![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/VF-Farms-Site-765x510.webp.webp\")
\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
DAVIS, Calif. \u2014 For years, I have warned that the city\u2019s persistent inability to approve enough housing could eventually invite intervention from the state. Now, those concerns are being echoed by one of the region\u2019s most prominent newspaper voices.<\/p>\n
In a sharply worded opinion column published by The Sacramento Bee<\/a>, Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer Tom Philp <\/a>argued that Davis\u2019 long-standing pattern of rejecting peripheral housing projects has pushed the city to the brink of losing control over its own land-use decisions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe city of Davis, with its booming university and its refusal to build the necessary housing, is now the Sacramento region\u2019s capital of not-in-my-backyard politics,\u201d Philp wrote. \u201cThis has implications for all of us, and particularly for a city that deserves to lose control of its own urban planning.\u201d<\/p>\n Philp\u2019s column comes in the aftermath of the apparent defeat of Measure V, the June ballot measure that sought voter approval for the proposed Village Farms development on the city\u2019s north side. The project would have allowed construction of approximately 1,800 housing units on roughly 400 acres near Covell Boulevard, including a substantial affordable housing component.<\/p>\n \u201cAttorney General Rob Bonta, who is supposed to police cities that have inadequate housing plans, needs to start paying attention,\u201d Philp wrote.<\/p>\n He added that \u201cCity voters are on the verge of rejecting yet another proposed expansion for family housing in the city.\u201d<\/p>\n The apparent failure of Measure V represents the latest chapter in a decades-long struggle over growth in Davis. Since the adoption of Measure J in 2000, later renewed and modified by subsequent measures, voters have retained the power to approve or reject most proposals involving conversion of agricultural land for urban development.<\/p>\n Supporters of the voter-approval process have argued that it protects agricultural land, preserves community character and ensures residents maintain direct control over major growth decisions. <\/p>\n Opponents contend that it has effectively made it impossible for Davis to accommodate population growth associated with the expansion of UC Davis and the broader regional housing crisis.<\/p>\n Philp embraced the latter interpretation.<\/p>\n \u201cMeasure V\u2019s rejection keeps intact a pattern by city voters to reject expansions for residents of all age types throughout the 21st century,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThis is because ever since 2000, Davis has let city voters have the final say on urban expansion. And Davis voters have used this power with devastating effect to frustrate the city from building enough housing to keep up with the necessary growth of UC Davis as it serves its vital statewide mission.\u201d<\/p>\n He pointed to what he described as an absence of successful family-oriented housing projects over the last quarter century.<\/p>\n \u201cSince 2000, only one senior citizen housing project has been built in Davis,\u201d Philp wrote. \u201cThe 150-unit Bretton Woods development was approved in 2018. For housing suitable for faculty, staff or adults who simply want to call Davis home, voters have an unblemished record of saying no.\u201d<\/p>\n Village Farms supporters frequently framed the proposal as an attempt to address exactly those housing needs. The project included plans for a mix of housing types, including smaller homes, apartments and affordable units intended to serve working families, university employees and lower-income residents struggling to remain in Davis.<\/p>\n Opponents raised concerns about traffic, environmental impacts, flooding, toxic contamination and the loss of agricultural land surrounding the city.<\/p>\n Philp acknowledged those concerns, even as he concluded they had produced harmful consequences.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is no doubt that the Davis residents who have been resisting development have been doing so for what they believe are well-intentioned reasons,\u201d he wrote. \u201cGrowth will bring more cars, and reduce open space.\u201d<\/p>\n He continued: \u201cAnd there is always concern that the city\u2019s exhaustive planning process would fail to address community fears, such as flooding and toxic contamination that opponents of Village Farms raised, apparently to their great success.\u201d<\/p>\n The column then turned toward California\u2019s increasingly aggressive enforcement of state housing law.<\/p>\n \u201cBut cities are supposed to develop plans known as housing elements to demonstrate to the state how they intend to build the necessary housing of all types,\u201d Philp wrote. \u201cIf the state finds a housing element to be inadequate, it can intervene so that builders can construct the necessary housing regardless of the local politics.