RSF kicking out Fairbanks Ranch, Cielo, Crosby, Bridges, Whispering Palms

[raptorduck]

This past weekend I learned about an effort by residents of the covenant in Rancho Santa Fe to incorporate the town. The new town would be Rancho Santa Fe and would include the covenant and 6 surrounding home owners associations.

Of concern to me is those areas that would be excluded from the town, and thus would no longer be considered part of Rancho Santa Fe: Fairbanks Ranch, Cielo, The Bridges, The Crosby, and Whispering Palms. This was confirmed by a newspaper article down in SD just before the holidays. None of those excluded areas could use an RSF address any more.

I expect the incorporation would have little effect on Fairbanks Ranch, which is already a seperate Census Designated Community like RSF already is and seems to be considred more prestegious than the covenant and the rest of RSF.

But if Cielo, for example, is excluded, I imagine it would become part of Escondido, which would decrease home values by 50% IMHO. Also, the impacted areas would likely get kicked out of the RSF School district. Part of Cielo is already in the Escondido school district.

From what I understand, all that is needed for RSF to incorporate is for 25% of the folks in the proposed town area to vote for it. That means the folks in the excluded areas, who are the folks most likely to oppose the incorporation, would have no say whatsoever.

I found the website for the RSF residents behind the incorporation move and suspect that they really want to do this to exclude the folks in the other areas from being able to call their areas RSF rather than the reasons they give.

Now there is only one house (other than FBR homes) I was looking at in the excluded areas, but I am wondering what the feeling is of folks on this board about the incorporation of RSF and exclusion/excommunicaiton from RSF of the excluded areas.

The web site for the folks behind the incorporation is: http://www.rsftown.org/

[davelj]

If the incorporation doesn’t affect where the kids go to school in these areas then it’s meaningless. If it does affect where the kids go to school then it’s probably a little meaningful. But a 50% drop? That seems excessive.

So the question is: Would this change affect the choice of schools the residents in the excluded areas would have, or is this just a mailing address issue? If changing a mailing address causes a 50% drop in home prices then all I can do is laugh at the stupidity of it all. I mean, please.

[raptorduck]

While I don’t disagree about the sillyness of a change in address in value, it is the reality. Up here Atherton is right next to East Palo Alto. That, of course, is much more of an extreme than say Escondido/RSF. But if they pushed the EPA border a few blocks to the west, those Former Atherton neighborhoods would see at least a 50% drop in values. Yes, your address does have an impact on the value of your home. One one street in Los Altos, the homes accross the street are Mountain View addresses and 40%/sf cheaper than those on the Los Altos side, and both are in the LA school district.

I also agree that the school issue is much more important as that also can impact home values. Parts of Mountain View up here are in the Los Altos school district and that results in higher home values for sure.

And as a buyer, yes buying in Escondido is very different to me than buying in RSF, but yes the school issues is even more important.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[davelj]

Anyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.

raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.

[davelj]

Anyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.

raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.

[davelj]

Anyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.

raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.

[davelj]

Anyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.

raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.

[davelj]

Anyone that pays a premium to have a certain mailing address – where there are no other mitigating factors such as quality of schools, etc. – deserves to lose 50% of the value of their home. I hope this proposal goes through. It sounds like the residents of these “excluded” – and clearly inferior – areas have been profiting off the good name of Rancho Santa Fe for long enough. Let’s stop the madness.

raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me. But, hey, to each their own.

[raptorduck]

While I don’t disagree about the sillyness of a change in address in value, it is the reality. Up here Atherton is right next to East Palo Alto. That, of course, is much more of an extreme than say Escondido/RSF. But if they pushed the EPA border a few blocks to the west, those Former Atherton neighborhoods would see at least a 50% drop in values. Yes, your address does have an impact on the value of your home. One one street in Los Altos, the homes accross the street are Mountain View addresses and 40%/sf cheaper than those on the Los Altos side, and both are in the LA school district.

I also agree that the school issue is much more important as that also can impact home values. Parts of Mountain View up here are in the Los Altos school district and that results in higher home values for sure.

And as a buyer, yes buying in Escondido is very different to me than buying in RSF, but yes the school issues is even more important.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[raptorduck]

While I don’t disagree about the sillyness of a change in address in value, it is the reality. Up here Atherton is right next to East Palo Alto. That, of course, is much more of an extreme than say Escondido/RSF. But if they pushed the EPA border a few blocks to the west, those Former Atherton neighborhoods would see at least a 50% drop in values. Yes, your address does have an impact on the value of your home. One one street in Los Altos, the homes accross the street are Mountain View addresses and 40%/sf cheaper than those on the Los Altos side, and both are in the LA school district.

I also agree that the school issue is much more important as that also can impact home values. Parts of Mountain View up here are in the Los Altos school district and that results in higher home values for sure.

And as a buyer, yes buying in Escondido is very different to me than buying in RSF, but yes the school issues is even more important.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[raptorduck]

While I don’t disagree about the sillyness of a change in address in value, it is the reality. Up here Atherton is right next to East Palo Alto. That, of course, is much more of an extreme than say Escondido/RSF. But if they pushed the EPA border a few blocks to the west, those Former Atherton neighborhoods would see at least a 50% drop in values. Yes, your address does have an impact on the value of your home. One one street in Los Altos, the homes accross the street are Mountain View addresses and 40%/sf cheaper than those on the Los Altos side, and both are in the LA school district.

I also agree that the school issue is much more important as that also can impact home values. Parts of Mountain View up here are in the Los Altos school district and that results in higher home values for sure.

And as a buyer, yes buying in Escondido is very different to me than buying in RSF, but yes the school issues is even more important.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[raptorduck]

While I don’t disagree about the sillyness of a change in address in value, it is the reality. Up here Atherton is right next to East Palo Alto. That, of course, is much more of an extreme than say Escondido/RSF. But if they pushed the EPA border a few blocks to the west, those Former Atherton neighborhoods would see at least a 50% drop in values. Yes, your address does have an impact on the value of your home. One one street in Los Altos, the homes accross the street are Mountain View addresses and 40%/sf cheaper than those on the Los Altos side, and both are in the LA school district.

I also agree that the school issue is much more important as that also can impact home values. Parts of Mountain View up here are in the Los Altos school district and that results in higher home values for sure.

And as a buyer, yes buying in Escondido is very different to me than buying in RSF, but yes the school issues is even more important.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[davelj]

If the incorporation doesn’t affect where the kids go to school in these areas then it’s meaningless. If it does affect where the kids go to school then it’s probably a little meaningful. But a 50% drop? That seems excessive.

So the question is: Would this change affect the choice of schools the residents in the excluded areas would have, or is this just a mailing address issue? If changing a mailing address causes a 50% drop in home prices then all I can do is laugh at the stupidity of it all. I mean, please.

[davelj]

If the incorporation doesn’t affect where the kids go to school in these areas then it’s meaningless. If it does affect where the kids go to school then it’s probably a little meaningful. But a 50% drop? That seems excessive.

So the question is: Would this change affect the choice of schools the residents in the excluded areas would have, or is this just a mailing address issue? If changing a mailing address causes a 50% drop in home prices then all I can do is laugh at the stupidity of it all. I mean, please.

[davelj]

If the incorporation doesn’t affect where the kids go to school in these areas then it’s meaningless. If it does affect where the kids go to school then it’s probably a little meaningful. But a 50% drop? That seems excessive.

So the question is: Would this change affect the choice of schools the residents in the excluded areas would have, or is this just a mailing address issue? If changing a mailing address causes a 50% drop in home prices then all I can do is laugh at the stupidity of it all. I mean, please.

[davelj]

If the incorporation doesn’t affect where the kids go to school in these areas then it’s meaningless. If it does affect where the kids go to school then it’s probably a little meaningful. But a 50% drop? That seems excessive.

So the question is: Would this change affect the choice of schools the residents in the excluded areas would have, or is this just a mailing address issue? If changing a mailing address causes a 50% drop in home prices then all I can do is laugh at the stupidity of it all. I mean, please.

