[quote=bearishgurl]Palo Alto is one of the most expensive cities in SV. Why is it that your friends need to live there? There are many other cities in SV which are in the same league as the Carmel Valley (SD) that they left. Palo Alto is not. It’s several notches above Carmel Valley, so IMO, based upon your post, your friends’ housing sights are set too high for their resources and budget.[/quote]LOL, I don’t know how else to respond to this.
[quote=bearishgurl]Let me ask you something, UCGal. Does your beloved hometown of UC (SD) now have over 5x the population it did in 1986? Has SD increased the density there 500% (multifamily units) since 1986? [/quote]Don’t you see all of those condos/apartments popping in UTC?
[quote=bearishgurl]I’m aware that the UTC area (adjacent to UC but different zip code) is nearly all multifamily units but a large portion of those units were built prior to 1986. Several large complexes there have oversized garages and alleys easy to turn and park in one’s garage. In addition, those older complexes are built exponentially better than the typical crap shack built in Otay Ranch in recent years and the streets in UTC are wide and easily navigable. [/quote]WTF? They’re both 92122. What are you talking about?
[quote=bearishgurl]And btw, NIMBYism is legal, whether “on steroids” . . . or not. I believe CA coastal counties should be preserved at all costs … at least the 1st and 2nd tier coastal zones of them (1st 8-20 miles from the coast, depending on topography). As you know, they’re among the finest parts of the country to live in. A low or moderate income family should not be guaranteed a “cushy life” in one of them or any life at all for that matter. They should be reserved for those who have paid their dues or have the resources to live comfortably in them.[/quote]LOL, NIMBYism at its finest. Guess what, as population grows, city needs to grow and get more dense. Deal with it or move.
