Analysis: Critics Question Village Farms Affordable Housing Plan — But Davis’ Own History Suggests Land Dedication Works

By David Greenwald May 7, 2026

Among the central lines of attack from critics of the Village Farms project has focused on the project’s affordable housing strategy. Opponents have argued that because the developer is dedicating land rather than directly constructing every affordable unit itself, there is no guarantee the housing will actually be built.

But the criticism collides with both the economic realities of affordable housing finance in California and Davis’ own development history.

The Village Farms proposal includes plans for approximately 1,800 housing units, including up to 360 deed-restricted affordable homes targeted toward very-low, low-, and moderate-income households. Roughly 280 units would serve very-low and low-income residents, while approximately 80 units would be moderate-income for-sale homes.

The affordable housing package includes approximately 16 acres of land dedicated specifically for affordable housing development, along with a proposed $6 million contribution toward construction costs.

Critics have attempted to frame the arrangement as speculative or uncertain, arguing that the city is relying on nonprofit affordable housing developers and future subsidy financing rather than requiring the Village Farms developer to independently construct all of the affordable units.

But that criticism misunderstands how affordable housing is typically built in California.

For deeply affordable housing — particularly housing for very-low and low-income residents — nonprofit developers routinely assemble projects through layered financing structures involving Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, state grants, federal housing programs, tax-exempt bonds and local subsidy programs.

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee explains that it “facilitates the investment of private capital into the development of affordable rental housing for low-income Californians.”

The agency further states that “Corporations provide equity to build the projects in return for the tax credits.”

Similarly, the California LAO notes that “HCD has several subsidy programs aimed at increasing the supply of affordable multifamily rental housing.”

Under this system, land acquisition often becomes one of the biggest barriers to affordable housing production. Eliminating or reducing land costs dramatically improves a project’s ability to compete for outside financing.

The Grounded Solutions Network, a national affordable housing policy organization, describes “access to land” as a central bottleneck in affordable housing development.

That is precisely why land dedication has become a common affordable housing strategy throughout California — and why Davis itself has repeatedly used the model successfully.

There are numerous concrete examples of affordable housing projects throughout Davis that originated through land dedication agreements between private developers and the city, followed by partnerships with nonprofit affordable housing organizations.

Twin Pines on F Street emerged from land dedicated by the Northstar developer. Adelante Place was built on land dedicated by the developer of the Sterling Fifth Street apartments near the post office. Bartlett Commons in The Cannery followed a similar model. Cesar Chavez Plaza on Olive Drive came from land dedicated by the developer of the Lexington Apartments. Walnut Terrace on Fifth Street also originated through a land dedication structure.

In each case, the city partnered with nonprofit affordable housing developers that then assembled the financing necessary to complete the projects.

Those examples directly undercut the argument that land dedication means affordable housing “won’t get built.” In fact, Davis’ own affordable housing inventory demonstrates the opposite: land dedication has historically been one of the city’s most reliable mechanisms for producing permanently affordable housing.

The Village Farms proposal actually goes beyond many earlier Davis projects by coupling the land dedication with direct construction funding.

According to project supporters, the 16-acre dedication and $6 million construction contribution together represent roughly $30 million in value directed toward affordable housing production.

Affordable housing developments often remain difficult to finance even after land is secured. Construction inflation, labor costs, financing delays and rising interest rates have all increased the financial pressure facing affordable housing developers across California.

By contributing both land and direct cash support, the Village Farms structure reduces two of the largest financial barriers simultaneously: acquisition costs and construction financing gaps.

The project also includes additional enforcement provisions designed to address concerns about timing and completion.

Negotiated project terms reportedly require affordable housing construction to begin before later phases of market-rate development can proceed.

Bapu Vaitla, who initially opposed the project’s affordable housing framework before supporting the revised version, argued that the sequencing provisions became one of the most important aspects of the agreement.

“Village Farms won’t be able to obtain their final set of building permits — permits for large-lot homes that are a major chunk of their expected profit — until construction of those affordable homes is underway,” Vaitla wrote.

He also noted that if nonprofit affordable housing partners are unable to complete the units because of inflationary pressures or inability to secure grants, “the responsibility for building at least 100 units falls to the Village Farms development team.”

“Best of all, this commitment can’t be changed,” Vaitla wrote. “It will be contained within the ballot measure we vote on.”

Many residents support affordable housing in principle but are skeptical of the financing structures that actually make affordable housing feasible.

Yet California’s affordable housing system has never operated primarily through market-rate developers independently absorbing the full cost of deeply affordable units. Instead, the state relies on partnerships among cities, nonprofit developers, tax-credit investors and public financing programs.

The collapse of redevelopment funding (RDA) after 2011 fundamentally reshaped affordable housing finance in California. With the loss of tax-increment financing that had previously provided billions for local affordable housing production, cities increasingly turned toward land dedication agreements, nonprofit partnerships and layered state and federal subsidies to make deeply affordable projects financially feasible. 

HUD materials describing the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program explain that it exists specifically to provide “leverage for financing” affordable housing projects.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) similarly notes that affordable housing projects routinely depend on “public or private housing funds or low-income housing tax credits.”

In practice, nonprofit affordable housing developers often spend years simply trying to secure viable land sites before they can even begin applying for grants and tax-credit allocations. A dedicated affordable housing site dramatically accelerates that process because land control has already been resolved.

This  is especially important in Davis, where developable land is scarce and land costs are exceptionally high.

The Village Farms proposal is critical to the city’s broader housing needs because Davis continues to face pressure to meet state’s RHNA targets, particularly in lower-income categories.

Without large projects capable of producing affordable housing sites at scale, city officials may struggle to meet state housing expectations while maintaining local control over future planning decisions.

Opponents remain concerned about peripheral growth, traffic, infrastructure and farmland conversion. Those concerns remain politically potent in Davis.  But things are changing not only at the state level but locally.

On the narrower argument, those arguing that affordable housing will not materialize because Village Farms relies on land dedication will have a difficult time squaring that with either California’s financing model or Davis’ own history.

The city already contains multiple affordable housing developments built through essentially the same structure critics now describe as unreliable.

And unlike many earlier projects, Village Farms layers additional guarantees onto the model: direct construction funding, development sequencing requirements and fallback provisions requiring the developer itself to construct units if nonprofit partners cannot complete them.

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.