[Coronita]

Lol. This reminds me of the neighborhood that I grew up in L.A. It was a relatively affluent neighborhood, but for awhile was one of the financially poorest public school systems- namely because of all the stingy residence that refused to donate money to the public school system.

Long story short, the school system was in such financial strain, they had to close two of the three high schools. Still, appealing to residence, no money poured in. Then in the worst possible shape, some board member suggested if things continue, they would have no choice but to merge with L.A. Unified, and consequently the possibility of bussing kids from the inner city up to the neighborhood….That did it….The money poured in, the financial problem was solved, and has never been a problem since.

..I'm sure there's a campaign leaflet that would say something like "Donate and Protect your Community or Else".

I think the RSF exclusion is pretty comical imho, because we're not talking about run-down "ajoining neighborhoods". I guess though, some people like having their heads up high. Well, nothing wrong with that, to each and everyone's own.

BTW, we have a friend that lives in RSF, and the weird part is they can't receive mail delivered to their home address. it has to go to a PO Box or something. I thought this was a little strange and for me it would be sort of annoying. But then again, I'm sure he has people that fetch his mail for him.

 

But Raptorduck, I can say being from the bay area. Redistricting lines for which public schools you have access too does cause property values to plumet by 50%. I don't know if you followed the issue that happened over in fremont. But here's a refresher if you didn't remember…

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

AKA: the Mission San Jose school controversy.

 

Line Redrawing Controversy

[edit] 2000

In 2000, the Fremont Unified School District announced plans to redraw the school boundary lines, prompting concerned parents to file a number of lawsuits against the school, as well as threaten to break off and form its own school district. The plan would route students from high-scoring elementary schools (such as Weibel Elementary School) to a lower-scoring high school (Irvington High School). At the center of the controversy were claims by the parents that the plan was racially driven, as the student body of both Weibel and other schools in the attendant area were over 80% Asian.^[5]

The school district claimed that although they were trying to balance the schools in the city more, the underlying reason was because Mission San Jose High School was becoming extremely overcrowded, and students would have to be moved to a different high school.

In the fall of 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the school district, as well as the five school district board members and superintendent Sharon Jones. Filed in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, the parents claimed that their children's education was at stake because they would be enrolled at a less competitive, lower scoring school. They felt that the boundary line changes were made based on the racial stereotype that Asian students have higher academic performance, and that the school district is trying to improve low test scores at Irvington High School by routing these Asian students over. At the time, Weibel held the third highest API score for all California elementary schools. Lawyer Erika Yew stated that, "We believe the district attempts to artificially and quickly inflate the performance of the district by moving the Weibel students to Irvington High School." She insisted that the district was trying to maintain a racial and socio-economical balance within the district, which is a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.^[6]

Allegations of racial discrimination was also made due to heated debates at public school board meetings. The parents claimed that white parents would make disparaging remarks toward the Asian families by mimicking and mocking Oriental accents and implying that they abuse their children by forcing them to study. More importantly, it claimed that some white parents refer to people in the Weibel community as “immigrants,” “excessively wealthy” and “elitists,” “not assimilating,” and that the district and board members had similar sentiments.^[5]

The lawsuit was later dropped, as a compromise between the parents and school district was made. ^[5]

[edit] 2007

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

The Boundary Line Controversy was revived when, in June 2007, Fremont Board of Education proposed as an option to route students from Gomes Elementary School to Kennedy High School, once again citing overcrowding at Mission San Jose High School. However, the proposal itself is problematic, as Kennedy High School is located on the other side of Fremont from Gomes Elementary School; if the boundary change were implemented, transportation problems would emerge. Even though the option was not recommended by the Board in the June meeting, the mere mention of the school name arose strong concern and reaction from the local communities. A town hall meeting was held on June 12, 2007 between two of the board members, Nina Moore and Larry Sweeney, three assistant superintendents, and the parents of Gomes school students. More than 1500 people attended the meeting. To ease the concern from local communities, the president of the board, Nina Moore, agreed to drop the Gomes name from their option list. Yet as long as the root causes of the school over-crowding are not addressed, the school re-boundary controversy will linger and looms large on the mind of entire Mission San Jose communities.

Some of community members have been discussing the reasons for the overcrowding that has occurred in the MSJHS attendance area even after the large Weibel Elementary area was moved to Irvington area in 2000. The top ones that have emerged are the large number of new housing developments that have been completed in the post 2000 MSJHS attendance area, residents moving into existing homes in the hope of sending their kids to the area schools. Lastly there is consensus and evidence that a large number of student enrollments especially in the Jr. High and High Schools are based on fraudulent residency documents.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[CMcG]

I’m confused. I know the people who live in the Covenant have to pick up their mail at the RSF post office. But is that true of the other areas, like Cielo? If so, they would still be able to have Rancho Santa Fe as their mailing address.

It’s funny, I’ve seen some L.A. real estate ads that list the location as Beverly Hills Post Office, California. They can’t legally say that they live in Beverly Hills because they live outside the city limits but they have the BH Zip code.

[CMcG]

I’m confused. I know the people who live in the Covenant have to pick up their mail at the RSF post office. But is that true of the other areas, like Cielo? If so, they would still be able to have Rancho Santa Fe as their mailing address.

It’s funny, I’ve seen some L.A. real estate ads that list the location as Beverly Hills Post Office, California. They can’t legally say that they live in Beverly Hills because they live outside the city limits but they have the BH Zip code.

[CMcG]

I’m confused. I know the people who live in the Covenant have to pick up their mail at the RSF post office. But is that true of the other areas, like Cielo? If so, they would still be able to have Rancho Santa Fe as their mailing address.

It’s funny, I’ve seen some L.A. real estate ads that list the location as Beverly Hills Post Office, California. They can’t legally say that they live in Beverly Hills because they live outside the city limits but they have the BH Zip code.

[CMcG]

I’m confused. I know the people who live in the Covenant have to pick up their mail at the RSF post office. But is that true of the other areas, like Cielo? If so, they would still be able to have Rancho Santa Fe as their mailing address.

It’s funny, I’ve seen some L.A. real estate ads that list the location as Beverly Hills Post Office, California. They can’t legally say that they live in Beverly Hills because they live outside the city limits but they have the BH Zip code.

[CMcG]

I’m confused. I know the people who live in the Covenant have to pick up their mail at the RSF post office. But is that true of the other areas, like Cielo? If so, they would still be able to have Rancho Santa Fe as their mailing address.

It’s funny, I’ve seen some L.A. real estate ads that list the location as Beverly Hills Post Office, California. They can’t legally say that they live in Beverly Hills because they live outside the city limits but they have the BH Zip code.

[betting on fall]

I think this is no big deal, for the following reasons:

1. Today, Cielo, Bridges and those other places (and the Covenant) are all unincorporated parts of San Diego County. If the Covenant becomes incorporated as a town, those other places still remain what they are today- unincorporated parts of San Diego county. Nothing becomes part of the City of Escondido until the boundary of Escondido changes.

2. Town boundaries don’t change school district boundaries. One town can’t just say its schools won’t take kids anymore, forcing them into a neighboring school district that was never planned for them. The boards of the impacted school districts need to agree to the changes.

3. Creating a town does not change a zip code. Only the post office does.

[raptorduck]

Betting and Buggs, thanks for your useful posts. There are unincorporated parts up here that suggest your observations are spot on.

As for folks who seem to think address won’t affect home value, with all due respect, get your heads out of the sand. I don’t argue that this makes any sense. Nor do I argue that folks in RSF are better than those in Escondido. That is silly. But I do argue that it impacts home values. And I am not alone. Santaluz selling agents love to point out that it is “adjacent” to Fairbanks Ranch. Do you think they do that to help buyers get an idea of where it is? Why not say it is “adjacent” to Del Sur, or 4S Ranch, or Rancho Penasquitos.

