how crazy is SFO real estate?

[Coronita]

I learned a new acronym today…

NIMBYism

I never knew…

What about if you’re a poor person like me and don’t really have a backyard?

[an]

[quote=flu]I learned a new acronym today…

NIMBYism

I never knew…

What about if you’re a poor person like me and don’t really have a backyard?[/quote]Maybe, it’s NIMCYism? Not In My Court Yard ism? 🙂

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=flu][quote=The-Shoveler]They got an office in Irvine, Heck that would actually work for me LOL.[/quote]

I tried the commute since I have to go there sometimes. It sucks, even from north county. especially on a friday..

Google did indicate they have a commuter van from San Diego to Irvine. I guess you can also take the coaster.

Amazon is up there too.[/quote]

I go out of John Wayne airport SNA a lot, it is a lot easier than going to San Diego Airport in the morning.
Not too bad but I don’t mind driving (well most times).

[bearishgurl]

Everybody’s got an opinion about all of us horrible NIMBYs until their OWN quality of life is affected by unbridled growth. Has anyone here who lived on a quiet street gotten a letter from their city and Caltrans stating that the street in front of their house is going to be extended by 8-10 miles to accommodate 100K living units of additional traffic? If so, did your letter state that a freeway entrance would be built five houses down from you and that your sidewalk and part of your easement would be taken for an additional lane and your sidewalk moved further up on the easement (bordering your front yard)? Did it state that a double yellow line would be drawn down your (future 4-lane) street? This happened to hundreds of homeowners in Chula Vista, many who had purchased their home new between 1961 and 1964. Do any of you have deep enough pockets to fight City Hall and Caltrans? Come on, let’s hear it, folks. What if you went to 2.5 years worth of public hearings and were ultimately told to pack sand? If you listed your property for sale, you would then have to disclose to a prospective buyer (or their agent would) the upcoming plans for the street. How would that make you feel? Trapped, possibly??

As I previously stated, Poster child Chula Vista is but a microcosm of the far-reaching effects of the presence of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act on CA’s books. I’m sure Stockton’s old-timers aren’t too thrilled about their post office waits increasing from 4 minutes to 45 minutes. Without the Act in place, the Golden State would still be golden. Alas, those days are long gone, never to return.

The City of SD did a fine job of separating 92122 (condo vs. SFR area) decades ago with a strip of dedicated open space and the RR tracks which were already there. They didn’t mix the two. The condo complexes constructed in the 70’s and early 80’s are tasteful and well-built with plenty of alley clearance, larger-than-std 2-car garages and mostly spacious units (avg 1650 sf), most with their own courtyards. I haven’t looked at any of the *newer* complexes there (north of Nobel and also east of Genessee, north of the tracks) so don’t know what the clearances are like on them.

You people all need to come down and take a tour of craptastic 91915 and see for yourself what I’m talking about. WTH, spend all day there and drive down every street (you might have to wait your turn, though). ’nuff said.

***

Oh, and btw, Palo Alto and Aspen have some of the most diligent, deep-pocketed, nose-to-the-grindstone NIMBYs on the planet and they aren’t going anywhere! Hence we have the prohibitive housing cost in those places. Deal with it.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Everybody’s got an opinion about all of us horrible NIMBYs until their OWN quality of life is affected by unbridled growth. Has anyone here who lived on a quiet street gotten a letter from their city and Caltrans stating that the street in front of their house is going to be extended by 8-10 miles to accommodate 100K living units of additional traffic? If so, did your letter state that a freeway entrance would be built five houses down from you and that your sidewalk and part of your easement would be taken for an additional lane and your sidewalk moved further up on the easement (bordering your front yard)? Did it state that a double yellow line would be drawn down your (future 4-lane) street? This happened to hundreds of homeowners in Chula Vista, many who had purchased their home new between 1961 and 1964. Do any of you have deep enough pockets to fight City Hall and Caltrans? Come on, let’s hear it, folks. What if you went to 2.5 years worth of public hearings and were ultimately told to pack sand? If you listed your property for sale, you would then have to disclose to a prospective buyer (or their agent would) the upcoming plans for the street. How would that make you feel? Trapped, possibly??[/quote]I’m glad the city told them to go pound sand. Yay for increase density. I wouldn’t be buying in a place that this can happen. I like to be in a place that have higher density and more amenities.

