Report-Regional-Housing-Study

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=flyer]From what my developer friends tell me, the lack of buildable land here will be
self-limiting as far as development goes, so regardless of whether you’re for or against it won’t, imo, really matter.

[/quote]

Along the immediate coast that may be true, but inland there is an enormous amount of buildable land left in SD county especially the further north you go.

Not everyone needs to live in the first 5 miles of the coast.

If there is a lack of land it is because of zoning.

North County will see the bulk of the new development and biz in the next few decades IMO.

[flyer]

Interesting article:

By Lisa Halverstadt | January 9, 2015

True Statement: “San Diego today is the largest city in the United States that has run out of raw land. Except in the largely industrial Otay Mesa area, it is simply not possible for San Diego to continue growing in this traditional way,” former San Diego planning director Bill Fulton wrote in a Jan. 3 U-T San Diego op-ed.

Determination: True

Analysis: San Diego is in the midst of a major push-pull over the future of development.

Planners and transit advocates argue the city needs to embrace more urban development and density, and some residents resist, concerned that development could tarnish their neighborhoods.

Planning guru Bill Fulton, who was at the front lines of that debate as the city’s planning director, claimed in a recent U-T San Diego op-ed that the suburban build-out San Diego’s long embraced just won’t work anymore. There simply isn’t space for it – and that means a new development reality.

“San Diego today is the largest city in the United States that has run out of raw land,” wrote Fulton, who now leads Rice University’s Kinder Institute for Urban Research. “Except in the largely industrial Otay Mesa area, it is simply not possible for San Diego to continue growing in this traditional way.”

He’s mostly on point.

A 2009 analysis by the San Diego Association of Governments, the region’s planning agency, found just 5,280 acres of vacant land in San Diego, a city that spans about 342 square miles. This means only about 2 percent of city land is vacant.

Local real estate experts say much of that open acreage isn’t development-ready or ideal for building.

In some cases, the open plots are smaller than most developers prefer or are within protected areas where building isn’t allowed. Or they have terrain that makes construction nearly impossible.

This means increased density is a necessity “unless we are willing to go back in and fill the canyons and reclaim some of the lands we set aside for habitat,” said Russ Valone, a local real estate analyst who assisted with the 2009 SANDAG review.

That’s because the regional planning agency estimates the population of the city alone will grow by more 590,000 residents by 2050, largely due to local births.

Those new residents will need to live somewhere, and there’s not much space left for large master-planned communities, particularly in the center of the city. Planners envision more San Diegans living in multi-family buildings and closer to transit stations.

There is some green space left in Otay Mesa, though much of that’ll be for businesses. There’s also still some acreage available in northern parts of the city such as Carmel Valley, Black Mountain Ranch and Torrey Highlands.

But there’s not much, and areas like Rancho Bernardo and Rancho Peñasquitos, which were once ripe for development, aren’t anymore, Valone said.

“If you want to buy a home on a new detached lot, that is a dying breed,” Valone said. “It is a concept that is headed toward extinction.”

The city is running out of green space and much of the land that remains is in some way claimed or unviable. There is little raw land left anywhere inside the city limits,” Fulton said.

In many cases, remaining open spaces are already spoken for in the form of entitlements and plans.

So San Diego does seem likely to be the biggest U.S. city currently grappling with a debate over urban development forced by the city’s dearth of raw land.

San Diego has responded with a series of policy decisions, including a 2008 general plan update that encourages more urbanized development. Now, as the city gets to work revising and creating several new community plans, the shift will likely be more apparent throughout the city.

That won’t translate into transit projects or high rises in every neighborhood but it will mean a focus shift away from cars and toward multi-family properties and dense development along transit corridors.”

Per the article, with only 2 percent of city land vacant, it’s clear that the magnitude of dense developments will be self-limiting by virtue of the scarcity of land, and that SFH’s may be highly coveted as we move forward.