I recall living in Mountain View years ago and going to a meeting for the Los Altos school district and hearing a resident of LA, who was arguing for redistricting a certain part of Mountain View with condos and town homes “out” of the district because people in those areas were of lower income. Mind you, lower income for those areas means under $100k/yr per household because those condo’s and town homes cost upwards of $500k at the time. He further argued that those folks brought down API scores, which lowerd property values. Was he full of it? Sure. Did he have a point? Unfortunately, yes. Did I support the redistricting? heck no.

I lived in Mountain View accross the street from Los Altos. Were those houses 40% nicer than mine on a per square foot basis? no. Were those people better than me? Of course not. That is not even relevant to this discusssion. What is relevant, is despite our kids going to the same schools, homes on a per square foot bases, accross the street were worth 40% more than on my side. Illogical, perhaps; market reality, most certainly.

In Atherton on a certain street, homes are worth about $1,100/sf on average. Just on the other side of their 8′ tall stone back yard fence, in East Palo Alto, they are worth $343/sf on average. Not all of that can be accounted for by difference in build quality or lot size.

Please don’t mistake my query as some sort of an elitist statement. I don’t buy into the mentality I see in some residents of rich areas up here. Else I would not live in San Jose. I think SJ is very nice in many parts, including my own, but I know folks from nice areas on the penninsula that consider SJ beneith them.

I like RSF for the reasons I have stated previously. I actually like Del Mar better, but need more home than you can find there.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[Aecetia]

Old money v. new money.

[Aecetia]

Old money v. new money.

[Aecetia]

Old money v. new money.

[Aecetia]

Old money v. new money.

[Aecetia]

Old money v. new money.

[raptorduck]

Betting and Buggs, thanks for your useful posts. There are unincorporated parts up here that suggest your observations are spot on.

As for folks who seem to think address won’t affect home value, with all due respect, get your heads out of the sand. I don’t argue that this makes any sense. Nor do I argue that folks in RSF are better than those in Escondido. That is silly. But I do argue that it impacts home values. And I am not alone. Santaluz selling agents love to point out that it is “adjacent” to Fairbanks Ranch. Do you think they do that to help buyers get an idea of where it is? Why not say it is “adjacent” to Del Sur, or 4S Ranch, or Rancho Penasquitos.

I recall living in Mountain View years ago and going to a meeting for the Los Altos school district and hearing a resident of LA, who was arguing for redistricting a certain part of Mountain View with condos and town homes “out” of the district because people in those areas were of lower income. Mind you, lower income for those areas means under $100k/yr per household because those condo’s and town homes cost upwards of $500k at the time. He further argued that those folks brought down API scores, which lowerd property values. Was he full of it? Sure. Did he have a point? Unfortunately, yes. Did I support the redistricting? heck no.

I lived in Mountain View accross the street from Los Altos. Were those houses 40% nicer than mine on a per square foot basis? no. Were those people better than me? Of course not. That is not even relevant to this discusssion. What is relevant, is despite our kids going to the same schools, homes on a per square foot bases, accross the street were worth 40% more than on my side. Illogical, perhaps; market reality, most certainly.

In Atherton on a certain street, homes are worth about $1,100/sf on average. Just on the other side of their 8′ tall stone back yard fence, in East Palo Alto, they are worth $343/sf on average. Not all of that can be accounted for by difference in build quality or lot size.

Please don’t mistake my query as some sort of an elitist statement. I don’t buy into the mentality I see in some residents of rich areas up here. Else I would not live in San Jose. I think SJ is very nice in many parts, including my own, but I know folks from nice areas on the penninsula that consider SJ beneith them.

I like RSF for the reasons I have stated previously. I actually like Del Mar better, but need more home than you can find there.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[raptorduck]

Betting and Buggs, thanks for your useful posts. There are unincorporated parts up here that suggest your observations are spot on.

As for folks who seem to think address won’t affect home value, with all due respect, get your heads out of the sand. I don’t argue that this makes any sense. Nor do I argue that folks in RSF are better than those in Escondido. That is silly. But I do argue that it impacts home values. And I am not alone. Santaluz selling agents love to point out that it is “adjacent” to Fairbanks Ranch. Do you think they do that to help buyers get an idea of where it is? Why not say it is “adjacent” to Del Sur, or 4S Ranch, or Rancho Penasquitos.

I recall living in Mountain View years ago and going to a meeting for the Los Altos school district and hearing a resident of LA, who was arguing for redistricting a certain part of Mountain View with condos and town homes “out” of the district because people in those areas were of lower income. Mind you, lower income for those areas means under $100k/yr per household because those condo’s and town homes cost upwards of $500k at the time. He further argued that those folks brought down API scores, which lowerd property values. Was he full of it? Sure. Did he have a point? Unfortunately, yes. Did I support the redistricting? heck no.

I lived in Mountain View accross the street from Los Altos. Were those houses 40% nicer than mine on a per square foot basis? no. Were those people better than me? Of course not. That is not even relevant to this discusssion. What is relevant, is despite our kids going to the same schools, homes on a per square foot bases, accross the street were worth 40% more than on my side. Illogical, perhaps; market reality, most certainly.

In Atherton on a certain street, homes are worth about $1,100/sf on average. Just on the other side of their 8′ tall stone back yard fence, in East Palo Alto, they are worth $343/sf on average. Not all of that can be accounted for by difference in build quality or lot size.

Please don’t mistake my query as some sort of an elitist statement. I don’t buy into the mentality I see in some residents of rich areas up here. Else I would not live in San Jose. I think SJ is very nice in many parts, including my own, but I know folks from nice areas on the penninsula that consider SJ beneith them.

I like RSF for the reasons I have stated previously. I actually like Del Mar better, but need more home than you can find there.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[raptorduck]

Betting and Buggs, thanks for your useful posts. There are unincorporated parts up here that suggest your observations are spot on.

As for folks who seem to think address won’t affect home value, with all due respect, get your heads out of the sand. I don’t argue that this makes any sense. Nor do I argue that folks in RSF are better than those in Escondido. That is silly. But I do argue that it impacts home values. And I am not alone. Santaluz selling agents love to point out that it is “adjacent” to Fairbanks Ranch. Do you think they do that to help buyers get an idea of where it is? Why not say it is “adjacent” to Del Sur, or 4S Ranch, or Rancho Penasquitos.

I recall living in Mountain View years ago and going to a meeting for the Los Altos school district and hearing a resident of LA, who was arguing for redistricting a certain part of Mountain View with condos and town homes “out” of the district because people in those areas were of lower income. Mind you, lower income for those areas means under $100k/yr per household because those condo’s and town homes cost upwards of $500k at the time. He further argued that those folks brought down API scores, which lowerd property values. Was he full of it? Sure. Did he have a point? Unfortunately, yes. Did I support the redistricting? heck no.

I lived in Mountain View accross the street from Los Altos. Were those houses 40% nicer than mine on a per square foot basis? no. Were those people better than me? Of course not. That is not even relevant to this discusssion. What is relevant, is despite our kids going to the same schools, homes on a per square foot bases, accross the street were worth 40% more than on my side. Illogical, perhaps; market reality, most certainly.

In Atherton on a certain street, homes are worth about $1,100/sf on average. Just on the other side of their 8′ tall stone back yard fence, in East Palo Alto, they are worth $343/sf on average. Not all of that can be accounted for by difference in build quality or lot size.

Please don’t mistake my query as some sort of an elitist statement. I don’t buy into the mentality I see in some residents of rich areas up here. Else I would not live in San Jose. I think SJ is very nice in many parts, including my own, but I know folks from nice areas on the penninsula that consider SJ beneith them.

I like RSF for the reasons I have stated previously. I actually like Del Mar better, but need more home than you can find there.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[raptorduck]

Betting and Buggs, thanks for your useful posts. There are unincorporated parts up here that suggest your observations are spot on.

