Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 23, 2016 at 10:53 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799858July 23, 2016 at 10:44 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799856
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, you’re so inconsistent. Sometimes you say the lifestyle in CA justifies the cost of housing. Now you say moving to CA is a downgrade and Californians should move away for jobs then try to come back later.
Make up your mind.
No PNW. I hate the rain. I moved to Vegas but my family is in SD. I still have business in SD.
BG, get used to people moving to California. They will find ways to make it despite the cost of living. They may not live the lifestyle you like, but the world doesn’t revolve around you. And, in time, zoning will adjust to the needs of the population.[/quote]The “coastal lifestyle” DOES justify the cost of housing …. for those who can afford it. Even though our beaches and bays are public, CA coastal RE was never meant for the masses to own. It’s been that way forever. Nothing has changed except the “expectations” of today’s homebuyer (mainly the millenials and youngest Gen X-ers). Their housing expectations in this region are through the roof! They have fantasies of how they should be able to live and their “sense of entitlement” keeps them from accepting what is actually on offer in their price range reasonably close to their jobs. Hence, we see a lot of young workers (with families in tow) take jobs in SD … only to move somewhere else which has a lifestyle inapposite to SD’s … and commute every day to work.
This massive group did it to themselves. And they were able to do it because our local gubment created the exurban sprawl mess we have now. This same demographic does not have that choice if they accept a position in CA’s Silicon Valley. Not unless they want the (hardscrabble) life of 5-8 hrs commuting every day. This is so because those regional leaders in bay area counties made good decisions as stewards of their environment. They took their elected posts and the wishes of their constituencies seriously, where SD County’s leaders did not.
July 23, 2016 at 10:40 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799857Participant[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]Where are the other family member residents, Rich? And where do they sleep?
I would ask you, would YOU live in this home by yourself? How about with one or more other people??
July 23, 2016 at 10:20 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799851Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Lot splitting will eventually be allowed especially if Uber autonomous cars become ubiquitous and parking requirements decrease.
This is a new house in Portland built on the former lawn of another house.
[/quote]I watched this video and it reminds me a little of Venice (in LA County). There are portions of SoCal coastal counties which have allowed 35′ wide lots for many decades. But NOT to the degree that Portland, Oregon has apparently issued a “variance” for (just 15′ and we don’t know how long for, lol).
Notice that the owner is single and the only one living there.
The homeowner even stated that he is not entirely sure of his actual lot lines. (Was that concrete staircase on the left side of this cramped “traincar” actually built on his lot??) This (deplorable) public record-keeping would never happen in CA. Nor would any lot narrower than 35′ be approved. Since the minimum width of a residential lot in the City of SD is 50 feet, this precludes any “lot splitting” en masse happening in SD. Good luck with that, brian.
Have you ever considered moving to the PNW??
July 23, 2016 at 9:44 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799846Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=sdsurfer][quote=bearishgurl]If newcomers can’t find housing in SD County that they can afford and is near enough to their prospective jobs, then they simply won’t come … plain and simple. [/quote]
Hey BG,
When is the last time people “stopped coming”? I feel like this is more of a theory that you are believing people will get fed up and go elsewhere, but I’d love some data or a history lesson on when it occurred in the past.
I hate to be naive, but I feel like people will just rent to live where they cannot afford or end up a bit inland with a commute….possibly working a job they do not like to live in a climate/area they do like. It’s just a theory and I have no data to support it though. I’ve actually been looking recently.[/quote]
The way I see if, a lot of long time residents get fed up or they cash out and move out. The new immigrants do just fine. They find ways to thrive. It’s been like that since the 80s. LA attracts a lot of young domestic immigrants hoping to make it in the big city.[/quote]Back from LA, again … the land of larger single-family lots than SD.
I never stated in this thread that people will “stop coming” to SD. I essentially stated that local and regional government hold the keys as to how many housing units are approved for new construction. Or if any are approved at all. I stated that we don’t owe newcomers new construction to live in. People don’t move anywhere without knowing they are going to have a place to live and move their household goods into. That is, unless they have a local friend or relative to stay with for a few weeks (months?) while their belongings sit in storage in the locale they came from. They don’t make a final decision to accept a job here or move here permanently unless they can find and secure “suitable” housing for their family situation. If a person considering accepting a job here comes here after a job offer is made to them to see if they can secure “suitable” housing which they will be able to afford and they or their families do not like what is on offer in their price range, they will not accept the job offer, plain and simple. No harm done, they are still employed back home and they never packed up their home to begin with.
