Merge 56

[an]

[quote=flu]I had to settle to live in the slums of Carmel Valley. I have a tiny front lawn, I have a very tiny backyard, and I have no air conditioning. I don’t have a nice driveway to park 4…sometimes 5 cars..And the stucco exterior is crumbling..I’m too lazy to water my lawn….Nor can I afford to… So green rattle can for me….And I have way too many walls on the inside…..

AN, on the other hand lives in a palace in MM.. He has the finer luxuries of life… Pool, A/C real yards…Solar electricty…And probably has much fewer walls than I do….[/quote]
Palace in MM? Nah, I live in a congested infernal called Mira mesa. I needed AC because I live in an infernal and I need solar because I need AC. And remember, Mira mesa houses has to many walls too.

[flyer]

“To each his own.” A calque of Latin suum cuique, short for suum cuique pulchrum est (“to each his own is beautiful”).

[an]

This is a prime example of trade off: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-140047320-817_Santa_Florencia_Solana_Beach_CA_92075.

Single story 2000 sq-ft, 1/4 acre, with a sit down ocean view. If there’s no freeway noise, I bet this house would go for at least a couple hundred thousand dollars more.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Well, scaredy, the price is never right. It seems that some Piggs may choose to “make a tradeoff for the sake of their family” to live in the path of of the likes of “Slaughterhouse Cyn” Rd. off SR-67…
[/quote]

Which Piggs would that be?

You’re like a polarizing radio talk show host with that attempt at “debate.” You take a person’s comments/ideas (people make tradeoffs for their families) and turn them into “people make tradeoffs for their families and live in deadly places.” Now, your average idiot who listens to polarizing talk show hosts, they can’t see that what you’ve just done is bullshit. They just start thinking that anybody who makes a tradeoff when buying a house is willing to risk the lives of their kids. They think, “man, what horrible people.”

But you’re on piggington. Not only are most people here smarter than that, but also you can’t just cut them off and have them not say anything more, like a radio host can. So, if you come up with weak, lame bullshit like the above (and like pretty much everything you’ve come up with on this thread, from your incorrect understanding of how economic obsolescence relates to buying and selling a home near a freeway to your defensive, puffed up bragging about your local schools (which, according to you, should be meaningless anyway since “CA public school districts can basically place your student anywhere they have room for them so school placement is essentially out of a parents’ control”) to your shrill harping about other schools to your hilarious contention that your feelings weren’t involved to your unsubstantiated claim that my arguments were circular to your assumption that people buy new homes near a freeway because they insist on newer construction), then people will call you on it. As you can see.

And yet you try. You are to be commended for your perseverance. I look forward to your next comment (although I must admit that I’m looking forward even more to my response to your next comment).[/quote]Awesome, zk. Waiting to hear from you! Like you, I have to actually “work” for a living and can’t monitor this board 24/7. Please roll on …. but while doing so remember that you are dealing with a Pigg here who has quite a bit of archives in their personal stash and a very l-o-o-ong memory ….

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer construction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.[/quote] Settle? Sure. But pretty much everyone who’s not rich is settling in some way when they choose their house.[/quote] Sure, nearly every homebuyer has to “settle” in some way, shape or form. But “settling” for ear-splitting jets overhead on the hour or a freeway within shouting distance is completely unnecessary, that is, unless the particular RE market has a dearth of single-family listings which mostly go to cash buyers before even hitting the MLS (ex: most parts of San Mateo Co). In that case, a buyer who needs a mortgage would probably need to shop in another county and commute longer to work. We don’t have that problem in SD County and really never have …. not even in recent years. There has ALWAYS been homes in quiet areas to choose from.[/quote] Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.[/quote]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc.

[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote] Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56

Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t.

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]Newer construction is not usually why people choose a home near a freeway. They choose it for a multitude of reasons, most of them likely good, solid reasons. There are plenty of homes near freeways in older areas, and people buy those houses regularly. And most of them probably for good reasons.[/quote]The older areas which I am familiar with in metro and South County which have had freeways come through ended up turning into primarily rental areas immediately before, during and after freeway construction rendered those streets “economically obsolete.” People don’t “choose” to live in very noisy areas. They either “end up there” because they didn’t do their homework, they are renting there and didn’t realize how bad the noise would be or they purchased the property long before the freeway came through. There really isn’t any good reason to buy a residential property badly affected by freeway noise unless it was dirt cheap and the investor feels he can keep tenants in it.[/quote]You say, “bottom of the barrel in local home selection” as if it’s necessarily a bad thing. I’d rather live in the worst house in a fairly nice part of Chula Vista than the best house in a bad part of National City (or in a noisy neighborhood near my work so I have more time to spend with my family rather than in a quiet neighborhood farther away), that could easily be a wise choice.[/quote]

Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.

Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.

Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.

If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).

[Coronita]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Well, scaredy, the price is never right. It seems that some Piggs may choose to “make a tradeoff for the sake of their family” to live in the path of of the likes of “Slaughterhouse Cyn” Rd. off SR-67…
[/quote]

Which Piggs would that be?

You’re like a polarizing radio talk show host with that attempt at “debate.” You take a person’s comments/ideas (people make tradeoffs for their families) and turn them into “people make tradeoffs for their families and live in deadly places.” Now, your average idiot who listens to polarizing talk show hosts, they can’t see that what you’ve just done is bullshit. They just start thinking that anybody who makes a tradeoff when buying a house is willing to risk the lives of their kids. They think, “man, what horrible people.”

But you’re on piggington. Not only are most people here smarter than that, but also you can’t just cut them off and have them not say anything more, like a radio host can. So, if you come up with weak, lame bullshit like the above (and like pretty much everything you’ve come up with on this thread, from your incorrect understanding of how economic obsolescence relates to buying and selling a home near a freeway to your defensive, puffed up bragging about your local schools (which, according to you, should be meaningless anyway since “CA public school districts can basically place your student anywhere they have room for them so school placement is essentially out of a parents’ control”) to your shrill harping about other schools to your hilarious contention that your feelings weren’t involved to your unsubstantiated claim that my arguments were circular to your assumption that people buy new homes near a freeway because they insist on newer construction), then people will call you on it. As you can see.

And yet you try. You are to be commended for your perseverance. I look forward to your next comment (although I must admit that I’m looking forward even more to my response to your next comment).[/quote]Awesome, zk. Waiting to hear from you! Like you, I have to actually “work” for a living and can’t monitor this board 24/7. Please roll on …. but while doing so remember that you are dealing with a Pigg here who has quite a bit of archives in their personal stash and a very l-o-o-ong memory ….

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer construction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.[/quote] Settle? Sure. But pretty much everyone who’s not rich is settling in some way when they choose their house.[/quote] Sure, nearly every homebuyer has to “settle” in some way, shape or form. But “settling” for ear-splitting jets overhead on the hour or a freeway within shouting distance is completely unnecessary, that is, unless the particular RE market has a dearth of single-family listings which mostly go to cash buyers before even hitting the MLS (ex: most parts of San Mateo Co). In that case, a buyer who needs a mortgage would probably need to shop in another county and commute longer to work. We don’t have that problem in SD County and really never have …. not even in recent years. There has ALWAYS been homes in quiet areas to choose from.[/quote] Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.[/quote]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc.

[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote] Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56

Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t.

[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl][quote=zk]Newer construction is not usually why people choose a home near a freeway. They choose it for a multitude of reasons, most of them likely good, solid reasons. There are plenty of homes near freeways in older areas, and people buy those houses regularly. And most of them probably for good reasons.[/quote]The older areas which I am familiar with in metro and South County which have had freeways come through ended up turning into primarily rental areas immediately before, during and after freeway construction rendered those streets “economically obsolete.” People don’t “choose” to live in very noisy areas. They either “end up there” because they didn’t do their homework, they are renting there and didn’t realize how bad the noise would be or they purchased the property long before the freeway came through. There really isn’t any good reason to buy a residential property badly affected by freeway noise unless it was dirt cheap and the investor feels he can keep tenants in it.[/quote]You say, “bottom of the barrel in local home selection” as if it’s necessarily a bad thing. I’d rather live in the worst house in a fairly nice part of Chula Vista than the best house in a bad part of National City (or in a noisy neighborhood near my work so I have more time to spend with my family rather than in a quiet neighborhood farther away), that could easily be a wise choice.[/quote]

Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.

Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.

Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.

If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).[/quote]

I have no idea what you are on, but whatever you are smoking, can I try some?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]I have no idea what you are on, but whatever you are smoking, can I try some?[/quote]

flu, I know it’s a bit late, but why don’t you put the following comment in your pipe and smoke it tonight. It may help you understand that which you don’t seem to be following too well.

http://piggington.com/ot_life_changing_magic_tidying_japanese_art_decluttering#comment-249329

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]Awesome, zk. Waiting to hear from you! [/quote]

God, you really don’t know when you’re beat, do you. Allright, bedtime for me, but I’ll tear apart your post tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

[zk]

bg, reading your post, I see you’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts, and you’ve forgotten large and important parts of this thread. Notably the parts where I illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying and selling a home near a freeway. Nothing you’ve said can’t be answered by reading my previous posts. As long as you read them carefully and in their entirety.

