Ireland model

[equalizer]

[quote=bearishgurl]cont’d from the thread:

http://piggington.com/upper_mid_to_lower_high_end_market_in_ncc?page=11

Piggs, did Chula Vista residents have a better quality of life when the City only had a 52K population (as opposed to the current 250K+)? Methinks they did (lots of hills to 4WD on, places for shooting practice and learning to drive, fields to play in, etc). Nearly all of the housing stock existing in 1987 in Chula Vista (when the first CFD in SD County was “created”) would be worth FAR MORE today if all the rampant lizard-land development had never broken ground. The City didn’t have the 3 extra zip codes and thus didn’t need all those employees and extra public safety stations back then and so would not now if they never approved all this “expansion” to begin with. Why do jurisdictions in CA feel like they have to accommodate endless growth?? As an example, parts of the State of WA don’t! Most of Marin County (CA) doesn’t! The reason is due to governmental greed tied to self perpetuity.

If there wasn’t all this new and *newish* construction to choose from, newcomers would have to buy existing resales and rent in existing bldg stock. When I moved to SD in the 70’s, I rented an apt in a circa 1917 bldg (with a 180 deg view of the bay, I might add). What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Why are the desires of a newcomer (or recent college grad) who only wants to live in new or *newer* construction, the problem of those who are already here and satisfied with living in the same homes they always have??

How has all this unchecked “growth” made San Diego County a better place to live??

I have no problem with the revitalization of downtowns and infill spec building but am SO against urban sprawl. :={

I believe CA cities and counties should have instituted no-growth parameters around their urban centers a VERY LONG time ago. Instead, they issued hundreds of thousands of permits in outlying areas. It all boils down to governmental GREED. The idea of Mello-Roos bonds was hatched by two CA senators who aggressively pandered this bill to the legislature! Voters in various jurisdictions were “tricked” into voting in the CFD’s cuz their wording on the ballot was “couched” in “incoming-revenue speak” and the downsides were not properly explained. Notice anything new here??

This problem of unchecked growth is now bigger than we are and has taken on a life of its own. It is no longer fixable, except by the market, who will most certainly from here on out dictate where all CA’s future “ghost-towns” will be. The market will have spoken loud and clear by the time a local gov’t has to send contractors out to “board up” some of these superfluous “subdivisions” located 60+ mi from major job centers as they will cost a fortune to keep the utilities and services flowing there with only a =<5% occupancy. The excessive building that has gone on in this state, in the last ten years, especially, is completely and utterly unsustainable, IMHO, as we will most assuredly run out of resources.[/quote]
Transportation costs are heavily subsidized to encourage sprawl. The Transnet tax that funds highways that is a sales tax instead of a gas tax because voters have an irrational phobia toward any tax on cars and gas. People will drive miles for cheaper gas yet won't spend time to analyze the bigger expenses.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=equalizer]Transportation costs are heavily subsidized to encourage sprawl. The Transnet tax that funds highways that is a sales tax instead of a gas tax because voters have an irrational phobia toward any tax on cars and gas. People will drive miles for cheaper gas yet won’t spend time to analyze the bigger expenses.[/quote]

equalizer, what is your opinion on this duplicity in making a “tax” palatable to the general public (ex. CA voters)? Is this GOOD or BAD for CA??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=equalizer]Transportation costs are heavily subsidized to encourage sprawl. The Transnet tax that funds highways that is a sales tax instead of a gas tax because voters have an irrational phobia toward any tax on cars and gas. People will drive miles for cheaper gas yet won’t spend time to analyze the bigger expenses.[/quote]

equalizer, what is your opinion on this duplicity in making a “tax” palatable to the general public (ex. CA voters)? Is this GOOD or BAD for CA??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=equalizer]Transportation costs are heavily subsidized to encourage sprawl. The Transnet tax that funds highways that is a sales tax instead of a gas tax because voters have an irrational phobia toward any tax on cars and gas. People will drive miles for cheaper gas yet won’t spend time to analyze the bigger expenses.[/quote]

equalizer, what is your opinion on this duplicity in making a “tax” palatable to the general public (ex. CA voters)? Is this GOOD or BAD for CA??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=equalizer]Transportation costs are heavily subsidized to encourage sprawl. The Transnet tax that funds highways that is a sales tax instead of a gas tax because voters have an irrational phobia toward any tax on cars and gas. People will drive miles for cheaper gas yet won’t spend time to analyze the bigger expenses.[/quote]

