By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – I get attacked on both ends of the Measure J debate. The opponents of J, few in number though they are, see that “[t]here is no ‘solution’ to Davis’ problems that does not start with getting rid of Measure J.” But those who support Measure J see any attempt to modify it as an attempt to undermine or even eliminate it.
In this case, neither side is particularly realistic. On the one hand, getting rid of Measure J is not a viable option. Over the last twenty years, support for Measure J has INCREASED from 56 percent in 2000 to 75 percent in 2010 to 83 percent in 2020. The voters like to have a say in land use decisions.
On the other hand, in my view, Measure J is too restrictive. The exemptions are too difficult to achieve. It is too easy in a town like Davis to defeat needed housing or economic development projects, and just two of seven have passed.
In my view what we need is a way to get the housing that we need to build, housing that allows students to live in reasonable accommodations and housing that can allow young families with children to continue to move to and thrive in Davis WITHOUT opening the floodgates to unfettered growth, much of which existed prior to 2000’s Measure J.
That’s a tall order and I acknowledge it might not be practical.
As one person put it, “There is no ‘solution’ to Davis’ problems that does not start with getting rid of Measure J. You cannot honestly claim to be interested in solving the City’s housing shortage, its economic development shortcomings, or its overall fiscal problems if you continue to support J. That is plain and simple. Everything else you are doing or suggesting is dishonest obfuscation and obstruction.”
But the problem with that view is that, realistically, unless the state comes in and can use the courts to get rid of Measure J—which is a distinct possibility—there is no internal way to get rid of Measure J. The voters aren’t going to do it.
We have created a system that only gives the appearance of democracy, because the people with homes get a vote and the people locked out of Davis, do not. There is no way to vote with your feet.
Right now the only two ways I see around this might be just as equally impractical. The first being the preapproval process. The second being the proposal put up by Dan Carson and perhaps others on the council to tweak the exemption for affordable housing for Measure J, which right now is unworkable.
The problem as the same person points out: “It is laughable that anyone thinks we can find preapproval conditions that the voters will support that are also viable enough to entice developers to bring forward new projects. More likely, we will end up with ‘preapproved conditions’ that act to preclude all development, much like our overly restrictive Affordable Housing Ordinance did.”
I acknowledge a distinct possibility of that.
Look no further than the comment in response to mine: “We already knew that you don’t support Measure J. Davis’ ‘problem’ is the folks who are constantly attempting to undermine or eliminate Measure J.”
Any attempt there has ever been to modify or even discuss Measure J has been met with firm opposition from proponents. Their demand has always been to pass Measure J as it is now with only technical amendments.
The vote has always been an all or nothing vote—either keep it or discard—and overwhelmingly we have voted to keep it rather than discard it.
We have never even been given the opportunity to EVEN CONSIDER changes to the way it works.
For expressing the view that we need modifications to the law, apparently I don’t “support Measure J” or I am attempting to “undermine or eliminate” it. That’s the problem. This has become a third rail of politics, we can never even propose amendments without getting mau-maued.
For those who argue that Davis’ problems are those who constantly attempt to “undermine or eliminate Measure J”—no one has ever done that. I mean ever. We have never even gotten a serious amendment on the agenda. How can that possibly be Davis’ problem?
On the other hand, someone pointed out, “At least with Measure J we have the opportunity every ten years to speak truth to power…”
That’s actually never happened either. Other than in 2000, there has been no formal opposition to Measure J.
I think the best answer at this point is to attempt to amend Measure J midterm. In 2024 or 2026, the council could put amendment questions on the ballot. The advantage to doing that at that time is that it would no longer be all or nothing—Measure J or no Measure J. Instead, it would be status quo versus change. Let the voters decide.
There is still a good chance the supporters of Measure J continue to argue that change conflates with undermining and elimination, but at least we get a choice.
I don’t see any other realistic path. Until there is a major shift in Davis, Measure J will never go away entirely. Those who argue that is the only viable path forward are putting themselves into a box that can never be opened and allowing the situation in this community to continue to get worse year by year.
“We already knew that you don’t support Measure J. Davis’ “problem” is the folks who are constantly attempting to undermine or eliminate Measure J.”
