What year was the road Camino del Sur built?

[Eugene]

[quote]Do you have any idea why SD had 4S on their “general plan” in 2000 and/or how 4S ultimately ended up outside the City’s “sphere of influence?”[/quote]

I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:

“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:

“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”[/quote]

Again, thank you, Eugene. I suspected developer “back-room deals” at work here. I have some extremely “well-placed” longtime City contacts (still in service) whom I will attempt to pose this question to (w/o having to go thru a lot of work, lol). I may have to jog their memories a bit, but “something happened” immediately BEFORE or DURING the formation of the CFD’s encumbering the 4S area which caused the City to “roll over” on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind that this involved a payoff or “bribe” of some sort.

I don’t see property owners within 4S initiating an annexation of their own volition in the future unless most of them feel that are not receiving enough services from the County. Historically, the County has NOT provided the level of services cities have. Having lived in both, I can personally attest to this. HOWEVER, tax bills of properties within the County jurisdiction typically have a lower tax base, but different (added on) expenses, such as: rat and opossum control, flood control, fire helicopters, etc. Overall, the uninc tax base is lower. You get what you pay for in this life :=]

The sewer bill added into a tax bill in an uninc area is a wash as a city will charge an owner within $30 year +/- of same.

I DO see East Otay Mesa as annexing to the City at some point. Currently, it has no residential units and really, nothing to lose. The State maintains the grounds of the RJ Donovan Correctional facility (and marginal surrounds) and keeps it well-lighted at night :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:

“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”[/quote]

Again, thank you, Eugene. I suspected developer “back-room deals” at work here. I have some extremely “well-placed” longtime City contacts (still in service) whom I will attempt to pose this question to (w/o having to go thru a lot of work, lol). I may have to jog their memories a bit, but “something happened” immediately BEFORE or DURING the formation of the CFD’s encumbering the 4S area which caused the City to “roll over” on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind that this involved a payoff or “bribe” of some sort.

I don’t see property owners within 4S initiating an annexation of their own volition in the future unless most of them feel that are not receiving enough services from the County. Historically, the County has NOT provided the level of services cities have. Having lived in both, I can personally attest to this. HOWEVER, tax bills of properties within the County jurisdiction typically have a lower tax base, but different (added on) expenses, such as: rat and opossum control, flood control, fire helicopters, etc. Overall, the uninc tax base is lower. You get what you pay for in this life :=]

The sewer bill added into a tax bill in an uninc area is a wash as a city will charge an owner within $30 year +/- of same.

I DO see East Otay Mesa as annexing to the City at some point. Currently, it has no residential units and really, nothing to lose. The State maintains the grounds of the RJ Donovan Correctional facility (and marginal surrounds) and keeps it well-lighted at night :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:

“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”[/quote]

Again, thank you, Eugene. I suspected developer “back-room deals” at work here. I have some extremely “well-placed” longtime City contacts (still in service) whom I will attempt to pose this question to (w/o having to go thru a lot of work, lol). I may have to jog their memories a bit, but “something happened” immediately BEFORE or DURING the formation of the CFD’s encumbering the 4S area which caused the City to “roll over” on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind that this involved a payoff or “bribe” of some sort.

I don’t see property owners within 4S initiating an annexation of their own volition in the future unless most of them feel that are not receiving enough services from the County. Historically, the County has NOT provided the level of services cities have. Having lived in both, I can personally attest to this. HOWEVER, tax bills of properties within the County jurisdiction typically have a lower tax base, but different (added on) expenses, such as: rat and opossum control, flood control, fire helicopters, etc. Overall, the uninc tax base is lower. You get what you pay for in this life :=]

The sewer bill added into a tax bill in an uninc area is a wash as a city will charge an owner within $30 year +/- of same.

I DO see East Otay Mesa as annexing to the City at some point. Currently, it has no residential units and really, nothing to lose. The State maintains the grounds of the RJ Donovan Correctional facility (and marginal surrounds) and keeps it well-lighted at night :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:

“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”[/quote]

Again, thank you, Eugene. I suspected developer “back-room deals” at work here. I have some extremely “well-placed” longtime City contacts (still in service) whom I will attempt to pose this question to (w/o having to go thru a lot of work, lol). I may have to jog their memories a bit, but “something happened” immediately BEFORE or DURING the formation of the CFD’s encumbering the 4S area which caused the City to “roll over” on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind that this involved a payoff or “bribe” of some sort.