This happens every day for all ranks of the military, especially if the member (sponsor) is subject to long and frequent deployments. It doesn’t matter to the member’s family that they can get military housing while living here or a larger housing allowance by accompanying the member. It only matters that they are currently more “comfortable” where they live now and are closer to extended family. When these families come here in advance of PCS orders and look at available housing and its locations (both govm’t-owned and civilian housing), they often decline accompanying the sponsor to his/her new duty station because they perceive that where they currently live offers a better life for their families. It’s been this way for decades.
Even a person who is offered a high-paying or executive position in a CA coastal county doesn’t often accept it because they and/or their families aren’t willing to downgrade their living conditions to such as extent that they would feel uncomfortable doing so and/or their kids are already settled in their schools and they feel it doesn’t get any better than that.
Taking a job in a CA coastal county is a hard sell for a lot of very qualified job candidates residing in “flyover country.”
sdsurfer, I don’t see “long-time residents” cashing out and leaving SD County. Props 13, 58 and 193 have seen to that. There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for them to do so as their cost of living will rise exponentially the very minute they close the sale on their personal residence here without another long-owned CA residence to move into. And where would they go when they’ve been here for 50+ years and their families are here? It doesn’t matter that many of them are “fed up” by ultra-long lines at the post office and congested surface streets which were once easy to traverse (the vast majority of them no longer commute on the freeways daily). This group has the option of hitting the road a few times a year when they get fed up enough to decide to get out of dodge. And they do.
sdsurfer, the problem with choosing the “long commutes” in SoCal is that this decision throws the homebuyer/prospective renter into oppressive heat 8-9 months per year. Even Burbank, CA (~20 miles inland) was 101 yesterday! The SGV was 108! The areas these people are choosing to live in and commute to jobs (in SD County, primarily the southern portion of the IE and SD North County inland) can get extremely hot for several months per year. What’s the difference in the weather there during these months than just staying in their beautiful TX spread for 1/4 to 1/2 the price and deciding not to move here at all? The daily “lifestyles” coastal dwellers live (<4 miles from the coast) and those that inland dwellers live in SoCal are night and day from one another! There is no real "draw" to come and work here from US "flyover country" if the job candidate has a family with minor children they must consider. The difference in the compensation they will be offered (if any) will NOT in any way, shape or form compensate them for the profound downgrade in lifestyle their families will make if they accept the position and move here accompanied by their immediate families. That is ... unless they choose to live far inland. If they make that choice, then their lives won't be any different than where they moved from (except the worker(s) in the household may have a longer daily commute, in much heavier traffic than they are used to). So, unless the new position in a CA coastal county offers a much better promotional path in their fields, it isn't worth accepting.
As for millenials who are recent college graduates, they can (and most certainly should) accept a job anywhere which allows them to get their foot in the door and get experience in their fields or build upon their current experience. This generation is huge and lining up to share what has now become very limited resources (esp in CA). Beggars can’t be choosers. If they are a Cali Native and are offered their first big break (or big promotional opportunity) at a Big Food conglomerate in Lincoln, NE, they should take it, IMO. They will have time to move back to Cali later, at a time they can better afford to live here (if they still wish to).
July 22, 2016 at 11:46 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799816Participant[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.
July 22, 2016 at 11:28 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799813Participant[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Why is it that the citizens and leaders of Bay Area counties (as well as the County of Los Angeles) don’t seem to have a problem saying, “enough is enough?” These jurisdictions don’t feel a need to cut off the top of every . single . hilltop only to throw up hundreds or thousands more crapshacks. Ask yourselves why SD County leaders and its citizens feel we should continually do this.[/quote]What are you talking about? LA have 2X the population density as we do. Which mean they already “chopped off all the hilltop” as you like to put it, many years ago. Then found out that’s not enough, so they build even more. SD is mostly built out, which mean any future development will be infill. No more major hills being chopped off.
