Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › What year was the road Camino del Sur built?
- This topic has 370 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
Eugene.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 21, 2011 at 10:11 PM #689589April 21, 2011 at 10:20 PM #688422
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]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[/quote]sdr, why don’t you go busy yourself with inventory of your wine stash? You can drink with one hand and count with the other … that is, if you can still count at this late hour :=]
My post had NOTHING TO DO with any of the above.
It has become heir apparent here that what you know about urban planning in combination with the legislative process would fit into a thimble, with room to spare.
How about you just do the Piggs a favor and stick to what you DO know. ;=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:20 PM #688483Participant[quote=sdrealtor]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[/quote]sdr, why don’t you go busy yourself with inventory of your wine stash? You can drink with one hand and count with the other … that is, if you can still count at this late hour :=]
My post had NOTHING TO DO with any of the above.
It has become heir apparent here that what you know about urban planning in combination with the legislative process would fit into a thimble, with room to spare.
How about you just do the Piggs a favor and stick to what you DO know. ;=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:20 PM #689100Participant[quote=sdrealtor]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[/quote]sdr, why don’t you go busy yourself with inventory of your wine stash? You can drink with one hand and count with the other … that is, if you can still count at this late hour :=]
My post had NOTHING TO DO with any of the above.
It has become heir apparent here that what you know about urban planning in combination with the legislative process would fit into a thimble, with room to spare.
How about you just do the Piggs a favor and stick to what you DO know. ;=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:20 PM #689241Participant[quote=sdrealtor]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[/quote]sdr, why don’t you go busy yourself with inventory of your wine stash? You can drink with one hand and count with the other … that is, if you can still count at this late hour :=]
My post had NOTHING TO DO with any of the above.
It has become heir apparent here that what you know about urban planning in combination with the legislative process would fit into a thimble, with room to spare.
How about you just do the Piggs a favor and stick to what you DO know. ;=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:20 PM #689594Participant[quote=sdrealtor]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[/quote]sdr, why don’t you go busy yourself with inventory of your wine stash? You can drink with one hand and count with the other … that is, if you can still count at this late hour :=]
My post had NOTHING TO DO with any of the above.
It has become heir apparent here that what you know about urban planning in combination with the legislative process would fit into a thimble, with room to spare.
How about you just do the Piggs a favor and stick to what you DO know. ;=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM #688432Participant[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]
Absolutely, UCGal. However, the zip was initially applied for as a “City zip” and some of it is incorporated. This particular zip can never be changed to a “county zip” (92027) because that zip was utilized long ago by the City of Escondido. It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. It is these CFD’s which would have heavily fueled City coffers in order to provide services for the area it encumbers and as a byproduct these funds would have perpetuated City government and its employees.
As an example, Chula Vista and Encinitas JUMPED as the chance to annex in portions of uninc area not only for the teeter funds but also for a portion of the Mello Roos generated. These funds served to expand the government of both cities proportionately to the extra population they absorbed.
Rather than e-mail Lightner and DeMaio who may not have the historical knowledge, the actual persons to get these answers from would be the City Planner, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Mayor and the Council members in office, in position or seated at that time. Better yet, I believe the answers can be found in the City Council agendae, its backup documents and minutes in the 2000 – 2002 time period, along with the tapes of said meetings. In addition, more information can be found in County Board of Supervisors Meeting agendae, minutes and tapes from that era thru about 2003.
You are correct in that it is unknown at this time if the area will ever be annexed to the City San Diego. It is interesting, nonetheless, that 4S is an uninc “island unto itself,” sporting a “City” zip code :=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM #688493Participant[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]
Absolutely, UCGal. However, the zip was initially applied for as a “City zip” and some of it is incorporated. This particular zip can never be changed to a “county zip” (92027) because that zip was utilized long ago by the City of Escondido. It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. It is these CFD’s which would have heavily fueled City coffers in order to provide services for the area it encumbers and as a byproduct these funds would have perpetuated City government and its employees.
As an example, Chula Vista and Encinitas JUMPED as the chance to annex in portions of uninc area not only for the teeter funds but also for a portion of the Mello Roos generated. These funds served to expand the government of both cities proportionately to the extra population they absorbed.
Rather than e-mail Lightner and DeMaio who may not have the historical knowledge, the actual persons to get these answers from would be the City Planner, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Mayor and the Council members in office, in position or seated at that time. Better yet, I believe the answers can be found in the City Council agendae, its backup documents and minutes in the 2000 – 2002 time period, along with the tapes of said meetings. In addition, more information can be found in County Board of Supervisors Meeting agendae, minutes and tapes from that era thru about 2003.
You are correct in that it is unknown at this time if the area will ever be annexed to the City San Diego. It is interesting, nonetheless, that 4S is an uninc “island unto itself,” sporting a “City” zip code :=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM #689110Participant[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]
Absolutely, UCGal. However, the zip was initially applied for as a “City zip” and some of it is incorporated. This particular zip can never be changed to a “county zip” (92027) because that zip was utilized long ago by the City of Escondido. It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. It is these CFD’s which would have heavily fueled City coffers in order to provide services for the area it encumbers and as a byproduct these funds would have perpetuated City government and its employees.
As an example, Chula Vista and Encinitas JUMPED as the chance to annex in portions of uninc area not only for the teeter funds but also for a portion of the Mello Roos generated. These funds served to expand the government of both cities proportionately to the extra population they absorbed.
Rather than e-mail Lightner and DeMaio who may not have the historical knowledge, the actual persons to get these answers from would be the City Planner, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Mayor and the Council members in office, in position or seated at that time. Better yet, I believe the answers can be found in the City Council agendae, its backup documents and minutes in the 2000 – 2002 time period, along with the tapes of said meetings. In addition, more information can be found in County Board of Supervisors Meeting agendae, minutes and tapes from that era thru about 2003.
You are correct in that it is unknown at this time if the area will ever be annexed to the City San Diego. It is interesting, nonetheless, that 4S is an uninc “island unto itself,” sporting a “City” zip code :=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM #689251Participant[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]
Absolutely, UCGal. However, the zip was initially applied for as a “City zip” and some of it is incorporated. This particular zip can never be changed to a “county zip” (92027) because that zip was utilized long ago by the City of Escondido. It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. It is these CFD’s which would have heavily fueled City coffers in order to provide services for the area it encumbers and as a byproduct these funds would have perpetuated City government and its employees.
As an example, Chula Vista and Encinitas JUMPED as the chance to annex in portions of uninc area not only for the teeter funds but also for a portion of the Mello Roos generated. These funds served to expand the government of both cities proportionately to the extra population they absorbed.
Rather than e-mail Lightner and DeMaio who may not have the historical knowledge, the actual persons to get these answers from would be the City Planner, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Mayor and the Council members in office, in position or seated at that time. Better yet, I believe the answers can be found in the City Council agendae, its backup documents and minutes in the 2000 – 2002 time period, along with the tapes of said meetings. In addition, more information can be found in County Board of Supervisors Meeting agendae, minutes and tapes from that era thru about 2003.
You are correct in that it is unknown at this time if the area will ever be annexed to the City San Diego. It is interesting, nonetheless, that 4S is an uninc “island unto itself,” sporting a “City” zip code :=]
April 21, 2011 at 10:54 PM #689604Participant[quote=UCGal]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.[/quote]
Absolutely, UCGal. However, the zip was initially applied for as a “City zip” and some of it is incorporated. This particular zip can never be changed to a “county zip” (92027) because that zip was utilized long ago by the City of Escondido. It is an anomaly that 4S is surrounded by the City on all sides (yes, even the parkland around the lake), save a small opening on the northwest side.
I don’t have a more current version of the TG and if I did, it wouldn’t help. I have no interest in prognostication. It is inconceivable to me that the City would give up the right to annexation of 4S PRIOR to or DURING the formation of the CFD’s. It is these CFD’s which would have heavily fueled City coffers in order to provide services for the area it encumbers and as a byproduct these funds would have perpetuated City government and its employees.
As an example, Chula Vista and Encinitas JUMPED as the chance to annex in portions of uninc area not only for the teeter funds but also for a portion of the Mello Roos generated. These funds served to expand the government of both cities proportionately to the extra population they absorbed.
Rather than e-mail Lightner and DeMaio who may not have the historical knowledge, the actual persons to get these answers from would be the City Planner, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Mayor and the Council members in office, in position or seated at that time. Better yet, I believe the answers can be found in the City Council agendae, its backup documents and minutes in the 2000 – 2002 time period, along with the tapes of said meetings. In addition, more information can be found in County Board of Supervisors Meeting agendae, minutes and tapes from that era thru about 2003.
You are correct in that it is unknown at this time if the area will ever be annexed to the City San Diego. It is interesting, nonetheless, that 4S is an uninc “island unto itself,” sporting a “City” zip code :=]
April 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM #688442sdrealtor
ParticipantSticking to what you know is great advice. Take it!
April 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM #688503ParticipantSticking to what you know is great advice. Take it!
April 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM #689120ParticipantSticking to what you know is great advice. Take it!
April 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM #689261ParticipantSticking to what you know is great advice. Take it!
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.