DAVIS, Calif. — The final certified results of the June 2 Measure V election tell a more nuanced story than a simple citywide rejection of the Village Farms development proposal. While the measure failed by a narrow margin of just 276 votes, the precinct-level data indicate the outcome was driven largely by concentrated opposition in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the proposed project.
The official canvass shows Measure V received 11,414 “Yes” votes and 11,690 “No” votes, a margin of 49.4 percent to 50.6 percent.
However, the two precincts immediately adjacent to the Village Farms site—Precincts 15027 and 15028—produced a combined No margin of 1,467 votes.
The rest of Davis combined to produce a Yes margin of 1,191 votes, nearly offsetting the opposition concentrated in the neighborhoods closest to the proposed development.
In effect, the election was decided by the precincts surrounding the project itself rather than by broad opposition throughout the city.
The results are consistent with what urban planning scholars describe as a “neighborhood effect” or localized NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) phenomenon, in which support for new housing declines as proximity to a proposed development increases.
The strongest opposition came from Precinct 15028, which includes much of the Covell Farms neighborhood immediately east of the Village Farms site. There, Measure V received 2,126 Yes votes and 3,240 No votes, with only 39.6 percent of voters supporting the measure.
That precinct alone generated a 1,114-vote No margin—four times larger than the final citywide margin of defeat.
Immediately adjacent to the project on the west and south, Precinct 15027 also rejected the measure, voting 1,421 to 1,068 against it, with just 42.9 percent support.
Together, the two precincts touching the project produced the city’s two strongest No votes.
By contrast, precincts farther from Village Farms showed a markedly different voting pattern.
West Davis Precinct 15012 approved the measure with 59.0 percent support, while Precinct 15013 supported it by 56.7 percent and Precinct 15014 by 54.1 percent. Even the small Precinct 15015 favored the project by nearly 63 percent.
The intermediate precincts—15026 and 15030—were essentially evenly divided, each voting almost exactly 50-50.
The resulting geographic pattern paints a telling picture.
The precincts nearest Village Farms averaged just 40.7 percent support for Measure V. The intermediate precincts averaged 49.7 percent support, while the precincts farther away averaged 57.6 percent support.
That represents nearly a 17-point increase in support moving from the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the project to those located farther across the city.
To test whether that pattern reflected more than visual observation, the precincts were grouped into three proximity categories based on their relationship to Village Farms: adjacent, intermediate and distant. Assigning ordinal proximity scores produced a Pearson correlation coefficient of approximately 0.95 between distance from the project and the percentage of Yes votes.
Although the analysis is limited by Davis’ small number of voting precincts (the county has consolidated precincts as California has moved away from polling place voting), the relationship is exceptionally strong. As proximity to Village Farms decreased, support for Measure V consistently increased.
The analysis does not prove why individual voters cast their ballots, nor can it establish that every No vote reflected neighborhood concerns. Voters undoubtedly considered a range of issues, including traffic, fiscal impacts, housing needs, environmental concerns and growth generally.
However, the geographic concentration of opposition strongly suggests that location played a significant role in the election.
This distinction matters because the election has often been characterized simply as another rejection of peripheral growth under Davis’ Measure J process.
The precinct results tell a more complicated story.
Rather than demonstrating citywide opposition to new housing, the certified returns indicate Davis was almost evenly divided overall, with much of the city actually supporting Village Farms. The decisive opposition came from the neighborhoods that would have experienced the project’s most immediate effects.
That finding aligns with decades of planning research documenting how attitudes toward development often differ depending on whether a project is proposed near one’s own neighborhood.
Political scientists have long distinguished between general attitudes toward housing and localized reactions to specific projects. Surveys across California routinely show broad public support for increasing housing supply, yet individual developments often encounter organized neighborhood opposition centered on concerns about traffic, neighborhood character, congestion, schools or infrastructure.
The Measure V precinct results fit that broader pattern.
The data also suggest that describing Davis as uniformly “anti-growth” oversimplifies the city’s politics.
Four precincts supported Village Farms, two were essentially tied, and only the two precincts immediately adjacent to the project voted decisively against it. The election ultimately turned on those neighborhoods.
Perhaps the most striking statistic is this: Precincts 15027 and 15028 together produced a No margin more than five times larger than the city’s final margin of defeat.
Without those two precincts, Measure V would have carried the remainder of Davis by more than 1,100 votes.
Rather than reflecting a broad consensus against new housing, the certified returns suggest Davis remains deeply divided over growth. Support for Village Farms was widespread across much of the city, while opposition was concentrated geographically in the neighborhoods nearest the proposed development.
For future Measure J elections, that finding may prove significant – particularly since much of the available land for peripheral projects are also along corridors that have traffic congestion.
Projects proposed adjacent to established neighborhoods likely will continue to face substantial localized resistance even if they command majority support elsewhere in the city.