As for crapshacks… LoL, I won’t even go there.[/quote]
No, it doesn’t. That commonly-held misconception is an “illusion” created through the act of driving on the freeways in LA County while never getting off of them to see where the “real” residents live. Millions of drivers living elsewhere are using LA County’s roads daily and I-10/Jct Rte 66 running all the way thru the county is a major coast-to-coast long-haul trucking route. In addition, LA County is THE major west coast ship-to-shore distribution point for goods from Asia shipped across the entire country as well the major US freight carrier package drop distribution point for all of SoCal (City of Industry & Vernon). LA County freeways are used by residents of four adjoining counties every . single . day to/from their own counties of residence. All of these activities contribute to LA County looking “busy” and “crowded” every day to a motorist on the outside looking in.
Yes, most of its beach areas are very congested as is the small community of Hollywood and other small scattered tightly-packed communities (annexed into City from LA County). The vast majority of its isolated congested neighborhoods are situated in micro-areas on the west side and some of them were later zoned residential/commerical (ex: Culver City).
The truth is, LA County actually has a LOT more open space than SD County does. Yes, it has a much larger population than SD Co but it had a LOT more flat, buildable land to begin with than SD County did.
The bulk of homes built in CA on substandard lots (<5000 sf) were built long ago in small beach communities which allowed this type of subdivision more than 60 years ago (ex: Coronado) OR, much more commonly, built within CFD's in the past 30 years. SD County is home to hundreds of CFD’s and LA County is home to none (that I’m aware of).
I’ve been “off the freeway” in residential areas in at least 24 cities in LA County in the past two years (mostly east and SE of dtn LA) and I can attest that the residential SFR lots there are bigger than SD (city and county) lots by 1200-1400 sf (on average). 8-10K lots proliferate in many, many cities and the houses on them sell today for just $425-$650K. SD County does NOT have this kind of selection in established neighborhoods and certainly not in areas which would be considered “affordable!” In all areas where it was possible (flat and contiguous with no ocean access or view) the City of SD was originally zoned 8-10 (SFR) units to one AC (on avg). OTOH, the vast majority of the City of LA was zoned 6 units to one AC (on avg). The entire City and County of LA was much better planned than was the City and County of SD. By virtue of LA being more established than SD at the time of the passage of the MR Community Facilities Act (1982), what land left in LA County which wasn’t built up at that time was mostly set aside as open space. I haven’t found any subdivisions there newer than 1985/86, except for one large subdivision built in the nineties on the LA Co side of the San Bernardino County line (Phillips Ranch 91766). It is NOT within a CFD!
SD City and County leaders ruined SD County when they approved wa-a-a-ay too many (tremendously upzoned) CFDs and thus, SD is no longer “America’s Finest City.” They didn’t need to do that. People would have moved here, anyway, just as they do in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (which have about 55% of their land set aside as open space). There are VERY few CFDs in this ~20 by 60 mile swath of nearly half-mountainous peninsula and they are isolated from the rest of the established neighborhoods (ex: Foster City, built up on a land mass on the bay which was a former landfill). Hence, the unmatched quality of life those residents share as well as their rock-solid RE values on into perpetuity. As it should be.
Our leaders ruined SD County out of personal greed. They wanted their “sphere of influence” larger thru the collection of more property taxes (which end up as Teeter-fund refunds from Sac back into the cities and counties) and saw a way to do this by rolling in the sheets with Big Development year after year. In doing so, they sold the quality of life of existing residents (longtime San Diegans) down the river. The result is that four out of five of our County supervisors now have ~24 years (6 terms) in office in their current seats (and humungous pensions built up as a byproduct) all due to voter complacency and lack of term limits. The 5th Supervisor (Pam Slater-Price) served in her supervisorial post 16 years (4 terms) and prior to that, one 4-yr term as Mayor of the (newly-incorporated) City of Encinitas before finally retiring. Again, due to voter complacency and running unopposed. The buck stops with them and their “County General Plan.” We, as residents and voters, reap what we sow.
July 22, 2016 at 9:53 AM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799808Participant[quote=no_such_reality]BG, I’m not sure what newcomers you’re referring too. The population increase is coming whether you like it or not.
