.

[dumbrenter]

Never been to Temecula, but am learning from this thread that Temecula folks could be so touchy!

Now which year’s survey was that where Temecula was called the ugliest little city in the country?
🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=6packscaredy] … we were down in san diego this weekend and I was thinking, san diego kinda sucks in many ways. just looking around. gritty and gross…no disrespect, Imean but people’s houses are hanging over major thoroughfares. it just seems sort of desperate, crowded, packed and too much. but that’s justa highly subjective viewpoitn of one dude at one distinct moment of life.[/quote]

scaredy, not sure where you were in SD, but when the houses you were looking at were built, the “thoroughfares” they “hung over” likely weren’t even a twinkle in any city planner’s eye for decades afterwards. Most were likely two-lane roads surrounded by orchards and canyons.

“Temecula” doesn’t have this problem because it is too new. I remember leaving at 4:00 am on weekends to drive up to Big Bear to go skiing and there being only ONE exit in the Temecula area, “Rancho California Rd” which had ONE gas station/mini mart and ONE fast-food joint on its dead end (west side of SR-395/I-15). That was the ONLY exit for miles around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_15_in_California

That was only about 30 years ago.

The majority of Temecula thoroughfares were partially or completely built by private developers with MR bonds as a condition of their obtaining subdivision permits. Thus, these thoroughfares were already in place and as wide as they were going to be at the time they were built.

Not so in SD. No one knew in 1930, 1947 or or 1956 how many freeways SD would need in the year 2000 and no one at that time had any idea that subsequent City Councils and County Boards of Supervisors would become greedy enough to “sell out” nearly the entire region to Big Development (with the assistance of MR bonds) and thus create a “need” for several more freeways.

Parts of SD undoubtedly look a bit “gritty” to a visitor because there are way too many people using those thoroughfares who do not reside anywhere near them. They are using them to commute on and do their errands on because the local freeways are frequently clogged … yes even on the weekends :=0

If you were a LL on one of these “gritty” SD thoroughfares, you wouldn’t spend to much fixing up your house either as you wouldn’t be able to recover enough monthly rent to warrant spending the money, due to the level of traffic in front of the house.

Because of these stupid, short-sighted decisions by its PTB, the “lustre” wore off of “America’s Finest City” long ago, IMO. It’s a dirty shame as there will never be another SD.

I drove thru TV recently (during rush hour) and I-215 was at nearly a standstill going both ways for about an hour. It now appears to be eight lanes wide in both directions, incl the commuter lane(s).

scaredy, you and your brethren Piggs residing in TV have also been sold a bill of goods by your PTB, IMHO. Why don’t you get back to us in another 30-40 yrs (if you and I are still around, lol) and tell us how TV’s infrastructure and quality-of-life is faring 🙂

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler]In SoCal, Suburbs have a way of turning into big cities, then your back home again and have to search for a new burb.

Basically in most cases in California suburbs don’t die, they just turn into cities.[/quote]

Hollywood and west LA were suburbs.

But Temecula is too far away to be a vibrant city.

I’m interested in how people are moving back to the city like Washington DC and downtown SD. I think the city and some select close suburbs (such as alexandria, va, Carmel Valley and carlsbad) are the future. Temecula, not so much. If you’re just a home and family person who doesn’t care to be near cultural stimulation, then Temecula is fine. But so is a ranch in the middle of Kansas…. so long as you have some way to make a living.

But me, I’d rather live in an apartment in the city than a huge house in Temecula. I like traffic and people all over. Waikiki, Honolulu is great. You can walk out every day and enjoy all the restaurants with all the tourists.

[SDHopes]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=The-Shoveler] Waikiki, Honolulu is great. You can walk out every day and enjoy all the restaurants with all the tourists.[/quote]

LUCKY!

[SDHopes]

[quote=6packscaredy]not really dissing temecula. The comps were higher than expected. That’s saying something good about temecula. true denigration woulda been, shoot, it’s costing me money to get out of this craptown.

I have a feeling the poster is going to miss temecula.

Sure, there’s no place like home, but home is often overrated. You go back home and think, ack, what the hell am I doing here. home sucks! that’s why we leave home in the first place. we are sick of home!

