Mutual Housing California has spent decades building affordable homes in Davis and the Sacramento region. We are an established part of Davis’ community fabric, operating six communities that over 330 households call home. We know what it takes to move housing from a policy or a promise on paper to families with keys in hand — and which proposals are designed to succeed. Just 20 miles away we handed keys to more than 100 families over Memorial Day weekend at our newest San Juan Apartments community in Sacramento.
In Davis, we worked with the Village Farms team for more than two years to analyze the feasibility and capacity of its affordable housing site. If the City of Davis makes this land available, we would welcome the opportunity to compete to build it. More importantly, we are confident that the Village Farms project as proposed before Davis voters gives the community a strong opportunity to deliver the affordable housing it urgently needs. This model works. A proven path to building affordable housing is through a city-held land dedication that improves access to competitive funding. The city then selects an experienced and qualified nonprofit developer to assemble financing and deliver the homes. In just the past three years, Mutual Housing completed two developments on publicly owned land using this approach—including the San Juan community.
The Village Farms site is exceptional. State funding favors locations near groceries, schools, transit, and parks. This parcel sits across from Oak Tree Plaza, near downtown, and close to schools and services. These advantages contribute to its designation as a “highest opportunity” area, strengthening its competitiveness for scarce state resources.
Village Farms also makes an unprecedented commitment: 16 acres of shovel-ready land delivered upfront—with streets, sidewalks, and utilities in place—along with $6 million toward construction. In nearly four decades of work in this region, perhaps no Davis proposal has matched this level of readiness and support.
Village Farms is structured not just to include affordable housing, but to build it.
Craig Adelman is CEO of Mutual Housing California
Disclaimer: Opinions are those of the writer and do not reflect those of The Vanguard or its Editorial Staff. The Vanguard does not endorse political candidates and is committed to publishing all public opinions and maintaining an open forum subject to guidelines related to decency and tone, not content.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Mutual Housing is the largest and most respected affordable housing developer in Northern California – and in Davis.
For months we have been hearing repeatedly from David Thompson and Roberta Millstein sonorously pontificating that the affordable housing plan of Village Farms was deficient and loophole ridden and would likely result in NO subsidized affordable housing ever being built at the site.
But now, according to this author, Mutual Housing’s CEO, “…we are confident that the Village Farms project as proposed before Davis voters gives the community a strong opportunity to deliver the affordable housing it urgently needs. This model works.”
Hmm…Gee…who should we believe?
Alan Pryor has a habit of boasting mistruths as a foundation and premise for his attacks on the validity of the information provided by people who differ with him.
That happens almost daily on either, Next Door, the Davisite or here on the Vanguard.
In today’s Vanguard post as part of making his case for Village Farms, Mr. Pryor wrote;
“Mutual Housing is the largest and most respected affordable housing developer in Northern California – and in Davis.”
Mr. Pryor, Mutual Housing is not in anyway, “the largest and most respected affordable housing developer in Northern California – and in Davis.
The three largest affordable housing developers in Northern California are probably;
Bridge, Eden Housing and EAH, (all based in Northern California). There are a number of other groups larger than Mutual Housing developing affordable housing in Northern California.
From the Bridge web site today,
“Our current portfolio, with $4 billion in assets, includes over 14,000 apartment units in more than 130 properties, and we have more than 10,000 units in the development pipeline.”
From the Eden Housing web site today;
“Eden Housing has developed or acquired over 11,000 affordable homes. They currently own and operate a portfolio of 145 communities across California, managing close to 10,000 active rental units. Additionally, they have another 4,400+ homes in their development pipeline.”
From the EAH web site today;
“EAH Housing currently manages over 13,000 apartment unit leases across California and Hawai’i. Since its founding, the nonprofit developer has acquired and developed over 9,000 affordable housing units, with an additional 3,000 units planned for construction over the next five years.”
