Severe housing shortage predicted

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile, can someone throw a perspective on apartments market in San Diego or for that matter in any US city in general.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]The difference is the whole region (not just the coastal area’s) are becoming a increasingly growth averse a lot more than it ever was in the past.

We are building about 1/2 Normal pace after coming off a period of almost no building for the last 5 years.

Then you got the largest generation in history turning 24-25 or so.

Whatever it’s going to be tight.[/quote]

The 24-25 year-old set . . . as well as the late-twenties set are just getting started in their careers. This group doesn’t mind living in rental units with roommates (even multiple roommates).

They’re not yet looking to buy or rent a place on their own. At least not in coastal CA, where there is good money to be made for a finite amount of years/decades. They need to make (and save) money while the getting is good.

Both of these age groups in rural or semi-rural “flyover country” are more likely to be already coupled up … with kids. But housing is much cheaper there.

CA doesn’t need anymore housing. Millenials need to get their heads on straight and accept the existing housing on offer in the locale they are working in …. just like SV workers have had to do since the beginning of the “dot.com era.”

Boomers accepted the housing on offer in their respective locales in an era of very high interest rates and nearly zero-percent residential building. Millenials can do this IF they are able to lose their pervasive “entitlement mentality.”

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=sumitagrawal01]Meanwhile, can someone throw a perspective on apartments market in San Diego or for that matter in any US city in general.[/quote]

Apartment rents are on fire. Increases all over.

I heard $1600 for 1/1 at sommerset in Mira Mesa. $1200 is going rate in Tampa FL
$1000 in Vegas. In short, rents are higher than buy. That’s support for house values I think.

[FlyerInHi]

BG. If you wanr to preserve open space and natural resources, you allow high density.
The way we have it now, we have sprawl which destroys open spaces.

[no_such_reality]

Please enlighten us as to whom you think all those state of the art tract homes were built for in the 70s, 80s, and 90s?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG. If you wanr to preserve open space and natural resources, you allow high density.
The way we have it now, we have sprawl which destroys open spaces.[/quote]

Exactly, brian, “The way we have it now . . .” It’s already done. The horse left out of the open barn door decades ago, right in front of our “esteemed leader’s” noses. We cannot now unring the bell.

Millenia, if approved as shown in the developer’s (pipe dream) gallery, is an example of the creation of MORE sprawl! It is a development on the very edge of Chula Vista …. a long stone’s throw from Otay Valley Rd/Main St, which is Chula Vista’s border with South SD. I posted earlier that Palm Ave (Otay Mesa-SD) is the next exit in I-805 but in fact there is one more Chula Vista exit within one mile of the massive proposed Millenia residential/commercial project (nearly to the scale of the now “scaled down” One Paseo in Carmel Valley). The project’s commercial area copies the design of Otay Ranch Mall with the same nose-in parking but sans the anchor stores that our brethren directly to the south of us love to shop in :=0

Knocking down structures on a lot with a 50+ year-old one-story court apt complex in OB or North Park (SD), plus maybe 2-3 more adjacent residential lots and building something like Millenia (on a smaller scale of course) is considered “infill” and NOT SPRAWL! It could also be considered the “highest and best use” of land which is already zoned multifamily and already has utilities brought to it and services (police/fire/ambulance and public works) assigned to it! It would also draw well-heeled patrons from other parts of the city to shop and dine, especially if it included a pkg garage (more likely in OB than North Park).

The location of Millenia isn’t going to draw anyone out of Otay Ranch except those residents’ occasional guests and a few Mexican shoppers who spent the day shopping at the outlets in San Ysidro or Otay Ranch Mall. It is a large flat acreage in the midst of snake and lizardland which is also a coyote crossing. Utilities are already brought to the north side (mall side, across the street) but not to any future-created streets below (and easements, due to the undoubtedly higher proposed density, if approved).

Otay Ranch Mall has had a hard enough time surviving in the 8-9 years it has been built (it opened the last quarter of 2006, IIRC). It has the THIRD Macys in South County as an anchor with REI (next closest REI was Mira Mesa) and we probably didn’t need another Macys down here. Many of the shops in Otay Ranch Mall today are not the same shops which were there at its opening (it started out with mostly higher-end stores and several of them didn’t fly at that location). If Millenia is planning on attracting higher-end shops to fill its retail space, I think they’ll have a tough time getting them interested in that location.

