Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]It’s just the project growth for SoCal, L.A. is out of build-able land and has been for a while.
Sure some of that will end up being in Riverside county but they will be commuting into SD one way or the other.Population growth is expect to accelerate as well in the USA over the next 30 years.
(going from 300 mill to 400 mill)
Year Projection Actual result
2010 310,232,863 308,745,538
2020 341,386,665
2030 373,503,674
2040 405,655,295
2050 439,010,253Charlton Heston said it best maybe in a 1970’s movie.[/quote]
That’s BS. If newcomers scout out a prospective new “hometown” anywhere in the US and can’t find anyplace to live at a price they’re willing or able to pay, they won’t move there to begin with … plain and simple. Please reread AN’s previous post here where he was contemplating moving to SV (he was a “prospective newcomer”):
[quote=AN][quote=UCGal]Back on the topic of silicon valley prices… Friends moved up there last year when he left Qcom for Goog. They sold their paid off Carmel Valley 4Ksf home for well over $1M. They are renting a 1600sf beater house in Palo Alto for almost $4k/month. They are having no luck finding a house for $2.5M or less in Palo Alto.
The increased google salary was not enough to compensate for the HUGE increase in housing costs.[/quote]This is why I’m still in SD and completely rule out the bay area as a possible relocation spot, unless something change (either income there has to go up EVEN MORE, say 50% more, or housing has to decrease). A year ago, as I was pondering moving up there, I ran the numbers and look at housing cost for comparable areas (for me, it’s distance to work and school). For anything that have the distance to work and school like Mira Mesa, you’re look at 2x the price. The salary was higher @ ~25-35%, but with that higher W-2 income, you’ll be paying more taxes, and potentially losing out on some government perks for making less $, so to me, the income increase turn out to be only ~10-15%. There’s no way the number work out.[/quote]
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]
San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.[/quote]
It’s not the housing that lured them, it’s the weather, the job prospects, and the image of California that lured them…and all the people before them since the indigenous people of what we now call California. I’m sure the indigenous people would have loved to keep you (and me and everyone else here) out, too, but that’s not how it works, (un)fortunately.
As a native Southern Californian, I have also seen all the overbuilding and the decimation of once-beautiful scenery. The neighborhood in which I grew up was once surrounded by orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry fields that we could play hide-and-seek in at night…not to mention the glorious views from the mountaintops which we would have to hike to because there were no roads. Now, it’s all developed: those hills that were free for us locals to use are now gated developments with expensive homes — they’ll call security the second you step out of your car up there; and those agricultural fields and groves are now condos, hotels, and high-rise offices. I don’t like it, but accept it as a condition of living in such a desirable place.
I also know that while it might be nice for my descendants to inherit property worth a gazillion dollars, this gain would come at the expense of all the families who would have to pay the exorbitant prices that would exist without new development…and I’m just not cool with that.
You say that the newcomers can just move out to the desert or some other far-flung place with cheaper housing and lower-density development, but it goes both ways. People who don’t like all the density and new developments can move to fly-over country to live on a farm, if space is what they’re looking for. Nobody should expect someone else to pay through the nose so that existing homeowners can enjoy ever-rising housing prices and a nice view of the hills over there. That is nobody else’s duty or obligation, not the government’s nor the families who are just looking for a home in which to live and raise their children.
And Mello-Roos taxes are a boon to the old-time land owners and developers. The land owners get to sell to the developers at an inflated price because the cost of infrastructure development isn’t deducted from the price of the land. The developers also get to sell homes for more than they otherwise would because the cost of the homes aren’t discounted as much as they would be if the cost of the infrastructure were factored into the total price (the “how much a month” club never seems to care much about total price). The benefits of MR are shared between these two parties, and the hapless and hopeless new buyers continue to overpay because financing these costs over decades “makes it more affordable.” :([/quote]
CAR, I agree with much of what you are saying here, EXCEPT that the older established areas are NOT losing value because of the presence far-flung, more “affordable” housing tracts within the same county. In other words, all the overbuilding we have experienced did NOT keep values in established areas (and thus prices which longtime owners situated in these often coveted areas will accept) down. It did nothing to prevent a future heir from inheriting a residential property now worth a “gazillion dollars” in an established area.
