Piggs, did Chula Vista residents have a better quality of life when the City only had a 52K population (as opposed to the current 250K+)? Methinks they did (lots of hills to 4WD on, places for shooting practice and learning to drive, fields to play in, etc). Nearly all of the housing stock existing in 1987 in Chula Vista (when the first CFD in SD County was “created”) would be worth FAR MORE today if all the rampant lizard-land development had never broken ground. The City didn’t have the 3 extra zip codes and thus didn’t need all those employees and extra public safety stations back then and so would not now if they never approved all this “expansion” to begin with. Why do jurisdictions in CA feel like they have to accommodate endless growth?? As an example, parts of the State of WA don’t! Most of Marin County (CA) doesn’t! The reason is due to governmental greed tied to self perpetuity.
If there wasn’t all this new and *newish* construction to choose from, newcomers would have to buy existing resales and rent in existing bldg stock. When I moved to SD in the 70’s, I rented an apt in a circa 1917 bldg (with a 180 deg view of the bay, I might add). What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Why are the desires of a newcomer (or recent college grad) who only wants to live in new or *newer* construction, the problem of those who are already here and satisfied with living in the same homes they always have??
How has all this unchecked “growth” made San Diego County a better place to live??
I have no problem with the revitalization of downtowns and infill spec building but am SO against urban sprawl. :={
I believe CA cities and counties should have instituted no-growth parameters around their urban centers a VERY LONG time ago. Instead, they issued hundreds of thousands of permits in outlying areas. It all boils down to governmental GREED. The idea of Mello-Roos bonds was hatched by two CA senators who aggressively pandered this bill to the legislature! Voters in various jurisdictions were “tricked” into voting in the CFD’s cuz their wording on the ballot was “couched” in “incoming-revenue speak” and the downsides were not properly explained. Notice anything new here??
This problem of unchecked growth is now bigger than we are and has taken on a life of its own. It is no longer fixable, except by the market, who will most certainly from here on out dictate where all CA’s future “ghost-towns” will be. The market will have spoken loud and clear by the time a local gov’t has to send contractors out to “board up” some of these superfluous “subdivisions” located 60+ mi from major job centers as they will cost a fortune to keep the utilities and services flowing there with only a =<5% occupancy. The excessive building that has gone on in this state, in the last ten years, especially, is completely and utterly unsustainable, IMHO, as we will most assuredly run out of resources.[/quote]
Transportation costs are heavily subsidized to encourage sprawl. The Transnet tax that funds highways that is a sales tax instead of a gas tax because voters have an irrational phobia toward any tax on cars and gas. People will drive miles for cheaper gas yet won't spend time to analyze the bigger expenses.