Re-explaining what I’ve already explained, pointing out where you’ve forgotten stuff, pointing out where you’ve misquoted me, pointing out where you’ve implied I said something that I didn’t say, and asking you the same questions many times without an answer isn’t worth my time. The fun-to-work ratio has ceased to be over one. It’s fun debating someone who plays fair, reads carefully and completely, and disagrees with me. It’s a waste of time to debate someone who makes me point out their debate errors and who appears to have either not read or forgotten what I’ve written.

Sometimes it’s fun debating you because, I’m a bit ashamed to admit, I enjoy illustrating that you’re a harpy, not-very-bright shrew. You seem like you need your opinion of yourself knocked down a couple pegs. But that has gotten to be more work than fun. And it’s not really sinking in, anyway. You appear to be incapable of seeing when you’re wrong.

Nonetheless, I said I’d respond, so here it is:

[quote=bearishgurl]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc. [/quote]

You’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts. That’s how you know you’re desperate.

You said:

“Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.”

I said:

“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways. So if people buy near a freeway, it’s because they “insist” on newer construction. Do I have that right? Is that how you came to the conclusion that…
“the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range”…?
If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did.”

Then you said that I said:

“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.”

The part about why people buy near a freeway is the key part of my question. You said some people buy near a freeway because they insist on newer construction. I was trying to ascertain how you came to that conclusion. And I asked if my guess as to your reasoning wasn’t correct, then what was your reasoning? Which you still haven’t answered.
How did you come to the conclusion that people settle for incessant freeway noise because they insist on newer construction?

[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway. [/quote]

The whole point of this debate has been whether buying near a freeway can be a good tradeoff. You saying “it’s not” doesn’t mean anything. I’ve already illustrated (quite a few times) why it can be a good tradeoff for some people. And I’ve already illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying a home near a freeway.

[quote=bearishgurl]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56

Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t. [/quote]

Show me where I said they “have to” buy a home with freeway noise. I said it could be a tradeoff that could be worth it for some people.

You can maintain they don’t need to buy a home near a freeway and I won’t disagree with you. That isn’t my point and it never has been. My point is, and has always been, that most not-rich people have to make some tradeoffs, and that for some of them freeway noise could be a reasonable option for them. How do you not know that that’s been my point? Oh, wait, I know. You’re not very bright and you can’t read very well. If you have another explanation for how you don’t know that, I’m all ears.

Inventory is low right now, and there really isn’t much for sale in that area. I don’t currently see two comparable houses with one near the freeway and one not. But let me ask you something: What would you expect to find in such a comparison? You do agree the one near the freeway will be cheaper, all other things being equal, right? Or one near the freeway might have something another one doesn’t but be the same price, right?

If not, why not?

If so, then my contention would be that some people (not you or me) would reasonably take the cheaper house and put up with the noise so that they could live in that neighborhood, and some people would reasonably take the same price house near the freeway so that they could have whatever it has that the other one doesn’t, but isn’t more expensive.

It’s a hypothetical question that really doesn’t need actual listings, although at some point such listings will appear.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.

Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.

Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.

If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).[/quote]

Below, you seem to be saying that no desirable locations are available to homebuyers:
[quote=bearishgurl]
Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for. [/quote]

But now you’re saying that land isn’t available to developers. If desirable locations are available to homebuyers (which they are), then your previous point is invalid, regardless of whether desirable land is available to developers.

I’m not sure about other areas, but in Carmel Valley, thousands of very nice homes unaffected by freeway noise have been built and made available to homebuyers recently.

Well, that was a waste of time and not fun. bg, if your response is more garbage that could be answered merely by reading my previous posts, I’m out. If you have anything to say that is fully informed about this thread, doesn’t misquote me, doesn’t imply I’ve said something I haven’t said, and doesn’t require me to re-explain what I’ve already said, I’m in.

[PCinSD]

[quote=zk]bg, reading your post, I see you’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts, and you’ve forgotten large and important parts of this thread. Notably the parts where I illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying and selling a home near a freeway. Nothing you’ve said can’t be answered by reading my previous posts. As long as you read them carefully and in their entirety.

Re-explaining what I’ve already explained, pointing out where you’ve forgotten stuff, pointing out where you’ve misquoted me, pointing out where you’ve implied I said something that I didn’t say, and asking you the same questions many times without an answer isn’t worth my time. The fun-to-work ratio has ceased to be over one. It’s fun debating someone who plays fair, reads carefully and completely, and disagrees with me. It’s a waste of time to debate someone who makes me point out their debate errors and who appears to have either not read or forgotten what I’ve written.

Sometimes it’s fun debating you because, I’m a bit ashamed to admit, I enjoy illustrating that you’re a harpy, not-very-bright shrew. You seem like you need your opinion of yourself knocked down a couple pegs. But that has gotten to be more work than fun. And it’s not really sinking in, anyway. You appear to be incapable of seeing when you’re wrong.

Nonetheless, I said I’d respond, so here it is:

[quote=bearishgurl]No, you don’t “have that right,” zk. What I said was that the “newer construction” homes which are built for moderate, middle and upper-middle income families are built on the “least desirable land.” Often, that land is bordering a freeway and some streets can suffer much worse with constant ambient noise than others in the same subdivision. Why is this so? a) Because the most desirable sections of land in CA coastal counties have already been developed or are privately owned; and b) the “rich” with their powerful community groups and well-connected neighbors with many resources can afford to fight CalTrans into oblivion to keep any open space close to themselves open space, fight for zoning and legislation to keep themselves insulated from the likes of freeway construction, flight paths and heavy industry, etc. [/quote]

You’ve resorted to removing contextually-important parts of my posts. That’s how you know you’re desperate.

You said:

“Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for.”

I said:

“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways. So if people buy near a freeway, it’s because they “insist” on newer construction. Do I have that right? Is that how you came to the conclusion that…
“the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range”…?
If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did.”

Then you said that I said:

“Because they insist on newer home construction? Wow! Let me see if I have your reasoning right: There’s no good land left in SD. So all the houses being built now (newer construction) are near freeways.”

The part about why people buy near a freeway is the key part of my question. You said some people buy near a freeway because they insist on newer construction. I was trying to ascertain how you came to that conclusion. And I asked if my guess as to your reasoning wasn’t correct, then what was your reasoning? Which you still haven’t answered.
How did you come to the conclusion that people settle for incessant freeway noise because they insist on newer construction?

[quote=zk]If that’s how you came to that conclusion, then… well, then you’re a nut. If that’s not how you came to that conclusion, I’d be very interested to hear how you did. It’s fascinating to see that you can’t seem to imagine a person buying a house near a freeway for a good tradeoff (more time with their family), but it’s easy for you to see them buying one for (what you see as) a bad tradeoff (they “insist” on newer construction).[/quote]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Actually, buying a residential property with constant noise is a bad tradeoff, not a good one. It is not only newer construction that suffers from economic obsolescence due to freeway construction. Many older areas have had their own thoroughfares widened to connect with new freeway ramps and have a LOT more traffic today than they ever did or that they ever imagined they would when they purchased their home 40, 50 or 60+ years ago. The SR-56 as it looks today is a relatively new freeway. [/quote]

The whole point of this debate has been whether buying near a freeway can be a good tradeoff. You saying “it’s not” doesn’t mean anything. I’ve already illustrated (quite a few times) why it can be a good tradeoff for some people. And I’ve already illustrated your ignorance about how economic obsolescence affects buying a home near a freeway.

[quote=bearishgurl]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_56

Even though both ends of it already had residential development at the time of its construction, the SR-56 was only needed because of the relatively new construction which has popped up along its route in the last 15 years. As such, the development that has sprung up along its route is fairly new or new (<15 yrs old). A buyer looking to buy in the entire nine-mile stretch of the SR-56 (or works on either end of it) has many options. They don’t have to buy a home affected by the noise. zk, you still haven’t shown us a listing or ad for a home in or near the former “Rhodes Crossing” (now 56 merge) as the OP is referring to here and pricing it and then finding a similar nearby home without the freeway noise and pricing it. That was your “homework” and instead you would rather insult me. You claim that buyers “need” to make a “tradeoff” to buy a home that would be very uncomfortable to live in long-term and I maintain that they don’t. [/quote]

Show me where I said they “have to” buy a home with freeway noise. I said it could be a tradeoff that could be worth it for some people.

You can maintain they don’t need to buy a home near a freeway and I won’t disagree with you. That isn’t my point and it never has been. My point is, and has always been, that most not-rich people have to make some tradeoffs, and that for some of them freeway noise could be a reasonable option for them. How do you not know that that’s been my point? Oh, wait, I know. You’re not very bright and you can’t read very well. If you have another explanation for how you don’t know that, I’m all ears.

