“San Diego we still have a problem”

[EconProf]

Let’s not resort to simplistic slogans that developers always make lots of money. They have certainly not been making money in recent years, as reflected by their stock prices and the fact that many smaller builders simply went out of business. Yes, they capitalized on our insane appetite for houses during the bubble years (and why shouldn’t they?), and made money then. But over the course of the cycle their profitablity isn’t so great.
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer.
As to the above complaint about Mello-Roos fees, this is to pay for infrastructure such as schools, roads, etc., in effect, a tax the developer merely passes on to the consumer.

[briansd1]

[quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.

[briansd1]

[quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.

[briansd1]

[quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.

[briansd1]

[quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.

[briansd1]

[quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.[/quote]

If your lot is large enough to be splittable in any city in the County of SD or within the county area, has enough flat buildable land on each proposed parcel and each proposed parcel has egress/ingress to a public road, the government WILL do it after proper procedure has been followed, including survey and engineering. HOWEVER, it can cost $12K to $25K to do this, depending on prevailing issues. Including the MWD “bribe” of $7K plus to bring water lines to a parcel that may not have any, splitting your lot may or may not be cost effective. Lots without utils have a much lesser value than lots where utils are already present.

In desirable urban areas, the HARD part of splitting your lot is notifying ALL the landowners within 300 feet of the proposed lot split and waiting for their objections or see if they force a hearing on the matter. As a lot-split applicant, you will have to come up with a PALATABLE solution as to what you will do with the proposed lot. No matter what the old “grandfathered” zoning was for the area, you can rest assured that your neighbors will likely reject multifamily dwellings, “granny flats,” businesses and the like and their comments will likely influence the council or supervisors. If you only want to sell the other parcel to let someone else develop it, your neighbors will be all over the prevailing codes in attempt to downzone the proposed parcel, if necesssary.

Expect the process to take 1-2 years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.[/quote]

If your lot is large enough to be splittable in any city in the County of SD or within the county area, has enough flat buildable land on each proposed parcel and each proposed parcel has egress/ingress to a public road, the government WILL do it after proper procedure has been followed, including survey and engineering. HOWEVER, it can cost $12K to $25K to do this, depending on prevailing issues. Including the MWD “bribe” of $7K plus to bring water lines to a parcel that may not have any, splitting your lot may or may not be cost effective. Lots without utils have a much lesser value than lots where utils are already present.

In desirable urban areas, the HARD part of splitting your lot is notifying ALL the landowners within 300 feet of the proposed lot split and waiting for their objections or see if they force a hearing on the matter. As a lot-split applicant, you will have to come up with a PALATABLE solution as to what you will do with the proposed lot. No matter what the old “grandfathered” zoning was for the area, you can rest assured that your neighbors will likely reject multifamily dwellings, “granny flats,” businesses and the like and their comments will likely influence the council or supervisors. If you only want to sell the other parcel to let someone else develop it, your neighbors will be all over the prevailing codes in attempt to downzone the proposed parcel, if necesssary.

Expect the process to take 1-2 years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.[/quote]

If your lot is large enough to be splittable in any city in the County of SD or within the county area, has enough flat buildable land on each proposed parcel and each proposed parcel has egress/ingress to a public road, the government WILL do it after proper procedure has been followed, including survey and engineering. HOWEVER, it can cost $12K to $25K to do this, depending on prevailing issues. Including the MWD “bribe” of $7K plus to bring water lines to a parcel that may not have any, splitting your lot may or may not be cost effective. Lots without utils have a much lesser value than lots where utils are already present.

In desirable urban areas, the HARD part of splitting your lot is notifying ALL the landowners within 300 feet of the proposed lot split and waiting for their objections or see if they force a hearing on the matter. As a lot-split applicant, you will have to come up with a PALATABLE solution as to what you will do with the proposed lot. No matter what the old “grandfathered” zoning was for the area, you can rest assured that your neighbors will likely reject multifamily dwellings, “granny flats,” businesses and the like and their comments will likely influence the council or supervisors. If you only want to sell the other parcel to let someone else develop it, your neighbors will be all over the prevailing codes in attempt to downzone the proposed parcel, if necesssary.

