[an]

[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=flu]3 of the 6 cops are black. So why is this a racism thing? Explain.[/quote]

the biggest antisemites are jews[/quote]
So, black people and white people and brown people and yellow people are racists?

[an]

[quote=flu]The 20 year term life insurance I bought when I was in my early 30ies was a $500k policy for $700/year roughly (it was probably higher than I could have paid, but at the time I wasn’t exactly the fittest person…that’s even before I was diagnosed 2 years later with really screwed up health issues that today would make me uninsurable.

In the grand scheme of things, over the course of 20 years,
I’ll be paying $14,000 for peace of mind, in case something does happen. For most people, you’ll make it past the 20 years term and the insurance policy will expire without a payout. For some of you less fortunate people (inclusive), you might have a brush with death. So yes, in most cases, the insurance company will win and collect your premium without haven’t to pay you out. In any case, I think this is one of the things you don’t want to win and maximize your positive returns on 🙂

If your mortgage is paid off, if your retirement funds/savings/investment funds/ real estate investments/etc are all doing well, you might not need life insurance. For me, it’s the question of whether I want to save the remainder $7000ish in premiums and drop my $500k insurance that hopefully won’t be needed.[/quote]I totally agree with this. I view life insurance along with many other insurance as a price for a peace of mind. Some people are more willing to roll the dice than other. There’s no right or wrong, just what give you that peace of mind.

I got a $1M 30 year term in my late 20s and it costs me $1k/year. So, I figure, for $30k, I have a $1M piece of mind if something happen to me. I don’t want to win the ROI game on this one. I want to make sure my wife has enough to maintain our current life style with me gone. At $1k/year, that’s ~$3/day. That’s not too crazy. I’m sure most people can find way to save $3/day.

[an]

BG, did you list 92121 by accident?

[an]

What about hallways, closets, bathrooms?

[an]

I like Park Village. The weather should be good, especially if you stay on the western side of PV. The western side will be cooler than the eastern side. You should be able to see about 3-5 degrees difference between the different ends of PV. I personally would prefer those “run down” places. But that’s just me, because I like to customize my house and I rarely see a place the upgrade the way I want. I also don’t want to pay the premium that a move in ready will command. The school should be good, but the schools are far away, especially middle and high school. It might not matter to you though.
As for growth, I think PV is already fetching a premium compare to other areas in PQ, so I’m not sure if there’s much growth left. You might get a little bump once they connect Camino Del Sur to PV, which would make it more convenient to get on the freeway, especially if you live on the Western side of PV. Right now, it’ll take you about 5 minutes just to get out of PV.
If you’re concerned about heat, you should consider Sorrento Valley as well. Similar aged homes, a little cheaper, similar view, MM schools vs PQ schools, but you’ll see a good 3-5 degrees cooler, compare to the western part of PV.

[an]

[quote=flu]I don’t get the emphasis of affordable rental housing in Carmel Valley by Kilroy. Bow “affordable” can housing be if you’re stuck a tenant? I don’t see any of those “homes” being constructed by Kilroy’s plan ever being owner occupied. Look at all the rental properties corporate owned in Carmel Valley. Are they really “affordable” for your average worker bee?[/quote]I don’t know about the One Paseo’s plan for affordable housing, but there are affordable housing in Pacific Highland Ranch too. What they do is have a income limit, then the city dictate how much the developer can sell those units for and only those who qualify can buy those units. When they’re ready to sell, they can only sell for the price that the city dictate. So, it’s meant to be an affordable housing (owner occupied) option. OC have a lot of those too. It’s similar to rent control, except this is to allow people to purchase their home.

[an]

Public school, transit, traffic, etc are city responsibility. The developer can and do contribute money for those stuff. The new developments in Mira mesa contribute alot of money to redo the community park in front of MMHS. They also can buy lands to be converted to parks as well. That’s just something you have to negotiates with the developer for money. But they can’t and shouldn’t build school, transits, etc.

[an]

[quote=flu]It would also be nice of some of the members on the city council that voted yes on this without taking into consideration the credible objects get thrown out in the future.[/quote]
I think everyone voted yes except for the rep that cover Carmel valley.

[an]

[quote=flu]Not to mention that the bigger density of non-owner occupied, the less likely people that live there will ever donate money to the public schools extended studies programs. Just follow the money trail for the DMUSD extended studies programs, in which you have a small percentage of the families contributing to an optional program for which a big percentage of others don’t contribute jack and enjoy all the benefits of it.

This is a cash grab by kilroy. That’s why developers usually do. They dump a bunch of rental properties into a community, and then when the schools are overburdened, they don’t donate 1 penny to the public schools in that community. I might change my mind if Kilroy actually stepped up and committed to annual contributions to the DMUSD, San Dieguito school district for middle school, and high school for the next 10 years. But nope…I haven’t seen that mentioned.[/quote]Does that mean you’re objecting to them building apartments but you’re ok if they build condos?