Conversely, campaigns seeking voter approval may need to devote considerably more attention to mitigating neighborhood concerns closest to proposed development sites.
Ultimately, the certified election returns reveal that Measure V was less a referendum on growth across Davis than a referendum on growth in one particular part of Davis.
The geography of the vote suggests that where a housing project is proposed may be nearly as important as the project itself.
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.
Nimbyism is alive and well in Davis. I’m sure if you did the same analysis for other Measure J votes you would find similar results with the strongest opposition in the areas closest to each project.
I know the two DISC projects operated that way
So did Nishi if I remember correctly.
Nishi doesn’t have any neighbors who vote in City elections. Aggie Village is the only residential neighborhood Nishi has.
DiSC 2022 was strongly “No” in every single precinct.
This analysis would seem to confirm the obvious. Did anyone expect something different?
But Jim, I haven’t run a Pearson correlation since Grad School
Jim, I didn’t expect anything less than fierce opposition from the neighbors but I’m always hopeful that people will choose to do the right thing over the selfish thing.
The question now shifts to Measure W., Willow Grove. Will the do gooders for whom Whitcombe’s project wasn’t good enough get on board to pass the next project or will nothing ever be good enough for them. If a few hundred, mean what they say about smart growth, and, vote yes on W, it should provide the margin needed to overcome the Davis Nimby effect. How about you Jim? Are you yes on W?
Ron G
Again, do you see organized opposition to Willowgrove with tabling at the Farmers’ Market, campaign signs and mailers? The opposition to Village Farms was doing much of these more than a year before the vote. I don’t see any kind of groundswell against WG. VF lost because they failed to speak to and accommodate key constituencies that are concerned about the TYPE of housing to be built, not just outright opposition to new housing. There will still be a significant group opposed but I doubt that Measure W will fail, even if the project has its flaws.
Agree
Richard, so are you a yes on W?
“How about you Jim? Are you yes on W?”
I can’t definitively say yet, as I haven’t reviewed the proposal in detail. But based on casual conversations, I consider myself a likely yes. My biggest concerns are affordable and missing middle housing.
Those types make up over 40% of the project.
What’s the price on the “missing middle” housing?
Yay East/Northeast Davis!
Of course, opposition and support were demonstrated throughout the city.
But another explanation for more support in other sections of the city is that some people were probably afraid that rejecting it would result in more development proposals in or next to “their” neighborhood.
Reminds me of the military – when Gomer screws up, the entire platoon has to do more pushups. Resulting in the platoon blaming Gomer, rather than Sergeant Carter (where the blame actually belongs for punishing the entire platoon – instead of just Gomer). A tactic of some teachers as well, as I recall.
Another explanation is that the school district threatened to close a school on the west side of the city, if the voters didn’t approve a development on the east side of the city. (Which also seemed like a “tactic”.)
The results show that Measure J has given neighborhoods the ability to veto projects near them. Those voters support infill, except when it’s going to be near them and might cause parking problems. They support hypothetical peripheral projects but balk at the details of each specific project. They have a lot of opinions about who should live here and how they should live, so long as it’s somewhere else in the city.
“Another explanation is that the school district threatened to close a school on the west side of the city, if the voters didn’t approve a development on the east side of the city.”
Birch Lane was also discussed for closure, but that precinct voted against Measure V.
I only remember Patwin – repeatedly.
“They have a lot of opinions about who should live here and how they should live, so long as it’s somewhere else in the city.”
I think you mean “outside” of the city, in regard to Measure J. Because that’s all that the measure deals with.
Of course, Measure J was also used to defeat a proposal (twice) that would have INCREASED demand for housing – DISC. So to label it as an anti-housing measure is not accurate.
I’d call it a measure that makes it more challenging to develop farmland for any urban use outside of the city (compared to what would happen if the current batch of council members was making such decisions).
Don
For whatever reason, Birch Lane didn’t have the same level of organized parents working to save the school. I think that’s because Birch Lane is has nearby schools as that are good nearby substitutes while Patwin is the only elementary west of 113 (other than the specialized Fairfield school.) Patwin is now part of the identity of West Davis, but Birch Lane is much less so.
As public relations strategy goes, singling out Patwin alone would have been easy to label as cynical politicking. The election consultants no doubt advised that it would be much better for getting out the vote, and simultaneously less obviously transparent, to name two schools, with Patwin as one of the two.
That geographic isolation made organizing PTA advocacy much easier.
Unfortunately for that strategy was that the District had not conducted any community discussions about closures. So the naming of Patwin and Birch was metaphorically like Athena springing fully armored from the head of Zeus. The subsequent “pausing” of any Boundary discussions, illuminated just how cynically political the “closures notice” had been.
“Unfortunately for that strategy was that the District had not conducted any community discussions about closures.”