Expect the process to take 1-2 years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.[/quote]

If your lot is large enough to be splittable in any city in the County of SD or within the county area, has enough flat buildable land on each proposed parcel and each proposed parcel has egress/ingress to a public road, the government WILL do it after proper procedure has been followed, including survey and engineering. HOWEVER, it can cost $12K to $25K to do this, depending on prevailing issues. Including the MWD “bribe” of $7K plus to bring water lines to a parcel that may not have any, splitting your lot may or may not be cost effective. Lots without utils have a much lesser value than lots where utils are already present.

In desirable urban areas, the HARD part of splitting your lot is notifying ALL the landowners within 300 feet of the proposed lot split and waiting for their objections or see if they force a hearing on the matter. As a lot-split applicant, you will have to come up with a PALATABLE solution as to what you will do with the proposed lot. No matter what the old “grandfathered” zoning was for the area, you can rest assured that your neighbors will likely reject multifamily dwellings, “granny flats,” businesses and the like and their comments will likely influence the council or supervisors. If you only want to sell the other parcel to let someone else develop it, your neighbors will be all over the prevailing codes in attempt to downzone the proposed parcel, if necesssary.

Expect the process to take 1-2 years.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=EconProf]
What has stayed the same is the costly burden of government. If you haven’t built or put on an addition, you have no idea of the wasteful burden put on builders, which must be passed on to the consumer. [/quote]

I do agree with EconProf on this.

The burden of government also makes it nearly impossible for the city to grow organically and for the homeowners to easily add-on as they need. If you have a large lot and want to split the lot for resale or new construction, good luck with that.[/quote]

If your lot is large enough to be splittable in any city in the County of SD or within the county area, has enough flat buildable land on each proposed parcel and each proposed parcel has egress/ingress to a public road, the government WILL do it after proper procedure has been followed, including survey and engineering. HOWEVER, it can cost $12K to $25K to do this, depending on prevailing issues. Including the MWD “bribe” of $7K plus to bring water lines to a parcel that may not have any, splitting your lot may or may not be cost effective. Lots without utils have a much lesser value than lots where utils are already present.

In desirable urban areas, the HARD part of splitting your lot is notifying ALL the landowners within 300 feet of the proposed lot split and waiting for their objections or see if they force a hearing on the matter. As a lot-split applicant, you will have to come up with a PALATABLE solution as to what you will do with the proposed lot. No matter what the old “grandfathered” zoning was for the area, you can rest assured that your neighbors will likely reject multifamily dwellings, “granny flats,” businesses and the like and their comments will likely influence the council or supervisors. If you only want to sell the other parcel to let someone else develop it, your neighbors will be all over the prevailing codes in attempt to downzone the proposed parcel, if necesssary.

Expect the process to take 1-2 years.

[Anonymous]

Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses.

Personally, I made a bit over average when I first entered the housing market and bought a brand new CONDO in 2005. Yet I had no resentment over not being able to afford a new HOUSE.

(my condo has since lost 57% of its value – based on tax assessment and comparable sales).

[Anonymous]

Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses.

Personally, I made a bit over average when I first entered the housing market and bought a brand new CONDO in 2005. Yet I had no resentment over not being able to afford a new HOUSE.

(my condo has since lost 57% of its value – based on tax assessment and comparable sales).

[Anonymous]

Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses.

Personally, I made a bit over average when I first entered the housing market and bought a brand new CONDO in 2005. Yet I had no resentment over not being able to afford a new HOUSE.

(my condo has since lost 57% of its value – based on tax assessment and comparable sales).

[Anonymous]

Why is it assumed that the average buyer should be able to afford a new, detached home? Somebody has to buy used homes, and even new condos. At any given time, I would assume that the portion of ‘new house’ listings is pretty small compared to new/used condos and used houses.

Personally, I made a bit over average when I first entered the housing market and bought a brand new CONDO in 2005. Yet I had no resentment over not being able to afford a new HOUSE.

(my condo has since lost 57% of its value – based on tax assessment and comparable sales).

[Author]

Posts