Measure J’s Future Could Depend on Willingness of Voters to Approve Future Projects
By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – In April, I was stunned in the middle of a housing crisis that council would punt on a November 2024 date for a Measure J project. The idea that the city could not process a project in 20 months was mystifying to me.
The dates laid out in the current staff report seem to reflect staff’s ability to process a project—it seems they think they can process five projects by November 2026, but that requires three special elections where the Measure J project would be the only matter on the ballot.
To be quite blunt here—that seems to be setting up this whole process to fail.
November 2024 figures to be the highest turnout election on the immediate horizon. There is no guarantee that that will translate to a Measure J victory of course—DISC in 2020 narrowly failed. But by staff’s calculation along with council last month, November 2024 is off the table.
In the meantime, we’ve seen what turnout looked like for a special election for council in the past week—it was pretty bleak. Granted, only 20 percent of the city could vote, but a low-turnout special election is not a great test of democracy. Indeed, the two Measure J votes held during special elections went down in flames.
In Davis, a special election is a huge disadvantage to a land use project. Polling I have seen shows that most projects START with nearly 40 percent opposition, and that opposition are the most likely voters.
There is a very thin margin for error—and that begins to dissipate quickly once you get away from high turnout elections.
What about the contention that staff should not be premising their recommendations on the dates with the best chance for approval?
I understand that point—but I think that slightly misinterprets the role of staff in a complex decision-making process.
In general, the job of staff is to process projects in way that allows the decision-makers to get the best information and make the best-informed decisions they can. In Measure J projects, that means that council makes the first call and then the voters.
Setting a project up for failure based on staff decisions in my view is problematic. Measure J by the numbers has already stacked the odds against the passage of a given project. Consigning a project to a low-turnout election on top of that is probably dooming the project to failure.
In my view, if Measure J is to work, you have to give projects a decent chance to get approved. Otherwise, someone can sue the city and potentially the state would have the interest to come in and take out Measure J.
The stakes are probably much higher over the next six years than they have been over the previous 22.
The city has acknowledged and we have direct quotes from both City Manager Mike Webb and Mayor Will Arnold that the city will not be able to make its RHNA numbers for the next cycle without approving some peripheral land.
I think it behooves the community to understand several factors here—especially if they want to preserve the citizen’s ability to vote on land use projects.
To this point, Measure J has never been challenged in a court of law. There are those who believe that at the very least Measure D, which renewed Measure R in 2020, is in violation of a 2005 law prohibiting mandatory voter approval for land use projects.
Second, the city of Davis is not currently in compliance with its Housing Element. That has apparently triggered the Builder’s Remedy and we now know that one project—Palomino Place—has filed an amended project under that Builder’s Remedy.
The city still believes that it can get into compliance for the current RHNA cycle. But losing the affordable housing at University Commons was a blow. The city is also relying on 1000 units in the downtown—which I think is dubious—to make the numbers this time around.
However, that also means that downtown redevelopment cannot count for future RHNAs and just about everyone believes that the city is going to have to rezone land from outside of the city to meet the RHNA requirements for the next cycle.
Here is a critical fact: in order for the city to count land outside of the city for RHNA purposes, the city must rezone the land PRIOR to the land counting for RHNA (in other words, you can’t count land toward RHNA numbers unless it is properly zoned for housing).
And here’s the rub—in order for the city to rezone the land, the voters must approve a Measure J vote.
That likely means, at a minimum, the city must rezone at least two and probably three of those five Measure J project lands in order to meet the next RHNA requirements.
So the idea that staff can just put up the Measure J votes for any old election and it passes muster I think is questionable at best and probably irresponsible. The city is facing a largely self-inflicted dilemma.
What is the state likely to do?
That’s a big question at this point.
We know that Davis is on the radar of HCD. Davis is the poster child for SLOW GROWTH policies.
The state has already shown how much more aggressive they are going to be on these things. The number of cities out of compliance with RHNA is extraordinarily high. We have already seen the state sue Huntington Beach and Elk Grove.
My guess is it’s only a matter of time before the state steps in and files against Measure J—unless the city can show that it’s truly not a barrier to housing.
Ironically, the future of Measure J could depend on the willingness of the slow-growth community in Davis to allow some projects to get approved.
At some point, if the community keeps saying no—as they have done on five of seven previous projects—the state will come in and say, no more.
My guess is that this probably all comes to a head somewhere between 2026 and 2028, depending on the timing of certain things. In other words, I think the very existence of Measure J is on the line and dependent on the decisions made in the coming weeks and months.
And again, this is a demonstrably false statement, if you compare other cities (e.g., the vast population centers along the coast) which aren’t expanding their boundaries. And yet, those same cities (most of which are far more dense than Davis is) are the primary focus of the state’s mandates.
As usual, this simple fact is not acknowledged on here, OR by these two officials.
Now, this isn’t the same thing as stating that the state’s mandates will “succeed” in those locales. All evidence shows that the state’s mandates will not succeed – even if the corresponding housing elements are approved.
Ultimately, it’s not Measure J that’s in “danger”. It’s the state’s mandates themselves that are in danger.
But the state will not be “forcing” ANY city to expand its boundaries, regardless of Measure J. That’s not how it works. The state’s mandates have nothing to do with farmland outside of city boundaries.
Yet another demonstrably false statement, especially when Davis is compared to other cities which are the actual focus of the state’s mandates.
Davis is the “poster child” for slow growth policies only within the minds of those within Davis who don’t support those policies. Which for the most part, are confined to the Vanguard.