Yes, as dense as it is (it is VERY dense, folks), Otay Ranch subdivisions and shopping look pleasing, especially to younger Gen X and Millenials, who appreciate new construction. But looks are deceiving. The vast majority of its original homeowners who are still there bought new in Otay Ranch between 2003 and 2007. (1st subdivision to be sold there was about late 2000/2001.) This group saw their home values plummet up to 60% in SFRs and closer to 70% in condos by 2008, experiencing the highest home depreciation of all time within the county of SD. It was so bad that the effects of its depreciation reverberated throughout the city, even affecting the values in older neighborhoods of Chula Vista situated 6-12 miles away where the majority of homes were actually paid off! Those thousands of owners in Otay Ranch who hung on WERE hurting and are STILL hurting because the assessor has now raised Chula Vista assessments en masse back up to 2004/05 levels pursuant to Prop 8. Otay Ranch residents now have a raised ad valoream tax to contend with for FY 15/16 PLUS Mello Roos of 1.4% to 1.7% of assessed value (this area has among the most expensive CFDs in the county) PLUS monthly dues for 1-2 HOA’s to pay for! In addition, their toll road (to get to/from work daily) costs approx $90 month for advance payment of approx 20 days of use (round trip).

I have a good memory and will surmise that many Otay Ranch homeowners who hung on during the “great recession” (to keep their kids in school) are now paying on modified mortgages of 40 years at 2-4% fixed, which included all their missed interest payments when their last mortgage “exploded” on them and they defaulted. Thus, many of them are still upside-down today.

These were younger working families who bought into Otay Ranch, NOT the well-heeled who paid cash for their homes! This group typically doesn’t have the money to dine at five-star restaurants and shop at boutiques due to being heavily in debt to their homes (mortgages and very high taxes and fees, in addition to the expenses of raising a family).

I don’t feel that this pie-in-the-sky plan for Millenia pencils out very well in that location and will only add thousands more vehicles to our surface streets every day (to avoid the toll road, like their predecessors have been doing for the better part of ten years).

There are much better locations in the county to do a (successful) project like this ….. as INFILL.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]Please enlighten us as to whom you think all those state of the art tract homes were built for in the 70s, 80s, and 90s?[/quote]

NSR, if this question is directed at me, I can tell you that SFRs of this era were not “state of the art.” They were built with linoleum, formica counters, t-lock shingle and wood roofs, wood garage doors (until the early nineties) and had mostly cheap carpeting installed throughout.

In addition, there were far fewer subdivisions built, they were much smaller subdivisions and were built 3-6 homes to an acre. The “master planned community” concept with thousands of units (8-18 SFRs to an acre) did not take hold in SD County until 1987 …. AFTER the first CFDs were formed in Eastlake Shores (Chula Vista). By that time, the boomers were in their mid-late 30’s and most already owned a home (most boomers married young and bought their first home in their early to late 20’s). There were only 2-3 “work centers” in the county and most workers commuted no more than 30-35 mins to/from work.

All cities in SD County, plus SD County should have issued building moratoriums in 1992, after all the land was developed which was within CFD’s formed after the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act was passed in 1982. Our quality of life would have been so much better for it. Other jurisdictions (examples: NorCal, Oregon, Washington cities/counties and Boulder, CO) who have managed to enact permanent residential building moratoriums before the horse escaped out the barn door can still offer their residents a fabulous quality of life today. We can’t because we are bulging with people, creating a big headache every day for the worker bee, especially. We have only our esteemed leaders (past and present) to thank for this. They have sold out America’s Finest City (and surrounds) to Big Development due to their own greed. It ended up getting them nowhere because their sphere of influence (number of employees “under” them) is actually LESS today than it was in 2001!

[FlyerInHi]

Bg, even with stagnant or decreasing population we need to build. In Japan, they still build despite population getting old.

In with the new, out with the old. That’s the way it is.

Quality is life is up. That’s why people still come here and house values are up. The market does not lie.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Bg, even with stagnant or decreasing population we need to build. In Japan, they still build despite population getting old.