Simply not true. Last year, DJUSD developed two closure concepts – Concept A that would close Patwin and Concept B that would close Patwin and Birch. In Fall 2025, DJUSD sent surveys to all DJUSD families regarding the two closure concepts, held a series of public listening sessions, and reported the community engagement process and results to the Board at several meetings.
Here’s a summary of Concept B that was circulated for public input.
https://cdnsm5-ss18.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_117089/File/Departments/CSO/BoundaryOutreach/English/Concept%20B.pdf
Thank you. The potential closure of Birch Lane was plain as day to me and many others. Perhaps we can lay to rest the notion that it was a unique response to Patwin closure that guided the vote in West Davis. I believe proximity is the overwhelming correlation. That’s one of the reasons I think Willowgrove will pass. Sorry to the folks on the east end of Wildhorse and inside the Mace Curve; you’re likely outvoted this time.
A little more verification here: https://davisvanguard.org/2025/10/djusd-community-outreach-meetings/
and district info here: https://www.djusd.net/departments/chief_strategy_officer/boundaries___planning/community_outreach
The larger of the two developments was rejected – which of the two schools are they going to close for sure, at this point?
Willowgrove either passes, or it doesn’t. Let’s hear the two scenarios (since Village Farms was already rejected).
Is it a coin toss, or are they still playing games?
Per Craig’s post, Patwin is listed on both “Option A”, and “Option B”. So Patwin it is, I guess?
Pretty sure I saw some other post regarding DJUSD keeping the Patwin building (and not “returning it”) to the local tribe, and using it for the home schooling program or something like that.
The process is outlined here: https://www.djusd.net/departments/chief_strategy_officer/boundaries___planning/community_outreach
Well, Craig already noted that “both” options include closing Patwin.
So, I’m going to guess that Patwin is on the chopping block regardless of the outcome of Willowgrove.
The school district already gave away its ability to create fear, by including Patwin in “both” options.
Apparently, they don’t teach poker at the local school district. Those guys would get fleeced at a card game.
A “yes” vote on Willowgrove = closure of Patwin, and
A “no” vote on Willow grove ALSO = closure of Patwin.
The house (but not necessarily the housing development) always wins.
I’ll lead the cheer: “Patwin” “Patwin” “Patwin” – yay team!
Don’s link describes past events, but says nothing about how the process will evolve going forward. No future meetings are discussed, nor is the 1,000+ signature petition discussed.
The material the link provides is opaque rather than transparent.
“On June 4, 2026, the Board directed staff to pause discussions about school closures and Boundaries and Planning community engagement activities. During the 2026–27 school year, the Board will broaden the focus to discussion and engagement about budget priorities and long-term financial planning. No decisions have been made regarding school closures, consolidation, or boundary changes
In Spring 2027 or later, the Board will reevaluate whether school closures, consolidation, boundary changes, or other planning efforts are needed based on updated enrollment projections, budget priorities, and a revised planning framework that may include updates to the guiding assumptions and community engagement process.”
https://www.djusd.net/cms/one.aspx?portalId=117173&pageId=208535788
Don, that is incomplete at best. It doesn’t mention or acknowledge the signed petition, nor outline the steps that will be taken regarding that signed petition.
It is all at 100,000 feet rather than at a constituents level. It is a “trust us” message at a time where trust is hard to find.
Look at the approval rating of Congress … lower than 10%. Look at the POTUS approval rating … below 35% and nearing 30%. That is the broader “trust” environment we are all living in.
Yes, they’re going to go through the budget process first, get updated enrollment information, and then begin the process of evaluating consolidations and closures.
It would be pointless to appoint a commission at this time, until they have the 2027-8 budget and enrollment information in front of them. I support the idea, but it’s important that the public understand the limitations of those types of ad hoc committees. The final decision will be from the school board based on what they perceive as their fiduciary responsibilities. We went through this with Valley Oak and it did nothing to reduce the angst of those directly affected by the closure of the school.
I know you want to relentlessly criticize the staff, council, school board, and school administrators to assert that they can’t be trusted. But you might try a different tack. I don’t consider our local elected officials, nor the staff they oversee, to be untrustworthy. I don’t consider them to be comparable to Congress or the president. And we have a clear method for replacing them if you really feel that’s appropriate.
Don: What you’re stating here is entirely different than what the school district was putting forth prior to the election. They were attempting to drum up support for Village Farms, prior to the election.
It’s documented, so there’s no denying it. For example, eere’s what Craig noted above:
“Simply not true. Last year, DJUSD developed two closure concepts – Concept A that would close Patwin and Concept B that would close Patwin and Birch. In Fall 2025, DJUSD sent surveys to all DJUSD families regarding the two closure concepts, held a series of public listening sessions, and reported the community engagement process and results to the Board at several meetings.”
Seems to me that if this wasn’t illegal, it should be. School districts funded by the public engaging in a self-interested campaign.
