3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PCinSD]Want me to post your quotes?[/quote]Please do. What has stopped you thus far? I haven’t edited ANY of my posts here after posting them, except for spelling or punctuation (and that was only immediately after posting them). Get busy and you have my blessing!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]It’s probably deleted by now.[/quote]Um, flu? You’re another one who spends too much time on here. Except, of late, you’ve been a bit boorish and trollish. Chiefly, by following posters around and making veiled insults (me included). But that’s okay. It just shows that you have nothing better to do with your time and that you don’t feel anyone should have an opinion which is different than your own.

Nothing I ever posted here has been deleted. Aren’t you a glorified computer hack? Get busy, yourself! Maybe you can help pablo. The main problem with our attorney-in-residence’s research skills is that he has his facts all wrong (which isn’t a good trait for an “attorney” to have). But that’s okay. I’m waiting with bated breath to see what he comes up with, lol ….

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]So I’m not sure what her concern is. I don’t think we’ll have a flood of buyers changing that anytime soon. Property values should stay “stable” there and not move that much, which it sounds like is what she wants…[/quote]

There can’t be any buyers because there aren’t any sellers. Everyone has owned their home since before prop 13, (most have lived there for over 100 years) and then pass their homes on to their children who rip off everyone else by not selling and continuing to have very low property taxes.[/quote]This is true for 91910 and 91911. 91913 was annexed into City in 1986/87, 91914 was annexed into City in 1991/92 and 91915 was annexed into City in 2000/01. All of these annexations occurred after the passage of Prop 13 (1978) and Props 58/193 (1985/86). Except for two single-family subdivisions (and one older subdivision transferred from 91911 to 91913), the entire land masses of these later annexed-in zip codes are within CFDs.

Yes, Chula Vista DOES have 100 year old houses. But those houses (situated in North Chula Vista near the Nat’l City border) were brought in, placed on lots there in pieces from Golden Hill (SD 92102) and reconstructed. The oldest houses in 91910 (stick built on site) are about 85 years old. The oldest houses in 91911 are about 55 years old (circa 1961).

The City of Chula Vista is actually two vastly different worlds with vastly different demographics from one another … the 2 original (mostly westside) zip codes and the 3 (later-annexed in) zip codes. The difference is profound (night and day).

There have been four more deaths of the last owner in my immediate area in 2016. Three of those homes were promptly taken over by children (boomers) and one was taken over by a grand-daughter (Gen X). That is why there is very little single family inventory in 91910 and will continue to be. This will go on in thousands of CA zip codes with well-established residential communities within them into perpetuity, as long as Props 58 and 193 remain on CA’s books.

Prop 13 protection from reassessment for CA residents who owned property in the state on 3/31/78 and still own that same property today would disappear on these properties on the date of death of the last owner (who owned it in 1978) were in not for its later progeny passed by the Legislature in ’85/86, which effectively rendered the same properties protected from reassessment into perpetuity, as long as it was deeded to a child or grandchild (if their child(ren) is deceased) before or after the death of the last owner on title. This assessment rollback began with a September 1975 assessment (effective September 1978, after Prop 13 was passed) + 2% per year into perpetuity.

Even current CA residents who bought their properties as late as 1992 have a 20-25% lower tax bill than those who bought their properties since 2000.

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]It’s not dementia but staying home all the time and being out of touch with change and how other people live. . . .[/quote]Um, FIH, unlike you, who posts here 24/7, I AM busy. On top of that, I’ve needed to travel a lot this summer and that is not over. Unlike you, I don’t access the internet from devices. If I’m not sitting at my desk at home and have time for this nonsense, I’m not able to go on this site.

Why don’t you consider checking out the gym 10-15 hours a week or try scaredy’s floating meditation? Methinks you spend too much time here opining on nearly everything 12 hrs per day, every day. In other words, get a life![/quote]

lol. I find it funny you are saying this with a straight face, given that……..

1. …you just posted 4 times in a row…..

2. ……you find need to comment on almost every subject matter as the leading expert of everything, when clearly you are not,

3…..you regularly writes painstaking 10+ paragraphs of text which I must admit I never read most of it, which is mostly opinion masqueraded as fact. Because, sadly, if I ran my zip compression program on your paragraphs, it would probably compress down to two words: “WTF BG?”

4. you go at great length to find 1 smiggin internet article written to support your wild ass opinions stated as facts (despite the overwhelming data contradicts your opinions stated as facts)
5. you seem to have grown angry and bitter at just about everything and anyone that seemingly has gotten ahead, and come here to vent with your diatribes.