Of course, as TS mentioned, housing options expand as you move further away from the city, but my comments, and as noted in the article, concern the lack of buildable land left within 10-15 miles of the coast–which is where many people prefer to live.

[XBoxBoy]

In regards to the question of available land, the report linked by the OP states, “In fact, there is now more available land than ever, as at least 48,000 acres of agricultural land has been downgraded as “inferior” over the past 20 years.”

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=flyer]From what my developer friends tell me, the lack of buildable land here will be
self-limiting as far as development goes, so regardless of whether you’re for or against it won’t, imo, really matter.

[/quote]

Along the immediate coast that may be true, but inland there is an enormous amount of buildable land left in SD county especially the further north you go.

Not everyone needs to live in the first 5 miles of the coast.

If there is a lack of land it is because of zoning.

North County will see the bulk of the new development and biz in the next few decades IMO.[/quote]

I’ve come to agree with you shoveler. It will be a combination of higher density and more sprawl, small scale “imitation cities” in the suburbs and exurbs, and also repurposing of shopping centers to include residences.

[FlyerInHi]

Any engineers out there? Why can’t we have a revolution in housing technology and come up with quality affordable prefab?

Also why can’t we have high rises over shopping centers such as UTC and have people use public transport and car sharing services?

I’m surprised nobody is talking about innovation.

I’d love for companies like Qualcomm to get variances to build residential highrises right next to their office buildings or even combine live/work in buildings. The facilities/parking would thus get 24 hour use. Residents could live near their work and be more productive. We’d also lower the region’s carbon footprint.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Myriad][quote=bearishgurl]READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.
[/quote]
Except for the thousands of homesites that are being prepped along the 56 and Carmel Valley Road in NC.
Mira Mesa also seems to be ok with building dense multi-family housing.[/quote]Isn’t most or all of that area part of the vast acreage long-owned (for 25-30 yrs) by Pardee? If so, that was actually subdivided more than 20 years ago but not built on because good defense jobs were leaving SD County in droves at the time and our region was in a recession. I was speaking of *new* land within the county available for subdivision.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I’d love for companies like Qualcomm to get variances to build residential highrises right next to their office buildings or even combine live/work in buildings. The facilities/parking would thus get 24 hour use. Residents could live near their work and be more productive. We’d also lower the region’s carbon footprint.[/quote]That’s what Stone Creek in MM will try to be. The development will have 750k sq-ft of office space.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scottinob]You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that “If you don’t build it, they won’t come” is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn’t stop coming.). . . [/quote]Actually, SF (city and county) had a stagnant (or even declining) population until it began permitting high-rise residential towers in certain (few) districts where the prior zoning (mostly commercial) would lend itself to this type of project (examples: Tenderloin, SoMA). Property owners in Districts which are high up and zoned 95% residential (save for a few mom-pop stores) actually “own” their view easements. Thus, nothing can be built to block their (panoramic) views. Other low-lying districts but situated oceanfront (ex: Richmond) or at the foot of the bridge and protected state parkland (ex: Presidio) are very strictly zoned 1-4 units per bldg, as are many other districts. In addition, much of the land in SF was set aside for parkland nearly 80-100 years ago and that will never change.

The (mostly public/private) partnerships formed during the recession (2007 thru 2011) to create more housing in SF in the form of infill high-rise towers were just getting off the ground then and these towers have been slowly coming online for available rental units since about 2013. The vast majority of these units are only suitable for a single or a roommate situation (2-3 people), are small in square footage and even have pull-down “murphy beds” and “kitchenettes” to save space during the day. A handful of (low and mid-rise) “luxury condo complexes” have also been built there in recent years in those districts (situated lower) which permitted them. These new condo complexes were built on one or more parcels which formerly had 1-4 unit bldgs on them. In other words, in long-zoned residential areas which permitted slight variances for these projects (if done tasteful enough to blend in with the District’s architecture and provided underground parking for its residents).