Problem with valuing that opinion is that it is factually incorrect. You have never made a full throated denunciation of Measure J.
“For expressing the view that we need modifications to the law, apparently I don’t “support Measure J” or I am attempting to “undermine or eliminate” it. That’s the problem. This has become a third rail of politics, we can never even propose amendments without getting Mau Maued.”
You aren’t a politician. You hold no public office. Yet you are afraid of public opinion. Its a cowardly view of journalistic independence
First, direct democracy for something like long term land planning and urban finances is just a bad idea.
But it occurred to me that if there were politicians who are brave enough to “seek forgiveness rather than permission”; I believe that land outside of Davis could be entitled through the county and then annexed basically doing an end around Measure J. This of course would pss off many Davis voters. But if it were a successful project; then maybe the voters would forgive/forget. (voters tend to forgive/forget city leaders that keep approving these projects the people keep voting down). Or maybe not…but at least you still have a new development. I wonder if the county would be open to this kind of loop hole strategy….as I’m guessing that the county is under some pressure to produce housing at their level and they’d like to get all urban development done in the cities as much as possible. Personally, I’d only support this if housing were attached to industrial/commercial development.
True story. Simply put. Many deny that it is “true story”… I’m not one of them…
Add, ‘engineering design’ (should we vote on whether water should flow downhill, “repeal” the law of gravity?), ‘maintenance’ methods/priorities, etc.
That said, ‘back-door’ strategies oft ‘back-fire’… we need to “own” the paths we choose… even if we need to re-visit them if things ‘go askew’…
As they say in financial/investment circles, “past performance is no guarantee of future results”… also ‘true story’…
We are all, “works in progress”… as a community, and as individuals…
I have been living here since I came out here for my graduate studies in 1991.
My daughter was born here. She attended school here. More than half of my life has been spent here, active in the music and artist community.
Most of my musician/artist friends are gone now. They can no longer afford to rent here.
I have always rented and never owned a home. I have been fortunate enough to rent from friends and family for the last decade, who have been wonderfully supportive and have helped me stay here while my daughter attended school, but this will be changing soon.
The fact is, I will NEVER be able to afford a home here, in the town where I grew up in, my daughter grew up in. Neither will my music community – most of them are gone. Davis drove them out with their impossible housing prices and rents.
If you haven’t lived here for more than 5-10 years you probably didn’t notice the difference. By then most of the folks who were helped make this place so vibrant and alive in the 90s to 2000-2010. They don’t remember farmers market on 2cnd street, they don’t remember a time when nationally touring music acts would stop in davis regularly. They might remember the Frat Boy/Sorority Meat Market at Ket Mo Ree or Tres Hermanas though.
If gentrifying the artists community out of Davis was the objective, reducing downtown to a grey culturally dead zone with out-of-town business franchises on every corner was the goal … well I have to say it worked wonderfully.
Seems like these two statements conflict with each other, but yeah – if you weren’t able to purchase a house in the 1990s, it’s a lot more difficult to do so now – everywhere.
If only someone could invent a time machine, we’d all do things a lot differently than we did.
This is why I support rent control, though musicians/artists always struggle – especially as costs rise.
I’d estimate that about half the folks in Davis were “priced out” of their original homes (myself included). Look no further than the technology industry (and the vast discrepancies in wealth that creates), regarding the reason for that.
Ultimately, this is how capitalism works. It’s also a reason that many of those who live in Davis would likely prefer to live somewhere else (such as the Bay Area), but can’t afford it. Davis is not the center of the universe, regarding desirability. And truth be told, it’s prices reflect that reality, compared to more-expensive locales.
(For that matter, even parts of Sacramento itself rival Davis prices. And Sacramento is not thought of as a high-priced city.)
I do know someone who lives in a rent-controlled flat in their original home town, and pays less than most people do in property tax (for a new home in this region).
The fact is, I will NEVER be able to afford a home here, in the town where I grew up in, my daughter grew up in. Neither will my music community – most of them are gone. Davis drove them out with their impossible housing prices and rents.
There is a problem with the last sentence of Joseph’s comment above … over the past decade (and more) the historical housing sale prices in Davis and the surrounding communities tells a different story.
