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

Let’s Talk Honestly About Village Farms Home Prices

By Leslie Blevins

There has been a lot of certainty lately about what homes at Village Farms will cost. Too much certainty compared to what the facts actually show.

Project opponents continue repeating that every home in the development will “start at $740,000,” as if that number is locked in, guaranteed, and unavoidable. It isn’t.

The $740,000 hypothetical figure being cited comes from a fiscal modeling assumption for a hypothetical average 1,740 sq ft home used in an economic analysis — not from a builder price sheet. The modeling assumption itself states that medium-density homes are projected at an AVERAGE sales price of $740,000 not starting sales price.

But that number was used to estimate tax revenue. It was NOT a declaration of a minimum sales price. There is a big difference between a modeling input and a market reality.

The truth is, we do not know what homes will cost in five to ten years when these units are actually built. Construction costs fluctuate. Interest rates change. The economy shifts. Lending standards evolve. Labor markets tighten and loosen. Anyone claiming certainty about 2029 home prices is speculating.

So instead of predicting the future, let’s look at the present. For 2025 in Davis, a total of 322 single family homes sold with an average sales price of $1,008,145 ($498 per sqft) for an average home size of 2055 sqft. A total of 82 smaller units including condos, townhouses and half-plexes sold in 2025 for an average sales price of $586,652 ($477 per sqft.) with an average size of 1249 sqft..

These are not projections. These are current numbers.

That means even the projected $740,000 average for new medium-density homes sits below today’s average single-family home price. In today’s market at the $477 per sqft. average for smaller units, the townhomes and half-plexes would be priced around $405,450 (based on 850 sqft.).  The single-family homes in the medium-density zone would be starting in the $550,000 range (based on 1,100 sqft). 

We also need to remember that 360 of the 1,800 units at Village Farms are designated as affordable rental housing — 20% of the entire project. Those units are not $740,000 homes. They are income-restricted rentals serving very low, low, and moderate-income households. Saying “everything starts at $740,000” ignores these realities.

But beyond correcting the numbers, we need to talk about the larger issue: supply. The same report  clearly states that Davis’ high housing costs are principally the result of a supply and demand imbalance. That isn’t controversial. It’s basic economics.

For years, we have built very little new ownership housing in Davis. At the same time, we have watched demand remain strong because people want to live here — for our schools, our university, our quality of life. When supply stays flat and demand persists, prices rise.

When new homes are added — even higher-priced ones — they create movement in the market. A family moves into a new home and frees up an older one. That older home becomes attainable to a different buyer. That process, often called filtering, is how markets gradually improve affordability over time.

Will Village Farms make Davis suddenly inexpensive? Of course not. But refusing to build housing because we are afraid it won’t be cheap enough guarantees one thing: continued scarcity.

What will existing Davis homes cost in four or five years if we continue to limit supply? If today’s average single-family home is already $1.0M what happens if we build nothing? That is the real question.

This debate deserves facts, not inflated numbers. It deserves an honest conversation about what we can control — land use, zoning, housing types — and what we cannot control — interest rates, construction costs, national economic cycles.

We cannot predict exact prices years from now. But we can choose whether we allow more housing options into the market. If we want young families, professionals, teachers, and working households to have a path to ownership in Davis, we need more homes — in a range of sizes and price points — not fewer.

Let’s debate Village Farms thoughtfully. But let’s do it using real numbers and real economics, not fear.

About me: I have lived in Davis for 24 years and have worked as a real estate professional serving Yolo County for more than two decades. Deeply involved in the community, I have volunteered with local schools including Patwin Elementary, Emerson Junior High, DaVinci Charter Academy, and Davis Senior High School. I was a board member of the Davis Schools Foundation and have also volunteered with youth programs such as AYSO and local 4-H. I  currently serve as a board member and am the past president of the Yolo County Association of Realtors.

Davisite logo

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

Comments

13 responses to “Let’s Talk Honestly About Village Farms Home Prices”

  1. Something that this article confuses is the difference between Intention and Reality. It also is very selective in its use of the word “certainty.”

    The “facts actually show” that there is very little certainty when it comes to what this Village Farms proposal is offering. Certainty would exist if the offerings were in the Baseline Features, but none of the features this article is based on actually appear in black and white in the Baseline Features. That is the Reality of Village Farms. All they are giving the voters of Davis are Good Intentions.

