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

<

>

A Win for Measure W – Willowgrove May Be Our Last Chance to Preserve Our Direct Vote on Local Projects

By Elaine Roberts Musser and Dan Carson

Measure W -Willowgrove is the latest housing development to come up for consideration under Measure J/R/D.  This measure is the City of Davis law that requires a majority vote of the public to annex farmland or open space to our city for urban development.

As you assess the merits of this project, it’s important to understand where we stand today. The state has imposed mandatory requirements for communities like ours to rezone the land needed for additional housing. These requisites include additional units of low income housing, as well as housing for moderate income persons who work in Davis but cannot afford to live here.  Our failure to comply with these mandates would, without question, trigger state intervention to force our compliance with state housing policy.

That state intervention could even result in state action to override Measure J/R/D itself. The last legislative session saw strongly bipartisan approval in the Assembly of AB 2676. This bill would have curbed the use of local initiatives and referenda, that are widely being used around the state to block cities from meeting their state-mandated housing obligations.  AB 2676 did not pass the Senate, but has momentum, and will almost certainly be reconsidered in some form in next year’s legislative session.

The recent failure at the ballot box of Village Farms Davis is already attracting attention in Sacramento. In our view, if voters want to keep their voice at the table in important local land-use decisions, it is imperative that Measure W – Willowgrove succeed. Measure W needs to be resoundingly approved by Davis voters and move this important project forward.

The good news is that Measure W – Willowgrove is an excellent project, with an impressive list of positive attributes, that amply deserves your “yes” vote. 

There are too many positive features to mention in this brief article. You may wish to go to the Yes on W website, at https://www.yesonw-willowgrove.com/, and the City of Davis election website, at https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/city-clerk/elections/november-3-2026-general-municipal-election, to get a more complete picture. But here are a few aspects of the project that make it a winner in our eyes:

  • Willowgrove would add 250 deed-restricted affordable homes. Another 288 of the total 1,250 homes are financially attainable middle income housing. These are big steps forward toward meeting our future state-mandated housing obligations.
  • At least 20 dedicated units would be set aside for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, a first for Davis. The Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services pushed very hard for this important type of housing that is so lacking, and the Willowgrove team understood the need from personal experience. Bravo to the Willowgrove developers for its inclusion!
  • Willowgrove will open the opportunity for young families to move into neighborhoods and homes that they can afford and that are suitable for children. These critical features, sadly, are a rarity in today’s Davis housing market. This will bolster attendance numbers within our school system. That, in turn, will help our academically outstanding school district navigate the serious threat of school closures and the risk of degradation of its excellent educational programs.
  • The addition of more housing will bring in new customers for our local businesses, helping to keep the downtown vibrant and fiscally viable. It could provide the critical mass needed for the long-planned commercial center at the Cannery to be revived. Neighborhood retail in Willowgrove will also provide walkable options currently not available and local employment. All of this helps ailing city finances.
  • Willowgrove has extensive amenities that can be used by the entire Davis community and will be 100% developer funded.  A 17-acre community park will include a 9,500 square-foot gymnasium, lighted athletic fields, pickleball courts, a dog park, shaded pavilions, and a large, inclusive playground.  More than 70 acres of trails and greenbelts for biking and walking will crisscross Willowgrove, where 2,500 new trees will also be planted.
  • The project will fund $11 million in traffic improvements along East Covell Blvd, the Mace Corridor and at I-80 interchanges. This should go a long way to mitigate traffic problems that exist today and are likely to go unfunded without Willowgrove. A safe route to school plan has been included that takes advantage of both an existing undercrossing of Covell Boulevard and Willowgrove’s proximity to Harper Junior High.
  • With the generation of new property taxes, retail sales tax, and long-term City maintenance funding commitments, Willowgrove is a fiscally responsible project that will generate a net surplus for Davis.

If Measure W passes, it is a clear demonstration that J/R/D works. The above list of Willowgrove amenities are examples of the kinds of enhancements that our local community was empowered to negotiate for. And they are included only because of Measure J/R/D that is in place today. That leverage will be lost if a “no” vote on Measure W triggers state legislative or administrative action to override Measure J/R/D.

