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

Category: Housing

  • The Future of Davis is Rooted in Community: Why I Support Village Farms

    By Linda Deos

    As a member of the Davis City Council, my primary responsibility is to look toward the horizon. I am constantly asking: How do we preserve the soul of the city we love while ensuring it remains a viable, vibrant home for the next generation? Since the initial planning application for Village Farms was submitted in April 2023, I have engaged deeply with the details, the data, and—most importantly—the residents.

    Over the last three years, this project has undergone rigorous public scrutiny, environmental review, and repeated refinement. After witnessing this collaborative process and reviewing the robust commitments secured in the project’s Baseline Features, I am proud to support Measure V. Village Farms Davis is not just another housing development; it is a meticulously planned extension of our community values.

    (more…)

  • Lack of transparency in the relationship between DJUSD and Village Farms developer

    Screenshot

    By Elizabeth Coolbrith

    I am a parent with two children in DJUSD schools, and I’m sharing this focused update because Davis voters deserve to see some specific information that hasn’t been laid out clearly in one place. This goes to the heart of transparency and illuminates an aspect of the relationship between DJUSD leadership and the Village Farms developer. Now that these documents are public, I feel a responsibility to share them.

    Two pieces stand out:

    First, there is long‑term developer funding of DJUSD entities tied to Village Farms developer John Whitcombe and Tandem Properties, who have been major funders of DJUSD through the Tandem Foundation. Public records show roughly $40,000 a year in donations to Davis schools for over 20 years, totaling close to $500,000 as of 2023. These generous donations are legal. But they can create the appearance of a very close, ongoing financial relationship between this developer and the district.

    Second, newly released public records include an email from the Village Farms development team asking DJUSD to keep Measure V communications off email.

    (more…)

  • Measure V is a Very Bad Idea

    By Glen Holstein

    The Environmental Impact Report provided by the Village Farms consortium includes the following: “groundwater beneath the project site…appears to have been impacted by the former landfill…Eight contaminants were found to exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level…detected …PFAS…compounds and manganese appear to originate from the Old Davis Landfill.  Three PFAS compounds exceeded their…USEPA water quality standards…Anomalously high…groundwater elevations were reported…for…dry seasons…the depth to water…was reported as 9.93 feet on September…elevations…not typical of dry-season conditions.”

    Despite their own EIR’s abundant evidence Village Farms consortium plans to invite home buyers to live just a few feet above toxic groundwater, which it has consistently either ignored or minimized.  The resulting potential outcome is no mystery.  A New York state school district  first built schools in such a place. and then arranged for homes to be built there as well so families would fill the schools.  The only problem was that when the toxic groundwater rose in elevation, as it often does, kids and their parents living there ended up in hospitals instead of classrooms.

    This Love Canal disaster of the 1970’s was so notorious it led to Superfund legislation, but those who made it happen could at least honestly claim nothing like it had ever happened before.  Those who fast tracked Village Farms in Davis, however, have no such excuse.

    (more…)

  • Two issues about Willowgrove Project need to be addressed

    [The following email by Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser was sent to the Davis City Council today and is posted to the Davisite at the request of the authors]

    Dear City Councilmembers,

    As you move toward final action on Tuesday on the Willowgrove project, which could provide new housing our community needs, we urge you to address two significant issues (both referenced in your new city staff report) that we strongly believe will undermine its chances of winning voter approval this November.  

    Fourth City Fire Station

    Last month, at a Planning Commission hearing on the Willowgrove project, a city planning staff member suggested the city has decided to build a fourth city fire station. For weeks city staff has since declined to answer specific questions posed to them about the city’s intentions. We believe this is an important matter for you to consider, given the findings of a city consultant in a 2018 study, that our community does not need an expensive fourth fire station the city cannot afford. 

    Additionally your new city staff report contains a strong hint city staff are still pursuing a four-fire station plan. Notably, it cites a fiscal analysis by BAE Urban Economics that analyzes the projected net operating costs to the city from just such a new fourth city fire station. Staff selectively cites a version of the BAE fiscal analysis that assumes the 15 year fiscal impact of such a  project “would be slightly negative at $190,422”. This is based on the assumption that other city residents gained from future new development projects would shoulder most of the costs of the operation of a fourth new fire station. 

    Why is this matter relevant to your consideration of Willowgrove?

    (more…)

  • In support of Measure V

    By Ron Glick

    At the beginning of the 21st century, after a period of strong growth, concerned citizens of Davis passed two major reforms to preserve farmland. The first was the Measure J ordinance that requires a popular vote to rezone agricultural land to other uses. This is the reason Measure V, which I support, is on the June ballot. The second reform was a parcel tax dedicated to the preservation of open space around Davis. 

    Together, these two reforms have been incredibly successful in preserving farmland in the area directly surrounding the city of Davis. In the last 25 years, and with little acrimony or fanfare, thousands of acres of land have been purchased by the city or otherwise preserved under conservation easements. The City of Davis Open Space Commission deserves the thanks of everyone in Davis who cares about land preservation.

    (more…)

  • A Long-Term, Pragmatic Plan for a Livable & Sustainable Davis

    By The Davis Citizens Planning Group

    The Davis Citizens planning group would like to present our vision for a pragmatic, realistic, and sustainable way to develop our city going forward.   This vision represents several months of work and builds upon a series of articles we have published over the past two years on the topics of how we might plan our city to have housing that is  more affordable, sustainable, and a city that is more liveable and economically viable.