Specifically, for the 11.25-year period from August 2010 through November 2021, the annual percentage home value appreciation …
in Davis was 5.5%.In California it was 10.4%.In Woodland it was 10.5%.In West Sacramento it was 10.6%.In Dixon it was 10.4%.
Regarding the escalation of rents, the driver of that problem is that UCD is the host of UCD students. As the host, UCD has the responsibility of taking care of its invited guests. Unfortunately UCD has largely abdicatred that responsibility and students with ready cash drive up the demand for Davis rental housing … andf as a result the price of those rentals.
Using housing price escalation from the deepest point of the Great Recession housing crash is not a valid comparison. The Davis housing market was protected through growth controls and rising UCD admissions from the severity of the crash. (I posted about this fact a few years ago.) Woodland and West Sac were largely exposed to the market crash like many other communities. The affordability problem that Joseph writes about is better described by price escalation from the late 1990s to today.
In 1996 we sold our house in West Sacramento for $143,000 and bought a house in Village Homes for $196,000. Today Zillow shows the value of the West Sac house as $534,000; the Village Homes house is $1,046,000. The West Sac house appreciated 5.1% per year; the Village Homes house 6.6%. That differential is the source of unaffordability in Davis.
Matt, we differ on the responsibility that our community has to the state’s taxpayers to house UCD students and staff. To look at the economic and cultural benefits that UCD, which has been funded largely through government sources (legacy funding is key here, not what’s happening today), we only need to compare ourselves to Dixon which has situated nearly identically when the UC Farm was established in 1906. We can’t blame our woes on UCD because UCD is our sustenance.
Richard, your implication is that the data is cherry picked. Those were the years available in the housing sales database. If you can provide a similarly robust sales price database going back further in time, I would love to incorporate that into my assembled information sources.
We absolutely do differ on the responsibility. If the State wanted the City to be responsible for the University, then they would have incorporated the university into the City Limits, but they didn’t … and we are all saddled with the consequences of that decision.
Help me understand the economic benefits that UCD currently provides to either the City (as a municipal jurisdiction) or the city as a community. Twenty years ago when Landon and I arrived in Davis the economic benefits were much easier to make a case for, because such a high proportion of City of Davis residents were employed by the University; however that number had declined to less than 5,000. Davis residents who were UCD faculty members in 2002 teaching classes were easy to find. Now what you find are retired faculty members, who feel abandoned by the University as it has morphed from an Arts and Sciences university into a Research university. In that way Davis no longer is a University town. Just as the personal connection to the University has flagged, so too have the cultural benefits. An outing for dinner and then the Mondavi with friends used to be a regular occurrence, but with all the local restaurants catering to UCD students, where can anyone get a “Mondavi-quality” dinner in Davis these days? Our favorite restaurant in Davis before the pandemic served 97 items, now that number is down to 20. Konditorei is gone. Where is there an adult restaurant that you would recommend to someone who is going to the Mondavi.
Bottom-line, we no longer are a University town, we are a student town … with a substantial retiree component. Help me understand how adding an even higher proportion of UCD students is going to make that better.
True of my Aunt… she could have afforded to own a home, but preferred to have the landlord deal with maintenance (not her forte), and retired securely after a long career, and actually left a modest estate to her family.
Home ownership is NOT the be all/end all for all people.
My Aunt chose to live/rent close to work, on a good transit route, easy walking distance for groceries, CVS, etc. … she had a big enough place where she, my Grandmother, and guests could stay… she was perfectly content and happy… in an urban area in PA… she was professionally employed.
This whole housing thingy has been distorted by ‘partisans’… based on ownership vs. rental, race, wealth-building vs. needs/contentment, etc.
Folk have not acknowledged “different strokes for different folks”… many, many, use only their own “lens” in the ‘housing’ discussion… a form of “profiling”?
Joseph
I agree that Davis has lost its vitality. I knew many of those unique musicians, and now their nearing retirement age with no young talent coming behind them. A Davis Music Fest two decades ago could have drawn largely from local talent. That’s no longer the case. This town has lost its innovative restaurants. I’ve been struck by how most of the recent replacements are just common denominator establishments or just cater to students. The bifurcation of the town’s population is not healthy for what we’ve valued by having a university at the core of our community. We’re killing it.
