San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.[/quote]
It’s not the housing that lured them, it’s the weather, the job prospects, and the image of California that lured them…and all the people before them since the indigenous people of what we now call California. I’m sure the indigenous people would have loved to keep you (and me and everyone else here) out, too, but that’s not how it works, (un)fortunately.
As a native Southern Californian, I have also seen all the overbuilding and the decimation of once-beautiful scenery. The neighborhood in which I grew up was once surrounded by orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry fields that we could play hide-and-seek in at night…not to mention the glorious views from the mountaintops which we would have to hike to because there were no roads. Now, it’s all developed: those hills that were free for us locals to use are now gated developments with expensive homes — they’ll call security the second you step out of your car up there; and those agricultural fields and groves are now condos, hotels, and high-rise offices. I don’t like it, but accept it as a condition of living in such a desirable place.
I also know that while it might be nice for my descendants to inherit property worth a gazillion dollars, this gain would come at the expense of all the families who would have to pay the exorbitant prices that would exist without new development…and I’m just not cool with that.
You say that the newcomers can just move out to the desert or some other far-flung place with cheaper housing and lower-density development, but it goes both ways. People who don’t like all the density and new developments can move to fly-over country to live on a farm, if space is what they’re looking for. Nobody should expect someone else to pay through the nose so that existing homeowners can enjoy ever-rising housing prices and a nice view of the hills over there. That is nobody else’s duty or obligation, not the government’s nor the families who are just looking for a home in which to live and raise their children.
And Mello-Roos taxes are a boon to the old-time land owners and developers. The land owners get to sell to the developers at an inflated price because the cost of infrastructure development isn’t deducted from the price of the land. The developers also get to sell homes for more than they otherwise would because the cost of the homes aren’t discounted as much as they would be if the cost of the infrastructure were factored into the total price (the “how much a month” club never seems to care much about total price). The benefits of MR are shared between these two parties, and the hapless and hopeless new buyers continue to overpay because financing these costs over decades “makes it more affordable.” :([/quote]
CAR, I agree with much of what you are saying here, EXCEPT that the older established areas are NOT losing value because of the presence far-flung, more “affordable” housing tracts within the same county. In other words, all the overbuilding we have experienced did NOT keep values in established areas (and thus prices which longtime owners situated in these often coveted areas will accept) down. It did nothing to prevent a future heir from inheriting a residential property now worth a “gazillion dollars” in an established area.
I never stated that newcomers should move to far-flung outer lizardia. What I stated, essentially, is that SD County (mostly out of the coastal zones) has numerous areas in which the existing housing is priced appropriately for them, ie parts of Santee, Lemon Grove, Spring Valley, parts of El Cajon, Lakeside, San Marcos, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, etc, and, to a lesser extent, South County cities to a lesser extent. Moderate income newcomers who want to buy a house for their families don’t have to move very far at all from the urban core or job centers. There are plenty of listings in all of these areas. They’re not entitled to new construction just because they have “arrived” here, nor was I. I never stated housing was a “lure” for newcomers but that Big Development’s mantra has always been, “Build them and they will come.”
There was no reason that the leaders of San Diego County and its cities needed to approve so many subdivisions. Especially since “new housing” is not the major “lure” for newcomers to this region. Even LA County and the OC planned their rate of growth much better than SD did …. especially LA County.
And yes, I am considering moving to the mtns, primarily to be close to skiing and living in surroundings with a bit more “solitude.”[/quote]
San Marcos for example is priced appropriately compared to more upscale areas of North County, but it’s not appropriately priced correlated to wages/salaries in the area. Why would an electrician move to San Marcos when he/she could move to the suburbs of Las Vegas and purchase an equal size house that’s roughly the same age for half price? Yes, I know it’s over 100 degrees in the summer in Las Vegas, but it does get in the mid to upper 80’s regularly in San Marcos in the summer with high humidity. Even in San Marcos, Santee, Lakeside, etc, high housing prices make it difficult for a veterinary assistant to afford housing, even an apartment. Speaking of affordable housing, there is an interesting editorial in the San Union Tribune from yesterday which advocated for a free market solution to affordable housing. Free market meaning economic growth. Textbook wise, economic growth should lift all boats, but it hasn’t in the last 30 years, since wages/salaries haven’t increased for the bottom 50% . I like the suggestion in the public comment section below the article of eliminating Prop 13 for second home owners. I also advocate means testing it as well, having it only apply to recorded owners who earn have an adjusted gross income of under $100,0000.