I never stated that newcomers should move to far-flung outer lizardia. What I stated, essentially, is that SD County (mostly out of the coastal zones) has numerous areas in which the existing housing is priced appropriately for them, ie parts of Santee, Lemon Grove, Spring Valley, parts of El Cajon, Lakeside, San Marcos, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, etc, and, to a lesser extent, South County cities. Moderate income newcomers who want to buy a house for their families don’t have to move very far at all from the urban core or job centers. There are plenty of listings in all of these areas. They’re not entitled to new construction just because they have “arrived” here, nor was I. I never stated housing was a “lure” for newcomers but that Big Development’s mantra has always been, “Build them and they will come.”
There was no reason that the leaders of San Diego County and its cities needed to approve so many subdivisions. Especially since “new housing” is not the major “lure” for newcomers to this region. Even LA County and the OC planned their rate of growth much better than SD did …. especially LA County.
And yes, I am considering moving to the mtns, primarily to be close to skiing and living in surroundings with a bit more “solitude.”
Participant[quote=spdrun]San Diego has gone up from 1.118 million to 1.4 million in the last 25 years. Why would it be likely to double in the next 30 to 50?
At this point, it’s an established city — they tend to grow slowly, not explosively.[/quote]
The City of SD has been essentially “out of room” to build SFR subdivisions for ~20 years, spdrun. It’s SD county which has grown exponentially over the past 30 years (a higher percentage of growth occurred since 2000). It’s grown from approx 850K in 1978 (the time of the passage of Prop 13) to approx 3.2M today.
The passage of the Mello-Roos Act occurred in 1982 but the first CFD was not created in San Diego County until early 1986, with the first phases of homes released which were encumbered by the bonds in May 1987 (Chula Vista 91913).
Participant[quote=UCGal]What made you arbitrarily pick 1986? Just curious.[/quote]1986 is when the ground broke within the first CFD in SD county, nka the “Lane Kuhn Cottages” and “Fieldstone Classics” just north of a brand new man-made lake known as “Eastlake” (Chula Vista 91913). Although there was a gap in years before 91914 was annexed and a much bigger gap before 91915 came to be, 1986/1987 was the beginning of the end for Chula Vista. The city’s issuance of subdivision permits just mushroomed out of control from there.
I want to add that I never objected to the 1991 buildout of Terra Nova (Chula Vista 91910) because it was right next to the fwy and therefore did not increase sprawl. In addition, it was not within any CFDs so those new residents could afford to cover their windows faster and keep their properties up better (they didn’t have 100’s of dollars per mo going to CFD(s)).
[quote=UCGal]FWIW – San Diego county has a bigger population now. Life marches on. A factor in my decision to retire is the fact that the north 805 construction, and the huge amount of traffic out of Sorrento Valley sometimes made my 6.5 mile commute take over an hour. That project won’t be done till 2017. I didn’t blame the workers, or the folks commuting. I just stopped commuting myself.[/quote]UCGal you must admit that one hour for a 6.5-mile daily commute in rush hour (on a regular basis?) is absolutely ridiculous. I’m sure you didn’t have this problem when you first took your most recent job. In my mind, that is a travesty. You are fortunate that you can just say, “F-it, I’m not doing this anymore because I don’t have to.” For your neighbors that work in tech and still have to work, they don’t have that choice. Your problem stems from residential overbuilding in adjacent zip codes to yours (not unlike the problem we have here in Chula Vista). Even though you were absent from CA for a number of years, the before and after images of UC and surrounds that you have in your mind tell the tale. I still think South UC is a very nice place to live. The lot sizes there are adequate (esp the corner lots) as are most of the setbacks. You are not mixed in with multifamily units. Be glad that Lightner has some sense and is doing what a bureaucrat who thoroughly understands “the system” does best … stalling until their hands are tied and they simply can’t do anything. Beautiful! I’m not sure you realize it but Lightner is your friend, UCGal!
[quote=UCGal]I was born here, but don’t have as much animosity towards people making the choice to move here as you do.[/quote]No, I wasn’t born here, UCGal, but have lived in CA for well over 50 years. That may have been longer than you have lived here when factoring in your lengthy? absence. I don’t have any animosity at all towards newcomers. My animosity is towards our elected and appointed officials who issued far to many subdivision permits and thus adversely affected the quality of life for 75% of county residents. That doesn’t have anything to do with newcomers. “Newcomers” are free to buy or rent existing housing in areas where no newer construction exists. That’s what they could have done here had their been no subdivision permits issued in the coastal zones in recent decades. I don’t believe “newcomers” or anyone else for that matter has the “right” (in ANY jurisdiction) to buy or rent new construction.
