[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]So I’m not sure what her concern is. I don’t think we’ll have a flood of buyers changing that anytime soon. Property values should stay “stable” there and not move that much, which it sounds like is what she wants…[/quote]

There can’t be any buyers because there aren’t any sellers. Everyone has owned their home since before prop 13, (most have lived there for over 100 years) and then pass their homes on to their children who rip off everyone else by not selling and continuing to have very low property taxes.[/quote]This is true for 91910 and 91911. 91913 was annexed into City in 1986/87, 91914 was annexed into City in 1991/92 and 91915 was annexed into City in 2000/01. All of these annexations occurred after the passage of Prop 13 (1978) and Props 58/193 (1985/86). Except for two single-family subdivisions (and one older subdivision transferred from 91911 to 91913), the entire land masses of these later annexed-in zip codes are within CFDs.

Yes, Chula Vista DOES have 100 year old houses. But those houses (situated in North Chula Vista near the Nat’l City border) were brought in, placed on lots there in pieces from Golden Hill (SD 92102) and reconstructed. The oldest houses in 91910 (stick built on site) are about 85 years old. The oldest houses in 91911 are about 55 years old (circa 1961).

The City of Chula Vista is actually two vastly different worlds with vastly different demographics from one another … the 2 original (mostly westside) zip codes and the 3 (later-annexed in) zip codes. The difference is profound (night and day).

There have been four more deaths of the last owner in my immediate area in 2016. Three of those homes were promptly taken over by children (boomers) and one was taken over by a grand-daughter (Gen X). That is why there is very little single family inventory in 91910 and will continue to be. This will go on in thousands of CA zip codes with well-established residential communities within them into perpetuity, as long as Props 58 and 193 remain on CA’s books.

Prop 13 protection from reassessment for CA residents who owned property in the state on 3/31/78 and still own that same property today would disappear on these properties on the date of death of the last owner (who owned it in 1978) were in not for its later progeny passed by the Legislature in ’85/86, which effectively rendered the same properties protected from reassessment into perpetuity, as long as it was deeded to a child or grandchild (if their child(ren) is deceased) before or after the death of the last owner on title. This assessment rollback began with a September 1975 assessment (effective September 1978, after Prop 13 was passed) + 2% per year into perpetuity.

Even current CA residents who bought their properties as late as 1992 have a 20-25% lower tax bill than those who bought their properties since 2000.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]It’s probably deleted by now.[/quote]Um, flu? You’re another one who spends too much time on here. Except, of late, you’ve been a bit boorish and trollish. Chiefly, by following posters around and making veiled insults (me included). But that’s okay. It just shows that you have nothing better to do with your time and that you don’t feel anyone should have an opinion which is different than your own.

Nothing I ever posted here has been deleted. Aren’t you a glorified computer hack? Get busy, yourself! Maybe you can help pablo. The main problem with our attorney-in-residence’s research skills is that he has his facts all wrong (which isn’t a good trait for an “attorney” to have). But that’s okay. I’m waiting with bated breath to see what he comes up with, lol ….

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PCinSD]Want me to post your quotes?[/quote]Please do. What has stopped you thus far? I haven’t edited ANY of my posts here after posting them, except for spelling or punctuation (and that was only immediately after posting them). Get busy and you have my blessing!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]It’s not dementia but staying home all the time and being out of touch with change and how other people live. . . .[/quote]Um, FIH, unlike you, who posts here 24/7, I AM busy. On top of that, I’ve needed to travel a lot this summer and that is not over. Unlike you, I don’t access the internet from devices. If I’m not sitting at my desk at home and have time for this nonsense, I’m not able to go on this site.

Why don’t you consider checking out the gym 10-15 hours a week or try scaredy’s floating meditation? Methinks you spend too much time here opining on nearly everything 12 hrs per day, every day. In other words, get a life!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]Typical nativist tendencies from BG who doesn’t like change. In Florida people bitch, in Hawaii, even Vegas people want to “take back Vegas.” My friend’s mom bitches all the time about new comers ruining Toronto.

BG, the hills are chopped off because there better building technology than in the past. It’s either build up or sprawl out. People are coming. You like to say “it is what it is”.

Move out if you don’t like traffic. Let us become a big city.

BTW, Mira Mesa is so much better than in the past. Many more restaurants. There is an 85c bakery now. I don’t eat baked good but I have friends who like it. Mira Mesa will be much better with the future trolley.