.
Isn’t common denominator restaurants the same as just cater to restaurants?
“Common denominator” means the same standard menu. We’re being flooded with Appleby wannabes. So many burgers, pizza and tacos! Gone are Tucos, several different innovators in space next to Village Bakery, Bistro 33, deVere’s, KetMoRe (along with several other Thai restuarants), Blue Mango and Farmer’s Wife, Chay’s Corner. There’s been little to replace the gaps in cuisine. Instead we get Cane’s…
“We must find a way to defeat the will of the people!”
Be careful… ‘the will of the people’ have led to segregation, lynchings, the rise of Hitler & Mussolini, “no Irish allowed!”, etc., etc., etc.
Some have contended that ‘the will of the people’ was thwarted in 2020, and that a certain former president had the ‘election stolen’, and he had won in a landslide of the “will of the people”…
The “will of the people” is truly a two-edged sword… those that “win” in an election support ‘the will of the people’… those that “lose” are not as supportive… neither ‘own’ truth, nor righteousness, nor justice… ‘the will of the people’ says Reisig is a great DA… that “affirmative action” is wrong… etc., etc., etc.
Famous concept: “Be careful what you ask for… you might just have your wish granted.”
Dad opined (after serving on several juries), that if he was guilty of a charged crime, he’d want a jury trial (“will of the people”)… if innocent, he’d choose a ‘bench trial’…
The “will of the people” has succeeded sometimes, resulted in horrendous results in others… depends on whether your perspective is “we won” or “we lost”… again, a two-edged sword… the “will of the people” can lead to mob violence, suppression of ‘the minority’, etc. Remember “the will of the people” plays out differently, in different states re: Roe vs. Wade, capital punishment, inclusive/exclusive zoning and housing, etc., etc.
Basic facts. Historically true. Even now.
[Fascists, communists, power grubbers, sanctimonious religious, atheists, etc., all cite “the will of the people” to justify their agendas]
The city has already approved a bunch of megadorms, at its own detriment. Ask HCD for the reason that these units are not counting toward RHNA requirements.
This entire statement is subjective. Regardless, Woodland (in particular) is providing a lot of new single-family dwellings (e.g., for new employees at UCD). Even there, you need $600K or more to purchase a traditional dwelling.
UCD is not Davis, and Davis is not a major employer.
Again, a subjective comment. Seems to me that an approval every 10 years or so is “plenty”.
True – people who don’t live in Davis don’t get to vote regarding Measure J or other city issues. How far out do you propose expanding the voting jurisdiction? (Perhaps regionwide, statewide, or nationwide?) Note that “those with homes” in Davis include renters.
Good idea, regarding Dan Carson proposing this again. This would be a perfect “solution” regarding any proposal to weaken Measure J.
Truth be told, it doesn’t really matter what David writes on here, regarding efforts to weaken Measure J. (Look at the DiSC results, if you want to see how much influence he actually has.)
In fact, his efforts to weaken Measure J started well-before this point. Which again, failed.
But if he’s still voting for it (despite wanting to change it), then he does support it (more than not).
“ The city has already approved a bunch of megadorms, at its own detriment. Ask HCD for the reason that these units are not counting toward RHNA requirements.”
They count, they just count by the unit, not the bed.
That’s my understanding, as well.
So, a 5-bedroom megadorm counts the same as a one-bedroom apartment.
And, they don’t count at all as Affordable housing.
The entire Nishi development has no Affordable housing, per HCD. (I believe that this is what the lawsuit noted.) If Affordable housing is limited to students, it “doesn’t count”.
Cites? You may well be correct… but unclear what the rules are…
But as far as Affordable housing is concerned, this is dependent upon state funding. Probably the reason that Creekside took some 20 years to build. Affordable housing is anything but “affordable” to actually build, as anyone who follows the news already knows. (I saw a headline yesterday, which noted that it costs more than $700K per unit in Santa Rosa. And something like $1 million, in Los Angeles.)