Accordingly, we gladly endorse the proposed Willowgrove housing development. No project is perfect. However, we are convinced that the new community of Willowgrove will be a huge net positive for our community. Please vote YES on W!

Elaine Roberts Musser is an attorney who has served on county and city commissions as well as various task forces.  She was given the award of Davis Citizen of the Year in 2014. Dan Carson is a former Davis City Council member and member of the city Finance and Budget Commissioner with a 45-year career in journalism and state and local government service.

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, , , , , ,
Davisite logo

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

Comments

9 responses to “A Win for Measure W – Willowgrove May Be Our Last Chance to Preserve Our Direct Vote on Local Projects”

  1. Peter Buggy

    I don’t subscribe to the idea that having a gun to one’s head – especially a legislative gun – is reason enough to do anything. And I’m a skeptic about deed restricted housing due to the significant negative impact on the homeowner’s ability to build modest wealth. I find it interesting that Habitat for Humanity exists in YOLO Co (W. Sac and Woodland), but not in Davis. To make housing truly affordable for young families Davis needs a more creative and diverse approach rather than rely solely on developer driven housing. The issue at hand is not “more housing” but “more housing that’s affordable.” Measure W is fine as far as it goes but it’s not enough!

    Reply
    1. Eileen Samitz

      Actually there is nothing far-fetched about this article. The reality is that Measure J/R/D was intended to give leverage to our community to negotiate for better projects when we needed to expand to ag land and open space, and that’s what it has accomplished with Willowgrove.

      Willowgrove is a terrific project with plenty of open space, a built-in undercrossing in place for safe access at no cost to the public, a beautiful park with an indoor gymnasium which will be complete funded by the developer, and most importantly affordable housing which will get built since they have partnered with an affordable housing builder, and there will be predominately smaller houses on smaller lots to make them more affordable.

      So, Willowgrove is great project which deserves our Yes votes, and it will help to protect Measure J/R/D.

      Reply
    2. darelldd

      I came here to mention the “gun to the head” concept. So thanks for raising the important point.

      If we need to vote yes on something only to preserve the right to vote no on other things…. does that vote really reflect the will of the voters?

      Reply
  2. Alan C. Miller

    I’ve been intending to vote for Measure W, but if you want me to consider voting against it, take the approach of this article. This is basically the Davis Vanguard BS: “You’ll lose your ability to have a choice, so you have no choice but to vote yes”. Yeah, RIGHT! Do you think we are morons? (Don’t answer that)

    Also, if I were Willowgrove I’d pay Dan Carson NOT to endorse my project and go crawl under a rock until November. After the guy all but lost the election for another developer, who would want him speaking on their behalf?

    Oh, and the schools closing BS. Heard the same thing about Village Homes. Just give bad arguments a rest, and if you want the project to win, talk about its merits and leave the BS in the composting toilet.

    Reply
    1. darelldd

      Bravo. I approve of your message, Alan.

      Reply
  3. Ron O

    Willowgrove is a textbook example of sprawl (spreading outward), and is nowhere near downtown, UCD, or any services other than the school across the street. It’s also massive in size.

    It’s a commuter site, for those working at other locations.

    And for those who support this as an “alternative” to Village Farms – the only thing this proposal accomplishes is a “delay” before a proposal arises there again.

    It’s a mile further away from UCD, downtown, etc, than the Village Farms site.

    There actually is what you “might” refer to as a campaign opposing Measure J, but it is not receiving much attention. Seems like placing this proposal on the ballot so soon after Village Farms is taking its toll regarding any significant effort to oppose it.

    But perhaps the main factor in regard to the lack of a significant campaign opposing Willowgrove is that it’s being touted as an “alternative” to Willowgrove by those who want to delay the inevitable at the Village Farms site. Essentially willing to throw the site “under the bus” in order to delay (not prevent) another proposal at the Village Farms site.

    Akin to selling your soul for a few dollars. Turns out that some are willing to sell-out rather cheaply (and NIMBYism can be a factor regarding that as well. But in an “opposite” manner compared to how that term is normally thought of.) (In other words, “build it over there, instead of here”.) Reminds me of the school district parcel taxes, where the “many” can stick it to the “few”.