Neither is, as Mr. Pryor boasts, Mutual Housing even the largest affordable housing developer in Davis
Mutual Housing has built only two affordable housing projects in Davis; New Harmony (69 units) and Adelante (38 units) = 107 units, the other 4 projects (178 units) in Davis claimed by Mutual Housing were in truth developed and built by a different group, Davis Mutual Housing.
CHOC housing (not Mutual Housing) is the largest affordable developer in Davis, having developed 13 projects with about 350 units
AS to the most respected, there is no housing table listing the scores for respectability. All of these developers are respected. However, only Mr. Pryor has claimed this unfounded title for Mutual Housing.
The discussions of such importance as a public vote deserve factual truths not untrue boasts.
This is a reminder to voters to be wary of Mr. Pryor’s statements on behalf of Yes on V..
Almost everything that Mr. Pryor boasts about the affordability of Village Farms are not in the legally confirmed baseline or in the Development Agreement.
My voting No on Village Farms
is based partially on the weak and empty promises and untrue statements made by VF itself and VF supporters. Today is just another one.
Mr. Thompson is deflecting the argument because he cannot address the gist of the Op-Ed which is that the currently proposed Affordable Housing program at VF has the highest likelihood of the apartments being actually completed. This is the opposite of David Thompson’s claim he previously made in the Vanguard., “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.” Well, according to the Op-Ed, the chances are pretty good and the proposed $6 million cash donation and project’s location are key reasons why.
I also note that it was not too many years ago when Mr. Thompson was relentlessly campaigning for the Bretton Woods affordable housing program (of which he was the then selected affordable housing developer) that had far less land donated, no additional money donated, and no provisions for the developer to step in and build any of the affordable units if Mr. Thompson did not perform.
The affordable housing program at Bretton Woods has since completely stallled and Davis City Staff has reported to Council that they will likely need substantial sums of money from the City to move the affordable housing construction forward. Staff claimed this failure informed their decision to require the substantial cash donation from the VF developer.
Perhaps Mr Thompson would explain why he was all in on the objectively less advantageous Bretton Wood low income housing program for which he was the designated developer (and for which no units have yet been built and likely will not unlessthe City ponies up millions of dollars) but he is now dead set against the decidely superior VF proposal of which Mutual Housing claims “gives the community a strong opportunity to deliver the affordable housing it urgently needs. This model works.”
Like I said above, “Hmm…Gee…who should we believe?”
Gee, whom should we believe, one affordable housing developer who is trying to best position itself to be chosen, or 461 existing developers who (1) have already been selected by their community’s government as the selected vendor, (2) completed the 14+ step application process for funding, and (3) are waiting patiently for the State/Federal funds they have qualified for … and in many cases waiting for years for that funding.
Bottom-line, Mutual Housing is the proverbial “two in the bush” while the 461 queued up developers are “birds in the hand” but birds who are waiting and waiting and waiting for funding.
Note, Bretton Woods and hundreds of other Affordable projects like it haven’t even made it to the list of 461.
So Alan, “Gee, whom should we believe? Someone on the outside looking in … and with an axe to grind … or 461 points of data/evidence of how hard it is to get funding?
Alan, you may be able to improve your own credibility by stating clearly that you have no financial interest in the VF project or campaign, nor any promise of same in the future. But as things currently stand, you’re as believable as the glossy postcards clogging our mailboxes, which is to say “not very.”
Based on the article and the comments by David Thompson, it sounds as though there could be as many as 3 – 4 affordable housing developers able to bid on this project.
I agree with Don, but being able to bid is a process reality, but the 461 developers who have made (1) bid on their jurisdiction’s project, (2) been selected by their respective jurisdiction as the vendor of choice, (3) successfully filed all the requisite funding application forms, (4) been told their funding application is qualified and complete, and (5) been added to the list of 461 who are waiting patiently, and waiting and waiting and waiting for the funding to actually come.
Just to clarify, you think there is no funding available for this affordable housing? Here, or, for that matter, at any development proposal in this area?
