[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
CA coastal counties were never “set up” in the first place to attract the country’s masses of low and moderate income residents. That’s what CA’s inland counties (and NV/AZ?) are for.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that no modern city was ever set up to handle more than 2 million people except for Brasília. Cities evolve and adapt. Some better than others.
I understand your hate of CFD’s and that process. I can’t argue with you, you know a lot more about it than I do. (Though I think you believe that it is a primary cause of California housing problems, and that can’t possibly be true. If it was, Vegas, Phoenix, and much of Florida wouldn’t have had any problems.) There have been countless mistakes by city planners with respect to CFD’s, but I think blaming the process is misguided. In theory, they still make a lot of sense. It’s the practice that need improvement.[/quote]
I never stated that CFD’s were the cause of CA’s housing problems. I stated several times here that they were the direct cause of CA jurisdictions going bankrupt in recent years or otherwise not being able to pay their bills (with the exception of Mammoth Lakes). By their sheer numbers of housing units built within them, the existence of CFD’s magnified the “boom and bust” nature of CA’s RE market manyfold. When these new subdivisions were all originally purchased into around the same time (with “funny-money” mortgages), these thousands of owners all tended to go down at the same time, taking owners in their entire “sub-region” with them. The non-CFD owners in these “sub-regions” could have had little to do with the cause of the “bust” (didn’t borrow subprime/had little to no home equity withdrawn, etc) but their home values suffered for years, nonetheless.
This is what happened in ’07/’08 and beyond in Chula Vista and other areas of SD County where there had been massive CFD formation allowed to go in adjacent to long-established communities.
[quote=SK in CV]I’m a bit surprised by your elitist attitude. The growth of San Diego during the 2nd half of the last century was driven by median income homeowners. They filled Clairemont and created the commercial district in Kearny Mesa, and then Allied Gardens and later San Carlos, as well as the bedroom cities of Chula Vista, National City, La Mesa and Lemon Grove . That wasn’t an accident. It was by design, to attract moderate income homeowners.[/quote]
Actually NC is 3-6 miles from dtn SD (top to bottom) and western Chula Vista is 7-13 miles from dtn SD top to bottom. These aren’t “bedroom communities.” As you know, they are right on the bayfront. They are closer to dtn SD than any of the other communities you mentioned.
In those days (’40’s thru ’70’s), SD HAD to attract “moderate income homeowners.” The city had plenty of production and mechanical (blue collar) positions to fill in local companies which had ongoing contracts with the military.
Except for NASSCO, SW Marine and Kelco on the bayfront, those positions are now long gone.
[quote=SK in CV]You can argue that many of the newer developments in the last 30 years in Chula Vista, in the north county coastal cities, in north county inland in RB & Poway and PQ targeted some higher end buyers, but none of those areas were exclusively higher end (with the exception of CV). RB if you recall, was originally planned as a retirement community. That pretty quickly fizzled, but if I remember correctly it included the first PUD in the state.[/quote]
I don’t know a lot about the early residents of other areas but, actually, most of the new construction in Chula Vista did NOT attract “higher-income” buyers. It attracted low and moderate income buyers. During the era of NINA lending, it also attracted all manner of “phony” buyers, including straw buyers for agents/mortgage brokers and non-US citizen-buyers who somehow successfully availed themselves of NINA financing. When the owners within these CFD subdivisions “crashed” all at once, it created a VERY dysfunctional RE market …. for EVERY owner within a ten-mile radius.
[quote=SK in CV]You can whine about growth all you want. I grew up in San Diego. I remember when there was almost nothing but cows in Mission Valley. And where Fashion Vally Mall now stands, there was a brand new 8,000 seat baseball park. A lot has changed since then. But San Diego and other CA coastal cities aren’t attractive to people as a destination by accident. People WANT to live in SD. You can’t keep them out unless your goal is to drive major employers out. And that bus left a long time ago.[/quote]
New residents can and will come, SK. But we no longer have the social-service infrastructure and funds to “bail them out.” They have to buy or rent something they can afford for the long haul or stay where they are. SD County and its cities are not obligated to provide “new construction” or low-income housing on the beach or anywhere close to it for newcomers.
A lot of the “population influx” in SD’s South County in recent years did NOT pay their own way. Not only did they get NINA mortgages and cry how unfair they they were “treated” by their lenders (after “squatting” for months/years), they enrolled their kids in the “free breakfast/lunch” program at school, used low-cost (subsidized) HeadStart and YMCA childcare, got CA cell phone and home phone subsidies, and, after losing their homes to FC or SS, filed applications for TANF and EBT cards and used South County’s 2.5 assigned domestic judges for their divorce case :=0. The list goes on.
From what I’ve seen, the lower-tier “new construction tracts” (many PUDS with “zero lot lines”) attracted locals and newcomers who wouldn’t otherwise have purchased here, were it not for developer incentives and buy-downs and the ability to get in for “no money down” or, as in the past, with NINA mortgages.
Chula Vista would have been much better off if they hadn’t approved any new CFD’s since 1992 (Eastlake Greens) and just left well enough alone. They’re now struggling mightily with about 60% of the employees they had in 2005 and there is no relief in sight, due to having its population nearly triple since 1992.
Chula Vista’s PTB did it to themselves but ALL residents bear the brunt of their bad decisions.
