversion, growth, affordability and the long-term consequences of approving one of the largest housing projects in recent Davis history. Those concerns proved durable throughout the election season and appear to have resonated with a significant portion of the electorate.
The challenge now facing Measure V can be understood through a simple mathematical exercise.
Current returns show 17,220 ballots counted and a deficit of 438 votes. Assuming the estimate of total turnout falls between 21,000 and 23,000 votes, the measure would need a substantially stronger performance among the remaining ballots than it has received so far.
If the final turnout reaches 21,000 votes, approximately 3,780 ballots remain. To erase a 438-vote deficit, Measure V would need about 2,109 of those votes, or roughly 55.8 percent.
If the final turnout reaches 22,000 votes, approximately 4,780 ballots remain. In that scenario, Measure V would need about 2,609 votes, or roughly 54.6 percent of the remaining ballots.
If turnout reaches 23,000 votes, approximately 5,780 ballots remain. The measure would need approximately 3,109 votes, or roughly 53.8 percent.
Those percentages are not impossible. But they represent a markedly different electorate than the one that has been counted so far.
To date, Measure V has received 48.73 percent of the vote overall. For the measure to prevail, the remaining ballots would need to break between five and seven percentage points more favorably than the vote already counted.
That is the central problem facing supporters.
The measure is not simply behind. It must now perform significantly better among the remaining ballots than it has performed among the first 17,220 ballots.
Mathematically, Measure V remains alive.
Politically, the race appears to have reached a point where supporters are no longer waiting for the measure to move into the lead. Instead, they are waiting to see whether the remaining ballots can produce a late reversal significant enough to overcome both the current deficit and the voting patterns that have defined the race thus far.
WARNING: If you don’t like numbers do not read.
According to the official Yolo Elections Department, Countywide there are 13,272 ballots left to count. What they haven’t reported is how many of those are from Davis, but the numbers from Update 4 (the last one Election Night), Update 5 (Friday) and Update 6 (yesterday) give us some good clues. Those ballot count numbers are:
Update 4 had an aggregate Countywide count of 25,687. 11,341 (44.2%) of those were from Davis
Update 5 had an aggregate Countywide count of 35,644. 13,466 (37.8%) of those were from Davis
Update 6 had an aggregate Countywide count of 48,534. 117,692 (36.5%) of those were from Davis
The reason the Davis percentages fell were that:
Update 5 had an Update-specific Countywide count of 9,957. 2,125 (only 21.3%) of those were from Davis
Update 6 had an Update-specific Countywide count of 12,890. 4,226 (32.8%) of those were from Davis
Using those Update 5 and Update 6 numbers it is reasonable to estimate that between 20% and 33% of the 13,272 remaining uncounted votes are from Davis. 20% would be 2,654 remaining Davis votes. 33% would be 4,424 remaining Davis votes.
Yes on V needs to have a 439 vote margin in the remaining votes to win.
With 4,424 votes remaining that means 2,432 YESes and 1,992 NOs, which is a 54.97% to 45.03% margin.
With 2,654 votes remaining that means 1,547 YESes and 1,107 NOs, which is a 58.29% to 41.71% margin.
Both of those are steep hills to climb.
The last batch of 6,197 ballots which were all mailed, the breakdown was 50.3% yes / 49.7% no. If there are 23,000 total ballots and that trend continues, Measure V will lose 49.1% to 50.9%.
The results from Measure V should be a wake up call to Developers. Planning a new housing development will require analyzing why Measure V failed and rethink affordable housing as a major component. The Independence development by Lyon in Dixon is a prime example of creating affordable housing (rentals to create this) that fits the community needs.
As opposed to the other 25 years of near complete no-housing policies in Davis?
Seems like it’s going to be difficult to weaken Measure J, when the vote on a massive, sprawling proposal is this close.
By the way, would you say that all of the cities along the coast have “no housing policies” since they aren’t expanding outward? If that’s what you’re claiming, then maybe the state should “throw in the towel” right now – especially since business interests in those areas are the actual motivator behind the state’s “mandates”.
Wiener himself represents San Francisco – not some town in the valley that isn’t sprawling quite as fast as the other nearby podunk towns in the valley.
“Planning a new housing development will require analyzing why Measure V failed”
See Willowbank, which won’t fail
“See Willowbank, which won’t fail”
Correct. Willowbank is already there, though much of it is not in the city limits. You mean Willow Grove/Creek/Glen/Thicket/Farm.
I get the feeling that you (like me) think that Willowgrove is a worse location for sprawl than Village Farms is. Based on more than just this comment.
Pretty sure that you see the same thing I do, that Willowgrove wouldn’t be the “line in the sand” so to speak, regarding a continued eastward spread.
If they just plopped Willowgrove onto the Village Farms site (and stopped pushing for sprawl beyond that – northward or eastward), I’m pretty sure it would be a winning proposition.
But you just know that DISC, for example, will “try again” as it were. Thereby increasing the demand for housing, if it’s successful in the first place. (Maybe they could put a data center there – those seem to be “popular” these days. Woodland is in the crosshairs for that, though it’s also creating some opposition. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s proposed for the “technology center” site which still hasn’t broken ground – despite the council’s apparent rezoning of that site to include 1,600 housing units.
Maybe data centers are more profitable than even housing, these days? Then again, AI doesn’t need housing (so maybe I’m a fan of it). :-)
I consider the location problematic due to the lack of shopping, lack of transit, and that it will encourage sprawl. I have some issues with the layout and lack of tree shading. But if I lived in Davis, I’d vote for it because, in my opinion, Davis needs the housing.
I would agree with your criticisms, and would also note that it will likely/particularly appeal to commuters to Sacramento – as I was.
It’s also a considerable distance to UCD – through the town itself (e.g., Covell).
I actually am a fan of that small development of the development on UCD land behind the Davis Commons shopping center (reserved for those connected to UCD). And it’s one of the first things I noticed when arriving in Davis. Adjacent to the UCD arboretum, I-80, etc.
Plus, I suspect that the subsequent sales price (into the future) is essentially “controlled”, there.
So, today is the big day. Will Measure J be the gift that keeps giving? Did the spanking machine do its job?
4:00 p.m. – be there, or be square. Seems like this update might be the definitive one – if the percentages haven’t changed much.
Cripes – 270 votes separating “no” vs. “yes” now. And still some unprocessed ballots.
I’m surprised.
According to the website there are 1036 unprocessed ballots.
How many of those are from Davis?
A 270 deficit sounds to me to still be a huge hill to climb.
Playing around with the calculation (regarding the unprocessed ballots), it does indeed seem like a big hill to climb. And that the yes vote percentage would have to significantly exceed anything we’ve seen so far. (When I first looked at the county’s website, they hadn’t updated the number of unprocessed ballots.)
Regardless, it’s uncomfortably close. (Then again, the closeness is an argument against weakening Measure J, so maybe it’s a “win-win” in the end.)
Clearly, something has changed among the electorate in Davis over the years. And Davis sure isn’t Huntington Beach, for example.