Any population increase which has occurred in the City of SF in recent years has resulted from the newer residential towers recently built. Sure, people “move there” every day. But the majority of them are moving into a unit which may be up to 100 years old which another tenant just moved out of. Or bought a flat, bldg or SFR to move into the unit which the owner just vacated (also up to 100 yrs old). That isn’t population increase. That is simply replacement and does not affect the population of the city.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn’t need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their “input” because there were no such residential parcels.[/quote]Factually incorrect. Stone Creek was in the community plan decades ago. Here’s the plan from 1994. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/carroll_canyon_master_plan_1994.pdf So yeah, stick with the facts if you can.
[/quote]I did “stick with the facts.” I understand the 22-year old “Master Plan” of that area. I looked the whole thing over when you first posted it. A local government’s “Master plan” or “General Plan” doesn’t in any way, shape or form mean that any land they have “earmarked” for future residential development has actually already been subdivided for that use … or even that there are any pending applications for subdivision at the time the Master Plan was created. What I stated on this thread was that there were “no residential parcels within 300 feet” of this project who had the right to formally object to it. Sure, City can hold multiple “public community meetings” or “town hall” meetings to explain to Mira Mesans (in this case) what is going to go down on this land which was long used for heavy industry and even possibly strip mining. They can put on a dog and pony show for you and get community “input” to pretend like they care what you all think (for public relations purposes). But since there were no real affected homeowners in accordance with municipal code and state law, they can (and will) essentially grant any subdivision permits they wish in the back room and appear like they are “satisfying” Mira Mesans desires by widening affected streets and permitting a parking garage.

AN, you have to ask yourself how MM went from less than a 20K pop in 1980 (vast majority SFR dwellers) to the mini-megalopolis it is today, where it takes now over 30 minutes to travel the 5-6 miles? between I-15 and I-805 on MM Blvd. Were all your “old timers” asleep at the switch when City decided to cram another 50K people on that same ~10K AC (size of MM) since then? And they’re not done with you guys just yet. They’re apparently now going to cram another ~10K people in your neck of the woods directly atop likely highly-toxic soil … assuming there IS still any soil left in the first 8 feet, lol. (Ask Denverites and Boulder [CO] residents how that turned out for them.) Oh, and this project is going to be built adjacent to multiple low-rise chain hotels which bring another 400 to 1000 (temporary) “residents'” vehicles to your streets on any given day. Sounds to me like a recipe for permanent gridlock :=0

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]In sum, CA boomers and seniors were “trained” and “encouraged” to “hoard homes.” They came by that habit honestly and so we can’t blame them for doing it. That’s what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.[/quote]Doesn’t matter. I want SD to grow not stay stagnant. Which mean I want A LOT more development. So, it’s perfectly fine old timer can stay in their home with their low tax bases. [/quote]AN, I agree with you that people who owned their CA homes at the time of the passage of Prop 13 (1978) and still own (and reside) in them today should be able to keep their ultra-low assessments. But that’s not what happened with Prop 13. It was essentially “amended” in the mid-eighties to allow those “old timers” to deed their (assessment-protected) homes to their children (Prop 58) and grandchildren, if their parent is deceased (Prop 193) while alive or allow their child(ren) to deed it to themselves upon their death(s). What this did is create a whole new subset of owners of CA homes with permanently-protected assessments who are as young as 25 years old! These younger, able-bodied “heirs” are now enjoying their parent(s) or grandparents(s) ultra-low assessment and paying $400 to $1800 annually in property taxes (depending on area) while their poor-schmuck next-door neighbors are paying $3500 to as much as $14K annually in taxes! The ill-conceived progeny of Prop 13 created a gross inequality among homeowners with the same type of home on the same block by unjustly enriching (undeserving) “heirs” with up to a 90% discount off their property tax bills! Many of these Gen-X/boomer “heirs” inherited HUGE apt complexes and commercial property (with long-term lease income attached to it) and will collect many thousands in rents annually for life whilst paying a property tax bill which is 80-90% discounted! What this has done is created the “haves” and the “have-nots” in this state based only on the family’s longetivity of residence in this state and for no other reason. It doesn’t matter if the “heir” (who is getting the 80-90% property tax discount) spent half their life in state prison, has never worked a day in their lives, does not even possess a GED, has never served in the military, has never been and is not disabled or moved into their recently deceased parent’s home from living in their car or van for the last few years. It doesn’t matter if they have the ability to even pay the few hundred in taxes annually that they owe or the ability to financially maintain said property and the motivation to keep the landscaping up and minor repairs done. All that matters is WHO they are and that they are the rightful “heir” of their parent or grandparent’s property. This lecture was given to me by one of the top probate attorneys in the county and I have permanently filed it in back of my brain.

