[bearishgurl]

I just saw the 2nd 10 min video – an interview with J. Palmer, an Infosys employee or contractor who is the the whistleblower in the Alabama case. He and his colleague “Marti” are really sticking their neck out talking to the media about Infosys’ hiring activities and I hope they receive a reward from the damages of this case when they win as it appears to be qui-tam.

There is no glory in being a “hero/heroine” who exposes fraud or corruption. Instead it’s a “career destroyer.”

[bearishgurl]

I watched the 13 min video and am APPALLED! “Investigator” Conroy is BRILLIANT after hearing about these foreign “work” (lol) Visa abuses from an Alabama attorney who is litigating the alleged corporate perpetrators. She found 93 actual ads placed for American tech jobs on Indian websites in one day for which the actual worksite was on on US soil. NONE of these job postings were advertised in the US.

We all know well-known US companies were routinely “offshoring” jobs to India but this expose sheds light on the lengths US companies will go NOT to hire Americans in AMERICA!

This appears to be a widespread case of visa fraud, plain and simple, while qualified Americans sit idle whilst their families go into debt and their UI runs out.

This is unbelievable! I hope the Alabama attorney wins this case and the offending companies are forced to send all their illegal foreign workers back and hire Americans to fill those jobs. I hope they lose big time to the plaintiffs and this case receives as much public exposure as possible to send a message to corporate America that hiring AMERICANS to work in America is the ONLY way to do business.

Conroy has it right. She is posting ALL the US tech jobs ONLY posted on Indian sites in a site she created (similar to glassdoor) and is encouraging qualified Americans to apply for them! This is the ONLY way to get “aggrieved” plaintiffs in the US (as witnesses for the Alabama atty or for a new class-action case).

Do any Piggs know if Indian workers who work in tech jobs in the US on possibly illegal work Visas/permits are accepting less salary and benefits that the same company would pay to an American worker??

If not, what would be the incentive for a US company to hire an HB-1, B-1 or tourist visa holder for a job in the US over a qualified American?

I will follow this story and will be very interested to see how it turns out!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]What “public employee union thugs” are you talking about, paramount?

This debacle is going to line the pockets of PRIVATE contractors, which is where most of the fraud and abuse of taxpayer money occurs.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/03/01/2743540/rail-project-will-accept-contractors.html%5B/quote%5D

I completely agree. If this HSR construction ever comes to fruition, it will be entirely contracted out to the private sector. This is NOT a CALTRANS project! The only time they will be involved will be in “right of way” issues.

CALTRANS was never put in place to handle RR projects.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Talking about the future of different areas, what do you guys/gals think will happen to Mira Mesa when they start & finish the Stone Creek master planned community w/in Mira Mesa? The project contains (5481 units) multi-family, office, retail, light industrial, and business park uses. This is what it’ll look like: http://www.ktua.com/live/project.php?sector_id=2&id=178
More info about the project: http://www.miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/Stone%20Creek%20Subcommittee%2020061023.pdf

This, along with the current 1800 apartment unit being built behind Best Buy in MM will greatly increase the density of this area. What would happen to SFR in the area in term of value over time?[/quote]

AN, I haven’t looked at the map really close but it seems to me that houses situated off whichever streets are more backed up with traffic due to this new project would be worth less in the future – simply because of more local traffic and it being harder to get in/out of the area onto a thoroughfare. Also, perhaps a few local schools will be MUCH more crowded after buildout until new schools are actually up and running to serve the residents of this project.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]I’m not glad there’s a drawn out planning process because that means it will never get done.

I support HSR. But we just need to ram it through all the legal hurdles and build the lines from city center to city center. Downtown San Diego to Downtown LA with a connection to LAX.[/quote]

I agree, brian, but there is a huge geographical hurdle north of dtn LA and Union Stn (Tejon Pass). It would be very expensive to build another tunnel thru it and its truck-only tunnel is too dangerous to share a passenger train with. That’s why I believe its original path from SoCal was routed eastward (thru RIV/SB Cos).

