- This topic has 450 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by FormerOwner.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 26, 2008 at 12:44 PM #13133June 26, 2008 at 12:54 PM #228920kewpParticipant
There was an article somewhere I saw that predicted that within the next 10 years the suburbs will become the new ghetto. Poor families living 2-3 to a McMansion and driving used SUV’s to local minimum-wage jobs.
I personally think that is what is going to happen.
I’ve said a few time, that even if you can pick up a house in the IE for ten cents on the dollar, think of who your neighbors are gonna be before you move in!
June 26, 2008 at 12:54 PM #229040kewpParticipantThere was an article somewhere I saw that predicted that within the next 10 years the suburbs will become the new ghetto. Poor families living 2-3 to a McMansion and driving used SUV’s to local minimum-wage jobs.
I personally think that is what is going to happen.
I’ve said a few time, that even if you can pick up a house in the IE for ten cents on the dollar, think of who your neighbors are gonna be before you move in!
June 26, 2008 at 12:54 PM #229047kewpParticipantThere was an article somewhere I saw that predicted that within the next 10 years the suburbs will become the new ghetto. Poor families living 2-3 to a McMansion and driving used SUV’s to local minimum-wage jobs.
I personally think that is what is going to happen.
I’ve said a few time, that even if you can pick up a house in the IE for ten cents on the dollar, think of who your neighbors are gonna be before you move in!
June 26, 2008 at 12:54 PM #229083kewpParticipantThere was an article somewhere I saw that predicted that within the next 10 years the suburbs will become the new ghetto. Poor families living 2-3 to a McMansion and driving used SUV’s to local minimum-wage jobs.
I personally think that is what is going to happen.
I’ve said a few time, that even if you can pick up a house in the IE for ten cents on the dollar, think of who your neighbors are gonna be before you move in!
June 26, 2008 at 12:54 PM #229097kewpParticipantThere was an article somewhere I saw that predicted that within the next 10 years the suburbs will become the new ghetto. Poor families living 2-3 to a McMansion and driving used SUV’s to local minimum-wage jobs.
I personally think that is what is going to happen.
I’ve said a few time, that even if you can pick up a house in the IE for ten cents on the dollar, think of who your neighbors are gonna be before you move in!
June 26, 2008 at 5:34 PM #229066temeculaguyParticipantkewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.
There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.
Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.
June 26, 2008 at 5:34 PM #229185temeculaguyParticipantkewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.
There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.
Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.
June 26, 2008 at 5:34 PM #229193temeculaguyParticipantkewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.
There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.
Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.
June 26, 2008 at 5:34 PM #229228temeculaguyParticipantkewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.
There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.
Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.
June 26, 2008 at 5:34 PM #229242temeculaguyParticipantkewp, you hate the burbs, we know you are rooting for it to take the ghetto population but it wont. There are places in the I.E. and in S.D. that will be attractive to poor people….the same places that they are already in. Why would they leave their current ghetto, prices and rents will go down or stay the same, there will no longer be redevelopment pushing them out. If you ever really spend time in the ghetto, you can gain an appreciation for what it is that attracts them to a specific area and Temecula/Murrieta has very little to offer them. I have detailed it on another thread, master planned areas purposely design against it, older mixed use areas are ripe for it. If you can’t walk to a liquor store, check cashing place or a minimum wage job, from a cheap place to live it repels them. Most ghetto inhabitants lack consistent vehicle licensing and insurance, walking distance is key. Zoning is the best defense a community can have.
There will always be poor people all over but in order to proliferate and reach the tipping point where they scare off everyone else, it takes the right lack of zoning, not just cheap housing. Those used SUV’s still need a license and insurance, when they cops pull them over they actually lose the car for a month, have to pay a grand to get it back plus insurance and most never get it back. That’s a hell of a tax that drives them into mixed use places where houses are next to stores. Look at the rotton part of any of the larger S.D. burbs (Esco, San Marcos, Vista). The ghetto part is always where you are with a few hundred yards of stores. There are examples within those same cities where rent is the same but a few miles from basic services and they just don’t go to hell because that couple of miles is an eternity to a permanent pedestrian.
Excellent rule of thumb for the future of any development or area, if you can get by without a car, it’s in the “risk” category. Look at the coastal areas, can you get by in Imperial Beach without a car? yeah. Can it be done in Del Mar? not really. More of Oceanside can be pedestrian than La Costa, compare most any two areas and apply the pedestrian principle, it’s better than tarot cards for telling the future. Land use is far more important than price when determining potential decay.
June 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM #229071barnaby33ParticipantOh Shit! Hillcrest is going to be next! Actually TG I think you are wrong. Most of the truly wretched areas are out in the styx. Its easy to look at Logan or City Heights and see ghetto. Its much harder to look at low density environments and see them, but they are there just the same. Lots of extreme poverty and ignorance in the Central and Imperial Valleys and most places there you can’t walk to anything.
JoshJune 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM #229190barnaby33ParticipantOh Shit! Hillcrest is going to be next! Actually TG I think you are wrong. Most of the truly wretched areas are out in the styx. Its easy to look at Logan or City Heights and see ghetto. Its much harder to look at low density environments and see them, but they are there just the same. Lots of extreme poverty and ignorance in the Central and Imperial Valleys and most places there you can’t walk to anything.
JoshJune 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM #229198barnaby33ParticipantOh Shit! Hillcrest is going to be next! Actually TG I think you are wrong. Most of the truly wretched areas are out in the styx. Its easy to look at Logan or City Heights and see ghetto. Its much harder to look at low density environments and see them, but they are there just the same. Lots of extreme poverty and ignorance in the Central and Imperial Valleys and most places there you can’t walk to anything.
JoshJune 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM #229233barnaby33ParticipantOh Shit! Hillcrest is going to be next! Actually TG I think you are wrong. Most of the truly wretched areas are out in the styx. Its easy to look at Logan or City Heights and see ghetto. Its much harder to look at low density environments and see them, but they are there just the same. Lots of extreme poverty and ignorance in the Central and Imperial Valleys and most places there you can’t walk to anything.
Josh -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.