Greenwald concedes Village Farms could result in little or no affordable housing being built
By Roberta Millstein
I want to let readers know about some followups to my two previous posts about the toothless promises concerning Affordable Housing and affordable-by-design housing in Village Farms, which we will vote on in June as Measure V. One is that I meshed the two articles into one, did some more editing, and submitted the new article to the Davis Enterprise, where it appears, here. Now the analysis of affordable housing in Village Farms, which rests in large part on understanding the difference between Baseline Features and Development Agreements — and which “promises” appear where — is all in one place.
The second thing I want to highlight is a response of sorts to my DE article from the Davis Vanguard, here. What I find interesting about this response is that at each point David Greenwald actually agrees with what I say about the promises of affordable housing. Indeed, there really is no other interpretation — it’s in black and white that the affordable housing is so flexible that the project could end up with little or no affordable housing at all. And he agrees that our city councils have a history of giving in to developers. Quoting from Greenwald’s article (my emphasis added):
“Millstein’s argument focuses on the risks embedded in approving a project that does not lock in every promised benefit.” [yes, this is accurate]
…
“Millstein is correct to draw a distinction between capital “A” Affordable Housing—units that are deed-restricted and tied to specific income thresholds—and what is often referred to as “affordable-by-design” or “missing middle” housing.She is also correct that the Development Agreement governing Village Farms allows for modifications, and that City Council decisions—both present and future—can alter the trajectory of a project.”
…
“In her piece, Millstein points to past developments, including the Cannery and Willowbank Park, as evidence that affordable housing commitments can be weakened or eliminated over time.
Millstein is focused on the risk that developers may weaken commitments later and that the City Council will probably allow it—I grant that point.”
…
“Millstein also challenges claims about “affordable-by-design” housing, noting that the 70% figure for smaller, attached homes is not in the Baseline Features but in the Development Agreement, where it can be changed.
That is a fair point.”
…
“Millstein questions whether Village Farms will deliver the full 360 affordable units referenced in campaign materials, noting that the Baseline Features specify “up to” that number and that only a portion of those units are tied to specific construction triggers.
That skepticism is understandable.”
So, Greenwald concedes literally all of the points I made. Greenwald’s main point seems to be that a project without affordable housing would be better than no project at all. (Maybe I’ll write about this in a separate article — it’s a much larger question that goes beyond my original article and requires a lot more discussion).
My view is that voters should know what they are voting for. Many are planning on voting for this project because they think it will include affordable housing — I believe that should be clear for the voters that they may not get that, that all of the housing may be out of reach for most young families, teachers, and local workers .
I will again remind readers:The developers could have chosen to make those promises guaranteed by putting them in the Baseline Features, but they chose not to.
Vote as you like. But don’t vote for Village Farms because you want affordable housing.
Davisite 
Leave a reply to George Galamba Cancel reply