Or have your kids decided not to create any grandkids?[/quote]First of all, the OP discussed this (supposed) future population increase for SD County. My kids don’t live in SD County and likely won’t move back here. None of them majored in a technology field, so there is nothing for them here which doesn’t pay much better elsewhere.
Secondly, deaths cancel out (or almost cancel out) births in a “natural” population increase (assuming illegal immigration is finally curbed or stopped altogether). In any case, this group doubles and triples up in order to be able to rent housing in CA for themselves. It is not uncommon for them to live 8-10 people to one housing unit. For them, this is a “typical” household size.
About half of American millenials have already formed households. A good portion of the rest ARE a member of a household consisting of unrelated roommates and have been living in this type of household for years (esp in expensive cities). For the half who have already formed their own households, if they feel they need different housing (ex: due to an addition to their families), they will simply swap out their existing housing unit for another one. That isn’t “new household formation.”
July 21, 2016 at 10:08 PM in reply to: 3.4 new households for every new residential permit in SD #799802ParticipantIf newcomers can’t find housing in SD County that they can afford and is near enough to their prospective jobs, then they simply won’t come … plain and simple. Or they will move into Riv County and attempt to commute to SD County every day.
There are plenty of units (both SFR and multifamily) to choose to rent or buy in SD.
We don’t “owe” newcomers (or anyone else, for that matter) “new construction” to live in.
If you don’t build ’em, they won’t come. Or if they do come anyway, they can rent or buy what is on offer. After perusing the housing market here, if renting/buying what is actually on offer in their price range is too distasteful to newcomers, then they won’t come.
We have had more than enough people in SD County since 1992. I know this might be a bit of a stretch for some here to believe, but it’s really okay if SD County doesn’t grow … or even loses population.
“Population forecasts” don’t mean jack sh!t if a jurisdiction doesn’t have enough housing for newcomers. Or if it DOES but what is on offer is too expensive or too “distasteful” for the price in the minds of prospective “newcomers.”
Why is it that the citizens and leaders of Bay Area counties (as well as the County of Los Angeles) don’t seem to have a problem saying, “enough is enough?” These jurisdictions don’t feel a need to cut off the top of every . single . hilltop only to throw up hundreds or thousands more crapshacks. Ask yourselves why SD County leaders and its citizens feel we should continually do this.
ParticipantI travel to see friends and family … 95% by road. Although I have been to many “tourist traps” in several states in the past, especially when my kids were younger, I have avoided them in the past decade or so. I would rather visit people in their homes or have adventures with them (i.e. winery-hopping, skiing, jeeping, hiking, etc). I travel for adventure and to see my peeps. I don’t care if we sit at their kitchen table and look at old photos and drink coffee most of the day. Or put photo albums together. Or tour their miles of leased land in their dirty-but-comfortable dually pickups to check livestock tags and count heads. Or visit family gravesites with flowers. Or ride horses. Or take a potluck to a family party. Or ride around in their restored “vintage” cars. ETC.
Except for the (crowded) Napa/Sonoma “crush” season and certain ski holidays (MLK and Presidents Day, which I now tend to avoid, due to long lift lines), I would prefer going off the beaten path to places where animals outnumber people. I have the Rubicon Trail and the Grand Tetons/Yellowstone still at the top of my “bucket list.” :=0
As an experienced “motor-lodge queen extraordinaire,” I don’t get up to leave the next morning until I am rested as the next motel or the friend/family member I will stay with the next night don’t care when I arrive.
I have driven coast to coast several times in 3-3.5 days (SD to/from GA/FL) with another driver where we alternately slept and switched drivers, never stopping for lodging. During those years, we both worked FT and were more pressed for time. But I am too old to do that now and my eyesight is not as good at night as it once was. I now drive just 7.5 to 11 hours per day … and possibly one day per trip I drive about 13 hours.
Due to a condition I “inherited” (vertigo), I don’t do well at all with turbulence on planes, especially over the airports I would have to land in. And I have rented and borrowed many vehicles while on vacation and don’t care for them … due to the frustration of getting an unfamiliar vehicle (frequently in the dark) with no time to figure it out. I like to have my OWN vehicle with me and I want the freedom to come and go as I please … everywhere … or even completely change my plans at the drop of a hat.