    In the past we have framed our commentary in a reactive way with respect to the developments in the housing proposals being considered.   Going forward, we have decided to be more proactive, starting with best practices, and advocating for a top-down city-wide vision for how we develop our city not just for the upcoming 25-year general plan cycle, but looking towards the end of the century.

    Over the past few decades, more and more thinkers in the field of urban planning have come around to endorsing what is essentially the same set of strategies for urban planning:

    (more…)

  • It’s A “May” Day for Village Farms

    Words Do Matter

    By David Thompson

    To: Citizens of Davis on May Day
    From:  David J Thompson. Affordable Housing Advocate
    Re: Recent words used by or about Village Farms

    Text in recent mailer from Village Farms reads as follows:

    “Davis Needs Housing – Village Farms is the Answer, Housing for All…construction of 360 Permanently Affordable Homes.”

    140 high density rental apartments very low-income families (max income family of 4 = $31,450)

    140 high density rental apartments low-income families, (max income family of 4 = $83,900).

    80 permanently restricted for sale units for moderate income families (max income for family of 4 = $136,800.

    As a long-time co-developer of affordable housing in Davis, I see a real problem in getting these units being built except  possibly as high density apartments with a very hard to get substantial subsidy. These will not be single family homes and there is no subsidy for this income group.

    These “360 Permanently Affordable Homes” imply houses, however 280 of these units would be apartments, not houses only for lower income qualified residents. Also, this developer is not building any of these affordable units except he “may” build 100 lower income affordable rental apartments in the last phase (Phase 3) in 10 years or more down the road. But he “may” not. Let me explain this disingenuous affordable housing “plan”.

    (more…)

  • What does “No on Measure V” really stand for?

    By Matt Williams

    For Davisite readers, the following is a response to an Alan Pryor post that made the following accusation, “Grass Roots” is not an accurate description of the opposition to Village Farms. How do you spell “NIMBY”? It is not spelled “Grass-roots”! (see https://nextdoor.com/p/9nSwSrmBTckW/c/1585068648?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=1776984857876&share_action_id=a32ff6cd-07c2-4764-a989-a686060c125a)
     
    Alan, is there a reason you are deploying the “If you can’t address the message, attack the messenger” tactic?  There are very few NIMBYs in No on Measure V.   That is very clear in the unifying principles of No on Measure V, which were just yesterday presented to DTA, the DJUSD teachers union, and are anything but NIMBY, specifically:

    (more…)

  • Letter: Katie Porter is the fighter we need

    [Note: This letter first appeared in the Davis Enterprise online on Apr 6 and in print on Apr 12]

    Davisites, let’s throw our support behind Katie Porter for CA Governor — now, when we can really make a difference.

    California has a “top two” primary, meaning that the top two candidates from the June election will be the candidates we vote on in November. Right now, there are so many Democrats in the race that there is a serious risk of splitting the vote so badly that we will end up having a choice between two Republicans.

    We cannot let this happen. Thus far most candidates, even those with low polling numbers, won’t drop out. So we have to coalesce around one of the Democrats.

    I urge that we coalesce around Katie Porter.

    Porter is most known for her fiery whiteboard talks, holding corporate CEOs accountable, especially with regard to health care and big pharma. As a US congressperson, she passed laws that reined in the greed of the health care industry.

    She has a strong environmental record and will fight to expand clean energy and defend our clean air laws. She has pledged to protect our wildlands, open spaces, and oceans.

    She will work for federal funding for housing and to foster CA businesses.

    She has been endorsed by the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals, the Orange County Employees Association, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and California’s Amalgamated Transit Union.

    Porter will bring the fight that we need in these difficult political times. Please write a letter or send a donation now to register your support.

    Roberta Millstein

  • Let’s Play Contamination Whack-a-Mole with Opponents of Village Farms Davis

    By Alan Pryor

    INTRODUCTION

    A recent article was published in the Davis Enterprise (3/22/26) entitled “Village Farms Contaminant Risks” which purportedly discussed the alleged “risks” of environmental harm due to concentrations of a class of chemicals found in the groundwater beneath the Old Davis Landfill. These chemicals, known as PFASs, are likely found in the groundwater as a result of seepage from the long-since closed Old Davis Landfill. This article was later reprinted in a slightly altered form in the Davisite and Davis Vanguard on March 29,

    Unfortunately, however, the authors of the article really only repeated information already known about the concentrations of this only remaining organic contaminant currently found in  the groundwater.

    Further, the authors completely failed to actually quantify any real environmental “risk”of any type that this reported contamination might actually cause. Instead, the authors essentially  just say,”It’s there and it’s really bad”! – albeit saying that in a very ponderous and sonorous but seemingly credible manner. 

    But the authors did not even attempt to quantify the real likelihood of any environmental risk in their article. Why?…Because the risk of contamination is so infinitesimally low that to properly quantify that risk and disclose that information to the public would completely undermine their attempts to scare and frighten the public. This is not a thoughtful, deliberate scientific report. This is yellow journalism pure and simple.

    Let me explain.

    (more…)