(As a side note, some agency needs to audit these costs, to see where that money is going.)
I’d suggest not encircling Davis with Affordable housing, regardless (e.g., via the Measure J exemption).
In fact, I’d ask how much Davis can afford to accommodate Affordable housing, in general. No analysis has been performed regarding its overall fiscal impact.
I think the voters would nix the annexation. All it takes is 25% of the registered voters to protest to trigger an election. If more than 50% protest no election is required, the annexation fails.
While gathering signatures for the annexation protest, we may as well gather signatures for the council member recalls.
Yes… and if a rezone within City limits, or an annexation, is denied, the initiative/referendum process could be used on “the flip side” (to approve)… might be interesting… same laws, same two-edged sword… ‘gotta protect “the will of the people”… unless of course, you don’t like the results…
And those strategies worked, and are still “in play”…
Then it got flipped (no “accident”, there!), where no protest is needed, automatic vote required, and the proponents need over 50%… surprised the ‘architects’ of Measure J, etc., didn’t make it 60% (what a proposal needs to get past the CC), 66.7% or 80%… it is what it is… maybe they should have made it 95% to approve… and, technically, if a project passes a JeRkeD vote, the “will of the people” can get up an initiative for a “do over”… only need 25% (actually, am remembering it is somewhat less than that, but could be wrong) of opponents to force a “do-over”… after all, placing an item on a Measure J/R/D vote is a CC action, ‘subject to referendum’…
We’ll see… might come to that, might not… above my ‘paygrade’…
Did he really write that? I think we need to have a discussion about what those city limits things are again. So who gets to vote? Any any Tom, Dick or Sherry that wants to live in Davis? I mean, giving people a direct vote over these matters is stupid. But if you’re going to vote; ya think the voters should be the ones with a stake in the matter? Ya know…the people that already live in Davis?
But only if they are citizens. Many international students and post docs live in the city and pay rent but don’t get to vote. So add that to all the people who live in close proximity on the south side of Russell because we refuse to annex the campus and you start to get a large number of interested but disenfranchised people excluded from annexation elections in Davis.
By the way Keith, Frank Ramos forced the city to annex Mace Ranch in the 80’s by going to the county. As a result the County Board of Supervisors now has a policy of not approving development on city boundaries without approval from the cities in Yolo County. I don’t expect that policy to change any time soon unless it is to address changes imposed by the State of California.
Why oh why would the city take on such an massive burden? And we refuse the annex the campus??? LOL! What on god’s green earth would persuade UCD; which gets state exemptions on many regulations and is basically it’s own fiefdom it’s own sovereign mini state to be annexed into the city of Davis? As for the woefully disenfranchised??? Do we worry that people in Dixon and Woodland can’t vote in Davis elections? Should we annex them too so they get a vote?
The changes imposed by the state of California are the reason I proposed my unlikely hypothetical solution. The County is under pressure to produce housing which it wants by policy to be in urban centers (cities). Measure J didn’t exist in the 80’s. It does now and it’s a thorn in the side of housing advocates in the city and county (keep in mind, that I’m not one of them…at least not a market rate housing advocate). My hypothetical solution is that the city leaders get the county to approve an industrial/commercial project and in return takes on some housing (hopefully a significant amount of affordable housing to satisfy the HCD). It all makes sense for the county and city. But it makes no political sense for city leaders unless they don’t care if they’re immediately re-elected (maybe 10 years later; if the project is usefully bringing tax revenue/services for the city; that/those leader(s) can mount a comeback)…..but again this all very unlikely to happen.
“What on god’s green earth would persuade UCD; which gets state exemptions on many regulations and is basically it’s own fiefdom it’s own sovereign mini state to be annexed into the city of Davis? As for the woefully disenfranchised??? Do we worry that people in Dixon and Woodland can’t vote in Davis elections? Should we annex them too so they get a vote?”
Yes, I live in the past. I admit it. There was a time before West Village was built that the question of annexation came before U.C., the County and the City. It was the County and the City that blocked it. UC was willing to annex and negotiate an M.O.U. for services. A truly sad missed opportunity in my humble opinion.