The train COULD somehow be routed east or west of the 405 but it is residential along the 405 in OC (IF there is SD svc) and NIMBYism from the residents of OC, LA and Ventura Co along the 405 and US-101 would likely kill it unless the tracks are forced-placed under eminent domain (could take 15 yrs to complete this). Maybe I’m missing something but it seems to me that the only feasible route west of Tejon Pass is along US-101 for 50+? miles before it can veer off alongside the SR-33.

It’s never gonna happen along the 101 up the state. Absolutely NOT!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]20 story buildings there is a fantasy, splitting lots will just make it worse as 4-plexes pop up in backyards on the larger lots. I’m not faulting you brian, history and long term trends are not a young man’s game.

I’m with sdr on this one, an area’s mid to long term future depends on the original housing stock and the location, but the original housing stock is more important.

Here are some examples in San Diego. Kensington had nicer homes than the area between 40th and about 50th street. They were larger and better appointed than those between kensington and north park. Kensington homes were nice enough to refurbish and were not zoned for splitting and apartment mixes, thus it retained its appeal. A mile or two away it declined, because the original homes were crappier and the zoning looser.

Another example but of an entirely different theory is Rancho Sante Fe. It’s not ocean front, but strict zoning and large lots and nice original homes means it’s worth it to rebuild or refurbish. Same could be said of Mt. Helix and countless other areas where outdated but nice always beats outdated and crappy. Clairemont will have a more difficult time becoming hip and being redeveloped one house at a time as let’s say North Park or South park or mission hills, because those old houses by the park are worth saving, the post ww2 blah boxes in clairemont don’t have the same appeal. Changing the zoning will accelerate the decline, which is the opposite for an area like little italy, where density is a helper. Clairmeont’s best chance is to remain sfr’s, keep the zoning tight and in time it’s location may bail it out. What was once a suburb, may end up a rare sfr area that ends up so central once the county doubles in size. That’s it’s future, to hold fast to the zoning restrictions and allow the city to come to it. When this county is 4 or 5 million in size, if clairemont is still just sfr’s, it may become fertile ground for 3 wall knockdowns and redevelopment. It could be the next Costa Mesa. But it will take 20 years or so, but it very well may happen. The next level up, tierrasanta, mm, etc. are larger and won’t ever fall as hard, they will keep chugging along, while linda vista will never be cool, cause it never was and the density zoning cripples it.

To see similar examples ahead in the timeline you have to look to L.A., areas that split lots and mixed in apartments went to hell, while old suburbs that held firm on zoning saw revitalization once the city grew past them and they became central without actually moving. Zoning restrictions may bother some idealists, but there are so many examples of how it actually promotes redevelopment. Don’t attract developers, stand firm until you become their only option.[/quote]

Good post, TG, except I believe location almost always trumps housing stock. Clairemont (SD) has it going on, location wise.

I agree that the properties North Park/South Park (92104) are more architecturally pleasing than those in Clairemont and that the vast majority are worth saving. Unfortunately, the City upzoned several streets there (near the thoroughfares Univ & EC Blvd.) from ’84-’88 with the bulk of the multifamily permits there issued ’87-88. What later transpired (apts and later condo conversions sandwiched between SFRs) did NOT help neighborhood values. Instead it increased noise, traffic and litter. At that time, the City did NOT require a pkg space for every unit on a lot and more slant parking appeared on those sts wide enough to accommodate it.

As to LA County, there ARE some very good examples of close-in suburbs (Lakewood/Downey) and fairly close-in suburbs (Claremont, Pasadena) which gentrified nicely in place. Today all are very nice places to live with high quality (even “charming” out east) housing stock. These aren’t low-priced areas but completely worth the money due to their convenient locations. All are older than Clairemont (SD). One might even surmise that the bulk of Lakewood’s housing stock is “blah mid-century,” but might be shocked how large a 2000 sf home “lives in” there and its beautiful well-kept tree-lined streets with ALL SFRs command their price.