As I recall, David stated that once the proposal was finalized/scheduled for a vote, this “informational campaign” came to an end because that’s when they could have had legal problems had they continued on that path.
The fact is that the school district declared war on the “no” campaign, just as YIMBYs do every day against their own cities.
This is not the only issue in which DJUSD seems to have trouble with “ethics”. (See poaching of students, for example.)
Don, I will email you a graphic of DJUSD enrollment since 2006, which shows a steady decline in Resident Student enrollment, with 2021 being the only year in the last 15 years with an increase. The total Resident Student enrollment loss since 2005 is 1,424 students (going from 8,368 down to 6,944).
Here are the year by year numbers provided by DJUSD
Resident Students_Change_Cumulative Change
2024 6,944 (4) (1,424)
2023 6,948 (125) (1,420)
2022 7,073 (104) (1,295)
2021 7,177 66 (1,191)
2020 7,111 (16) (1,257)
2019 7,127 (398) (1,241)
2018 7,525 (160) (843)
2017 7,685 (83) (683)
2016 7,768 (33) (600)
2015 7,801 (20) (567)
2014 7,821 (74) (547)
2013 7,895 (57) (473)
2012 7,952 (110) (416)
2011 8,062 55 (306)
2010 8,007 (185) (361)
2009 8,192 (178) (176)
2008 8,370 64 2
2007 8,306 (93) (62)
2006 8,399 31 31
2005 8,368
In what way do you expect the current Budget data to impact that 20-year continuous trend?
Further, DJUSD’s demographics consultant MGT has provided the following additional projected Resident Student enrollment losses totaling 977 through 2034. Willowgrove will offset the 977 some, but is not projected to produce as many as 977 additional students.
Resident Students_Change_Cumulative Change
2034 5,967 (133) (977)
2033 6,100 (183) (844)
2032 6,283 (119) (661)
2031 6,402 (132) (542)
2030 6,534 (88) (410)
2029 6,622 (61) (322)
2028 6,683 (86) (261)
2027 6,769 (94) (175)
2026 6,863 (81) (81)
I have this data and can’t think why you think posting all those numbers here is meaningful to the discussion. I certainly don’t need a chart showing it. We are all aware of the declining residential enrollment.
“In what way do you expect the current Budget data to impact that 20-year continuous trend?”
I expect the budget officials with the district to analyze the current and projected budget data with the resident and interdistrict enrollment data in hand. The distribution of students across grade levels is a key data point. The timeline for having that information and providing that analysis is presented in the link I provided.
Don, they have that data from 2025, and 2024, and 2023, as well as the trends across multiple years. What is the 2026 specific data going to tell them that the data they already have isn’t telling them.
You are advocating for the Nero’s Fiddle approach.
Davis has spoken on Village Farms Measure V and what do we get? Yet another breathless precinct autopsy. Because apparently the shocking revelation that people who live right next to a massive new development might vote against it requires PhD level statistical theater and multiple loss lap articles.
“The precincts nearest Village Farms averaged just 40.7 percent support . . . ”
Stop the presses. People do not want a giant housing project plopped in their literal backyard increasing traffic changing the character of their neighborhood and altering their daily lives. It is almost as if humans have this weird evolutionary tendency to care more about things that directly impact them than abstract ideals shouted from across town.
And then comes the crown jewel of limp-arse hedging:
“The analysis does not prove why individual voters cast their ballots nor can it establish that every No vote reflected neighborhood concerns.”
You don’t say :-|
After spending an entire article mapping the precise geography of the No votes drawing beautiful correlation coefficients and waxing poetic about the neighborhood effect you are suddenly like, ‘well technically we cannot read minds’. Just so y’all know.
This is the academic version of I am not saying it was the dog but the dog was the only one in the kitchen and there is peanut butter on his face. You built the whole piece around the obvious spatial pattern and then tucked in this little correlation is not causation folks disclaimer like a nervous intern.
“The geography of the vote suggests that where a housing project is proposed may be nearly as important as the project itself.”
“WHERE”???!!! Seriously? You mean like, near people? Good luck finding a vacant plot in Davis with zero humans within a five mile radius. Maybe try proposing it in the middle of a soybean field in Iowa next time. Or better yet how about building the thing where the enthusiastic Yes voters from Precinct 15012 live. You know the ones who were 59 percent in favor. Put their neighborhood character on the line. See how fast that 17 point drop reverses itself. Because of it’s almost like humans are like, human.
Like maybe it isn’t the pejorative NIMBY and sitting upon one’s high horse of morality, “I’m better because I’m up for more traffic every day and cars idling and increasing VMTs, because I, unlike y’all selflessly care about poor people by building super-expensive new homes, and coddling developers because I am not judging you, I actually AM VIRTUOUS, and what’s more I am SIGNALING that. Heck, I wouldn’t mind! I volunteer! Take my house and build a giant steel platform atop my entire yard and build a 7-story square block brutalism-style affordable family housing complex right on top of me! The kids can play in my yard and I won’t shout, ‘get off the grass you d*mn kids!!!’ “.
