Another great reason to stock up even more the next time there’s a crash.

BG, I’m not sure what newcomers you’re referring too. The population increase is coming whether you like it or not.

Or have your kids decided not to create any grandkids?

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Why is it that the citizens and leaders of Bay Area counties (as well as the County of Los Angeles) don’t seem to have a problem saying, “enough is enough?” These jurisdictions don’t feel a need to cut off the top of every . single . hilltop only to throw up hundreds or thousands more crapshacks. Ask yourselves why SD County leaders and its citizens feel we should continually do this.[/quote]What are you talking about? LA have 2X the population density as we do. Which mean they already “chopped off all the hilltop” as you like to put it, many years ago. Then found out that’s not enough, so they build even more. SD is mostly built out, which mean any future development will be infill. No more major hills being chopped off.

As for crapshacks… LoL, I won’t even go there.[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. That commonly-held misconception is an “illusion” created through the act of driving on the freeways in LA County while never getting off of them to see where the “real” residents live. Millions of drivers living elsewhere are using LA County’s roads daily and I-10/Jct Rte 66 running all the way thru the county is a major coast-to-coast long-haul trucking route. In addition, LA County is THE major west coast ship-to-shore distribution point for goods from Asia shipped across the entire country as well the major US freight carrier package drop distribution point for all of SoCal (City of Industry & Vernon). LA County freeways are used by residents of four adjoining counties every . single . day to/from their own counties of residence. All of these activities contribute to LA County looking “busy” and “crowded” every day to a motorist on the outside looking in.

Yes, most of its beach areas are very congested as is the small community of Hollywood and other small scattered tightly-packed communities (annexed into City from LA County). The vast majority of its isolated congested neighborhoods are situated in micro-areas on the west side and some of them were later zoned residential/commerical (ex: Culver City).

The truth is, LA County actually has a LOT more open space than SD County does. Yes, it has a much larger population than SD Co but it had a LOT more flat, buildable land to begin with than SD County did.

The bulk of homes built in CA on substandard lots (<5000 sf) were built long ago in small beach communities which allowed this type of subdivision more than 60 years ago (ex: Coronado) OR, much more commonly, built within CFD's in the past 30 years. SD County is home to hundreds of CFD’s and LA County is home to none (that I’m aware of).

I’ve been “off the freeway” in residential areas in at least 24 cities in LA County in the past two years (mostly east and SE of dtn LA) and I can attest that the residential SFR lots there are bigger than SD (city and county) lots by 1200-1400 sf (on average). 8-10K lots proliferate in many, many cities and the houses on them sell today for just $425-$650K. SD County does NOT have this kind of selection in established neighborhoods and certainly not in areas which would be considered “affordable!” In all areas where it was possible (flat and contiguous with no ocean access or view) the City of SD was originally zoned 8-10 (SFR) units to one AC (on avg). OTOH, the vast majority of the City of LA was zoned 6 units to one AC (on avg). The entire City and County of LA was much better planned than was the City and County of SD. By virtue of LA being more established than SD at the time of the passage of the MR Community Facilities Act (1982), what land left in LA County which wasn’t built up at that time was mostly set aside as open space. I haven’t found any subdivisions there newer than 1985/86, except for one large subdivision built in the nineties on the LA Co side of the San Bernardino County line (Phillips Ranch 91766). It is NOT within a CFD!

SD City and County leaders ruined SD County when they approved wa-a-a-ay too many (tremendously upzoned) CFDs and thus, SD is no longer “America’s Finest City.” They didn’t need to do that. People would have moved here, anyway, just as they do in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (which have about 55% of their land set aside as open space). There are VERY few CFDs in this ~20 by 60 mile swath of nearly half-mountainous peninsula and they are isolated from the rest of the established neighborhoods (ex: Foster City, built up on a land mass on the bay which was a former landfill). Hence, the unmatched quality of life those residents share as well as their rock-solid RE values on into perpetuity. As it should be.

Our leaders ruined SD County out of personal greed. They wanted their “sphere of influence” larger thru the collection of more property taxes (which end up as Teeter-fund refunds from Sac back into the cities and counties) and saw a way to do this by rolling in the sheets with Big Development year after year. In doing so, they sold the quality of life of existing residents (longtime San Diegans) down the river. The result is that four out of five of our County supervisors now have ~24 years (6 terms) in office in their current seats (and humungous pensions built up as a byproduct) all due to voter complacency and lack of term limits. The 5th Supervisor (Pam Slater-Price) served in her supervisorial post 16 years (4 terms) and prior to that, one 4-yr term as Mayor of the (newly-incorporated) City of Encinitas before finally retiring. Again, due to voter complacency and running unopposed. The buck stops with them and their “County General Plan.” We, as residents and voters, reap what we sow.

[quote=AN]BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.[/quote]I was comparing the entire counties, NOT just the cities of LA and SD.

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.[/quote]I was comparing the entire counties, NOT just the cities of LA and SD.[/quote]
Your argument breaks down even worse when comparing county. LA County have a density of ~2100 people/sq-mile. While SD County have a density of ~680 people/sq-mile.[/quote]

Exactly, AN. LA is now allowing building to the lot lines.

BG, you’re so out of touch. No wonder you want your country back.
The world will move on without you. It’s your responsibility to keep pace, not the other way around.

Lol. Someone sounds a little bitter. Lol.

[quote=ltsdd]

Instead of making up stuff and wild-ass guesses. Here’s a good site for some data.

http://www.city-data.com/county/San_Diego_County-CA.html

Some key stats:
migration – outflow slightly more than inflow
births is >2x deaths
industries: 92% is non-scientific/technical[/quote]

The migration data on that site is 11 years out of date.