[quote=afx114][quote=bearishgurl]If this urban-sprawl was not allowed to take effect to the degree it did, it is VERY likely that new-homeowner money would instead have been used to revitalize SD’s close-in neighborhoods house by house and block by block.[/quote]
Have you been to North/South Park, Hillcrest, Normal Heights, Gaslamp, East Village, etc in the past 20 years? They’ve gentrified quite a bit, so I don’t know what your above paragraph even means. Have you expected them to gentrify more than they already have?[/quote]
Yes, afx, I am aware that these areas have “gentrified” and that East Village is actually overbuilt now with a proliferation of *new* unsold (partly vacant) condos. I go downtown 1-3 times per week, to Hillcrest several times per month and the Gaslamp several times per year. In addition, I drive thoroughfares of all of these areas frequently and originally lived in dtn SD (Banker’s Hill) from mid 70’s to the mid 80’s, where I jogged with a neighborhood group for about 10 years. In many cases, my photographic memory of parts of the SD core serves me well if a particular corner has not changed too much over the years :=]
Currently, I just don’t see very many *families* buying/renting in these areas, just singles and couples. In the past, families loved North Park/South Park, Hillcrest and Mission Hills and willingly sent their kids to public and private schools around there. For a downtown worker, it was considered *prestigious* to live in SD’s best urban areas as opposed to your old “stomping ground” in La Presa (Spring Valley) or National City, for example. Back then, all this “urban sprawl” inventory for a buyer to choose from did not exist as we know it today.
Of course, this was all PRIOR to the inception of the Community Facilities District Act (1982) and use of Mello Roos Bonds in SD County (1987), ostensibly put in place to fund infrastructure of raw land for residential development. The passage of the “MR Act” by the CA Legislature was also partly a byproduct of the earlier passage of Prop 13. Because even though MR bonds aren’t funding infrastructure in the already-established areas, they free up cities and counties to service these areas with a larger portion of their available funds due to the MR set-asides collected within the CFD’s to maintain their own separate public and private services and facilities. For instance, the City of Chula Vista is now collecting ALL of their portion of the property taxes for 3 annexed zip codes (over the original 2) and some the MR collected from those 3 zip codes. (Most of the MR collected from those 3 zip codes is used solely to fund the infrastructure and services there.) This is STILL a windfall for Chula Vista, CVESD and SUHSD because the CITY runs ALL the services (police/fire/administration/road maintenance, etc) and the DISTRICTS run ALL the schools (even those in MR areas). For example, I have no doubt that the labor-intensive 65-90 year old trees on City easements in my area are still trimmed regularly because the City is collecting so much more money from these newer HOA’d areas which are wholly or partly financially “self-sufficient” due to collection of MR, “Street Bonds” and HOA dues. Of course, property owners in my 60+ year old area do NOT pay for all the services they enjoy because a very large portion of them (35-40%?) are owned (not necessarily occupied) by persons who qualify under Prop 13 or its progeny to retain their last market-rate assessed value as of September 1977 plus 2% per year in accordance with Prop 13. This keeps their taxes artificially low in comparison to owners who have purchased since then and especially owners who have purchased since 2000.
I just don’t think most younger buyers with children today even consider looking in the close-in urban areas when they are in the market for a home because they “perceive” listed properties there to have more “maintenance,” to be located in higher-crime areas and to have “substandard” schools, etc., when actually the opposite is true. Many properties there have undergone extensive remodel in recent years. There is also far more public school choice within SD’s core than a family would have in an outlying area.
Remember that the 22-45 year old set with children are the biggest market segment of homebuyers. Younger singles and couples without children often don’t really NEED a home and wish to be in a position to be mobile, if necessary. The vast majority of singles and couples older than 45 either already HAVE home(s), will never be able to purchase a home or are now retiring and/or downsizing or will be soon. The “attitudes and biases” this younger market adopts will dictate the future values of various diverse RE market areas.