San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Doctor thinks it’s just plaque from ageing. But couldn’t say for sure.
I got the small skin area cut out 3mm x 5mm The doctor gave me some options, but I said cut it out so I don’t have to worry about it. He cut out the surface of it. It’s not like the took out a chunk of skin all the way deep down. They’ll have the biopsy result in about 1 week.
15% co-insurance ($25 paid at visit). I think that the bill will probably come to $1,000 for the dermatologist.
My last visit to family doctor for propecia was $360 total. I’m not crazy about doctors so I skip the follow up visits because it’s more money, even though I only pay a small portion.[/quote]
brian, I went to my dermatologist today to have a small growth on my shin (lower leg) looked at. The doc said he was sure it wasn’t cancer but I got the same thing as you did … except the doc called it “shaving” (abt a 1/2″ circle) and sent it in for a biopsy. I couldn’t look but he used a tool on it that smelled like burning (electrocautery probe or something like that) and now the area is flat. I have to leave a bandage on for two days and not get it wet and then take it off to expose the Nu-skin? layer that they applied. It’s supposed to create collagen to fill the small wound instead of 1-2 stitches.
Sorry to be gory here but I find dermatology very interesting.
I wasn’t charged at the time of service. They’re going to bill my insurance but the most I can possibly pay under my plan is $30. And I was scheduled a follow up, as well, in August, which I may not need.
ParticipantEverybody’s got an opinion about all of us horrible NIMBYs until their OWN quality of life is affected by unbridled growth. Has anyone here who lived on a quiet street gotten a letter from their city and Caltrans stating that the street in front of their house is going to be extended by 8-10 miles to accommodate 100K living units of additional traffic? If so, did your letter state that a freeway entrance would be built five houses down from you and that your sidewalk and part of your easement would be taken for an additional lane and your sidewalk moved further up on the easement (bordering your front yard)? Did it state that a double yellow line would be drawn down your (future 4-lane) street? This happened to hundreds of homeowners in Chula Vista, many who had purchased their home new between 1961 and 1964. Do any of you have deep enough pockets to fight City Hall and Caltrans? Come on, let’s hear it, folks. What if you went to 2.5 years worth of public hearings and were ultimately told to pack sand? If you listed your property for sale, you would then have to disclose to a prospective buyer (or their agent would) the upcoming plans for the street. How would that make you feel? Trapped, possibly??
As I previously stated, Poster child Chula Vista is but a microcosm of the far-reaching effects of the presence of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act on CA’s books. I’m sure Stockton’s old-timers aren’t too thrilled about their post office waits increasing from 4 minutes to 45 minutes. Without the Act in place, the Golden State would still be golden. Alas, those days are long gone, never to return.
The City of SD did a fine job of separating 92122 (condo vs. SFR area) decades ago with a strip of dedicated open space and the RR tracks which were already there. They didn’t mix the two. The condo complexes constructed in the 70’s and early 80’s are tasteful and well-built with plenty of alley clearance, larger-than-std 2-car garages and mostly spacious units (avg 1650 sf), most with their own courtyards. I haven’t looked at any of the *newer* complexes there (north of Nobel and also east of Genessee, north of the tracks) so don’t know what the clearances are like on them.
You people all need to come down and take a tour of craptastic 91915 and see for yourself what I’m talking about. WTH, spend all day there and drive down every street (you might have to wait your turn, though). ’nuff said.
***
Oh, and btw, Palo Alto and Aspen have some of the most diligent, deep-pocketed, nose-to-the-grindstone NIMBYs on the planet and they aren’t going anywhere! Hence we have the prohibitive housing cost in those places. Deal with it.
Participant[quote=UCGal]NIMBYism on steroids.
You state that Chula Vista residents didn’t want newcomers, new development. But there has been new housing built everywhere in the county, traffic has been impacted everywhere in the county.