Edit:
Haha, flu I posted before reading your post[/quote]Trolley? Does anyone have a projected new trolley route map to post??[/quote]I’ve posted about this several times in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_Trolley. It will be built with the Stone Creek master plan (mix used, medium density development), which will increase MM population by about 15-20%. http://miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/Plangrp/Stone%20Creek/StoneCreekUpdate2016Jan.pdf

750k sq-ft of business space, 174k sq-ft of commercial space. I’m super stoked about this project. A LOT more jobs right here AND A LOT more retail space (i.e. restaurants and activities), not to mention more parks and trails. This project can’t start soon enough IMHO.[/quote]Oh, yikes! City has approved stuffing over 4400 units (another ~10K people?) over land owned by Vulcan Materials in an already extremely heavily congested area? What have you been smoking, AN? What, if anything, was already manufactured there? Isn’t that area a known Type A flood plain and/or part dry riverbed? Has any of the soil on those parcels ever been remediated? City was apparently just desperate to find any remaining strip of land they could (however undesirable) to “upzone” for the explicit purpose of directing more property tax and sales tax revenue to themselves. Nevermind if it formerly used to house gas storage tanks or as a longtime quarry. “Build, build, build” … it’s absolute lunacy … Mission Valley is next …

Sounds like another San Elijo/Porter Ranch environmental disaster-in-the-making … :=0

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Typical nativist tendencies from BG who doesn’t like change. In Florida people bitch, in Hawaii, even Vegas people want to “take back Vegas.” My friend’s mom bitches all the time about new comers ruining Toronto.

BG, the hills are chopped off because there better building technology than in the past. It’s either build up or sprawl out. People are coming. You like to say “it is what it is”.

Move out if you don’t like traffic. Let us become a big city.

BTW, Mira Mesa is so much better than in the past. Many more restaurants. There is an 85c bakery now. I don’t eat baked good but I have friends who like it. Mira Mesa will be much better with the future trolley.

Edit:
Haha, flu I posted before reading your post[/quote]Trolley? Does anyone have a projected new trolley route map to post??

[bearishgurl]

AN, I assume you’re happy with the massive upzoning of 92126 in recent years? It is now but a shell of its former self and unrecognizable as the original community of Mira Mesa … your hometown turf. Your neck of the woods is a prime example of City run amok in indiscriminately upzoning for the absolute tightest density that could possibly be squeezed in there.

And they succeeded :-0

[bearishgurl]

Even though SD County has more government (military) land within its urbanized area than LA County does, LA County has much more open space than SD County does … within its urbanized area. There are a LOT of hills there which didn’t get chopped off. They could have been … but weren’t. The only hills in SD County’s urbanized area which didn’t get chopped off are either full of heavy boulders or belong to the government.

[bearishgurl]

Back to the OP’s link:

…Housing Starts: Nevertheless, Los Angeles has been registering a strong level of new home groundbreakings. Its residential building permit count of 14,582 units year to date in 2016 is exactly the same as for New York, according to the Census Bureau…

I’m going to take an educated guess that this permit count represents mainly conversions. There are many aging, very large low-rise apt complexes concentrated in a handful of communities on LA’s west side which are likely planned for condo conversions and possible teardowns to the studs for “remodel” to modern rental apts. And perhaps a small percentage of permits issued represent scattered infill custom homes (after complete teardown) all over the county and major remodels of existing SFRs.

…Next best for dwelling permits so far in 2016, on the West Coast, is Seattle (8,694 units). Portland (6,072) and San Francisco (6, 063) are almost even as they vie for third spot…

Again, same for SF. Except in this case, aging (old, actually) 4-12 unit bldgs are being razed for mid-rise and even high-rise (in districts where permitted) apt/condo projects to serve the SV worker-bee set.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]True, flu, and yet, hidden among all of your points above, are realities that will dictate the future living conditions of many people–which, I think–is what this thread is about.[/quote]flyer, I honestly believe that many millenials (now working in their fields) can save a downpayment and buy a regular house. The $64M questions are, do they actually want to save for a downpayment and will they actually buy a house they can afford which will serve them (and their possible future families) for many years to come?

By “regular house,” I wasn’t referring to a sub-1000 sf crapshack traincar with stairs, no yard with HOA/MR equal to 1.7% of their assessed value … on top of their property taxes.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PCinSD][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rich Toscano][quote=bearishgurl]I watched this video… [snip]

Notice that the owner is single and the only one living there.
[/quote]

This is a perfect specimen of a BG post. Somewhat pedantically noting a minor detail, with added emphasis to stress the import of her keen observation.