Thus, more and more properties in CA’s well-established areas (ESP valuable coastal parcels) will be handed down into perpetuity and will likely never be available for sale. They are permanently off the market! Our state gubment created this ridiculous “mechanism” and have been suffering mightily for it for decades but there are too many people these sections benefit (who actually vote regularly) so the “political appetite” is not yet there for our legislators to introduce a repeal of Props 58 and 193. Until CA voters wake up and revolt and press their legislators to do something about it, nothing will ever be done about it. The problem is, in many CA counties (SD included), hundreds of subdivisions have been built (incl those in “master-planned communities”) since the passage of Props 58 and 193 and a HUGE percentage of voters now lives in them. They don’t see first-hand (as do established-area dwellers) that they are paying among the highest property taxes on the block (by thousands) for a property of lesser-market value than their able-bodied neighbors who are “protected” by Props 58 and 193. Part of the reason that many of them are living in these outer subdivisions to begin with is that they wanted to live closer in when they were home-shopping but couldn’t find anything in the established areas they were shopping in which they could afford. The reason for the sticky prices and holdout sellers (even in established inland areas) is because of a perpetual and constant dearth of inventory in their neighborhoods. The reason for that is entirely due to Props 13, 58 and 193.

AN, are you okay with Props 58 and 193 or do you think they should be repealed?

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm

And where is that proposed MM trolley-line map you promised me? The maps you posted here only included the UTC area.

[FlyerInHi]

You’re so obstinate, BG. People who like it crowded, close to shopping, restaurants and work, will gravitate to more crowded area. People who don’t will move away.

Lifestyles change. And younger people now prefer to live in an urban setting, taking public transport, uber, and car share. The urban geography will change. San Diego is kinda behind… You have area like Tyson’s corner near DC that has evolved over the decades.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tysons+corner&prmd=mniv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA15mFwKjOAhXF4iYKHRNMCYYQ_AUICSgD&biw=375&bih=559

I’ll answer the question you posed to AN. No we should not repeal the propositions that allow owners to enjoy low property taxes. The government does not need more money. Want more money? Build more and create new wealth and new assessable parcels.

[flyer]

It’s true that a certain demographic of younger people don’t seem to mind living in high density areas, but, just for another frame of reference, all of the many young people we know who are our kids’ ages, professionals, married, in relationships, or otherwise, and have or want kids, without exception, would like to have SFH’s, as our kids’ have found they prefer after moving into their own homes.

From that perspective, many are unable to get what they really want, and it doesn’t look like that situation will improve going forward in CA–especially in SAN–per the scarcity of land.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]It’s true that a certain demographic of younger people don’t seem to mind living in high density areas, but, just for another frame of reference, all of the many young people we know who are our kids’ ages, professionals, married, in relationships, or otherwise, and have or want kids, without exception, would like to have SFH’s, as our kids’ have found they prefer after moving into their own homes.

From that perspective, many are unable to get what they really want, and it doesn’t look like that situation will improve going forward in CA–especially in SAN–per the scarcity of land.[/quote]flyer, do you think a 20 or 30-something millenial should be able to buy the kind of house they prefer (as well as where they prefer it) for their first home or within 5-10 years of graduating from college?

