[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]And it is really okay if SD County doesn’t grow (appreciably) going forward.[/quote]Why do you care? You’ll be leaving soon anyways. Thank goodness the people at city hall disagree with you and hopefully we’ll have a lot more development going forward.[/quote]AN, I may or may not relocate. I haven’t made up my mind.
(SD) “City Hall” does not call the shots where developers can build. They’ve approved upcoming multifamily/mixed use projects on dry river-bottom land fka “Vulcan (rubber) Materials” in MM and on a sloping area just above the SD River which long housed underground gas tanks and gas lines through MV. Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn’t need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their “input” because there were no such residential parcels.
Those swaths of land have to be THE most undesirable land in the city! I would strongly advise anyone against buying a residence in either one of those (likely poorly-mitigated, if at all) environmental catastrophes in the making. We all know why City approved these doomed projects. They’re desperate for new property tax revenue … even in the short term (until such time as the HOAs of these projects sue the developers who summarily skipped town and nearly all the homeowners bail and eventually end up in foreclosure). SD has the bulk of the the most valuable residential parcels in the county within city limits but it is collecting very little property tax on most of it. Why? Because as the OP’s linked report by the county’s high-priced consultants state, these parcels (many of them “prized”) have been “hoarded” by boomers and senior citizens, then deeded to their children and grandchildren before or after their deaths. This practice has been going on for decades and will continue to go on into perpetuity and City of SD is suffering mightily for it.
County didn’t need to hire any “high-priced consultants” to tell them what I have repeated dozens of times here on this forum for “free.” And their “consultants” didn’t even explain why! That is that Props 13, 58 and 193 are the culprits. THEY are the reason for the dearth of inventory (more pronounced every year) causing sticky prices in established areas. If CA boomers and seniors had more perceived “mobility” (their residence was reassessed to market or adjusted to a new “mill levy formula” biennially, as it is in many other states), many of them would downsize and move to another (cheaper) county or state to have lower property taxes in retirement. But as it stands, longtime CA homeowners are not going to give up their ultra-low assessments, ever! “Ever” includes for their heirs … and their heirs … and so on. And why should they? Our shortsighted Legislature put the fix in for CA’s longtime homeowners through an ill thought-out statutory scheme in the mid-eighties which effectively allowed members of the same family to enjoy their ancestor’s ultra low assessments into perpetuity … regardless of age, ability to pay tax, ability to work, disability status, etc, etc. In doing so, it permanently screwed over the state budget and those of its cities and counties …. royally.
In sum, CA boomers and seniors were “trained” and “encouraged” to “hoard homes.” They came by that habit honestly and so we can’t blame them for doing it. That’s what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.