These cities are the poster children for what happens when their leadership is wise enough to keep zoning restrictions in place over a great many years.

If I worked anywhere in or near LA, I would buy a SFR to live in in one of those suburbs (as opposed to RIV Co.) Even at $200K+ more for a similar-size house, it is COMPLETELY worth it! If you study these markets over the millenium-boom years, these areas had little distress and thus lost little value, if any.

I’ll repeat my mantra that you pay for exactly what you get in this life.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=Essbee]Sorry for replying to my own thread.

Tear-down type “remodeling” on a lot is also very expensive, and the people who can afford it are going to choose La Jolla (Mitt Romney!), Bird Rock, etc. and other coastal locations.

I guess my conclusion is that areas like Clairemont, Linda Vista, Allied Gardens, San Carlos, etc will slowly deteriorate with time. The next wave would be 70s/80s constructions like Tierrasanta, Mira Mesa, RPQ, etc.

New owners may do some remodeling (likely aesthetically unpleasing additions) and the adult children who inherit such properties from their parents will likely just keep letting their properties deteriorate. (There are houses in my old ‘hood which are 50-60 yrs old and are just crying for new roofs or paint, but it doesn’t look like there is any will or money to ever do it).

I guess the answer will come depending on whether potential new owners with a bit of money to remodel will be willing to move into such neighborhoods with these types of eyesores in their midst (not to mention the marginal schools). I imagine there is some sort of tipping point. Really interesting to think about it all.[/quote]

Unfortunately you may be correct for areas like Claremont, Linda vista, allied gardens etc. having grown up on the east coast and well traveled among the established cities in the US places like those slowly decay. Eventually you end up with what is known as white flight. The city of Philadelphia is a perfect example with a population that went from 70% white (mostly upper middle and middle class) to around 40% (Pretty much lower class in working class neighborhoods like kensington or wealthy in high end enclaves like chestnut hill). Nearly All the high and middle end wage earners have fled for the safety of the suburbs. The city faced with declining tax revenues enacted steep wage taxes which not only drove out residents but also businesses. The future is unlikely to be bright (dont worry if you live there as im thinking 50 to 100 yrs from now) for places like that if history repeats itself but hey maybe it’s different here.

Places like MM and PQ will generally fare much better because the house are of more acceptable sizes.[/quote]

I have a couple of issues with this statement. Firstly, SD was never segregated in the first place. So it is not necessarily “white flight” that is taking place in the urban core. If anything, more “whites” (whatever that means today) are moving INTO the urban core. And the areas buyers are flocking to in SD County (north county zips?) are not necessarily predominately “white” or “Caucasian” either. So hey, you ARE onto something. It IS different here … certainly different than the east coast.

Secondly, the average MM house has no more square footage that the average Clairemont or Allied Gardens house. I agree that PQ houses ARE generally bigger as the majority of them have two-stories there. In “Linda Vista,” the houses are generally smaller than Clairemont or Allied Gardens. This does NOT include 92111 Mt Streets (which are technically “Clairemont”).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/31/MN2F1NT19T.DTL

Looks like San Diego folks will first
(1) Drive to train station
(2) Take Amtrak to Burbank
(3) Hop on to HSR to Merced
(4) Change to Amtrak (does it even go Merced yet?)
(5) Change to Cal-Train Bay area.
(6) Rent a car from Cal-train station in bay area or use public transport (if available)

– This plan will now cost you only 68 Billion dollars (which we don’t have) instead of 100 billion dollars….[/quote]

L@rd …. This makes Southwest Airlines recent rate hikes look fair. I think I would just as soon keep driving to the bay area … and have my car when I get there.

Uhhh, I don’t think there is enough people in “Merced” to warrant stopping there to embark/disembark. Ohhh, but wait! What about all the urban sprawl around there??

