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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts