[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality]Is the landlord of sound mind? Does she like you? Can the sentimental reasons for her holding it be converted into a sentimental helping a nice family live new memories or the memories she’s holding on to via a rent to own or a rent to own, purchase and landlord carry a private note back?[/quote]All good suggestions. And if she has already put her kids on title, then a nice 5-yr rent-to-own deal might be able to be worked out … or owner carryback. The OP’s situation is a classic example of a good safe reason why the owner and her heirs would want to accept from them a 1st trust deed on the property.

[bearishgurl]

I don’t believe in “bubbles” and “echo bubbles.” It’s not ever going to get any cheaper to buy a home in SD County, ESPecially an SFR which is well-located.

Our last RE “bubble” (of 2004 thru 2007) was artificially caused by lax lending, which isn’t going to ever happen like that again.

Anyone who needs a house for their family and doesn’t have a reasonable locked-in rental deal for the duration and is qualified to buy is a fool for waiting for another crash to do so. Their kids will likely be grown and out of the house and it will never happen.

[bearishgurl]

If you are currently living in South Bay (SD County?), I don’t understand why you can’t walk in the neighborhood without your spouse present. Plenty of people do, including walking their dogs … even at night and also while pregnant! Maybe I misunderstood and you can but you feel you will have to vacate soon due to the ill health and possibly imminent death of the owner. Why don’t you remind your landlords that their property tax will be very low (likely just $100’s per yr) if they hang onto the property and rent it to you for a few more years and that they will lose this low assessment forever if they sell it? Ask them for a 5-year lease. That is what renters of single family homes in LA County are successfully doing … and getting … right and left!

The lot and home you are looking for DOES exist in 91911 and 91910 in South County SD. Unfortunately, I don’t see you finding it in South County SD for =<$400K .... UNLESS it is a heavier fixer than you are capable of DIYing (rotted subfloor; needs jacked up on a corner; heavy dry rot; eaves, roof and underlayment need replacing, etc) OR it is located in NC (91950, both city and unincorporated). I am a woman who would feel safe walking alone or with my dog on most NC streets and NC is only 5-6 miles from Lindbergh Field! harvey mentioned Temecula but that is 72-75 miles from where you currently reside and it may not be feasible for your family to consider (way too far from airports, etc). I would suggest you also consider El Cajon (92020/92021), Santee or Lakeside for the same type of house/lot you can find in National City and Chula Vista in your price range. However it would tend to be slightly newer (mid/late '60's as opposed to '40's thru early '60's in South County) and slightly larger (1400-1500 sf as opposed to 1100-1200 sf in South County). El Cajon and Lakeside have the lot size you are looking for. Santee may have a few larger lots BUT they would likely surround a county compound which houses the Las Colinas Women's Detention Facility among other ugly behemoth county agencies. It's isn't very pretty around there and it is very warm because it is surrounded on nearly 3 sides by hills which tend to block low-lying pollution into this micro area. In addition, the area is poorly zoned (industrial/comm'l mixed with residential). Most of the other areas of Santee are going to have HOAs and even MR. If you can go as high as $435-$460K, I think you could find something you could work with (over a period of months/years after moving in) in SD South County and you could stay in your cooler (and much more convenient) general area.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=scaredyclassic]what persuades jurors in a trial?

theoretically it’s cold, rational analysis of facts and law.

but that is not how it really goes down in hotly disputed cases.[/quote]That’s right, scaredy. Our most important decisions in life are often based upon our gut feelings about a person … some would call it “emotion” but that’s not quite accurate.

[bearishgurl]

scaredy, you sound just a wee bit apathetic. I understand everything but it can’t be that bad! You still have a few months to make up your mind.

Chin up! The “fat lady” hasn’t even approached the backstage area yet. Stay tuned. This is no time for apathy!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]But my question is the following. If Chula Vista is really a dump with schools that suck, then wouldn’t the level of suckiness being increasingly worse now than before, if we believe that the illegal/border crossers have also exploded more recently?

It seems like looking at the API scores of the past, it’s been consistently the same throughout time, irrespective of the change in the number of illegals and border crosses that apparently some have claimed to have significantly increased.

