Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759469
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=desmond]Yes, everybody lives by the sea in San Diego, a sea of rooftops. Too bad most of you never got to enjoy San Diego the way I did and even if you didn’t it is still a great place. Who cares? Are you offended if people you don’t know move to another area or stay? A real tired subject.[/quote]
Desmond, I got to enjoy it. I got to waterski in SD every weekend for six months per year on SD Bay, below the Coronado bridge where we anchored our boat on the inner beach of the strand. It was the same people every year who skied in a “football field” fashion and watched each other’s skiers down, kids and dogs left playing on the beach and shared each other’s bonfires and BBQ.
We even took off on our ski directly from the strand 🙂
Of course, that’s all closed off now because the Navy decided to build a HUGE complex on the beach for their E-3 and up families and put up chain-link fence. Apparently, they thought lower-enlisted personnel “deserved” to live right on the sand :=0
I’m beyond disgusted that it now takes 20-25 minutes to go six miles on “H” Street and 35 minutes to go six miles on “L” St/Telegraph Cyn Rd in Chula Vista, no less!
And don’t even ask me about Orange/Olympic View Pkwy because I purposely stay off of it during its 3-hr long “rush hours.” It’s a ridiculous moving parking lot.
Very few of those over-encumbered residents in Chula V’s lizardland are using that (expensive) SR-125 toll road out there, which was developed expressly for their use. Instead, they are snaking the 8-12 miles into town in long, long lines to use the “free” highways.
Why is this not surprising??
All those hills used to be “4-wheeling meccas” on the weekends.
ChulaV has grown from a population of 52K in 1986 to 277K now.
Ask yourselves how that happened.
And these are just very few of the changes for the worse in the last ~20 years in my little neck of the woods.
February 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759464Participant[quote=spdrun]What about encouraging developers to build denser infill in desirable areas, rather than sprawling out into Lizardia? 4-6 story multi, not NYC type highrises! Might even be able to sell people on the views.[/quote]
spdrun, this has already been done in dtn SD (92101), Mission Valley SD (92108) and the Golden Triangle SD (92121). Dtn SD was the newest area to be built up in this way and only in the last few months have nearly all these new residential units been absorbed. Hundreds of them sat empty for YEARS.
We have PLENTY of low-rise condo housing with views in SD!
February 15, 2013 at 10:39 AM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759462Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]
….Riverside was the fastest growing county in Southern California—and the 4th fastest growing in the state….
[/quote]
This is all due to rampant CFD formation, approved by its short-sighted, greedy and incompetent leaders mostly in the last decade. RIV Co has turned from an agriculture and military-based county (self-sustaining) into a megalopolis bedroom community with few jobs which pay enough for rent/mortgage.
The average commute to a decent-paying job from most of those *newish* communities is likely 50-60 miles one way.
I understand that no one could effect the Air Force’s decisions to close March AFB and downgrade operations of Norton AFB. However, the only entity that came out ahead in building up every square mile of land there with cheap McHomes was Big Development. Of course, by the time nearly all of them were “in distress,” Big D had moved on to TX, to build among the tumbleweeds.
Why should the national builders care about what happens to CA? They made their initial profits, left the state in search of new land to rape and and let the local gubments here deal with the aftermath :=0
February 15, 2013 at 10:22 AM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759460Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Sprawl, it’s unavoidable,[/quote]
That’s BS. With strong leadership who cares about its constituents’ environment (like that of Marin and San Mateo Counties, for example), it is completely avoidable.
February 15, 2013 at 10:18 AM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759459Participant[quote=SK in CV]Let’s look at some real numbers:
http://trends.truliablog.com/2013/02/why-do-people-leave-california/
Here are the basic facts. In 2011, 562,000 people left California, and 468,000 came, according to the Census’s American Community Survey. That means 120 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. Out-migration reached its peak in 2005, when 160 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. The California exodus rose with the housing bubble and subsided in the recession.
Who leads the charge out of California? Even though California’s richer residents face high tax rates, lower-income households are more likely to leave. From 2005 to 2011, California lost 158 people with household incomes under $20,000 for every 100 who arrived, and 165 for every 100 people with household incomes between $20,000 and $40,000. In contrast, just slightly more people with household incomes in the $100,000-$200,000 range left than came to California (103 out per 100 in), and California actually gained a hair more people in the $200,000+ range than it lost (99 out per 100 in). The rich aren’t leaving California, but the poor and the middle class are.
(emphasis added)
There’s some interesting graphs and charts, so that link is worth a look. The conclusion, at least based on statistical evidence is that people move mostly because of high real estate prices, not jobs and not taxes.[/quote]
The “under $40K family crowd” (and they ARE a “crowd”) are the very residents using up our scant public services. Most of these programs have been cut to the bone in recent years.
If these families can’t even afford to live in Fresno, then obviously, they should leave the state after finding work elsewhere.
Believe it or not, a family can still rent a double-wide mobile home in excellent condition in many “flyover” small cities in this country for $250 – $400 per month (incl water and trash pickup).
If this population is defecting from CA, that will be to the state’s betterment, IMHO. Then maybe some of our tax-money can be used for infrastructure instead of “services for the poor” due to “unfunded mandates.”
This “crowd” never paid any state tax, or Federal tax, for that matter. Instead, most of them no doubt qualified for the EIC.
February 15, 2013 at 10:01 AM in reply to: People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey #759456Participant[quote=The-Shoveler] . . . If and when the home building starts to get going in earnest in SoCal I think you will see the net inflow go up quite dramatically. . . . [/quote]
Finally, someone other than me addressed this “elephant in the room” on this forum :=0
Frankly, most CA coastal counties with a population of over 1M have already run out of land for tract building. And some inland counties have as well (or are coming very close to it).