    And the voters of Davis need look no further than The Cannery to see how Good Intentions fail to become Reality … and how the Reality actually delivered is much worse for the community.

  2. The article says … “The $740,000 hypothetical figure being cited comes from a fiscal modeling assumption for a hypothetical average 1,740 sq ft home used in an economic analysis — not from a builder price sheet.”

    A builder’s price sheet is a prefect example of Intention vs. Reality. As the article clearly points out “The truth is, we do not know what homes will cost in five to ten years when these units are actually built. We don’t even know what the mix of housing will be, because the developer and the city Council were unwilling to put the housing makeup … lot sizes and residences sizes … in the Baseline Features.

    Reality is that the BAE fiscal analysis is an official document prepared for the City. It is the only official document that the voters can actually put their hands on.

  3. The article says “For 2025 in Davis, a total of 322 single family homes sold with an average sales price of $1,008,145 ($498 per sqft) for an average home size of 2055 sqft. A total of 82 smaller units including condos, townhouses and half-plexes sold in 2025 for an average sales price of $586,652 ($477 per sqft.) with an average size of 1249 sqft.”

    That is an apples-oranges comparison. A true apples to apples comparison would be the six medium density current listings at Breton Woods, which have an average size of 1,506 square feet and an average sales price of $796,800, which comes to $529 per square foot.

    Thde article’s intention is cherry picking. The Bretton Woods examples are closer to Reality.

    Further, the 850 square foot and 1,100 square foot examples cited by the article appear nowhere in the Baseline Features.

  4. The article goes on to state, “We also need to remember that 360 of the 1,800 units at Village Farms are designated as affordable rental housing — 20% of the entire project. Those units are not $740,000 homes. They are income-restricted rentals serving very low, low, and moderate-income households. Saying “everything starts at $740,000” ignores these realities.”

    More cherry picking. Rental housing is just that … rental. It isn’t owner-occupied. It doesn’t build equity or financial stability for the residents. The article’s author clearly knows that. She is a real estate professional. So what was her intention in comparing monthly rent to a $740,000 purchased price? Only Miss Clairol knows the answer to that question.

    Further, none of the 360 rental units are available to the open market. They all are income restricted. Which begs the question, Will young families with children and more than likely two working parents have sufficiently low enough income to qualify for these apartments?

    1. And furthermore, as I pointed out in an earlier article (https://davisite.org/2026/03/05/what-are-the-guaranteed-parts-of-the-village-farms-project/), the developer hasn’t actually committed to building 360 Affordable Housing units — or any Affordable Housing units, really.

  5. Alan Pryor

    Matt Williams says – “Reality is the BAE fiscal analysis is an official document prepared for the City. It is the only official document that the voters can actually put their hands on.”

    That may be the “Reality” in some alternate universe. The BAE report is indeed the only “official” report mentinioning price anywhere. However, the point made by the author is that the $740,000 price was never reported as nor was intended to be used as a “minimum” starting price for homes at the project as otherwise stated by project opponents.

    Like Mark Twain was quoted, “There are lies, damnd lies, and statistics”. The $740,000 was deliberately taken out of context and improperly used for negative political purposes. That figure was intended to be used as part an estimated average price range for property tax estimation purposes. But naysayers instead created a red herring argument by falsely claiming that it was actaully the the minimum price of a unit at VFD.

    This misrepresentation is also on the “No campaign’s official ballot statements twice –

    Argument Against – “Unaffordable housing, where 80% of the project is market rate housing costing $740,000 – $1,300,000…”

    Rebuttal to Argument in Favor – “Village Farms cheapest market rate house would be $740,000, up to $1,300,000 which most local workers and families with young children CANNOT AFFORD”.

    Evidence to the contrary had already been publicly published before these ballot statements were submitted so these ballot statements were submitted knowing the statements were misleading, at best, if not outright false.

