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

<

>

Response to Alan Pryor concerning Mutual Housing’s support of Measure V

By David J. Thompson

In today’s Vanguard (May 29,2026), there is an OpEd by Mutual Housing in support of the Village Farms project: “We Should Know: Village Farms Gives Affordable Housing Its Best Chance,” by Craig Adelman, CEO of Mutual Housing.

Early this morning Alan Pryor, a frequent poster on behalf of Village Farms supported the OpEd stating among other items that:

“Mutual Housing is the largest and most respected affordable housing developer in Northern California – and in Davis.”

Both facts promoted by Alan Pryor in this statement are simply not true. I say that as over 40 years an advocate, funder and co-developer of affordable housing in not only Davis but throughout California and five other western states.

Here is the remainder of my response to Mr. Pryor in today’s Vanguard:

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 Mutual Housing and 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 any way, “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 is not in the legally confirmed baseline or in the malleable 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.

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, , , ,
Davisite logo

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

Comments

3 responses to “Response to Alan Pryor concerning Mutual Housing’s support of Measure V”

  1. Roberta Millstein

    Thanks to David Thompson for this knowledgeable and clear response from someone who actually knows the affordable housing landscape.

    At the risk of “sonorously pontificating” (as Alan accuses David and me), I want to reiterate something that David says above: nothing in Mutual Housing’s op ed shows that there aren’t loopholes in the Baseline Features and the Development Agreement. That’s because the loopholes are there in plain English.

    Baseline Features: “Village Farms Davis will provide land and capital toward the construction of up to 360 Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing units.” “up to” does not mean that 360 will be built. It means that 360 is the maximum.

    Baseline Features: “The project shall guarantee that construction of at least 100 lower income Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing units is commenced prior to or concurrent with the delivery of the 150th market-rate unit in the Residential-Low-Density district, as set forth in the Development Agreement” So right away we see that is, at best, 100 units that are guaranteed. But are they guaranteed? The sentence refers us to the Development Agreement. Let’s look there.

    Development Agreement (changeable by City Council): “Notwithstanding the above, if the City determines that construction of the 100 lower income units is infeasible for any reason, City may elect to request Developer to construct the units.” From this we can see that 1) the City will first try to construct the units, but if it fails, 2) the City may elect to request the Developer to construct the units.” I believe David was the first to notice these wiggle words, words that mean that the housing may not be built at all. Period.

    Nothing that Alan Pryor or Mutual Housing says changes the plain facts of those loopholes. And David called out those loopholes before the City certified the Baseline Features and the Development Agreement.

    If the developer was so committed to building the Affordable Units, then why are the loopholes there?

    Reply
    1. Alan Pryor

      Following is my response I posted to David Thompson’s reply to my Vanguard article,

      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?”

      Reply
      1. Roberta Millstein

        Funny to complain about deflection while not addressing anything that David says, but instead resorting to more personal attacks against him.

Leave a comment