equalizer, what is your opinion on this duplicity in making a “tax” palatable to the general public (ex. CA voters)? Is this GOOD or BAD for CA??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=equalizer]Transportation costs are heavily subsidized to encourage sprawl. The Transnet tax that funds highways that is a sales tax instead of a gas tax because voters have an irrational phobia toward any tax on cars and gas. People will drive miles for cheaper gas yet won’t spend time to analyze the bigger expenses.[/quote]

equalizer, what is your opinion on this duplicity in making a “tax” palatable to the general public (ex. CA voters)? Is this GOOD or BAD for CA??

[sdrealtor]

Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.

[sdrealtor]

Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.

[sdrealtor]

Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.

[sdrealtor]

Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.

[sdrealtor]

Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.[/quote]

Building tracts 35+ miles from the “beach” is NOT building in a “resort town.” In other words “Campo” was not a “best-kept secret” when several large tracts suddenly appeared there. Building tracts where the residents’ only choices are to commute 2+ hours each day or be “retired” is not building in a “convenient” location or doing buyers any favors.

I disagree with your statement that there wasn’t enough housing stock for all who wanted to live here . . . there actually WAS but it just wasn’t *new.* In addition, large swaths of several zip codes were upzoned in the 80’s, most notably 92104, 92116 and 92105. There was enough infill development in those areas and elsewhere to accommodate newcomers. There’s also been a lot of dtn SD infill development in the last 10 years or so (condos – many quite large w/underground pkg). Several of these large residential buildings currently sit more than half empty. Between 1986 and 2000, well over 80,000 units were built on shored-up former infill areas of 92108, (many 3+ bdrm units with assigned pkg). Parts of this area, formerly vast dairy farmland, lay on a Type A flood plain. There have been at least a dozen *newish* midrise and highrise residential bldgs built in 92103 in the last ten years. There’s also been a lot of recent 4-8 unit spec building going on in 92109. And this is all in just SD Metro!

SD County was plenty big enough in 1987 to accommodate growth, even if the only permits approved henceforth were were for infill projects.

Piggs, you may lament that those living choices I mentioned above are all condos, not suitable for your family and the local schools suck, etc. Let me just state that if 100,000+ families with “professional” parents moved into these (many spacious) units and surrounding resale SFR’s, all the Mission Bay, Crawford, Hoover, San Diego, Henry, Kearny and Serra High Schools of the world would have to bring in teachers, programs and tools to accomodate this influx of students!! Already SDHS and PHHS, respectively, have reknowned IB and AP programs in place. What do you think the thousands of kids living in San Francisco do?? Less than 5% of them live in an “SFR.” Several of the schools in that city have very high API scores.

Throughout all of these years, at any given time, there were many thousands of resale SFR’s and rentals available in SD County.

If a “newcomer” came into Mill Valley or Sausalito/Tiburon (Marin County) and demanded of their agent to show them “newer construction,” they might be shown a $1M+ lot with no avail utilities, a $1M+ 1600+ sf recent complete remodel or pointed over to San Rafael or Concord (out of county). If a “newcomer” came into the SV portions of San Mateo or Santa Clara County and demanded to be shown *newer* construction, they would be pointed across the Dumbarton Bridge and told to drive east another 20 mi (past Fremont). If a “newcomer” came into Santa Barbara County and demanded to be shown “newer construction,” they would be shown 2500+ SF recent complete remodels at $1.5M+. If those were unsuitable, they would probably be shown the door. Why?? They’re asking for something finite, used up, wrong request, wrong area, can’t help you here, etc.

Why does SD County (and its cities) feel they have to accomodate everyone’s RE desires??

Newcomers and recent college grads want what they want (*new*) in a place they want it (as close to the most desireable coastal areas as possible). How are these “desires” the problem of longtime residents??

It’s not good management of our limited natural resources to accomodate everyone who “wants what they want where they want it.” The powers that be in Seattle and Tacoma (WA) have known this for many years. It’s proven to be the bane of a very large (now unwieldy) county like SD to attempt to appeal to every single RE market segment by permitting the development of every single square foot available in this county, whether it’s actually good land or a good location . . . or not, because CFD’s are “in place” to fund it.

