[quote=Essbee][quote=bearishgurl]A neighborhood just one mile from Mission Bay (SD) cannot possibly turn into a “slum.” It is likely you haven’t been to Detroit, New Orleans, the Blue Ridge Mtns or the rural midwest and southwest parts of the US. In those places you will find REAL “slums” and “sub-slums” (dwellings not even built on foundations).[/quote]
On the contrary, in addition to San Diego, I have lived in the midwest (11 yrs), two cities on the East Coast (4 yrs each), and in Los Angeles (3 yrs). I have traveled to almost every state (45 or 46 of them, I believe).
Detroit is probably somewhat comparable to Baltimore, which has MANY blocks of abandoned and boarded-up row houses, including areas within walking distance to world-class attractions and hospitals (Aquarium, Inner Harbor, Johns Hopkins).
I agree that SD’s core will not reach the levels of poverty seen in some of these cities (and Tijuana), but I am concerned they may well decline to much worse conditions than seen at present. (ie as these homes reach the 100 year mark in the 2050-2070 era, without proper maintenance).
How can this be mitigated? How can urban planners, government, etc help this not happen, but still preserve people’s property rights, etc? Does anyone think that the re-zoning process should be amended? Or is considering that too unfair to the current owners / heirs in these geographically desirable locations?[/quote]
Having only been “on the road” in less than 20 states, you have traveled more than I have Essbee! I HAVE been to Baltimore a handful of times and been to the aquarium and Camden Yard but didn’t see the neighborhood you are mentioning here. HOWEVER, I was walking and NOT driving.
I don’t see ANYTHING changing in regard to zoning in CA coastal cities unless the Prop 58 progeny of Prop 13 (inheritance provision) is repealed or Prop 13 is repealed in its entirety. It would have to be put to a public vote and capture 2/3 of the vote and I don’t see this happening unless it is piecemeal gutted (meaning the Prop 58 portion is put before the voters first). There are too many heirs that stand to lose this perk and would vote against it. As for the pre-April ’78 original beneficiaries of Prop 13 tax treatment who still own these properties today, they will eventually all pass on. The problem lies with Prop 58 which has the effect of enabling Prop 13 protection to live on through eternity with properties which are kept within the immediate family.
Prop 13 was enacted specifically to keep senior citizens from being taxed out of living in their own homes as the late seventies was a time when assessed values in coastal CA counties were skyrocketing! The later-enacted Prop 58 added the pass-thru provision of Prop 13. Unintended consequences or not, it had the effect of shielding HUGE numbers of very valuable properties deeded to children, either before or after death of the original owner(s), from reassessment. A good portion of these “heirs” are NOT senior citizens (over the age of 65) themselves and thus many are able-bodied workers who, in theory, should be charged property tax equal to 1% of current assessed value (plus applic fees/bonds) as you and I are.
In any case, even if both sections WERE eventually repealed, the current owners ALREADY PROTECTED under the sections would not be affected. They just wouldn’t be able to pass on the perk to their children.
I don’t see massive upzoning (such as that proposed by briansd1) EVER being approved by cities in CA coastal counties. The land is too valuable and private property rights will always prevail.