I’d ask the same question of David Thompson. I don’t know anything about the funding of affordable housing projects, so I’m just wondering how any project anywhere is going to get funded in the present environment, based on what I’m reading here.
“No funding” is an absolute statement, and there are too many variables to go that far. However, the current situation makes the funding quest extremely daunting for “Big A” affordable housing projects. That is why I have been arguing for, for quite a while now, building “small a” affordable units.
Mr. Pryor;
Much has occurred since 2018 (seven years) ago when Bretton Woods was voted on. I have had no role to play in it since that time.
Enterprise, which funded many of the projects we had done recently did a report on the serious lack of funding for affordable housing. Their information shows that over 400,00 units of affordable housing in 461 projects are all ready to go but lack the subsidy funding
“Nearly 40,000 ‘shovel-ready’ affordable homes in California are stuck in financial limbo, report finds Billions in additional state funding are needed to unlock construction for 461 approved developments, according to a new analysis by Enterprise Community Partners.
Published March 9, 2026 Ryan Kushne Editor
• That housing, which would benefit an estimated 432,050 low-income households over the next half century, requires more state support to move forward, including $2.3 billion in state subsidies, $1.8 billion in state tax credits and $5.8 billion in tax-exempt bonds, according to Enterprise.”
Mr. Pryor, any answer to my analysis of your false claims about Mutual Housing being the largest provider of affordable housing in Northern California and Davis?
Mr. Pryor,
Another day, another mistruth.
Mr. Pryor today in favor of Yes on V, states wrongly another damning ‘gotcha’ fact which is clearly not factually true.
“Perhaps Mr Thompson would explain why he was all in on the objectively less advantageous Bretton Wood low income housing program for which he was the designated developer…
Mr. Pryor you ought to know eight years later that I was not the “designated developer” of the Bretton Woods low income housing program.
Mercy Housing is the designated developer and I neither have any relationship with them.
Please be wary of the facts provided the public by Mr. Pryor as a daily community spokesman for and defender of Village Farms.
Mr. Pryor, any answer to my analysis yesterday of your false claims about Mutual Housing being the largest provider of affordable housing in Northern California and Davis? Mutual Housing is none of those facts you claim.
Just for comparison with Village Farms, Bretton Woods was required to do 68 affordable units but gave land to Mercy to do 150 units.
All this bickering about who is credible and who is not is a classic showcase of Davis political machismo among local know it all’s but it doesn’t really get to the heart of the matter.
Davis has a choice, we can vote yes and get land for affordable development, or we can vote no and get nothing. I ask a simple question, especially to those who fantasize that voting no will somehow materialize a better proposal, if V loses what is the net present value of the affordable housing component of the project? If you have a number different from zero you are wrong.
And your comment Ron doesn’t get to the heart of the matter either. While addressing 5.5% of the 1,800 units, you are ignoring 80.0% of those units. That is a see no evil, hear no evil, speak evil approach.
As I provided to Don on Thursday,
six unifying positions of our campaign are that:
A) Our community needs housing, but the kind of housing Davis needs is missing from the Village Farms project.
B) Davis has a substantial shortage of workforce housing designed and built to be affordable for members of the Davis workforce of modest financial means and modest annual salary and benefits … workers like DTA members, whose starting salary at DJUSD ranges from $49,930 to $61,570 per year (see https://www.teacher.org/school-district/davis-joint-unified-school-district/)
C) Davis has systematically excluded the members of the local workforce from ownership and owner occupancy by only building expensive homes … building no market-priced single-family homes small enough to be affordably priced. In our opinion, the exclusion borders on discrimination.
D) Davis has a surplus of housing only affordable by wealthy folks who are more often than not empty nesters, without children who will be going to DJUSD schools.
E) Annual Housing Costs in Davis are very high. According to HUD, annual housing costs should be no more than 30% of total annual household income. In Village Farms a $740,000 home with a 20% cash down payment and a 6.0% mortgage has a total of over $6,000 of housing costs per month … over $75,000 per year … requiring an annual household income greater than $250,000. Ask your members how many of them have a household anywhere close to $250,000.