Even so, I can’t imagine enough Merced County residents will travel to LA/SF daily to warrant this route.

Why not just route the HSR up thru the state on the west side of I-5 and Pacheco Pass to connect with the Dublin BART Stn? That seems more direct, convenient and economical (using less track).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee][quote=bearishgurl]A neighborhood just one mile from Mission Bay (SD) cannot possibly turn into a “slum.” It is likely you haven’t been to Detroit, New Orleans, the Blue Ridge Mtns or the rural midwest and southwest parts of the US. In those places you will find REAL “slums” and “sub-slums” (dwellings not even built on foundations).[/quote]

On the contrary, in addition to San Diego, I have lived in the midwest (11 yrs), two cities on the East Coast (4 yrs each), and in Los Angeles (3 yrs). I have traveled to almost every state (45 or 46 of them, I believe).

Detroit is probably somewhat comparable to Baltimore, which has MANY blocks of abandoned and boarded-up row houses, including areas within walking distance to world-class attractions and hospitals (Aquarium, Inner Harbor, Johns Hopkins).

I agree that SD’s core will not reach the levels of poverty seen in some of these cities (and Tijuana), but I am concerned they may well decline to much worse conditions than seen at present. (ie as these homes reach the 100 year mark in the 2050-2070 era, without proper maintenance).

How can this be mitigated? How can urban planners, government, etc help this not happen, but still preserve people’s property rights, etc? Does anyone think that the re-zoning process should be amended? Or is considering that too unfair to the current owners / heirs in these geographically desirable locations?[/quote]

Having only been “on the road” in less than 20 states, you have traveled more than I have Essbee! I HAVE been to Baltimore a handful of times and been to the aquarium and Camden Yard but didn’t see the neighborhood you are mentioning here. HOWEVER, I was walking and NOT driving.

I don’t see ANYTHING changing in regard to zoning in CA coastal cities unless the Prop 58 progeny of Prop 13 (inheritance provision) is repealed or Prop 13 is repealed in its entirety. It would have to be put to a public vote and capture 2/3 of the vote and I don’t see this happening unless it is piecemeal gutted (meaning the Prop 58 portion is put before the voters first). There are too many heirs that stand to lose this perk and would vote against it. As for the pre-April ’78 original beneficiaries of Prop 13 tax treatment who still own these properties today, they will eventually all pass on. The problem lies with Prop 58 which has the effect of enabling Prop 13 protection to live on through eternity with properties which are kept within the immediate family.

Prop 13 was enacted specifically to keep senior citizens from being taxed out of living in their own homes as the late seventies was a time when assessed values in coastal CA counties were skyrocketing! The later-enacted Prop 58 added the pass-thru provision of Prop 13. Unintended consequences or not, it had the effect of shielding HUGE numbers of very valuable properties deeded to children, either before or after death of the original owner(s), from reassessment. A good portion of these “heirs” are NOT senior citizens (over the age of 65) themselves and thus many are able-bodied workers who, in theory, should be charged property tax equal to 1% of current assessed value (plus applic fees/bonds) as you and I are.

In any case, even if both sections WERE eventually repealed, the current owners ALREADY PROTECTED under the sections would not be affected. They just wouldn’t be able to pass on the perk to their children.

I don’t see massive upzoning (such as that proposed by briansd1) EVER being approved by cities in CA coastal counties. The land is too valuable and private property rights will always prevail.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee]I know about mid-century architecture; that is why I called Clairemont “mid-century blah”.

In other words, the homes were built in that 1950s/60s era, but they do NOT have the architectural features that would qualify them for the title “mid-century modern” and a frenzy of gentrification. Hence my own term, “mid-century blah.”[/quote]

Here are a couple of current listings representative of a REAL “mid-century ranch” (for regular people, lol) in San Diego and La Mesa.