[quote=bearishgurl]As I previously stated, Poster child Chula Vista is but a microcosm of the far-reaching effects of the presence of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act on CA’s books. I’m sure Stockton’s old-timers aren’t too thrilled about their post office waits increasing from 4 minutes to 45 minutes. Without the Act in place, the Golden State would still be golden. Alas, those days are long gone, never to return.[/quote]Got proof on that?

[quote=bearishgurl]The City of SD did a fine job of separating 92122 (condo vs. SFR area) decades ago with a strip of dedicated open space and the RR tracks which were already there. They didn’t mix the two. The condo complexes constructed in the 70’s and early 80’s are tasteful and well-built with plenty of alley clearance, larger-than-std 2-car garages and mostly spacious units (avg 1650 sf), most with their own courtyards. I haven’t looked at any of the *newer* complexes there (north of Nobel and also east of Genessee, north of the tracks) so don’t know what the clearances are like on them. [/quote]What does separating housing type has anything to do with anything? The density still increased.

[quote=bearishgurl]You people all need to come down and take a tour of craptastic 91915 and see for yourself what I’m talking about. WTH, spend all day there and drive down every street (you might have to wait your turn, though). ’nuff said.[/quote]I did go there a few years back. Looks perfectly fine to me. Lots of new houses. I would personally make either Telegraph Canyon or Olympic into a freeway.

[UCGal]

As AN pointed out – UTC is part of 92122 and part of university city. The community group is in common, they share the same planning groups, etc. I remember when Genesee was first connected northbound. (Heck I remember when it was connected south to Clairemont.) I remember when the first condos went in, about 1969 – then called Genesee Highlands. (Kids in those townhouses went to Curie Elementary, my elementary school.) So yeah – I’ve seen the growth in my hood. I’ve also seen a few developments go in during the late 70’s and early 80’s in south UC. Some very close to my house. I’m currently watching the old “leisure life” low rise senior living area get torn down and much denser senior housing going in here in south UC. This impacts my daily traffic – but I don’t complain about it… they’ll make good neighbors.

What made you arbitrarily pick 1986? Just curious.

[quote=bearishgurl]
The City of SD did a fine job of separating 92122 (condo vs. SFR area) decades ago with a strip of dedicated open space and the RR tracks which were already there. They didn’t mix the two. The condo complexes constructed in the 70’s and early 80’s are tasteful and well-built with plenty of alley clearance, larger-than-std 2-car garages and mostly spacious units (avg 1650 sf), most with their own courtyards. I haven’t looked at any of the *newer* complexes there (north of Nobel and also east of Genessee, north of the tracks) so don’t know what the clearances are like on them.
[/quote]

LOL – now the Rose Canyon green space folks and the Regents Rd proponents are a good example of a NIMBY topic.

The city plan has ALWAYS had Regents Rd being connected from North UC (UTC) and south UC. But NIMBY folks objected. They claim the green space – but that green space is already impacted by Amtrak/Coaster tracks, Genessee, etc. In the meantime south UC is underserved for emergency response from the fire station in north UC. My family is an example of this divide – my sister is against the bridge, I’m for it. Money was put in escrow by the developers to build the bridge. That money is/was still there. When Scott Peters was on the city council they did extended hearings and the council voted to move forward with the bridge. Then he was term limited out and Lightner was elected – she’s been spending that escrowed money on EVERYTHING but the bridge – hoping to wipe out the funds set aside 50 years ago.

FWIW – San Diego county has a bigger population now. Life marches on. A factor in my decision to retire is the fact that the north 805 construction, and the huge amount of traffic out of Sorrento Valley sometimes made my 6.5 mile commute take over an hour. That project won’t be done till 2017. I didn’t blame the workers, or the folks commuting. I just stopped commuting myself.

What do you propose to stop growth you don’t like? Build a wall and don’t let anyone else move in? Lets get real… that’s not going to happen.

I’m just wondering who decides when growth is ok, and when it isn’t. You don’t like the fact that Chula Vista east was developed. You regularly disparage 4S as lizard land. Is there *any* area you think is ok to develop? Or do you want everyone to be sterilized, and all migration to CA to be banned. You weren’t born here – so is it a case of “you’re here, now lock the gates”. I was born here, but don’t have as much animosity towards people making the choice to move here as you do.

