By Matt Williams

I learned something very interesting in the last few days that gave me an incredible sense of “Here we go again!” Specifically, where is the $6 million Affordable Housing contribution coming from?

Alan Pryor has said on the Vanguard that the $6 million is coming from the developer, but is it? Or is it actually going to be coming from the taxpayers?

The history of the Cannery tells us that there is a very good chance that the taxpayers will end up footing the bill for the $6 million. But because Village Farms is so sketchily defined/described, there is no way to know.

Cannery was much better and more completely described/defined, but one year after the documents had all been signed, they came back to the City saying they “needed” $12 million more cash. City Council negotiated the $12 million down to $8 million … and then imposed a 30-year Mello-Roos Tax on the Cannery residents, with the taxpayer total payments of which amounting to more than $21 million taken out of those taxpayers’ pockets.

There is nothing in the Baseline Features or the Development Agreement for Village Farms that tells Davis voters whether there will be a Mello-Roos levy (often called a CFD), and/or how large the Mello-Roos levy will be.

To add insult to injury at The Cannery, the City Council never asked the developer what value the City would be getting back in exchange for the $12 million being asked for, or the $8 million eventually given. Unfortunately, the City got zero dollars of value in that Cannery situation.

We have no way of knowing what might happen in the case over Village Farms. This is just one more way this project is not ready for prime time, and the only logical vote on Measure V is “No.”

Arguably, they are downright deceptive

By Roberta Millstein

In a previous article, I explained how it is only the Baseline Features of a project that are guaranteed to be built.  I further explained that the Affordable Housing that Village Farms claims to provide is not part of the Baseline Features, i.e., the features that we will vote on as part of Measure V — it seems to be, but then by referring to the Development Agreement where it says only that the City “may elect to request Developer to construct the units” (emphasis added), it becomes clear that there is no guarantee of Affordable Housing at all. (Please refer back to that article for details).

In this article, I will explain that the “commitments” to affordable-by-design housing that proponents tout in their ballot arguments and elsewhere are similarly ephemeral.  Voters should be aware that the project may not include much affordable-by-design housing at all.

First, let’s clarify.  In California, capital ‘A’ Affordable Housing has a specific legal definition, with classifications based on income as a percentage of Area Median Income (AMI).  In order to qualify to occupy an Affordable Housing unit, one has to fall into the requisite income class.

But “lower case ‘a’”, affordable-by-design (also called “missing middle”) housing has no such income restrictions.  Anyone can purchase it, regardless of income.  However, as the name suggests, the point is that certain types of housing are likely to be less expensive, and thus more affordable: duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, and multiplexes are examples.  They are still “market rate” — they will cost whatever the market will bear — but the hope is that they will be affordable to those who do not qualify for Affordable Housing but who do not earn enough money to purchase larger, single-family homes.

So, what do the Village Farms proponents promise?