[an]

[quote=flu]I voted against it not because I’m against development completely, but I think this should be decided by the voters rather than just a city council, because obviously enough people object to it. This is how it should have been done anyway. Neighborhood decides and has an input, not some elitist developer and a few chosen city council people. I wouldn’t mind a scaled down version of One Paseo. And Kilroy has plenty of office space just vacant all along El Camino Real in Carmel Valley that has been unfilled for years.[/quote]I go back and forth about this. On one hand, I do want to voters to make the final decision. But on the other hand, I think most voters are not aware and informed about what their vote will affect 20-30 years from now. Which is why it’s actually important to have a holistic city plan. You can’t have a self sustaining public transit without density. But you can’t have density unless you change how SD is build. SD is almost built out with nothing more than suburban sprawl. So, public transit won’t have enough ridership to be self sustaining.
I bet most of the people who don’t like One Paseo would love One Paseo to be another strip mall just like the strip mall across the street. There’s nothing wrong with that, if that’s what you want. But then 20 years from now, SD will be exactly like LA. You can’t stop the city from growing. So, when you limit more density, builder will continue to build out instead of up. Then you’d have grid lock in all directions all the time.

[an]

[quote=njtosd]I think you are seeing this project from the perspective of a single older man, which is not really representative.[/quote]How about millennial with kids?

[an]

[quote=rockingtime]I have been tracking rent in mira mesa for last 10 years and I can say that in the last 10 years the rent increased max by 15% or even less.

Also I wanted to buy a condo there to rent out but no way I can be cash positive With current evaluations..
same thing for sfr..[/quote]I agree, rent in MM for both 1/1 and 2/2 have gone up ~15-20% over the last decade. For small SFR, rent have gone up about 20-25%, while rent of larger homes in MM have gone up the least at around 10%.

[an]

Sounds like you’ve made a sound decision. You said PITI is equivalent to rent, but you’re getting a nicer house and it has solar. So, as a home, it’s costing you less to rent than own. Not to mention the tax deduction as well as paying down the mortgage. So, although you’d miss out on the interest you’d make from investment of the 20% down, you’d make it up by appreciation of the house as well as pay down of the principal. So, after 30 years, your cost of living will reduce dramatically.

[an]

[quote=carlsbadworker]4) Once they start earning money from the outside world, 80% of their money will need to go to Roth. I can cover their little expenses and co-pay for their bigger expenses up to a limit (kind of like insurance company to them, without insurance premium, again details not hashing out yet). Of course, they will have expenses that they don’t want me to know about (not “insurance” claimable) which they can use their 20%.[/quote]I totally agree with this and this was exactly what my parents did for me and is how I intend to transfer my $ to my kids when that time comes.

[an]

[quote][quote]
3) Teach kids about how to earn money (I don’t like monthly stipend, I want my kids learn how to earn money by meeting people’s need, rather than becoming an entitlement). So, maybe $1 for taking out trash daily, I haven’t thought through this yet. It will start with earning my money, but eventually earning money outside by looking for “work” opportunity (e.g. I can teach them writing codes and they can do freelancing).
[/quote]

I’m trying to do this right now. Mixed results. 3rd/4th grader earns $2 for doing the dishes and emptying the trash into a bucket per week. Anything extra toy,craft,game,etc that the kid is responsible for using their own money. I have my kid record what goes into the piggie bank, what comes out, and when I forget to pay up, to send me note that I haven’t paid yet and am overdue. Mainly for the kid to start thinking about how much things cost, and what really is “necessary”. Doesn’t always work. [/quote]I personally don’t like the idea of allowances. I expect my kids to be contributing member of the household. Which mean it’s expected that they clean up after themselves and help keep the family/household running. I don’t want them to get into a habit of thinking everything they do for people and contribution to the running of the household equate to a $. There are plenty of time to learn about making a $. I will provide the basics (or at least what I decide is basic needs). All the luxury things they want, either they have to save it from Christmas/Birthday/etc. or they can barter for it. At least this would be the case when they’re younger and can’t work. Once they’re 15, I expect them to get a job if they want stuff that I don’t provide. I also intend to teach them the power of compound interest. The sooner the better. Combined that knowledge, along with the concept of saving for the future, and the power of investing, I personally think that will go much further than teaching them that if they do x, they’ll get $x. In another word, teach them to get their money to work for them instead of them working for their money.

[quote]I’m in the process of explaining no you aren’t getting an iPhone even though some of your classmates have them already.[/quote]This is one of the reason why I live where I live. I could have live in fancier areas, but then I would have to deal with this exact thing. Instead of wanting a BMW/Benz when they’re 15 because their friends have it, they would be happy to get a car when they’re 16 because not everyone of their friends have a car. Same with an iPhone or any other high price luxury items.

[Author]

Posts