$740,000 Sale Price
1,740 Square Feet
$46,512 mortgage payments,
$2,285 PMI (mortgage balance life) Insurance,
$7,400 property taxes,
PARCEL TAXES
$89 DJUSD 2000 Bond
$414 DJUSD 2018 Bond
$327 DJUSD CFD #1
$1,621 DJUSD CFD #2
$236 DJUSD Measure G
$797 DJUSD Measure N
$170 Los Rios CCD
$0 Fire District
$176 Davis Special Library Tax
$24 Davis Open Space Tax
$55 Davis Parks Tax
$2,224 CFD taxes,
$1,512 HOA fees,
$2,442 homeowners insurance ($0.3 per $100 assessed value),
$1,100 FEMA flood insurance,
$??.?? home maintenance and repairs
UTILITIES
$1,100 gas,
$3,000 electricity,
$1,992 water,
$613 sewer,
$130 storm sewer,
$112 municipal service
$88 public safety,
$706 garbage/recycling
$91 green waste
——————————
$75,215 Annual Housing Costs
$6,267.92 Monthly Housing Costs
In conclusion:
1) A “No” vote on Measure V is not anti-housing. We support a smaller “Reduced-Footprint” alternative below Channel A that avoids the vast majority of the floodplain and toxics problems. This plan also avoids City liability exposure into the future due to the toxics exposure and flooding potential.
2) In addition to the Social Justice issues described above, it is important to clearly say that Village Farms is a poorly conceived project that should be rejected at this time, and go back to the drawing board for a reduced footprint with housing that is affordable.
“… workers like DTA members, whose starting salary at DJUSD ranges from $49,930 to $61,570 per year..”
You want housing that a starting teacher can afford? I’ve never met a starting teacher anywhere in California who could afford to buy a home.
Narrow thinking. Many starting teachers are part of a household that can pool its resources and afford to purchase a home … if the price is right.
“1) A “No” vote on Measure V is not anti-housing.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the venality of that statement.
Read on Ron. What has been provided is a package.
“2) In addition to the Social Justice issues described above, it is important to clearly say that Village Farms is a poorly conceived project that should be rejected at this time, and go back to the drawing board for a reduced footprint with housing that is affordable.”
Two reactions
1) Matt Williams champion of social justice.
2) Its been 20 years since the last project on that site was rejected. When do you expect the next proposal? Do you think any of the housed boomers who are saying wait for something better will be alive for the next vote?
“Do you think any of the housed boomers who are saying wait for something better will be alive for the next vote?”
Some of them won’t be, and their housing will turnover and be occupied by the next generation(s).
It’s actually happening every single day, and is accelerating.
I’m personally on the younger side of that generation, but I also “plan” to vacate the housing market permanently at some point in the not-too-distant future. For sure, my lifetime expectancy passed the halfway mark a long time ago. (And it hasn’t gone quite the way I expected.)
The answer to 2) is easy. The next proposal is already approved to be on the November 2036 ballot.
“The next proposal is already approved to be on the November 2036 ballot.”
Sounds about right.
LOL! Can you fix that typo?
Willowgrove is on the November 2026 ballot.
Ron G: “2) Its been 20 years since the last project on that site was rejected. When do you expect the next proposal?”
Matt: “Willowgrove is on the November 2026 ballot.”
That wasn’t the question. Willowgrove is not “on that site.”
The question is when do you expect the next proposal for the site presently proposed as Village Farms?
I’d say your estimate of 2036 was about right.
Rejecting Village Farms and approving Willowgrove would not meet our housing needs.
There is zero evidence that the current owners of the Village Farms site would come back with a revised proposal any time soon, if at all. Any suggestion otherwise is wishful thinking.
“I’d say your estimate of 2036 was about right.”
That wasn’t Matt’s estimate – but it sounds too soon for my taste, for what that’s worth.
