[bearishgurl]

The “real” BG spells and punctuates much better than bullishgurl does. Just sayin …..

[bearishgurl]

[quote=dumbrenter]. . . Oh well! I had nothing better to do saturday morning in this great weather day other than reading a OT here. Add me to the dysfunctional list.

But whatever you do do not follow spdrun recommendation on getting a room.[/quote]Ha, ha, dumbrenter! I must be dysfunctional as well. I seem to gravitate between “meh” and borderline addiction when it comes to this forum (due to the sporadic nature of my work and when I am actually at my desk).

I actually consider myself the “motor-lodge queen” extraordinaire, lol …. And “getting a room” is what I do. I probably spend 2-4 weeks per year in “rooms” (though not all at once). But I can guarantee here that I would never be “getting a room” with anyone on this forum :=0

[bearishgurl]

If I were you, phaster, I’d tread lightly around here on your long-winded gubment worker/pension rants. Do you have any idea how many Piggs are either “gubment pensioners” or soon-to-be gubment pensioners??

Gubments aren’t “set up” to please the likes of you. They’re set up to serve ALL residents … including the disabled, homeless, those accused of crimes, those convicted of crimes, the mentally incapacitated, those unable to care for themselves, litigants, builders, to maintain records and uphold the law (ex: DMV), the rich, the poor and everyone else in between. These are challenging positions here in CA due to the relentless long lines of “customers” every single agency is attempting to serve. These are often thankless, physically demanding jobs (yes, even clerical positions). Someone has to do them. It is heir apparent to all who attempt to read your eye-watering drivel here (before they summarily bump your username onto their “ignore” list) that you have never served in any governmental capacity whatsoever, including the military. Ignorant is as ignorant does.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Low growth nimbyism means less jobs and lower wages for the vast majority of the local population. . . [/quote]In SD County, actually the reverse is true. Historically, we have had too many qualified people chasing after too few good jobs. And this was long before the MR Act was adopted here and the first CFDs were formed causing a firestorm of subdivision (and thus, population) explosion.

Even in the old days (when SD Co had <800K pop), workers who had FT jobs with benefits in this city stayed in them until retirement. Yes, even if the working conditions were poor (i.e. Navy, DOD and gubment positions) and their workplaces were political hotbeds. They just learned to adapt and stuck it out because the alternative was never being able to obtain another FT job (with a living wage) in SD, causing their families to possibly have to relocate.

Now it is so much worse due to our (essentially) open border. SD workers who live on the other side don't need to make as much money so they will work for less, thereby undercutting (and getting hired over) a qualified job applicant who lives in SD County and has bigger bills to pay.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bullishgurl aka FLU]I think we definitely need more housing for population growth. Population growth *is good* for San Diego.[/quote]Well, flu, it appears that your neck of the woods is FULL of NIMBY activists extraordinaire! They’ve been working OVERTIME for well over a year to keep density OUT! What say you?

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jun/21/one-paseo-carmel-valley-city-council/

Um … but there are still 608 residential units proposed for mid-town CV … on top of and adjacent to multiple retail outlets, of course. That’s quite a lot for fairly small CV (clarification: the “other CV”). You guys have managed to dump Big D back to square one … for now. But we both know that the “fat lady” hasn’t even entered the stage yet. Good work so far to your numerous relentless activists! I’m marginally impressed at what they’ve been able to accomplish so far. As least your neighbors weren’t asleep at the switch like AN’s “old timers” were.

flu, why don’t you get more involved in your community in your “spare” time? That is … all the time you waste on this forum in attempt to troll after me. You might be surprised at what you can learn and accomplish just by going door-to-door in your ‘hood with a clipboard! OR you can shadow one of your most experienced activists down at city hall during a biz day where you will just play hooky, anyway. Who knows? You might even gain valuable knowledge of how the world really works :=]

[bearishgurl]