So is there really serious deterioration of the schools in Chula Vista that would even more drastically affect home prices because of increased illegal or boarder crossers?[/quote]No, there hasn’t been any deterioration of our schools’ overall performance. This is due to our wonderful, infinitely patient, very experienced and dedicated teachers, a large portion whom are eligible for retirement today or will be in the coming few years. But the presence of thousands of “daily border-crossing students” attending our public schools IS and HAS BEEN for DECADES using up our district resources, which could be better deployed to enrich the educations of those who have a right to attend our schools and also whose parents are paying through the nose in local property taxes (including exorbitant MR).

You’re apparently still getting “illegals” and “border-crossing students” mixed up here, flu. You’re obviously still confused about the two and there IS a HUGE difference. “Illegals” undoubtedly exist in your area as well as all other Piggs’ areas (except possibly those who reside in “protected” covenants, such as Fairbanks Ranch and RSF). “Illegals” likely work inside the covenant(s) but they don’t reside there unless they are living as a guest or guest worker inside someone’s home. “Illegals” also live in every county of this state (some much moreso than others) and their children have every right to attend school in those counties IF their parents can prove they have a bona-fide address (or in some cases, an employer affiliation and reside on the employer’s land in mobile homes) to their respective public school districts.

As a matter of fact, flu, as late as the early nineties, your particular micro-area housed the largest migrant camp of “illegals” in the entire state! It took SDPD a total of almost six years to completely clean it out and evict all the occupants!

We in South County are very well located, unlike the far-flung lizardland communities. Yes, the international border is close by but you can’t take away its extremely convenient location to all that SD has to offer. Location, location, location (as they say in RE parlance) is what fuels RE values. We (and our sister-hybrid community “Bonita”) are NOT freeway dependent in any way, shape or form. Especially for those South County residents who live 8-12 miles from the border and don’t have to duke it out every workday with tens of thousands of commuters residing in CV’s three later-annexed-in zip codes situated southeast of the city. Thus, SD South County’s RE values have and will remain stable (except for IB near the beach, which is subject to more of a boom/bust market due to sewage from Mexico intermittently washing up on its beaches).

Lots of people who “can’t qualify” to buy anything in South County end up in the far reaches of SD East County or North County lizardland communities … or even Temecula (RIV Co). It is what it is.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]Which goes back to my point, the illegals using California schools are a far bigger problem than the border crossers. Sure it is illegal for border crossers to use our schools and I get your frustration. But it is also illegal for non American without a green card to reside in the U.S. in the first place. There are exponentially more of these kids than there are border crossers in South Bay as well as everywhere.

Sure Southbay also gets the double whammy of the border crossers too, but even in S. Bay I guarantee you that there are way more illegals/anchors in your schools than there are border crossers.[/quote]Unless all the “illegals” are rounded up and deported (unlikely), then they will continue to live on this side of the border. Many of them have legitimate US addresses in their names because US landlords will rent to them. And an “illegal” (or foreign citizen) can also buy property in the US if they first get themselves issued an ID number from the IRS and pay cash for the property.

The border-crossing student problem is easier to fix because it is illegal for them to attend our schools as a NON-resident without paying tuition. It CAN be fixed by both ICE and the school districts who are allowing these kids to enroll using the addresses of “fake guardians.” In doing so, I believe it would eliminate at least 20K students enrolled in SD South County school districts alone. And a few thousand more (1-3K) currently enrolled in the rest of the SD County school districts combined. That’s probably enough saved money to bring back daily/weekly art, music and PE to the ALL the elementary schools in the county, as well as buy newer PE equipment for the secondary schools, among other things!

The lack of daily PE classes in CA K-12 public schools in the last 15 years is partly responsible for the childhood obesity epidemic, imho.

I believe that 20-25% of our public school teachers are eligible to retire today (at least in my local districts) so it really wouldn’t be a problem. Nor would closing older, unused public school campuses (to avoid utility payments on them) and consolidating the remaining ELIGIBLE student body into the remaining schools.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]Translation for FLU: Even if you successfully closed the loopholes which allowed border crossers, South Bay public schools would still suck.[/quote]I’m sure you said that in jest, deadzone. Many of our schools have scored very high on the STAR and CAHSEE exams (when scores were published) and still rate an 8 or 9 today on greatschools.org.