Whereas here, in temecula, you’re not home, but you think, clean air, space, decent enough people, natural beauty…

we were down in san diego this weekend and I was thinking, san diego kinda sucks in many ways. just looking around. gritty and gross…no disrespect, Imean but people’s houses are hanging over major thoroughfares. it just seems sort of desperate, crowded, packed and too much. but that’s justa highly subjective viewpoitn of one dude at one distinct moment of life.[/quote]

As the OP, I must say: I feel not even an ounce of defensiveness that you don’t like some aspects of San Diego. That’s cool, plenty of people don’t like SD.
Whereas when I posted that I want to move back home to San Diego- Paramount FREAKED OUT and took the entire post as a personal attack.

Everyone has their own preferences.

I am confident in my adoration of San Diego.
I am a native San Diegan and it feels like home. If somebody posts they don’t like San Diego, more power to them!
I think Paramount needs counseling for his deep-seated insecurities regarding his living situation.
To jump on someone’s post for days to defend Temecula… then to find out that for YEARS he was going on endless rants on this site about hating life in Temecula…It makes you hope he finds the professional help he needs.

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=The-Shoveler]In SoCal, Suburbs have a way of turning into big cities, then your back home again and have to search for a new burb.

Basically in most cases in California suburbs don’t die, they just turn into cities.[/quote]

Hollywood and west LA were suburbs.

But Temecula is too far away to be a vibrant city.

I’m interested in how people are moving back to the city like Washington DC and downtown SD. I think the city and some select close suburbs (such as alexandria, va, Carmel Valley and carlsbad) are the future. Temecula, not so much. If you’re just a home and family person who doesn’t care to be near cultural stimulation, then Temecula is fine. But so is a ranch in the middle of Kansas…. so long as you have some way to make a living.

But me, I’d rather live in an apartment in the city than a huge house in Temecula. I like traffic and people all over. Waikiki, Honolulu is great. You can walk out every day and enjoy all the restaurants with all the tourists.[/quote]

Not so much a walking City, there is really only so much downtown in SD that is habitable (well nice really) really not like DC or NY (In L.A. parts of the city are downright dangerous after dark).
L.A. is really More of a suburban mega metropolis, I see SD and OC and RC just becoming part of that great mega metropolis,

Temecula has been growing and continues to grow very fast.
I think it will be more like Valencia, Simi-Valley West-Lake etc.

This whole City revival thing is a little over hyped I think as well, maybe in NY DC Boston etc… not SoCal as much.

Would not surprise me to see the TV population surpass Carlsbad’s current population in a few years.
(TV is adding people much faster).
The death of the suburb has been greatly exaggerated.

[paramount]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

Hollywood and west LA were suburbs.

But Temecula is too far away to be a vibrant city.

I’m interested in how people are moving back to the city like Washington DC and downtown SD. I think the city and some select close suburbs (such as alexandria, va, Carmel Valley and carlsbad) are the future. Temecula, not so much. If you’re just a home and family person who doesn’t care to be near cultural stimulation, then Temecula is fine. But so is a ranch in the middle of Kansas…. so long as you have some way to make a living.

But me, I’d rather live in an apartment in the city than a huge house in Temecula. I like traffic and people all over. Waikiki, Honolulu is great. You can walk out every day and enjoy all the restaurants with all the tourists.[/quote]

Obviously you haven’t been to Temecula lately.

Temecula: 125,000
Murrieta: 125,000

250,000 in Temecula Valley!!

Wow.

[scaredyclassic]

plus 80,000 in menifee.

i hesitate to make any predictions for 30 years out, since I’ll likely be dead.

however, I predict temecula will be ok.

[Rhett]

[quote=SDHopes]Paramount,

What made you change your tune?

http://piggington.com/should_i_buy_in_temecula%5B/quote%5D

I’ve not yet seen an answer to this. Trolling or not, it is very interesting to see people’s opinions evolve over a relatively short period of time. What say you, Paramount?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Rhett][quote=SDHopes]Paramount,

What made you change your tune?

http://piggington.com/should_i_buy_in_temecula%5B/quote%5D

I’ve not yet seen an answer to this. Trolling or not, it is very interesting to see people’s opinions evolve over a relatively short period of time. What say you, Paramount?[/quote]

Very good question Rhett. Almost exactly 3 years ago he said:

[quote=paramount]I moved to Temecula almost a decade ago, and it was the biggest financial mistake I have ever made in my life.