Are we surprised? It’s flu … making an azz of himself … yet again … with nothing better to do in the middle of the business day. I know, I know. It’s pretty hard to contribute anything of value to the readers here with one-liners … using yet another “pseudonym.” Ya-a- w-n . . . it isn’t the first time and won’t be the last :=0

poorgradstudent, just change your name to richgrad, since that name better applies to you now. OR, to get some ideas of what you DON’T want to do, you can study FLU’s various name changes and reversals to his numerous recycled user names on this forum over the years . . . depending on the thread and who was posting on it . . . of course!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Settling is not the same as expecting.[/quote]Please elaborate what you mean here.

[quote=FlyerInHi]Yes some people can afford to buy what they want. BG’s kids had to move away for better opportunities. If SD had more jobs and housing, they could have stayed. She’s going to grow old and lonely. Her kids might visit a few times a year. Many twice or less if they live a few hours flight away. That’s happening to lots of SD families and it’s of their own doing.[/quote]How is the lack of living-wage jobs in SD County as well as SD employers’ longtime penchant for subscribing to the “Sunshine Tax” MY doing? You (and now Scott) are giving me waa-a-ay too much credit, here.

There are plenty of houses for my kids to buy … in their old “stomping grounds,” no less. The problem is if they lived here, they would barely be able to make enough to rent a place, let alone save for a downpayment on a house.

I bring up NIMBYism here because it is the law of the land in CA coastal counties. Accommodating NIMBYism is exactly how the “system” works here! It worked that way before I was born and works that way, today. I’ve never personally engaged in NIMBY activism but I DO believe in it. I’m in favor of landowner rights and clearly delineating multifamily areas from SFR areas from commercial areas (proper zoning). When one spends their life savings on a home with the expectation that their current surrounding zoning at the time of purchase will not change, then it shouldn’t.

“Population forecasts” are just a pie-in-the-sky fruitless exercise. A future population for a jurisdiction is whatever the leaders of that jurisdiction want it to be. They set their zoning, their codes, any building boundaries and moratoriums they voted in and set aside their designated open space with (hopefully) their constituencies best interests in mind.

If you don’t approve any building, they won’t come (except replacement people for move outs). Population size is entirely controllable (save for illegal immigrants living in the shadows within resident’s homes).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer] . . . As far as having higher or lower expectations from a generational perspective. As a Boomer, I can only speak for myself, and probably most of my family and friends, but we wouldn’t trade our lifestyle for anything even close to the standards of living younger generations are settling for today.[/quote]What about when you were in your 20’s, flyer? Did you get to buy the exact home you wanted where you wanted it? If so, did you have family help to do it? Or did you just “inherit” your first home?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scottinob]I wasn’t talking about living in OB, I was talking about San Diego City and County as whole. Trust me I understand I can’t afford to buy at the beach. My point is that all areas are getting increasingly unaffordable due mostly to the lack of supply in San Diego city and county.

I’m looking to buy a house or condo. the rent increase was a wake-up call. I found this site while doing research into prices. I felt the need to join this forum and speak up after reading so many of your comments and anti-growth sentiment. I want you to understand that there are real people that affected by your anti-growth and anti-density mentality.

Density is good, and its the only reasonable solution. Look at the cities of europe and japan, they are much more dense, and quality of life is still good. We can be more like them if people are open to it.[/quote]

A few questions for you, Scott … for the Piggs understanding. In what area of the city/county did you just receive a $250 month rent increase? Did you get at least a one-year lease under your new rent amount?

Do you realize that $250 month rent increases are NOT the norm in most areas of the county? What size (sf) is your rental unit or house? What is your number of bdrms/baths/size of garage (if any) and what is your monthly rent?

It is entirely possible that your old rent (before the increase) was set too low for the area you are living in.

What areas of the city/county are you willing to shop in (as a prospective homebuyer) and what is the price range in which you are qualified to buy?