2 of our HS’s were rated in the top 12 HS’s in the county for many years.

This is all due to our very dedicated, experienced and competent teaching staff at both CVESD AND SUHSD!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=svelte]

Calif schools also get funding from property taxes, which immigrants, illegal or not, are paying through the homes they lease – part of their rent goes to pay the owner’s property tax.[/quote]

While they might contribute some property tax, California spends $45 billion in general funds, roughly $7200 per pupil. With Federal funding, that rises to $76 billion, that rises to $12,100 per pupil.

I seriously doubt said children’s families are living in $1.25 million dollar homes to cover the cost of a single child. Let alone more than one child or any other services.[/quote]That is correct, NSR. And that ~$4900 for each public school student in CA that the Federal government chips in for is made up of aid from several different agencies, including two forms of it which are very heavily used by daily border crossing students attending US K-12 public schools. Those are the USDA free school lunch and breakfast programs and Title I funding (for schools with a predominately “low-income” student body). Among other teaching materials and aids, Title I funding provides (expensive) ESL materials and specially-qualified instructors who get an additional pay stipend for teaching ESL.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]So is the lesson to learn from the last couple of threads :

1. Chula Vista is a dump and a terrible place to invest wrto real estate.
2. Since illegals and border kids are a significant problem there, unlike other areas, it has, and will for a long time into the future, create a significant negative impact to home prices there.
3. No one in their right mind should live there, or if they do, should definitely not send their kids to public schools there.

?[/quote]flu, you’re twisting my words again, as usual. I never complained about RESIDENT “illegal” kids attending our schools. I complained about the thousands of NON-resident kids attending our public schools (whatever their citizenship status). The likes of YOU and YOUR brethren in 92130 would no doubt be mortified if too many interdistrict transfers were awarded into your public school district, causing your community’s RESIDENT kids to be displaced to a school further away from their homes! It wouldn’t even matter if these kids were being driven in by parents from SDUSD or even another North County school district every day (much less from Mexico)! You wouldn’t like your schools filled up with kids who did not have a legal right to attend them!

And every . single . city in SD North County has plenty of “illegals” living in it … some much more than others! If they are “residents” who have an actual US address, then their children are allowed by law to attend US schools. Whether that US address is in Otay Mesa (SD), one-half block from the border, in Vista, CA (roughly 50 miles from the border) or in Delhi, CA (approx 426 miles from the border), it doesn’t matter. “Illegals” are permitted by law to attend public school in the US IF they have a US-based street address and can prove it to the school district.

And AGAIN, there is no such thing as a “border kid.” The kids I’m speaking of here live on the “other side” of the border, i.e. “Mexico.”

You can say it, flu . . . M-E-X-I-C-O. See, that wasn’t so hard. We need to stop using euphemisms such as “border kids” and call it what it is.

As far as Chula Vista being a “dump,” nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, having never gotten off the freeway in Chula Vista, flu wouldn’t have any way of knowing that nor would he be able to speak about it intelligently :=0. We have this problem of thousands of kids living in MEXICO stealing seats in our public school classrooms because (1) our school districts are simply “conveniently located” for this group … nothing more; (2) our corrupt school district administrations have allowed it to go on for decades (for the “headcount money” from Sac); and, (3) border-crossing northbound schoolchildren have not been required to possess and show a Visa sponsored by a particular public school district (or private school) at the US Int’l border in order to pass through it. (This Visa would denote that they are on a payment plan for tuition with the district/school for a particular academic year and would be renewable by the district if tuition remains paid.) We’ve had sporadic border crackdowns on northbound schoolchildren in the morning last a few days here or there over the years but then the border patrol just goes back to “business as usual.” This is a responsibility of the Federal government and the procedures for schoolchildren crossing the border into the US every morning (whether accompanied or unaccompanied) need to be tightened. Thus, the problem is 50% the fault of the Federal government and 50% the fault of SD South County’s school districts (purposefully) lax residency policies.

svelte kind of missed the point as well. He well knows we have this problem of border-crossing schoolchildren in Chula Vista and he ALSO knows that plenty of “illegal” students and “anchor babies” attend public school in the north county city which he currently resides.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone]BG, while I agree that it is a fact that lot of kids cross the border from TJ to go to South Bay schools, the numbers pale in comparison to the number of illegal immigrant kids (or anchor babies of illegals) who are also attending said schools and actually live in San Diego. But given they are here illegally, how is that any better than the border crossers?