In with the new, out with the old. That’s the way it is.

Quality is life is up. That’s why people still come here and house values are up. The market does not lie.[/quote]

brian, I am ALL FOR “In with the new, OUT with the old.” That’s considered “infill building.”

What I am fundamentally against is MORE SPRAWL created in outer lizardia.

I don’t think SD County’s population increase (if any) is actually due to Americans from other CA counties and other states moving here.

It is likely from foreign in-migration and births over deaths coming mostly from our existing immigrant families. Most of those families (esp Asians, who lived their lives in their home countries in MUCH MORE crowded conditions than we have) rate SD as having a good quality of life today because it IS good …. to them. SD County doesn’t look nearly as good to the well-established US citizen (in and out of state) living in their paid-for homes within their own (roomy and bucolic) settings in far more well-planned counties than San Diego.

[FlyerInHi]

Too hard to do infill. I would love to be able to knock down a house and put up an apartment building.

Who cares where the growth comes from? Times change, people change…. Life goes on.

[no_such_reality]

So trendy current materials,Myers that’s what linoleum and Formica was back then.

And 3-6 home per acre is the definition of sprawl.

Ssdd.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=no_such_reality]Please enlighten us as to whom you think all those state of the art tract homes were built for in the 70s, 80s, and 90s?[/quote]

NSR, if this question is directed at me, I can tell you that SFRs of this era were not “state of the art.” They were built with linoleum, formica counters, t-lock shingle and wood roofs, wood garage doors (until the early nineties) and had mostly cheap carpeting installed throughout.

In addition, there were far fewer subdivisions built, they were much smaller subdivisions and were built 3-6 homes to an acre. The “master planned community” concept with thousands of units (8-18 SFRs to an acre) did not take hold in SD County until 1987 …. AFTER the first CFDs were formed in Eastlake Shores (Chula Vista). By that time, the boomers were in their mid-late 30’s and most already owned a home (most boomers married young and bought their first home in their early to late 20’s). There were only 2-3 “work centers” in the county and most workers commuted no more than 30-35 mins to/from work.

All cities in SD County, plus SD County should have issued building moratoriums in 1992, after all the land was developed which was within CFD’s formed after the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act was passed in 1982. Our quality of life would have been so much better for it. Other jurisdictions (examples: NorCal, Oregon, Washington cities/counties and Boulder, CO) who have managed to enact permanent residential building moratoriums before the horse escaped out the barn door can still offer their residents a fabulous quality of life today. We can’t because we are bulging with people, creating a big headache every day for the worker bee, especially. We have only our esteemed leaders (past and present) to thank for this. They have sold out America’s Finest City (and surrounds) to Big Development due to their own greed. It ended up getting them nowhere because their sphere of influence (number of employees “under” them) is actually LESS today than it was in 2001![/quote]

[livinincali]

[quote=bearishgurl]
I don’t think SD County’s population increase (if any) is actually due to Americans from other CA counties and other states moving here.
[/quote]

Really. We’re military town. There’s thousands of Marines at Miramar and their families that weren’t born here. There’s tons of defense contractors that hire those former military members in this city. I know far more people in their 20’s and 30’s that weren’t born here compared to those that were born here. Go to a bar on a Sunday and see how many youngish people are supporting teams other than the Chargers. This city has grown a ton over the past 50 years and a lot of it is from people that weren’t born here and were born in other American cities.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=livinincali][quote=bearishgurl]
I don’t think SD County’s population increase (if any) is actually due to Americans from other CA counties and other states moving here.
[/quote]

Really. We’re military town. There’s thousands of Marines at Miramar and their families that weren’t born here. There’s tons of defense contractors that hire those former military members in this city. I know far more people in their 20’s and 30’s that weren’t born here compared to those that were born here. Go to a bar on a Sunday and see how many youngish people are supporting teams other than the Chargers. This city has grown a ton over the past 50 years and a lot of it is from people that weren’t born here and were born in other American cities.[/quote]

Active duty military and their families (a very LARGE percentage of who live on base or in Navy-owned housing) are a finite portion of SD County’s population that never grows. One sponsor leaves for another duty station (with or without a family in tow) and another sponsor of same rank (or nearly same rank) with or without a family in tow takes their place (moves here from another locale). Duty stations today last anywhere from 2 years to 5 years (max). I would say that more than half (possibly 2/3) of sponsors who have families live on base or in Navy-owned housing so they don’t need market-rate housing in SD County. Single active duty personnel usually live shipboard or in furnished apts on base. Due to lack of dependents, this group doesn’t get BAQ and VHA (or whatever the housing allowance is called today) to assist with market-rate rent payments in non-military housing.