Except, the video in question is titled “Small Portland prefab home stacks space to fit family of 3.” Sorry, I’ll translate that to BG-speak: “Small Portland prefab home stacks space to fit family of 3.” And said family of 3 is featured almost constantly throughout the video.

Simply perfect.[/quote]

I see the problem now. I’ve had two clients in and out this morning and DID click on brian’s link but it is now clear that we weren’t watching the same video. All I can think of is that I stopped the video and then when I came back to the utube page, I ended up watching a different video. I cannot now find the video I watched but it was NOT the same video as brian listed. The architect’s house was also remodeled to ~700 sf (he bought it originally at ~350 sf). I have no idea how he himself was able to conduct all his activities in it (3 story, incl the tiny garage), let alone a couple with a baby!

Most people endeavor to find something a little larger than 700 sf after their baby starts crawling around and needs a lot of “equipment,” lol ….[/quote]

LOL.

Hopefully the clients aren’t more people you defrauded as a foreclosure consultant.

Imagine for a minute if BG had not failed the SDPD psych exam. She would’ve been roaming our streets with a gun.

*shudders*[/quote]pablo, as usual, your ego is getting the better of you and your mysogynistic tendencies are again rearing their ugly head.

In addition, you have your “facts” all wrong … could it be due to the onset of dementia?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.[/quote]I was comparing the entire counties, NOT just the cities of LA and SD.[/quote]
Your argument breaks down even worse when comparing county. LA County have a density of ~2100 people/sq-mile. While SD County have a density of ~680 people/sq-mile.[/quote]

AN, since we’re both looking at the same wiki pages, let’s dive for more data, shall we?

SD County has a land mass of 4207 square miles. It’s 2015 population (acc to the census) was 3,299,521, a 6.6% increase over its 2010 census count, which was 3,095,308.

LA County has a land mass of 4058 square miles. It’s 2015 population (acc to the census) was 10,170,292, a 3.6% increase over its 2010 census count, which was 9,818,605.

However, there is a HUGE difference in the two counties in the disbursement of their urban population centers. While LA County’s urban population centers take up half its land mass (50% or mostly southern half), SD County’s urban population centers take up just 1/6 of its land mass (~17% or western sixth). Excepting Castaic, Palmdale and Lancaster, the northern half of LA County is sparsely populated, rural and even rugged in places as is the farthest northwest portion (Camp Pendleton) and eastern 5/6 of SD County. In fully 3/4 of San Diego County’s land mass, it is extremely likely that utilities are not even available! I’ve driven thru almost ALL of SD County’s backcountry and taken some roads multiple times. I would classify the sixth of it which is closest to the Imperial County line as very rugged.

http://www.zipmap.net/California/Los_Angeles_County.htm

http://www.zipmap.net/California/San_Diego_County.htm

Realizing that there are scattered small (inconsequential for our numbers) rural populations in both counties, the reality is that SD County’s population is concentrated into just ~17% of its land mass (816 square miles or 4044 people per urbanized square mile) and LA County’s population is concentrated into ~50% of its land mass (2029 square miles or 5012 people per urbanized square mile). There is a marked difference in density between the west side of dtn LA and the east side, where high rise residential towers and massive blocks-long aging apt complexes (ex: Santa Monica and a few other cities) do not exist. This phenomenon (and scattered multifamily infill projects) causes the density to be much higher in pockets of the west side than the southeast and east sides. The southwest area cities (ex Long Beach, Lakewood, etc) have a lot of single family homes but those lot sizes tend to be 6K on average. On the southeast side, going towards Whitter and Hacienda Heights, they get a little larger and east of La Puente, even larger still. In the eastern SGV, it is not uncommon at all to find ~8500 sf lots (on avg) in entire subdivisions. This just doesn’t happen with any consistency in SD County. These are NOT “luxury home” tracts. They are hundreds of tracts of 50’s through ’80’s ranch homes from 1350 sf to 2000 sf in about 27 cities. These tracts do NOT have multifamily (apts/condos) mixed in with them as many established communities (or SFR tracts within CFD’s) in SD City/County do. These communities are very well planned and don’t “feel” crowded to be in. SD County doesn’t have this type of stock in anywhere near the numbers of LA County or level of SFR selection for Joe and Jane 6p worker-bee to choose from in any way, shape or form in any of its cities or unincorporated areas. A homebuyer in SD County is lucky if they find 1-2 active “affordable” SFR listings fitting the above description in any one zip code. In recent years, it has not been unusual to find none available in a particular zip code for months, especially with an asking price under $650K.