I guess you can argue that at least the illegals are physically here and most likely paying some taxes that theoretically go into the community, sales taxes for certain and probably payroll taxes in many cases.

But in terms of degrading the quality of the schools, I would think the illegals are the bigger problem, in either case they are requiring disproportional amount of ESL learning among other things.

Why is it that you are so concerned with the border crossers more so than the general illegal population living here sending their kids to your schools? I agree with you in principal that border crossing students shouldn’t be allowed free rides in our public schools, that is obvious, but not sure how big a problem it really is in relation to the bigger gorilla in the room.[/quote]deadzone, “anchor babies” aren’t “illegals.” If they RESIDE in the US, they aren’t doing anything against the law to attend public school in the US. Nor are “illegal” US RESIDENT children attending school north of the border. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Kids who cross the border every day to attend public school in CA or TX (which have “residency laws” in place to attend public school) are breaking the law. It doesn’t matter whether they are “anchor babies,” “illegals” or even Americans of any race or Nationality. If one’s immediate family does not live in the US and the student does not live in the US, then they are NOT residents for the purposes of attending public school!

People of all races and Nationalities (even US born Americans) live on the MX side of the border solely for economic reasons. Many of them are paying $450 to $600 month to rent a 4 bdrm house in Tijuana when that same home rents for $2200 month and up in Otay Mesa (SD) just a stone’s throw north of the int’l border.

A family can’t have it both ways unless they pay tuition. And many families in MX DO PAY tuition for the kids to attend school in the US … mainly for Catholic (1-12) school north of the border. But these thousands of “seat stealers” enrolled in public school north of the border aren’t paying any tuition to any school district. Their parents are “faking” their addresses in order to enroll their kids because the school districts are too lax to do anything about it and that word has been out for decades. They all know they can get away with it indefinitely so their kids (all living in MX) can and will continue to “steal” public school seats in US border counties indefinitely.

In short, this HUGE group has been successfully skirting the public school “residency laws” for decades.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl][quote=joec]This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay…schools have a larger population of this happening and I don’t know the percentages, but I certainly don’t see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in “better” school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand…

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.[/quote]joec, the South Bay area has some very nice (and expensive) neighborhoods! In addition, most homeowners in Otay Ranch (91915), built 2001 thru 2006 (but primarily 2003 and later) are each paying on TWO 40-yr CFDs totaling approx 1.6% of their assessed value just in Mello Roos alone (nearly ALL going to the local public school districts and CC)! This is in ADDITION to their ad valoream portion of their tax bill of 1% PLUS approximately .17 of their assessed value in voter approved bonds (mainly local public school and CC construction bonds) for a total of 2.77% to 2.78% of assessed value towards property tax outlay for each affected parcel every year! There are actually a LOT of truly “wealthy” families around here! And yes, many of their ancestors originally came here from MX. Those 2nd, 3rd and even 4th Generation South County residents of Hispanic origin (100%/50%/25%) with LEGAL status actually detest the situation with all these daily border crossing children being allowed to occupy seats in their children’s and grandchildren’s schools!