Hence, the active-duty military population in SD County (and everywhere there are military bases) is “stable.” It does not affect the population numbers one way or the other.

Active duty military who end up retiring here to work for a defense contractor already own a house. If they did not already own a house, they and their families could not afford to stay after retirement when they are evicted from base housing or lose their HUGE housing allowances (market-rate renters)! Those new military retirees who get hired by a local defense contractor aren’t new to SD …. they were already here and are NOT looking for house. Some of them have owned a home here for nearly the entire length of their Navy careers and rented it out whenever they (and their families) transferred out of SD on change of station orders … with the eye to retiring in SD when the time came.

In short, active duty military personnel and their families (as well as newly retired military personnel) are a “wash” to the population (don’t affect it) and thus are not “house shopping.” They are replacing others who left (both in military-owned housing and market rate rental housing) or they always had ties to SD (family and/or real estate).

A military member doesn’t retire from the military out of Tinker Field in Oklahoma, for example, and move their entire family to SD for a defense job …. sans a “housing allowance,” available ONLY to active duty personnel. I don’t care if the sponsor was an O-5 pay rank. This just doesn’t happen, folks.

edit: I forgot to add that a retiring military member gets one “free” move of their household goods (weight based on rank) back to the locale of the MEPPS station where they signed up to join the military. It’s a use it or lose it proposition. The vast majority DO use it …. straight out of the military quarters they and their families are being evicted from.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]Bg, even with stagnant or decreasing population we need to build. In Japan, they still build despite population getting old.

In with the new, out with the old. That’s the way it is.

Quality is life is up. That’s why people still come here and house values are up. The market does not lie.[/quote]

brian, I am ALL FOR “In with the new, OUT with the old.” That’s considered “infill building.”

What I am fundamentally against is MORE SPRAWL created in outer lizardia.

I don’t think SD County’s population increase (if any) is actually due to Americans from other CA counties and other states moving here.

It is likely from foreign in-migration and births over deaths coming mostly from our existing immigrant families. Most of those families (esp Asians, who lived their lives in their home countries in MUCH MORE crowded conditions than we have) rate SD as having a good quality of life today because it IS good …. to them. SD County doesn’t look nearly as good to the well-established US citizen (in and out of state) living in their paid-for homes within their own (roomy and bucolic) settings in far more well-planned counties than San Diego.[/quote]

BG, existing residents have been opposed to new growth and building for many, many decades. Those who’ve enjoyed open space and the use of land that wasn’t theirs (as most of us did in our youth) feel encroached upon by new people who take our open spaces and corn fields, orange groves, etc. and turn them into rows and rows of homes crowded onto ever-smaller lots, then fill our roads and freeways with too many cars, causing us to spend more and more time stuck in traffic…

I know people who are third-generation Californians (or more), and they didn’t think that the BG’s of the world were an improvement to their city/state, either. I’m sure the Native Americans who lived here before us also felt as though things were better before the Europeans got here.

It’s a bit silly to think that there should be no more housing growth just because you want the value of your house to go up. For as long as more and more people want to live here, we will need more housing. We are nowhere near the point where we are “running out of land.” A mere 15-30 minute drive will prove that we are not out of land. And if they close some military bases, as they’ve done in the past, we could have a LOT of extra land for development.

Not saying this is what I want, either, but we have to be honest about the facts. We have not run out of land, and nobody is obligated to inconvenience millions of other people just because some people want the value of their houses to keep going up.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter] . . . It’s a bit silly to think that there should be no more housing growth just because you want the value of your house to go up. For as long as more and more people want to live here, we will need more housing. We are nowhere near the point where we are “running out of land.” A mere 15-30 minute drive will prove that we are not out of land. And if they close some military bases, as they’ve done in the past, we could have a LOT of extra land for development.