As for folks who seem to think address won’t affect home value, with all due respect, get your heads out of the sand. I don’t argue that this makes any sense. Nor do I argue that folks in RSF are better than those in Escondido. That is silly. But I do argue that it impacts home values. And I am not alone. Santaluz selling agents love to point out that it is “adjacent” to Fairbanks Ranch. Do you think they do that to help buyers get an idea of where it is? Why not say it is “adjacent” to Del Sur, or 4S Ranch, or Rancho Penasquitos.

I recall living in Mountain View years ago and going to a meeting for the Los Altos school district and hearing a resident of LA, who was arguing for redistricting a certain part of Mountain View with condos and town homes “out” of the district because people in those areas were of lower income. Mind you, lower income for those areas means under $100k/yr per household because those condo’s and town homes cost upwards of $500k at the time. He further argued that those folks brought down API scores, which lowerd property values. Was he full of it? Sure. Did he have a point? Unfortunately, yes. Did I support the redistricting? heck no.

I lived in Mountain View accross the street from Los Altos. Were those houses 40% nicer than mine on a per square foot basis? no. Were those people better than me? Of course not. That is not even relevant to this discusssion. What is relevant, is despite our kids going to the same schools, homes on a per square foot bases, accross the street were worth 40% more than on my side. Illogical, perhaps; market reality, most certainly.

In Atherton on a certain street, homes are worth about $1,100/sf on average. Just on the other side of their 8′ tall stone back yard fence, in East Palo Alto, they are worth $343/sf on average. Not all of that can be accounted for by difference in build quality or lot size.

Please don’t mistake my query as some sort of an elitist statement. I don’t buy into the mentality I see in some residents of rich areas up here. Else I would not live in San Jose. I think SJ is very nice in many parts, including my own, but I know folks from nice areas on the penninsula that consider SJ beneith them.

I like RSF for the reasons I have stated previously. I actually like Del Mar better, but need more home than you can find there.

Future resident of RSF, dunno which part yet.

[betting on fall]

I think this is no big deal, for the following reasons:

1. Today, Cielo, Bridges and those other places (and the Covenant) are all unincorporated parts of San Diego County. If the Covenant becomes incorporated as a town, those other places still remain what they are today- unincorporated parts of San Diego county. Nothing becomes part of the City of Escondido until the boundary of Escondido changes.

2. Town boundaries don’t change school district boundaries. One town can’t just say its schools won’t take kids anymore, forcing them into a neighboring school district that was never planned for them. The boards of the impacted school districts need to agree to the changes.

3. Creating a town does not change a zip code. Only the post office does.

[betting on fall]

I think this is no big deal, for the following reasons:

1. Today, Cielo, Bridges and those other places (and the Covenant) are all unincorporated parts of San Diego County. If the Covenant becomes incorporated as a town, those other places still remain what they are today- unincorporated parts of San Diego county. Nothing becomes part of the City of Escondido until the boundary of Escondido changes.

2. Town boundaries don’t change school district boundaries. One town can’t just say its schools won’t take kids anymore, forcing them into a neighboring school district that was never planned for them. The boards of the impacted school districts need to agree to the changes.

3. Creating a town does not change a zip code. Only the post office does.

[betting on fall]

I think this is no big deal, for the following reasons:

1. Today, Cielo, Bridges and those other places (and the Covenant) are all unincorporated parts of San Diego County. If the Covenant becomes incorporated as a town, those other places still remain what they are today- unincorporated parts of San Diego county. Nothing becomes part of the City of Escondido until the boundary of Escondido changes.

2. Town boundaries don’t change school district boundaries. One town can’t just say its schools won’t take kids anymore, forcing them into a neighboring school district that was never planned for them. The boards of the impacted school districts need to agree to the changes.

3. Creating a town does not change a zip code. Only the post office does.

[betting on fall]

I think this is no big deal, for the following reasons:

1. Today, Cielo, Bridges and those other places (and the Covenant) are all unincorporated parts of San Diego County. If the Covenant becomes incorporated as a town, those other places still remain what they are today- unincorporated parts of San Diego county. Nothing becomes part of the City of Escondido until the boundary of Escondido changes.

2. Town boundaries don’t change school district boundaries. One town can’t just say its schools won’t take kids anymore, forcing them into a neighboring school district that was never planned for them. The boards of the impacted school districts need to agree to the changes.

3. Creating a town does not change a zip code. Only the post office does.

[Bugs]

The market very much recognizes the cachet of the RSF moniker. I can demonstrate a 15% premium for homes located in the Covenant area vs. similar homes located on the periphery. I never did think of Cielo or the Crosby or Santaluz as being part of RSF. They should split off and call themselves Del Dios or something different to distinguish themselves.

We see the same thing in the La Jolla area. The listings for a lots of homes on the north end of Pacific Beach use the La Jolla location in their addresses if the agents think they can get away with it.

With that said, I don’t think the majority of the residents of RSF are really that interested in having their own city; and I doubt that maintaining cachet is the primary motivation for those who do want their own city. The reason most towns incorporate is because they want more control over their public services, especially police and fire protection.

[svelte]

Betting On Fall and Bugs both have valid pts.

Unincorporated areas around San Marcos still call themselves San Marcos due to the zip code. Since The Crosbys et al won’t be changing zip codes, they will still be able to use RSF in their address.

Similarly, school district boundaries don’t fall exactly on city limit boundaries, so kids won’t be changing school districts just because RSF incorporates.

But homes in incorporated portion will probably still fetch a premium over those in the unincorporated areas, as Bugs points out.

Also, I would bet the next move after incorporation are drives to get ZIP codes and school boundaries changed! I’m also betting that incorporation succeeds this time – with all the higher density developments encroaching on their piece of paradise, RSFers probably want more say in their destiny.

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

The Crosby is in San Diego

I belive the sales office uses a RSF address, but the homes use a San Diego address.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050905/news_1m5jenkins.html

There goes the projected 50% drop in value argument.

[svelte]

You are correct, ‘I would rather’:

The Crosby is situated in San Diego 92127 but has Rancho Santa Fe Post Office Box mail delivery.

Cielo does use 92067 (a RSF zip according to the post office) though.

[CardiffBaseball]

RSF has Elementary and Middle schools, and I assume they feed Torrey Pines rather than LCC but that might be an individual choice.

Considering that Horizon Prep and Santa Fe Christian get many of their kids up through the 8th grade, they can hardly start excluding folks from The Crosby or FR. School district lines will not change..

[CardiffBaseball]

RSF has Elementary and Middle schools, and I assume they feed Torrey Pines rather than LCC but that might be an individual choice.

Considering that Horizon Prep and Santa Fe Christian get many of their kids up through the 8th grade, they can hardly start excluding folks from The Crosby or FR. School district lines will not change..

[CardiffBaseball]

RSF has Elementary and Middle schools, and I assume they feed Torrey Pines rather than LCC but that might be an individual choice.

Considering that Horizon Prep and Santa Fe Christian get many of their kids up through the 8th grade, they can hardly start excluding folks from The Crosby or FR. School district lines will not change..

[CardiffBaseball]

RSF has Elementary and Middle schools, and I assume they feed Torrey Pines rather than LCC but that might be an individual choice.

Considering that Horizon Prep and Santa Fe Christian get many of their kids up through the 8th grade, they can hardly start excluding folks from The Crosby or FR. School district lines will not change..

[CardiffBaseball]

RSF has Elementary and Middle schools, and I assume they feed Torrey Pines rather than LCC but that might be an individual choice.

Considering that Horizon Prep and Santa Fe Christian get many of their kids up through the 8th grade, they can hardly start excluding folks from The Crosby or FR. School district lines will not change..

[svelte]

You are correct, ‘I would rather’:

The Crosby is situated in San Diego 92127 but has Rancho Santa Fe Post Office Box mail delivery.

Cielo does use 92067 (a RSF zip according to the post office) though.

[svelte]

You are correct, ‘I would rather’:

The Crosby is situated in San Diego 92127 but has Rancho Santa Fe Post Office Box mail delivery.

Cielo does use 92067 (a RSF zip according to the post office) though.