Inventory is low right now, and there really isn’t much for sale in that area. I don’t currently see two comparable houses with one near the freeway and one not. But let me ask you something: What would you expect to find in such a comparison? You do agree the one near the freeway will be cheaper, all other things being equal, right? Or one near the freeway might have something another one doesn’t but be the same price, right?

If not, why not?

If so, then my contention would be that some people (not you or me) would reasonably take the cheaper house and put up with the noise so that they could live in that neighborhood, and some people would reasonably take the same price house near the freeway so that they could have whatever it has that the other one doesn’t, but isn’t more expensive.

It’s a hypothetical question that really doesn’t need actual listings, although at some point such listings will appear.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Different strokes for different folks. Actually there are “bad” (or shall we say, “inadequately zoned”) parts of Chula Vista and gracious, stately, well-kept-up blocks of National City . . . as there is in every well-established micro area.

Why is there no good-quality land left in SD County for tract subdivisons? Because, aside from its exhorbitant purchase price, it is extremely costly for the subdivision and permitting process in this region (before one single-family pad has been graded), so much so that Big Development can’t build the compact mcmansion-type dwelling that today’s families are seeking without getting whatever land is leftover as dirt cheap as they can.

Read my lips. There has been no quality land left to buy for subdivision development in SD County (excepting the occasional 1-4 unit spec bldg on an urban razed lot) for the last 22 years. It was all taken before that. If you don’t believe me, ask the major Big Developers … and while you’re at it, ask them why they left town and when they left town (or exited the local residential SFR market). They’ll tell you the truth.

If you see ANY subdivision in SD County (of whatever size) springing up today that you believe lies on actual “quality” land, rest assured that that land has been owned by a developer or other private party for a minimum of 25 years. This longtime owner may or may not be the one who is developing it today. If not, each improved parcel will be very expensive at the time of marketing (over $1M).[/quote]

Below, you seem to be saying that no desirable locations are available to homebuyers:
[quote=bearishgurl]
Thus, the homebuying contingent who “settle” for incessant “freeway noise” because they “insist” on newer consruction in their price range generally get the bottom of the barrel in local home selection if they choose to buy it. Why?? There isn’t anything in that realm that is located in desirable land in SD County because it has long ago been spoken for. [/quote]

But now you’re saying that land isn’t available to developers. If desirable locations are available to homebuyers (which they are), then your previous point is invalid, regardless of whether desirable land is available to developers.

I’m not sure about other areas, but in Carmel Valley, thousands of very nice homes unaffected by freeway noise have been built and made available to homebuyers recently.

Well, that was a waste of time and not fun. bg, if your response is more garbage that could be answered merely by reading my previous posts, I’m out. If you have anything to say that is fully informed about this thread, doesn’t misquote me, doesn’t imply I’ve said something I haven’t said, and doesn’t require me to re-explain what I’ve already said, I’m in.[/quote]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/293/590/6f6.gif

[Coronita]

….Can someone please give me the cliff notes version of the past couple of threads?

It’s too much effort for me to read… (Hey, at least I admit it !)

Is Santee still La Jolla Adjunct? Is that the source of this debate?

[zk]

[quote=flu]….Can someone please give me the cliff notes version of the past couple of threads?

It’s too much effort for me to read… (Hey, at least I admit it !)

Is Santee still La Jolla Adjunct? Is that the source of this debate?[/quote]

Here you go:

Rational debates were occuring. bg stepped in, half-read the threads, ranted emotionally, had her errors pointed out, ignored that, stuck to her guns, had her errors pointed out again, and is about to half-read those responses and continue to not understand what’s being discussed and continue to assert that she knows what she’s talking about, despite clear and obvious evidence to the contrary.

There you go, there’s your recap. And, bonus, a forecast.

[Essbee]

Del Sur is a community with lots of new/ongoing development. It is not particularly near a freeway (no freeway views or freeway noise), but it is close enough to be convenient (about 5 miles from either I-15 or SR-56). I agree that both of these freeways are pretty congested, but still do-able. San Dieguito Rd provides an alternate route to the west.

From what I understand, the land was owned by Black Mountain Ranch group for 25 years or so prior to development starting, so BG is correct about that part.

Total aside, but I have to mention it… a few days ago I remarked that the “Deer Crossing” signs on Paseo del Sur were probably a bit unnecessary at this point, given all the development in the last few years. Less than 24 hrs later, I was jogging in the area and saw deer tracks at several spots.
(Personally, I love living in 4S/Del Sur.)

[Author]

Posts