Personally, I wish there was some kind of limit regarding the number of Measure J proposals allowed over a given period of time. (One every ten years is more frequent than I’d prefer, but at least might allow the city to take periodic breaks from campaigns – and would provide an opportunity to perform some maintenance on the Spanking Machine.)
Alternatively, I’d say put all (XX) number of them (expected over the next 20 years or so) on the same ballot, and let them duke it out. And then ban any of them from appearing at all, over the subsequent 20 years.
By the way, I’m wondering what the status is regarding the horse ranch development – haven’t gone by there recently. (I think I did notice that they tore the old ranch house down, last time I went by.)
Don, that wasn’t his question. He asked, “When do you expect the next proposal?”. If he had asked, “When do you expect the next proposal on the Village Farms site, that would be different.
But with that said, do you believe Davis needs more $750,000 to $1.3 million homes? If yes, why?
Davis needs more housing supply in all categories.
Don, you have conspicuously ducked the why part of my question.
Why does Davis need more houses priced at $750,000 and up? During 2025, well over 300 such homes were for sale and sold. Is having 30 or more such houses available on the market at any time not sufficient supply to meet the demand?
“Why does Davis need more houses priced at $750,000 and up?”
Because we need more housing supply in all categories.
Don, sales history and supply/demand says we have a 30-day supply of over $750,000 houses at all times, which is three times as large as Woodland has. How many days supply do you believe is ideal?
With that said, you and I are in agreement that we need greater supply of small footprint modestly priced homes.
And of course 1) is an ad hominem. I realize you are using me as your scapegoat, and that is okay with me. Attacking the messenger always works as a fall back approach.
Is no one going to be operating/leading the Davis Spanking Machine in regard to Willowgrove? Seems like most of those actively opposed to Village Farms support Willowgrove.
Or, are they lurking in the background/cyberspace, waiting to dispatch one-at-a-time?
I’m inclined to think it’s the former (no one to operate the Spanking Machine). Perhaps Davis will get lucky, and it will spank itself.
For those of you who expect something better in the future on that site when do you expect the next proposal on the Village Farms site to go before the voters?
If by “something better”, it’s already “something better” than yet another housing development on farmland.
At some point, perhaps developers can name their sprawling development proposals something other than (fill-in-the-blank) “farms”, “orchards”, “groves”, “ranch”, “woods”, etc.
Not your call
“Not your call”
It’s not your call or the developer’s call, either – other than naming rights if Village “Farms” is approved.
Though honestly, I don’t think there’s much chance of that. At the moment, I’m more worried about Willowgrove.
I get a vote, you don’t
Yes, at the moment. I did vote against Covell Village (and I may soon be voting again, in Davis – you never know). I also voted against Target, though I’m not entirely disappointed that it won. (In a sense, the Target vote can be counted as essentially another Measure J win, in spirit at least.)
In any case, enjoy your single vote. In this case, it seems like McCann and Keller might cancel out “yours” by 200%.
Last time I checked, no proposal has won or lost by a single vote.
Pretty sure that individuals can “swing” other people’s votes, however. (Or perhaps more importantly – persuade them to vote in the first place since many qualified voters don’t do so.)
Voting is the ultimate collective action paradox
I don’t know what that means (in regard to your point), but I’m pretty sure you voted against Covell Village, yourself (before you were recruited by Darth Vader).
In my opinion, there is no way a proposal at that site is going to be approved if it extends beyond the channel. (400 acres, as I recall.) I pass by it regularly, and am shocked that any developer would even propose something like this.
But again, the proposal I’m worried about is Willowgrove (as I sort of expect Village Farms to lose).
Then again, I also never expected Trump to win – twice (or three times, according to him).
At this point, I think the outcome of Village “Farms” is pretty much set, one way or another.
Game theory
I don’t know what “game theory” is, either.
Overall (and beyond Davis), it seems like the state’s “mandates” have already lost.
Honestly, I’m more concerned about what’s being done with public lands (and giveaways to tribes) at this point.
