[an]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/high-rents-force-silicon-valley-live-vehicles/
This is another reason why we should build higher density unit. If we don’t and continue to build out, we’ll be like LA. If we don’t build, we’ll be like Bay Area. I hope SD learn from these two areas and don’t be like them. I feel sad for those who make $60k and can’t even afford a 1/1 rent.

[an]

[quote=Blogstar]I believe the bubble before this big last crash officially took SD housing down only 17%.. However there were plenty of houses down much much more. So, while the next downturn may not look to be a set up for large overall decline , it may offer plenty of opportunities in certain areas.

I don’t have any ideas on where, haven’t been thinking about it , but there will be good buying opportunities.

If it is blue collar areas , would piggs buy? Which investors would?
If it were Eastlake or Santee( just 15minutes from La jolla shores).[/quote]I don’t doubt that there will be opportunity at the bottom of the next cycle. I just don’t think we’ll see 50-60% off peak like we did in 2008-2010. I also like to follow the lazy landlord philosophy as well, unless I’m presented with a killer opportunity further away. I wouldn’t go out of my way to look for properties in Eastlake/Santee. I like to buy where I think major job center is. It’s much easier to find renter when it’s close to jobs and university.

[an]

[quote=moneymaker]Totally agree investors are chasing returns and when that starts to turn there will be a run by most, not all, but enough to cause a crash. Just like in the last bubble burst, not everyone lost there place though at times it seemed like it.[/quote]Investors and not speculator wouldn’t sell unless you see a big crash in rent as well. Why would investors/landlords sell and have to pay taxes on the gain while they’re cash flowing positive? If anything, I see them extracting equity to buy even more rental if price crash and rent doesn’t.

[an]

[quote=flu]Wouldn’t mind picking up more rentals. Things are at a point which rentals aren’t penciling out out.[/quote]I totally agree. Would be 2nd time hitting the lottery if 2005 repeats itself. I don’t mind either 1975 or 2005 repeating itself. I’m happy either way. I don’t see it happening though.

[an]

[quote=The-Shoveler]It is mostly self inflicted by zoning.

You can’t force communities to build high density housing in special area’s.

Instead they need to open up the the land use restrictions in the more rural areas where they currently require 20 acre minimum lot size.

IMO people want to live in suburbia, but the planning commission imposes high density, which in reality most communities do not want.[/quote]
I’m glad they’re not doing that. I really don’t want SD to turn to LA #2.

[an]

[quote=Rich Toscano]I remember when Trump first announced with his “Mexican rapists” speech, and Macy’s announced they’d no longer sell his clothing line, I was surprised that he had a clothing line at all. Even before I learned that he’s a bullying wanna-be fascist who can’t spell, I always thought of him as the epitome of gaudy tastelessness. I mean, have you seen his apartment? It looks like Liberace huffed gold paint and threw up all over Tsar Nicholas II’s summer home.

I couldn’t imagine wearing a garment with his name on it, and that was before learning what a truly despicable person he is. Now that I know that, even if he had a business that appealed to me (which he doesn’t because I’m not a fan of cheesy faux-opulence) I would never do business with it, just on principle.

So no, I wouldn’t support a Trump business… I’d go very far out of my way to avoid it. I’m quite certain that I’m not alone.[/quote]You are not alone. I completely agree with everything you said.

[an]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Anyone who endorsed Trump is a permanent loser whom I will hold in total contempt forever. There’s no going back from that. Of course, I’m sure others feel differently.[/quote]
I totally agree. They make their beds and will have to sleep in it.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]I did “stick with the facts.” I understand the 22-year old “Master Plan” of that area. I looked the whole thing over when you first posted it. A local government’s “Master plan” or “General Plan” doesn’t in any way, shape or form mean that any land they have “earmarked” for future residential development has actually already been subdivided for that use … or even that there are any pending applications for subdivision at the time the Master Plan was created. What I stated on this thread was that there were “no residential parcels within 300 feet” of this project who had the right to formally object to it. Sure, City can hold multiple “public community meetings” or “town hall” meetings to explain to Mira Mesans (in this case) what is going to go down on this land which was long used for heavy industry and even possibly strip mining. They can put on a dog and pony show for you and get community “input” to pretend like they care what you all think (for public relations purposes). But since there were no real affected homeowners in accordance with municipal code and state law, they can (and will) essentially grant any subdivision permits they wish in the back room and appear like they are “satisfying” Mira Mesans desires by widening affected streets and permitting a parking garage.[/quote]What’s the point of having a Master/General/Community plan and updating it periodically base on current community input if some newcommer can poopoo on the plan. If you’re a long term resident and weren’t involved when the plan was created or updated, then you’re SOL.

