[quote=pri_dk]The history of California is the very definition of urban sprawl. The housing development, the planned community, the suburban neighborhood with two-car garages were essentially invented here. One of the icons of California, Hollywood, was a real-estate development.
It all started before any of us were even born.
But some people think it should have all suddenly stopped as soon as they got theirs….[/quote]
Here you go again, pri_dk …. making “quotes” that aren’t there and putting words in other people’s mouth.
Everyone knows America is a free country. Americans are free to move state to state and always have been. I’m simply stating that persons moving into CA are not entitled to buy or rent “new construction” and never have been.
For example, take CA’s Silicon Valley … or even SF. If a “new hire” or “new retiree” wants to buy or lease an SFR in SV or nearly ANY property in SF, it will NOT be even remotely “new.” Too bad, so sad … if you don’t like it, don’t move there.
As it should be. Infrastructure and public personnel to service “new” construction tracts all over CA only took from cities’ and counties’ ability to maintain their respective urban cores (yes, even with bond $$ to build it – which didn’t pay for servicing it in the long term).
For instance, if the City of SD hadn’t expanded the way it did in the last 30 years, annexing far-flung and disconnected (to themselves) portions of the county, they would have only had the original areas for newcomers to choose to buy and lease in. This didn’t stop newcomers from coming here in the seventies/early eighties. Why would SD be any less desirable because it has less housing areas to choose from? If newcomers don’t like the housing that is on offer in any given place, they are free not to take a position there or retire there. Actually, CA’s existing housing at the time of the passage of the Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act was more than enough to accommodate any newcomers that moved in to accept employment.
Another related subject is, why did CA companies feel they had to recruit out-of-state and out-of-country when CA had over 50 state-run universities at the time and numerous private universities churning out top graduates in every field? In-state college graduates already had family and somewhere to live (or at least to “launch their careers” from). They didn’t need new construction in the stix to flock to.
All the (unnecessary) urban sprawl (esp in the San Joaquin Valley and RIV/SB counties) only attracted (and brought in) multitudes of min-wage and other low-wage earners from neighboring desert states such as AZ and NV and even MX, most of whom don’t pay taxes of any kind. We didn’t need more min-wage households in CA. We have MX for a neighbor, remember?? And there aren’t even enough jobs available for our kids to assist them in getting thru college!
Any and all “bubbles” aside, how much do you think SD County properties built before, say ’87 (the “debut year” of CFD formation in the county) would be worth today if SD County’s elected officials had instead instituted no/low growth initiatives from the get go? And because public funds would have been diverted to the existing infrastructure from then forward, don’t you think SD County’s housing stock, in particular, would be better maintained as would its streets and other infrastructure? Their certainly would have been more incentive for owners to do so, don’t you think?
Likewise, for the schools. Do you actually think “Hoover” and “Crawford” HS’s were ALWAYS “low-performing?” You might be SHOCKED to know how many local officials, philanthropists and “celebrities” graduated from those two schools.
The housing stock around both of those schools is VERY well-built, well-located and even “prestigious.” Ask yourselves how these schools have become what they are now?
Using SD County for an example, how has having a (current) 3M population vs. 1M population (in 1982) made the county’s quality of life “better?” And if you think it IS better now, WHO is it better for?
For starters, the officials running the counties of Marin, Contra Costa (most cities), San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara (most cities), El Dorado, Mendocino and the cities within them had it right all along in imposing their no/low growth initiatives early on. Just compare the quality of life in these counties to the quality of life in CA counties whose officials have been “rolling in the sheets” with Big Development for the last 30 years. There lies your answer.