The west side of Chula Vista (91910/91911) is almost ALL situated less than two miles from SD Bay (excepting the communities of Sunbow, Deerpark and older surrounds immediately east of I-805). As is Nestor, Egger Highlands and communities in the Otay Mesa area south of CV (92154), all annexed to the City of SD between 1977 and 1979. In addition, portions of 91910 have 1/2 to 4 AC residential lots which can NEVER by upzoned and many corner lots in 91910 are typically 1/4 AC. These areas are still in the cooler “coastal zone” even though they are not directly on the ocean. SD Bay is only 1.5 miles wide between the NC/CV boat docks and the Silver Strand (Coronado). Living here is very hospitable and requires no A/C (except during a heat wave and we usually lose power at those times, anyway, due to our antiquated electrical grid and overhead lines still present in almost all areas). What I’m trying to say here is that SD South County is actually a great place to live! It’s just “convenient” for border-crossing kids to avail themselves of our (mostly excellent) schools!

We also have Bonita (91902) which is landlocked and now surrounded by newer communities with their own (CV) zip codes on its south and east sides whose residents now use Bonita’s streets daily to get to I-805/I-5. The “jewel of the South Bay,” Bonita (circa 1952 to 1986) is a hilly, semi-rural view community with only FOUR condo complexes and ONE PUD complex. Its SFR stock is zoned just 3 parcels to one AC, on average! 3/4 unincorporated (County of SD) and 1/4 incorporated into the City of CV, Bonita is situated just 3-5 miles from SD Bay and is actually in the semi-coastal zone. It’s a FABULOUS place to live, people! ESPecially for families who like to entertain! And the residents of Bonita (among the rest of their SD South County brethren) have hundreds of daily border crossing kids attending their kids’ and grandkids’ schools (ALL FIVE of their assigned K-12 schools)! Its a dirty shame and a travesty. Some of the houses in Bonita (as well as in a small subdivision in Eastlake (CV) are assessed at over $2M. Yet Bonita’s homeowners (if they have school-age kids) must DEAL with this collossal mess on a daily basis.

There would actually be NOTHING WRONG with SOUTH COUNTY’s location IF the adjacent Int’l border didn’t present so many problems for its residents. The fact that the border IS where it IS obviously deters many qualified buyers from considering the area to purchase in (even though most of it has GREAT weather and is extremely conveniently located)! And rightly so. The border isn’t properly managed and hasn’t been for decades. Our current problems with rampant northward daily int’l border-crossing students attending our public schools is partly Pres. Obama’s fault thru his “amnesty” provision he enacted for children crossing our southern border (both when accompanied by parents AS WELL AS being “unaccompanied”). And, as a nearly lifelong Dem, I voted for Obama TWICE, mind you. The Int’l border is nothing more than a SIEVE of northbound POOR and NEEDY people (incl children) whose parents will, by hook or crook, seek a better life for them, and, in doing so, their children have successfully availed themselves of a US K-12 public education at OUR expense for decades> (This phenomenon much more pronounced in recent years.) And it will NEVER stop until the affected school districts and their schools are mandated to refuse “residency by affidavit” unless it is court-ordered and demand to see a state-issued Driver License or ID card for each and every so-called “parent or guardian” who tries to prove residency for a prospective student. Then, the district must record that DL or State ID NUMBER and make every effort to determine if that (bona-fide school district resident) who “proved residency” for a prospective student whilst residing out of the district/country is actually their “parent.” The County HHSA Depts can often be used for this exercise. And the border personnel needs to DEMAND student visas from border-crossing students into the US in the mornings. The only way public school systems are going to sponsor such visas is IF the student’s family pays tuition to the district. This will cut down on 99.9% of daily border-crossing students who have for decades “freeloaded” off resident taxpayer’s backs.

Any procedure less than this is just another attempt to perpetuate the non-resident school attendance fraud in South SD County which has been going on for decades … same old, same old. Yes, it is nothing more than “residency fraud,” plain and simple.[/quote]

Dang I missed this post earlier…Lol, like I said, joec. I knew this post was coming next. lol.[/quote]GOOD! Glad to see you’re now paying attention to the important issues, flu!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=joec]This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay…schools have a larger population of this happening and I don’t know the percentages, but I certainly don’t see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in “better” school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand…

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.[/quote]

Lol… now you did it. I’m waiting for the responses that will now defend Chula Vista and what a great city it is and how border kids aren’t affecting the school districts in it……self-contradicting earlier posts about how horrible this problem is in such areas…

I don’t know if migrants kids are or are not a real problem in public schools…But I’ll agree with you, that I haven’t seen an issue in my neighborhood’s school districts either, lol.