RG say, “Nimbyism is alive and well in Davis.”
Yeah and it is alive and well on planet Earth! Because shocker people tend to care when something heavily impacts their homes their streets their kids schools their commute and the feel of the town they actually live in every single day. Crazy how that works.
How about a little compassion instead of this sneering ideological righteousness. Nimbyism is just a slur for ‘I want the housing but I want you to live with all the downsides’. It is easy to be pro development when it is someone elses backyard getting paved over. Everyone is a hero in someone else’s neighborhood. “Oh but I would have it my backyard!!! Really!!!” Oh, well aren’t you special.
The article keeps insisting this is not a citywide rejection of growth just a hyper local thing, and implies it’s DAVIS that is the problem: Oh, so Nimby! Translation: Most of Davis was fine with it it is just those selfish bastards who would actually have to live with it who ruined everything.
JF say, “This analysis would seem to confirm the obvious. Did anyone expect something different?”
Yup. People voting based on how it affects their actual lives is not some pathology to be pathologized with Pearson coefficients. It is normal human behavior. The real cosmic joke is y’all pretending otherwise while writing the same “Local Opposition Bad – Neighborhood Opposition Worse” article for the umpteenth time since June.
And all this from a guy who voted YES for most Measure J/R/D projects, and think Measure J/R/D is bad law. And I say that because I am VIRTUOUS and I am SIGNALING.
Maybe just maybe the lesson is not that NIMBYs are evil. Maybe the lesson is that if you want big projects to pass you should design them so they do not screw over the people who have to live right next to them. Wild concept I know.
But sure keep clutching those precinct pearl maps and gasping at the neighborhood effect. The rest of us will be over here cheering for the gazelle.
Mr. Greenwald, your continued assault on municipal Democracy is wearing thin. Your perverse and continued opposition to the legitimacy of Measure J, calling it the “illusion of Democracy” , demonstrates a lack of responsible journalistic integrity. It’s frankly dangerous when you divisively place a red target on a map to identify East Davis as if it is a problem to be solved. Please know that your propagation of the derogatory acronym NYMBY insults myself, my family and my neighbors. It could be argued that the acronym belongs to those precincts who voted Yes on V with the full knowledge their neighborhoods would be relatively unaffected by the multitude of negative features Village Farms proposed. Sort of a “Yes In YOUR Backyard” vibe With Palomino, Harvest Glen, Pole Line Terrace and likely Willowgrove within the red “Circle of Doom”, one wonders when West Davis will step up to the plate. I’m wondering if at some point in time the Vanguard might turn its sights on some new and different activities. Might I suggest objective journalism.
“I’m wondering if at some point in time the Vanguard might turn its sights on some new and different activities.”
John – The data is the data. Does it occur to you that we run 10 to 15 articles a day, many of them focused on local issues. All them impactful. I wish you would have a broader perspective.
I stand corrected David. Some coverage may be less ideologically slanted. But with regards to Measure V , you consistently carried the water for the Yes campaign. To call your coverage bias would be a gross understatement. As far as the critical data, the numbers show the majority of Davis voted No. Again, please stop 🛑 your targeting of precincts and creating division.
John, Donald Trump has told us over and over that our elections are not legitimate. If POTUS sets that example, why shouldn’t local journalists follow suit?
Matt, what local journalists are saying that the Measure V election was not legitimate?
David essentially is. The SacBee definitely is. Anyone who is looking backward at the results rather than looking forward to the other tasks at hand is.
JMO
Matt, that’s a stretch…
Keith, did you read the SacBee post-election Opinion piece?
Cooper said “It could be argued that the acronym belongs to those precincts who voted Yes on V with the full knowledge their neighborhoods would be relatively unaffected by the multitude of negative features Village Farms proposed. ”
I agree. In fact I know a guy who sued UC in opposition to housing on campus south of Russell near where he lives in a house with his own backyard yet was all in on Village Farms near your backyard.
This analysis misses the obvious counterfact: South Davis, which is not remotely close to Village Farms, also opposed the project. It was not overwhelmingly supported in those “intermediate” precincts that really were no more adjacent than the West Davis ones. Clearly, the VF message was not resonating with any area other than the one that saw it had a strong vested interest in the success of the project: West Davis due to the threat of closure of Patwin. Parents were organized over VF as the less painful solution and voted for it.
If the storyline here is valid, Willowgrove should also have a tough path to approval, but it’s looking like that won’t be the case. The story of opposition to VF is much, much deeper than simple NIMBYism. As Tim Keller has pointed out, when even pro-housing groups reluctantly oppose a development then the developer has a real problem.