So much for having “a life”. Pot meet kettle. If you have “a life”, you would have dropped off a long time ago, because clearly you aren’t here for educational value/financial info/value, since apparently you already know everything and are an expert at everything.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]It’s not dementia but staying home all the time and being out of touch with change and how other people live. . . .[/quote]Um, FIH, unlike you, who posts here 24/7, I AM busy. On top of that, I’ve needed to travel a lot this summer and that is not over. Unlike you, I don’t access the internet from devices. If I’m not sitting at my desk at home and have time for this nonsense, I’m not able to go on this site.

Why don’t you consider checking out the gym 10-15 hours a week or try scaredy’s floating meditation? Methinks you spend too much time here opining on nearly everything 12 hrs per day, every day. In other words, get a life![/quote]

lol. I find it funny you are saying this with a straight face, given that……..

1. …you just posted 4 times in a row…..

2. ……you find need to comment on almost every subject matter as the leading expert of everything, when clearly you are not,

3…..you regularly writes painstaking 10+ paragraphs of text which I must admit I never read most of it, which is mostly opinion masqueraded as fact. Because, sadly, if I ran my zip compression program on your paragraphs, it would probably compress down to two words: “WTF BG?”

4. you go at great length to find 1 smiggin internet article written to support your wild ass opinions stated as facts (despite the overwhelming data contradicts your opinions stated as facts)
5. you seem to have grown angry and bitter at just about everything and anyone that seemingly has gotten ahead, and come here to vent with your diatribes.

So much for having “a life”. Pot meet kettle. If you have “a life”, you would have dropped off a long time ago, because clearly you aren’t here for educational value/financial info/value, since apparently you already know everything and are an expert at everything.[/quote]flu, is this the second, third or fourth time you have replied to me for another poster on this thread? Are you such a know-it-all that you can’t let them get up in the morning and reply at their own convenience?

If you don’t like my posts, you are free to block me. You don’t have to read them or run any dumb “utilities” you might have on them. Aren’t you supposedly still gainfully employed and don’t you work (away from home) Monday thru Friday? If so, why are you here replying for other posters on a Sunday after midnight?

I frankly could care less what you think of me. As usual, YOU don’t have your facts straight and have these preconceived notions about people in your head that are just plain false.

No, I do not like what SD County has become but that does not make me “bitter.” Many thousands of longtime San Diegans share my opinion and many of them are much more vocal in their communities re: their no-growth efforts and NIMBYism than I am. I am not because I don’t have time for that type of activism and I don’t care anymore because I don’t intend to “retire” around here.

Why don’t you go find someone else to glom onto and troll after? I used to have a lot more respect for you but your posts have devolved into continuous passive-aggressive rants in recent months/years.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=PCinSD]Want me to post your quotes?[/quote]Please do. What has stopped you thus far? I haven’t edited ANY of my posts here after posting them, except for spelling or punctuation (and that was only immediately after posting them). Get busy and you have my blessing![/quote]

I did get my facts wrong. My apologies. You didn’t get turned down by the SDPD. You were denied employment after failing the psych exam for a much lesser position . . . A federal prison worker. Damn. How messed up do you have to be to fail that?

[FlyerInHi]

BG, it’s not just a difference of opinion.

You’re out of touch because you keep on insisting certain things can’t be done when people are clearly doing them. California will grow, population will increase. Expensive or not, people will find housing. If needed, they’ll double up or triple up. Of course, it’d be better if housing were affordable so people can spend their money in other sectors of the economy.

[no_such_reality]

Whenever I go into Ikea, I marvel at how functional and spacious the sub-600sf urban space or the sub-800 sf two bedroom space sample homes they’ve done are compared to any of the 1000-1200 1 bedroom apartments I rent in the 90s.

They’re far more spacious and useable than many of the 3/2, 4/2 1200-1600 ranch SFRs built for the suburban boomers in the 50-70s littering southern California, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PCinSD][quote=bearishgurl][quote=PCinSD]Want me to post your quotes?[/quote]Please do. What has stopped you thus far? I haven’t edited ANY of my posts here after posting them, except for spelling or punctuation (and that was only immediately after posting them). Get busy and you have my blessing![/quote]

I did get my facts wrong. My apologies. You didn’t get turned down by the SDPD. You were denied employment after failing the psych exam for a much lesser position . . . A federal prison worker. Damn. How messed up do you have to be to fail that?[/quote]Good work, pablo. Your “research skills” are picking up.

Now, in same thread, as I recall, you were actually quite conciliatory :=0 Among other Piggs recounting their stories of friends/relatives undergoing psych evals for law enforcement positions, YOU recounted that your ex-spouse applied for a position at SDPD and was required to undergo a psych eval as part of the application process.