Must be that my hood is in a far flung area invested with tract homes that have too many walls and too many lizards… 🙂

Have a nice weekend!….[/quote]flu, once again, you’re twisting the issue to suit yourself in that convoluted mind of yours. YOU created the topic on this thread so YOU can stay on it! We aren’t talking about “migrant’s kids” here and you know it. That issue exists in Merced, Hanford, Fresno, Stockton and Lodi, for starters, but NOT SD County.

We’re talking about kids crossing the border every day to go to public school in SD South County who don’t meet the residency requirements to do so in any way, shape or form. Why?? Because they LIVE IN MEXICO! Plain and simple.

Perhaps your district refuses to accept “affidavits” to prove residency but will only accept a court order for guardianship (as it SHOULD be, IMO). Most likely, your schools are too far for this group to travel every day (too many buses after disembarking the trolley) and it is very likely that their parents don’t have jobs in the area of your public schools (so didn’t attempt to get their kids enrolled there). The daily border-crossing student group already gets up VERY early just to attend public school in South County SD! That’s why there have been many reports over the years by teachers and other students of so many students falling asleep in afternoon classes.

Believe me, if you DID have the problem and your public elementary schools had to begin setting aside 50% or more of each grade level for this HUGE ESL group, you would know it! The parents in your area would be causing an uproar with the press and calling a meeting in an auditorium with the superintendent with the TV cameras rolling.

You’re just one more Pigg with a NIMBY out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude about this issue and that’s okay. But that doesn’t make the problem not real or make it go away.

And btw, joec, CVESD and SUHSD are “better” school districts. Our teachers have won teacher of the year (best in county and state) in multiple years and are among the best in the country! They move mountains for the kids and are extremely competent … especially considering the environment they have to work in. I have the utmost respect for them and also the HS academic advisors. They ALL have hard jobs that are not for everyone but someone has to do :=0

And we have quite a few schools of both CVESD and SUHSD which score an “8” or a “9.”

As far as individual school and district administration personnel, most of them certainly could be much more competent than they are, IMO. And I believe school district administration is corrupt at the top due to this border issue. They could have been lobbying their representatives for change but instead have done nothing about it but sit back and collect the “head count money” from Sacramento. By the top brass “looking the other way,” it affects every student in one way or another and some much more than others, especially those who are not able to attend the schools in their attendance areas due to overcrowding. This is especially a travesty for those students whose parents pay exorbitant MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec]This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay…schools have a larger population of this happening and I don’t know the percentages, but I certainly don’t see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in “better” school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand…

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.[/quote]joec, the South Bay area has some very nice (and expensive) neighborhoods! In addition, most homeowners in Otay Ranch (91915), built 2001 thru 2006 (but primarily 2003 and later) are each paying on TWO 40-yr CFDs totaling approx 1.6% of their assessed value just in Mello Roos alone (nearly ALL going to the local public school districts and CC)! This is in ADDITION to their ad valoream portion of their tax bill of 1% PLUS approximately .17 of their assessed value in voter approved bonds (mainly local public school and CC construction bonds) for a total of 2.77% to 2.78% of assessed value towards property tax outlay for each affected parcel every year! There are actually a LOT of truly “wealthy” families around here! And yes, many of their ancestors originally came here from MX. Those 2nd, 3rd and even 4th Generation South County residents of Hispanic origin (100%/50%/25%) with LEGAL status actually detest the situation with all these daily border crossing children being allowed to occupy seats in their children’s and grandchildren’s schools!

The west side of Chula Vista (91910/91911) is almost ALL situated less than two miles from SD Bay (excepting the communities of Sunbow, Deerpark and older surrounds immediately east of I-805). As is Nestor, Egger Highlands and communities in the Otay Mesa area south of CV (92154), all annexed to the City of SD between 1977 and 1979. In addition, portions of 91910 have 1/2 to 4 AC residential lots which can NEVER by upzoned and many corner lots in 91910 are typically 1/4 AC. These areas are still in the cooler “coastal zone” even though they are not directly on the ocean. SD Bay is only 1.5 miles wide between the NC/CV boat docks and the Silver Strand (Coronado). Living here is very hospitable and requires no A/C (except during a heat wave and we usually lose power at those times, anyway, due to our antiquated electrical grid and overhead lines still present in almost all areas). What I’m trying to say here is that SD South County is actually a great place to live! It’s just “convenient” for border-crossing kids to avail themselves of our (mostly excellent) schools!