[svelte]

You are correct, ‘I would rather’:

The Crosby is situated in San Diego 92127 but has Rancho Santa Fe Post Office Box mail delivery.

Cielo does use 92067 (a RSF zip according to the post office) though.

[svelte]

You are correct, ‘I would rather’:

The Crosby is situated in San Diego 92127 but has Rancho Santa Fe Post Office Box mail delivery.

Cielo does use 92067 (a RSF zip according to the post office) though.

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

The Crosby is in San Diego

I belive the sales office uses a RSF address, but the homes use a San Diego address.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050905/news_1m5jenkins.html

There goes the projected 50% drop in value argument.

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

The Crosby is in San Diego

I belive the sales office uses a RSF address, but the homes use a San Diego address.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050905/news_1m5jenkins.html

There goes the projected 50% drop in value argument.

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

The Crosby is in San Diego

I belive the sales office uses a RSF address, but the homes use a San Diego address.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050905/news_1m5jenkins.html

There goes the projected 50% drop in value argument.

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

The Crosby is in San Diego

I belive the sales office uses a RSF address, but the homes use a San Diego address.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050905/news_1m5jenkins.html

There goes the projected 50% drop in value argument.

[svelte]

Betting On Fall and Bugs both have valid pts.

Unincorporated areas around San Marcos still call themselves San Marcos due to the zip code. Since The Crosbys et al won’t be changing zip codes, they will still be able to use RSF in their address.

Similarly, school district boundaries don’t fall exactly on city limit boundaries, so kids won’t be changing school districts just because RSF incorporates.

But homes in incorporated portion will probably still fetch a premium over those in the unincorporated areas, as Bugs points out.

Also, I would bet the next move after incorporation are drives to get ZIP codes and school boundaries changed! I’m also betting that incorporation succeeds this time – with all the higher density developments encroaching on their piece of paradise, RSFers probably want more say in their destiny.

[svelte]

Betting On Fall and Bugs both have valid pts.

Unincorporated areas around San Marcos still call themselves San Marcos due to the zip code. Since The Crosbys et al won’t be changing zip codes, they will still be able to use RSF in their address.

Similarly, school district boundaries don’t fall exactly on city limit boundaries, so kids won’t be changing school districts just because RSF incorporates.

But homes in incorporated portion will probably still fetch a premium over those in the unincorporated areas, as Bugs points out.

Also, I would bet the next move after incorporation are drives to get ZIP codes and school boundaries changed! I’m also betting that incorporation succeeds this time – with all the higher density developments encroaching on their piece of paradise, RSFers probably want more say in their destiny.

[svelte]

Betting On Fall and Bugs both have valid pts.

Unincorporated areas around San Marcos still call themselves San Marcos due to the zip code. Since The Crosbys et al won’t be changing zip codes, they will still be able to use RSF in their address.

Similarly, school district boundaries don’t fall exactly on city limit boundaries, so kids won’t be changing school districts just because RSF incorporates.

But homes in incorporated portion will probably still fetch a premium over those in the unincorporated areas, as Bugs points out.

Also, I would bet the next move after incorporation are drives to get ZIP codes and school boundaries changed! I’m also betting that incorporation succeeds this time – with all the higher density developments encroaching on their piece of paradise, RSFers probably want more say in their destiny.

[svelte]

Betting On Fall and Bugs both have valid pts.

Unincorporated areas around San Marcos still call themselves San Marcos due to the zip code. Since The Crosbys et al won’t be changing zip codes, they will still be able to use RSF in their address.

Similarly, school district boundaries don’t fall exactly on city limit boundaries, so kids won’t be changing school districts just because RSF incorporates.

But homes in incorporated portion will probably still fetch a premium over those in the unincorporated areas, as Bugs points out.

Also, I would bet the next move after incorporation are drives to get ZIP codes and school boundaries changed! I’m also betting that incorporation succeeds this time – with all the higher density developments encroaching on their piece of paradise, RSFers probably want more say in their destiny.

[Bugs]

The market very much recognizes the cachet of the RSF moniker. I can demonstrate a 15% premium for homes located in the Covenant area vs. similar homes located on the periphery. I never did think of Cielo or the Crosby or Santaluz as being part of RSF. They should split off and call themselves Del Dios or something different to distinguish themselves.

We see the same thing in the La Jolla area. The listings for a lots of homes on the north end of Pacific Beach use the La Jolla location in their addresses if the agents think they can get away with it.

With that said, I don’t think the majority of the residents of RSF are really that interested in having their own city; and I doubt that maintaining cachet is the primary motivation for those who do want their own city. The reason most towns incorporate is because they want more control over their public services, especially police and fire protection.

[Bugs]

The market very much recognizes the cachet of the RSF moniker. I can demonstrate a 15% premium for homes located in the Covenant area vs. similar homes located on the periphery. I never did think of Cielo or the Crosby or Santaluz as being part of RSF. They should split off and call themselves Del Dios or something different to distinguish themselves.

We see the same thing in the La Jolla area. The listings for a lots of homes on the north end of Pacific Beach use the La Jolla location in their addresses if the agents think they can get away with it.

With that said, I don’t think the majority of the residents of RSF are really that interested in having their own city; and I doubt that maintaining cachet is the primary motivation for those who do want their own city. The reason most towns incorporate is because they want more control over their public services, especially police and fire protection.

[Bugs]

The market very much recognizes the cachet of the RSF moniker. I can demonstrate a 15% premium for homes located in the Covenant area vs. similar homes located on the periphery. I never did think of Cielo or the Crosby or Santaluz as being part of RSF. They should split off and call themselves Del Dios or something different to distinguish themselves.

We see the same thing in the La Jolla area. The listings for a lots of homes on the north end of Pacific Beach use the La Jolla location in their addresses if the agents think they can get away with it.

With that said, I don’t think the majority of the residents of RSF are really that interested in having their own city; and I doubt that maintaining cachet is the primary motivation for those who do want their own city. The reason most towns incorporate is because they want more control over their public services, especially police and fire protection.

[Bugs]

The market very much recognizes the cachet of the RSF moniker. I can demonstrate a 15% premium for homes located in the Covenant area vs. similar homes located on the periphery. I never did think of Cielo or the Crosby or Santaluz as being part of RSF. They should split off and call themselves Del Dios or something different to distinguish themselves.

We see the same thing in the La Jolla area. The listings for a lots of homes on the north end of Pacific Beach use the La Jolla location in their addresses if the agents think they can get away with it.

With that said, I don’t think the majority of the residents of RSF are really that interested in having their own city; and I doubt that maintaining cachet is the primary motivation for those who do want their own city. The reason most towns incorporate is because they want more control over their public services, especially police and fire protection.

[Coronita]

Lol. This reminds me of the neighborhood that I grew up in L.A. It was a relatively affluent neighborhood, but for awhile was one of the financially poorest public school systems- namely because of all the stingy residence that refused to donate money to the public school system.

Long story short, the school system was in such financial strain, they had to close two of the three high schools. Still, appealing to residence, no money poured in. Then in the worst possible shape, some board member suggested if things continue, they would have no choice but to merge with L.A. Unified, and consequently the possibility of bussing kids from the inner city up to the neighborhood….That did it….The money poured in, the financial problem was solved, and has never been a problem since.

..I'm sure there's a campaign leaflet that would say something like "Donate and Protect your Community or Else".

I think the RSF exclusion is pretty comical imho, because we're not talking about run-down "ajoining neighborhoods". I guess though, some people like having their heads up high. Well, nothing wrong with that, to each and everyone's own.

BTW, we have a friend that lives in RSF, and the weird part is they can't receive mail delivered to their home address. it has to go to a PO Box or something. I thought this was a little strange and for me it would be sort of annoying. But then again, I'm sure he has people that fetch his mail for him.

 

But Raptorduck, I can say being from the bay area. Redistricting lines for which public schools you have access too does cause property values to plumet by 50%. I don't know if you followed the issue that happened over in fremont. But here's a refresher if you didn't remember…

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

AKA: the Mission San Jose school controversy.