My questions for you now (I didn’t ask them then) are, “Had your ex-spouse applied for a sworn staff position when she was required to undergo a psych eval? If so, did she pass it? If so, was she ultimately hired? And if so, is she currently still an active member of the force today?

Thanks in advance of your replies.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, it’s not just a difference of opinion.

You’re out of touch because you keep on insisting certain things can’t be done when people are clearly doing them. California will grow, population will increase. Expensive or not, people will find housing. If needed, they’ll double up or triple up. Of course, it’d be better if housing were affordable so people can spend their money in other sectors of the economy.[/quote]Where did I ever insist that certain things couldn’t be done? I KNOW people are doubling and tripling and quadupling up to afford rentals in expensive cities. My own kids are doing that and have been doing that for 10-15 years (youngest for 2 years). People who move into built-out cities will accept the housing that is on offer there, room with someone who already has a rental or not move there at all. Those are their 3 choices. These cities don’t “owe” anyone (renter or buyer) new construction to move into.

It is not the amount prospective newcomers who determine population size of any given city. It is the amount of available housing units a city has at any given time which determine potential population growth. And that number in and of itself doesn’t actually indicate the population will grow when a unit is filled. For example, just because there is an opening (vacant room) in a flat in SF for a new prospective roommate, the person who ultimately moves into the room is only filling the slot of the person who recently moved out. The same goes for other established houses/units on the local market. Newcomers who fill these units are only replacing people who moved out of them into another unit the same city or elsewhere. There is no “population growth” if there is no new construction.

If you don’t build them, newcomers have no choice but to take what is on offer if they want to reside there. If newcomers don’t like what is on offer in the new locale they are considering moving to (price or dwelling or both), they will either room with someone else (who already owns or has a lease on a unit) or not move there at all …. plain and simple. This theory works in the real world and has worked throughout history.

[FlyerInHi]

If your kids are doubling up, then why can’t older adults?

The population will grow even if there is no new construction. But there will always be new building.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]If your kids are doubling up, then why can’t older adults?

The population will grow even is there is no new construction. But there will always be new building.[/quote]If that new building is only infill (replacing the old bldg with a new bldg with the same amount of units, due to restrictive zoning), then no, that doesn’t add any units to the city and thus won’t add any population to the city.

I would imagine that people of all ages share units in an expensive city like SF. Boomers and seniors around me do not, because it is “affordable” to live here. We can get by without having A/C and public transportation is everywhere. It doesn’t cost most of them more than a few hundred a month in housing costs to live here, especially if one’s home is paid off and their property taxes are low. There is no reason whatsoever to share living space unless one can’t afford their bills where they are currently living by themselves. OR they are disabled in some way and need daily help.

It doesn’t matter if the boomer or senior’s home is a 2 bdrm or a 5 bdrm. In CA, if one bought their current residence more than 25 years ago and has no mortgage, it’s always cheaper to stay where they are and not move (even if they are only using one out of five bdrms) than sell and re-buy or rent another place in CA. If a household of one finds they want a roommate, they can always get one.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=PCinSD][quote=bearishgurl][quote=PCinSD]Want me to post your quotes?[/quote]Please do. What has stopped you thus far? I haven’t edited ANY of my posts here after posting them, except for spelling or punctuation (and that was only immediately after posting them). Get busy and you have my blessing![/quote]

I did get my facts wrong. My apologies. You didn’t get turned down by the SDPD. You were denied employment after failing the psych exam for a much lesser position . . . A federal prison worker. Damn. How messed up do you have to be to fail that?[/quote]Good work, pablo. Your “research skills” are picking up.

Now, in same thread, as I recall, you were actually quite conciliatory :=0 Among other Piggs recounting their stories of friends/relatives undergoing psych evals for law enforcement positions, YOU recounted that your ex-spouse applied for a position at SDPD and was required to undergo a psych eval as part of the application process.

My questions for you now (I didn’t ask them then) are, “Had your ex-spouse applied for a sworn staff position when she was required to undergo a psych eval? If so, did she pass it? If so, was she ultimately hired? And if so, is she currently still an active member of the force today?

Thanks in advance of your replies.[/quote]

More importantly, how messed up do you have to be to fail the psych exam required to be a federal prison worker?

Seriously.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PCinSD]More importantly, how messed up do you have to be to fail the psych exam required to be a federal prison worker?

Seriously.[/quote]The fact that you failed to answer the questions I asked is very telling.

pablo, have YOU ever applied for a criminal justice position … or a sworn staff position?

Inquiring minds want to know …

[FlyerInHi]

BG, if the rents are high enough, people will rent out their rooms.

You may not like it, but population growth is happening, it’s just a matter of how fast.

Good policy is making sure the population can afford comfortable, affordable housing. Yes, we do owe it to our population.

[Author]

Posts