Back on the topic of silicon valley prices… Friends moved up there last year when he left Qcom for Goog. They sold their paid off Carmel Valley 4Ksf home for well over $1M. They are renting a 1600sf beater house in Palo Alto for almost $4k/month. They are having no luck finding a house for $2.5M or less in Palo Alto.
The increased google salary was not enough to compensate for the HUGE increase in housing costs.[/quote]
Palo Alto is one of the most expensive cities in SV. Why is it that your friends need to live there? There are many other cities in SV which are in the same league as the Carmel Valley (SD) that they left. Palo Alto is not. It’s several notches above Carmel Valley, so IMO, based upon your post, your friends’ housing sights are set too high for their resources and budget.
Let me ask you something, UCGal. Does your beloved hometown of UC (SD) now have over 5x the population it did in 1986? Has SD increased the density there 500% (multifamily units) since 1986? And if your hometown had turned into what Chula Vista has, would you have moved back to it? And last question, have you ever driven down to Chula Vista (91914/91915) to see exactly what I was discussing here?
I’m aware that the UTC area (adjacent to UC but different zip code) is nearly all multifamily units but a large portion of those units were built prior to 1986. Several large complexes there have oversized garages and alleys easy to turn and park in one’s garage. In addition, those older complexes are built exponentially better than the typical crap shack built in Otay Ranch in recent years and the streets in UTC are wide and easily navigable.
And btw, NIMBYism is legal, whether “on steroids” . . . or not. I believe CA coastal counties should be preserved at all costs … at least the 1st and 2nd tier coastal zones of them (1st 8-20 miles from the coast, depending on topography). As you know, they’re among the finest parts of the country to live in. A low or moderate income family should not be guaranteed a “cushy life” in one of them or any life at all for that matter. They should be reserved for those who have paid their dues or have the resources to live comfortably in them.
Participant[quote=livinincali]Just go to Aspen, CO and walk into the McDonald’s. The prices are higher and the workers aren’t making minimum wage. The free market will figure out the correct balance of number of businesses, wages, rent, and prices. It’s only when the government tries to help that you end up with imbalances and hand picked winners and losers. In many respects the single mom getting food stamps, housing assistance, tax credits, and child care making the 7.25 minimum wage is better off than the same person make $18/hr.[/quote]
Correct … and the median sales price for a resale living unit in Aspen (SFRs + condos but there are a LOT more condos there) was $1,071,675 and the average PPSF was $865 for Apr to July 2014. The average listing price there as of 7/2/14 was $4.44M.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Aspen-Colorado/market-trends/
There are actually thousands of service workers who live in Aspen both year-round and seasonally. The vast majority of these seasonal workers (ski season) are put up in condos (4 workers to one unit) owned by their employers as part of their wage pkg. Many of the year-round workers who don’t live with relatives live in nearby towns which are much cheaper to live in. Aspen is a great example of “letting the market find its way,” livincali!
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]
MR bonds DO NOT PAY for ongoing municipal/county services to a development. They only pay for the initial construction of municipal/county facilities and schools which will be used by this new population. A brand new empty police substation, branch libary or school is worthless without humans to staff it.
The sole cause of this “boom-bust” cycle causing fiscal instability to many jurisdictions of this state is undoubtedly too many approved subdivisions.[/quote]
Right, but even when not taking MR or special bonds into consideration, the new housing developments almost always bring more money, per household, into the city’s coffers via regular property taxes because of Prop 13. So, if the new developments aren’t paying their way, then the old residents paying their (highly subsidized by the new taxpayers) Prop 13 taxes sure aren’t, either.[/quote]
I agree that a large portion of CA’s established homeowners are getting HUGE (up to 90%) discounts on their property taxes. But as a case in point, I CAN tell you that before the City of Chula Vista annexed 3 more zip codes (91913, 91914, and 91915), one after the other, causing it to grow from a population of 52K in 1986 to its 277K people today, it (and its residents) were much better off. It had a small govm’t that was “right-sized” for 52K people and all its blocks were regularly taken care of and a couple of small uninc pockets (180-200 people) were quietly folded into 91911 and subsequently got sidewalks and storm drains. One could drive from the South County courthouse to the dtn SD courthouse (12 mi) in 12-15 min during “rush hour” even though the SR-54 did not exist at that time. Now it takes 23-38 mins to get to dtn SD from dtn CV during rush hr and nearly one hour from the far reaches of 91915. There is a 9.5 to 10 month wait for a tree trimmer after you get your name on a list and police officers are choosy about what types of events they’ll respond to even though there are at least 4X as many of them than in 1986. The fees at the municipal dump are 10x what they were back then and the permitting fees are 4-5x as much. In addition, traffic on some Chula Vista east-west surface streets in the older areas has increased 20-fold due to commuters from the newer areas driving through the older areas to catch the “free” freeways because “their” fwy (the SR-125) is a (pricey) toll road and they feel they’re already “fee’d to death.” This was after CalTrans opened up these residential thoroughfares to go over or under I-805 in recent years. Naturally, the affected residents were livid but lost to CalTrans and their fleet of taxpayer-funded in-house attorneys who were at the behest of Big Development whose palms were undoubtedly being simultaneously greased by City officials.
