As AN pointed out – UTC is part of 92122 and part of university city. The community group is in common, they share the same planning groups, etc. I remember when Genesee was first connected northbound. (Heck I remember when it was connected south to Clairemont.) I remember when the first condos went in, about 1969 – then called Genesee Highlands. (Kids in those townhouses went to Curie Elementary, my elementary school.) So yeah – I’ve seen the growth in my hood. I’ve also seen a few developments go in during the late 70’s and early 80’s in south UC. Some very close to my house. I’m currently watching the old “leisure life” low rise senior living area get torn down and much denser senior housing going in here in south UC. This impacts my daily traffic – but I don’t complain about it… they’ll make good neighbors.
What made you arbitrarily pick 1986? Just curious.
[quote=bearishgurl]
The City of SD did a fine job of separating 92122 (condo vs. SFR area) decades ago with a strip of dedicated open space and the RR tracks which were already there. They didn’t mix the two. The condo complexes constructed in the 70’s and early 80’s are tasteful and well-built with plenty of alley clearance, larger-than-std 2-car garages and mostly spacious units (avg 1650 sf), most with their own courtyards. I haven’t looked at any of the *newer* complexes there (north of Nobel and also east of Genessee, north of the tracks) so don’t know what the clearances are like on them.
[/quote]
LOL – now the Rose Canyon green space folks and the Regents Rd proponents are a good example of a NIMBY topic.
The city plan has ALWAYS had Regents Rd being connected from North UC (UTC) and south UC. But NIMBY folks objected. They claim the green space – but that green space is already impacted by Amtrak/Coaster tracks, Genessee, etc. In the meantime south UC is underserved for emergency response from the fire station in north UC. My family is an example of this divide – my sister is against the bridge, I’m for it. Money was put in escrow by the developers to build the bridge. That money is/was still there. When Scott Peters was on the city council they did extended hearings and the council voted to move forward with the bridge. Then he was term limited out and Lightner was elected – she’s been spending that escrowed money on EVERYTHING but the bridge – hoping to wipe out the funds set aside 50 years ago.
FWIW – San Diego county has a bigger population now. Life marches on. A factor in my decision to retire is the fact that the north 805 construction, and the huge amount of traffic out of Sorrento Valley sometimes made my 6.5 mile commute take over an hour. That project won’t be done till 2017. I didn’t blame the workers, or the folks commuting. I just stopped commuting myself.
What do you propose to stop growth you don’t like? Build a wall and don’t let anyone else move in? Lets get real… that’s not going to happen.
I’m just wondering who decides when growth is ok, and when it isn’t. You don’t like the fact that Chula Vista east was developed. You regularly disparage 4S as lizard land. Is there *any* area you think is ok to develop? Or do you want everyone to be sterilized, and all migration to CA to be banned. You weren’t born here – so is it a case of “you’re here, now lock the gates”. I was born here, but don’t have as much animosity towards people making the choice to move here as you do.