As far as I am concerned, the state or existing residents are not obligated to provide these “newcomers” with new construction to live in.
They can buy or rent resale and if they don’t like what’s on offer for the price, then not accept a job here. It’s that simple.
Native Californians and other longtime residents are sick of hearing the, “If we build, they will come” mantra. We have the longest post-office lines in the nation, even with more post offices than any other state in the nation :=0
Many of our streets are full of potholes and it now takes over 45 minutes for a 20-mile commute during rush hour for many, many workers.
CA doesn’t “need” any more people. We no longer have the amount of state and local government and court system workers to serve the residents we have in a timely manner. Not even in the rural areas. Rampant tract construction over the last ~20 years has ruined CA’s environment and destroyed our watershed.
If the greedy leaders of CA’s counties and cities haven’t learned their lesson yet about approving new CFD’s with abandon and handing out mass subdivision permits, they should carefully examine how Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino got into the financial messes they’re in before deciding to roll in the sheets with another Big Developer. These environment-rapists can take their biz elsewhere. How about trying to get the gubment folks in Montana or Idaho to let them build in the middle of all their flora and fauna :=D.
CA is done. In spite of the “dearth of (listed) inventory” to buy, it is there.
Buy it, rent it or move on . . . .
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=earlyretirement] NO, no way the Jack in the Box fortune was anything like a billion. [/quote]
Just a bit of SD history. Robert Peterson sold Jack in the Box to Ralston Purina more than 45 years ago. By that time, he’d already opened a bank, (I’m pretty sure it was Southern California First National Bank) one of the more successful local banks in SD history. After a few name changes, it’s currently Union Bank. Peterson gave away 10’s of millions during his lifetime. Otherwise, the Jack in the Box fortune could very easily have been worth $1B today.[/quote]
Thank you, SK. Union Bank (now Japanese owned) was formerly Union Bank of CA, which was formerly California First Bank (yes, the fourth tallest bldg in dtn SD at the time, which I’ve been with for nearly 33 years). They’ve never issued any sub-prime mortgages to my knowledge, thus weren’t affected by the “subprime mortgage crisis.”
Absolutely agree with you that “net worth” assumptions of the Jack-in-the-Box empire . . . (considering that their HQ is STILL in SD) could be worth between $750M and $1B today.
ParticipantER, when a patron is visibly drunk at a bar, the vast majority of bartenders will refuse to serve them and call them a cab. It should be ditto for casinos. Why are casinos “extending credit for chips” to “known regular gamblers?”
That’s bullsh!t !!
CA Indian casinos, in particular, are supposed to be contributing a certain percentage of their profits to state-sponsored “gambling addiction education.”
I don’t understand how someone can continue to gamble on a “margin” or a “future-borrowed” acct at a casino in the US, without leaving collateral.
It seems as if some casinos are just allowing credit to those whom they think are “good for the money” without any vetting to see if this is really so :=0
Participant[quote=earlyretirement]…Man, this was before my time but she must have really had people in their hearts with that attitude.[/quote]
ER, Mayor Mo was a SD Native and loved SD. Everybody that knew of her accomplishments knows that.
ParticipantI have many childhood memories on the coastline near the Heritage House and I really can’t get the area out of my mind …. even though I can’t afford to retire anywhere near there, lol …
ParticipantI’m not “gullible” re: gambling addiction, ER. I’ve had several longtime friends and also relatives that have succumbed to it (online poker included). I understand everything.
It’s sad to see them go from `having it all’ to rock bottom (and even having their paychecks garnished).
But Mayor Mo had a brain tumor. We don’t know for how long. Her lawyer states she had been gambling for 10(+?) years. It appears that she spent a LOT of time at (local) Barona Casino in Lakeside (esp since video poker had been suspended from internet subscribers in the US for a number of recent months – not sure how many).
Her husband died in ’94 and she (apparently) didn’t start gambling heavily until 2002(?).
I just see this whole debacle as very sad. She had everything going for her and could have been VERY secure for life and botched it.
The brain tumor is the only thing that explains this bizarre behavior.
What sickens me is why the casinos allow an account for chips in the first place … no matter WHO you are! They shouldn’t extend credit and there should be a law against it, in NJ and NV, as well as a BIA law (for tribal lands).
ParticipantAcc to the Huffpost article posted by ER, this is how she intends on paying the restitution to her (deceased) husband’s charity:
O’Connor sold the Heritage House Hotel in the Northern California coastal town of Mendocino for $7.5 million in 2005 to investors who defaulted, Iredale said. She sued and has pledged to turn over any damages she wins to repay the foundation.
This Inn was made famous by the 1978 movie “Same Time Next Year” with Ellen Burstyn and Alan Alda.
It’s an incredible place in an incredible location.
I’ve personally been to this area and can safely say that there’s no other place like it on earth!
I think it will all turn out okay in the end, folks, once she can find a buyer :=]
ParticipantSK is correct. Depending upon the type of tumor, it could have lain dormant (or growing very slowly) in her brain for a decade, causing problems with judgment, cognition, etc.
ParticipantHere’s a more in-depth article by the Reader (a SD free Thursday newspaper) reporter.
It appears from the article that her attorney has already entered her into a “deferred prosecution agreement” where “all parties agreed that it would be improbable or impossible that she could be brought to trial.”
She (or a family member on her behalf) will make restitution to the foundation.
She likely won’t live long enough to stand trial, IMHO.
So sad…I think she made a lot of contributions to SD.
-
AuthorPosts