Didn’t have good enough data, but believe it’s Mace “mess” related.
I also agree. As I said frequently prior to Election Day, this election was all about trust and our City government had shown over and over that they could not be trusted … with the Mace Mess being a recent, text book example.
Mark Spencer, with help from others, drafted Measure J because the City had abused its constuents trust in not enforcing the terms of the Mace Ranch development agreement.
For David, and Don, and RonG, can you point to a single meaningful example of one of our local government decisions that earned back the trust of the constituents? On the other hand can you point to other examples like the Mace Mess that have added fuel to the distrust?
The Cannabis Ordinance comes to mind. Also the water system and the repeal of the convoluted water pricing system that only Matt Williams understood. And of course the Poet Laureate program.
The Cannabis ordinance?
I’ll echo David’s comment. The Cannabis Ordinance?
You clearly haven’t attended any of the City’s financial presentations. The revenue that City Government promised would come from that Cannabis Ordinance has had to be repeatedly reduced and reduced and reduced. It is a textbook example of overpromising. Again, intentions were good. Reality, not so much.
With that said, how has the Poet Laureate program increased anyone’s belief that our City can govern itself wisely or fairly? It is a nice to have biproduct of the high educational level of the city’s residents. Is that because of government?
The water rates are indeed an excellent example of community collaboration. The first iteration was naive … politically … as was so firmly pointed out by Bob Dunning. So, we learned from that feedback, and came back with a second iteration … the 87/13 rate … which has been in place for almost 12 years. It has been incredibly stable financially. Davis is one of the very few (perhaps the only) water districts that has not had to implement a drought emergency rate increase. That was because of the collaborative financial modeling of a broad range of conservation impacts. As the saying goes, “Measure twice. Cut once.”
At the same time as 87/13 provided fiscal stability, it encouraged water conservation, while promoting substantial social equity.
Council had the good sense to get a broad range of community participation in that process. So you are right. That is an example of trust building.
The entire country overestimated Cannabis related revenue. Lots of money was lost on Wall Street too. But the Cannabis Ordinance has been a huge success for personal freedom in Davis.
Okay Ron, how did the cannabis ordinance increase trust in our local government? Cannabis was legalized throughout the State. That produced the personal freedom that you cite. The local ordinance did not add any additional personal freedom to what the State had already granted.
Your concept of the waxing and waning of trust is truly bizarre.
You are wrong, Matt. The initiative gave a lot of authority to local government for implementation. You are also wrong about the local ordinance’s impact on the personal freedom of local residents. Under the old ordinance you couldn’t use Cannabis outside or in an apartment. As Will Arnold asked Harriet Steiner “If I can’t use my medicine in my apartment or outside where can I use my medicine?”
Harriet remained silent. That is one way the ordinance improved individual freedom locally. I can name other ways too but suffice it to say the Cannabis Ordinance was one of the best things the City Council ever did.
It was so good that Assistant City Manager Ash Feeney got hired by Citrus Heights as City Manager because they wanted to do a Cannabis Ordinance.
Disagree Ron. The city made the same mistake as the state, they set the taxes too high initially which didn’t allow the businesses to gain roots before extracting revenue from them. I got to know most of the initial applicants and almost all of them are gone and the businesses except for one or two are struggling.
It was inevitable that the black market would undercut the overtaxed fever dreams of Government trying to cash in. Weed is too easy to grow. That is why they could never suppress it when it was illegal. What I found particularly amusing was watching the people like the cops, who fought the legalization the most, be the first with hands out for a piece of the tax money. But all of this hand wringing about the tax money misses the larger picture of what they got right about personal freedom. By focusing only on the fiscal issue you are missing that they fixed a policy that had been cruel and draconian for many decades including the previous decade under an old City of Davis ordinance that was lipstick on the pig of medical marijuana. The CC that did the Cannabis Ordinance deserves our thanks.
David, I thought you were for a less harmful criminal justice system? Decades of incarceration and criminal records keeping, its over, and local government in Davis helped show the way.
I’m not opposed to legalized cannabis. I just don’t think California and Davis went about it the best way.
Ron, even if everything you said is true, and I agree with David that you are using selective memory, seeing only your perceived positives and ignoring the failures, how did any of the local government actions increase the trust that constituents all across Davis have in their local government?
Arguably, all of those local actions were whipped cream, provided after the State had provided the ice cream and caramel sauce.
As a result of legalization, the black market for marijuana has collapsed along with the Emerald Triangle (the northwest counties of the state). They are in a severe depression, especially in regard to property.
It’s probably a good time to buy yourself a house and land in that area. Prices have truly collapsed.
Perhaps people don’t really like smoking/consuming marijuana to the degree anticipated.
Also, the (legal) wine industry is almost collapsing (lots of grapes unharvested, etc.), because young people have figured out that drinking isn’t good for you (but have also switched to some other forms of alcohol, as well).