We also have Bonita (91902) which is landlocked and now surrounded by newer communities with their own (CV) zip codes on its south and east sides whose residents now use Bonita’s streets daily to get to I-805/I-5. The “jewel of the South Bay,” Bonita (circa 1952 to 1986) is a hilly, semi-rural view community with only FOUR condo complexes and ONE PUD complex. Its SFR stock is zoned just 3 parcels to one AC, on average! 3/4 unincorporated (County of SD) and 1/4 incorporated into the City of CV, Bonita is situated just 3-5 miles from SD Bay and is actually in the semi-coastal zone. It’s a FABULOUS place to live, people! ESPecially for families who like to entertain! And the residents of Bonita (among the rest of their SD South County brethren) have hundreds of daily border crossing kids attending their kids’ and grandkids’ schools (ALL FIVE of their assigned K-12 schools)! Its a dirty shame and a travesty. Some of the houses in Bonita (as well as in a small subdivision in Eastlake (CV) are assessed at over $2M. Yet Bonita’s homeowners (if they have school-age kids) must DEAL with this collossal mess on a daily basis.

There would actually be NOTHING WRONG with SOUTH COUNTY’s location IF the adjacent Int’l border didn’t present so many problems for its residents. The fact that the border IS where it IS obviously deters many qualified buyers from considering the area to purchase in (even though most of it has GREAT weather and is extremely conveniently located)! And rightly so. The border isn’t properly managed and hasn’t been for decades. Our current problems with rampant northward daily int’l border-crossing students attending our public schools is partly Pres. Obama’s fault thru his “amnesty” provision he enacted for children crossing our southern border (both when accompanied by parents AS WELL AS being “unaccompanied”). And, as a nearly lifelong Dem, I voted for Obama TWICE, mind you. The Int’l border is nothing more than a SIEVE of northbound POOR and NEEDY people (incl children) whose parents will, by hook or crook, seek a better life for them, and, in doing so, their children have successfully availed themselves of a US K-12 public education at OUR expense for decades> (This phenomenon much more pronounced in recent years.) And it will NEVER stop until the affected school districts and their schools are mandated to refuse “residency by affidavit” unless it is court-ordered and demand to see a state-issued Driver License or ID card for each and every so-called “parent or guardian” who tries to prove residency for a prospective student. Then, the district must record that DL or State ID NUMBER and make every effort to determine if that (bona-fide school district resident) who “proved residency” for a prospective student whilst residing out of the district/country is actually their “parent.” The County HHSA Depts can often be used for this exercise. And the border personnel needs to DEMAND student visas from border-crossing students into the US in the mornings. The only way public school systems are going to sponsor such visas is IF the student’s family pays tuition to the district. This will cut down on 99.9% of daily border-crossing students who have for decades “freeloaded” off resident taxpayer’s backs.

Any procedure less than this is just another attempt to perpetuate the non-resident school attendance fraud in South SD County which has been going on for decades … same old, same old. Yes, it is nothing more than “residency fraud,” plain and simple.

[bearishgurl]

Here is a 24.5 year-old LA Times article discussing this issue:

INS to Begin Student Visa Crackdown : Border: Starting Monday, Mexican students crossing the border daily to attend U.S. schools will be refused entry unless they have the proper visa.

January 11, 1992|DAVID SMOLLAR | TIMES STAFF WRITER

An unknown number of Mexican children may be refused entry to the United States at the Tijuana and Mexicali border crossings Monday morning when the Immigration and Naturalization Service begins strict enforcement of student visa regulations.

Any potential effect is likely to be felt most in four South Bay public school districts nearest the border, in which the INS believes a number of Mexican nationals are enrolled.