    The same tactic was used earlier, in regard to The Cannery. The difference being that The Cannery already consisted of developed land, and was within city limits. And is a whole lot closer to downtown and UCD than Willowgrove is.

    In any case, below is a Facebook link to the “No on Measure W” campaign, such as it is.

    https://www.facebook.com/p/NO-on-Measure-W-Davis-Willowgrove-61592859865746/

    Reply
  4. kkappes

    Elaine Roberts Musser and Dan Carson’s endorsement of Measure W is long on features and silent on the actual problems with this project. They concede no project is perfect, then never name a flaw in this one. Here are a few of the ones they skipped.

    Traffic. They say Willowgrove’s $11 million in road improvements “should go a long way to mitigate traffic problems,” which they describe as existing ones. The real question is what Willowgrove adds, and its own Draft EIR answers it. Even after counting those improvements (turn lanes, signal upgrades, a second westbound lane on Covell, four lanes from Mace to Monarch), the project’s own consultants still rate the VMT, transit, and safety impacts as significant and unavoidable. That isn’t my number. It’s the conclusion of the document we’re being asked to trust.

    Willowgrove also isn’t arriving alone. Add Palomino Place’s 2,096 daily trips to Willowgrove’s 10,422 and this corridor absorbs 12,518, roughly 83% of the 15,000 trips voters rejected at this same intersection under Measure V, by just 276 votes, four months ago.

    Affordability. The endorsement pairs 250 deed-restricted homes with 288 more it calls attainable middle-income housing, and presents both as steps toward the state’s housing mandates. Only the 250 are income-qualified and permanently affordable. The other 288 are market-rate homes made cheaper by smaller lots and attached construction. There’s no income test, prices start around $480,000 (which takes a household at or above area median income), and nothing stops them from reselling at full market price after the first sale. That’s hard to square with the endorsement’s promise of homes that young families and moderate-income Davis workers can afford.

    Who’s building it. The endorsement applauds the Willowgrove developers and promises a park, gym, and fields paid for entirely by them. It says nothing about their record. The applicant behind the 1,000 market-rate homes, the roads, and the park has never completed a residential development anywhere, and a public records request for anything documenting such experience came back empty. The respected affordable-housing partner is a separate company, responsible for one-fifth of the project.

    The scare tactic. The authors say a No vote would invite state intervention and could cost Davis Measure J/R/D itself. Their evidence is AB 2676, which, by their own account, did not pass the state Senate. By their logic, J/R/D only works when voters say yes. That isn’t an argument for this project. It’s an argument against ever rejecting any project. Davis can support housing and still expect a specific proposal on a specific site to clear its own environmental review without landing on “significant and unavoidable.”

    Amenities don’t answer any of this. Vote No on W until something does.

    Reply
    1. Richard

      Kurt
      You ignore the fact that ANY new housing will bring more traffic. The question is only what type of development will have less traffic. Willowgrove is 50 % more dense than Village Farms which means more market rate housing for the 17,000 who already work here but drive in to their jobs. The Fehr and Peers traffic analysis does not account for. I’m addition denser housing will increase transit ridership. We need more housing, no ifs, ands, or buts. You still haven’t come up with a viable alternative.

      Reply
  5. mreyno13

    I support the Willowgrove development project for all the excellent reason Elaine Musser and Dan Carson mention in their excellent overview of the project. Willowgrove will provide needed affordable housing, 20 units for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as well as many acres of green spaces and other public amenities.
    Another major reason I support Willowgrove is the outreach to the community undertaken by the developers for ideas and suggestions and the fact that this was not a public relations ploy but a genuine attempt to learn what were the concerns of the community. And many ideas were indeed incorporated into the project.
    Davis needs more affordable housing and Willowgrove will help meet that imperative need as well as bring more students to our schools and enlarge our tax base. Davis will grow responsibly. Willowgrove will enhance our city in several ways to everyone’s benefit.
    I will vote YES on Measures W enthusiastically.

    Reply

Leave a Reply