Not sure how casino gambling is doing these days, but I don’t think they’re necessarily required to report it (since tribes are generally exempt from income taxes).
RonG said Decades of incarceration and criminal records keeping, its over, and local government in Davis helped show the way.
“Helped” is an appropriate term to use to describe local government’s role and activity.
The vision to legalize cannabis did not come from local government. The heavy strategic and tactical lifting in passing the legislation that legalized cannabis did not come from local government. Once the legislation was passed, the implementation tasks were handed off to the help.
I have worked directly with two council members and found them very helpful and truthful about constituent issues. I have interacted with all five council members about city-wide issues and have found them all to be aboveboard and responsive. I have no trust issues with the council members regarding the things we’ve directly discussed. I happen to think all five are hardworking people who give a lot to the community and whose honesty is not in question, so I don’t agree with your assessment. My direct experience is not the same as yours, apparently.
Don, on a personal level as individuals, I agree with you, all five are well intentioned. However, intentions are one thing. Reality is another.
Those good intentions have given us:
—Measure Q where the arguments for voting Yes that our government gave us were that Measure Q revenues would go into increasing street repairs, but when the next City Budget came out, the dollars devoted to street repairs decreased.
— The reality of the Mace Mrs is that a $2 million project ended up costing the taxpayers over $10 million.
— Reality 1 of the Cannery development agreement was that the developer told the City they had sufficient money to complete the project, but one year later they came back to the City saying they were $12 million short, and expected the City to pay them the $12 million extra.
— Reality 2 of the Cannery development agreement is that the Council did not ask what additional value the City was getting for the additional payment, but instead said, “Would you accept $8 million instead?”
— Reality 3 of the Cannery development agreement was that the City imposed an over $21 million tax on the Cannery residents to cover payment of the borrowing costs, principal repayment, and interest. And to add insult to injury they never gave the Cannery residents the opportunity to vote on that tax.
There are more examples, but those tell the story.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
Doesn’t that work both ways?
David, do you mean the road to good intentions is paved with Hell?
What I mean is that every good intention potentially leads to miscalculation therefore bad outcomes. Human beings are notoriously bad at predicting the future.
“— Reality 3 of the Cannery development agreement was that the City imposed an over $21 million tax on the Cannery residents to cover payment of the borrowing costs, principal repayment, and interest. And to add insult to injury they never gave the Cannery residents the opportunity to vote on that tax.”
That’s how Mello Roos/CFDs work. If developers were more honest, they’d include that in the price of the house. Either way, the new suckers (oops – I meant new homeowners) are going to pay for those costs.
Don, another way of responding to your very valid point is … that the problem isn’t with/in the individuals, but rather it is with/in the governmental institution.
Healthy Davis Together
Natalie’s Corner.
Healthy Davis Together is a good example. Or at least it was until it abruptly ended, leaving the community with neither warning nor alternative. In total trust was built, even if the last taste in the constituents mouth was sour.
Don, how did Natalie’s Corner increase the inventory of trust for the constituents of Davis?
“…how did any of the local government actions increase the trust that constituents all across Davis have in their local government?”
The voters of Davis and Yolo County were overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. The City Council implemented an ordinance that respected the will of the people. What more do you want from them? You asked for one thing I gave it to you but you still want to gripe. Its like housing, Matt, you will never be happy. Are you ready to endorse Measure W yet?
Ron, you are absolutely correct that both Davis and Yolo County were overwhelmingly in favor of legalization.
So remind me, how did the five City Councilpersons vote on the legalization bill? Or, how did the five Supervisors vote on that bill? And, who signed the bill into law?
Crickets from Ron.
Agree
South Davis only went no by 20 votes out of almost 4000 so its more evenly split 50.26%-49.74% than a casual glace at the map indicates.
West of 113 went more strongly yes than central Davis likely related to proximity and perhaps related to school closure worries.
David,
You are continuing on this theme of posting articles like this one, thriving on division and blame. So, I am going to post a comment again for those who many have missed it, because it applies to this article like it did the previous one where you attacked Measure J/R/D as you have been doing repeatedly.
Measure J/R/D is not the problem. The City and City Council being tone deaf and putting terrible projects with disastrous environmental impacts, enormous costs, and unaffordable housing on the ballot IS the problem. But let me explain with more detail, again, below.
David,
As we try to move forward as a community, it seems, as usual, you try to move us backward. Your article thrives on the division and wants to continue it, while the No on Measure V side wants to move forward and to find solutions, rather than harping on differences as you do constantly.
Your articles in the Vanguard are a broken record of “build anything, no matter what the consequences” as if that is a solution. Over the last years, your articles have become more and more anti-environment and anti-democracy on land use issues. As usual, you ae trying to blame the victims (the citizen-based No on Measure V campaign) for the division caused by the Village Farms project, the worse project ever proposed in Davis.
