[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] It’s already built out.[/quote]I would grant you that much of the County is already built out. The damage (sprawl) has already been done and cannot be reversed.[/quote]
True.
[quote=briansd1]We have a metro area that stretches from the border to Camp Pendleton and Temecula, and from the ocean to Alpine. That’s huge sprawl for population of 3.1 million. My point, is that the “smart growth” that we tried did not stop sprawl but encouraged it.[/quote]
“We” (meaning our local leaders representing you and me) never tried to stop sprawl. Instead, they embraced it (to get their chunk of the bond monies from new CFD creation to build police/fire stns and libraries in order to “expand themselves”).
[quote=briansd1]Developers could not redo Pacific Beach, or Clairemont. So they buldozed virgin land go create places like 4S and San Elijo Hills, and East Chula Vista.
The easiest to build land will be built first. But new technology is allowing building on hilly terrain. Those hills will eventually be be flatten out to facilitate building.[/quote]
This was already tried 30-35 years ago in Spring Valley … with disastrous results. Remember, not only are these hills covered with 1/2 ton+ boulders, they are MADE from rocks and boulders and very deciduous soil. The same applies to those hills in Santee, Esco and eastern Fallbrook.
[quote=briansd1]There are still huge tracts to be built such as in Santee. The area along Mission Gorge in Grantville will be developed, all the way to the edge of Mission Trails park.[/quote]
I don’t know Santee’s plans but Grantville (SD) is zoned comm’l, light industrial and has a few moderate/low-income apt complexes. Are you suggesting the city will throw out all this (needed) biz and rezone for massive residential building? Do you know what you’re asking here?
[quote=briansd1]The remaining avocado groves in El Cajon will come down. That is only on hold because of the recession.[/quote]
These small “groves” you speak of are on the other side of Sycuan Casino (County/Jamul) and NOT in EC. There are also a few in LM (east side of Mt. Helix). Each “grove” parcel has a SFR sitting on it. This is NOT the type of land that is for “agricultural use only.” It is, first and foremost, residential. Most of the small farms, ranches and corrals (with SFR’s) in 92019 are owned by persons with Prop 13 protection and several have already been passed down with same. These families are NOT going to go for upzoning of their “area,” EVER. You can’t wait until they die because their offspring will take title to the land.
[quote=briansd1]The Inland Empire will continue to grow and people will continue to move there in search of affordable houses.[/quote]
This may be true if the insatiable greed of city/county leaders in SB and RIV counties for more bond $$ for themselves remains unabated.
[quote=briansd1]Redevelopment agencies are winding down, so sprawl will continue.[/quote]
Actually, brian, the reverse is true. If you, as a developer, wish to redevelop infill lots with aging bldgs currently sitting on them, the world is your oyster (within the current zoning ordinances, of course)!
[quote=briansd1]The only way to stop sprawl is to upzone all lots in the city and allow organic (some would call it haphazard) redevelopment. IMO organic growth creates fun, interesting cities. We do need some local government planning, but micro managing (such as requiring setbacks in downtown buildings) increases costs for everyone and results in stale, boring places.[/quote]
SF is “fun” and “interesting.” There hasn’t been big swaths of open land to build on there (except sporadic infill lots) in the last 80 years. Do you think it actually “grew” organically (haphazardly) or with watchful, regulated supervision?
******
brian, I don’t think you know the what would have to happen for your “dream utopia” to be built in SoCal (which seems to be turning it in a massive Asian city). It appears you want to (1) repeal longtime state legislation; (2) change (relax) city/county ordinances; and (3) “upzone” wholesale entire swaths of desirable land in CA coastal counties.
Ain’t gonna happen.
brian, do you understand that your youngest NIMBY opposition to all your dreams is now a “younger” Gen-X??
You won’t live long enough to even see your least-ambitious “urban planning” dreams come to the fore …. at least not here.
Why don’t you move to North Dakota? TPTB there are currently considering allowing the permitting of MASSIVE tracts of both SFRs and rental units. Maybe you can help them with your “progressive ideas!”
