bg, reading your post, I see you’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts, and you’ve forgotten large and important parts of this thread. Notably the parts where I illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying and selling a home near a freeway. Nothing you’ve said can’t be answered by reading my previous posts. As long as you read them carefully and in their entirety.
Re-explaining what I’ve already explained, pointing out where you’ve forgotten stuff, pointing out where you’ve misquoted me, pointing out where you’ve implied I said something that I didn’t say, and asking you the same questions many times without an answer isn’t worth my time. The fun-to-work ratio has ceased to be over one. It’s fun debating someone who plays fair, reads carefully and completely, and disagrees with me. It’s a waste of time to debate someone who makes me point out their debate errors and who appears to have either not read or forgotten what I’ve written.
Sometimes it’s fun debating you because, I’m a bit ashamed to admit, I enjoy illustrating that you’re a harpy, not-very-bright shrew. You seem like you need your opinion of yourself knocked down a couple pegs. But that has gotten to be more work than fun. And it’s not really sinking in, anyway. You appear to be incapable of seeing when you’re wrong.
Nonetheless, I said I’d respond, so here it is:
[quote=bearishgurl]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc. [/quote]
You’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts. That’s how you know you’re desperate.
You said:
“Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.”
I said:
“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways. So if people buy near a freeway, it’s because they “insist” on newer construction. Do I have that right? Is that how you came to the conclusion that…
“the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range”…?
If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did.”
Then you said that I said:
“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.”
The part about why people buy near a freeway is the key part of my question. You said some people buy near a freeway because they insist on newer construction. I was trying to ascertain how you came to that conclusion. And I asked if my guess as to your reasoning wasn’t correct, then what was your reasoning? Which you still haven’t answered.
How did you come to the conclusion that people settle for incessant freeway noise because they insist on newer construction?
[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]
Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway. [/quote]
The whole point of this debate has been whether buying near a freeway can be a good tradeoff. You saying “it’s not” doesn’t mean anything. I’ve already illustrated (quite a few times) why it can be a good tradeoff for some people. And I’ve already illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying a home near a freeway.
Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t. [/quote]
Show me where I said they “have to” buy a home with freeway noise. I said it could be a tradeoff that could be worth it for some people.
You can maintain they don’t need to buy a home near a freeway and I won’t disagree with you. That isn’t my point and it never has been. My point is, and has always been, that most not-rich people have to make some tradeoffs, and that for some of them freeway noise could be a reasonable option for them. How do you not know that that’s been my point? Oh, wait, I know. You’re not very bright and you can’t read very well. If you have another explanation for how you don’t know that, I’m all ears.
Inventory is low right now, and there really isn’t much for sale in that area. I don’t currently see two comparable houses with one near the freeway and one not. But let me ask you something: What would you expect to find in such a comparison? You do agree the one near the freeway will be cheaper, all other things being equal, right? Or one near the freeway might have something another one doesn’t but be the same price, right?
If not, why not?
If so, then my contention would be that some people (not you or me) would reasonably take the cheaper house and put up with the noise so that they could live in that neighborhood, and some people would reasonably take the same price house near the freeway so that they could have whatever it has that the other one doesn’t, but isn’t more expensive.
It’s a hypothetical question that really doesn’t need actual listings, although at some point such listings will appear.
[quote=bearishgurl]
Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.
Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.
Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.
If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).[/quote]
Below, you seem to be saying that no desirable locations are available to homebuyers:
[quote=bearishgurl]
Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for. [/quote]
But now you’re saying that land isn’t available to developers. If desirable locations are available to homebuyers (which they are), then your previous point is invalid, regardless of whether desirable land is available to developers.
I’m not sure about other areas, but in Carmel Valley, thousands of very nice homes unaffected by freeway noise have been built and made available to homebuyers recently.
Well, that was a waste of time and not fun. bg, if your response is more garbage that could be answered merely by reading my previous posts, I’m out. If you have anything to say that is fully informed about this thread, doesn’t misquote me, doesn’t imply I’ve said something I haven’t said, and doesn’t require me to re-explain what I’ve already said, I’m in.