Not saying this is what I want, either, but we have to be honest about the facts. We have not run out of land, and nobody is obligated to inconvenience millions of other people just because some people want the value of their houses to keep going up.[/quote]

CAR, where is there land available for current subdivision development in SD County? Are you SURE any of this land you’ve been eyeing in your “15-30 min drives” is zoned residential and not agricultural or industrial and is fit for breaking ground for subdivisions (isn’t polluted or on a flood plain, etc)?

Why would the military shut down a viable base in a port city (such as SD)? Do you recall any major military facilities being shut down in port cities (besides boot [training] camps which can operate anywhere)? The only base I see that could ostensibly be shut down in SD County is the MCRD (possibly relocated to Camp Pendleton). Instead, the Navy has spent many millions on it in recent years improving its facilities. The Navy needs all that extra land (some coastal) in Camp Pendleton for its important training exercises. It has also spent many millions in recent years on CP upgrading its enlisted housing, its hospital and exchange/commissary facilities, among many other improvements.

My opinion has nothing to do with the perceived (present or future) value of my house. It is big enough for very comfortably house a family of six but I realize that the vast majority of prospective homebuyers today who are in “child-rearing mode” prefer a newer neighborhood than mine so my buyer pool would be limited to those who will accept a closer-in older neighborhood.

Silicon Valley (San Mateo County and most of Santa Clara County) is only 1/3 developed, yet it has been completely built out for at least 3 decades. The same is true of Marin County, CA and Boulder County, CO. Contra Costa County is only 2/3 to 3/4 developed and Mendocino County is only 1/4 to 1/5 developed. Both have no available subdivision land. What are the reasons for this? Plain and simple, these counties are heavily comprised of parkland (National, state and municipal) which will never be used for development of any kind. Unlike SD County’s (and other SoCal counties’) greedy, shortsighted elected officials, the above counties’ forebears (very wisely) issued building moratoriums early on to preserve their beautiful open space for everyone to enjoy into eternity. CA coastal counties (or any well-located US County with an abundance of natural resources and beauty) doesn’t owe it “newcomers” a damn thing. SD County didn’t owe me an abundance of new housing to choose from when I arrived ~40 years ago and it doesn’t owe newcomers (or me) anything today.

I’ve never been against “newcomers” relocating to CA coastal counties but I am dead set against creating more sprawl in those counties to “provide” this group with an abundance of new” housing to live in. They can move to a (circa 1922) apt unit on Banker’s Hill, like I did when I arrived here in the 1970’s. Although heavily remodeled and in much better shape today than when I rented there, all of those buildings are still there, folks! Or, if they will work up north, there are plenty of existing rental units and homes to buy (both older and newer) to choose from.

If a newcomer is considering relocating to SD County from a newish home situated on an expansive lot in TX, for example, and is having major issues with finding a “suitable” place to live for themselves in SD County so is on the fence about taking the SD job offer, they don’t need to relocate because they will only be disappointed and will likely pack up and leave the job months after accepting it (especially a family with kids with only one wage-earner). This has always been the case and no one can fix it.

SD County has no less than 21 colleges cranking out graduates of every level twice yearly and the rest of SoCal (with hundreds of thousands of college graduates of every major within its population) is just up the road 1-2 hours. SD County firms do not need to headhunt nationwide. They can easily hire qualified SD natives and other qualified longtime CA residents who have strong local family ties and/or already own their own homes.

SV has never provided an abundance of new homes for their out-of-area new hires, yet its high tech industry is flourishing and will continue to do so. I honestly don’t even see a RE “bubble” forming up there.

Successful long-term living in CA coastal counties has ALWAYS been based upon the doctrine of “survival of the fittest.” Less important than actual income level, those who have been able to consistently hold down FT employment, manage their money wisely, buy RE as young as possible and at a fair price and live well within their means over decades have been and will be able to remain in coastal CA indefinitely. Those who are less disciplined and want instant gratification (or want the same “lifestyle” as they had in their flatland “flyover country” former home) will be sorely disillusioned early on after relocation and will likely go broke very fast. Nothing has changed, people. It’s ALWAYS been this way.

[Author]

Posts