Example: “Young professional” newcomers don’t come into SD from out of county/state and immediately exclaim, “Oh, I’ve heard that Windingwalk in Chula Vista (congested community of Otay Ranch located 20-22 mi east of dtn SD) is so happening!! I can’t wait to get my ($90 mo) transponder and use the *new* toll road out there! It’s where I’ve always dreamed of living.” It doesn’t happen that way, Piggs. As CAR stated on the “Why I am leaving SD” thread, newcomers typically have visions of a “coastal lifestyle” and “communing with beautiful people,” etc. When what they “had visions of” doesn’t line up with their economics, they begin to g-i-n-g-e-r-l-y venture into possible areas that could (to look for resale housing) and quickly dismiss them for a variety of (frequently misinformed and uninformed) reasons and assumptions. After months and months of agonizing over not being able to live the life in SD that they had a “vision of” while still back in their previous county/state, they venture out some weekend into a *new* development in the far reaches of nowhere and get sucked in to the “new.”

I’m not saying this is the psychology of the average informed Pigg but that of a young(ish) newcomer single or couple.

Even in light of all the info avail on the internet today, these newcomer “visions” of the “way things SHOULD be in SD” are VERY difficult to erase in their minds.

Many military spouses (often HS dropouts or possess a GED and wouldn’t be able to rent the inside of a brown paper bag on their own) accept, *free of charge* to them, newly remodeled quarters (over $1B has been spent in years in ALL of the SD Navy housing areas). But after these spouses move in their assigned quarters, many complain vociferously that the “surrounding area” is not up to their standards! Where did they expect the Navy to own urban land convenient to base for their housing needs??

These newcomer “expectations” should be realistically managed back at the previous locale before moving here but often are not.

It’s not the “job” of politicians and agencies in CA coastal counties to accommodate everyone who wants to move into them, especially in the manner that many of these “newcomers” feel they are “accustomed to.” Their “job” is to maintain and enhance the quality of life for existing residents by protecting our limited natural resources, views and open space. That’s what a good portion of our property and sales taxes pay them for.

If all of these CFD’s had not been voted in and subsequently formed, the housing stock that existed prior to 1987 in SD County (+ subsequent “infill” development) would be worth MORE today than it is, due to it being a “finite commodity.” And we wouldn’t have had the deep “housing bust” that has wasted most of this “lost decade” as the vast majority of distressed properties were within and do currently lie within CFD’s. The decisions by our local governments to approve all of this mess affected taxpayers adversely and will continue to do so, while lining the pockets of city/county workers with “enhanced” pension benefits. That’s the REAL reason for the ballot initiatives and subsequent endless tract approvals.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.[/quote]

Building tracts 35+ miles from the “beach” is NOT building in a “resort town.” In other words “Campo” was not a “best-kept secret” when several large tracts suddenly appeared there. Building tracts where the residents’ only choices are to commute 2+ hours each day or be “retired” is not building in a “convenient” location or doing buyers any favors.

I disagree with your statement that there wasn’t enough housing stock for all who wanted to live here . . . there actually WAS but it just wasn’t *new.* In addition, large swaths of several zip codes were upzoned in the 80’s, most notably 92104, 92116 and 92105. There was enough infill development in those areas and elsewhere to accommodate newcomers. There’s also been a lot of dtn SD infill development in the last 10 years or so (condos – many quite large w/underground pkg). Several of these large residential buildings currently sit more than half empty. Between 1986 and 2000, well over 80,000 units were built on shored-up former infill areas of 92108, (many 3+ bdrm units with assigned pkg). Parts of this area, formerly vast dairy farmland, lay on a Type A flood plain. There have been at least a dozen *newish* midrise and highrise residential bldgs built in 92103 in the last ten years. There’s also been a lot of recent 4-8 unit spec building going on in 92109. And this is all in just SD Metro!

SD County was plenty big enough in 1987 to accommodate growth, even if the only permits approved henceforth were were for infill projects.

Piggs, you may lament that those living choices I mentioned above are all condos, not suitable for your family and the local schools suck, etc. Let me just state that if 100,000+ families with “professional” parents moved into these (many spacious) units and surrounding resale SFR’s, all the Mission Bay, Crawford, Hoover, San Diego, Henry, Kearny and Serra High Schools of the world would have to bring in teachers, programs and tools to accomodate this influx of students!! Already SDHS and PHHS, respectively, have reknowned IB and AP programs in place. What do you think the thousands of kids living in San Francisco do?? Less than 5% of them live in an “SFR.” Several of the schools in that city have very high API scores.

Throughout all of these years, at any given time, there were many thousands of resale SFR’s and rentals available in SD County.

If a “newcomer” came into Mill Valley or Sausalito/Tiburon (Marin County) and demanded of their agent to show them “newer construction,” they might be shown a $1M+ lot with no avail utilities, a $1M+ 1600+ sf recent complete remodel or pointed over to San Rafael or Concord (out of county). If a “newcomer” came into the SV portions of San Mateo or Santa Clara County and demanded to be shown *newer* construction, they would be pointed across the Dumbarton Bridge and told to drive east another 20 mi (past Fremont). If a “newcomer” came into Santa Barbara County and demanded to be shown “newer construction,” they would be shown 2500+ SF recent complete remodels at $1.5M+. If those were unsuitable, they would probably be shown the door. Why?? They’re asking for something finite, used up, wrong request, wrong area, can’t help you here, etc.

Why does SD County (and its cities) feel they have to accomodate everyone’s RE desires??

Newcomers and recent college grads want what they want (*new*) in a place they want it (as close to the most desireable coastal areas as possible). How are these “desires” the problem of longtime residents??

It’s not good management of our limited natural resources to accomodate everyone who “wants what they want where they want it.” The powers that be in Seattle and Tacoma (WA) have known this for many years. It’s proven to be the bane of a very large (now unwieldy) county like SD to attempt to appeal to every single RE market segment by permitting the development of every single square foot available in this county, whether it’s actually good land or a good location . . . or not, because CFD’s are “in place” to fund it.

Example: “Young professional” newcomers don’t come into SD from out of county/state and immediately exclaim, “Oh, I’ve heard that Windingwalk in Chula Vista (congested community of Otay Ranch located 20-22 mi east of dtn SD) is so happening!! I can’t wait to get my ($90 mo) transponder and use the *new* toll road out there! It’s where I’ve always dreamed of living.” It doesn’t happen that way, Piggs. As CAR stated on the “Why I am leaving SD” thread, newcomers typically have visions of a “coastal lifestyle” and “communing with beautiful people,” etc. When what they “had visions of” doesn’t line up with their economics, they begin to g-i-n-g-e-r-l-y venture into possible areas that could (to look for resale housing) and quickly dismiss them for a variety of (frequently misinformed and uninformed) reasons and assumptions. After months and months of agonizing over not being able to live the life in SD that they had a “vision of” while still back in their previous county/state, they venture out some weekend into a *new* development in the far reaches of nowhere and get sucked in to the “new.”

I’m not saying this is the psychology of the average informed Pigg but that of a young(ish) newcomer single or couple.

Even in light of all the info avail on the internet today, these newcomer “visions” of the “way things SHOULD be in SD” are VERY difficult to erase in their minds.

Many military spouses (often HS dropouts or possess a GED and wouldn’t be able to rent the inside of a brown paper bag on their own) accept, *free of charge* to them, newly remodeled quarters (over $1B has been spent in years in ALL of the SD Navy housing areas). But after these spouses move in their assigned quarters, many complain vociferously that the “surrounding area” is not up to their standards! Where did they expect the Navy to own urban land convenient to base for their housing needs??

These newcomer “expectations” should be realistically managed back at the previous locale before moving here but often are not.

It’s not the “job” of politicians and agencies in CA coastal counties to accommodate everyone who wants to move into them, especially in the manner that many of these “newcomers” feel they are “accustomed to.” Their “job” is to maintain and enhance the quality of life for existing residents by protecting our limited natural resources, views and open space. That’s what a good portion of our property and sales taxes pay them for.