Now, if we could just get rid of the east/west roving, makeshift “Homeland Security” forced vehicle immigration “checkpoints” along I-8/I-10 which delay and interrogate AMERICANS in their OWN DAMN COUNTRY, road trips would again be what they should be … the ultimate freedom.
A very tall, beautiful wall built at the int’l border should do the trick :=]
Having traveled by road thru ~20 states multiple times on multiple highways, there is so much to see in this great country of ours! You can’t see anything from an airport terminal while you are changing planes. It’s the best learning experience you will ever have or could ever give your children. For those who have never done this, you should try it sometime! It will open your eyes.
Participant[quote=flyer]. . . One of our neighbors is in his late 60’s–holds multiple patents–and is still working on others. We honestly don’t know anyone who is completely “retired,” regardless of their age or financial status.[/quote]I’ve got a relative like this and I always visit his tool and die shop when I’m in town. He’s “semi-retired” but keeps extremely busy filling “special orders” for local businesses. He’s invented so many interesting things and also holds multiple patents … which seem to take a l-o-o-ong time to wind their way through the “system.”
Participant[quote=spdrun]FlyerInHI: Plenty of non-boring parts of the US. You just have to venture off the beaten path and not only go where everyone else is going.[/quote]Agree, spdrun. But I would add that the traveler who lives at or near sea level (ex: SD) would need to “acclimate themselves” at 5K altitude one night and 8K altitude the second night before venturing up further, whether by vehicle or foot.
And drink plenty of water and no alcohol 48-72 hours before ascending. Although mountain adventures are spectacular and offer the participant memories of a lifetime, they are not for the inexperienced driver, the faint of heart, someone with a fear of heights or someone with heart problems or other chronic, poorly-controlled health problems.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I was looking at some absolutely mind blowing population growth projections for California earlier this morning.
The current population in California is 38 million, which is project to grow to 60 million by 2050.
That is absolutely astounding if true, they need to be pounding nails as far as the eye can see for the next 35 years just to keep up if that is what the future really holds.[/quote]Um, Shoveler, we’ve been thru this before here a few times :=0
This “prognostication” is unrealistic, pure fantasy and not doable in CA (unless the Mojave Desert gets some infrastructure and jobs and begins to be built up).
A more realistic assessment of the situation is … “If CA DOESN’T get anymore new construction, newcomers will buy/rent what is on offer or NOT move here at all!” And, believe it or not, that is okay! We don’t OWE the rest of the nation and world “affordable housing” or even any housing at all.
“Population projections” for an already built-out state are nothing but hogwash. They will be whatever the existing property owners and VOTERS want them to be. Sure, some of our rural counties “appear” to have a lot of open land. But that land is “protected.” Read, legally PROTECTED for various reasons and purposes.
In some CA cities (ex: SF) the vast majority of the population is already shoulder to shoulder, live within spitting distance with one another and fight for street parking on their own streets every single day. SD has areas like this as well. Good luck with your continual population prognostications here but just realize that all they are is a fantasy … they stem from a delusional mindset of CA having endless resources.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Participant[quote=flu]bump…
Well, looks like Qualcomm is recovering. Pretty decent quarter….
http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/QCOM
And yes, the layoffs didn’t do didly to housing inventory and house prices.
My understanding is that they didn’t need to do the full layoff, because shortly after after the layoff announcement, a lot of good/top people ended up leaving for Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. So then, they had a bigger problem of attrition. So they ended up giving some people pretty big retention bonuses just to stay.
Lol.[/quote]
Well, yeah. And they retired. Because they could. And the QC retirees didn’t all live in one zip code. They were spread out throughout the county. And now happily retired in place, they’re not going anywhere.
Move on, folks. There was never anything to see here then and there isn’t anything to see here today.
ParticipantThe dearth of availability of SFR’s for sale in CA’s most established (and even coveted) neighborhoods (most pronounced in CA coastal counties) is here to stay and will likely never be “fixed” in our lifetimes.
As Trump would say, “The `system’ is rigged.”
And there is nothing anyone can do about it :=0
-
AuthorPosts