Not trying to pry, here. Your answers can be “generic.” But without the answers to these questions, no one can determine if there is really a problem, if you might not actually be quite ready to buy or if you are ready but really do have unrealistic expectations.

Thank you in advance of any info you can provide.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Myriad][quote=bearishgurl]
We just had a new poster post on this thread last night (scottinob) who believes, as a millenial, that he should be able to buy or rent in the area where he grew up in. Essentially, he feels he should be able to live near extended family.
[end of rant][/quote]

Scott’s quote said he “would like” to stay near family. No where does he say he expects or should.

I think Scott makes a valid point about SF. Just because no new housing is built doesn’t mean people don’t move in. Prices just go up for long time residents, locals, seniors, new residents, etc.
Then people want rent control which is entirely the wrong answer. The correct answer is to build more supply.
It probably won’t be SFR, but it makes sense to build more dense multi-family with good mass transit options. Just look at Asia, where many shopping areas, and restaurants, have residential mixed in.
The problem with not doing anything is that eventually prices become extremely expensive for both renters and owners, and traffic becomes terrible. So yeah, people that are still here have their homes, but the overall society is worse.[/quote]Myriad, SF still has rent control in a handful of districts. Those affected tenants haven’t seen any significant rent increases (or any at all) in decades. Some for ~25 years. Only when a building is sold does the new owner have the option of retaining the rent control and retaining the existing tenants and is often tasked with the lengthy and laborious process of offering “buyouts” to existing holdout tenants to compel them to vacate if they want possession of all of the bldg for themselves (to convert to an SFR or remodel it for market-rate tenants and perhaps occupy one unit themselves). Rent-controlled tenants have more stringent protections than do market-rate tenants under their municipal code.

SF isn’t meant to house the masses. It is an “exclusive collection of rocks” unto itself. There is no other place on earth just like it and certainly no other city compares to it in the US. Those who can’t afford to live there (or didn’t get in early under rent control and never moved) don’t typically move there.

Scott posted that SF was “growing.” It’s only grown marginally in the past few years due to high-rise multifamily projects built as infill in the low-lying districts which permitted them. Aside from those new projects which created a few thousand units, SF’s population has been stagnant and is not affected by ordinary replacements (move-ins to replace move-outs). Because SF’s dwellings are just 6″ to 4 feet apart in many districts, there are a LOT of homeowners and residents who must be informed if a small spec developer even wants to obtain permits to gut remodel ONE or TWO bldgs (on adjacent parcels). This time-consuming procedure of getting homeowner input and going through multiple public hearings to listen to community testimony could increase the permit time from 1.5 years to as much as 4 years for a typical 1-4 unit dwelling. Completing the permitting process for a high-rise residential project in SF could take up to 15 yrs, depending on the amount of surrounding neighbors, the district and what is proposed to be built.

Asia (China?) has many grossly OVERbuilt cities and its planning was virtually non-existent with horrific consequences … including fouling their own air to the point that city residents and workers wear face masks just to walk to/from work to the train and do their errands. Even today, there are many towers in Chinese cities which have only been framed in metal and are still sitting there unfinished after breaking ground over a dozen years ago. Cities in China, in particular are NOT good examples for US cities to follow. They have permanently ruined their own quality of life for their citizens in the name of creating massive industry … which they consider “progress.”

OTOH, San Franciscans, like longtime residents of many other CA coastal communities, don’t want more density in their districts. And rightly so. There is already limited street parking on a street full of typical 3-4 unit dwellings there. The streets are too steep and the lots too narrow, in many cases, to build parking garages under the living units. SF’s residents who have been living there for decades like it the way it is. There are good reasons why homeowners who own properties situated in higher-up districts have overhead easements to protect their views and thus mid-rise and high-rise buildings will never be allowed there.

I’m grateful to SF past and present leadership who have elected to preserve their districts and parkland in keeping with each of their unique architectural styles, local ambiance and open spaces. I don’t think we’ll see that city sell out to Big Development anytime soon … and very likely never.