If Davisites want to make their own town worse – have at it. I can tolerate the heavy equipment on Road 102 for several years, and however many more traffic “improvements” (e.g., stop signals/signs, traffic circles, etc.) the enlightened “yes” voters decide is in order.
But don’t tell me that Spring Lake, for example (along with the 1,600 housing units planned at the adjacent technology park) is going to “disappear” as a result of Village Farms. Or that those people will suddenly stop working at UCD (assuming they do so).
The price differential alone would ensure that anyone moving to new sprawl in Davis are there for other reasons than being a “local worker/family”).
Ron, again you are thinking narrowly. That site does not have a monopoly on the market for adding homes to Davis.
But it is the most logical place and it has an owner that’s willing to put money into developing housing.
I don’t disagree David, and your second point is why I think Ron and Don are fear mongering … honest sentiments on their part, but fear mongering nonetheless.
Regarding your first point , I personally believe the 550+ acres west of Bretton Woods and AKT’s 3,000 acres south of Cole’s wrapping around El Macero to Mace make even more sense than Village Farms does. The recently announced Dixon project makes more sense for UCD employees too.
The City reports that there are a total of 2,483 housing units in the approval process. 341 of the 2,483 are currently under construction. An additional 1,294 are not only approved but also have all their entitlements completed and are simply waiting for construction to start. The remaining 848 are approved to go ahead and are in the process of their entitlement paperwork approval.
Willowgrove if approved by the voters adds 1,250 to the 2,483.
Tha Pioneer Community proposed by AKT was for 775 SFRs and 475 multi-family units. The 550+ acres north of Covell to the east of Bretton Woods is owned by developers. The 250 acres south of Montgomery and west of Mace is owned by a developer.
Ron, here’s a metaphorical parallel for you. Think back on your girlfriends before Diana. After you had an untoward incident with one of them were you worse off? Did you mope around? Or did you shake it off, take stock of what you learned, and then chart your next step(s)? Same question with regard to your occasional untoward moments with Diana.
What? Are we even talking about development proposals, anymore? :-)
Plus, you really should start identifying “which” Ron you’re referring to.
And what exactly does “untoward” mean? Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
And who is “Diana”, anyway?
As for me, I never shake anything off. I’ll be carrying around everything until the day I die. And it continues to accumulate.
Please leave my family out of any comments.
“Please leave my family out of any comments.”
I agree with RG. WTF?
Matt said: “2) In addition to the Social Justice issues described above, it is important to clearly say that Village Farms is a poorly conceived project that should be rejected at this time, and go back to the drawing board for a reduced footprint with housing that is affordable.”
Responding to Matt I said: “For those of you who expect something better in the future on that site when do you expect the next proposal on the Village Farms site to go before the voters?”
Then Matt said: “Ron, again you are thinking narrowly. That site does not have a monopoly on the market for adding homes to Davis.”
It seems Matt can’t keep track of his own arguments.
At 7:27 am Ron Glick said, ”2) Its been 20 years since the last project on that site was rejected. When do you expect the next proposal?”
Your words are as clear as the nose on your face.
Eight plus hours later you made the post you have quoted at 4:08 pm
I agree that eight hours is a long time for old boomers to keep track of an argument.
My argument stayed the same in the 8 hours. Yours morphed.
No you misinterpreted my question. I clarified. You doubled down on your misinterpretation refusing to address the fact that your speculation on the future of that site has no merit and is self contradictory.
No, I interpreted exactly as it was written. You simply misstated what you were thinking. Then you restated it,
My 7:57 am response to your 7:27 am question was 100% correct … once the Freudian slip typo of November 2036 was corrected to November 2026, the date Willowgrove will be on the ballot.
Your 4:08 pm attempt to accomplish revisionist history by restating your question prompted my 4:59 pm rejection of your narrowly conceived revision and rather focused on the larger picture that was at the heart of my original 7:57 am response. There is a time for broad thinking just as there is a time for narrow thinking. As the song of our youth said, “You’ve got your troubles, I’ve got mine.”