Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Why a Cannery Mom is Voting Yes on Measure V: We Shouldn’t Pull Up the Drawbridge

By Katharine Dooley-Hedrick

Three years ago, my family moved to the Cannery, drawn by Davis’s reputation as the ideal place to raise kids. Our daughters were five and two, and the strength of Davis’s public schools was central to our decision. Shortly after moving to town, our oldest started Kindergarten and my husband left for a 6-month deployment with the US Navy. In those months as a solo mom to two young kids, I found what so many do in Davis: a community of friends and neighbors that welcomed and supported us. Davis’ commitment to community and neighborly engagement is not something easily found elsewhere.

Today, I cherish the independence my children have found here—the freedom to bike to school and explore our neighborhoods with a sense of security that is increasingly rare. My support for Measure V is rooted in the desire to make this wonderful community more accessible and attainable for other families like ours.

Over the past two years, I’ve spoken with countless community members while volunteering with the Village Farms project. It has been inspiring to hear the many reasons people are drawn here. For many, Davis attracted them as an ideal place to raise their family. Unfortunately, that dream is increasingly unattainable due to a lack of family-friendly homes.

This is why I am voting “Yes” on Measure V. Our community thrives when it is dynamic and multi-generational. By welcoming more families and young people, we do more than just fill houses; we sustain the local businesses that make our downtown vibrant and ensure our schools remain robust. A younger, active population provides the economic energy necessary to keep Davis’s local economy healthy and resilient for the long term.

As a Cannery homeowner, I am also excited by how Village Farms will bridge the gap between our neighborhood and the rest of Davis. We’ve been waiting for our local retail space to thrive. By adding a thoughtful population of neighbors next door, we create the “critical mass” needed to make those shops and cafes a reality. The project delivers the 47 acres of preserved natural habitat that so many of us in the Cannery advocated for, while the new parks and bike paths build upon the connectivity we value. 

My family is a direct beneficiary of the only family-friendly development Davis has built in over a decade: The Cannery. Our neighborhood is evidence that when we build it, families come. You can see this yourselves on any weekend day at the pool or the gangs of kids in bike trains every morning to school. I want to see more of what makes Davis such a special place to raise our kids, not pull up the drawbridge behind me. 

Village Farms offers a path toward a more accessible, attainable, and connected community. I hope you will join me in voting Yes on Measure V.

Katharine Dooley-Hedrick is a Davis Mom and Cannery Homeowner

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

4 responses to “Why a Cannery Mom is Voting Yes on Measure V: We Shouldn’t Pull Up the Drawbridge”

  1. I appreciate hearing this perspective of a Cannery person in particular — it’s not one I’ve heard much of. But the problem is that the connectivity that is being promised on the east and west sides of the project is not what it seems. On the west side, the railroad has to agree — and as we have seen with Nishi and the same developers, that permission is very hard to obtain and the cost very high. If the railroad says no, then there is no grade-separated crossing. For both crossings, the development agreement specifies that as much as 80% (by my read — some people think it says more, and I guess it could be negotiated to more) of the cost of both crossings could be reimbursed to developer. That means in effect that citizens will be paying for those crossings. But you won’t learn any of that from the developer’s literature or ads.

    1. Alan Pryor

      Actually, the developers have posted a letter entitled, “Much Ado about Crossings”, printed in the Davis Vanguard this morning (https://davisvanguard.org/2026/05/bicycle-overcrossing-financing-feasibility/?unapproved=496355&moderation-hash=10190acf1a01796dde5dc8dbb5bda1ad#comment-496355). It fully explains the status of the crossing approvals and the fact that the developer is paying for 100% of the cost of the crossings from 2 sources.

      One source comes from the project’s tens of millions of dollars in traffic impact fees paid by the developer to the City. On construction of the off-grade crossings, the City will pay back to the developer 80% of the cost of the cossings. Essentially the City is paying back the develpers own money for traffic mitigation. The other 20% of the costs are paid directly from the project’s pockets. No taxpayer funds of any type are otherwise used to pay for any aspect of the crossing.

      1. Ah, yes, the second response that Sandy Whitcombe has made to me during this campaign without the basic professional courtesy of naming me by name and making clear what she is responding to. Presumably, she is responding to the two pro and con essays hosted by Bob Dunning’s The Wary One, here: https://www.thewaryone.com/p/today-we-present-two-essays-on-measure

        The first essay is from Sandy Whitcombe and the second is from me, although we did not know at the time who the other person would be. I told Bob that I wasn’t working on the “no” campaign, and he said that was OK, perhaps even better, so I actually thought that the “yes” person would similarly not be someone part of the “yes” campaign. So I was surprised when it turned out to be Sandy, and it’s just a coincidence that I actually do mention her in my piece.

        More substantively: Sandy’s response is basically “trust us”. But language in documents isn’t there by accident or just for window dressing. We all know that it can and does get used. So, the western crossing must be approved by the railroad. Period. The developer can be reimbursed by up to 80% of the cost of both crossings. Period. It’s in black and white. If it’s money that we otherwise thought the developer was paying the City for traffic impacts, so much the worse — it means we voters are not getting something else we thought we were getting. And sorry, no, “trust us” doesn’t work, especially doesn’t work for a developer who, 8 years after approval, still hasn’t begun the Nishi project. She criticizes the Bretton Woods developer for having asked for a change to the development agreement. Well, that’s not such a great response, given that 1) it shows that the development agreement is in fact changeable, and 2) they are actually building Bretton Woods, unlike Nishi.

        When you add this to the affordable housing “trust us,” it’s just not much to really go on.

  2. Ron O

    Interestingly-enough, Woodland’s school district is also projecting an overall decline in the number of students enrolled in its system – despite that city’s ongoing pursuit of sprawl.

    As the link below notes, a large part of the reason is a decline in that district’s birthrates (30% lower than in 2008). You can see this by clicking on the document labeled “Update on Boundaries” that can be seen in the link below.

    Woodland Joint Unified School District Regular Board Meeting | 05/14/2026 – 05:00 PM

Leave a comment