The Yes campaign was pushing a plethora of misinformation and disinformation. We pushed back with the facts, backed up by many professionals with expertise. But now you are trying to blame the opponents of the project for the division. I mean seriously? Maybe the reality is that Village Farms was a terrible project, and that caused the division, not the opponents of the project.
Fortunately, enough people were able to get the information in time to vote “No” to reject this seriously flawed Davis can and needs to have good planning and not accept abominations like Village Farms. The project has serious toxics exposure and flooding potential issues, unsafe access, infrastructure costs, massive traffic at an already heavily impacted area, significant habitat destruction of Channel A and threatened vernal pools with an endangered species, unaffordable housing and a seriously inadequate affordable housing plan which was a scam.
Why do you think Whitcombe got this handicapped 398-acre parcel for only $3.2 million in bankruptcy in the mid-1990’s? It was because the previous developer knew it was a loser of a site to try to develop, so they abandoned it at a huge financial loss. But then after buying it for pennies on the dollar, John Whitcombe and his partners tried to use his connections and influence to push it through with all of its problems, more than once.
You neglected to mention that this project was rejected for the same reasons 20 years ago as Covell Village, yet the same developer (Whitcombe) brought back the essentially the same project with the same problems and impacts and tried to ram it down our community’s throat, again. Did that many any sense? Particularly when a better proposal of a Reduced Footprint project (similar to the “Environmentally Superior” Covell Village alternative) was being urged by citizens from the beginning of the Village Farms process to avoid some of the major serious impacts and City liability. The answer is, no, it did not make any sense. So, it should not be a surprise that the project was rejected again and for the same reasons, and more reasons which were revealed.
The other main reason that the project was rejected because the No on Measure V campaign was able to reveal the plethora of misinformation and disinformation from the Yes on Measure V campaign.
Your negativity is wearisome and it is hard to believe how relentless your “build anything, no matter what the consequences” advocacy has become. The Vanguard has become a broke record of this. By the way, can you share with us the amount of “donations” to the Vanguard that you have gotten from the Tandem properties investors over the last few years?
Also, you also keep bringing up the narrow margin of the election, but I can promise you this much, if the No on Measure V campaign had $786,000 to spend on the campaign like the Yes on Measure V campaign had, that margin would have been substantially wider.
The bottom line is that the Village Farms project was an abysmal project with massive impacts and unaffordable housing. Yet, you continue to complain about it not passing. So, it is clear that you are a “build anything” advocate no matter how detrimental to the environment, no matter how unaffordable the housing and no matter how damaging to good planning.
What our group wanted, and what our community deserves, is good planning, which the City is completely capable of, like the Willowgrove project. However, in the case of Village Farms, we got a disastrous project with impacts, costs, unaffordable housing, and City liability which should have never been placed on the ballot.
So, you can continue with your broken record articles of trying to brainwash people to advocate for crappy planning for Davis and to build anything no may what the damage. But it is not resonating.
The outcome of the Measure V election is not complicated. This was not a majority vote against more housing: it was a rejection of bad planning. The voters rejected Village Farms because they understood it was a terrible project with far too many impacts, costs and unaffordable housing.
As long as you deny the Nimbyism of the community its worth continuing to point it out.
Ron G.,
As long as you deny that Village Farm was a disastrous project due to the toxics and flooding issues, unsafe access, enormous infrastructure costs, serious habitat destruction including threatening the vernal pools and its endangered species, as well as unaffordable market-rate housing and an inadequate affordable housing plan, it needs to be pointed out that these are the reasons that Village Farms was voted down by the majority of Davis voters. It was a terrible project. THAT is why it was rejected. It was worst ever proposed in Davis because of all of these problems.
Maybe on the margin but not by everybody. As one person who voted against it told me “What’s in it for me? I’m against it all.” That is the essence of Nimbyism. The voter map tells a different story than the campaign you ran. I applaud the campaign you ran but your denial of Nimbyism as an issue in Davis defies the evidence.
Ron G.,
As others have pointed out, how do you explain that the majority of South Davis voters voted “No”, even though they are distanced away from Village Farms. So your “nimby” theory doesn’t make sense.
The Village Farms project was a terrible project with a plethora of problems, impacts, costs, unaffordable housing and a grossly inadequate affordable housing “plan” which would have wound up with no affordable units.
It was a replay of a crappy project from 20 years ago when it was also voted down. It is not hard to understand why it was rejected by the voters again. it was simply a really bad project with too many negatives.
As I said earlier the South Davis precinct voted no by 20 votes out of 4000. the vote there was yes 49.75 % yes and 50.25% no. Hardly the mandate you profess.
I don’t see any inherent difference between NIMBYism vs. “Don’t Close My School-ism”.
Or a whole host of other “ism’s”.
RonO, are you saying that RonG exhibits the characteristics of “growthism”?