 

Line Redrawing Controversy

[edit] 2000

In 2000, the Fremont Unified School District announced plans to redraw the school boundary lines, prompting concerned parents to file a number of lawsuits against the school, as well as threaten to break off and form its own school district. The plan would route students from high-scoring elementary schools (such as Weibel Elementary School) to a lower-scoring high school (Irvington High School). At the center of the controversy were claims by the parents that the plan was racially driven, as the student body of both Weibel and other schools in the attendant area were over 80% Asian.^[5]

The school district claimed that although they were trying to balance the schools in the city more, the underlying reason was because Mission San Jose High School was becoming extremely overcrowded, and students would have to be moved to a different high school.

In the fall of 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the school district, as well as the five school district board members and superintendent Sharon Jones. Filed in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, the parents claimed that their children's education was at stake because they would be enrolled at a less competitive, lower scoring school. They felt that the boundary line changes were made based on the racial stereotype that Asian students have higher academic performance, and that the school district is trying to improve low test scores at Irvington High School by routing these Asian students over. At the time, Weibel held the third highest API score for all California elementary schools. Lawyer Erika Yew stated that, "We believe the district attempts to artificially and quickly inflate the performance of the district by moving the Weibel students to Irvington High School." She insisted that the district was trying to maintain a racial and socio-economical balance within the district, which is a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.^[6]

Allegations of racial discrimination was also made due to heated debates at public school board meetings. The parents claimed that white parents would make disparaging remarks toward the Asian families by mimicking and mocking Oriental accents and implying that they abuse their children by forcing them to study. More importantly, it claimed that some white parents refer to people in the Weibel community as “immigrants,” “excessively wealthy” and “elitists,” “not assimilating,” and that the district and board members had similar sentiments.^[5]

The lawsuit was later dropped, as a compromise between the parents and school district was made. ^[5]

[edit] 2007

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

The Boundary Line Controversy was revived when, in June 2007, Fremont Board of Education proposed as an option to route students from Gomes Elementary School to Kennedy High School, once again citing overcrowding at Mission San Jose High School. However, the proposal itself is problematic, as Kennedy High School is located on the other side of Fremont from Gomes Elementary School; if the boundary change were implemented, transportation problems would emerge. Even though the option was not recommended by the Board in the June meeting, the mere mention of the school name arose strong concern and reaction from the local communities. A town hall meeting was held on June 12, 2007 between two of the board members, Nina Moore and Larry Sweeney, three assistant superintendents, and the parents of Gomes school students. More than 1500 people attended the meeting. To ease the concern from local communities, the president of the board, Nina Moore, agreed to drop the Gomes name from their option list. Yet as long as the root causes of the school over-crowding are not addressed, the school re-boundary controversy will linger and looms large on the mind of entire Mission San Jose communities.

Some of community members have been discussing the reasons for the overcrowding that has occurred in the MSJHS attendance area even after the large Weibel Elementary area was moved to Irvington area in 2000. The top ones that have emerged are the large number of new housing developments that have been completed in the post 2000 MSJHS attendance area, residents moving into existing homes in the hope of sending their kids to the area schools. Lastly there is consensus and evidence that a large number of student enrollments especially in the Jr. High and High Schools are based on fraudulent residency documents.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Lol. This reminds me of the neighborhood that I grew up in L.A. It was a relatively affluent neighborhood, but for awhile was one of the financially poorest public school systems- namely because of all the stingy residence that refused to donate money to the public school system.

Long story short, the school system was in such financial strain, they had to close two of the three high schools. Still, appealing to residence, no money poured in. Then in the worst possible shape, some board member suggested if things continue, they would have no choice but to merge with L.A. Unified, and consequently the possibility of bussing kids from the inner city up to the neighborhood….That did it….The money poured in, the financial problem was solved, and has never been a problem since.

..I'm sure there's a campaign leaflet that would say something like "Donate and Protect your Community or Else".

I think the RSF exclusion is pretty comical imho, because we're not talking about run-down "ajoining neighborhoods". I guess though, some people like having their heads up high. Well, nothing wrong with that, to each and everyone's own.

BTW, we have a friend that lives in RSF, and the weird part is they can't receive mail delivered to their home address. it has to go to a PO Box or something. I thought this was a little strange and for me it would be sort of annoying. But then again, I'm sure he has people that fetch his mail for him.

 

But Raptorduck, I can say being from the bay area. Redistricting lines for which public schools you have access too does cause property values to plumet by 50%. I don't know if you followed the issue that happened over in fremont. But here's a refresher if you didn't remember…

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

AKA: the Mission San Jose school controversy.

 

Line Redrawing Controversy

[edit] 2000

In 2000, the Fremont Unified School District announced plans to redraw the school boundary lines, prompting concerned parents to file a number of lawsuits against the school, as well as threaten to break off and form its own school district. The plan would route students from high-scoring elementary schools (such as Weibel Elementary School) to a lower-scoring high school (Irvington High School). At the center of the controversy were claims by the parents that the plan was racially driven, as the student body of both Weibel and other schools in the attendant area were over 80% Asian.^[5]

The school district claimed that although they were trying to balance the schools in the city more, the underlying reason was because Mission San Jose High School was becoming extremely overcrowded, and students would have to be moved to a different high school.

In the fall of 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the school district, as well as the five school district board members and superintendent Sharon Jones. Filed in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, the parents claimed that their children's education was at stake because they would be enrolled at a less competitive, lower scoring school. They felt that the boundary line changes were made based on the racial stereotype that Asian students have higher academic performance, and that the school district is trying to improve low test scores at Irvington High School by routing these Asian students over. At the time, Weibel held the third highest API score for all California elementary schools. Lawyer Erika Yew stated that, "We believe the district attempts to artificially and quickly inflate the performance of the district by moving the Weibel students to Irvington High School." She insisted that the district was trying to maintain a racial and socio-economical balance within the district, which is a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.^[6]

Allegations of racial discrimination was also made due to heated debates at public school board meetings. The parents claimed that white parents would make disparaging remarks toward the Asian families by mimicking and mocking Oriental accents and implying that they abuse their children by forcing them to study. More importantly, it claimed that some white parents refer to people in the Weibel community as “immigrants,” “excessively wealthy” and “elitists,” “not assimilating,” and that the district and board members had similar sentiments.^[5]

The lawsuit was later dropped, as a compromise between the parents and school district was made. ^[5]

[edit] 2007

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

The Boundary Line Controversy was revived when, in June 2007, Fremont Board of Education proposed as an option to route students from Gomes Elementary School to Kennedy High School, once again citing overcrowding at Mission San Jose High School. However, the proposal itself is problematic, as Kennedy High School is located on the other side of Fremont from Gomes Elementary School; if the boundary change were implemented, transportation problems would emerge. Even though the option was not recommended by the Board in the June meeting, the mere mention of the school name arose strong concern and reaction from the local communities. A town hall meeting was held on June 12, 2007 between two of the board members, Nina Moore and Larry Sweeney, three assistant superintendents, and the parents of Gomes school students. More than 1500 people attended the meeting. To ease the concern from local communities, the president of the board, Nina Moore, agreed to drop the Gomes name from their option list. Yet as long as the root causes of the school over-crowding are not addressed, the school re-boundary controversy will linger and looms large on the mind of entire Mission San Jose communities.

Some of community members have been discussing the reasons for the overcrowding that has occurred in the MSJHS attendance area even after the large Weibel Elementary area was moved to Irvington area in 2000. The top ones that have emerged are the large number of new housing developments that have been completed in the post 2000 MSJHS attendance area, residents moving into existing homes in the hope of sending their kids to the area schools. Lastly there is consensus and evidence that a large number of student enrollments especially in the Jr. High and High Schools are based on fraudulent residency documents.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Lol. This reminds me of the neighborhood that I grew up in L.A. It was a relatively affluent neighborhood, but for awhile was one of the financially poorest public school systems- namely because of all the stingy residence that refused to donate money to the public school system.