If all of these CFD’s had not been voted in and subsequently formed, the housing stock that existed prior to 1987 in SD County (+ subsequent “infill” development) would be worth MORE today than it is, due to it being a “finite commodity.” And we wouldn’t have had the deep “housing bust” that has wasted most of this “lost decade” as the vast majority of distressed properties were within and do currently lie within CFD’s. The decisions by our local governments to approve all of this mess affected taxpayers adversely and will continue to do so, while lining the pockets of city/county workers with “enhanced” pension benefits. That’s the REAL reason for the ballot initiatives and subsequent endless tract approvals.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.[/quote]

Building tracts 35+ miles from the “beach” is NOT building in a “resort town.” In other words “Campo” was not a “best-kept secret” when several large tracts suddenly appeared there. Building tracts where the residents’ only choices are to commute 2+ hours each day or be “retired” is not building in a “convenient” location or doing buyers any favors.

I disagree with your statement that there wasn’t enough housing stock for all who wanted to live here . . . there actually WAS but it just wasn’t *new.* In addition, large swaths of several zip codes were upzoned in the 80’s, most notably 92104, 92116 and 92105. There was enough infill development in those areas and elsewhere to accommodate newcomers. There’s also been a lot of dtn SD infill development in the last 10 years or so (condos – many quite large w/underground pkg). Several of these large residential buildings currently sit more than half empty. Between 1986 and 2000, well over 80,000 units were built on shored-up former infill areas of 92108, (many 3+ bdrm units with assigned pkg). Parts of this area, formerly vast dairy farmland, lay on a Type A flood plain. There have been at least a dozen *newish* midrise and highrise residential bldgs built in 92103 in the last ten years. There’s also been a lot of recent 4-8 unit spec building going on in 92109. And this is all in just SD Metro!

SD County was plenty big enough in 1987 to accommodate growth, even if the only permits approved henceforth were were for infill projects.

Piggs, you may lament that those living choices I mentioned above are all condos, not suitable for your family and the local schools suck, etc. Let me just state that if 100,000+ families with “professional” parents moved into these (many spacious) units and surrounding resale SFR’s, all the Mission Bay, Crawford, Hoover, San Diego, Henry, Kearny and Serra High Schools of the world would have to bring in teachers, programs and tools to accomodate this influx of students!! Already SDHS and PHHS, respectively, have reknowned IB and AP programs in place. What do you think the thousands of kids living in San Francisco do?? Less than 5% of them live in an “SFR.” Several of the schools in that city have very high API scores.

Throughout all of these years, at any given time, there were many thousands of resale SFR’s and rentals available in SD County.

If a “newcomer” came into Mill Valley or Sausalito/Tiburon (Marin County) and demanded of their agent to show them “newer construction,” they might be shown a $1M+ lot with no avail utilities, a $1M+ 1600+ sf recent complete remodel or pointed over to San Rafael or Concord (out of county). If a “newcomer” came into the SV portions of San Mateo or Santa Clara County and demanded to be shown *newer* construction, they would be pointed across the Dumbarton Bridge and told to drive east another 20 mi (past Fremont). If a “newcomer” came into Santa Barbara County and demanded to be shown “newer construction,” they would be shown 2500+ SF recent complete remodels at $1.5M+. If those were unsuitable, they would probably be shown the door. Why?? They’re asking for something finite, used up, wrong request, wrong area, can’t help you here, etc.

Why does SD County (and its cities) feel they have to accomodate everyone’s RE desires??

Newcomers and recent college grads want what they want (*new*) in a place they want it (as close to the most desireable coastal areas as possible). How are these “desires” the problem of longtime residents??

It’s not good management of our limited natural resources to accomodate everyone who “wants what they want where they want it.” The powers that be in Seattle and Tacoma (WA) have known this for many years. It’s proven to be the bane of a very large (now unwieldy) county like SD to attempt to appeal to every single RE market segment by permitting the development of every single square foot available in this county, whether it’s actually good land or a good location . . . or not, because CFD’s are “in place” to fund it.

Example: “Young professional” newcomers don’t come into SD from out of county/state and immediately exclaim, “Oh, I’ve heard that Windingwalk in Chula Vista (congested community of Otay Ranch located 20-22 mi east of dtn SD) is so happening!! I can’t wait to get my ($90 mo) transponder and use the *new* toll road out there! It’s where I’ve always dreamed of living.” It doesn’t happen that way, Piggs. As CAR stated on the “Why I am leaving SD” thread, newcomers typically have visions of a “coastal lifestyle” and “communing with beautiful people,” etc. When what they “had visions of” doesn’t line up with their economics, they begin to g-i-n-g-e-r-l-y venture into possible areas that could (to look for resale housing) and quickly dismiss them for a variety of (frequently misinformed and uninformed) reasons and assumptions. After months and months of agonizing over not being able to live the life in SD that they had a “vision of” while still back in their previous county/state, they venture out some weekend into a *new* development in the far reaches of nowhere and get sucked in to the “new.”