As it should be.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]BG, I completely understand where you are coming from, and I don’t believe anyone is entitled to anything. I’m simply discussing this issue from a scarcity of land perspective, not from the perspective you’ve been discussing. That’s an entirely different discussion, and one that I will leave in your able hands.[/quote]I don’t believe the “scarcity of land in SAN” affects ALL millenials. Maybe a small fraction who are insisting on new construction for their first home.

We just had a new poster post on this thread last night (scottinob) who believes, as a millenial, that he should be able to buy or rent in the area where he grew up in. Essentially, he feels he should be able to live near extended family. Assuming arguendo that his screen name denotes his current area of residence (OB), this must have been the area where he posted he recently got a rent increase of $250 month. If OB (or nearby PL) is where he is from and his “extended family” resides, then naturally, he will not be able to afford to buy in there for his first home, unless he gets substantial help from family. He can shop for SFRs in nearby Linda Vista and Clairemont when he gets a downpayment saved up. The scarcity of land for new subdivisions in the “north 40 full of 1500 lb boulders to clear on a rugged, hilly swath of land east of Rainbow, 7 miles east of I-15 off Lilac Rd” does not affect this (native San Diegan) poster who may want to buy in OB! Whether or not the “suburbs of Valley Center” are ever even subdivided and developed … or not … is not going to affect the RE prices and rental prices in OB one iota.

Scott, please feel free to chime in, here. I’m just using your post for an example and the way I read it between the lines may or may not be accurate.

Sure, we looked in OB to buy our first house back in the day, like any wishful 20-something would. But the listing with the cheapest run-down termite-eaten shack on a substandard lot there with a dirt alley and street parking only (IF you could get a space) had an asking price of $88,900 and at a 12-15% prevailing mortgage interest rate, we only qualified to buy a $73K property (max). Like many young people, our families resided more than 1000 miles away in a locale with much cheaper housing and could not help us. Them’s the breaks! We were young and had to pay our dues somewhere else in SD … like nearly everyone else does. Of course, we bought elsewhere and in the ensuing years, we lost interest in OB.

Whatever happened to a 20 or 30-something having to pay their dues first by buying a “starter home” in a “starter area?” What happened to that concept? These kids today take off out of their starting blocks the day after college graduation, land their first FT jobs and expect almost immediately to have everything their 50+ year-old parent(s) took 25-30 years to acquire. I’m not speaking for every millenial but that mindset/attitude is what I have seen from most of the one’s I know, including my own kid(s) (although they don’t aspire to buy RE as the prices where they live [SF] are thru the stratosphere).

Unrealistic fantastical expectations are severely hampering many millenials from buying their own homes in CA coastal counties … even if they are qualified and have saved a downpayment. It’s like nothing I have ever seen in my entire life. Many of them would rather sit out and rent than buy a property which they feel is less than they feel they are “entitled” to own, even if qualified to buy. This (and the fact that there are so many people competing for good rental homes because they lost their home to foreclosure/short sale in the past 7 years and can’t get a mortgage) are why there are so many prospective tenant applications for each advertised rental and rents have skyrocketed in SoCal, due to the sheer demand for them. Many SD millenials today would rather be a tenant (subject to rent hikes and non-renewal of their lease) than to purchase a home they can afford in an area they can afford … even if they’re qualified to buy and have a downpayment. That’s the way I see it.

flyer, your kids grew up inside the covenant, no? Do they and their peers (who also may have grown up inside the covenant) feel that they must have a comparable home in a comparable area for their first home? You’ve posted several times in the past here that your kids’ HS friends and your friends and neighbors’ kids became highly disillusioned and depressed because they were unable to land a job in their fields in SD after graduating from college so I was just wondering if they expected that they would be able to have their first home inside the covenant :=0