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, you have to ask yourself how MM went from less than a 20K pop in 1980 (vast majority SFR dwellers) to the mini-megalopolis it is today, where it takes now over 30 minutes to travel the 5-6 miles? between I-15 and I-805 on MM Blvd. Were all your “old timers” asleep at the switch when City decided to cram another 50K people on that same ~10K AC (size of MM) since then? And they’re not done with you guys just yet. They’re apparently now going to cram another ~10K people in your neck of the woods directly atop likely highly-toxic soil … assuming there IS still any soil left in the first 8 feet, lol. (Ask Denverites and Boulder [CO] residents how that turned out for them.) Oh, and this project is going to be built adjacent to multiple low-rise chain hotels which bring another 400 to 1000 (temporary) “residents'” vehicles to your streets on any given day. Sounds to me like a recipe for permanent gridlock :=0 [/quote]Over 30 minutes? Really? When’s the last time you’ve made the trek? You really don’t know what it’s like to live there. The daily traffic doesn’t affect me or others who live here as much as it affects people who don’t live here, who have to get in/out of MM along with everyone else who don’t live here. All I have to say is, you’re factually incorrect. No, the old timer aren’t asleep. MM is developed according to the plan. So, nothing is shocking there. It’s just shocking to those like yourself who don’t know the history of this area. I’m so glad the “old timers” here aren’t like you. MM is 10X better today than it was in the 70s. I would be buying here if MM stayed how it was from the 70s.

[quote=bearishgurl]And where is that proposed MM trolley-line map you promised me? The maps you posted here only included the UTC area.[/quote]I already gave you the info. It’s part of the Stone Creek development. It’s being extended from UTC to Stone Creek. BTW, it would only happen if people like you don’t poopoo the plan and force the reduction of density. If the density get reduced, then the trolley plan is in jeopardy as well.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I’d love for companies like Qualcomm to get variances to build residential highrises right next to their office buildings or even combine live/work in buildings. The facilities/parking would thus get 24 hour use. Residents could live near their work and be more productive. We’d also lower the region’s carbon footprint.[/quote]That’s what Stone Creek in MM will try to be. The development will have 750k sq-ft of office space.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Those areas were never zoned residential to begin with, so developers of those (infill) projects didn’t need to inform all homeowners whose parcel is located up to 300 feet from the proposed project for their “input” because there were no such residential parcels.[/quote]Factually incorrect. Stone Creek was in the community plan decades ago. Here’s the plan from 1994. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/carroll_canyon_master_plan_1994.pdf So yeah, stick with the facts if you can.
[quote=bearishgurl]
In sum, CA boomers and seniors were “trained” and “encouraged” to “hoard homes.” They came by that habit honestly and so we can’t blame them for doing it. That’s what our esteemed state gubment wants them to do.[/quote]Doesn’t matter. I want SD to grow not stay stagnant. Which mean I want A LOT more development. So, it’s perfectly fine old timer can stay in their home with their low tax bases. I want SD population to continue grow, which mean we need to continue to build new homes. City council agree with me.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]And it is really okay if SD County doesn’t grow (appreciably) going forward.[/quote]Why do you care? You’ll be leaving soon anyways. Thank goodness the people at city hall disagree with you and hopefully we’ll have a lot more development going forward.

[an]

[quote=Myriad][quote=bearishgurl]READ MY LIPS, shoveler. There is NO MORE LAND left in SD County for subdivisions! Deal with it.
[/quote]
Except for the thousands of homesites that are being prepped along the 56 and Carmel Valley Road in NC.
Mira Mesa also seems to be ok with building dense multi-family housing.[/quote]Except those are in the plans for decades already. There’s no new land to create another Mira Mesa, Carmel Valley, etc. There are infill projects like Stone Bridge in Mira Mesa and Civita in Mission Valley, but they’re dense multi-use projects. I don’t see another Del Sur or 4S Ranch popping up anytime soon.

[an]

As a home, I think as long as it’s cheaper to buy than rent of comparable home (P+I vs rent), I would buy. Tax deduction will about cancel out the property tax and insurance. So, if you foresee yourself staying put for 5-10+ years, there’s no reason not to buy. Especially if it’s cheaper than renting a similar place.

[an]

BG, study up on the facts before you post. This project has been planned for over 20 years. It was originally planned to be even denser. I would have loved them even more if they would increase instead of decrease the density. But either way, it’s a big net positive for MM. Once it’s done, I can walk to a lot more restaurants.

[an]

[quote=flu][quote=AN][quote=flu]I might need you to buy a few loaves of bread for me, and then I’ll pick it up at your place.[/quote]
No problem, just let me know.[/quote]

Sigh, I was hoping you would say, no, get your your own bread.

I worked really hard to get in shape, knowing I have an easier way to get the “goods” from 85c is not going to be helping me keep it…. Not good :([/quote]LoL, just go run a 1/2 marathon and you’re all good ;-).

[Author]

Posts