Long story short, the school system was in such financial strain, they had to close two of the three high schools. Still, appealing to residence, no money poured in. Then in the worst possible shape, some board member suggested if things continue, they would have no choice but to merge with L.A. Unified, and consequently the possibility of bussing kids from the inner city up to the neighborhood….That did it….The money poured in, the financial problem was solved, and has never been a problem since.

..I'm sure there's a campaign leaflet that would say something like "Donate and Protect your Community or Else".

I think the RSF exclusion is pretty comical imho, because we're not talking about run-down "ajoining neighborhoods". I guess though, some people like having their heads up high. Well, nothing wrong with that, to each and everyone's own.

BTW, we have a friend that lives in RSF, and the weird part is they can't receive mail delivered to their home address. it has to go to a PO Box or something. I thought this was a little strange and for me it would be sort of annoying. But then again, I'm sure he has people that fetch his mail for him.

 

But Raptorduck, I can say being from the bay area. Redistricting lines for which public schools you have access too does cause property values to plumet by 50%. I don't know if you followed the issue that happened over in fremont. But here's a refresher if you didn't remember…

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

AKA: the Mission San Jose school controversy.

 

Line Redrawing Controversy

[edit] 2000

In 2000, the Fremont Unified School District announced plans to redraw the school boundary lines, prompting concerned parents to file a number of lawsuits against the school, as well as threaten to break off and form its own school district. The plan would route students from high-scoring elementary schools (such as Weibel Elementary School) to a lower-scoring high school (Irvington High School). At the center of the controversy were claims by the parents that the plan was racially driven, as the student body of both Weibel and other schools in the attendant area were over 80% Asian.^[5]

The school district claimed that although they were trying to balance the schools in the city more, the underlying reason was because Mission San Jose High School was becoming extremely overcrowded, and students would have to be moved to a different high school.

In the fall of 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the school district, as well as the five school district board members and superintendent Sharon Jones. Filed in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, the parents claimed that their children's education was at stake because they would be enrolled at a less competitive, lower scoring school. They felt that the boundary line changes were made based on the racial stereotype that Asian students have higher academic performance, and that the school district is trying to improve low test scores at Irvington High School by routing these Asian students over. At the time, Weibel held the third highest API score for all California elementary schools. Lawyer Erika Yew stated that, "We believe the district attempts to artificially and quickly inflate the performance of the district by moving the Weibel students to Irvington High School." She insisted that the district was trying to maintain a racial and socio-economical balance within the district, which is a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.^[6]

Allegations of racial discrimination was also made due to heated debates at public school board meetings. The parents claimed that white parents would make disparaging remarks toward the Asian families by mimicking and mocking Oriental accents and implying that they abuse their children by forcing them to study. More importantly, it claimed that some white parents refer to people in the Weibel community as “immigrants,” “excessively wealthy” and “elitists,” “not assimilating,” and that the district and board members had similar sentiments.^[5]

The lawsuit was later dropped, as a compromise between the parents and school district was made. ^[5]

[edit] 2007

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

The Boundary Line Controversy was revived when, in June 2007, Fremont Board of Education proposed as an option to route students from Gomes Elementary School to Kennedy High School, once again citing overcrowding at Mission San Jose High School. However, the proposal itself is problematic, as Kennedy High School is located on the other side of Fremont from Gomes Elementary School; if the boundary change were implemented, transportation problems would emerge. Even though the option was not recommended by the Board in the June meeting, the mere mention of the school name arose strong concern and reaction from the local communities. A town hall meeting was held on June 12, 2007 between two of the board members, Nina Moore and Larry Sweeney, three assistant superintendents, and the parents of Gomes school students. More than 1500 people attended the meeting. To ease the concern from local communities, the president of the board, Nina Moore, agreed to drop the Gomes name from their option list. Yet as long as the root causes of the school over-crowding are not addressed, the school re-boundary controversy will linger and looms large on the mind of entire Mission San Jose communities.

Some of community members have been discussing the reasons for the overcrowding that has occurred in the MSJHS attendance area even after the large Weibel Elementary area was moved to Irvington area in 2000. The top ones that have emerged are the large number of new housing developments that have been completed in the post 2000 MSJHS attendance area, residents moving into existing homes in the hope of sending their kids to the area schools. Lastly there is consensus and evidence that a large number of student enrollments especially in the Jr. High and High Schools are based on fraudulent residency documents.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Lol. This reminds me of the neighborhood that I grew up in L.A. It was a relatively affluent neighborhood, but for awhile was one of the financially poorest public school systems- namely because of all the stingy residence that refused to donate money to the public school system.

Long story short, the school system was in such financial strain, they had to close two of the three high schools. Still, appealing to residence, no money poured in. Then in the worst possible shape, some board member suggested if things continue, they would have no choice but to merge with L.A. Unified, and consequently the possibility of bussing kids from the inner city up to the neighborhood….That did it….The money poured in, the financial problem was solved, and has never been a problem since.

..I'm sure there's a campaign leaflet that would say something like "Donate and Protect your Community or Else".

I think the RSF exclusion is pretty comical imho, because we're not talking about run-down "ajoining neighborhoods". I guess though, some people like having their heads up high. Well, nothing wrong with that, to each and everyone's own.

BTW, we have a friend that lives in RSF, and the weird part is they can't receive mail delivered to their home address. it has to go to a PO Box or something. I thought this was a little strange and for me it would be sort of annoying. But then again, I'm sure he has people that fetch his mail for him.

 

But Raptorduck, I can say being from the bay area. Redistricting lines for which public schools you have access too does cause property values to plumet by 50%. I don't know if you followed the issue that happened over in fremont. But here's a refresher if you didn't remember…

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

AKA: the Mission San Jose school controversy.

 

Line Redrawing Controversy

[edit] 2000

In 2000, the Fremont Unified School District announced plans to redraw the school boundary lines, prompting concerned parents to file a number of lawsuits against the school, as well as threaten to break off and form its own school district. The plan would route students from high-scoring elementary schools (such as Weibel Elementary School) to a lower-scoring high school (Irvington High School). At the center of the controversy were claims by the parents that the plan was racially driven, as the student body of both Weibel and other schools in the attendant area were over 80% Asian.^[5]

The school district claimed that although they were trying to balance the schools in the city more, the underlying reason was because Mission San Jose High School was becoming extremely overcrowded, and students would have to be moved to a different high school.

In the fall of 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the school district, as well as the five school district board members and superintendent Sharon Jones. Filed in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, the parents claimed that their children's education was at stake because they would be enrolled at a less competitive, lower scoring school. They felt that the boundary line changes were made based on the racial stereotype that Asian students have higher academic performance, and that the school district is trying to improve low test scores at Irvington High School by routing these Asian students over. At the time, Weibel held the third highest API score for all California elementary schools. Lawyer Erika Yew stated that, "We believe the district attempts to artificially and quickly inflate the performance of the district by moving the Weibel students to Irvington High School." She insisted that the district was trying to maintain a racial and socio-economical balance within the district, which is a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment.^[6]

Allegations of racial discrimination was also made due to heated debates at public school board meetings. The parents claimed that white parents would make disparaging remarks toward the Asian families by mimicking and mocking Oriental accents and implying that they abuse their children by forcing them to study. More importantly, it claimed that some white parents refer to people in the Weibel community as “immigrants,” “excessively wealthy” and “elitists,” “not assimilating,” and that the district and board members had similar sentiments.^[5]

The lawsuit was later dropped, as a compromise between the parents and school district was made. ^[5]

[edit] 2007

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (January 2008)

The Boundary Line Controversy was revived when, in June 2007, Fremont Board of Education proposed as an option to route students from Gomes Elementary School to Kennedy High School, once again citing overcrowding at Mission San Jose High School. However, the proposal itself is problematic, as Kennedy High School is located on the other side of Fremont from Gomes Elementary School; if the boundary change were implemented, transportation problems would emerge. Even though the option was not recommended by the Board in the June meeting, the mere mention of the school name arose strong concern and reaction from the local communities. A town hall meeting was held on June 12, 2007 between two of the board members, Nina Moore and Larry Sweeney, three assistant superintendents, and the parents of Gomes school students. More than 1500 people attended the meeting. To ease the concern from local communities, the president of the board, Nina Moore, agreed to drop the Gomes name from their option list. Yet as long as the root causes of the school over-crowding are not addressed, the school re-boundary controversy will linger and looms large on the mind of entire Mission San Jose communities.