I don’t see property owners within 4S initiating an annexation of their own volition in the future unless most of them feel that are not receiving enough services from the County. Historically, the County has NOT provided the level of services cities have. Having lived in both, I can personally attest to this. HOWEVER, tax bills of properties within the County jurisdiction typically have a lower tax base, but different (added on) expenses, such as: rat and opossum control, flood control, fire helicopters, etc. Overall, the uninc tax base is lower. You get what you pay for in this life :=]

The sewer bill added into a tax bill in an uninc area is a wash as a city will charge an owner within $30 year +/- of same.

I DO see East Otay Mesa as annexing to the City at some point. Currently, it has no residential units and really, nothing to lose. The State maintains the grounds of the RJ Donovan Correctional facility (and marginal surrounds) and keeps it well-lighted at night :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Eugene]I don’t know the details, but I found one pdf in the net that claims that 4S was within the city SOI, but its developers successfully went through the LAFCO process to take it out. When, why, or how that happened, I can’t say, but there’s a list of all proposals on the LAFCO web site going back to 2000, and it’s not there. So it had to have happened before 2000. It stays on the general plan with the reasoning that maybe the residents will want back and then San Diego will annex. To quote:

“4S Ranch and East Otay Mesa (EOM) are identified as prospective annexations areas since they would create logical and contiguous extensions of the City given their relative location and reliance on City infrastructure for access to nearby freeways and facilities, and would provide for opportunities for cost-efficient delivery of urban services. The City does not have specific plans to annex these areas at this time. However, property owners within these areas have the ability to initiate such a process.”[/quote]

Again, thank you, Eugene. I suspected developer “back-room deals” at work here. I have some extremely “well-placed” longtime City contacts (still in service) whom I will attempt to pose this question to (w/o having to go thru a lot of work, lol). I may have to jog their memories a bit, but “something happened” immediately BEFORE or DURING the formation of the CFD’s encumbering the 4S area which caused the City to “roll over” on this issue. There is no doubt in my mind that this involved a payoff or “bribe” of some sort.

I don’t see property owners within 4S initiating an annexation of their own volition in the future unless most of them feel that are not receiving enough services from the County. Historically, the County has NOT provided the level of services cities have. Having lived in both, I can personally attest to this. HOWEVER, tax bills of properties within the County jurisdiction typically have a lower tax base, but different (added on) expenses, such as: rat and opossum control, flood control, fire helicopters, etc. Overall, the uninc tax base is lower. You get what you pay for in this life :=]

The sewer bill added into a tax bill in an uninc area is a wash as a city will charge an owner within $30 year +/- of same.

I DO see East Otay Mesa as annexing to the City at some point. Currently, it has no residential units and really, nothing to lose. The State maintains the grounds of the RJ Donovan Correctional facility (and marginal surrounds) and keeps it well-lighted at night :=]

[Eugene]

I don’t know about back room deals. 4S is part of “San Dieguito community planning area” of the county, and 4S developers had to work closely with the county all the time they were designing and planning the community. Maybe it did not make sense for 4S to remain in the city SOI after that, and the county backed them up.

[Eugene]

I don’t know about back room deals. 4S is part of “San Dieguito community planning area” of the county, and 4S developers had to work closely with the county all the time they were designing and planning the community. Maybe it did not make sense for 4S to remain in the city SOI after that, and the county backed them up.

[Eugene]

I don’t know about back room deals. 4S is part of “San Dieguito community planning area” of the county, and 4S developers had to work closely with the county all the time they were designing and planning the community. Maybe it did not make sense for 4S to remain in the city SOI after that, and the county backed them up.

[Eugene]

I don’t know about back room deals. 4S is part of “San Dieguito community planning area” of the county, and 4S developers had to work closely with the county all the time they were designing and planning the community. Maybe it did not make sense for 4S to remain in the city SOI after that, and the county backed them up.

[Eugene]

I don’t know about back room deals. 4S is part of “San Dieguito community planning area” of the county, and 4S developers had to work closely with the county all the time they were designing and planning the community. Maybe it did not make sense for 4S to remain in the city SOI after that, and the county backed them up.

[Author]

Posts