  6. Ron O

    The reality is that there’s no way they’re going to sell a new, detached, single family house for less than $825K. Here’s you’re evidence for that:

    $825.6K, 1,472 square feet.

    https://www.centurycommunities.com/find-your-new-home/california/northern-california-metro/davis/harvest-glen/?utm_source=google_local&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=harvest-glen_gmb_ccs&utm_content=california

    1. Alan Pryor

      Ron – Your comment is only so-called “evidence” that someone is “trying” to sell a 1,472 sq ft home in Davis for $825,000.

      So what? There will be hundreds of homes less than 1,200 sq ft at Village Farms. Do you automatically assume they will sell at $825,000. That’s just plain silly and non-sensical.

      1. Ron O

        Alan: They ARE selling houses for that price (and more for the larger ones).

        1,472 square feet is quite small for a family of four (with 2 cars).

      2. Alan, you say there will be hundreds of homes less than 1,200 sq ft at Village Farms. If that commitment is real, then why isn’t it in the Baseline Features?

  7. Ron O

    Also, any house built at Village Farms (or anywhere else outside of city limits) is likely to have higher ongoing Mello Roos fees, compared to those in the city. (A lot of the existing stock has no Mello Roos at all.)

  8. Ron O

    Honestly, if you want to make the cost of buying/selling houses “cheaper”, the first place I’d look is to try to cut out/reduce the exorbitant commissions that someone like the author of this article makes. The realtor association has already been found to be in violation of the law regarding “requiring” sellers to pay the buyer agent’s commission, but it still hasn’t changed the equation sufficiently.

    At 5% commission, the buyer is actually the one paying $37,500 to purchase a $750,000 house. This has to stop. Their fees exceed the value of what they provide by tens of thousands of dollars.

  9. Eileen Samitz

    The $740,000 for the market rate medium density houses is what the Bay Area Economics Report (BAE) fiscal report for Village Farms states is the cost. Market rate low density houses would cost $1.34 million. These are the numbers reported and what were stated in the ballot statement because those are what the numbers are, no matter how inconvenient the numbers are for the Village Farms proponents.

    The reality is that the cost of the housing is very likely to be much higher because of the massive costs of the infrastructure needed for the handicapped Village Farms site. These enormous infrastructure costs include: a) moving ONE MILLION cubic yards of soil to try to fill the 200-acre flood plain, b) re-routing Channel A, c) removing toxics soils at the Heritage Oak Park site where neurotoxic toxaphene and lead is in high levels, and d) building TWO grade -separated crossings. These infrastructure costs will add to the cost of the Village Farms houses. But it is not hard to understand why the proponents will try to spin and diminish the unaffordability issue, since the Village Farms market rate housing is not going to be affordable to local workers and young families.

    Further, the Village Farms developer is not responsible for building all of the 360 affordable units, is another fact which many do not realize. Yet, the Village Farms developer claims imply that all of these affordable housing units are being provided by the project in their literature.

    But at most, the developer might build only 100 units, depending on if the City cannot first build 100 affordable units by the last phase of Village Farms (Phase 3) 10+ years down the road. Only IF the City does not build 100 affordable units, is when the City “may” ask the developer to build the 100 affordable apartments when the developer needs his 151st permit (with 160 remaining) in Phase 3 . An obvious question is what happens if the City builds less than 100 units first? Does the developer build the net difference of 100 apartments, or does the developer build 100 apartments? This Village Farms affordable housing “plan” is very convoluted and has loose ends to say the least.

    Further, if the develop builds the 100 affordable apartments in the last phase of Village Farms, then the developer is returned the $6 million (or whatever amount is remaining with interest). The developer also gets the affordable housing dedicated land returned to him of what is needed for the developer to build the 100 affordable apartments. None of this is clarified in the Village Farms claims, and in fact quite the contrary, false claims are made and insinuated like “Village Farms delivers affordable housing”.

    In addition, a concern pointed out numerous times by one Council member was that the developer could walk away from building these 100 affordable apartments, since it would be the last phase (Phase 3) 10+ years down the road when the vast majority of the project is built with enormous profits. Another factor is that the cost to build one affordable housing apartment is estimated at $400,000 per unit per the BAE fiscal report. So, it is possible that NO affordable units get built at Village Farms as was pointed out in these two articles in the Davisite:

    What are the guaranteed parts of the Village Farms project?

    Suggested changes to Ordinances for the Village Farms Project

Leave a comment