[quote=bearishgurl]
Now, all these affected CA jurisdictions (hundreds of them) are scrambling to figure out how they’re going to properly SERVICE all these outlying residents on into the future. It’s a comedy of errors which isn’t going to end well, folks.
Hence my impending “retirement” to a much lesser-populated county or out of state.[/quote]
Is this really true? Are all MR jurisdictions scrambling? The PUSD is the only MR district that I’ve ever heard of that has actually raised MR assessments post initial sale. I suspect there are other problems in other parts of the state. But I’ve never heard of that happening right next door in Carmel Valley or anywhere else in the city of SD (outside of the PUSD). There are plenty of older MR districts in CV that have been paid off in due course. The infrastructures have been built and the homeowners paid for it as originally agreed. Maybe similar problems in Chula Vista as in the PUSD (I don’t know)?
Is it possible that the problem is not the MR regulations allowing tax assessments/bond issuance to pay for infrastructure. The problem seems to be when these schemes are abused by municipalities and school districts. I think there’s some evidence that MR can be used successfully.