As long as we’re “making up stuff” on here, I say that they need to approve all five.
As I previously suggested, put all five of them on the ballot simultaneously. And then line up another five for the following round of the state’s mandates, and so on . . .
I think the council needs to address the city’s staffing problems.
Why then does that builder still feel the need to continue advertising on the Vanguard – including at the top of this very page?
I don’t think anyone yet knows what that means – one possibility is that the BR is simply being utilized to compel the city to process the application and it would still require a vote. This is new territory.
I think that the developer should just follow-through with his “threat”.
I’m not sure that anyone would care that much (e.g., the difference between what he initially proposed – assuming that it would be approved by voters, vs. what’s allowed under the builder’s remedy).
Perhaps the builder’s remedy is less-profitable than what he initially proposed, and he actually prefers taking his chances with voters (at least at first). But could still revert back to the builder’s remedy, if the voters reject what he prefers to build.
But if the builder’s remedy isn’t sufficiently-profitable on undeveloped land, it doesn’t seem likely that it would be profitable (in mass) on already-developed land. With the possible exception of sites such as Hibbert’s – which will be redeveloped, regardless.
I’d still like to know what might happen if voters approve some massive site like Covell Village II, regarding subsequent pursuit of the builder’s remedy on sites like that. (Regardless of whatever is stipulated in development agreements and baseline features.)
It doesn’t seem likely that courts would find such sites to be exempt from state mandates (including the builder’s remedy), once they’re annexed into the city.
That would be something, wouldn’t it? A 400-acre “builder’s remedy”. I’m trying to envision what that might look like, but for sure – it would be hilarious.
Please present said evidence. And since the assertion is that is “all” evidence, this list should be quite extensive.
On the other hand, we see all sorts of evidence that the state is taking assertive action, such as the AG suing Huntington Beach for trying to evade its responsibility. Wishful thinking isn’t “evidence.”
Richard: I’ve already provided a multitude of articles (including those from 48 Hills) showing that the mandates are not feasible. Even David Greenwald acknowledges this.
In the other article today, David notes that about half the cities in California don’t even have an approved “plan”.
But the actual results won’t be known until the end of the current RHNA cycle. There may be updates along the way, since YIMBY groups throughout the state are monitoring this, and egging-on the state. In fact, those groups are launching their own lawsuits, as well – including the group funded by the California Association of Realtors. Again, I’ve posted information regarding that before, as well.
Suing cities isn’t going to ensure that the housing (especially the “affordable” housing) is actually built. So far, the state is only going after cities that are actively defying the mandates.
“Even David Greenwald acknowledges this.”
You continue to mischaracterize my point.
To the contrary, the laws are succeeding in getting land rezoned, which is the necessary first step in getting more housing built.
California’s Strengthened Housing Element Law: Early Evidence on Higher Housing Targets and Rezoning?
From the NYU Furman Center
https://furmancenter.org/files/California%E2%80%99s_Strengthened_Housing_Element_Law_508.pdf
Don: You’ve provided an example of the “plans” – not the results. I didn’t “doubt” that there’d be plans.
As I recall, you’ve previously noted that San Francisco has “upzoned” the entire city.
How much housing has that (or the rezoning you referred to, above) resulted in housing – affordable or otherwise?
Below is an example of a previous article I posted. Keep in mind that this is from an affordable housing advocate – not a “slow growth” advocate:
The state’s local housing goals are nothing more than a farce
https://48hills.org/2022/09/the-states-local-housing-goals-are-nothing-more-than-a-farce/
As far as what David previously said, he can clarify that if he wants to. I recall him casting doubt regarding the success of the mandates – especially the affordable mandates.
But again, all of this is just a guess, at this point.
And again, how many cities or counties haven’t even submitted a successful “plan” at this point? Well-past the deadline?
The state itself is under pressure to approve unrealistic plans.
My position is that the state won’t reach the targets. That doesn’t mean the targets are wrong. It doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have those targets. It seems means that it’s more difficult to approve and build housing than simply targeting it. I also don’t agree that the plans are unrealistic.
That’s exactly what we’re talking about, here. I’m not misquoting you.
I don’t know what you mean by “wrong”. If those “targets” are not achievable, then they’re “wrong”.
Here’s what you said in the other article, today:
So, even with all of the bypasses from regulation built into the Builder’s Remedy, you’re stating that 20% Affordable is “high”.
You just did – repeatedly at this point.
But again, these aren’t “targets” – they’re mandates. The reason being that the sponsored YIMBY groups (such as the one funded by the California Association of Realtors) are monitoring “progress”.
My guess is that the YIMBY groups will be satisfied with simply destroying the ability of cities to mitigate impacts, if it results in more market-rate housing. Given “who” is backing them (and what their goals actually consist of), it doesn’t seem likely that they’re going to care if the “Affordable” housing doesn’t get built.
These groups are essentially citing Reaganomic trickle-down theory. But really, they’re just using “affordable” housing as a pawn to achieve their goal of destroying the ability of cities to require mitigation of impacts as a condition of market-rate development.
I’m not sure if they’re actually fooling people, at this point. But they’ve run a masterful campaign so far (including getting their people into office, and infiltrating much of the mainstream media as well). The “anti-abortion” groups can’t hold a candle, to this group.
The groups backing the YIMBYs include those who created “unaffordability” in the first place (e.g., the technology industry).
This is where you’ve jumped the train: “I don’t know what you mean by “wrong”. If those “targets” are not achievable, then they’re “wrong”.”
I never said they weren’t achievable, I said I don’t believe they’ll be achieved.