[quote=briansd1]BG, you have an antiquated way of thinking.
You can’t force people to live where they don’t want.[/quote]
If newcomers want to live in a particular area bad enough, they will live in what is available, irregardless of age, presence of a garage, or availability of single-family residences (examples: SF and Manhattan).
[quote=briansd1]And yes, people will go where they can find new construction. If you don’t allow people to build new near the city center, there will go build new elsewhere. If you don’t allow new construction or upzoning in San Diego, Temecula is happy to grow its tax base. Or people will build on virgin land, up to their entitlements.[/quote]
If buyers all go where they can find new construction, most will likely have a long daily commute to work, some 1 hr+ each way. “Temecula” is grossly overbuilt and its region currently had one of the highest SFR vacancy rates in the nation as of Q4 2010:
I daresay Temecula will not be approving any more single-family permits that have not already long been in the pipeline.
And I doubt many “people” will be “building on virgin land” in CA in the future. It currently costs nearly $10K in fees/bribes just to set a new water meter in SoCal counties. And we haven’t even addressed here the cost of bringing water or other utilities to the “virgin” property. Only deep-pocketed fools who are dead set on having their own “desert oasis” without regard to resale value will be attempting this. :=/
[quote=briansd1]It’s clear that urban planning of the last 20 years is not working and hasn’t stopped sprawl.[/quote]
The only reason for the out-of-control sprawl in the last 20 years is CA City/County gov’t greed and nothing else. Now they are stuck having to provide services for 2-3x their former populations with reduced tax coffers coming in and all the MR bond $$ being diverted away to school districts and the CFD’s.
[quote=briansd1]The status quo is not working. So change it; or don’t complain when avocado groves of Fallbrook and El Cajon are bulldozed for development, and the urban sprawl continues.[/quote]
Don’t know about Fallbrook but El Cajon (92020) has had a proliferation of new rental complexes, condo conversions and new condos in the last decade-plus, causing the City to have a whole lot more residents to now provide services for (many low-income). The vast majority of these *new* residents do not pay any property taxes. I’m sure the mayor and City Council there are now regretting the decisions they (and their predecessors) made in issuing all those permits, considering that the majority of condo-conversions there have now been foreclosed upon.
[quote=briansd1]BTW, that house in El Cajon is crap. It has potential for refurbishment, but few buyers have the inclination. Why bother living in a neighborhood where the neighbors live in those conditions? Not worth investing the money and energy.[/quote]
brian, it is clear here that you are obviously ignorant as to how the housing stock looks (both inside and outside) in that area. Have you ever been there and have you ever been inside any homes out there? Try an open house sometime. You might be shocked, lol!