As for the woefully disenfranchised we could look at allowing non-citizen residents to vote in our local elections. I think SanFrancisco did this with school board elections and then they recalled the school board. Perhaps enfranchising these residents would enrich our city elections.
Correct me if I’m wrong…but I believe that was an effort to annex the student dorms and not the entire campus. If that’s the case; absolutely UCD would be more than willing to give up the burden of providing services to all those people. So it’s not surprise that the city and county blocked it.
You gotta define who can vote and who can’t. There are obvious reasons why locals (those that live in the city limits) and citizens are the voters. Otherwise political whims are a nebulous free for all who’s interests that don’t align (and that alignment is defined by who and who can’t vote in a local election). Like I said, we don’t allow people that live in Woodland or Dixon to vote in Davis elections. You have to draw the lines somewhere to define common interests and stakes.
It was West Village that was proposed for annexation. It never got beyond the discussion stage, and this article explains why:
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2010/02/council-discusses-the-issue-of-annexation-of-west-village/
“You gotta define who can vote and who can’t. There are obvious reasons why locals (those that live in the city limits) and citizens are the voters.”
Although I personally believe we should annex the campus and allow all those students to vote in the city a consistent and logical argument can be made against doing so. I get that. But what is the obvious reason why non-citizen residents, many of whom are well educated and pay taxes, shouldn’t be allowed to vote in local elections?
Are you seriously suggesting that non-US citizens be enfranchised, while acknowledging there are ‘consistent and logical arguments’ where students who are US citizens, living on campus, 9 mos. of the year cannot? I find that neither consistent nor logical.
Your arguments/posits are at best, confusing…
And why just ‘local elections’? Why not state and federal? Your logic eludes me. Please clarify. I’ll try to understand, if you can provide clarity.
What ‘groups’ do you wish to ‘enfranchise’?
It is lawful for non-US citizens to vote in state and local but not federal elections, fyi.
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States
I’ll take a stab at answering this for Ron G. (I don’t necessarily agree with the reasoning). Ron G. is suggesting that non-US citizens that LIVE IN THE CITY OF DAVIS be allowed to vote. Why? Simply because they are already part of the community. The reasoning behind denying students living on campus the right to vote is because annexing the student dorms (thus putting them inside the city of Davis and making those students eligible to vote) would be a financial and logistical burden on the city of Davis. Also, from a socio-economic perspective; do you really want to give the right to vote to such a large number of short term residents? Their view and experience of Davis are short term yet their votes have long term consequences.
Keith, don’t you think the dorms are high-density, high value kinds of properties which would likely be a net positive for the city on a property tax base?
With regards to students shouldnt vote… thats a comment that I first heared 3o years ago when I was a student, and it was an undemocratic idea back then too. Having a voice in the civic process which affects you is a constitutional right.
Nobody has done it, and I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I suspect that if someone sued to give dorm residents the right to register to vote in the city, they would probably win.
No. The only analysis that’s actually been performed showed an ever-increasing fiscal loss (for Sterling), after a number of years.
And stop calling me “Keith”. 🙂
I’d suggest that Dan Carson “lead the charge”.
Did you read the link I posted?
Yes… did you? Quoting your cite, above…
So California could pass a law to allow non-citizens to vote. Davis could pass a law to allow non-citizens to vote just like SF has, not sure if Davis would have to become a charter city to do so, however.
Good clarification… thank you… gets back to my question(s) of Ron G.
Which are unanswered as of now… does he mean ‘resident non-US citizens’? Difference between US citizens living on campus, vs. non-citizens living off-campus… still looking for clarification
Who does he seek to enfranchise? Still looking for clarification
And I pose three others (prompted by your clarification, David): Why? Will California pass a law to enfranchise non-citizens, for ‘full voting’ or except for ‘advisory votes’? Will Davis vote to do the same, if enabled by State authority?
Things are what they are, in the here and now…
But, thank you for clarifying the difference between “what is”, and “what might be possible, if laws change”…
Per David’s cite…
Interesting thought, given Ron G’s and David’s comments…
“Should non-US-Citizens get to vote on whether non-US-Citizens get to vote?” Seems like a Catch 22 wrapped in a philosophical enigma, and/or paradox…