I’m not saying this is the psychology of the average informed Pigg but that of a young(ish) newcomer single or couple.

Even in light of all the info avail on the internet today, these newcomer “visions” of the “way things SHOULD be in SD” are VERY difficult to erase in their minds.

Many military spouses (often HS dropouts or possess a GED and wouldn’t be able to rent the inside of a brown paper bag on their own) accept, *free of charge* to them, newly remodeled quarters (over $1B has been spent in years in ALL of the SD Navy housing areas). But after these spouses move in their assigned quarters, many complain vociferously that the “surrounding area” is not up to their standards! Where did they expect the Navy to own urban land convenient to base for their housing needs??

These newcomer “expectations” should be realistically managed back at the previous locale before moving here but often are not.

It’s not the “job” of politicians and agencies in CA coastal counties to accommodate everyone who wants to move into them, especially in the manner that many of these “newcomers” feel they are “accustomed to.” Their “job” is to maintain and enhance the quality of life for existing residents by protecting our limited natural resources, views and open space. That’s what a good portion of our property and sales taxes pay them for.

If all of these CFD’s had not been voted in and subsequently formed, the housing stock that existed prior to 1987 in SD County (+ subsequent “infill” development) would be worth MORE today than it is, due to it being a “finite commodity.” And we wouldn’t have had the deep “housing bust” that has wasted most of this “lost decade” as the vast majority of distressed properties were within and do currently lie within CFD’s. The decisions by our local governments to approve all of this mess affected taxpayers adversely and will continue to do so, while lining the pockets of city/county workers with “enhanced” pension benefits. That’s the REAL reason for the ballot initiatives and subsequent endless tract approvals.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Newbies would have no place to live if there wasnt expansion. The population has grown so much in SD County there simply was not enough housing stock. Prior to the 1990’s SD was a military/resort town. It has grown and become far more sustainable. Progress and growth are inevitable particualrly in place with as much as SD has to offer. Sorry but you cant keep it a secret or keep it to yourself.[/quote]

Building tracts 35+ miles from the “beach” is NOT building in a “resort town.” In other words “Campo” was not a “best-kept secret” when several large tracts suddenly appeared there. Building tracts where the residents’ only choices are to commute 2+ hours each day or be “retired” is not building in a “convenient” location or doing buyers any favors.

I disagree with your statement that there wasn’t enough housing stock for all who wanted to live here . . . there actually WAS but it just wasn’t *new.* In addition, large swaths of several zip codes were upzoned in the 80’s, most notably 92104, 92116 and 92105. There was enough infill development in those areas and elsewhere to accommodate newcomers. There’s also been a lot of dtn SD infill development in the last 10 years or so (condos – many quite large w/underground pkg). Several of these large residential buildings currently sit more than half empty. Between 1986 and 2000, well over 80,000 units were built on shored-up former infill areas of 92108, (many 3+ bdrm units with assigned pkg). Parts of this area, formerly vast dairy farmland, lay on a Type A flood plain. There have been at least a dozen *newish* midrise and highrise residential bldgs built in 92103 in the last ten years. There’s also been a lot of recent 4-8 unit spec building going on in 92109. And this is all in just SD Metro!

SD County was plenty big enough in 1987 to accommodate growth, even if the only permits approved henceforth were were for infill projects.

Piggs, you may lament that those living choices I mentioned above are all condos, not suitable for your family and the local schools suck, etc. Let me just state that if 100,000+ families with “professional” parents moved into these (many spacious) units and surrounding resale SFR’s, all the Mission Bay, Crawford, Hoover, San Diego, Henry, Kearny and Serra High Schools of the world would have to bring in teachers, programs and tools to accomodate this influx of students!! Already SDHS and PHHS, respectively, have reknowned IB and AP programs in place. What do you think the thousands of kids living in San Francisco do?? Less than 5% of them live in an “SFR.” Several of the schools in that city have very high API scores.