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120011660-3741_Liggett_Dr_San_Diego_CA_92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120000135-1279_Bangor_St_San_Diego_CA_92106

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120006359-4902_Crestland_Dr_La_Mesa_CA_91941

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120011608-4340_Woodland_Dr_La_Mesa_CA_91941

The fourth one has had some different stuff done to it but the bones are still there …

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee][quote=bearishgurl][quote=Essbee]As time goes on and people get sick of paying MR into oblivion, running expensive A/C for half the year and driving 60-100 miles per day, I think most of the areas in SD’s urban core will go up in value due to workers moving in and spending money on rehab, lot by lot.[/quote]

I certainly hope you are right! I would much rather see that happen than the slum scenario.[/quote]

A neighborhood just one mile from Mission Bay (SD) cannot possibly turn into a “slum.” It is likely you haven’t been to Detroit, New Orleans, the Blue Ridge Mtns or the rural midwest and southwest parts of the US. In those places you will find REAL “slums” and “sub-slums” (dwellings not even built on foundations).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee]Sorry for replying to my own thread.

Tear-down type “remodeling” on a lot is also very expensive, and the people who can afford it are going to choose La Jolla (Mitt Romney!), Bird Rock, etc. and other coastal locations.

I guess my conclusion is that areas like Clairemont, Linda Vista, Allied Gardens, San Carlos, etc will slowly deteriorate with time. The next wave would be 70s/80s constructions like Tierrasanta, Mira Mesa, RPQ, etc.

New owners may do some remodeling (likely aesthetically unpleasing additions) and the adult children who inherit such properties from their parents will likely just keep letting their properties deteriorate. (There are houses in my old ‘hood which are 50-60 yrs old and are just crying for new roofs or paint, but it doesn’t look like there is any will or money to ever do it).

I guess the answer will come depending on whether potential new owners with a bit of money to remodel will be willing to move into such neighborhoods with these types of eyesores in their midst (not to mention the marginal schools). I imagine there is some sort of tipping point. Really interesting to think about it all.[/quote]

Yes, I haven’t seen it but Mitt no doubt is/did build ONE SFR on a lot with a teardown which he purchased in Birdrock (LJ). He doesn’t have as “high a hill” to climb as a prospective spec/infill builder. He just has to have ONE pleasing-enough house to appease his surrounding neighbors within 300 feet AND the Coastal Commission that does NOT interfere with anyone’s airspace or utility easements! In an area such as this, the high cost of teardown and rebuild (even if NOT saving a wall) make financial sense as there is only ONE Birdrock and ONE LJ in the world 🙂

I don’t see the city core deteriorating like you do. Right now the 92104 zip code (where most SFR’s are 80+ years old) is “gentrifying” very, very quickly. It is happening one by one and the new facades and additions are both permitted and tasteful. Up until about 1970, the City of SD (and surrounding cities) didn’t enforce their building codes very well. Thus you see a lot of “grandfathered” and unpermitted additions, screen porches and garages built too close to the property line in these areas. There is nothing a new owner can do now but either accept them as-is or tear them down and redo them (if the City will find out about it and enforce the current codes on the new owner). This will likely not happen, however.

Regarding the “lazy heirs” who won’t maintain the property that has been in their family for years, I believe this is just a function of being on a fixed income. When there are multiple heirs in an estate and the remaining parent dies and leaves a modest home, it is usually the heir with the lowest income that moves into the home (whether renting or buying from the other heir(s) (who typically carry the note). The other heirs already own and live in a superior location and/or house and do not want to move back into the old ‘hood. The “heirs” around me who do not maintain their properties are on SSI, SSD, VA Disability, etc and that is their sole income so that don’t have the money to fix the fence or get a new roof. Some have just never owned anything in their lives and don’t know how to take care of RE.

As time goes on and people get sick of paying MR into oblivion, running expensive A/C for half the year and driving 60-100 miles per day, I think most of the areas in SD’s urban core will go up in value due to workers moving in and spending money on rehab, lot by lot.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee]OK, interesting information.