I think the ultra-pickiness of many in the millenial homebuying generation (comparable to the size of the boomer generation back in the ’70’s and early ’80’s) is what is contributing to the public angst re: lack of new construction available in SD County. I don’t think the (oft-touted by the MSM but wholly inaccurate) “housing shortage” is actually “real” in SD County. I think there is plenty of every type of housing for rent and for sale available in SD County at any given time. I just think the millenial home-shopping set is gravitating only to a handful of zip codes for the perceived “lifestyle” they offer. They want to live NOW in what they want, where they want it. When all of them want the same thing, of course, this creates a “shortage” of it. They cannot substitute buying a nice well-built house on a large lot that they can afford in Lemon Grove because that is not what they want, where they want it so they rent in the area they want to live in (or as close to it as they can afford to).

Ten years later, home prices have climbed in the double digits and this group is still renting (but complaining that it is getting too expensive to live where they want to or already forced to rent in another less-desired area.)

This doesn’t bode well for millenials’ future net worth (as a group) but they are willingly doing it to themselves. I hear a lot of complaints on this board and in real estate articles I subscribe to about how millenials won’t ever be able to have what their Gen X or boomer parents have and I just don’t buy it. The truth is, they don’t want it bad enough. They don’t want to do what it takes to get it. This generation appears to have adopted a “live for now” motto.

[end of rant]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]It’s true that a certain demographic of younger people don’t seem to mind living in high density areas, but, just for another frame of reference, all of the many young people we know who are our kids’ ages, professionals, married, in relationships, or otherwise, and have or want kids, without exception, would like to have SFH’s, as our kids’ have found they prefer after moving into their own homes.

From that perspective, many are unable to get what they really want, and it doesn’t look like that situation will improve going forward in CA–especially in SAN–per the scarcity of land.[/quote]flyer, do you think a 20 or 30-something millenial should be able to buy the kind of house they prefer (as well as where they prefer it) for their first home or within 5-10 years of graduating from college?

Do you personally feel it is a travesty that this group can’t get the housing that they “really want?” And should they be able to buy it in your opinion?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=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]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.

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=AN][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. [/quote]AN, I agree with you that people who owned their CA homes at the time of the passage of Prop 13 (1978) and still own (and reside) in them today should be able to keep their ultra-low assessments. But that’s not what happened with Prop 13. It was essentially “amended” in the mid-eighties to allow those “old timers” to deed their (assessment-protected) homes to their children (Prop 58) and grandchildren, if their parent is deceased (Prop 193) while alive or allow their child(ren) to deed it to themselves upon their death(s). What this did is create a whole new subset of owners of CA homes with permanently-protected assessments who are as young as 25 years old! These younger, able-bodied “heirs” are now enjoying their parent(s) or grandparents(s) ultra-low assessment and paying $400 to $1800 annually in property taxes (depending on area) while their poor-schmuck next-door neighbors are paying $3500 to as much as $14K annually in taxes! The ill-conceived progeny of Prop 13 created a gross inequality among homeowners with the same type of home on the same block by unjustly enriching (undeserving) “heirs” with up to a 90% discount off their property tax bills! Many of these Gen-X/boomer “heirs” inherited HUGE apt complexes and commercial property (with long-term lease income attached to it) and will collect many thousands in rents annually for life whilst paying a property tax bill which is 80-90% discounted! What this has done is created the “haves” and the “have-nots” in this state based only on the family’s longetivity of residence in this state and for no other reason. It doesn’t matter if the “heir” (who is getting the 80-90% property tax discount) spent half their life in state prison, has never worked a day in their lives, does not even possess a GED, has never served in the military, has never been and is not disabled or moved into their recently deceased parent’s home from living in their car or van for the last few years. It doesn’t matter if they have the ability to even pay the few hundred in taxes annually that they owe or the ability to financially maintain said property and the motivation to keep the landscaping up and minor repairs done. All that matters is WHO they are and that they are the rightful “heir” of their parent or grandparent’s property. This lecture was given to me by one of the top probate attorneys in the county and I have permanently filed it in back of my brain.