Chula Vista is but a microcosm of any established city in the state where their leaders elected to sell out to Big Development, letting them run amok over all our land, cutting off the top of every single hill they could get their grubby hands on and putting up crap shacks (mostly 6-8 feet apart mixed with various types of multifamily dwellings). There are so many cars parked on some of the (newer) narrow streets in CV that only one vehicle can get through at a time while oncoming vehicles have to wait until it passes before proceeding. Most of these developers “substandardized” absolutely everything in order to cram the most units they could on one acre. All this happened under the “watchful eye” of City Planning (looking the other way while holding their hands out for campaign donations for their favorite cronies).
I could go on, but suffice to say that the presence of the newer residents has greatly affected the quality of life of the more established residents … all to their detriment.
Why was there a need to develop at all? We didn’t need more residents and bigger gubment in the first place. The established residents already had everything they needed and the city was just fine the way it was and was never in danger of “laying off” or failing to provide needed services as it has been in recent years.
If San Diego County had imposed a residential building moratorium in say, 1992, along with all of its cities (excepting remodel, granting variances under certain conditions and spec and infill construction), then our property values would be much higher than they are (maybe not as high as SV, due to lack of industry, but certainly higher than they are now). Since 1987, when Chula Vista debuted the first CFDs formed in the county, I truly believe that the new housing tracts which have sprung up since then have lured over one million newcomers to the area who otherwise wouldn’t have moved here if they had to rent or purchase existing housing to live in. So goes the phrase, “Build them and they will come.”
But SD County really didn’t need all these new people in the first place!
If newcomers really WANTED to live in a SD County and there was no new construction, they would have rented or bought an existing property, just as those newcomers do who really WANT to be in SF OR SV.
As I’ve stated here before, I don’t believe it is the gubment’s job to build affordable housing, guarantee affordable housing, offer affordable housing (yes, even the military), distribute housing vouchers, etc in a CA coastal county and certainly not in a “coastal zone” (~8 miles from the coast). It is not their “duty” to do so and low and moderate income people shouldn’t even expect to be able to live there.
I saw the question here, “Where would all the service workers live?” In SD County, they would live in an unpermitted granny flat, garage apt, mom and/or dad’s back bdrm, Tijuana, or out of the coastal zone in a cheaper area, as they always have.
I personally have never patronized Walmart, dollar stores, fast food restaurants, etc and could care less if they all go away. The Marin county cities of Tiburon, Sausalito and Mill Valley have never permitted franchises of any kind including fast food and drive thru restaurants. Big box stores are banned as well as chain grocery stores and dept stores. Business signage is limited to 20 feet and billboards are forbidden. As such, the environment there is absolutely pristine and its property values are a testament to that. The same type of restrictions are prevalent in several other northern CA coastal cities and towns, including several in the wine country and that’s the way the local residents like it. In addition, all these areas have residential building moratoriums and ample open space and that is never going to change. There is little industry in any of these small cities and no one cares, nor are any of them in any danger of filing for BK protection.
So many of the “Golden State’s” leaders have sold their constituencies down the river in the name of “adding population” (in effort to increase their own perceived “power”) that its golden sheen wore off long ago, especially in SoCal. It’s disgusting to me to see the quality of life here deteriorate the way it has … mostly through the added “daily hassle factor.” I’ve lived in Cali nearly all my life and can well afford to “retire in place” but am seriously giving thought to trying out another locale, at least for 1-2 years (for comparison purposes).
