What year was the road Camino del Sur built?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.[/quote]

In my 1994 Thomas Guide, I have on pg 1169 the 92127 zip as white (City of SD, inc) The area is bounded on the north and west by “Artesian Road” (dirt) and Black Mtn Road on the east (partly dirt). What appears to be a 4-lane continuation of Black Mtn Rd (headed east) turns into Rancho Bernardo Rd with the first cross-street being “Camino San Bernardo.” This strip is uninc. After you pass CSB heading east, RB Rd turns back into the City.

The small development off Camino San Bernardo appears to be the only improvements made within 92127 (uninc. area). On the Fairbanks (west side) of inc 92127, “Artesian Rd” becomes paved with a few straight dirt roads off of it (uninc).

The northern boundary of Lake Hodges and surrounds belongs to 92128 (City of SD, inc).

It appears at that time, uninc 92127 had maybe 100-200 residents and inc 92127 none (unless you count lizards).

92173 (San Ysidro, formerly 92073), is now almost ALL incorporated into the City of SD. Formerly uninc, the City now encompasses Brown Field and the Otay Border Crossing. The only part left uninc was the area adjacent to the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility.

The reason I used SY for an example here is because when the City annexed the land in this instance, they actually took over the uninc portion and the zip code was changed to 92173.

I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.

I wasn’t born yesterday but wasn’t paying attention to North County shenanigans during these years. If any Piggs can shed light on why 4S isn’t in the City (except that it isn’t), I would be much obliged :=]

[ocrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.[/quote]

yes, but it is still Chula Vista. call me snobby, but I just can’t get myself to write down Chula Vista as my address.

[ocrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.[/quote]

yes, but it is still Chula Vista. call me snobby, but I just can’t get myself to write down Chula Vista as my address.

[ocrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.[/quote]

yes, but it is still Chula Vista. call me snobby, but I just can’t get myself to write down Chula Vista as my address.

[ocrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.[/quote]

yes, but it is still Chula Vista. call me snobby, but I just can’t get myself to write down Chula Vista as my address.

[ocrenter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.[/quote]

yes, but it is still Chula Vista. call me snobby, but I just can’t get myself to write down Chula Vista as my address.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.

Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.

Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.

Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.

Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.

Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.

Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.

Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.

Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.
[/quote]
The point is- 4s is not in the city – but some of it’s surroundings are. Regardless of the zip.

Your 1994 Thomas guide is interesting – but not a predictor, from the past, of what the present is.

Whether the city annexes it in the future is to be seen. I haven’t seen speculation for or against an annexation. I guess if you’re super curious you could email councilwoman Lightner or councilman DeMaio… Or you could look at your 2011 Thomas Guide and prognosticate.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them. .[/quote]

If you are unfamiliar about the 56 corridor than why are providing expert commentary? Danger Will Robinson!!!

BTW you keep calling it a city of SD ZIP code. ZIP Codes have nothing to do with city boundaries. They are set by the post office and do not follow city boundaries. I used to be in the GIS/Demographics industy and there are 3 kinds of geographical boundaries that are set independently of each other by completely different governmental agencies and could each be completely different:

City/County boundaries
ZIP Code Boundaries
Census Tract Boundaries

[sdrealtor]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them. .[/quote]

If you are unfamiliar about the 56 corridor than why are providing expert commentary? Danger Will Robinson!!!

BTW you keep calling it a city of SD ZIP code. ZIP Codes have nothing to do with city boundaries. They are set by the post office and do not follow city boundaries. I used to be in the GIS/Demographics industy and there are 3 kinds of geographical boundaries that are set independently of each other by completely different governmental agencies and could each be completely different:

City/County boundaries
ZIP Code Boundaries
Census Tract Boundaries

[sdrealtor]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them. .[/quote]

If you are unfamiliar about the 56 corridor than why are providing expert commentary? Danger Will Robinson!!!

BTW you keep calling it a city of SD ZIP code. ZIP Codes have nothing to do with city boundaries. They are set by the post office and do not follow city boundaries. I used to be in the GIS/Demographics industy and there are 3 kinds of geographical boundaries that are set independently of each other by completely different governmental agencies and could each be completely different:

City/County boundaries
ZIP Code Boundaries
Census Tract Boundaries

[sdrealtor]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them. .[/quote]

If you are unfamiliar about the 56 corridor than why are providing expert commentary? Danger Will Robinson!!!

BTW you keep calling it a city of SD ZIP code. ZIP Codes have nothing to do with city boundaries. They are set by the post office and do not follow city boundaries. I used to be in the GIS/Demographics industy and there are 3 kinds of geographical boundaries that are set independently of each other by completely different governmental agencies and could each be completely different:

City/County boundaries
ZIP Code Boundaries
Census Tract Boundaries

[Author]

Posts