Thus, more and more properties in CA’s well-established areas (ESP valuable coastal parcels) will be handed down into perpetuity and will likely never be available for sale. They are permanently off the market! Our state gubment created this ridiculous “mechanism” and have been suffering mightily for it for decades but there are too many people these sections benefit (who actually vote regularly) so the “political appetite” is not yet there for our legislators to introduce a repeal of Props 58 and 193. Until CA voters wake up and revolt and press their legislators to do something about it, nothing will ever be done about it. The problem is, in many CA counties (SD included), hundreds of subdivisions have been built (incl those in “master-planned communities”) since the passage of Props 58 and 193 and a HUGE percentage of voters now lives in them. They don’t see first-hand (as do established-area dwellers) that they are paying among the highest property taxes on the block (by thousands) for a property of lesser-market value than their able-bodied neighbors who are “protected” by Props 58 and 193. Part of the reason that many of them are living in these outer subdivisions to begin with is that they wanted to live closer in when they were home-shopping but couldn’t find anything in the established areas they were shopping in which they could afford. The reason for the sticky prices and holdout sellers (even in established inland areas) is because of a perpetual and constant dearth of inventory in their neighborhoods. The reason for that is entirely due to Props 13, 58 and 193.

AN, are you okay with Props 58 and 193 or do you think they should be repealed?

http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/propositions58.htm

And where is that proposed MM trolley-line map you promised me? The maps you posted here only included the UTC area.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scottinob]You are being very very selfish and just downright mean bearishgurl. Your theory that “If you don’t build it, they won’t come” is simplistic and wrong. (Look at San Francisco, they stopped building and people didn’t stop coming.). . . [/quote]Actually, SF (city and county) had a stagnant (or even declining) population until it began permitting high-rise residential towers in certain (few) districts where the prior zoning (mostly commercial) would lend itself to this type of project (examples: Tenderloin, SoMA). Property owners in Districts which are high up and zoned 95% residential (save for a few mom-pop stores) actually “own” their view easements. Thus, nothing can be built to block their (panoramic) views. Other low-lying districts but situated oceanfront (ex: Richmond) or at the foot of the bridge and protected state parkland (ex: Presidio) are very strictly zoned 1-4 units per bldg, as are many other districts. In addition, much of the land in SF was set aside for parkland nearly 80-100 years ago and that will never change.

The (mostly public/private) partnerships formed during the recession (2007 thru 2011) to create more housing in SF in the form of infill high-rise towers were just getting off the ground then and these towers have been slowly coming online for available rental units since about 2013. The vast majority of these units are only suitable for a single or a roommate situation (2-3 people), are small in square footage and even have pull-down “murphy beds” and “kitchenettes” to save space during the day. A handful of (low and mid-rise) “luxury condo complexes” have also been built there in recent years in those districts (situated lower) which permitted them. These new condo complexes were built on one or more parcels which formerly had 1-4 unit bldgs on them. In other words, in long-zoned residential areas which permitted slight variances for these projects (if done tasteful enough to blend in with the District’s architecture and provided underground parking for its residents).

Any population increase which has occurred in the City of SF in recent years has resulted from the newer residential towers recently built. Sure, people “move there” every day. But the majority of them are moving into a unit which may be up to 100 years old which another tenant just moved out of. Or bought a flat, bldg or SFR to move into the unit which the owner just vacated (also up to 100 yrs old). That isn’t population increase. That is simply replacement and does not affect the population of the city.

[bearishgurl]

[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]Isn’t most or all of that area part of the vast acreage long-owned (for 25-30 yrs) by Pardee? If so, that was actually subdivided more than 20 years ago but not built on because good defense jobs were leaving SD County in droves at the time and our region was in a recession. I was speaking of *new* land within the county available for subdivision.

[Author]

Posts