Throughout all of these years, at any given time, there were many thousands of resale SFR’s and rentals available in SD County.

If a “newcomer” came into Mill Valley or Sausalito/Tiburon (Marin County) and demanded of their agent to show them “newer construction,” they might be shown a $1M+ lot with no avail utilities, a $1M+ 1600+ sf recent complete remodel or pointed over to San Rafael or Concord (out of county). If a “newcomer” came into the SV portions of San Mateo or Santa Clara County and demanded to be shown *newer* construction, they would be pointed across the Dumbarton Bridge and told to drive east another 20 mi (past Fremont). If a “newcomer” came into Santa Barbara County and demanded to be shown “newer construction,” they would be shown 2500+ SF recent complete remodels at $1.5M+. If those were unsuitable, they would probably be shown the door. Why?? They’re asking for something finite, used up, wrong request, wrong area, can’t help you here, etc.

Why does SD County (and its cities) feel they have to accomodate everyone’s RE desires??

Newcomers and recent college grads want what they want (*new*) in a place they want it (as close to the most desireable coastal areas as possible). How are these “desires” the problem of longtime residents??

It’s not good management of our limited natural resources to accomodate everyone who “wants what they want where they want it.” The powers that be in Seattle and Tacoma (WA) have known this for many years. It’s proven to be the bane of a very large (now unwieldy) county like SD to attempt to appeal to every single RE market segment by permitting the development of every single square foot available in this county, whether it’s actually good land or a good location . . . or not, because CFD’s are “in place” to fund it.

Example: “Young professional” newcomers don’t come into SD from out of county/state and immediately exclaim, “Oh, I’ve heard that Windingwalk in Chula Vista (congested community of Otay Ranch located 20-22 mi east of dtn SD) is so happening!! I can’t wait to get my ($90 mo) transponder and use the *new* toll road out there! It’s where I’ve always dreamed of living.” It doesn’t happen that way, Piggs. As CAR stated on the “Why I am leaving SD” thread, newcomers typically have visions of a “coastal lifestyle” and “communing with beautiful people,” etc. When what they “had visions of” doesn’t line up with their economics, they begin to g-i-n-g-e-r-l-y venture into possible areas that could (to look for resale housing) and quickly dismiss them for a variety of (frequently misinformed and uninformed) reasons and assumptions. After months and months of agonizing over not being able to live the life in SD that they had a “vision of” while still back in their previous county/state, they venture out some weekend into a *new* development in the far reaches of nowhere and get sucked in to the “new.”

I’m not saying this is the psychology of the average informed Pigg but that of a young(ish) newcomer single or couple.

Even in light of all the info avail on the internet today, these newcomer “visions” of the “way things SHOULD be in SD” are VERY difficult to erase in their minds.

Many military spouses (often HS dropouts or possess a GED and wouldn’t be able to rent the inside of a brown paper bag on their own) accept, *free of charge* to them, newly remodeled quarters (over $1B has been spent in years in ALL of the SD Navy housing areas). But after these spouses move in their assigned quarters, many complain vociferously that the “surrounding area” is not up to their standards! Where did they expect the Navy to own urban land convenient to base for their housing needs??

These newcomer “expectations” should be realistically managed back at the previous locale before moving here but often are not.

It’s not the “job” of politicians and agencies in CA coastal counties to accommodate everyone who wants to move into them, especially in the manner that many of these “newcomers” feel they are “accustomed to.” Their “job” is to maintain and enhance the quality of life for existing residents by protecting our limited natural resources, views and open space. That’s what a good portion of our property and sales taxes pay them for.

If all of these CFD’s had not been voted in and subsequently formed, the housing stock that existed prior to 1987 in SD County (+ subsequent “infill” development) would be worth MORE today than it is, due to it being a “finite commodity.” And we wouldn’t have had the deep “housing bust” that has wasted most of this “lost decade” as the vast majority of distressed properties were within and do currently lie within CFD’s. The decisions by our local governments to approve all of this mess affected taxpayers adversely and will continue to do so, while lining the pockets of city/county workers with “enhanced” pension benefits. That’s the REAL reason for the ballot initiatives and subsequent endless tract approvals.

[Author]

Posts