[an]

[quote=UCGal]FWIW – San Diego county has a bigger population now. Life marches on. A factor in my decision to retire is the fact that the north 805 construction, and the huge amount of traffic out of Sorrento Valley sometimes made my 6.5 mile commute take over an hour. That project won’t be done till 2017. I didn’t blame the workers, or the folks commuting. I just stopped commuting myself.

What do you propose to stop growth you don’t like? Build a wall and don’t let anyone else move in? Lets get real… that’s not going to happen.[/quote]Very well said. If you don’t build appropriate amount of housing for the population growth, what will simply happen is prices will sky rocket. The kids who grew up there won’t be able to buy near their parents anymore, unless they got a great career or their parents help them out. Or worse yet, they’ll continue to live in their parents house and you start to have 6-8 cars per house. you also start to have spraw to exurb areas, which will increase traffic and smog.

I’m actually rooting for the Carroll Canyon masterplan and Stone Creek masterplan to be built out. That will increase Mira Mesa’ population by 17%. But I’m glad they got it right in making the builder fully build out Carroll Canyon Road to stretch from 805 to 15 before they let them build any housing. This will prevent NIMBY-er to move in and mess it all up like they did in UC with Regents Road.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]What made you arbitrarily pick 1986? Just curious.[/quote]1986 is when the ground broke within the first CFD in SD county, nka the “Lane Kuhn Cottages” and “Fieldstone Classics” just north of a brand new man-made lake known as “Eastlake” (Chula Vista 91913). Although there was a gap in years before 91914 was annexed and a much bigger gap before 91915 came to be, 1986/1987 was the beginning of the end for Chula Vista. The city’s issuance of subdivision permits just mushroomed out of control from there.

I want to add that I never objected to the 1991 buildout of Terra Nova (Chula Vista 91910) because it was right next to the fwy and therefore did not increase sprawl. In addition, it was not within any CFDs so those new residents could afford to cover their windows faster and keep their properties up better (they didn’t have 100’s of dollars per mo going to CFD(s)).

[quote=UCGal]FWIW – San Diego county has a bigger population now. Life marches on. A factor in my decision to retire is the fact that the north 805 construction, and the huge amount of traffic out of Sorrento Valley sometimes made my 6.5 mile commute take over an hour. That project won’t be done till 2017. I didn’t blame the workers, or the folks commuting. I just stopped commuting myself.[/quote]UCGal you must admit that one hour for a 6.5-mile daily commute in rush hour (on a regular basis?) is absolutely ridiculous. I’m sure you didn’t have this problem when you first took your most recent job. In my mind, that is a travesty. You are fortunate that you can just say, “F-it, I’m not doing this anymore because I don’t have to.” For your neighbors that work in tech and still have to work, they don’t have that choice. Your problem stems from residential overbuilding in adjacent zip codes to yours (not unlike the problem we have here in Chula Vista). Even though you were absent from CA for a number of years, the before and after images of UC and surrounds that you have in your mind tell the tale. I still think South UC is a very nice place to live. The lot sizes there are adequate (esp the corner lots) as are most of the setbacks. You are not mixed in with multifamily units. Be glad that Lightner has some sense and is doing what a bureaucrat who thoroughly understands “the system” does best … stalling until their hands are tied and they simply can’t do anything. Beautiful! I’m not sure you realize it but Lightner is your friend, UCGal!

[quote=UCGal]I was born here, but don’t have as much animosity towards people making the choice to move here as you do.[/quote]No, I wasn’t born here, UCGal, but have lived in CA for well over 50 years. That may have been longer than you have lived here when factoring in your lengthy? absence. I don’t have any animosity at all towards newcomers. My animosity is towards our elected and appointed officials who issued far to many subdivision permits and thus adversely affected the quality of life for 75% of county residents. That doesn’t have anything to do with newcomers. “Newcomers” are free to buy or rent existing housing in areas where no newer construction exists. That’s what they could have done here had their been no subdivision permits issued in the coastal zones in recent decades. I don’t believe “newcomers” or anyone else for that matter has the “right” (in ANY jurisdiction) to buy or rent new construction.

San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.

