Ireland model

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.[/quote]

Totally agree, CAR. But all these “people” wouldn’t come if the number of housing units was finite. They came because there were endless sources of “cheaper” housing being built within CFD’s that they can move to and still be in CA.

Droves of people aren’t moving to the Hawaiian Islands because the number available housing units is finite there (and what is available is expensive because of this), even though it’s considered “paradise.” People aren’t moving in droves to the City and County of San Francisco for the same reason, even though its pay scale for workers is among the highest in the nation and its cultural opportunities are bar none.. Its population has been stable for many years. There’s nowhere to build on a “rock” or “collection of rocks,” . . . lol, except maybe to turn the occasional two-family flat into a 3-family flat!

If all these CFD’s weren’t created in the middle of nowhere, the only people that would move from elsewhere to take jobs in CA coastal urban centers would be those who made enough money to live in nearby existing housing or those that already live here.

Yeah, we wouldn’t have the property tax base but we ALSO wouldn’t need expanded government to provide services to far-flung locales.

Part of the problem stems from SD County’s huge geographical size in relation to other CA coastal urban counties, leaving a lot of marginal outlying areas subject to being eaten up as building sites.

This whole discussion is really about water that’s already run under the bridge and horses that have left the barn long ago. CA decided to leave the barn door open to rampant unchecked growth when its legislature passed the Mello-Roos CFD Act in 1982.

I’m simply saying that this issue was discussed a LOT in the RE community before it was passed by the legislature but later marketed so heavily to voters to form these CFD’s under the guise of “paying for themselves.” The largely “uninitiated” voting blocs were “tricked” into voting the CFD’s in, not realizing the ramifications of what they were voting for years down the road.

The ballot arguments FOR the CFD’s were always in the vein that they were to be completely financially “self-sustaining,” . . . lol :={

[briansd1]

BG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.

Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.

What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.

If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.

The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.

Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?

If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.

[briansd1]

BG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.

Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.

What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.

If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.

The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.

Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?

If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.

[briansd1]

BG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.

Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.

What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.

If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.

The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.

Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?

If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.

[briansd1]

BG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.

Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.

What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.

If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.

The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.

Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?

If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.

[briansd1]

BG, I hate sprawl as much as you do, but I don’t agree with you.

Long time residents are not entitled to “protection” any more than new residents.

What to protect “old” residents? Lift restrictions on building and allow them to cashout.

If we could put up 5 stories building in North Park, Hillcrest, Mission Hills, or OB then the “old” residents will have the incentives to sell because the lots would be worth a lot more. Let them cash out and move wherever they want.

The current building restrictions only protect old, functionally obsolete houses with one bathroom.

Look at New York City. Old buildings were demolished for new buildings. The city lost some character but gained new, better, different character. Who’s to say what is better?

If you want good public transport and less sprawl, you have to allow more people to live within a certain area.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.

ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]

As walter said, what did they have to lose?

The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.

In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.

ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]

As walter said, what did they have to lose?

The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.

In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.

ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]

As walter said, what did they have to lose?

The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.

In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.

ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]

As walter said, what did they have to lose?

The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.

In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Ireland went in 20 years from a poor country with cheap housing to a place where you had to be quite wealthy to afford ANYTHING at all.

ALL on speculation and credit![/quote]

As walter said, what did they have to lose?

The problem is that their government signed on to bailout packages that essentially nationalize the banks’ losses.

In my opinion, they should just default on their debt obligations to foreign creditors. Not so good for the Euro, but that would be better for the Irish people.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.

The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.

The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.

The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.

[sdrealtor]

FWIW most of the distressed properties I see out there are not from the newbies they are from the renter class. Every city has a renter class. People who live paycheck to paycheck and who are best suited to renting. My maternal grandparents were part of that and never owned anything. The majority of what I see end up distressed is properties that were purchased by people in this category. WHen times got tough they saw they had nothing to lose. They were lifelong renters before and they could walk away and return to being renters in SD for the rest of their lives.

The newbies on the other hand come here more often than not for good jobs, with assets, savings and families back home to support them in event of trouble. They dont want to walk away because they have another option to renting in SD. They have the realistic option of moving back home where it is cheaper and buying a new home. They have more to gain by not walking away and will fight harder to save their credit scores. At least that is what I have actually seen happen among the several hundreds folks I have spoken with in these situations.

[Author]

Posts