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I was looking for the lower price new homes (sprawl I guess), they seem to be going up towards the north east areas, I do have a co-worker that lives in a new home (I need to ask him the community again) towards the south of San Jose (he has to drive about an hour or more to get to work), but it is a very nice home and he paid quite a bit for it (over a mil).
It seems a lot more expensive towards the south.
People do commute in SV.[/quote]
If your friend’s home is south of SJ, that is not SV. As stated before here, SJ is not really in “SV” either. Yes, Morgan Hill has some million-dollar-mcmansion subdivisions and, yes, it would be more expensive to live there than Fremont. HOWEVER, folks, GILROY, the GARLIC CAPITOL beckons and is cheaper to live in! I guess one could get used to the smell of garlic … or move into one of their far southeastern subdivisions :=0
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]… Like I said if you got money your not going to live there BUT people are moving there and they do commute to SV.
I would not necessarily move there if I worked in SV, but people are doing it so it is sprawl and it will continue.[/quote]
There are a few parts of SJ which are very nice to live in. Its eastern hills (consisting of homes built 1955 – 1970 on 1 AC+ lots and formerly looking over avocado groves) are much like the Oakland Hills and have panoramic views of the entire city (yes, fire ins is higher there). There are also very nice subdivisions off both Story and Tully Roads which have large lot homes built 1964 to 1978. Much of SJ IS well-heeled and established and a portion of its downtown is historical. What I’ve seen of SJ proper is NOT cookie-cutter homes 6-8 feet apart but I haven’t driven around in town there in more than ten years.
Could it be that you’re seeing new subdivisions pop up between SJ and Morgan Hill? I’m not sure that area is incorporated into SJ but it may be now. And, as I stated before, Alameda County is still approving subdivisions on its east and SE sides. Perhaps you’re looking at new subdivisions in the SE corner of Alameda County (Fremont or bet Fremont and Pleasanton)?
Participant[quote=CA renter] . . . No matter the tax situation, the counties/cities have no obligation to do anything but what’s best for the cities and counties . . . [/quote]
CAR, you and both know that CA cities and counties can be very “short-sighted,” fickle and perfect targets/prey for their Big Development cronies’ bribes. It would be GREAT if we could count on the local officials we elect to do “what’s best for cities and counties,” but alas, the dollar signs in their eyes are leading them astray. They see more property tax coffers that come into their cities as an elevation of power to themselves (more population = more clout/importance in the region) and blindly sign on the dotted line on more subdivision permits.
Stupid is as stupid does. And the established taxpayers suffer because their services are taken away to accommodate another 50K to 100K residents with each new “master-planned community” that goes in. How does this happen? The MR bond money generated by the new development is deposited by the state into the respective CFDs from whence it was paid. The balance of the property tax goes into the respective school districts, utility districts and voter-approved bonds and what is left over is deposited into a city or county’s general fund. This “leftover” portion is not enough to hire sufficient personnel (with benefits) to service these extra 50K to 100K people. If personnel are hired in years when property tax receipts are higher, they are then laid off when Prop 8 adjustments are made, resulting in lower property tax receipts. Then the personnel serving the long-existing population have to stretch themselves to serve the newer residents, causing wait times to be much longer for ALL residents for services (ex: street sweeping, tree trimming, and hundreds of *new* students crowding established schools until new schools can be built for them). Thus, the CA cities/counties who fell prey to Big Development’s latest ruse just screwed themselves and their constituents.
MR bonds DO NOT PAY for ongoing municipal/county services to a development. They only pay for the initial construction of municipal/county facilities and schools which will be used by this new population. A brand new empty police substation, branch libary or school is worthless without humans to staff it.
The sole cause of this “boom-bust” cycle causing fiscal instability to many jurisdictions of this state is undoubtedly too many approved subdivisions.
Participant[quote=spdrun]
I was in Tracy last year, yea right now it is kind of undeveloped, But I think it will grow fast and be a lot nicer place to live give it 10 years.
The whole summer weather things sounds like a deal-breaker for many people.[/quote]
… as opposed to:
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler] . . . San Jose has been considering BK for the last 10 years off an on BTW.[/quote]
What’s SJ’s problem? Could it possibly be that they, too, have fallen prey to Big Development’s bribes to approve too many subd permits in their fair city and now cannot provide services to all their *new* population??
-
AuthorPosts