[Happs]

Based on this article, residents of Aspen also don’t seem too keen on providing housing for immigrant workers in their town.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/13126/the_slums_of_aspen_privileged_class_pits_immigrant_workers_against_the_envi

Another article mentions low wage workers in Aspen being shortchanged on wages.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/161360

I agree that residents should protect their quality of life, but if the free market offers too few dwelling units for low wage workers, are residents of these town prepared to pay high prices for a burger or a pizza or have little to no affordable restaurants in their town? Will they mind not having a veterinarian in their town because the assistants can’t afford to live nearby and the vet doesn’t want to pay a higher wage? What is going to incentivize a private developer to offer affordable units in Aspen or Del Mar? I would bet there are a good number of long time residents in upscale NIMBY areas who have the financial statement to live there, but don’t like their town continually going upscale from a retail/services perspective.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.[/quote]

It’s not the housing that lured them, it’s the weather, the job prospects, and the image of California that lured them…and all the people before them since the indigenous people of what we now call California. I’m sure the indigenous people would have loved to keep you (and me and everyone else here) out, too, but that’s not how it works, (un)fortunately.

As a native Southern Californian, I have also seen all the overbuilding and the decimation of once-beautiful scenery. The neighborhood in which I grew up was once surrounded by orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry fields that we could play hide-and-seek in at night…not to mention the glorious views from the mountaintops which we would have to hike to because there were no roads. Now, it’s all developed: those hills that were free for us locals to use are now gated developments with expensive homes — they’ll call security the second you step out of your car up there; and those agricultural fields and groves are now condos, hotels, and high-rise offices. I don’t like it, but accept it as a condition of living in such a desirable place.

I also know that while it might be nice for my descendants to inherit property worth a gazillion dollars, this gain would come at the expense of all the families who would have to pay the exorbitant prices that would exist without new development…and I’m just not cool with that.

You say that the newcomers can just move out to the desert or some other far-flung place with cheaper housing and lower-density development, but it goes both ways. People who don’t like all the density and new developments can move to fly-over country to live on a farm, if space is what they’re looking for. Nobody should expect someone else to pay through the nose so that existing homeowners can enjoy ever-rising housing prices and a nice view of the hills over there. That is nobody else’s duty or obligation, not the government’s nor the families who are just looking for a home in which to live and raise their children.

And Mello-Roos taxes are a boon to the old-time land owners and developers. The land owners get to sell to the developers at an inflated price because the cost of infrastructure development isn’t deducted from the price of the land. The developers also get to sell homes for more than they otherwise would because the cost of the homes aren’t discounted as much as they would be if the cost of the infrastructure were factored into the total price (the “how much a month” club never seems to care much about total price). The benefits of MR are shared between these two parties, and the hapless and hopeless new buyers continue to overpay because financing these costs over decades “makes it more affordable.” 🙁

[The-Shoveler]

Like it or not the population of SD is likely to double over the next 30-50 or so years.

They got to live somewhere, High density living is not in native Californian’s DNA (for lack of a better way to put it).

I am not saying it’s good.
I am not saying it’s bad.
just unavoidable.

[spdrun]

San Diego has gone up from 1.118 million to 1.4 million in the last 25 years. Why would it be likely to double in the next 30 to 50?

At this point, it’s an established city — they tend to grow slowly, not explosively.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]San Diego has gone up from 1.118 million to 1.4 million in the last 25 years. Why would it be likely to double in the next 30 to 50?

At this point, it’s an established city — they tend to grow slowly, not explosively.[/quote]

The City of SD has been essentially “out of room” to build SFR subdivisions for ~20 years, spdrun. It’s SD county which has grown exponentially over the past 30 years (a higher percentage of growth occurred since 2000). It’s grown from approx 850K in 1978 (the time of the passage of Prop 13) to approx 3.2M today.

https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+the+county+of+san+diego&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb

The passage of the Mello-Roos Act occurred in 1982 but the first CFD was not created in San Diego County until early 1986, with the first phases of homes released which were encumbered by the bonds in May 1987 (Chula Vista 91913).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello-Roos

[The-Shoveler]

It’s just the project growth for SoCal, L.A. is out of build-able land and has been for a while.
Sure some of that will end up being in Riverside county but they will be commuting into SD one way or the other.

Population growth is expect to accelerate as well in the USA over the next 30 years.

(going from 300 mill to 400 mill)

Year Projection Actual result
2010 310,232,863 308,745,538
2020 341,386,665
2030 373,503,674
2040 405,655,295
2050 439,010,253

Charlton Heston said it best maybe in a 1970’s movie.

[spdrun]

Population growth is expect to accelerate as well in the USA over the next 30 years.

This is why we need coin-operated condom and RU-486 dispensers on every street corner. ZPG BABY!

[Author]

Posts