Some of community members have been discussing the reasons for the overcrowding that has occurred in the MSJHS attendance area even after the large Weibel Elementary area was moved to Irvington area in 2000. The top ones that have emerged are the large number of new housing developments that have been completed in the post 2000 MSJHS attendance area, residents moving into existing homes in the hope of sending their kids to the area schools. Lastly there is consensus and evidence that a large number of student enrollments especially in the Jr. High and High Schools are based on fraudulent residency documents.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[PadreBrian]

I even have a new town slogan for them: Rancho Santa Fe; former home of the Heavens Gate Cult.

[yojimbo]

“raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me.”

Isn’t this the same, albeit on a smaller monetary scale, as paying a premium for a Nike shirt or ball cap with a Reebok logo on it? Or maybe a shoe with Shaq’s logo on it? We all know where the shoes and clothing are made. They are all of essentially the same quality. It’s the brand identity or celebrity association that we a pay a premium for.

The RSF area has essentially been branded and people will pay a premium to be associated with that brand.

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

maybe it is: Rancho Fanta Se

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

maybe it is: Rancho Fanta Se

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

maybe it is: Rancho Fanta Se

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

maybe it is: Rancho Fanta Se

[I would rather be lucky then smart]

maybe it is: Rancho Fanta Se

[davelj]

yojimbo, yes, it’s the same thing as your Nike analogy, with the key being “albeit on a smaller monetary scale.” If you spend an extra $15 to buy that Nike shirt it’s no big deal for most people. In other words, the additional “perceived – but not real – luxury” is relatively inexpensive. However, if you spend an extra million dollars or two just to live somewhere with the proper address (with no material advantages) then… well… that’s an extra million or two. Now if you’ve got $25 million plus, no big deal – that’s not necessarily crazy to me; you’re talking about a rounding error. But if you’re the average person doing this, with, say, a $10 million net worth, then spending an additional 10%-20% of your net worth just for the address is… well… crazy. The degree of insanity is inversely proportional to the buyer’s net worth. In my opinion.

[davelj]

yojimbo, yes, it’s the same thing as your Nike analogy, with the key being “albeit on a smaller monetary scale.” If you spend an extra $15 to buy that Nike shirt it’s no big deal for most people. In other words, the additional “perceived – but not real – luxury” is relatively inexpensive. However, if you spend an extra million dollars or two just to live somewhere with the proper address (with no material advantages) then… well… that’s an extra million or two. Now if you’ve got $25 million plus, no big deal – that’s not necessarily crazy to me; you’re talking about a rounding error. But if you’re the average person doing this, with, say, a $10 million net worth, then spending an additional 10%-20% of your net worth just for the address is… well… crazy. The degree of insanity is inversely proportional to the buyer’s net worth. In my opinion.

[davelj]

yojimbo, yes, it’s the same thing as your Nike analogy, with the key being “albeit on a smaller monetary scale.” If you spend an extra $15 to buy that Nike shirt it’s no big deal for most people. In other words, the additional “perceived – but not real – luxury” is relatively inexpensive. However, if you spend an extra million dollars or two just to live somewhere with the proper address (with no material advantages) then… well… that’s an extra million or two. Now if you’ve got $25 million plus, no big deal – that’s not necessarily crazy to me; you’re talking about a rounding error. But if you’re the average person doing this, with, say, a $10 million net worth, then spending an additional 10%-20% of your net worth just for the address is… well… crazy. The degree of insanity is inversely proportional to the buyer’s net worth. In my opinion.

[davelj]

yojimbo, yes, it’s the same thing as your Nike analogy, with the key being “albeit on a smaller monetary scale.” If you spend an extra $15 to buy that Nike shirt it’s no big deal for most people. In other words, the additional “perceived – but not real – luxury” is relatively inexpensive. However, if you spend an extra million dollars or two just to live somewhere with the proper address (with no material advantages) then… well… that’s an extra million or two. Now if you’ve got $25 million plus, no big deal – that’s not necessarily crazy to me; you’re talking about a rounding error. But if you’re the average person doing this, with, say, a $10 million net worth, then spending an additional 10%-20% of your net worth just for the address is… well… crazy. The degree of insanity is inversely proportional to the buyer’s net worth. In my opinion.

[davelj]

yojimbo, yes, it’s the same thing as your Nike analogy, with the key being “albeit on a smaller monetary scale.” If you spend an extra $15 to buy that Nike shirt it’s no big deal for most people. In other words, the additional “perceived – but not real – luxury” is relatively inexpensive. However, if you spend an extra million dollars or two just to live somewhere with the proper address (with no material advantages) then… well… that’s an extra million or two. Now if you’ve got $25 million plus, no big deal – that’s not necessarily crazy to me; you’re talking about a rounding error. But if you’re the average person doing this, with, say, a $10 million net worth, then spending an additional 10%-20% of your net worth just for the address is… well… crazy. The degree of insanity is inversely proportional to the buyer’s net worth. In my opinion.

[yojimbo]

“raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me.”

Isn’t this the same, albeit on a smaller monetary scale, as paying a premium for a Nike shirt or ball cap with a Reebok logo on it? Or maybe a shoe with Shaq’s logo on it? We all know where the shoes and clothing are made. They are all of essentially the same quality. It’s the brand identity or celebrity association that we a pay a premium for.

The RSF area has essentially been branded and people will pay a premium to be associated with that brand.

[yojimbo]

“raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me.”

Isn’t this the same, albeit on a smaller monetary scale, as paying a premium for a Nike shirt or ball cap with a Reebok logo on it? Or maybe a shoe with Shaq’s logo on it? We all know where the shoes and clothing are made. They are all of essentially the same quality. It’s the brand identity or celebrity association that we a pay a premium for.

The RSF area has essentially been branded and people will pay a premium to be associated with that brand.

[yojimbo]

“raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me.”

Isn’t this the same, albeit on a smaller monetary scale, as paying a premium for a Nike shirt or ball cap with a Reebok logo on it? Or maybe a shoe with Shaq’s logo on it? We all know where the shoes and clothing are made. They are all of essentially the same quality. It’s the brand identity or celebrity association that we a pay a premium for.

The RSF area has essentially been branded and people will pay a premium to be associated with that brand.

[yojimbo]

“raptorduck, are you trying to tell me that you’d be willing to pay a meaningful premium simply to have your mail delivered to a RSF address? To have your checks with a RSF address? To be able to tell people at a cocktail party that, yes, your mailing address is in RSF? Same schools, same neighbors, same quality of housing, same weather, etc. – and you’d be willing to pay a premium just for the ADDRESS? That just seems absolutely mental illness crazy to me.”

Isn’t this the same, albeit on a smaller monetary scale, as paying a premium for a Nike shirt or ball cap with a Reebok logo on it? Or maybe a shoe with Shaq’s logo on it? We all know where the shoes and clothing are made. They are all of essentially the same quality. It’s the brand identity or celebrity association that we a pay a premium for.

The RSF area has essentially been branded and people will pay a premium to be associated with that brand.

[PadreBrian]

I even have a new town slogan for them: Rancho Santa Fe; former home of the Heavens Gate Cult.

[PadreBrian]

I even have a new town slogan for them: Rancho Santa Fe; former home of the Heavens Gate Cult.

[PadreBrian]

I even have a new town slogan for them: Rancho Santa Fe; former home of the Heavens Gate Cult.

[PadreBrian]

I even have a new town slogan for them: Rancho Santa Fe; former home of the Heavens Gate Cult.

[Author]

Posts