It would be interesting to see the difference in the percentages of population growth in the two counties for the 1990 and 2000 census. By 1990, CFD formation took hold with a vengeance in Riverside and SD Counties, and later and to a lesser extent, Orange and San Bernardino counties. I would surmise that LA County has grown in population far less than SD County has over that time period. IIRC, SD County had approximately 1.1 million people in 1986. The first CFD’s were formed in SD County that same year and the first tracts within them were sold in 1987 (Eastlake Shores 91913). In May thru August of 2017, those 30-year bonds will finally be paid off in five subdivisions (3 SFR and 2 multifamily). It seems like yesterday to me that the (man-made) lake was dug :=0

I haven’t been to all the “dense” areas on the Westside of LA in recent years, but in many ways, I think LA County’s leaders of decades past did a great job of planning. The decisions they made back then really contribute positively to the quality of life in its communities today.

*****

Remember that no CFD’s were formed in LA County (where the vast majority of upzoning since 1986 in SD County was approved).

I find it ridiculous that in 91915 (the latest annexation of the City of Chula Vista) the “SFR” density (actually PUDs with “zero-lot-lines”) were actually built 20 units to one acre in a handful of subdivisions. The “city streets” are so narrow in these tracts (with parked cars lined up solid on each side for block after block) that only one vehicle can pass at a time, with the oncoming vehicle slightly pulled over (depending on size of vehicles, of course). They are no wider than “easements” or narrow alleys in a more established neighborhood. It’s a travesty that people actually buy these crapshacks within spitting distance of each other, only to pay HOA dues to 2 or more assns and MR on 2-3 CFD’s. Of course, they could have purchased a SFR which was at least 200 sf larger, situated on a 6000 to 7500 sf lot and on a standard city street in an older area of the city or another city in the county with no HOA/MR.

So yeah, SD County homebuyers/renters DO have choices. Many of them chose to buy/rent a residence in a poorly-located, low-quality, high-density newer construction tract when they had other (better) options in their price range. And flyer is right … buyers’ housing choices are on them.

However, in LA County, I really do believe that location is absolutely everything wrt where one’s job is. All other home choices are secondary … unless one is retired. It once took me 5.5 hours to travel 51 miles from the far eastern portion of the county to a place located just west of LAX. One injury accident and another tractor trailer mishap . . . well, I don’t need to tell you the rest of the story . . . :=0

[bearishgurl]

I want to close this side discussion by asking, “Do people really want to attempt to raise young families in sub-1000 sf home with stairs and little to no yard?” Is that really what today’s homebuyers will “settle” for?

I think not. It’s unimaginable to me … especially with kids.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]BG, what you see on the street doesn’t jive with the data. You can look it up yourself. LA city have a density of 8000 people/square-mile. SD city have a density of 4000 people/square-mile.[/quote]I was comparing the entire counties, NOT just the cities of LA and SD.[/quote]
Your argument breaks down even worse when comparing county. LA County have a density of ~2100 people/sq-mile. While SD County have a density of ~680 people/sq-mile.[/quote]

Exactly, AN. LA is now allowing building to the lot lines.

BG, you’re so out of touch. No wonder you want your country back.
The world will move on without you. It’s your responsibility to keep pace, not the other way around.[/quote]
The above video is the one I was referring to. It IS in LA (likely Venice or surrounds, which is one of the tightest-zoned places in CA, even tighter than Balboa Island in Newport Beach).

Sorry for the confusion. I probably posted too fast between clients :=0

Again, we don’t know how long the homeowner received the variance for. His whole lot setup is wacky, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=bearishgurl]I watched this video… [snip]

Notice that the owner is single and the only one living there.
[/quote]

This is a perfect specimen of a BG post. Somewhat pedantically noting a minor detail, with added emphasis to stress the import of her keen observation.

Except, the video in question is titled “Small Portland prefab home stacks space to fit family of 3.” Sorry, I’ll translate that to BG-speak: “Small Portland prefab home stacks space to fit family of 3.” And said family of 3 is featured almost constantly throughout the video.

Simply perfect.[/quote]

I see the problem now. I’ve had two clients in and out this morning and DID click on brian’s link but it is now clear that we weren’t watching the same video. All I can think of is that I stopped the video and then when I came back to the utube page, I ended up watching a different video. I cannot now find the video I watched but it was NOT the same video as brian listed. The architect’s house was also remodeled to ~700 sf (he bought it originally at ~350 sf). I have no idea how he himself was able to conduct all his activities in it (3 story, incl the tiny garage), let alone a couple with a baby!

Most people endeavor to find something a little larger than 700 sf after their baby starts crawling around and needs a lot of “equipment,” lol ….

[Author]

Posts