So what WILL happen to Clairemont and similar “mid-century blah” neighborhoods? Will the homes really last 100+ years? Will they continue to deteriorate and become slums, or will people eventually buy the homes and “remodel” in the manner you suggest (ie saving one wall?

(We know a couple who did just that in Bird Rock.)

I’m trying to imagine this town in 2050 and beyond.[/quote]

Actually the “mid century” ranch is the currently one of the hottest and sought after architectural styles. A well-built “mid-century” ranch house with some or all of the original accoutrements of its era still intact is a relatively expensive home.

Yes, the homes will last and each subsequent owner will hopefully maintain and improve the properties one by one. Clairemont (SD) tracts are NOT of “mid-century” design. They were mostly built in the early 60’s but were originally built to be affordable for Convair and other SD defense workers and their families. Part of Clairemont has tract(s) which were not built with either attics or insulation and these tracts no doubt sold for less new. The average “Mtn Street” home sold new for $16K to $18K.

The NW corner of Clairemont (as you posted) with the more cheaply-built homes within it has many rentals now and will likely continue to be a rental area in the future.

There is no reason to believe that future owners will not keep the homes in Clairemont maintained. You can’t take away its location. It is what it is. Gas prices can still go up from here :-]

[bearishgurl]

Good thread starter, Essbee.

A place like SF DOES have new construction but it is scarce infill lot by lot. In some lesser-expensive areas (such as near SFSU), builders have purchased adjacent lots (probably not all at the same time) and built student-type apartments (at the time of apt building, the dorms on campus were 50-60 years old with small rooms and 1-2 shared bathrooms per floor). They have also renovated 50’s and 60’s era apt buildings.

The mass bulldozing and “imminent domain” will never happen in older, close in areas (unless a fwy is being build thru it). I don’t think there are any more fwys proposed for the urban areas of SD in the county’s plan.

Many parcels in older CA urban areas have Prop 13 protection on their tax bills and so as their owners die or move to assisted-living, their children will take title to them. It doesn’t matter if they want to live in mom/dad’s old home or not. A large fraction of these “heirs” will rent the property out indefinitely or rent or “sell” it to one of the heirs in order to maintain the Prop 13 tax protection (currently abt $380 to $1800 annual tax).

In order for a builder to “bulldoze” a large enough swath of land to build a subdivision in an existing urban area, he needs to buy up all the parcels within it. This would be too cost-prohibitive with buildings already on them. He would have to charge more than the market would bear for each parcel (due to the surrounding area) in a place like Clairemont (SD) in order to make it worth his while to build. In addition, he would have to build on the current 6000-10,000+ lot sizes already there which were subdivided in the 50’s so he couldn’t get enough units on the property to make building profitable today.

If the (infill) builder chose to file a new subdivision map to increase the density, he would have to notify every property owner within 300 feet of the parcels’ boundaries while the map was being considered by the City. In addition, he would have to send all these owners renderings of the models he was proposing to build. After viewing the proposed crackerboxes and sub-5000 sf lots, the notified existing owners (both residential and landlords) would have a field day with him down at the City and force him into a hearing, which he would LOSE.

Even if the builder came up with a palatable lot size and model that the neighbors would accept, it would cost him a minimum of $20K to subdivide EACH *new* parcel and another $20K for EACH *new* subdivision map, due to engineering, survey and City/County fees.

That is why you will only see an occasional infill *new* house here and there in older CA coastal areas. In fact, the vast majority of these *new* infill spec houses aren’t technically *new* but are built on most or all of the original foundation and utilizing at least the frame one of the original walls (usually the wall with utility meters attached).

Too many hurdles, not enough money and not being able to sell the infill subdivision for enough money to make it worth his while would cause a builder to nix this idea quickly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CONCHO]…10 to 1 he doesn’t know her real name.[/quote]

Now that you bring this up, I completely agree.

[Author]

Posts