\u201d<\/p>\n Housing elements function as local governments\u2019 blueprints for accommodating their assigned share of regional housing needs. While the state approved Davis\u2019 most recent housing element update in 2024, that approval came after years of scrutiny and earlier findings that the city\u2019s plans contained significant deficiencies.<\/p>\n Philp questioned whether the city\u2019s certified housing element can remain credible if the projects necessary to fulfill it cannot obtain voter approval.<\/p>\n \u201cGov. Gavin Newsom issued such warnings to 15 cities throughout the state in March,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThe city of Davis was not on that list.\u201d<\/p>\n He also noted that \u201cEqually silent about the Democratic stronghold of Davis is Bonta, who, with great fanfare, went after Elk Grove in 2023. The case was settled in 2024.\u201d<\/p>\n The state has increasingly demonstrated a willingness to challenge local governments that fail to comply with housing mandates. Recent years have seen the use of builder\u2019s remedy provisions, litigation and administrative pressure to compel cities to plan for and facilitate housing production.<\/p>\n Philp suggested Davis could become a candidate for similar scrutiny.<\/p>\n \u201cThe California Department of Housing and Community Development, after previously warning the city of glaring shortcomings, finally approved an updated housing element for Davis in 2024,\u201d he wrote. \u201cBut the immovable obstacle of public votes on housing projects remained, prompting the City Council to ask voters to give up their control of any expansions for affordable housing.\u201d<\/p>\n He added: \u201cFearing rejection by voters, the council has refused to place this measure on the last two ballots.\u201d<\/p>\n The Davis City Council had previously discussed potential reforms to Measure J, including exemptions for affordable housing projects. However, concerns about voter opposition prevented such proposals from advancing to the ballot.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd now these same voters have rejected Measure V,\u201d Philp wrote. \u201cThe prospect of Davis voters giving up control over housing seems as unlikely as President Donald Trump carrying this liberal city in an election.\u201d<\/p>\n Philp\u2019s strongest criticism was directed not at any particular project, but at what he characterized as a structural breakdown in local governance.<\/p>\n \u201cThe record is pretty clear Davis now,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThe city\u2019s housing element isn\u2019t worth the paper it is written on.\u201d<\/p>\n He continued: \u201cThe City Council, which unanimously supported Village Farms, is not in control of its city. Urban planning in Davis is one of the most time-consuming and fruitless exercises on Planet Earth. And it\u2019s economic suicide for builders to propose the housing that Davis truly needs.\u201d<\/p>\n Village Farms supporters had emphasized that the proposal sought to balance housing production with preservation goals.<\/p>\n \u201cThe campaign for Measure V was all about championing a complex of smaller homes and apartments and preserving open space,\u201d Philp wrote.<\/p>\n Yet he warned that repeated rejection of housing proposals may ultimately undermine the very local control Davis voters have long sought to protect.<\/p>\n \u201cSomething tells me that most residents in Davis have no idea how they have endangered local control of local land use decisions by saying no to necessary housing, again and again, for 26 years.\u201d<\/p>\n Philp concluded with an unmistakable call for Sacramento to step in.<\/p>\n \u201cFor the sake of smart growth in the region, so that people can live closer to their jobs, Davis is ripe for state intervention,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThe sooner, the better.\u201d<\/p>\n Whether state officials ultimately agree remains uncertain. But the appearance of such an argument in the pages of The Sacramento Bee signals that concerns once voiced primarily by local housing advocates have entered California\u2019s broader conversation about growth, housing accountability and the future of local control.<\/p>\n Follow the Vanguard on Social Media \u2013 X<\/a>, Instagram <\/a>and Facebook<\/a>.\u00a0 Subscribe <\/a>the Vanguard News letters.\u00a0 To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org\/donate<\/a> or give directly through ActBlue<\/a>.\u00a0 Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.<\/p>\n Categories: Breaking News<\/a> City of Davis<\/a> Land Use\/Open Space<\/a> Opinion<\/a> Tags: Attorney General Rob Bonta<\/a> California housing law<\/a> City of Davis<\/a> Davis housing<\/a> Gov. Gavin Newsom<\/a> Measure J<\/a> Measure V<\/a> state intervention<\/a> Tom Philp<\/a> UC Davis<\/a> Village Farms<\/a> Village Farms development<\/a>