Do you personally feel it is a travesty that this group can’t get the housing that they “really want?” And should they be able to buy it in your opinion?

[flyer]

BG, I completely understand where you are coming from, and I don’t believe anyone is entitled to anything. I’m simply discussing this issue from a scarcity of land perspective, not from the perspective you’ve been discussing. That’s an entirely different discussion, and one that I will leave in your able hands.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]I did “stick with the facts.” I understand the 22-year old “Master Plan” of that area. I looked the whole thing over when you first posted it. A local government’s “Master plan” or “General Plan” doesn’t in any way, shape or form mean that any land they have “earmarked” for future residential development has actually already been subdivided for that use … or even that there are any pending applications for subdivision at the time the Master Plan was created. What I stated on this thread was that there were “no residential parcels within 300 feet” of this project who had the right to formally object to it. Sure, City can hold multiple “public community meetings” or “town hall” meetings to explain to Mira Mesans (in this case) what is going to go down on this land which was long used for heavy industry and even possibly strip mining. They can put on a dog and pony show for you and get community “input” to pretend like they care what you all think (for public relations purposes). But since there were no real affected homeowners in accordance with municipal code and state law, they can (and will) essentially grant any subdivision permits they wish in the back room and appear like they are “satisfying” Mira Mesans desires by widening affected streets and permitting a parking garage.[/quote]What’s the point of having a Master/General/Community plan and updating it periodically base on current community input if some newcommer can poopoo on the plan. If you’re a long term resident and weren’t involved when the plan was created or updated, then you’re SOL.

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, you have to ask yourself how MM went from less than a 20K pop in 1980 (vast majority SFR dwellers) to the mini-megalopolis it is today, where it takes now over 30 minutes to travel the 5-6 miles? between I-15 and I-805 on MM Blvd. Were all your “old timers” asleep at the switch when City decided to cram another 50K people on that same ~10K AC (size of MM) since then? And they’re not done with you guys just yet. They’re apparently now going to cram another ~10K people in your neck of the woods directly atop likely highly-toxic soil … assuming there IS still any soil left in the first 8 feet, lol. (Ask Denverites and Boulder [CO] residents how that turned out for them.) Oh, and this project is going to be built adjacent to multiple low-rise chain hotels which bring another 400 to 1000 (temporary) “residents'” vehicles to your streets on any given day. Sounds to me like a recipe for permanent gridlock :=0 [/quote]Over 30 minutes? Really? When’s the last time you’ve made the trek? You really don’t know what it’s like to live there. The daily traffic doesn’t affect me or others who live here as much as it affects people who don’t live here, who have to get in/out of MM along with everyone else who don’t live here. All I have to say is, you’re factually incorrect. No, the old timer aren’t asleep. MM is developed according to the plan. So, nothing is shocking there. It’s just shocking to those like yourself who don’t know the history of this area. I’m so glad the “old timers” here aren’t like you. MM is 10X better today than it was in the 70s. I would be buying here if MM stayed how it was from the 70s.

[quote=bearishgurl]And where is that proposed MM trolley-line map you promised me? The maps you posted here only included the UTC area.[/quote]I already gave you the info. It’s part of the Stone Creek development. It’s being extended from UTC to Stone Creek. BTW, it would only happen if people like you don’t poopoo the plan and force the reduction of density. If the density get reduced, then the trolley plan is in jeopardy as well.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl]

flyer, do you think a 20 or 30-something millenial should be able to buy the kind of house they prefer (as well as where they prefer it) for their first home or within 5-10 years of graduating from college?

Do you personally feel it is a travesty that this group can’t get the housing that they “really want?” And should they be able to buy it in your opinion?[/quote]

Theoretically, sure, why not?
Americans generally have better standard of living than other people around the world because our housing is much cheaper relative to income.

Why can’t we increase supply to provide people with affordable, comfortable housing. We are only limited my human creativity. Many of the constraints we have face are self imposed.

[Author]

Posts