However, administrators in those districts said Friday they do not expect any major attendance reductions because they do not believe there are large numbers of Mexican students illegally in their schools.

But administrators have no statistics to know definitely whether or not there will be a major disruption until after the enforcement is under way next week.

Although the INS estimates that 5,000 to 10,000 children living in the Baja California border areas regularly attend all types of schools in the United States, its figures include children who hold American citizenship or permanent resident status but whose parents choose to live in Mexico.

Those children will not be affected by the stricter enforcement, nor will those who cross to attend parochial schools in the United States and who already have student visas.

INS inspectors at the Tijuana border have been seeing “carloads of schoolchildren, books in tow, bound north from Tijuana every (U.S.) school day, with no documentation other than border crossing cards,” James B. Turnage, INS district director in San Diego, said.

Turnage said this amounts to a “free ride” for those students attending public schools because they are not paying tuition otherwise required of out-of-district students.

The new enforcement, which will cover ports of entry along the border from San Diego to Texas, will mean that a Mexican national student must have a student (F-1) visa to cross and will no longer be able to use border cards, which are issued for short-term shopping and visitation of relatives.

The INS said it will seize such cards if they are used in lieu of required student visas, noting that that it has been publicizing the “phased enforcement policy” since July. . . .

To enroll a student in a public school, a family need only show the school attendance office a rent or utility receipt containing a valid address within the school district. Schools generally do not double-check for proof, and the California Constitution requires public schools to educate free any child living within their boundaries.

“Officially, we have not received any requests from students to submit information” for visa forms, Deb Baker, public information officer for the South Bay Union School District, said.

“Unofficially, we may have a few students attending who come from Tijuana, but we really don’t have any idea. We do see a couple of Baja plates on cars in front of a school from time to time, and we hear stories of a student or two late because of problems coming across the border. But we don’t think that the numbers are large.” ….

(emphasis mine)

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-11/local/me-1378_1_student-visa

Of course, the “anchor baby” border crossing students who were residing in MX with their parents were left out of the INS “sweep” of January 1992 (even though the INS had known for years that hordes of schoolchildren crossed the border into the US every morning dressed for school with their backpacks on and that it was illegal for non-residents to attend public school in the US) without paying tuition :=0

Since then, South County school districts have built approx 30% MORE schools for daily border-crossing students to choose from! After choosing where they want to attend, their parent sets about locating a willing resident in the district and even school attendance area where they would prefer their kids attend school for the purposes of having them execute their “guardianship affidavit!” The city of Chula Vista alone had a population of ~90K in 1992 and ~52K in 1986. Today the city’s approximate population is 277K!

Notice that the spokesperson from SBUSD, (one of the two public elementary school districts closest to the border) stated in the article to the Times reporter that they don’t think (daily border crossing students) are really a “problem.” A second administrator from the SYESD told the reporter that she suspects that “a few” (students living in MX) probably slip through but she (personally?) checks every student’s residency.

Yeah, okay . . . sure.

After adding at least 6K students to Calexico’s ~2-3K public school student population in 1992 (for a total of approx 8500 students today) to South SD County’s 85K+ students (totaling ~94K current public school students on the US side of the border of Baja CA, we can multiply that 5-10K INS “ball-park estimation” in 1992 by at least 3 today. If the INS’ rough estimation was low, the daily border-crossing public school student population could be much higher than 3x 5-10K today.

At South County’s current ~85K public school student population, just over 21K students would equal 25% of the overall current student population (in 4 elem school districts plus one HS district).

I posted here that my estimate of current daily border crossing public school students in South County was currently approx 25% of the total enrolled student population.

The article has an error in that a parent cannot submit receipts for rent or utilities to establish residency. They must submit a copy of a lease, deed, or utility bill of a qualified address in their own name.

Ha, ha, the “public administration officer” for SBUSD also stated to the Times reporter, “`Officially, we have not received any requests from students to submit information’ for visa forms.”

Of course not! Why would any of their students residing in MX (especially “anchor babies”) request a visa when it would cause their families to have to pay tuition to the district??

[Author]

Posts