I know for some it’s more than a financial decision, so it’s just one perspective.

I have been destroyed financially (IMO) because I bought a house in Temecula. I don’t know how else to say it…

I don’t believe I will ever fully recover from this mistake that I made.

So I guess my answer would generally (there could be some exceptions) be: NO DO NOT BUY A HOUSE IN TEMECULA.

I can’t wait to move out of Temecula if I ever can.[/quote]

I don’t think the OP in this post ever said anything anywhere near as harsh about Temecula as Paramount did 3 years ago. So I have to wonder, did he consider himself a troll then?

[NotCranky]

We really enjoy our 20 acre yard and surrounds now. When the kids were toddlers I wasn’t sure it was worth living out this far, 45 minutes from downtown. The house is 2280 sqft. Right now we have an aunt and uncle and grandfather and grandmother staying here for a week. It’s perfectly comfortable.

When the first kid was born, I moved the family from a nice 1800 sqft. detached house in a dense part of the city for what I consider better family living…each to his own of course. There are some places I might like to live in the city instead, but not many. We can move back when the nest empties and that will probably be desirable.

[NotCranky]

dupe

[bearishgurl]

[quote=6packscaredy]plus 80,000 in menifee.

i hesitate to make any predictions for 30 years out, since I’ll likely be dead.

however, I predict temecula will be ok.[/quote]

scaredy, Chula Vista grew from two zip codes in 1986 with a 52K population to five zip codes today with a 277K population and it is STILL HANGING IN THERE.

The SD South County Superior Court can’t possibly support the population influx without inordinately long delays in EVERY SINGLE SERVICE but CV (the “real” CV) hasn’t fallen into the bay yet. It is still all there and (save for a few tall weeds in several medians) seems to be doing fine 🙂

As much as I lament here on the demise of the “Golden State,” I have to admit that its employees at every level seem to be handling a LOT MORE PEOPLE in the best way they physically can.

Just try to take this same population and place it in the middle of a “flyover-state county” with the same number of employees and it would probably be complete chaos as their “systems” aren’t set up to deal with the sheer numbers of residents as we have here :=0

And I figure I’ll surely be dead by 2043. But WHO KNOWS? Maybe I’ll trudge over to the nearest “Cal Bullet Train” stop with my walker and bifocals and board one with my senior-citizen discount just to view the cities along the SR-99 corridor in action and disembark in Stockton only to see it built into a *new* modern downtown megalopolis with its (2013) BK filing a distant memory :=0

http://piggington.com/land_for_mcmansions_are_we_running_out#comment-208045

Grain elevators be damned.

[paramount]

I have to admit, I was very unhappy about my situation in Temecula during and following the crash. I viewed myself as a responsible buyer, I put a relatively large amount of money down on my house and at least on paper lost it all.

I’m not a RSF phony and 40-50k is a lot of money for me to lose.

I’ve doubled down since then, I’m just now recovering from the crash, and I don’t won’t some johnny-come-lately troll derailing any recovery.

This blog can be found on google.

People read this blog.

I’ve lived in a lot of different places around the country including san Diego, and Temecula has been the best value by far.

Temecula: So Cal weather, Texas Prices.

[bearishgurl]

Paramount, I remember when you were discontented, ESPecially with the commute time to/from SD. But I don’t think you’ll have to worry about TV becoming “unpopular” due to comments made on a single blog.

There are TOO MANY prospective BUYERS out there who want a *newer* and *bigger* house for less money. They don’t CARE where its located.

There seems to be a HUGE HOMEBUYING CONTINGENT in “Gen Y” who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about a big lot (too much work) and doesn’t CARE if they have to commute ~1 hr+ to/from work to get the house they want at a particular price point … at least they don’t seem to care at the time they sign on the dotted line…

There will ALWAYS BE a “captive homebuying audience” for TV but they won’t have as much net worth, income or longevity as homebuyers in more convenient SoCal locations do.

It these factors don’t bother you, they don’t bother me 🙂

[Author]

Posts