[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]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.[/quote]Factually incorrect. Stone Creek was in the community plan decades ago. Here’s the plan from 1994. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/carroll_canyon_master_plan_1994.pdf So yeah, stick with the facts if you can.
[/quote]I did “stick with the facts.” I understand the 22-year old “Master Plan” of that area. I looked the whole thing over when you first posted it. A local government’s “Master plan” or “General Plan” doesn’t in any way, shape or form mean that any land they have “earmarked” for future residential development has actually already been subdivided for that use … or even that there are any pending applications for subdivision at the time the Master Plan was created. What I stated on this thread was that there were “no residential parcels within 300 feet” of this project who had the right to formally object to it. Sure, City can hold multiple “public community meetings” or “town hall” meetings to explain to Mira Mesans (in this case) what is going to go down on this land which was long used for heavy industry and even possibly strip mining. They can put on a dog and pony show for you and get community “input” to pretend like they care what you all think (for public relations purposes). But since there were no real affected homeowners in accordance with municipal code and state law, they can (and will) essentially grant any subdivision permits they wish in the back room and appear like they are “satisfying” Mira Mesans desires by widening affected streets and permitting a parking garage.
AN, you have to ask yourself how MM went from less than a 20K pop in 1980 (vast majority SFR dwellers) to the mini-megalopolis it is today, where it takes now over 30 minutes to travel the 5-6 miles? between I-15 and I-805 on MM Blvd. Were all your “old timers” asleep at the switch when City decided to cram another 50K people on that same ~10K AC (size of MM) since then? And they’re not done with you guys just yet. They’re apparently now going to cram another ~10K people in your neck of the woods directly atop likely highly-toxic soil … assuming there IS still any soil left in the first 8 feet, lol. (Ask Denverites and Boulder [CO] residents how that turned out for them.) Oh, and this project is going to be built adjacent to multiple low-rise chain hotels which bring another 400 to 1000 (temporary) “residents'” vehicles to your streets on any given day. Sounds to me like a recipe for permanent gridlock :=0
[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]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.[/quote]Doesn’t matter. I want SD to grow not stay stagnant. Which mean I want A LOT more development. So, it’s perfectly fine old timer can stay in their home with their low tax bases. [/quote]AN, I agree with you that people who owned their CA homes at the time of the passage of Prop 13 (1978) and still own (and reside) in them today should be able to keep their ultra-low assessments. But that’s not what happened with Prop 13. It was essentially “amended” in the mid-eighties to allow those “old timers” to deed their (assessment-protected) homes to their children (Prop 58) and grandchildren, if their parent is deceased (Prop 193) while alive or allow their child(ren) to deed it to themselves upon their death(s). What this did is create a whole new subset of owners of CA homes with permanently-protected assessments who are as young as 25 years old! These younger, able-bodied “heirs” are now enjoying their parent(s) or grandparents(s) ultra-low assessment and paying $400 to $1800 annually in property taxes (depending on area) while their poor-schmuck next-door neighbors are paying $3500 to as much as $14K annually in taxes! The ill-conceived progeny of Prop 13 created a gross inequality among homeowners with the same type of home on the same block by unjustly enriching (undeserving) “heirs” with up to a 90% discount off their property tax bills! Many of these Gen-X/boomer “heirs” inherited HUGE apt complexes and commercial property (with long-term lease income attached to it) and will collect many thousands in rents annually for life whilst paying a property tax bill which is 80-90% discounted! What this has done is created the “haves” and the “have-nots” in this state based only on the family’s longetivity of residence in this state and for no other reason. It doesn’t matter if the “heir” (who is getting the 80-90% property tax discount) spent half their life in state prison, has never worked a day in their lives, does not even possess a GED, has never served in the military, has never been and is not disabled or moved into their recently deceased parent’s home from living in their car or van for the last few years. It doesn’t matter if they have the ability to even pay the few hundred in taxes annually that they owe or the ability to financially maintain said property and the motivation to keep the landscaping up and minor repairs done. All that matters is WHO they are and that they are the rightful “heir” of their parent or grandparent’s property. This lecture was given to me by one of the top probate attorneys in the county and I have permanently filed it in back of my brain.
Thus, more and more properties in CA’s well-established areas (ESP valuable coastal parcels) will be handed down into perpetuity and will likely never be available for sale.They are permanently off the market! Our state gubment created this ridiculous “mechanism” and have been suffering mightily for it for decades but there are too many people these sections benefit (who actually vote regularly) so the “political appetite” is not yet there for our legislators to introduce a repeal of Props 58 and 193. Until CA voters wake up and revolt and press their legislators to do something about it, nothing will ever be done about it. The problem is, in many CA counties (SD included), hundreds of subdivisions have been built (incl those in “master-planned communities”) since the passage of Props 58 and 193 and a HUGE percentage of voters now lives in them. They don’t see first-hand (as do established-area dwellers) that they are paying among the highest property taxes on the block (by thousands) for a property of lesser-market value than their able-bodied neighbors who are “protected” by Props 58 and 193. Part of the reason that many of them are living in these outer subdivisions to begin with is that they wanted to live closer in when they were home-shopping but couldn’t find anything in the established areas they were shopping in which they could afford. The reason for the sticky prices and holdout sellers (even in established inland areas) is because of a perpetual and constant dearth of inventory in their neighborhoods. The reason for that is entirely due to Props 13, 58 and 193.
AN, are you okay with Props 58 and 193 or do you think they should be repealed?
